OccupyWallStreet

[wufwugy]

I love animals with captions

[a500lbgorilla]

[bikes]

Real journalism is delving into events and checking the powers. ThinkProgress is one of the few that actually do that.

The whole "impartial" thing about journalism is false. Ed Murrow was a journalist, and it had nothing to do with where his biases lay

Oh and bookmark Truthout | Fearless, Independent News and Opinion It's probably the best, most accurate. You'll notice stark contrasts between what they put out compared to anything related to the corporate royalty MSM

[bikes]

blah blah blah

[a500lbgorilla]

hrnnnnng braaaaaaaaaains

[bikes]

rilla

[a500lbgorilla]

[bikes]

[a500lbgorilla]

Let me be the first to say

This thread got derailed hard

[wufwugy]

the fuck?

[Monty3038]

I think that's all fair considering that you can't hear about OWS unless it's filtered through anything from word-of-mouth to the MSM. And like everything in politics, keeping it atleast a yardstick away is good move.



This, however, isn't. The longer it goes on, the more impactful it becomes on the national conversation. Remember how the Tea Party transformed Town Hall meetings into shout-fest mad-houses? I think you can see the OWS-effect in the shift from debt worries and cost slashing towards job creation and unReaganizing taxes.

In any case, I continue to be very impressed by the occupy movement, and I hope it continues.

Well, while there is truth in this, I feel (cannot quantify) the majority of people have given up listening. We are fickle sheep and we often lose interest. Interest was sparked this morning when I read the headline that NYPD moved out the protestors this morning, but honestly, only the headline was read. I feel (again cannot quantify) most in my circle of friends and acquaintances don't really follow it any more nor do they care.

[!Luck]

And the end is neigh? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/ny...ters.html?_r=1

[Luco]

And the end is neigh? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/ny...ters.html?_r=1

So... they used horses?

[boost]

Is it me, or does that NYTimes article repeat itself like 20 times and even reuse quotes multiple times in the article? It could have said the same thing and been like 1/4 the length...

[a500lbgorilla]

» BREAKING NEWS – Judge Orders Protesters Be Allowed Back in Park With Their Belongings

Judge says, "Fuck the police."

[boost]

» BREAKING NEWS – Judge Orders Protesters Be Allowed Back in Park With Their Belongings

Judge says, "Fuck the police."

[flomo]

Who are the bad people here? what I mean is how would i recognize one at the country club?

i enjoy hating people for no reason and with reason, just want to be with a good group hating on these "1%"

1% of what?

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

Why Bloomberg Fights Occupy Wall Street - YouTube

Occupy Wall Street Media Blackout, Police State - YouTube

Bloomberg wipes his ass with the First Amendment.

[wufwugy]

The country's best Republican knows what's up

GOP presidential candidate Buddy Roemer: Bloomberg on the wrong side of history | The Raw Story

“The mayor of New York City is standing on the wrong side of history. His actions in the midnight hours against the Occupy Wall Street protestors are unjust, uncalled for, and unconstitutional,” said Roemer in a statement on Tuesday. “The First Amendment right of assembly and speech exists to protect America from this kind of government power abuse.

“His actions will be a stain on America’s long history of peaceful assembly. I encourage Mayor Bloomberg to read a history book on America and he will see from the civil rights marches to the Vietnam protests, our young Americans have stood up to injustice and in the end were right in their action.”

He was on reddit a little ago

IAMA 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate. I believe in Fair Trade, No Tax Loopholes, No Special Interests, Energy Innovation & Independence. $100 Donation Limit. I am Buddy Roemer. AMA : IAmA

[wufwugy]

Who are the bad people here? what I mean is how would i recognize one at the country club?

i enjoy hating people for no reason and with reason, just want to be with a good group hating on these "1%"

1% of what?

The 1% is a meme about wealth inequality where the nation has become insanely wealthy, yet almost all gains have gone to the top 1%, and the median and poor have suffered

OWS is about a plethora of socioeconomic injustices borne of the small handful of super wealthy and entrenched interests dictating policy. The primary culprit is Wall Street, yet not the only. Constitutional reform of corporate personhood, campaign finance, and lobbying is the primary legislative goal. But there are a bunch of other ones that aren't much different than what Canadians already have, for example

[Monty3038]

Ok, so I've established I don't know crap about OWS so far. Let me ask a question though, I heard a news story today on the drive home, and they were saying one of the topics was that the OWS protestors want an end to government bailouts.

