Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[WhoWee]

Oh, terminology mix-up. In Dutch, we call them investors. No idea, I meant bankers or financial experts, hedge-fund constructors?

Well, the most successful hedge fund person on the Forbes 400 list in 2011 is George Soros at number 7 (on the list). I doubt if the Occupiers would want to see him on trial.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

http://www.forbes.com/profile/george-soros/

Where does that leave us?

 

[OmCheeto]

my bold
"An end to greed"? Are you joking? Are the Occupiers themselves not greedy?

Also "some investors brought to court" - why should investors be brought to court?

There is greed, and there is the desire not to be poor, and there is science.

About 10-20 years ago I was researching a crackpot theory that magnetic monopoles might exist. I read many papers by many physicists on some CERN preprint server. I even made hard copies! I looked up one author one day and found his personal web page. He didn't say he went into the field to be rich, he said he didn't want to be poor.

There is a great difference between multi-m/billion dollar greed, and not wanting to live under a bridge.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Add to this the Community Reinvestment Act (Carter) and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (Clinton) - and you have to reach the conclusion that Government policies are part of the problem.

Yes, that was quantified to be about 20% of the problem. The other 80% is due to a lack of regulation and failed high-risk models that even the insiders knew was a shell game. And what is the position of the right wing? Blame Carter and Clinton and deregulate!

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, that was quantified to be about 20% of the problem. The other 80% is due to a lack of regulation and failed high-risk models that even the insiders knew was a shell game. And what is the position of the right wing? Blame Carter and Clinton and deregulate!

We both know it's not that simple. My greater point was that we didn't learn anything from the S&L disaster. We knew in the 1980's that packaging and re-selling (good) mortgages was dangerous.

As for regulation of derivatives - it might be possible to set some new general rules moving forward - given you can find someone that actually understands the problems from a global perspective and doesn't have a horse in the race. However, trying to impose regulations on existing contracts could create a great many unintended consequences.

 

[John Creighto]

We both know it's not that simple. My greater point was that we didn't learn anything from the S&L disaster. We knew in the 1980's that packaging and re-selling (good) mortgages was dangerous.

As for regulation of derivatives - it might be possible to set some new general rules moving forward - given you can find someone that actually understands the problems from a global perspective and doesn't have a horse in the race. However, trying to impose regulations on existing contracts could create a great many unintended consequences.

Well, here is one possible regulation. You can't insure insurance with insurance. I mean re-insurance is okay provide you have enough other capital to insure what you are insuring to begin with.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, here is one possible regulation. You can't insure insurance with insurance. I mean re-insurance is okay provide you have enough other capital to insure what you are insuring to begin with.

Insurance is the transfer of risk. Sometimes the only way to cover a large risk is to spread it wide.

 

[John Creighto]

Insurance is the transfer of risk. Sometimes the only way to cover a large risk is to spread it wide.

But if there isn’t the capital to back it then in a large enough failure you just end up with a domino effect.

 

[WhoWee]

But if there isn’t the capital to back it then in a large enough failure you just end up with a domino effect.

I'll assume you're thinking about the AIG situation a few years ago when the Government had to step in?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/129578-unwinding-aigs-derivatives-exposure-loomis-and-buffett

You'll note Warren Buffet is mentioned. His report to shareholders on the subject of derivatives is a very good read. Basically, he looked at the size of the market and the exposure, then said he didn't know enough and got out - that's why (IMO) he's numero uno.

As for the domino effect - it's possible. Quite often losses exceed contract limits and the Government needs to assist - such as in the case of a hurricane or flooding.

One of the biggest challenges to the healthcare reform legislation is PRICING of the removal of lifetime maximum coverage amounts.

How do you establish a premium if your risk is unlimited? Just think if your house was insured for an unlimited amount and preventative maintenance was paid for by the policy - would the maintenance company ever stop working?

