Occupy Wall Street

Mostly dank memes.

Moderators: mogers, scorch-, Cory Cory! Price, laura

BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

You seem to use competition as a synonym for survival. And "Survival of the fittest" certainly has an agressive tone, but it is commonly misunderstood and misinterpreted. You and I do not compete against the natural world, If we want to champion competition as the pure and glorious truth of human living
Perhaps I should make myself more clear. I refer to competition with yourself. My I beleif is that one should constantly be working to improve yourself personally and professionally. Basically, remain self aware enough to be able to evaluate yourself and make the nessasary adjustments. If you do this, you will constantly getting better. I never worry about what other people can or cannot do. I worry about what I can do or can learn to do.

At both of my office jobs I have worked with all women, and I definately am a nice/shy//emotional/caring person. I cannot stand the "guy" champion attitude and working to stomp down others. That is not at all what I meant.

In fact, I would agree with you about cooperation. I was taught all about it in the dozens of teams that I worked with throughout business school. I learned from my mentors (the MBA and CPA) that PEOPLE come first. You can be as smart hell, but guess what? We're all smart. My teams will have people who are positive to be around and help the GROUP succeed. I will not let bad people be in my life.

One of my other quotes I live by is:
"The Brick walls are there for a reason. They're not there to keep up out but rather to give us an opportunity to prove how badly we want something."

I worked incredibly hard, but there were (many) people who helped me over my brick walls. Of course, we can't always pay these people back, but we can pay it forward and help other people achieve their dreams. Someday I intend to be in position to be able to help people get to where they want to be just like I was.

So if we should follow your advice and "not ever let anyone tell you that you cannot do something" then we really shouldn't listen to anything you say about how 'life is' right? Because if we want a different world, then we should go get it. Period.
Sure, if you want to pick apart a motivational quote. It simply means to not let someone else ever discourage you from becoming what you want to be.
The place where your belief falls short is when you accept this human system as 'the way things are'. But america and the american system are not real things, they are cooperative values we (humans) accept and follow.
When in Rome act like the Romans.
And what I see from these occupy protests, or tea party protests, or arab spring protests, is a monumental gaze being leveled at those very institutions and values that have spent a long time casting themselves as 'natural' and 'right' and 'good' and 'immovable'; those values and institutions you seem to consider axiomatic of the American Way. But they are all fantasy, and what we're seeing happen across this planet is a slow recognition of the edges of that fantasy.
Where were these protests during the boom years against these "evil" institutions and horrible ideas? Surely, they've always been "greedy and evil"? Only when the bust comes and it stops working for these people do they become angered. When the economy eventually rebounds, as it always does(it might never get back to the irrational highs of the 90's), they will be right back on the bandwagon.

A lesson I learned, is to never feel sorry about where you are and blame others. The only thing that will change it is action. Always trend towards where you want to be. Their time could be better spend pursuing job opportunities, networking, improving their skill sets, volunteering, starting their own business, ect. Basically, competeing with themselves to get better every day.

What positive comes what they're doing? Maybe if they bring down the banks, wallstreet, and corporate America.....we can live like Africa and then they can REALLY have something to complain about. Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

The fact is households are cutting back on their budgets because it's what's in their best interest. Corporations must also cut back in the same way. These two cycles and the liquidation and payment down on debt create a deflationary spiral. It's better to cut 5,000 jobs and stabalize a company rather than doing nothing and losing all 70,000 of them, wouldn't you agree? Or are these individual households going out and expanding their expenditures for no reason as well? If you owned a business, would you just start hiring people, buying more inventory, and building factories.....just because?
Sym
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:48 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by Sym »

Competition with yourself is great, a good motivating tool. But we're not really describing some kind of inner-fire, pump-up-the-volume motivation to wake up and approach the day. We aren't worried about finding the will to scale your 'brick walls' when we encounter them. It's finding a wall that doesn't have someone standing on the top of it kicking everyone else who get close in the face. It's that the brick walls all seem to have been claimed or built by others who--somehow--got to the top first but are now keeping everyone else away. Is it any surprise then that people start looking for ways to dismantle these walls instead of scale them? I mean it's not like they sprung up from the ground naturally. Brick walls are built.

And that cooperative spirit you describe is fantastic, why weren't you describing it earlier? Why did you focus on talking about the welfare-scum and lazy-good-for-nothings? These hypothetical straw-men and personal anecdotes don't seem to--at all--represent the "pay it forward" attitude you're stating as your goal. And the reason i pick apart your motivational quotes is because they can already be applied to the class of people who you seem to think need them. If the things you state as being important to you are actually the case, then you could easily find many commonalities with any of these protestors. The claims you make against them are paper-thin, and the arguments you bring in favor of your view are not that far from theirs if you're willing to think laterally.

To draw issue against these protests because they didn't happen during the 'boom years'(although they did, albeit in different forms and against different groups - G8/G20 meetings) is a red herring. But i'll bite that fish for a moment, if only to illustrate another point I see from these protests. That being we bought into the bull that those people at the top, whether in business or government, were super-smart, super-capable, and super-aware. We thought they were supermen and women and now we see that--not only are they not superheros--they're not heros at all. They're just people. And yet by many accounts they've been treated as an entirely different class of humanity in the aftermath of this. If a man lied about the risk inherent in a loan he wanted from the bank, the system we have in place would charge him with jail time and fines. But when an institution and its officers effectively lie about the risk inherent in CDO's and CDS's (just as an example), there's not a single thing for the system to do besides SUBSIDIZE it???

That's not a personal problem. That's a systemic one. So I don't see the issue being that we've got hard times, it's that we've got hard times and those individuals and institutions in place who facilitated these hard times were able to do so without much more than a stern warning. A system like that invites protest. And so we see them; tea party vs the government sector, OWS vs the financial sector. So to talk about competition internally, or overcoming obstacles, or creating opportunities oneself is really to both miss a number of important points inherent in these protests as well as to miss out on an opportunity to meet likeminded people in many other aspects.
`NG
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:14 pm
Clans: {GSR}. Soul. rE. sG!. [][]SQ[][]
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by `NG »

This thread has turned into occupy 1911.
User avatar
ward
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:31 pm
Clans: elephant shockwave infamy teamlol llama patrol
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by ward »

Reference this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Hippie,_Die <---- South Park episode.

[sp_hippies][/sp_hippies]
james-
Posts: 1130
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:54 am
Clans: dTh, sAs, Elite -DI-, 3h, bootman
Location: Tejas
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by james- »

Ward just owned this thread.

/close
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

And that cooperative spirit you describe is fantastic, why weren't you describing it earlier? Why did you focus on talking about the welfare-scum and lazy-good-for-nothings? These hypothetical straw-men and personal anecdotes don't seem to--at all--represent the "pay it forward" attitude you're stating as your goal. And the reason i pick apart your motivational quotes is because they can already be applied to the class of people who you seem to think need them. If the things you state as being important to you are actually the case, then you could easily find many commonalities with any of these protestors.
I'd be lying if I said I was objective in my stance. I absolutely have a layer of resentment and disgust.