If that is true, do they also want payback for the automotive industry bailouts from a short while ago? ANd if not, why not?

[wufwugy]

I'd say the Occupy movement wants an end to corporate welfare, which includes bailouts without strings attached. The difference is mainly one of investment vs handouts. The auto industry wasn't given much, if any, handouts. That was an investment with a lot of strings which mean that taxpayers get paid back, and it was very valuable for employment numbers

Wall Street, OTOH, had zero strings, and it's pretty much all free money. According to Barney Frank, that can't happen again due to provisions in Dodd-Frank that would force any banks going under to be treated the way the auto industry was, which is pretty good. I'm not positive on the strength of the provision, though, but if it's legit it's great

In a nutshell, the difference between the Wall Street bailout and auto bailout was that WS was given everything for free and forced to make no changes in behavior from destructive to constructive. Auto, however, was given nothing for free and forced to change behavior from destructive to constructive. The Occupy movement is against the former, but not the latter

[bigred]

GOP's grip on reality has hit a new low...

GOP Hits Shameless New Extremes to Protect Interests of Wealthy at the Expense of Everyone Else | News & Politics | AlterNet

[Monty3038]

I'd say the Occupy movement wants an end to corporate welfare, which includes bailouts without strings attached. The difference is mainly one of investment vs handouts. The auto industry wasn't given much, if any, handouts. That was an investment with a lot of strings which mean that taxpayers get paid back, and it was very valuable for employment numbers

Wall Street, OTOH, had zero strings, and it's pretty much all free money. According to Barney Frank, that can't happen again due to provisions in Dodd-Frank that would force any banks going under to be treated the way the auto industry was, which is pretty good. I'm not positive on the strength of the provision, though, but if it's legit it's great

In a nutshell, the difference between the Wall Street bailout and auto bailout was that WS was given everything for free and forced to make no changes in behavior from destructive to constructive. Auto, however, was given nothing for free and forced to change behavior from destructive to constructive. The Occupy movement is against the former, but not the latter

I'll have to look into it more. I was recently reviewing either Chrysler or GM's balance sheets for an accounting project over the last few years (think this was GM) and the bailout they received was huge. They basically wrote off enough debt to become profitable, with little evidence of payback as of yet.

I did also hear of the Hawaiian singer who sang an ode to OWS to a group of politicians in a meeting including Obama, and was mostly ignored.

Anyway, So is the general opinion that these folks want to just let the businesses fail, the ones wanting bailouts? Or is it more of a 'we'll still bail you out, but you pay us back (wink-wink)' deal? I'm not too sure how you can bail them out and expect the payback... easy to fold after you've recovered enough to not lose you shirt and walk away...

[wufwugy]

Anyway, So is the general opinion that these folks want to just let the businesses fail, the ones wanting bailouts? Or is it more of a 'we'll still bail you out, but you pay us back (wink-wink)' deal? I'm not too sure how you can bail them out and expect the payback... easy to fold after you've recovered enough to not lose you shirt and walk away...

It always depends

What should have happened with the banks is nationalization. There are some false dichotomies in the idea of bank bailouts. Like some people hold the line "let them fall", but the fact is that you can't because "they" are the entire financial system, and if they fall, then nearly every job in the country disappears within a month since there is no longer a credit and financial transaction system. This doesn't, however, make the solution to then just give the banks free money. There is middle ground

So the financial system had to be "bailed out". The problem comes in how it's done. We did it the worst way possible, which makes sense since nobody runs Washington as much as Wall Street lobbyists. It's so bad that the banks have been propped up with several trillion dollars, yet are still zombies with astronomical amounts of toxic assets. This financial system was given taxpayer money yet told they can still usurp the public utility of finance into their private profit gains. Had the failing banks been nationalized, we would have then seen trillions put into keeping people in their homes and cutting of fraud and usury practices, but instead it has just gone to profits for executives. Even then, while nationalization would work better, it would still work by letting them remain private and just putting smart regulations in place that stop them from pursuing only profits and fraud at the expense of the public. I'm not sure, but I think that's how Canada works, and their banks are doing just fine. Several other countries like Germany and Norway are still using mainly nationalized financial systems that work even better. If you pay much attention to the devastation of the EU and Euro, the primary culprit is a privatized financial system leeching money out of the populace, as they have always been shown to do when allowed