 

[edward]

I'll assume you're thinking about the AIG situation a few years ago when the Government had to step in?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/129578-unwinding-aigs-derivatives-exposure-loomis-and-buffett

You'll note Warren Buffet is mentioned. His report to shareholders on the subject of derivatives is a very good read. Basically, he looked at the size of the market and the exposure, then said he didn't know enough and got out - that's why (IMO) he's numero uno.

As for the domino effect - it's possible. Quite often losses exceed contract limits and the Government needs to assist - such as in the case of a hurricane or flooding.

One of the biggest challenges to the healthcare reform legislation is PRICING of the removal of lifetime maximum coverage amounts.

How do you establish a premium if your risk is unlimited? Just think if your house was insured for an unlimited amount and preventative maintenance was paid for by the policy - would the maintenance company ever stop working?

Along that line. The deriviatives market is worth more than the worlds total fiancial assets.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/10/596_trillion.html

 

[TheCool]

my bold
Are you certain the Occupiers don't favor the Dems(?) - if you read earlier posts, the Dems think they are on the same side - so does moveon.org and the unions.

I'm not sure, but I don't see anything suggesting that these protests were orchestrated by Democrats, which is what you said. The presence of unions and moveon.org members means nothing. The unions did not organize the events, nor did moveon.org

And, of course Dems "think" they are on the same side. They're opportunistic politicians afterall.

But from what I can see, no one is convincing the protesters to vote for Democrats.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Along that line. The deriviatives market is worth more than the worlds total fiancial assets.

Well, only in the loosest possible way.

If I buy a pound of wheat from you for $1, we have $2 in assets. My dollar, and your wheat.

If I agree to buy a pound of wheat from you for $1 tomorrow, we have $2 in derivatives and $2 in assets. Now, if we agree to exchange again tomorrow, we still have $2 in assets, and now we have $4 in derivative contracts. The day after that, we have $6 in contracts. If I shorten the trading period to a picosecond, I have just generated trillions of dollars of derivatives.

 

[MarcoD]

Where does that leave us?

It is not about Soros. If you build a 'sinking-ship' construction where you lend people money which they can't pay back, stick an AAA rating on it, get others to invest on it, and get yet others to secure it with a CDS, then you're a criminal. [ Note that a guy like that is messing with the interests of three parties. It ain't a joke anymore. ]

I'm not advocating to jail everyone with a gun, just those who use guns to rob banks.

(This is just fraud on a large scale.)

 

[WhoWee]

It is not about Soros. If you build a 'sinking-ship' construction where you lend people money which they can't pay back, stick an AAA rating on it, get others to invest on it, and get yet others to secure it with a CDS, then you're a criminal. [ Note that a guy like that is messing with the interests of three parties. It ain't a joke anymore. ]

I'm not advocating to jail everyone with a gun, just those who use guns to rob banks.

(This is just fraud on a large scale.)

Have you explored the question of WHY the banker would loan money to someone that can't pay it back?

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure, but I don't see anything suggesting that these protests were orchestrated by Democrats, which is what you said. The presence of unions and moveon.org members means nothing. The unions did not organize the events, nor did moveon.org

And, of course Dems "think" they are on the same side. They're opportunistic politicians afterall.

But from what I can see, no one is convincing the protesters to vote for Democrats.

Prior to being elected for a public office, President Obama worked as an "organizer". He didn't start any movements - he picked up where others left off and continued to motivate people. In the world of politics, organizers are people or organizations that herd people into participation - aren't they?

If unions or a website encourage people to attend - they are helping to organize that event.


Btw - have you seen these reports? (label as opinion please)
http://www.breitbart.tv/dc-organizer-admits-to-paying-occupy-dc-protesters/

http://theamericano.com/2011/10/10/hispanics-occupy-dc-protesters-paid-attend/

 

[JDoolin]

Again - please support - who protested against the poor?

Socialism means you provide a safety net; education, training, housing, food, basic medical care, so that those who are poor have some way of bettering themselves.

Anti-Socialism is Anti Poor.

To be more explicit, the Tea Party is against this safety net. They demonize public school teachers, they are against basic medical care for the poor, they are against giving housing or food to people who haven't "earned" it.