I've seen people buy pop with food stamp money so they could pour it out onto the ground, and take the 10 cent cans back to buy beer. People who have zero respect for others or property. People so lazy that they pee in two liters instead of getting up to use the bathroom. People who woke up past noon every day. People who called me a "spoiled know nothing college kid" or said all I did was "drive around all day"---yeah to get to the place on the complex to serve you people. Drugs. Stealing. Prostitution. Lying. Selling the scooter they got from the government that they "needed". Big screen tv's. Daily casino trips. "I can say what ever I want to say to you because I pay your salary"---had I been a little older and a little wiser, I may have shot back with a "I pay my own salary as a worker here, and actually pay for you to still be able to exist".

At the risk of sounding agressive, who are you to tell me who my efforts of paying it forward should go to? If I find it personally rewarding to find ambitious, hardworking people where I can "see myself at that age", where am I wrong to help them get to where they have a strong desire to be? It wouldn't make me happy to help people that don't appreciate it in my opinion. I'll put my time and effort where I see fit.
If a man lied about the risk inherent in a loan he wanted from the bank, the system we have in place would charge him with jail time and fines. But when an institution and its officers effectively lie about the risk inherent in CDO's and CDS's (just as an example), there's not a single thing for the system to do besides SUBSIDIZE it???
Did they lie? Or did people accept things that they didn't understand simply because they wanted to live beyond their means? The teaser rates on ARM loans were one of the major issues. Buy a house now at 7% interest and then in three years the interest rate and payment spikes. Whose fault is it for signing this?

I'll say again, the banks had to be bailed out BECAUSE housing for people who couldn't afford it was subsidized, then those people defaulted in mass because of their overabundant lifestyle, and the banks had to be "bailed out" to save the system---the system brought down by the taxpayer living on borrowed time and money.
We aren't worried about finding the will to scale your 'brick walls' when we encounter them. It's finding a wall that doesn't have someone standing on the top of it kicking everyone else who get close in the face. It's that the brick walls all seem to have been claimed or built by others who--somehow--got to the top first but are now keeping everyone else away.
Where were the people to kick me off the wall? Why did partners, managers, and seniors let me into their exclusive world? I didn't know anybody. I don't have money. I'm a nobody. I started at a job lower than fast food. Where was uncle sam to hold me down? He didn't give me financial aid. Mr. Banker didn't hold me down. I got a loan for college.

People never want to look in the mirror and realize that no one owes you help you in this world-unless you find someone kind enough to be willing to do so. People always want to look to some higher power helping them or keeping them down. It's always the big bad banker or politicion keeping them unsuccessful. It's god who helped me. There's any number of examples, of someone always "blaming" something bigger instead of personal responsibility.
mare
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:49 am
Clans: bst, Plan-B, DaNiNjA, beyond, freshJIVE, FLATout, GLOCK, 151

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by mare »

This is a very interesting discussion and I must say I agree a lot with what both sides of the main contributors to the bulk of this argument are saying.
And that cooperative spirit you describe is fantastic, why weren't you describing it earlier? Why did you focus on talking about the welfare-scum and lazy-good-for-nothings? These hypothetical straw-men and personal anecdotes don't seem to--at all--represent the "pay it forward" attitude you're stating as your goal. And the reason i pick apart your motivational quotes is because they can already be applied to the class of people who you seem to think need them. If the things you state as being important to you are actually the case, then you could easily find many commonalities with any of these protestors.
This however, I do not agree with. While I realize full-well that holding this inherent tinge of cynicism and means of gross-generalization, supplemented by one's own personal history or anecdotes, if you will, can lead to a quite subjective stance on this issue; I must say that this is not entirely out of line, nor are these situations BrentMusburger is describing hypothetical. I may have misunderstood or be totally off-point here, but it seems to me you don't feel personal anecdotes such as these represent actual society? I can offer quite a few anecdotes of my own, but I doubt this would change your mind. Again, I realize what I have witnessed in my life has made me cynical and quite apprehensive to the sharing of wealth, and as a man of science I am constantly evaluating whether this type of thinking is just or not. I am still not sure. However, I do know with quite a degree of certainty that there is a real problem in this country with the way money is spent, a problem that is in GROSS disproportion to the rest of the western-world. Certainly we are all guilty of this on varying levels, however, by and large it is utterly out of control in America. If you want to deny this and believe the kinks will just sort themselves out with a sudden vast overhaul of our economic system and policies, then this thinking is just as arbitrary as believing the: "that's just the way it is, why change it?" train of thought.

We can look to socialist (if you want to call it that) societies in Europe and say "well, why not here," but that train of thought is entirely too simplistic. Bottom line is, there are far too many cultural and socio-economic institutions in place that make our country FAR different than countries like Germany, France, UK etc. and a sudden massive overhaul of our economic system to something that would reflect theirs, just would not work. On a side note, I am not really sure if these are their demands but frankly, their demands are quite unclear.

Here's a small example, you want to ride the city train in Stuttgart, Germany? Buy a ticket and get on, or don't buy a ticket and still get on. Everyone buys a ticket. There are no barriers of entry to get on the train. You risk the small (very small) chance of a ticket agent being on the train asking for tickets, but I have never once seen one and I have rode a lot of trains in Germany (all legally of course!). If you can honestly ask yourself if this would work in any major city in America and find the answer to be yes, you need a reality-check.

All of this being said, I agree to some degree with the protesters. Our economic-system needs to be tweaked. I don't think this is the right way to do it and i think a lot of them (not all) are idiots. I would even be so inclined to say the aggregate of them are sheep and don't know what the hell they are really doing or what exactly their demands are, but I guess the more warm bodies, the stronger the movement. If you want to deny this and pretend that the big bad media is just focusing on these loud incoherent individuals that we see daily videos of, I guess you would have a valid argument. The loudest people are usually the dumbest. If you feel so strongly for their cause, why are you not out there with them. This thread is bursting at the seams with so much "intellect," why not make your voice heard and attempt to counter-balance all the buffoonery we are exposed to on a daily basis?

P.s. Not that it really matters at all, I am not sure what the perks are that come with a positive rating or "rep," but are people seriously negative-voting someone (ie: BrentMusburger) for contributing a contradictory view-point? He's not being crude or caustic at all...but hey, god bless America and freedom of ideology right?
Sym
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:48 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by Sym »

I can understand your rebuttal in favor of anecdotes, and my sentence structure could have perhaps been clearer; but I have no issue against personal anecdotes, nor did I call his anecdotes hypothetical. If you reference my sentence you'll see I discussed personal anecdotes as well as hypothetical straw-men all within a context of their seeming counter to a 'pay it forward' perspective on life and investigating why that was (to which i've been genuinely and adequately answered). There are, in fact, lots of things personal anecdotes can do for an individual or group but their service as fuel for debate is minimal.

I can't discuss an interaction with Joe Blow who took his government-issued scooter and sold it for cash. Short of me going and finding Mr. Blow's receipts that statement is not up for debate. I take you at your word. At the same time, however, a personal anecdote would be better brought alongside statistical or systematic evidence to show one's own anecdote is applicable ~outside~ personal experience. I've yet to see that. And backing up an anecdote with discussion of cultural trends and nebulous personal values makes a far cry from backing up a position with data. I'm willing to have--and confident in--a debate in either arena, but I think it would be beneficial for us to put forward something we can, genuinely and without knee-capping, debate.