As for the auto bailout, that was necessary on some level. We're talking millions of jobs being affected, and the incredibly important manufacturing sector. US losing auto manufacturing would be such a disaster since auto is one of the few bits of manufacturing that can't be outsourced for the same reasons stuff like clothing and small electronics are. If the bailouts were giveaways without paybacks, it would be crummy

[wufwugy]

Cliffs on what happened to Occupy

Stream of "Occupiers should just go home because we report that nobody likes them anymore" news stories hit for a couple days, ABC and CBS shut off their streams and "reporting" of OWS just moments before the police cracked down, no journalists or media personnel were allowed near the premises and some were even arrested, it has come out that this was a synchronized nation-wide effort including Homeland Security and city mayors

This is what a police state looks like. This means OWS is right. This is how the corporate/government complex gets their way while the public either agree with them or are unaware altogether. The last few days have seemed oh so normal to everybody, yet are the quintessence of modern dictatorial regimes

Freedom of speech, assembly, and to the press have this entire time been on the side of the Occupy movement. Looks like the Constitution doesn't apply to the people it was written for

[BooG690]

I'm gonna post because FTR look funny when people with no avatars take up the entire page.

[wufwugy]

NYPD refuse to obey the law because they work for the shadow government corporatocracy that convinces them that unconstitutional, dictatorial actions are freedom-loving and democratic

[wufwugy]

[boost]

gah, if there is really a restraining order or any other court order that should have the police backing down, then this is just disgusting. Actually it's disgusting whether there is a court order or not. Did you see the grin on the young cops face? He was enjoying himself. He was getting a kick out of it. I honestly don't completely hate every cop that is following orders. What a cop should do is a really big grey area if you ask me, but certainly maintaining a professional composure has to be on the top of the list.

What are the chances we see the National Guard called in? When a court issues a restraining order, the police department is the ones who enforce it. If the police department is the one being restrained....

[BooG690]

That court order was reversed. Hippies had to leave Zucotti Park.

They'll be allowed back in without tents, sleeping bags, etc.

[wufwugy]

Not sure if the court order was reversed, but yeah there was a different judge who later told Mayor Orwellberg what he wanted to hear. But that's what running a dictatorship is about; keep breaking the law until eventually the law agrees with you

[wufwugy]

Reporters For Right-Wing Publication Daily Caller Beaten By NYPD, Helped By Protesters | ThinkProgress

“Direna had a camera in her hand and I had a microphone, and we were being hit,” she said. “When I fell to the ground I said at one point, ‘I’m just covering this! I’m covering this!’ And the officer just said, ‘Come on, get up, get up,’ before pulling me up by my jacket.’” “The protesters came up to me right away and asked if I needed any medical assistance. They were actually very kind and helpful. It was the police officers who were very aggressive,” Fields added.

[Monty3038]

Ok, I still don't have a lot of info, but from what I have heard on the liberal media, Zucoti (spelling?) park is a private park open for public use... that means it is still private property and the owners could request the police remove those who are staying/living there, as it is their property. I don't see how the protestors can be upset over that, and it appears they really weren't.

Now, let me go read the reply that wuf spent a lot of time typing out...

Ok, I still disagree with you on the auto bailout Wuf, Ford survived just fine... they still aren't hugely profitable (based upon 2010 annual report) but they didn't participate in the government bailout. Why should we coddle the companies, let them fail and then recover... either that, or they should not be allowed to be profitable until their entire debt to the government is repaid... meaning no shareholder dividends until they repay their bailout.

Bank bailouts are more complicated... BUT you are right, there is middle ground.

" We did it the worst way possible, which makes sense since nobody runs Washington as much as Wall Street lobbyists"

Do you think this is really because of the lobbyists or because we put idiots into congress/senate and they have no idea what an economy is in the first place? How should we hold them accountable? Elections or something?

" It's so bad that the banks have been propped up with several trillion dollars, yet are still zombies with astronomical amounts of toxic assets."

