This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Is there any other institution where public money is privatised?
You're missing the point. The point is that the lack of public control on the banks after receiving public money isn't the bank's fault, it's the government's fault for not imposing conditions on the cash. Farmers, pharmaceutical companies, defence contractors, they all receive public money as well, and are free to do what they like with it. If you give someone's venture a gift, it's theirs now, not yours. By contrast, if you invest in someone's venture, that venture is part yours. Do you see the difference?
When individuals fail to manage their finances, they lose their jobs, homes and possibly their lives (in the US at least). When Fred Goodwin mismanages his company, he retires 12 years before everyone on a retirement plan 10* higher than the average salary.
That's not relevant to the issue at hand. The fact that a person can go bankrupt from taking out an irresponsibly big home loan doesn't change the fact that they have no reasonable right to manage the bank.
Provision of toxic loans. If it were not the case, why was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act necessary in the first place?
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate.
I have absolutely no idea how that is relevant at all to 'toxic' loans. The GLB act allows companies to act as consolidated entities, so that a bank which lends money can also provide insurance policies, have broking services, and advise clients on strategy. It allowed US banks to do what every other country's banks had been doing for the last half century.
Did that cause institutions to be 'too big to fail'? No - look at Freddie Mac and Fannie May - they both have focuses on savings and lending. That doesn't stop them from being too big to fail.
I also think you don't understand what a 'toxic' loan is, in the context of real life. Let me address that in the next point.
I kind of meant that the collapse would have not occurred had it not been a general principle to sell mortgages that were not substantiated. If economists used tools to accurately predict how many mortgages would be paid for and bankers used those tools to guide them in the provision of mortgages, they wouldn't have sold as many mortgages that would ultimately fail... The higher the demand (people buying mortgages on credit), the bigger the market, the more contracts for housing development. When it was realised that such development was unsustainable due to the
provision of mortgages to people that couldn't afford to pay them
, house prices fell.
Have you considered why people can't afford to pay mortgages in real life?
1) The cost of living goes up, and the borrower can no longer afford the mortgage.
2) The cost of the mortgage goes up, and the borrower can no longer afford the mortgage.
3) The borrower decides to spend more than they planned originally, and can no longer afford the mortgage.
4) The borrower's income goes down / loses their job, and can no longer afford the mortgage.
5) The price of the property goes down, so the borrower hands the keys back to the bank and walks away.
Now, the bank can only be responsible for (1) and (2). Given that the US runs on fixed interest rate mortgages, really, that only leaves (1) that the bank is responsible for. If (1) occurs, then the reason the person can't afford to pay it is that the bank hasn't factored enough 'wiggle room' for expenses to increase, and that's their fault.
The case of (3) is completely the borrower's fault. That's an example of irresponsible consumerism where someone spends more than they're able to repay. That's not the bank's fault - if a person goes out and buys a plasma TV instead of repaying the loan, there's nothing the bank can do, and there are no reasons the bank could have known about that in advance.
The case of (4) is not really anybody's fault in particular (unless you want to apportion blame to the borrower for losing their job). It's also not predictable by anybody either. It's also worth noting that this is the primary cause of mortgage failure.
Now, in the case of property prices, I'd like to lead you to the fact that prices in the US are nowhere near as high as other developed countries in the world. The house price crash wasn't because people couldn't afford to pay the mortgages, it's because the 'fair' house price was inflated and bubbled. If you want evidence of that, consider the list of 5 points above:
1) Did expenses rise significantly before the GFC, resulting in people not affording their mortgages? No.
2) Did interest rates rise significantly before the GFC, resulting in people not affording their mortgages? No.
3) Did spending rise significantly before the GFC, resulting in people not affording their mortgages? No.
4) Did jobs get cut / pay drop significantly before the GFC, resulting in people not affording their mortgages? No.
5) Did prices fall significantly before the GFC? Its fall caused the GFC. But none of the other points had any impact on the ability to pay off a mortgage - with no evidence suggesting otherwise, it was simply the market revaluing the inflated cost of housing in a rapid manner.
Post by
gamerunknown
Farmers, pharmaceutical companies, defence contractors, they all receive public money as well, and are free to do what they like with it.
Cede this point - I think in each instance it's pretty much a scam though.
If you give someone's venture a gift
But not this one. The only two candidates that ran for president in 2008 were both willing to make gifts out of the public's money. Some members of public think that either that money should not go into the bank accounts of individuals as a result or that there should be increased regulation of the services the bank offers as a result.
Thanks for the clarification of the act, but it doesn't change the fact that the few institutions that anticipated the collapse of mortgages like Goldman Sachs profited massively off of it.
Post by
Squishalot
The only two candidates that ran for president in 2008 were both willing to make gifts out of the public's money. Some members of public think that either that money should not go into the bank accounts of individuals as a result or that there should be increased regulation of the services the bank offers as a result.