I currently work in property and casualty insurance as an agent, renters/homeowners insurance is part of that. Prior to my job as an agent I worked in retail for home decor. All together it's just over a decade of work-experience with home owners. My retail job didn't give me an insight into this mess before it happened; all I saw was a huge slump in customers between 05-06, culminating in the national credit slumps in 07. By then I was already in insurance, and my time since then has included a long string of stories from people whose lives and livelihoods were turned upside-down by this. And it hasn't stopped.

Two weeks ago I worked with a man who was going to remove his homeowners policy because his family had abandoned their home. Bought his house under an ARM in 01, switched to a fixed rate in 05 or 06 (can't perfectly remember), laid off in late 2010, by this time he was underwater by more than double on the value at his switch, kept things together via part-time jobs throughout the rest of 2010 into 2011 until his son was diagnosed with an illness I can't remember exactly but had something to do with meningitis(?) (not to seem callous, but when you hear as many personal tales as I do you tend to just focus on the emotional content so that you can empathize more genuinely. Plus I wasn't intending to use him as an anecdote at the time). In any case due to the repeal of KidsCare (our state's CHIP program), and the fact that his part time work put him over the medicaid limit but kept him off any health insurance at his employers, he took the money he would have put towards his mortgage and put it into medical payments. After a few months of that, well, it was time to leave the house. Owned the house for a decade, made his payments without issue, but then a quick succession of bad luck events pushed him out.

His story is pretty poignant, but the reason I bring up this anecdote was because I never heard him say anything other than the facts. He didn't appeal to my emotions or ask for any sympathy, he exhibited lots of traits that would be right alongside any 'by-your-bootstraps' disciple. He didn't tell me his story as a sob-story, or for pity; he told me because I asked him what was going on (it's a general rule to ask for more information when we learn someone wants to cancel a policy or do something drastic like this). I can guarantee you wouldn't find him at OWS, but I can also guarantee that he is affected by this crisis in a way that should not have even happened if the system was insulated and transparent enough to protect against systemic risk.

At any point along his example there could have been something in place to stop his downward spiral. If bust-cycle pressures affected the housing market and stayed there, it would have allowed a man underwater on his home to keep it and merely tough it out until brighter days. Or further on, allowing a man who does lose his job from the crisis to find another one in a sector not affected by the crisis. Or further-further on, allowing a man's son to get affordable medical care ,via the state he lives in and contributes to, without having to sacrifice other necessary payments. But at each level there was a failure, and I think I can adequately argue that the failure wasn't a personal one.

Sliced-up and multiplied subprime CDO's and shadow market CDS's (and i use this as a low-hanging-fruit example)--whose players made up every major investment bank in America--should have been transparent and rated honestly according to their risk, allowing institutions to keep their credit flowing without fear of collapse in its partners and recognizing when agencies and investors are shorting institutions via default swap hedges. When a financial institution takes a block of mortgages with subprimes, chops it up among its tranches, then takes those blocks and combines them into another set of tranches (CDO) then takes those CDO's and combines them into another set of tranches (etc etc) and then gets them ALL rated AAA how can any reasonable person look at the absolute bottom of that mess and point the finger there?

That shit doesn't happen because poor people buy more expensive houses than they can afford. That shit happens because institutions who are trusted and paid to avert risk and maximize profit are given carte blanche power with the world's money and no meaningful oversight to keep them honest or even visible. subprime mortgages increased because at the end of the financial food chain they could rate all those as AAA investment-worthy vehicles without so much as a raised eyebrow and slice off ridiculous profits via fees due to their 'complexity' all the way down to the mortgage lender/broker who got them to sign on the dotted line. Simply put, people were taken advantage of.

And the worst part is that when the damage should have been over, with subprime lenders being excised, likely defaulting, and the resulting obligations paid out, it kept going because no one could tell where the subprimes were and the people who crafted these didn't want them to see that they made up roughly one third of their assets. So rates went up-> pushing more (viable) homes into the red-zone-> pushing more defaults into the cdo's-> pushing more uncertainty into where the next bomb would drop-> pushing banks to just start writing down their MBA's as losses and *POOF* Lehman Brothers is straight up gone, Merril Lynch, Bear Stearns, and Wachovia are all bought in fire sales, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are converted to bank holders to receive stimulus money and avert their ~own~ fire sales and thus the beginning of a complete financial confidence crisis takes shape. We've seen the effect of that confidence crisis push into pretty much every sector of the economy as well as into government who (as the financial system's deus ex machina) shouldered the mess left by our economic system via bailouts and stimulus.

So, ultimately, the moral of the story i'm trying to put forward here is that personal values can only inform and shield us as far as our own personal reach, at some point the rest of the system takes over. There aren't enough poor-people-buying-houses-they-can't-afford on the PLANET to kill the amount of money that pushed through our financial system on a daily basis. But it happened. And it continues to strike me in my work and in my reading that by absolutely no controllable fault of my own, ~I~ could have been that guy on the phone. By mere luck of the draw I have no debt obligations, no family obligations, no home to own, and work in a sector that will never die so long as fear exists (and boy have we had it in spades for these past few years).

Basically, i was young enough at the time to fly under the radar. But in my own case i'm not a big proponent of relying on luck. Nor am I willing to rely on my continued success and personal will, because a lot of successful underwriters and financial innovaters--people with seemingly superhuman levels of will--have been culled by this crisis as well, not to mention driven blue-collar men and women who've been swept up at the edges of these affected systems. My mind and experience compels me to seek out a safe and moderately risk-free system I can live in and enjoy that living.

It just so happens I don't consider our current system that safe. And as I've immersed myself in the financial system we have in place it's just become more and more plain to me that the 'game' is rigged in america's favor and that rigging depends on sharing power and prosperity(safety) with fewer and fewer people. That, in my opinion, is a different discussion but one that I think the OWS movement seems to facilitate. For that reason, it has my support.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

The problem with AAA credit ratings like the ones on these instruments was that they were justified at the time. With home prices increasing, payment WAS practically gaurenteed. The debt service could be met. Until it can't be. Then all hell breaks loose. There's no slow transition to see "oh this is going bad, let's downgrade". One day it's smooth sailing. The next, you're finished. Poof.

I agree with you that many people are to blame. However, I will not excuse the average American for one second. They bought bigger and better houses than they could afford. They cashed out on equity to buy boats, fund educations, go on vacations, and live the high life. Every one ate it up because it was good for basically every sector for a few decades. The American style of economic empire was so effective that it gutted our own nation and left us a pathetic shell. We killed the golden goose and have sown the seeds of our own collapse. We rely on housing games to keep up our standard of living at the expense of others around the world. When the dream pops, we took the rest of the world down with us. The only thing that's keeping this sham afloat, and from people being able to see the true rot, is the ability to print more money.




