Occupy Wall Street

[mattstick]

I think you're looking small picture.

Banks knew what they were doing, they bet against the mortgages they were grouping together knowing they would fail.

The government deregulations are to blame as well. Banks in Canada didn't collapse because our banks have tighter regulations.

What other approach to this should people be taking? One protest against Goldman Sachs, and another against the Obama Administration?  The assholes who get 9-figure bonuses want you to think this is futile and useless.

[runawayjimbo]

Glad to see the young republican club showed up.

If you are angered/annoyed by the protesters and have some kind of sympathy/respect for the oligarchs, you have your head firmly planted up your ass.

Well, that's constructive. The ole' "If you're not with us, you're agin' us" defense. Thanks, George W.   :roll:

I honestly can't believe how badly you're missing the point phil.

People who work hard every day are having their homes foreclosed or have lost half their pensions while people who push paper give themselves $100million bonuses for bankrupting the Global Economy.

I dare you to read this...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

First of all, who's lost half their pensions? During the GM bailout, Obama unilaterally put the UAW pensions ahead of bondholders, undermining years of bankruptcy law. People's 401(k)s took a dump, but I don't know of any cases where pensioners got screwed (if you have a link, I'd love to read it).

And yes people have been foreclosed on and yes in SOME cases the bank had no right to foreclose and that is extremely fucked up. But in an overwhelmingly majority of the cases, people signed a mortgage that they could not afford. They made the same flawed assumption the banks did that housing prices always go up so they could just refi when the teaser rate jacked up (and if you're thinking about buying a house in Canada, I'd sit tight for a while; your comment yesterday about prices only going up was the same thing the banks were saying in 2004-2005, 10 yrs of unrestrained growth in housing prices means the market is due for a correction). I'm sorry, but if people don't take a 30-yr debt seriously, that's their own dumb fault, not the banks.

Secondly, I didn't re-read it but I know I read that article when it came out and it was the first time I was disappointed with Taibbi. As I said earlier, he should stick to the investigative reporting (on which he does an amazing job) and stay away from the agenda-laden narratives.

For all the bitching about the lack of regulations what you seem to be missing is that Wall St will ALWAYS exploit the regulations in their favor. If you're a kid coming out of an Ivy League school and you have an opportunity to go work for the SEC making $75k or go work for Goldman for $200 + bonus, what are you going to do? They have the smarter people who arbitrage the rules and create new products that are not currently regulated. The regulators will ALWAYS be a step behind industry. Also, I think it's somewhat naive to think the Fed/FDIC/SEC/CFTC work for you; they do not, they work for the banks. More regulation is not a silver bullet to preventing a future crisis. That's not to say there shouldn't be rules and that those rules shouldn't be enforced, but the better solution IMO would be to create an environment where private firms are held accountable for their decisions and the best way to do that is to allow the market to decide when they should fail.

You think the bankers are going to regulate themselves, and that's how we'll prevent the next bubble/collapse?

Banks do not create bubbles, they only take advantage of them. Bubbles are created when markets are intentionally distorted by central banks. It is the failed monetary policy that is to blame, not Goldman.

If our friends on Wall St, AIG etc didn't screw up the economy, the interest rate on those CDs would be significantly higher than what you're getting now.
Like it or not, it affects you.

First, it's patently false to lay all the blame on Wall St for taking the economy. There's plenty of blame to go around, no one actor more responsible than the other (I'm pretty sure you've acknowledged this before).

Second, somehow I doubt that rates for any product would be significantly higher since the Fed controls rates. They have an incentive to keep them artificially low to always induce more growth. Starting with Greenspan, they have become crack addicts to a low interest rate environment that encourages people to make riskier decisions than they should.

Banks knew what they were doing, they bet against the mortgages they were grouping together knowing they would fail.

The government deregulations are to blame as well. Banks in Canada didn't collapse because our banks have tighter regulations.

First, no, they didn't bet against these mortgages (another Taibbi story, iirc). They were securitizing mortgages for years (back to Solomon Bros in the mid-80s). The products became more and more complex and they relied on computer models to help them price the horseshit AND convinced the regulators the prices they came up with were good. They became overly dependent on the models that said housing prices in Florida are in no way correlated with housing prices in Las Vegas. Once it became apparent that the housing market in general is affected by external factors and the CDOs started crapping out, they started to panic and that's when they started buying CDS to hedge their overly risky and highly leveraged positions. Yes they sold some deals that they thought were shit, and I agree they shouldn't be allowed to do that. But that wasn't a common trading strategy of any of the banks.