That's either an issue with the public for selecting those two individuals, or the parties who preselected them in the first instance. Or, in fact, the party platforms overall. I think that the (c) option whereby the gift money would be an equity investment would have been the best approach to take, and was in fact taken in the UK (see Lloyds, BOSI).
Thanks for the clarification of the act, but it doesn't change the fact that the few institutions that anticipated the collapse of mortgages like Goldman Sachs profited massively off of it.
Of course not, but I'm surprised that you think that those few institutions wouldn't have profited massively even if they hadn't been merged.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Wouldn't "Anticipating change" make them very good at their jobs, though?
Not when they were complicit in lobbying for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, doing the financial stuff I posted above that I'd have to look up again, then having Henry Paulson serve as Secretary of the Treasury. We didn't see Attorney General Timothy McVeigh.
Post by
Squishalot
Again - the investment bankers at Goldman Sachs pre-legislation were no different to the investment bankers at Goldman Sachs post-legislation. Different divisions within banks are exactly managed and handled completely differently and independently of each other. When I was working at Australia's biggest bank, we even a different title system for the funds management guys (e.g. senior manager / general manager / executive general manager vs associate / associate director / director), because they were bought over and although 'part' of our bank, were managed completely separately.
Post by
Adamsm
So it's been 6 months since this bull crap has begin, and due to it being winter, most of them petered out....sadly though, there are rumblings that once spring and the nice weather starts up, we'll be seeing the occupy idiots back out there....woo.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
So it's been 6 months since this bull crap has begin, and due to it being winter, most of them petered out....sadly though, there are rumblings that once spring and the nice weather starts up, we'll be seeing the occupy idiots back out there....woo.
Yeah, wanting money out of politics is really dumb, I mean what do these people want... a democracy or something? Pssh.
Hey, I can understand trying to change the system, but how exactly does camping in parks/on streets really help that much?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Hey, I can understand trying to change the system, but how exactly does camping in parks/on streets really help that much?
Publicity for their message.
Oh yes, loads of such good publicity as you watch them dragged off to jail for not learning laws about gatherings and the like. I'd be a little more impressed if they didn't seem so motley in all honesty.
Post by
Monday
Hey, I can understand trying to change the system, but how exactly does camping in parks/on streets really help that much?
Publicity for their message.
Oh yes, loads of such good publicity as you watch them dragged off to jail for not learning laws about gatherings and the like. I'd be a little more impressed if they didn't seem so motley in all honesty.
^
Post by
Squishalot
Hey, I can understand trying to change the system, but how exactly does camping in parks/on streets really help that much?
Publicity for their message.
Oh yes, loads of such good publicity as you watch them dragged off to jail for not learning laws about gatherings and the like. I'd be a little more impressed if they didn't seem so motley in all honesty.
^
Third'ed.
I would support their cause more if they weren't so happy to inconvenience others in their self-righteous pursuit of personal utility.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
There was an article on CNN today about some Occupy people being arrested, or removed, or something- I didn't read it. My first reaction was "Oh yeah, those guys." I had kind of forgotten about them.
Post by
Adamsm
There was an article on CNN today about some Occupy people being arrested, or removed, or something- I didn't read it. My first reaction was "Oh yeah, those guys." I had kind of forgotten about them.
Heh yeah that's why I dredged up the thread; was watching the news last night and someone did mention it was 6 months since the start of the 'movement'.
Post by
gamerunknown
So it's been 6 months since this bull crap has begin, and due to it being winter, most of them petered out....sadly though, there are rumblings that once spring and the nice weather starts up, we'll be seeing the occupy idiots back out there....woo.
It may have more to do with the fact that the police have suppressed the
protests
. What policies of the Occupy movement do you think are idiotic? Which do you think are bull crap?
Oh yes, loads of such good publicity as you watch them dragged off to jail for not learning laws about gatherings and the like. I'd be a little more impressed if they didn't seem so motley in all honesty.
Which laws do you think should govern protests? What do you think is an effective way of protesting? What have you done personally in order to defend a principle that you think is important?
I would support their cause more if they weren't so happy to inconvenience others in their self-righteous pursuit of personal utility.
Likewise, what is an effective way to be heard without causing inconvenience? To whom did their protests cause inconvenience? Which policies of theirs increased their personal utility?
Post by
MyTie
6 months? 6 months of sitting there, protesting
something
, in the hopes that
something
will happen. Brilliant!
Post by
Adamsm
It may have more to do with the fact that the police have suppressed the protests. What policies of the Occupy movement do you think are idiotic? Which do you think are bull crap?Actually it doesn't; the police only stepped in when the Occupier refused repeatedly to move from where they were sitting; a lot of the time they were trespassing. As for which I think are bull crap and idiotic...all of it; they are trying to go back to the days of sit-ins and civil rights.....but as they are complaining about the fact that the rich are rich well...
Which laws do you think should govern protests? What do you think is an effective way of protesting? What have you done personally in order to defend a principle that you think is important?There are other ways that don't involve disrupting the lively hoods of other people; those who camped out on streets, keeping the average joe from getting into his job, while the rich just drove past and used their private entrances....yeah, very effective they are.