Again, if you can come up with a good argument against what I am saying, I would LOVE to be wrong about this. If I AM wrong about this, then show me that I am wrong. I would LOVE to find out that somehow the TEA party has been fighting for the same things that the Democratic party has been fighting for, and its just been a matter of miscommunication?

I don't think so, though. Democrats are the party for the people. Republicans are the party for the corporations against the poor. And the Tea Party represents the most extremist faction of those Republicans.

It's not like its just me that thinks this. I don't really need to support this argument. This is THE commonly held belief of Democrats, and Republicans alike. Watch some Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Bill Mahr. You'll see over and over and over again, the same story. Democrats trying to defend the poor. Republicans trying to defend the rich.

That's why I say, make your argument, and make it well. Because even if you can convince me that the Tea Party is not anti-poor, you need to make the argument for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Bill Mahr, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and everybody that watches those shows.

 

[MarcoD]

Have you explored the question of WHY the banker would loan money to someone that can't pay it back?

Of course, they're ever so philanthropic. Nonsense, at some point they were selling bad products, they knew it, and that makes them criminals.

 

[JDoolin]

I'm not sure, but I don't see anything suggesting that these protests were orchestrated by Democrats, which is what you said. The presence of unions and moveon.org members means nothing. The unions did not organize the events, nor did moveon.org

And, of course Dems "think" they are on the same side. They're opportunistic politicians afterall.

But from what I can see, no one is convincing the protesters to vote for Democrats.

There's an interesting dichotomy here, though. People vote for Democrats because (like me) we're optimistic and we believe what they say. But people vote for Republicans, because they are cynical, and they believe both politicians are lying, but are convinced that the Democrat is a bigger liar than the Republican candidate.

And then, once the Republicans get in there and do exactly what they said they were going to do; block the Democrats from doing anything good, it's the Democrats that get blamed for it.

I think it is a great waste of a vote if you like what the Democrat candidate is saying better, but you vote for the Republican, because you think all politicians are liars.

 

[daveb]

Let's say I don't support KKK rallies, but I do support Peace rallies. Would that make me a hypocrite, too, in your opinion?

I can support someone's right to free speech, but I also reserve the right to criticize what they are saying.

What exactly do KK or Peace rallies (well, some of the OWS folk are protesting the wars) have to do with either the TEA Party or OWS?

As for criticism, I'm referring to criticism of their existence, not of what they are saying. For the left to criticize whatthe TEA Party said then supporting OWS is natural, and the reverse of that for the right.

 

[daveb]

I see your point - the word conservative seems to have an image problem.

For many on the left, yes. Just like the word liberal has an image problem for some on the right.

 

[WhoWee]

Socialism means you provide a safety net; education, training, housing, food, basic medical care, so that those who are poor have some way of bettering themselves.

Anti-Socialism is Anti Poor.

To be more explicit, the Tea Party is against this safety net. They demonize public school teachers, they are against basic medical care for the poor, they are against giving housing or food to people who haven't "earned" it.

Again, if you can come up with a good argument against what I am saying, I would LOVE to be wrong about this. If I AM wrong about this, then show me that I am wrong. I would LOVE to find out that somehow the TEA party has been fighting for the same things that the Democratic party has been fighting for, and its just been a matter of miscommunication?

I don't think so, though. Democrats are the party for the people. Republicans are the party for the corporations against the poor. And the Tea Party represents the most extremist faction of those Republicans.

It's not like its just me that thinks this. I don't really need to support this argument. This is THE commonly held belief of Democrats, and Republicans alike. Watch some Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Bill Mahr. You'll see over and over and over again, the same story. Democrats trying to defend the poor. Republicans trying to defend the rich.

That's why I say, make your argument, and make it well. Because even if you can convince me that the Tea Party is not anti-poor, you need to make the argument for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Bill Mahr, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and everybody that watches those shows.

my bold
On PF - you DO need to support your comments - don't you?

Accordingly, you still haven't supported your specific comments.

Challenging me to "make the argument for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Bill Mahr, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and everybody that watches those shows" - would require a bit more effort than I personally could put forth (in all honesty).