I'm not too sure the toxic assets are going away until you allow them to be punished... by bank failure, ok, maybe not... but somehow they have to be. The market has to reorient itself properly, probably through a continued housing market crash until prices are more realistic and loan officers start writing loans to people who can pay for them.

I gotta run... let me ponder more of this mess...

[wufwugy]

Ok, I still don't have a lot of info, but from what I have heard on the liberal media, Zucoti (spelling?) park is a private park open for public use... that means it is still private property and the owners could request the police remove those who are staying/living there, as it is their property. I don't see how the protestors can be upset over that, and it appears they really weren't.

The technical bits of the park are weird. It was made out of an agreement with the state that the company wanted to build such and such, so they had to build a public park right next to it. It is a public park operated by a private entity, or something like that. Regardless, this still isn't an issue, it's just something the media made up. The park was designated as the area for which the protests were legal. But really, that was representative of the government breaking the law in the first place, as Wall Street itself is where the protests are Constitutionally allowed.

But Wall Street is private property, right? So no protesters allowed. But what happens when Wall Street owns and operates public utility? They then become a Constitutional adherent to the First Amendment, but nobody is recognizing this, as state and federal laws and interpretations do not recognize this.

"Freedom to assemble and redress grievances" means exactly that. "Redressing of grievances" has been obliterated through governmental complexities that keep the redresses from being effective, and the "freedom to assemble" has been obliterated by the government simply stopping assemblies anywhere.

They can't protest Wall Street because that's privately owned (even though it's a private ownership of government itself), and they can't protest in public property due to bullshit like "disruption". NY is not adhering to the First Amendment, and they get away with it because the people in charge want it that way

Ok, I still disagree with you on the auto bailout Wuf, Ford survived just fine... they still aren't hugely profitable (based upon 2010 annual report) but they didn't participate in the government bailout. Why should we coddle the companies, let them fail and then recover... either that, or they should not be allowed to be profitable until their entire debt to the government is repaid... meaning no shareholder dividends until they repay their bailout.

First off, this was primarily an avoidance of catastrophe. Obama wanted to do with manufacturing what Bush made sure he didn't do with finance. The Bush Administration made sure that Lehman collapsed because that was how to scare the entire world and get your bailouts. It also really hurt the economy. Obama isn't completely bought, and thought it would be a good idea to not let that final Jenga brick fall in auto manufacturing

As for the details, I don't really know. Word is that it's working beyond what it was supposed to. Getting paid back will take a while. And I agree with you, I'm not a fan of coddling companies at all. I'm a socialist, and the last thing we like to do is give special interests special benefits. But it harkens back to that old saying along the lines of "when you owe the bank a million dollars, you're in trouble; when you owe the bank a hundred million dollars, they're in trouble". The US economy has been so overly privatized and is so complex without adequate fail safes that if those auto companies were not helped out, we lose millions of jobs, and generally good jobs, at that.

Do you think this is really because of the lobbyists or because we put idiots into congress/senate and they have no idea what an economy is in the first place? How should we hold them accountable? Elections or something?

It's both, but it's still mainly the money. Politicians are effectively hired and fired based on fundraising. Corporate personhood and now the Citizens United ruling have turned Congress into a co-opted private company. It runs really deep. So bad that politicians don't really even know who's lobbying them, or they get corrupted by being offered employment and bonuses after their tenure

Here's bits of a Jack Abromoff interview on the subject. He's about as right as can be. Congress and national politics is an entirely corrupted complex of bribery. Legal bribery at that

Legalized Corruption of Government Exposed by Abramoff - YouTube

The solution: votes still matter. Most of what politicians do is based in the money, but they also still have to get those votes. So what happens is they move based on the money, but will move based on votes if there's enough pressure from voters. Our voting system actually hasn't been that corrupted yet. We do have gerrymandering and a lot of voter suppression and some issues of not counting certain votes, but overall voting has not been corrupted to the point that the guy who gets the votes almost always wins.