It just so happens I don't consider our current system that safe. And as I've immersed myself in the financial system we have in place it's just become more and more plain to me that the 'game' is rigged in america's favor and that rigging depends on sharing power and prosperity(safety) with fewer and fewer people. That, in my opinion, is a different discussion but one that I think the OWS movement seems to facilitate. For that reason, it has my support.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=3482
US economic hegemony in this distorted Dollar System increasingly depends on a rising rate of support from the rest of the world to sustain US debt levels. Like the old Sorcerers' Apprentice. But the point is past where this can be gotten easily. That is the real significance of the US shift to unilateralism and military threats as foreign policy. Europe can no longer be given a piece of the Third World debt pie as in the 1980's. Japan has to cough up even more, as does China now.

Even ordinary Americans have to give up their pension promises. If the Dollar System is to remain hegemonic, it must find major new sources of support. That spells likely destabilization and wars for the rest of the world.
scorch-
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:05 am
Clans: #[e]xceptional.dod ~ #check-six ~ #jetty ~ dodod
Location: ventura,ca
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by scorch- »

CAN YOU ALL STOP IT ALREADY PLEASE.
mg_
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:16 am
Clans: gfb, ^p, jetty, tmd, schweisstropfen

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by mg_ »

However, I will not excuse the average American for one second. They bought bigger and better houses than they could afford. They cashed out on equity to buy boats, fund educations, go on vacations, and live the high life. Every one ate it up because it was good for basically every sector for a few decades.
I have a problem with this. I have a large problem with a lot of things you have said, but I have a huge problem equating education to vacations and boats. One is part of upward mobility, seeking a better life. That isn't bad or wrong, and quite frankly, fuck you for equating that with buying bigger and bigger homes.

I don't fault anyone for wanting better. I fault people for being reckless in their endeavors to achieve it, but I don't think the average American has been reckless. He's taking advice from the people he should and how to invest his money.

What the average person can't brace for is the unfettered speculation in the markets by a handful of hedge funds and investment entities looking to nickle and dime every single other person. The people who sit behind a computer all day manipulating markets and ultimately destroying small-time investors, producers, and employers with a simple key click.

It's become a macabre version of itself, and the rules are being designed to protect those who have all the money from having to be accountable for their unethical and often illegal practices.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

I have a problem with this. I have a large problem with a lot of things you have said, but I have a huge problem equating education to vacations and boats. One is part of upward mobility, seeking a better life. That isn't bad or wrong, and quite frankly, fuck you for equating that with buying bigger and bigger homes.

I don't fault anyone for wanting better. I fault people for being reckless in their endeavors to achieve it, but I don't think the average American has been reckless. He's taking advice from the people he should and how to invest his money.

I didn't equate education as the same as boats or vacations. I said people were using the equity in their homes to pay for things that they would not have otherwise been able to attain- borrowing borrowing and borrowing. In other words, living above their means. Some parents were refinancing to cash in equity on their homes to pay for educations.

Upward Mobility? Someone wants to move up a social class. Let's take your average four year degree+Law school. They're giving up say a conservative estimate of 7 x $20,000 of earnings( $140,000), and spending another $200,000 on college expenses. Then, they are going to have debt service costs compounding against them($50000-60000?), in addition to crowd out spending that will prevent them from taking advantages of possible opportunities (???) or putting their money to work for them (???)

Doing this is a SUBSTANTIAL risk. Not only do you have to bank on the fact that you actually find (and keep) said dream job, but you've now dug yourself a tremendous financial hole. A hole that you have to take years to dig out of just to get back to where you were to start, let alone to "have upward mobility".

Yet, people today take on these costs without batting an eye. It's a slam dunk they all say. It's my ticket to a good life. If too many people beleive this, then you have what we have now. Rising costs, and diminishing returns on the investment.


Trust me. When it becomes accepted or "the thing to do", you better be running the other way.
What the average person can't brace for is the unfettered speculation in the markets by a handful of hedge funds and investment entities looking to nickle and dime every single other person.
http://maysreport.files.wordpress.com/2 ... resent.jpg

Why don't you take a good, hard long look at that graph.

Do you expect me to beleive that the average American was oblivious to the fact that this was NOT normal? It was only the hedge fund kings and speculators driving this? It was the actions of millions and millions of individuals that created this. That they could buy a house for $200,000. Cash in on $50,000 equity a few years later and then cash in again a few years later for $75,000 more.

You want to blame the banks for people borrowing too much? Just because the money is there, doesn't mean anyone had to take it. It's a two way street. You could load a table up with sweets and fattening foods. If I chow down for a decade, do I look in the mirrow and blame myself for being fat, or do I yell at the people who put the food on the table?

Americans became addicted to free flowing credit and things coming easy from nothing. Consuming. Individual households were consuming more than they took in. You can do that in the short-term, but over the long-run, it's of course impossible. Without savings, there is NO FUTURE.

The bill fucking came due.
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:48 pm, edited 9 times in total.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

mg_ wrote:
It's become a macabre version of itself, and the rules are being designed to protect those who have all the money from having to be accountable for their unethical and often illegal practices.
“There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.” Sam Walton.


If the 99% doesn't like the jobs going overseas, then they should have stopped buying the cheap garbage. Then, as shareholders, they should not have demanded more and more to fund their retirements. If you don't like the way Bank of America or GM does business, they're unethical....take your money else where. If you don't like Goldman Sachs, tell them to take a hike, and watch them crumble.

No Ceo or company is immortal.

Suddenly, it's all the fat cat hedgefund kings who destroyed America. All these big shots up in their towers of ivory just laughing gleefully at the little people. No "tiny" group of 1% brought this about. It was the boss. The greedy American Consumer (I'm looking at you "greatest generation".)
JamesDecker
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:44 pm
Clans: noerror, crossroads, ghadgaming, g4n, HMC, Deuces Wild, Game Spy Rangers

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by JamesDecker »

Sorry but i fast-forwarded to this page and instead of stating my opinion, I would like to start by asking who the fuck you are.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

I am the 1%

:roll:
JamesDecker
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:44 pm
Clans: noerror, crossroads, ghadgaming, g4n, HMC, Deuces Wild, Game Spy Rangers

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by JamesDecker »

P.s I think its about time you all stopped asking why this happened and started talking about what should be done about it.


p.p.s I agree wholly with AlexKirk and Gwolf.

p.p.p.s 400 people in America having more wealth than the bottom 150 million should be changed, job creators and trickle down is a load of bullshit and the only thing maintaining current regulations and taxes is going to do is further hinder social mobility and increase our already horrific level of social stratification.
JamesDecker
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:44 pm
Clans: noerror, crossroads, ghadgaming, g4n, HMC, Deuces Wild, Game Spy Rangers

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by JamesDecker »

BrentMusburger wrote:I am the 1%

:roll:

Really, could we please have your accounts and monetary information to further emphasize AlexKirk's and Gwolf's points?
JamesDecker
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:44 pm
Clans: noerror, crossroads, ghadgaming, g4n, HMC, Deuces Wild, Game Spy Rangers

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by JamesDecker »

Last thing i'll post on this thread because I thought it was fun to do:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html
CharlieGiteau
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 9:49 pm
Clans: solidworks, pUr/fp^, gddLam, TeamLess, [38th], NB
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by CharlieGiteau »

JamesDecker wrote:Last thing i'll post on this thread because I thought it was fun to do:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html
Really...a NY Times link...they aren't biased...
User avatar
Sears
Posts: 2913
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:40 pm
Clans: cXt, blacksheep, 45th, a0tp, 63rd, devil^, em0, ubad, sssx, mvpz, Greasy Dorks.
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by Sears »

CharlieGiteau wrote:Really...a NY Times link...they aren't biased...
Clearly you didn't bother looking at the link, fucking retard.
JamesDecker
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:44 pm
Clans: noerror, crossroads, ghadgaming, g4n, HMC, Deuces Wild, Game Spy Rangers

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by JamesDecker »

thanks sears was just thinking the same thing lol
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

From what I remember....