 

[daveb]

When I see unions and Move.on.org involved - I know it's more than a group of angry unemployed folks. The unions benefited from bailouts and Move.on funding has been linked to some very wealthy Capitalists.

What, you expect only poor organizations (i.e., those that have no money to fund the protests) to support the OWS? So exactly how are the OWS folks supposed to get funding then? One can be a capitalist and still support the OWS ideas (these are OWS ideas, not necessarily mine, btw) that corporate personhood needs to be reigned in, that lax and incoeherent regulations led to this debacle, that something needs to be done to "level the playing field" between the ultr-wealthy and the other 99%, etc.

 

[WhoWee]

Of course, they're ever so philanthropic. Nonsense, at some point they were selling bad products, they knew it, and that makes them criminals.

I'm not going to argue that there weren't any bad actors - but it's not that simple - is it?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/ho...ibutors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html

"A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

Subprime enablers: Fannie, Freddie, HUD and Barney Frank."

"In a recent meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, Barney Frank--the chair of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime supporter of Fannie and Freddie--admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it. Renting, he said, would have been preferable. Now he tells us.

Long-term pressure from Frank and his colleagues to expand home ownership connects government housing policies to both the housing bubble and the poor quality of the mortgages on which it is based. In 1992, Congress gave a new affordable housing "mission" to Fannie and Freddie, and authorized the Department of Housing and Urban Development to define its scope through regulations."

 

[WhoWee]

What, you expect only poor organizations (i.e., those that have no money to fund the protests) to support the OWS? So exactly how are the OWS folks supposed to get funding then? One can be a capitalist and still support the OWS ideas (these are OWS ideas, not necessarily mine, btw) that corporate personhood needs to be reigned in, that lax and incoeherent regulations led to this debacle, that something needs to be done to "level the playing field" between the ultr-wealthy and the other 99%, etc.

If I was paying union dues - and the Government just bailed out my personal pension fund - the Occupy movement might not appeal to me as a sensible investment of my money.

 

[MarcoD]

I'm not going to argue that there weren't any bad actors - but it's not that simple - is it?

No, I agree with that. But I observe that even the bankers are complaining that the rules of trade have changed over the last decades, and that there is nothing in the system to stop that change.

There is something.

If people on Wall Street don't realize that they are often playing with human lives, on a far larger scale than a petty criminal, and that therefor they can be expected to act with 'the highest of morals,' -man, I sound like a priest, sorry for that-, then it is time to take out the 'big guns' and start, or start threatening, with jail time if they don't live up to your expectations.

 

[daveb]

If I was paying union dues - and the Government just bailed out my personal pension fund - the Occupy movement might not appeal to me as a sensible investment of my money.

Again, the OWS protests I've seen on the news are protesting the Wall Street bailouts for the banking industry the OWS folk see as got us into this mess, not the bailouts of the auto makers who were affected by them. I'm not saying I agree with them. Personally, I was against all the bailouts, even if it meant we would sink into a Depression as some predicted.

 

[WhoWee]

No, I agree with that. But I observe that even the bankers are complaining that the rules of trade have changed over the last decades, and that there is nothing in the system to stop that change.

There is something.

If people on Wall Street don't realize that they are often playing with human lives, on a far larger scale than a petty criminal, and that therefor they can be expected to act with 'the highest of morals,' -man, I sound like a priest, sorry for that-, then it is time to take out the 'big guns' and start, or start threatening, with jail time if they don't live up to your expectations.

There are other players in the game - such as mortgage brokers - that helped fuel the fire. They coined a name for people that targeted folks that couldn't pay back their loans - "predatory lenders". The Wall Street guys didn't write the loans. The Wall Street guys bundled he debt and sold it to investors to replenish the pot for more loans.

We'll label this next comment opinion. It's not uncommon to bundle debt of various quality to achieve a given return. When there is too much bad debt and the bundle is priced too high - problems arise. Let's not forget there were people willing to buy the debt - they should have known the risk.