And an Amendment repealing corporate personhood. Wolf PAC This is the biggest issue of our time, and stuff will never be fixed if we can't do it. Also, the methodology for fixing the problem is plausible, and could work. It'll just take a lot of damn time

Until we repeal corporate personhood, we will never have a good health care system. It cannot happen because two of the biggest and most entrenched lobbyists in Washington are pharmacies and insurance. Big Pharma is so goddamn powerful that US citizens are forced to pay waaaaaay more for prescriptions than any other modern nation. It is robbery, through and through. And it will not go away until Big Pharma is no longer allowed to co-opt the government

That's just one example, but it goes everywhere. The banks, war mercenaries (they call themselves defense contractors), oil and coal companies, and a handful of other industries/companies have a stranglehold on national politics, and they are the defacto government. People like Boehner and Obama are mainly just their puppets. That said, I want an Occupy Congress movement just as much as Occupy Wall Street

I'm not too sure the toxic assets are going away until you allow them to be punished... by bank failure, ok, maybe not... but somehow they have to be. The market has to reorient itself properly, probably through a continued housing market crash until prices are more realistic and loan officers start writing loans to people who can pay for them.

Yeah there's a plethora of issues here. The best fix, however, involves keeping people in their homes by refinancing and improving employment. Some foreclosures have needed to happen, but a whole bunch of them are still just fraudulent and avoidable.

[wufwugy]

Open Channel - Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

Former Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis, In Cuffs | The New York Observer

I agree that this should be Pulitzer winner

[wufwugy]

[Penneywize]

don't know if you read any of the old man's quotes, wuf, but this guy strikes me as though he's not quite as sharp as he once was. there is absolutely nothing significant about his arrest or his participation in occupy wall street. if that's all it takes to win a pulitzer then meh, fine, whatever.

[wufwugy]

Nope, didn't read anything he said. Talking about the photo. Cops arresting a cop attempting to not have his Constitutional rights violated is worthy

[BooG690]

Meh...Obama photo was better.

[kingnat]

The shit at UC Davis has me fucking livid. This video makes me want to puke.

Police pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis - YouTube

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

The shit at UC Davis has me fucking livid. This video makes me want to puke.

Police pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis - YouTube

Retribution is coming

UC Davis Chancellor Katehi walks to her car (higher quality) - YouTube

Several faculty members have already called for Chancellor's resignation, and suits are being filed.

Olbermann makes a fantastic point in this video about how these kinds of abusive, illegal acts by people in power are necessary to give movements fervor

11-15-11 4 - Special Comment - Mayor Bloomberg - Countdown with Keith Olbermann - YouTube

[wufwugy]

Meh...Obama photo was better.

Really? Perhaps artistically, but man, forget a picture telling a thousand words, cops arresting a cop for expressing his rights is worth a million words

[Monty3038]

Yeah there's a plethora of issues here. The best fix, however, involves keeping people in their homes by refinancing and improving employment. Some foreclosures have needed to happen, but a whole bunch of them are still just fraudulent and avoidable.

Well, yes there are a whole plethora, which is why the average person expects the news to straighten things out for them and present a nice pretty picture of what is going on.

Anyway, that aside... I just don't know that the fraud is that great on the consumer side... but the lack of proper knowledge is. It became a big cycle... banks make lower interest loans on overinflated value... homeowner buys bigger house than they can afford, other banks want to compete, do same thing... etc. etc. etc.

At some point the real estate fallout had to happen... my house has dropped (well... let me calcuate it here... ) to about 79% of what I bought it for less than 6 years ago, killing my equity and basically combined with other economic factors, has put me near default... BUT I still think a market correction is in order. My wife is out of work, I'm struggling with a $30 bank balance for 2 weeks on average... but I still think a correction is in order. My house was overvalued, but the loan on it wasn't... I have 0 equity again since the market fell out, but I will eventually... and the market will recorrect to make it more appropriate to what I paid for it... alright, I'm rambling a bit... but my main point was that if you make $60k a year and are a single income family, you shouldn't own a $200k home. And that happened a lot around here... the families know it was wrong for them to overspend on that home, and I don't think they are that shocked that it is now biting them in the ass.

[wufwugy]

Anyway, that aside... I just don't know that the fraud is that great on the consumer side... but the lack of proper knowledge is. It became a big cycle... banks make lower interest loans on overinflated value... homeowner buys bigger house than they can afford, other banks want to compete, do same thing... etc. etc. etc.