BUT, the sub-prime market was the problem and that would never have been created if the gov't did not mandate that Fannie/Freddie extend lending to low income and oftentimes unqualified borrower. Unquestionably, Wall St took advantage of this and acted like assholes. But they never could have done it without the encouragement from federal legislators. And THAT is why Canada's banks were somewhat insulated from the crisis, because Canada's gov't did not create an artificial sub-prime market. The regulations helped, but had Canada extended credit to sub-prime borrowers the way the US did, you would have had the same situation.


I am also relieved to hear young people like Phil and McGrupp saying people need to take responsibility for their actions. I really didn't think anyone from their generation would have anything other then the ME FIRST mentality that I hear from most kids in college I talk to for interviews. The kids bitching about college loans after they have already taken the money is the same thing to me as banks saying give us some money or else the whole system collapses. You knew what the deal was going in; if you don't like it, don't take it but stop crying about the grave injustices after you've gotten an college education (which itself is not really worth the investment anymore).

Like McGrupp said, the financial industry acted like assholes. But the only reason they could do that is because the gov't served them the booze and public gave them the keys.

[qop24]

Anyone who doesn't see that our financial and government systems are entirely broken and corrupt are either incredibly ignorant or have a safety net to fall back on.

I'm a little shocked by the apathy expressed by a few people here, and for once I completely agree with mattstick.

[mbw]

People have a right to do whatever the fuck they want, I'm just tired of hearing about it.

ATTENTION PROTESTERS:  You are bothering phil.  Please go home now. 

p.s.  there is a large cache of money under his mattress.

[mattstick]

I think it's pretty useless going back and forth.  Pension plans lost money, they were extremely devalued after the housing market crashed.  Goldman Sachs knew exactly what they were doing, hyping up the market long term, making short term gains and getting bailed out when everything fell to shit.

You continue to hammer on the point that we shouldn't bail out banks - and that's your answer every single time we come to this point.  But what's done is done - Occupy Wall Street isn't about that - it's about tighter regulations, more focus on Main Street being supported by government and not Wall Street.  Politicians should work for the people, the people are driving the Occupy Wall Street movement.

More regulation may not be a silver bullet, but is doing nothing and leaving Wall Street to crank the wheels of the next great collapse where they can all come out with another 9-figure bonus?  You really don't think that creating laws and regulations as to how those people can make money will change - if the incentive to make short turn gains is dramatically reduced, won't they focus on long-term gains in a more secure way?  I agree that they are, and always will be one step ahead, but smart people work for the government too - Wall Street's behaviour is cyclical and stopping them from getting away with things over and over again in the exact same manner is a better solution than throwing up our hands and doing nothing.

If former-Goldman execs are creating Monetary Policy, then exploiting it, how is that not their fault?  You don't want to blame them - blame the government, again - that's what Occupy Wall Street is.

You seem skeptical of Taibbi - who's axe is he grinding then?  He's not praising Republicans or Democrats - he's holding Goldman Sachs accountable.

Not that Goldman was personally at any risk. The bank might be taking all these hideous, completely irresponsible mortgages from beneath-gangster-status firms like Countrywide and selling them off to municipalities and pensioners — old people, for God's sake — pretending the whole time that it wasn't grade D horseshit. But even as it was doing so, it was taking short positions in the same market, in essence betting against the same crap it was selling. Even worse, Goldman bragged about it in public. "The mortgage sector continues to be challenged," David Viniar, the bank's chief financial officer, boasted in 2007. "As a result, we took significant markdowns on our long inventory positions ... However, our risk bias in that market was to be short, and that net short position was profitable." In other words, the mortgages it was selling were for chumps. The real money was in betting against those same mortgages.

It's funny that within a few words of each other you suggest that students who take loans because that's the only way they can get an education are irresponsible, but then you gloss over the banks responsibilities (after manipulating government policy, then taking advantage of it to make themselves ultra-rich).

Finally, the media has created this idea that Occupy Wall Street is about being lazy and asking for handouts.  People are lapping it up for some reason - maybe you think you'll get a 9-figure bonus...?