 

[WhoWee]

Again, the OWS protests I've seen on the news are protesting the Wall Street bailouts for the banking industry the OWS folk see as got us into this mess, not the bailouts of the auto makers who were affected by them. I'm not saying I agree with them. Personally, I was against all the bailouts, even if it meant we would sink into a Depression as some predicted.

Interesting, the bank bailouts are a problem but the auto bailouts are not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/economy/31taxpayer.html
"As Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit"


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/2/watchdog-questions-gm-bailout-repayment/?page=all
"It turned out GM used bailout funds from an escrow account to pay off $4.7 billion in government loans, a move that several congressional Republicans called deceptive.

“One year ago, the U.S. Treasury Department aided General Motors in its fraudulent claim that it fully repaid its government loans,” said Sam Kazman, CEI general counsel. “Now the Treasury Department is re-enacting this smoke-and-mirrors routine on behalf of Chrysler. Whatever the bailouts may be credited with creating, honesty isn’t one of them.”

The Obama administration released a report Wednesday showing that taxpayers probably will lose $14 billion of the $80 billion that the government loaned to General Motors, Chrysler, auto lenders and suppliers."

 

[daveb]

Interesting, the bank bailouts are a problem but the auto bailouts are not?

As far as the OWS protests are concerned, yes.

 

[WhoWee]

As far as the OWS protests are concerned, yes.

IMO - that's all we need to understand about the "movement" - no credibility.

 

[edward]

Well, only in the loosest possible way.

If I buy a pound of wheat from you for $1, we have $2 in assets. My dollar, and your wheat.

If I agree to buy a pound of wheat from you for $1 tomorrow, we have $2 in derivatives and $2 in assets. Now, if we agree to exchange again tomorrow, we still have $2 in assets, and now we have $4 in derivative contracts. The day after that, we have $6 in contracts. If I shorten the trading period to a picosecond, I have just generated trillions of dollars of derivatives.

It looks like you are describing futures contracts not derivatives. But in one way I agree. The same assets are used as collateral for more than one derivative. That is why it is possible to have more $ in derivatives than assets.

Credit default swaps are a horse of a different color. Any number of people can buy insurance that bets against our deals with the wheat, that includes the guy that sold me the wheat in the first place.

 

[WhoWee]

It looks like you are describing futures contracts not derivatives. But in one way I agree. The same assets are used as collateral for more than one derivative. That is why it is possible to have more $ in derivatives than assets.

Credit default swaps are a horse of a different color. Any number of people can buy insurance that bets against our deals with the wheat, that includes the guy that sold me the wheat in the first place.

The biggest problem I see with derivatives is they siphon investment capital out of the structured and compliant market and into the big (unregulated) casino - label IMO.

 

[JDoolin]

my bold
On PF - you DO need to support your comments - don't you?

Accordingly, you still haven't supported your specific comments.

Challenging me to "make the argument for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Bill Mahr, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and everybody that watches those shows" - would require a bit more effort than I personally could put forth (in all honesty).

I realize that the division between the liberal media and the conservative media is pretty great, but I don't feel like that really releases you from my request. Just show me a single example where the Tea Party is acting toward the benefit of the poor. The most I think you'll find is a "Tough Love" attitude, that we shouldn't reward people for being lazy.

I should add that I have had sermons directed at me at church, focusing on how we should not vote for the welfare state that some politicians want us to become, but we should each be responsible for ourselves.

This idea that somehow we can "pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps," without the aid of others. Without any assistance. I also find this sentiment to be anti-poor. It is suggesting that we vote against our own self-interest out of some kind of sense of charitibility.

It may also be that some among the Tea Party think that all support for the needy should be done through charity and donations through community food pantries. They may not necessarily anti-poor, but can we agree at least that the Tea Party are against any government assistance to the poor?

Surely, you can't believe that the Tea Party has been arguing for a redistribution of wealth, "to each according to need, and from each according to ability?" At best, their attitude toward the poor is, "Lazy greedy selfish" and often "criminal."