Some of the fraud was legalized. The banks lobbied to change rules on combining commercial and investment banking, change leverage limits, etc. Some of it was nefarious or incompetent behavior in areas where nobody ever thought to put a law (like the Bush Admin firing everybody who worked in the fraud department of the SEC, at the bank lobby behest of course), a lot of it was fraud that nobody powerful enough cares to prosecute that involve behavior like tricking investors and betting against themselves and lying about CDOs and lying about credit ratings and a bunch of stuff.

Also, I don't think your description of what happened is accurate. The banks never made loans on overinflated value, they made loans because they were allowed to repackage them, lie about them, then resell them. They even specifically targeted bad loans because those carried higher interest rates for higher profits, and they just resold the mortgages. It was zero risk/all profit for each individual firm. But through this complex of financial derivatives, nobody was in place to notice that they all had to go somewhere, and that somewhere was an abyss of unaccounted for money. It was unaccounted for because they successfully got Bush to get rid of regulations and regulators and none of the executives could be legally held liable for their obviously fraudulent actions due to that.

And as for people buying stuff they couldn't afford: that's not quite how it works. Mortgages are really just another form of credit, and credit is really just no different than money itself. Every dollar you own is, after all, merely a credit said to have value based on certain fluctuating factors. This is the same as mortgages, but with a different set of fluctuating factors. Just like you are led to believe that 100$ bill has that value, consumers were led to believe that mortgages had the value they had. The secret was that the real value of mortgages was very unstable, whereas the USD is not nearly as unstable. But don't forget that it is possible for the USD to collapse the way mortgages did based on the exact same principles, then the media will blame the consumers for living beyond their means or some shit because they didn't understand finance enough to know that 3$ isn't really the same as a gallon of milk

[wufwugy]

“There were now a zillion lobbyists for every single member of Congress.” Elizabeth Warren said, “I just had to look away, because no reasonable person would have kept on fighting at that point.”

.

[wufwugy]

BTW if you ain't seen Inside Job, the full thing is up on Vimeo. It is very excellent

Inside Job [2010 Best Documentary Oscar Winner] on Vimeo

[BooG690]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...CLGF-msnbc.pdf

Memo to the ABA by lobbyists offering a smear campaign. Proof that big banks are worried about OWS and that it IS changing the conversation.

[baudib]

I'm not sure I should laugh or sigh-cringe as the NYPD, on the heels of weeks of bad pub (including a ticket-fixing fraud in the Bronx) just announced another "lone wolf" terror bust. The guy was not connected to any official terror group, the FBI declined to make a move on him, but he was planning to bomb a few mailboxes.

[wufwugy]

[BooG690]

Meanwhile in Canada...

[Illfavor]

Those UC Davis vids are incredibly disturbing.

[wufwugy]

The police assaulting protesters are finally murderers

[wufwugy]

Pepper spray, beating blamed by Occupy Seattle protester for her miscarriage - BlogPost - The Washington Post

“They diagnosed that I was having a miscarriage,” Fox said. “They said the damage was from the kick and that the pepper spray got to [the fetus], too.”

[bikes]

fetus =/= person

can't have it both ways

[BooG690]

fetus =/= person

can't have it both ways

According to the people that this OWS is aimed against, it's murder. I wonder how Fox News will spin this.

[wufwugy]

fetus =/= person

can't have it both ways

This is a tough spot because the answer is sometimes both or neither. There does need to be a difference in classification between a wanted fetus and an unwanted fetus. I think aborting a fetus because it's not wanted is not nearly as big a deal as causing the miscarriage of one that is

Also, I think that in even the most pro-choice circles, inducing somebody else's miscarriage carries murder-like penalties

[wufwugy]

Leaked: Banks Scared of The Young Turks! - YouTube

[JL]

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

Some of these from like the 50s are so apropos

politicartoons: Everything new is old again.

[Monty3038]

Some of the fraud was legalized. The banks lobbied to change rules on combining commercial and investment banking, change leverage limits, etc. Some of it was nefarious or incompetent behavior in areas where nobody ever thought to put a law (like the Bush Admin firing everybody who worked in the fraud department of the SEC, at the bank lobby behest of course), a lot of it was fraud that nobody powerful enough cares to prosecute that involve behavior like tricking investors and betting against themselves and lying about CDOs and lying about credit ratings and a bunch of stuff.