The Federal Government is running a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit. For the past few years and will be running similar ones for the foreseeable future. U.s GDP is like 13 trillion dollars.

To put this into perspective for you, this current crisis was a 6% drop in GDP. If the U.s balances its budget, it will suck 11% of the GDP away directly (imagine that for a second). When that money is sucked out, GDP would also contract in the private sector as business activity would freeze up. Balancing the federal budget is suicide, and would gaurentee a Depression.


That entire link shows zero understanding of budgeting or how cuts affect revenue streams. For example, say we just cut expenditures in technology and save $20 Billion. Great. It may cost us $300 Billion because we missed out on a future innovation. Cut infrustructure now? Without keeping up on maintenence, it just defers the costs further down and makes them even more costly and disruptive to the economy.


All these talks of cutting schools, or social security, or medicare and there sits the 750 Billion pound elephant in the room.
http://bryant-cpa.com/wp-content/upload ... n-2007.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_II0H7X ... re=related
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:49 am, edited 4 times in total.
acetamino
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:03 am
Location: Burlington
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by acetamino »

Image
CharlieGiteau
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 9:49 pm
Clans: solidworks, pUr/fp^, gddLam, TeamLess, [38th], NB
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by CharlieGiteau »

Sears wrote:
CharlieGiteau wrote:Really...a NY Times link...they aren't biased...
Clearly you didn't bother looking at the link, fucking retard.
LoL, nope, sure didn't. I've just read enough BS from that paper, that when I see it...yeah...
scorch-
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:05 am
Clans: #[e]xceptional.dod ~ #check-six ~ #jetty ~ dodod
Location: ventura,ca
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by scorch- »

BrentMusburger wrote:
You want to blame the banks for people borrowing too much? Just because the money is there, doesn't mean anyone had to take it. It's a two way street. You could load a table up with sweets and fattening foods. If I chow down for a decade, do I look in the mirrow and blame myself for being fat, or do I yell at the people who put the food on the table?
The banks were fucking reckless, not the people. The people that took the risks and then got eaten alive lost their homes, their lives, etc. They didn't get bailed out. I don't really feel sorry for them or angry at them for taking risks. People do that sort of thing all the time. However, the banks (and the people that run them and invest in them) that lent a lot of money on high-risk investments got bailed out, and that gives them not much reason to remain not reckless 25 years from now.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

scorch- wrote:
The banks were fucking reckless, not the people. The people that took the risks and then got eaten alive lost their homes, their lives, etc. They didn't get bailed out. I don't really feel sorry for them or angry at them for taking risks. People do that sort of thing all the time. However, the banks (and the people that run them and invest in them) that lent a lot of money on high-risk investments got bailed out, and that gives them not much reason to remain not reckless 25 years from now.

And you're a lawyer? How...?

You don't blame people for taking out loans that they knew they couldn't afford? Buying a home is one of the biggest decisions you can make in life and a reasonable person does their due dilligence. If they are too ignorant to know, they should have hired someone who DID KNOW. A mortgage loan is a contract. People borrowed money with little to nothing down. They borrowed on variable interest rates. They bought houses when they did not have good jobs. They bought multiple houses to use as passive income investments. They continue to refinance again and again, rolling into larger and larger loans to cash out on equity. You do not think this is wreckless? That's not high risk behavior?

I would argue that debt forgiveness is a form of being bailed out. For tax purposes, it's even considered income. If I get a $10,000 credit card bill or $300,000 morgage wisked away in bankruptcy, it's the same as if someone handed me $10,000 or $300,000 cash. The banks are in trouble because people walked away involuntarily (they couldn't service the debt any more) or voluntarily (they simply choose to walk away from underwater mortgages). If you don't have banks, you don't have an economy. In effect, the defaulters, were subsidized (AGAIN!) by the rest of the taxpayers who still made their mortgage payments and played fair and responsble( bought houses that they could actually realistically afford over the duration of the PMT schedule).

The house became an ATM machine for the consumer, in addition to a place to live. Something you bought, flipped, and made money on. Then slurged with that money. See: The Housing value chart.

I blame the banks (and construction companies/government) 50% for making/forcing these questionable loans (cake and cookies). However, I blame the tax payer the other 50% for taking massive, uniformed reckless risks and expecting that the bill would simply never come due (frosting all over that fat face, and the pounds just stacking on). Is it reasonable to think that one could just live above their means indefinately because their house value was going up? That they could take on more and more debt...roll it into more debt...and come out fine?


I hope you're not a defense attourney.
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
acetamino
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:03 am
Location: Burlington
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by acetamino »

I really thought my wildcard post would end this thread. :x





Sears - why is there no crying emoticon? I want it now! I'm no man without it!'n :cry:

Edit - there is. Sorry I personally attacked you :cry:
User avatar
Sears
Posts: 2913
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:40 pm
Clans: cXt, blacksheep, 45th, a0tp, 63rd, devil^, em0, ubad, sssx, mvpz, Greasy Dorks.
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by Sears »

acetamino wrote:I really thought my wildcard post would end this thread. :x

Sears - why is there no crying emoticon? I want it now! I'm no man without it!'n :cry:

Edit - there is. Sorry I personally attacked you :cry:
Image
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

I really thought my wildcard post would end this thread.
If there's something you don't want to read or aren't interested in, why not simply not read it? I'll never understand how people across all forums will complain about this. "When is this going to end? Is this really thread worthy?"



:?
scorch-
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:05 am
Clans: #[e]xceptional.dod ~ #check-six ~ #jetty ~ dodod
Location: ventura,ca
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by scorch- »

BrentMusburger wrote:
scorch- wrote:
The banks were fucking reckless, not the people. The people that took the risks and then got eaten alive lost their homes, their lives, etc. They didn't get bailed out. I don't really feel sorry for them or angry at them for taking risks. People do that sort of thing all the time. However, the banks (and the people that run them and invest in them) that lent a lot of money on high-risk investments got bailed out, and that gives them not much reason to remain not reckless 25 years from now.

And you're a lawyer? How...?

You don't blame people for taking out loans that they knew they couldn't afford? Buying a home is one of the biggest decisions you can make in life and a reasonable person does their due dilligence. If they are too ignorant to know, they should have hired someone who DID KNOW. A mortgage loan is a contract. People borrowed money with little to nothing down. They borrowed on variable interest rates. They bought houses when they did not have good jobs. They bought multiple houses to use as passive income investments. They continue to refinance again and again, rolling into larger and larger loans to cash out on equity. You do not think this is wreckless? That's not high risk behavior?