[VA $l!m]

People have a right to do whatever the fuck they want, I'm just tired of hearing about it.

ATTENTION PROTESTERS:  You are bothering phil.  Please go home now. 

p.s.  there is a large cache of money under his mattress.

lol

[sls.stormyrider]

You continue to hammer on the point that we shouldn't bail out banks - and that's your answer every single time we come to this point.  But what's done is done - Occupy Wall Street isn't about that - it's about tighter regulations, more focus on Main Street being supported by government and not Wall Street.  Politicians should work for the people, the people are driving the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Exactly.
No one person, or group of people, did this alone. People signed on the dotted line. Some were decieved, some didn't understand, some were just plain foolish.  But those loans should have never been approved. And if they were, they shouldn't have been hidden in a big package of junk. And it shouldn't have been rated AAA by S+P. And derivative and credit default swap trading should be regulated, like every other aspect of commerce.

Yes, I believe in personal responsibility. The responsibility goes both ways. Have the people at Goldman been held responsible?
Should someone who sold a mortgage that was defaulted get their commision? From my understanding about retail sales, if someone brings a product back, the salseperson doesn't get credit for the sale. Why shouldn't the same be true in this game.

And, most importantly, our politicians shouldn't be bought off by large mega rich companies.

McGrupp, I agree that the manifesto is to broad, but the bottom line for all of it is corruption in the ranks, and the people in the beltway need to get that we know what they are doing.

[sunrisevt]

do you vote?

Yes

If you're investing your money anywhere, these fuckers are robbing you.

Maybe it is better to just put your head down, work hard and not think you're not getting ripped off... who knows.

I put my money in C/Ds. I don't know much about investing, except that I'm not qualified to make risky decision with my money. Making .05% compounded daily over 5 years works fine for me.

That's not much more than average yearly inflation, dude. You're just treading water.

[sunrisevt]

Anyone who doesn't see that our financial and government systems are entirely broken and corrupt are either incredibly ignorant or have a safety net to fall back on.

I'm a little shocked by the apathy expressed by a few people here, and for once I completely agree with mattstick.

I'm with this 100%.

I think it's pretty useless going back and forth.  Pension plans lost money, they were extremely devalued after the housing market crashed.  Goldman Sachs knew exactly what they were doing, hyping up the market long term, making short term gains and getting bailed out when everything fell to shit.

And as I recall, there were some big public pensions in other countries that were ravaged by that crash.

[runawayjimbo]

Pension plans lost money, they were extremely devalued after the housing market crashed.

Saying that a pension plan lost money is a completely different thing than your original statement, which was people "have lost half their pensions." I know of no cases where a retiree had their pension (the monthly check they get from the former employer) cut in half. This is not a small difference. I don't care if you want to side with the OWS people, but if you're going to say something that's factually inaccurate, I'll have to call you on it.

Goldman Sachs knew exactly what they were doing, hyping up the market long term, making short term gains and getting bailed out when everything fell to shit.

Kinda hard for me to believe Goldman knew what they were doing and wanted the bubble to burst. I agree they believed they would get bailed out, but you already know my thoughts on that.

You continue to hammer on the point that we shouldn't bail out banks - and that's your answer every single time we come to this point.  But what's done is done - Occupy Wall Street isn't about that - it's about tighter regulations, more focus on Main Street being supported by government and not Wall Street.  Politicians should work for the people, the people are driving the Occupy Wall Street movement.

That may be what it means to you, but the underlying message as I see it is one that is staunchly anti-capitalism. When I look at this list of (unofficial) "demands", I can't help but get annoyed with these people. Because, as I've said, I AGREE WITH YOU that Wall St should be held accountable for their role in the crisis and that the system needs to be changed so that they can't write their own rules or change them in the middle of the game. But the OWS circus is going to miss an important opportunity to do those things.

When you look at that list, is tighter regulations the focus (again, understanding that this might not accurately represent the demands of all the protesters)? I don't think regulation is even mentioned on there. Ending free trade? $20/hr living wage REGARDLESS OF EMPLOYMENT? Free college education? This is what I see OWS to be about. And it ain't good.

If former-Goldman execs are creating Monetary Policy, then exploiting it, how is that not their fault?

Because Treasury doesn't set monetary policy, the Fed does. Greenspan is (rightly) getting the finger pointed at him.