Also, I don't think your description of what happened is accurate. The banks never made loans on overinflated value, they made loans because they were allowed to repackage them, lie about them, then resell them. They even specifically targeted bad loans because those carried higher interest rates for higher profits, and they just resold the mortgages. It was zero risk/all profit for each individual firm. But through this complex of financial derivatives, nobody was in place to notice that they all had to go somewhere, and that somewhere was an abyss of unaccounted for money. It was unaccounted for because they successfully got Bush to get rid of regulations and regulators and none of the executives could be legally held liable for their obviously fraudulent actions due to that.

And as for people buying stuff they couldn't afford: that's not quite how it works. Mortgages are really just another form of credit, and credit is really just no different than money itself. Every dollar you own is, after all, merely a credit said to have value based on certain fluctuating factors. This is the same as mortgages, but with a different set of fluctuating factors. Just like you are led to believe that 100$ bill has that value, consumers were led to believe that mortgages had the value they had. The secret was that the real value of mortgages was very unstable, whereas the USD is not nearly as unstable. But don't forget that it is possible for the USD to collapse the way mortgages did based on the exact same principles, then the media will blame the consumers for living beyond their means or some shit because they didn't understand finance enough to know that 3$ isn't really the same as a gallon of milk

I guess I have a different view on credit/mortgage than you do. The credit/mortgage is a lien against future earnings, whereas the cash is past earnings.

As towards the mortgage crisis... well you've obviously researched it more than I have, but I think a fair amount of the crisis goes back to our dependence on credit... including the overinflated value of our homes. Let me illustrate a little bit... my best friend built a housing development (runs a construction firm). He planned it, had the house designs made up and oversaw construction and marketing. He had multiple banks approach him with financing deals for the homebuyer. Another friend of mine (who became our friend after moving into the development) came to view the houses, and though he normally could afford a $150000 house, through the bank over-valuing his earning power and lowering their interest rates to push the mortgage through, got him into a $210,000 mortgage... so, the bottom drops out of the housing market, his $210,000 home is now worth $150,000 and he immediately loses the $60k in equity. He also is paying for the house at the higher rate... he loses, and in turn, the bank loses when he defaults on the loan. This loan may have been sold around multiple times now and here bank #4 let's say now finds he can't pay for the home, the home is not worth what it was mortgaged for, and bank #4 goes out of business...

Is it the consumers fault for buying more than they should have? Yes.
Is it the original bank's fault for overestimating the amount they should lend? Yes.
Is it the additional banks faults for buying the loan when they knew it wasn't worth it? Yes...

So the whole system is kind of screwed. This is a small example I know, but isn't it indicative of what is wrong, and the re-adjustment that is needed?

Maybe that proves your point, I don't know, I've already worked 32 hours this week and it's only two days in...

[wufwugy]

Sorry for the long post. I tried to do a short synopsis of the crimes really at the heart of this mess

I guess I have a different view on credit/mortgage than you do. The credit/mortgage is a lien against future earnings, whereas the cash is past earnings.

That's a generally smart way of looking at it, but still not technical. Bank notes are still a form of credit just as much as any other form of credit. They can mostly be considered "past earnings" due to the superb low risk of holding that credit. We would see exactly how much credit bank notes are worth if the financial system collapses, because your dollar would become worth a penny in a very short period of time. But the reason things like cash and mortgages appear to be so different is because they have entirely different risks and forms. Your way of looking at it is very practical, but due to not being technical, it can be distorted for purpose of greed or whatnot, which is what happened with mortgages. Distorting the USD to the degree the banks did so to mortgages would be much more difficult and far riskier and ultimately stupid for their greed purposes

As towards the mortgage crisis... well you've obviously researched it more than I have, but I think a fair amount of the crisis goes back to our dependence on credit...

Yes it does, at least partly. It's a very complex issue that I don't understand too well, but basically median incomes have dropped, and in order to sustain living standards for the median while the mega-corporations pocketed more of their productivity benefits and in order to ward off a populist revolt, we needed things like credit cards. It was always a scam from the top down, never actually normal people becoming greedy and wanting to buy more stuff

including the overinflated value of our homes. Let me illustrate a little bit... my best friend built a housing development (runs a construction firm). He planned it, had the house designs made up and oversaw construction and marketing. He had multiple banks approach him with financing deals for the homebuyer. Another friend of mine (who became our friend after moving into the development) came to view the houses, and though he normally could afford a $150000 house, through the bank over-valuing his earning power and lowering their interest rates to push the mortgage through, got him into a $210,000 mortgage... so, the bottom drops out of the housing market, his $210,000 home is now worth $150,000 and he immediately loses the $60k in equity. He also is paying for the house at the higher rate... he loses, and in turn, the bank loses when he defaults on the loan. This loan may have been sold around multiple times now and here bank #4 let's say now finds he can't pay for the home, the home is not worth what it was mortgaged for, and bank #4 goes out of business...