I would argue that debt forgiveness is a form of being bailed out. For tax purposes, it's even considered income. If I get a $10,000 credit card bill or $300,000 morgage wisked away in bankruptcy, it's the same as if someone handed me $10,000 or $300,000 cash. The banks are in trouble because people walked away involuntarily (they couldn't service the debt any more) or voluntarily (they simply choose to walk away from underwater mortgages). If you don't have banks, you don't have an economy. In effect, the defaulters, were subsidized (AGAIN!) by the rest of the taxpayers who still made their mortgage payments and played fair and responsble( bought houses that they could actually realistically afford over the duration of the PMT schedule).

The house became an ATM machine for the consumer, in addition to a place to live. Something you bought, flipped, and made money on. Then slurged with that money. See: The Housing value chart.

I blame the banks (and construction companies/government) 50% for making/forcing these questionable loans (cake and cookies). However, I blame the tax payer the other 50% for taking massive, uniformed reckless risks and expecting that the bill would simply never come due (frosting all over that fat face, and the pounds just stacking on). Is it reasonable to think that one could just live above their means indefinately because their house value was going up? That they could take on more and more debt...roll it into more debt...and come out fine?


I hope you're not a defense attourney.
I'm not a lawyer. Not sure what that has to do with anything because you're missing the point of my post, but excellent attempt at a personal attack, Mr. Musberger.

Not everyone that took out loans and ended up in default were doing the things you seem to think they were. People, in general, are pretty unaware. When bank loan agents are selling them on these great financial instruments they have without talking about the downside (if the housing market ever stops expanding, you lose everything), it sounds great to the average consumer. There were a lot of people who bought houses bigger than they could afford because the bank sold them on the idea that they COULD afford it, without mentioning that the reason they could afford it was because they were banking on the value of their house increasing over the life of the loan. I'm sure there were people who were in the boat that you're describing and just chose to ignore the risks associated with what they were doing.

The people who defaulted on their loans paid the price required by law. I'm sure the people taking advantage of the system knew exactly what would happen to them if/when the scam fell through, and then they took it.

The banks should have known exactly how risky these loans were. They should have or did know that if the housing market stopped growing, it would be catastrophic. Most obviously, they should have known that the price of housing would eventually plateau or cycle down. The fact that they ignored those risks and then get bailed out is shitty... not because the individuals didn't get bailed out, but because the people behind the banks that participated in these risky investments with their customer's money should not be working in the industry ever again.

I guess I am of the opinion that the banks have a greater responsibility to do the right thing than individual consumers, because the banks are playing with other people's money while the individual consumers are playing with their own livelihoods.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

The banks should have known exactly how risky these loans were. They should have or did know that if the housing market stopped growing, it would be catastrophic. Most obviously, they should have known that the price of housing would eventually plateau or cycle down. The fact that they ignored those risks and then get bailed out is shitty... not because the individuals didn't get bailed out, but because the people behind the banks that participated in these risky investments with their customer's money should not be working in the industry ever again.

I guess I am of the opinion that the banks have a greater responsibility to do the right thing than individual consumers, because the banks are playing with other people's money while the individual consumers are playing with their livelihoods.
Some of these banks were beyond criminal. The most egregious of all was Goldman Sachs making large profits on risky loans, packaging them up and selling them as AAA morgage backed securities to get them off their hands when they milked them for what they were worth, and then having the balls to short the loans and make profits on their (assured)decline. So, I'll agree some of the people at these institutions have a special place reserved in hell.

However, the system failed on many levels, as Alan Greenspan outlined in his testimoney. I blame him more than anyone for letting the party go on and on and on. Consumers and banks alike were just riding the roaring 90's.


I will also agree that people are unaware, but once the real story of what played out is made known, it just makes you (or me at least) sick. All that expasion and growth. A bank on every corner. New subdivisions. New malls. Explosive growth in healthcare. Explosive growth in education. All of it was a lie. In community after community all the way cross the U.S.
mg_
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:16 am
Clans: gfb, ^p, jetty, tmd, schweisstropfen

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by mg_ »

BrentMusburger wrote:
The banks should have known exactly how risky these loans were. They should have or did know that if the housing market stopped growing, it would be catastrophic. Most obviously, they should have known that the price of housing would eventually plateau or cycle down. The fact that they ignored those risks and then get bailed out is shitty... not because the individuals didn't get bailed out, but because the people behind the banks that participated in these risky investments with their customer's money should not be working in the industry ever again.

I guess I am of the opinion that the banks have a greater responsibility to do the right thing than individual consumers, because the banks are playing with other people's money while the individual consumers are playing with their livelihoods.
Some of these banks were beyond criminal. The most egregious of all was Goldman Sachs making large profits on risky loans, packaging them up and selling them as AAA morgage backed securities to get them off their hands when they milked them for what they were worth, and then having the balls to short the loans and make profits on their (assured)decline. So, I'll agree some of the people at these institutions have a special place reserved in hell.

However, the system failed on many levels, as Alan Greenspan outlined in his testimoney. I blame him more than anyone for letting the party go on and on and on. Consumers and banks alike were just riding the roaring 90's.


I will also agree that people are unaware, but once the real story of what played out is made known, it just makes you (or me at least) sick. All that expasion and growth. A bank on every corner. New subdivisions. New malls. Explosive growth in healthcare. Explosive growth in education. All of it was a lie. In community after community all the way cross the U.S.

So, lemme make sure I get this straight, so I'm getting your incoherent logic about the situation.


Because large-scale investment banks and hedge funds created fictitious investments, which were AAA rated, that was supposed to be for corporations to turn to for new capital infusion to help drive the economy, the average person is to blame?

My father being upside down on his mortgage is to blame because Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Moody's, etc. all rigged the system and created a $6.6 trillion illusionary market based on about $15-20 billion in residential mortgages?


No, the average American isn't to blame. The average American wasn't reckless. The average American lost his job when these investment banks got into a dangerous game of chicken and decided it wouldn't be prudent to lend anymore. The domino effect was created. When people started to smarten up to the facts these hedge funds and securities were trash, then people stopped investing in them. This caused Lehman Brothers, AIG, and Bear Stearns to get caught with a ton of junk bonds without the capital to clear them. That isn't Main Street's fault at all. Main Street has been losing, regardless. The average American has lost ground over the last 35 years, but you're still going to turn and blame them. Not these dummy markets created.