Post by
gamerunknown
Actually it doesn't; the police only stepped in when the Occupier refused repeatedly to move from where they were sitting; a lot of the time they were trespassing.
If you read the article I linked, it was determined that the protesters did not have the right to remain there on February 22nd and they were evicted on February 28th. They were invited there in the first place by the owners of the Saint Paul's cathedral because they were kettled away from the London Stock Exchange by the police. One senior member of Saint Paul's cathedral staff resigned due to the possibility of legal action against the protest.
The "weather hypothesis" serves the interests of advertisers that want to portray the protesters as bellweather activists, but it isn't supported by empirical data. The protests continued throughout the winter, when the temperatures were objectively
lowest
.
As for which I think are bull crap and idiotic...all of it; they are trying to go back to the days of sit-ins and civil rights...
Do you think it's stupid trying to
prevent foreclosures
? Providing a voice for the
homeless
? Setting up
free medical tents
? Providing a venue for a
gospel choir
?
but as they are complaining about the fact that the rich are rich well...
Feel free to educate yourself as to the black civil rights movements and the Marxist reasoning that fueled them (one of the reasons Rockwell and the anarcholibertarians despised the movement). Martin Luther King discussed Hegel and Marx at length and was travelling to a sanitation worker's strike when assassinated. I'd recommend the documentary "Brother Outsider" for another socialist architect of the civil rights movement that faced 2/3 of the triple discrimination.
I also remember MyTie brought up Gandhi in the other thread:
I never said that there should be co-operation between the exploiter and the exploited so long as exploitation and the will to exploit persists. Only I do not believe that the capitalists and the landlords are all exploiters by an inherent necessity or that there is a basic or irreconcilable antagonism between their interests and those of the masses. All exploitation is based on co-operation, willing or forced, of the exploited. However much we may detest admitting it, the fact remains that there would be no exploitation if people refuse to obey the exploiter
There will certainly be no have-nots, no unemployment, and no disparity between classes and masses such as we see to-day.
Part of the anarcholibertarian tradition (harsh restrictions on economic freedom!)
There are other ways that don't involve disrupting the lively hoods of other people; those who camped out on streets, keeping the average joe from getting into his job, while the rich just drove past and used their private entrances....yeah, very effective they are.
Was anyone prevented from working? This wasn't a general strike, a sit in or a salt march, it was far more sedate and far less well advertised than the Tea Party movement (presumably because advertising contradicts the spirit of the movement). Are you arguing that they should have participated in direct action?
Post by
gamerunknown
Actually it doesn't; the police only stepped in when the Occupier refused repeatedly to move from where they were sitting; a lot of the time they were trespassing.
If you read the article I linked, it was determined that the protesters did not have the right to remain there on February 22nd and they were evicted on February 28th. They were invited there in the first place by the owners of the Saint Paul's cathedral because they were kettled away from the London Stock Exchange by the police. One senior member of Saint Paul's cathedral staff resigned due to the possibility of legal action against the protest.
The "weather hypothesis" serves the interests of advertisers that want to portray the protesters as bellweather activists, but it isn't supported by empirical data. The protests continued throughout the winter, when the temperatures were objectively
lowest
.
As for which I think are bull crap and idiotic...all of it; they are trying to go back to the days of sit-ins and civil rights...
Do you think it's stupid trying to
prevent foreclosures
? Providing a voice for the
homeless
? Setting up
free medical tents
? Providing a venue for a
gospel choir
?
but as they are complaining about the fact that the rich are rich well...
Feel free to educate yourself as to the black civil rights movements and the Marxist reasoning that fueled them (one of the reasons Rockwell and the anarchocapitalists despised the movement). Martin Luther King discussed Hegel and Marx at length and was travelling to a sanitation worker's strike when assassinated. I'd recommend the documentary "Brother Outsider" for another socialist architect of the civil rights movement that faced 2/3 of the triple discrimination.
I also remember MyTie brought up Gandhi in the other thread:
I never said that there should be co-operation between the exploiter and the exploited so long as exploitation and the will to exploit persists. Only I do not believe that the capitalists and the landlords are all exploiters by an inherent necessity or that there is a basic or irreconcilable antagonism between their interests and those of the masses. All exploitation is based on co-operation, willing or forced, of the exploited. However much we may detest admitting it, the fact remains that there would be no exploitation if people refuse to obey the exploiter
There will certainly be no have-nots, no unemployment, and no disparity between classes and masses such as we see to-day.
Part of the anarcholibertarian tradition (harsh restrictions on economic freedom!)
There are other ways that don't involve disrupting the lively hoods of other people; those who camped out on streets, keeping the average joe from getting into his job, while the rich just drove past and used their private entrances....yeah, very effective they are.
Was anyone prevented from working? This wasn't a general strike, a sit in or a salt march, it was far more sedate and far less well advertised than the Tea Party movement (presumably because advertising contradicts the spirit of the movement). Are you arguing that they should have participated in direct action?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.