What you described is part of exactly the nefarious actions perpetrated by the banks, AIG, and credit rating agencies. The "overvalue" was a cascading effect that only helped them make more money out of the fraud. But basically, because the derivatives market was a "pass the buck" scheme where lenders tried to get as much value as possible out of mortgages because they could just sell them to investment banks like Goldman, investment banks then bundled them up with a bunch of other stuff, then paid the credit rating agencies to rate them "AAA", then sold these unknown packages to investors like retirement funds. AIG is in this since they insured anybody who wanted insurance on literally any derivative. Goldman even did things like bet against their own derivatives. All of this should be fraud, and some already is, but there are no cops on the financial fraud beat to bust up these crooks

So the idea of "inflated value" is more an effect of the fraud than anything else. And the "living beyond their means" is nothing but class warfare perpetrated upon the masses by the private jet class. Predatory lending was a systemic issue focused on the segments of the society that are susceptible to it.

Is it the consumers fault for buying more than they should have? Yes.

As much as this makes sense to "common sense", it misses the point. In what other field do we point the finger at the person who got defrauded or abused? This really is like blaming all of Bernie Madoff's clients for not understanding the nuances of his fraud, then just giving Bernie a slap on the wrist (or more like a bonus) for successfully committing his fraud.

Is it the original bank's fault for overestimating the amount they should lend? Yes.

These banks did not keep the mortgages. They could sell them to buyers in the same day, even. It was basically free money. The lenders' books were still fantastic throughout all this. How exactly were they to know the people at the very top who were bribing the government were buying their mortgages then dumping them deep inside a cavern where anybody relevant was paid to not shine their light?

Is it the additional banks faults for buying the loan when they knew it wasn't worth it? Yes...

That's why these banks bet against themselves once the bubble started to slow down. They knew what they were doing. This was a bank executives scheme from the get-go. There was no difference between Goldman Sachs and Enron here. This was nothing but a handful of extremely powerfully positioned banking executives who pillaged both their companies and the world economy for personal profit. And those executives are so rich that they've bribed the government just enough that they could get away with it. This is one of the most complex heists in the world's history. Not a miscalculation, but actual thieves. This is Goldman's 11, not Ocean's 11.

So the whole system is kind of screwed. This is a small example I know, but isn't it indicative of what is wrong, and the re-adjustment that is needed?

The readjustment you're referring has happened already, and the economy still sucks and is actually getting worse. The real readjustment we need is holding people accountable for their crimes, no matter if they run the world. People like Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon should be prosecuted and hung for treason. The fraud perpetrated has been very obvious, but US media is a propaganda machine that has convinced everybody that some of the most successful crooks of all time should not be thought of as crooks

[bikes]

Leon Cooperman: Open Letter to President Obama

[IowaSkinsFan]

Man I just went to Zuccotti park, it's really small, I'm surprised thousands of people could fit there.

There was almost no one there, yet there were 50 police officers. It's really overkill.

[IowaSkinsFan]

P.S. It's night time.

[boost]

Leon Cooperman: Open Letter to President Obama

What the fuck is this guy even talking about? He is all over the place. In one breath he admits that the entrenched economic interests need to be reexamined and that this is healthy discourse, and in the same breath he says "don't point the finger at us innocent trickle-downers!" The general sentiment of his letter seems to be, "something is definitely wrong with the way things are... but don't get angry about it, and work to find some middle ground!" Middle ground? What middle ground? Things are broken, so you propose we find middle ground with things being broken? We should aim for somewhere between broken and fixed?

Taking advantage of a system, then playing God by dolling out charity where you see fit does not make you a saint.


p.s. fuck the "Despite the odds being stacked against me, I made it, so anyone can, and no one should complain" fallacy.