Most people were trying to do the right things. While their real wages eroded, they tried to stay afloat and invest for the long term. That's not reckless. That's prudent. What wasn't fair to them is what these pension managers and growth fund managers were putting the money into, which the "average Joe" had no control over.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

Because large-scale investment banks and hedge funds created fictitious investments, which were AAA rated, that was supposed to be for corporations to turn to for new capital infusion to help drive the economy, the average person is to blame?
I've said multiple times that I blame both sides equally.
scorch-
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:05 am
Clans: #[e]xceptional.dod ~ #check-six ~ #jetty ~ dodod
Location: ventura,ca
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by scorch- »

BrentMusburger wrote:
Because large-scale investment banks and hedge funds created fictitious investments, which were AAA rated, that was supposed to be for corporations to turn to for new capital infusion to help drive the economy, the average person is to blame?
I've said multiple times that I blame both sides equally.
Look, no one's saying that the average person takes no blame here. But 99% of the population has no clue when you start talking about securities, let alone derivatives. It's too much of an investment to learn everything you need to know about markets and make informed decisions on your own. That's why financial advisers make so much money... and that's why it's so ridiculously fucked that people who KNEW what they were doing created the situation. These people invested their livelihoods in a permanently long position on the housing market without knowing they were doing it. You can say that it was their fault that they didn't know, but that ignores the fact that the financial advice they were receiving from people they trusted was what led them to do it.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

But 99% of the population has no clue when you start talking about securities, let alone derivatives.
Nor does that matter.

The bad loans had already been made. Default was coming whether the banks packaged them up or not.

These people invested their livelihoods in a permanently long position on the housing market without knowing they were doing it.
Hmmm. Do you see the problem here?

"when shoe shine boys are giving stock tips, it's time to get out."
but that ignores the fact that the financial advice they were receiving from people they trusted was what led them to do it.
There's an element of trust. As an external auditor, I believe highly in objectivity and integrity. However, there's something to be said for not asking the used car salesman if today is a good day to buy a used car. Of course financial advisors can generate fees and commissions based on how they direct clients. The clients should understand the world in which they're operating in and not be lead like sheep over the edge of a cliff. Get a second opinion. Do some independent research. Find someone you can actually trust. When I make an enormous, life changing decision, I don't accept Mr. Empty suit's word as the gospel.
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
scorch-
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:05 am
Clans: #[e]xceptional.dod ~ #check-six ~ #jetty ~ dodod
Location: ventura,ca
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by scorch- »

BrentMusburger wrote:
But 99% of the population has no clue when you start talking about securities, let alone derivatives.
Nor does that matter.

The bad loans had already been made. Default was coming whether the banks packaged them up or not.
These people invested their livelihoods in a permanently long position on the housing market without knowing they were doing it.
Hmmm. Do you see the problem here?
Do you think it is a problem that most of the population does not know how the bernoulli effect works and yet they fly on airplanes? People place their livelihoods in the hands of professionals everyday when they drive a car, fly on a plane, sit in an office building, etc. They don't always know who they are trusting when they do it, or even necessarily realize they are doing it. Why are you expecting them to be responsible for getting involved in complicated loan schemes on the advice of greedy, irresponsible financial advisers or loan agents?
mg_
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:16 am
Clans: gfb, ^p, jetty, tmd, schweisstropfen

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by mg_ »

BrentMusburger wrote:[
Nor does that matter.

The bad loans had already been made. Default was coming whether the banks packaged them up or not.
Defaults on the loans didn't cause the collapse of the economy. These loans made up less than 10% of the residential housing market. Many of the people were forced into foreclosure AFTER these institutions were trying to dump their junk bonds. You keep up with this diatribe that people are equally at fault, and it's bullshit.

You can't even point to a concrete to assign blame on. You just assume because people had a mortgage that was unaffordable at a certain point that it was always that way, never mind if they were laid off during the subsequent tumultuous period.

In fact, I bet you'd be able to seriously point to any concrete data that suggests enough of these went bad. What we do have evidence of is Goldman Sachs baiting Lehman Brothers into an overleveraging of assets and then dumping into the market the shares it had to immediately devalue the Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns interests. Ultimately, this is where we can all track it back to.

Hmmm. Do you see the problem here?

"when shoe shine boys are giving stock tips, it's time to get out."
Except that wasn't what happened?

There's an element of trust. As an external auditor, I believe highly in objectivity and integrity. However, there's something to be said for not asking the used car salesman if today is a good day to buy a used car. Of course financial advisors can generate fees and commissions based on how they direct clients. The clients should understand the world in which they're operating in and not be lead like sheep over the edge of a cliff. Get a second opinion. Do some independent research. Find someone you can actually trust. When I make an enormous, life changing decision, I don't accept Mr. Empty suit's word as the gospel.
So, what are people supposed to do? You'd be damning them for trying to invest on their own without any advice. It's shit.

No one said people were ignorant of the risks they could lose their savings. But it went far beyond this.

You keep obfuscating stupid obvious tomes with the reality which it was non-applicable. How dare someone who uses their 401k or Pension Scheme, which they really have almost no say in how it is invested, completely wiped out. Or better yet, the capital lenders to their company's business quit investing and their employer's business suddenly cannot get operating capital to keep moving.

Like, you've unfairly boiled it down. People went under on their house because their job dried up because investment banks were reckless in the markets they created.
scorch-
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:05 am
Clans: #[e]xceptional.dod ~ #check-six ~ #jetty ~ dodod
Location: ventura,ca
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by scorch- »

BrentMusburger wrote:
When I make an enormous, life changing decision, I don't accept Mr. Empty suit's word as the gospel.
Have you ever checked an airplane engine to make sure it was properly connected, operating at the right temperature with fuel lines at the right pressure before stepping on an airplane? Flying is a potentially life-changing decision and you're putting your life in the hands of someone you don't even know or have any idea whether they were even awake this morning while testing the vehicle you're flying in.

People have a little more power over the information they can get when it comes to mortgaging their property. But, for a lot of people, they just don't have the knowledge to assess someone's advice and so they decide to accept it at face value. After all, what sense does it make for a bank to engage in a loan contract that they anticipate will lead to a default? It's not the same as a used car salesman selling you a lemon because you don't have a reason to believe that the other party would want to invest in a loan that they predict will end in default. When I think "Buyer beware" in terms of a house purchase, I tend to think that applies to being aware of the seller's intentions, not really the person who loans you money.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

scorch- wrote:
BrentMusburger wrote:
When I make an enormous, life changing decision, I don't accept Mr. Empty suit's word as the gospel.
Have you ever checked an airplane engine to make sure it was properly connected, operating at the right temperature with fuel lines at the right pressure before stepping on an airplane? Flying is a potentially life-changing decision and you're putting your life in the hands of someone you don't even know or have any idea whether they were even awake this morning while testing the vehicle you're flying in.

People have a little more power over the information they can get when it comes to mortgaging their property. But, for a lot of people, they just don't have the knowledge to assess someone's advice and so they decide to accept it at face value. After all, what sense does it make for a bank to engage in a loan contract that they anticipate will lead to a default? It's not the same as a used car salesman selling you a lemon because you don't have a reason to believe that the other party would want to invest in a loan that they predict will end in default. When I think "Buyer beware" in terms of a house purchase, I tend to think that applies to being aware of the seller's intentions, not really the person who loans you money.
I'm just going to cave in to you and Mitch and say that perhaps my views are far too harsh. It's hard for me to step outside my own shoes and see what the normal person sees looking at these situations. I spent years in business school and practice as a professional in the feild. Please don't take this as me being arrogant. It's simply that the way I see things, the questions I would ask, the mistakes I see, may not be what someone else is even aware exists as an issue. Perhaps I significantly over estimate what the average person doesn't know---or isn't even aware that they don't know.
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

BrentMusburger wrote:I'm just going to cave in to you and Mitch and say that perhaps my views are far too harsh. It's hard for me to step outside my own shoes and see what the normal person sees looking at these situations. I spent years in business school and practice as a professional in the feild. Please don't take this as me being arrogant. It's simply that the way I see things, the questions I would ask, the mistakes I see, may not be what someone else is even aware exists as an issue. Perhaps I significantly over estimate what the average person doesn't know---or isn't even aware that they don't know.
What a stand-up post.