Just show me a Tea-Party sponsored food pantry, or a Tea-Party sponsored homeless shelter. Please, I'm just asking you to make your case that the Tea-Party is not anti-poor. Show me something that is incontrovertible proof that the Tea Party is NOT anti-poor.

I've already given you proof that they are anti-poor: They are anti-socialist, and pro-capitalist. Capitalist means you serve those with MONEY, and you DON'T serve those without money. Anti-socialist means you DON'T believe in a safety net to provide housing, food, and services to the poor. You have never argued against these statements. I've already backed up my claims with facts and definitions. But you continue to demand more. There is no more. They are anti-socialist, and pro-capitalist. THAT'S ANTI-POOR, BY DEFINITION.

But if you can show me all these charities the Tea Party is supporting, I may change my opinion if I see that they are really pro-poor in some other way that I hadn't thought of.

 

[WhoWee]

I realize that the division between the liberal media and the conservative media is pretty great, but I don't feel like that really releases you from my request. Just show me a single example where the Tea Party is acting toward the benefit of the poor. The most I think you'll find is a "Tough Love" attitude, that we shouldn't reward people for being lazy.

I should add that I have had sermons directed at me at church, focusing on how we should not vote for the welfare state that some politicians want us to become, but we should each be responsible for ourselves.

This idea that somehow we can "pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps," without the aid of others. Without any assistance. I also find this sentiment to be anti-poor. It is suggesting that we vote against our own self-interest out of some kind of sense of charitibility.

It may also be that some among the Tea Party think that all support for the needy should be done through charity and donations through community food pantries. They may not necessarily anti-poor, but can we agree at least that the Tea Party are against any government assistance to the poor?

Surely, you can't believe that the Tea Party has been arguing for a redistribution of wealth, "to each according to need, and from each according to ability?" At best, their attitude toward the poor is, "Lazy greedy selfish" and often "criminal."

Just show me a Tea-Party sponsored food pantry, or a Tea-Party sponsored homeless shelter. Please, I'm just asking you to make your case that the Tea-Party is not anti-poor. Show me something that is incontrovertible proof that the Tea Party is NOT anti-poor.

I've already given you proof that they are anti-poor: They are anti-socialist, and pro-capitalist. Capitalist means you serve those with MONEY, and you DON'T serve those without money. Anti-socialist means you DON'T believe in a safety net to provide housing, food, and services to the poor. You have never argued against these statements. I've already backed up my claims with facts and definitions. But you continue to demand more. There is no more. They are anti-socialist, and pro-capitalist. THAT'S ANTI-POOR, BY DEFINITION.

But if you can show me all these charities the Tea Party is supporting, I may change my opinion if I see that they are really pro-poor in some other way that I hadn't thought of.

my bold
This started back in Post 214 - please note I added **** to separate our comments.

"WhoWee

Posts: 1,049
Recognitions:
PF Contributor
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York
Originally Posted by JDoolin
Well, when you protest against the poor, you're not really likely to get arrested, regardless of how misguided you are. When you protest against the rich, there's considerably more chance of being arrested.
****
Who protested against the poor? Please support."

I really don't think your rant (that I highlighted in bold) supports your original comment. Also, what is the source for your definition of "ANTI-POOR"?

 

[MarcoD]

I should add that I have had sermons directed at me at church, focusing on how we should not vote for the welfare state that some politicians want us to become, but we should each be responsible for ourselves.

The mechanisms of faith? First, I respect that, so please don't read this as a disrespectful question: Do you live in a 'wealthy' district?

I would expect those living in poor districts to get the opposite sermon of those living in wealthy districts. Probably just social dynamics.

 

[mheslep]

It looks like you are describing futures contracts not derivatives. But in one way I agree. The same assets are used as collateral for more than one derivative. That is why it is possible to have more $ in derivatives than assets.

Credit default swaps are a horse of a different color. Any number of people can buy insurance that bets against our deals with the wheat, that includes the guy that sold me the wheat in the first place.

Futures and swaps are all forms of derivatives, that is, derivative of the underlying asset such as wheat, debt, currency, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)#Common_derivative_contract_types