I assume you were alluding to Paulson, but as you said, he was a former exec. Once he started working for Treasury, any mistake he made was not Goldman's fault, it was the federal gov't fault. You might say he should never have been hired; again, not Goldman's fault.

It's funny that within a few words of each other you suggest that students who take loans because that's the only way they can get an education are irresponsible, but then you gloss over the banks responsibilities (after manipulating government policy, then taking advantage of it to make themselves ultra-rich).

I wasn't suggesting students taking loans was irresponsible; I said if you took a loan, got an education, and are now demanding those loans should be forgiven you are an asshole.

Finally, the media has created this idea that Occupy Wall Street is about being lazy and asking for handouts.  People are lapping it up for some reason - maybe you think you'll get a 9-figure bonus...?

I haven't seen anything that portrays OWS as such. The opinions expressed on these pages is mine and mine alone. YMMV

[ytowndan]

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

[mehead]

You continue to hammer on the point that we shouldn't bail out banks - and that's your answer every single time we come to this point.  But what's done is done - Occupy Wall Street isn't about that - it's about tighter regulations, more focus on Main Street being supported by government and not Wall Street.  Politicians should work for the people, the people are driving the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Exactly.
No one person, or group of people, did this alone. People signed on the dotted line. Some were decieved, some didn't understand, some were just plain foolish.  But those loans should have never been approved. And if they were, they shouldn't have been hidden in a big package of junk. And it shouldn't have been rated AAA by S+P. And derivative and credit default swap trading should be regulated, like every other aspect of commerce.

Yes, I believe in personal responsibility. The responsibility goes both ways. Have the people at Goldman been held responsible?
Should someone who sold a mortgage that was defaulted get their commision? From my understanding about retail sales, if someone brings a product back, the salseperson doesn't get credit for the sale. Why shouldn't the same be true in this game.

And, most importantly, our politicians shouldn't be bought off by large mega rich companies.

McGrupp, I agree that the manifesto is to broad, but the bottom line for all of it is corruption in the ranks, and the people in the beltway need to get that we know what they are doing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for making this point.  The banks knew exactly what they were doing, but no one this country takes any fucking responsibility or accountability for their own shitty decisions. A lot of those people that lost their homes (I'm not talking about those that lost their jobs) knew damn well they couldn't afford the mortgage that they were signing up for.  Then you add the Adjustable Rate Mortgage to the fiasco - those people took it right in the ass - dry.  They're all looking to find someone else to blame.  I remember when my wife and I went to get our mortgage in 2004 and they told us what we qualified for - I asked them if they were high.  There was no way on earth that we could afford what they said we "qualified' for.   I currently manage in the consumer lending business but not mortgages.  However, I review loans every day and i see all kinds of crazy shit on credit reports.  I see people stretching out new mortgages out to 45 years - that's what the banks are doing now.  Before this crisis, when I saw a mortgage taken out for over 30 years, it was a red flag - and I rarely saw any.  Even with some of these people taking out mortages for 40 years +, they have no business getting these mortgages - they are house poor as soon as they sign on the dotted line.  The mortgage crisis isn't going to be over any time soon.

I could go on an on.........

[rowjimmy]

[ytowndan]

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP90d793c347f8436a99652195cff19b0c.html

NEW YORK — Police say they have arrested 24 people at a rally related to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in New York City.

The arrests took place Saturday afternoon at a Citibank branch near Manhattan's Washington Square Park, following an orderly march from the Occupy encampment in the financial district.

Several protesters had entered the bank to close their accounts in protest of the role big banks played in the nation's financial crisis.

Police say most of the people arrested were detained for trespassing after they ignored a request by the bank to leave.

A few were arrested outside the bank. Police say they are accused of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

[VA $l!m]

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP90d793c347f8436a99652195cff19b0c.html

NEW YORK — Police say they have arrested 24 people at a rally related to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in New York City.

The arrests took place Saturday afternoon at a Citibank branch near Manhattan's Washington Square Park, following an orderly march from the Occupy encampment in the financial district.

Several protesters had entered the bank to close their accounts in protest of the role big banks played in the nation's financial crisis.

Police say most of the people arrested were detained for trespassing after they ignored a request by the bank to leave.

A few were arrested outside the bank. Police say they are accused of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

didnt watch, but really its not that hard to close a bank account.
me, i just take all the money out and spend it. works fine.