Reps brah.
mg_
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:16 am
Clans: gfb, ^p, jetty, tmd, schweisstropfen

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by mg_ »

I'm just going to cave in to you and Mitch and say that perhaps my views are far too harsh. It's hard for me to step outside my own shoes and see what the normal person sees looking at these situations. I spent years in business school and practice as a professional in the feild. Please don't take this as me being arrogant. It's simply that the way I see things, the questions I would ask, the mistakes I see, may not be what someone else is even aware exists as an issue. Perhaps I significantly over estimate what the average person doesn't know---or isn't even aware that they don't know.
I don't think a lot of people with mortgages are dumb. But when you need an advanced degree in mathematics to figure out how these investments are working, that's unfair. It is categorically unfair. The one thing law makes sense of is you need to comprehend or be able to reasonably comprehend what you're investing in.

The biggest problem that I have right now with people saying "OOOOOOOOOOH, they just asked unethically, not illegally!" is it is patently untrue. We don't know because the SEC doesn't have the man power to investigate what happened. What we do keep finding out is, time and time again, the mortgages this all rested upon were shoddy at best, or non-existent at worst.

Buying a house is viewed, generally, as a lifetime investment. And I'll grant you, America treated it frivolously. Lots of people loved to tune into "Flip this House" and those garbage shows on E!; however, I don't think most people in the U.S. really thought about going out and buying property like that. The law isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing, and that is protecting the right people.

Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citi Group, etc. all have an advantageous position when making mortgages with people. They have the capital. Responsible lending says you don't give it to bad investments. However, when these same banks are in a high risk/high yield investment banking scheme, then shit gets ugly.

I'm not above caving to the little guy simply because I want him to win. I'm about saying we should stop hosing him simply because X company has way more money and can buy the political swagger to go along with it. I will never look at a group like MoveOn.org or any other special interest group that represents people broadly with the same derision as I do industry. Companies exist by the pure grace of our legal fiction. Have limited liability corporations strictly because it adds efficacy to our business. They don't exist naturally. They're not you or I. What has become a problem over the last 30 years is the awkward contempt Americans have for disinterested government oversight and fear of government mismanagement, but somehow believing the people who work in business will always be right.

It blows my mind when I hear how government "can't do nuthin' right" and then hear about how Business is the Holy Grail.

My mother and father are both pretty business savvy. I'm pretty keen on securities. I should be able to look at where my money goes and figure out how it will make me money. The current system of derivative markets makes it impossible to figure it out. At some point, we'll either fix it or just watch the world burn.






By the way - I'm assuming you're ThatsRight.
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

mg_ wrote:By the way - I'm assuming you're ThatsRight.
Image
User avatar
Sears
Posts: 2913
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:40 pm
Clans: cXt, blacksheep, 45th, a0tp, 63rd, devil^, em0, ubad, sssx, mvpz, Greasy Dorks.
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by Sears »

alex kirk wrote:
mg_ wrote:By the way - I'm assuming you're ThatsRight.
Image
dane
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:06 pm
Clans: [RUNS], |nL|, uL, [e]xceptional, Revamped

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by dane »

This thread is glorious. Misinformation is awesome, keep thinking it was people walking out on their mortgage payments that caused the financial meltdown.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

dane wrote:This thread is glorious. Misinformation is awesome, keep thinking it was people walking out on their mortgage payments that caused the financial meltdown.
I did not solely blame the American public. They are a peice of the puzzle and I don't think there's any denying it. Just like any business or engineering failure, it's never just one or two things that weaken the system and collapse it. It's the combined weight of several factors pushing at the same time that lead to spectacular collapse that was never even envisioned---let alone planned for.

Oh, and I know far more about what caused the financial meltdown than you think. The mortgage crisis is only a symptom of a much larger problem.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1 ... 54,00.html
Does no one see that the tension between the dream and the reality is increasing and that this tension will snap, leading to suffering for millions?

Of course they see it! Investors can see what is happening. They wonder about it and shake their heads. It even scares them a little, sending chills down their spine. But they keep buying dollars as though possessed. The greater their doubts, the more greedily they order dollars. Indeed, that's exactly what is so crazy about these investors and their behavior: The client isn't just a client. He creates the security he's purchasing by the very act of purchasing it. If he were to stop buying dollars tomorrow, suspicion about the currency would spread and insecurity would grow. Then the dream would end. The dollar would start to falter and all the wealth held in dollars would lose its value.

The only way to fight a weak dollar is to strengthen it. Many people no longer care whether the US currency still justifies the faith people seem to have in it. The new game, which amounts to playing with fire, works exactly the other way around: The dollar deserves the faith it gets because otherwise it loses that faith. Dollars are bought so they don't have to be sold. The dollar is strong because that's the only thing that can prevent it from growing weak. Reality is ignored because only by ignoring it can the dream come true. Or, to put it still more clearly: Behaving irrationally has become rational behavior.

The faith investors have in the figure has actually helped create it. After all, the purchasing price of a government bond feeds almost directly into state consumption, just as the purchasing price of a share makes companies more inclined to consume. It also extends the credit basis of millions of private households -- which in turn boosts consumption. In this way, the expectations of investors -- including the expectation that the United States will continue to grow -- transform into certainties almost all by themselves.

In other words, the capital of trust creates the very growth rates it needs in order to justify itself. The rise in consumption isn't based on an expansion of production, a rise in wages or even an increase in exports. To a large extent, it's based on the growing debt. But why do banks keep issuing credit? Because they accept the ever-increasing prices of stocks and real estate as a kind of collateral. A closed circuit of miraculous money minting has been created.


Financial investors aren't tax collectors or accountants: Their job isn't that of a meticulous overseer. They love excess, and they regularly cause markets to overheat. After all, speculation is the business they're in, and being in that business involves living with the risk of going too far. Their professional attitude resembles that of race car drivers whose goal is victory and not avoiding accidents at all costs. What remains unclear is just how dramatic the crash will be. Experts have often forecast the effects of a dollar meltdown. If the downward trend were to begin, the dollar crisis would spread from the world of currencies to the real world of factories, businesses and household accounts within days.

Major and minor private investments yield lower returns. People would start to save, the economy would falter and eventually shrink. The first mass layoffs would arrive soon afterwards. US citizens would have to once more drastically reduce their level of consumption, as unemployment and waves of bankruptcy would shake up the country. Millions of households would become unable to pay back their bank loans. Then real estate prices and share values would begin to drop, having been overpriced for years and used as mortgages for consumer credit. When the real estate bubble bursts, consumption inevitably dwindles even further. The hunger for imports would fade, causing problems for exporting countries as well. It would only be a matter of days before newspapers would once more feature a term that seemed to have disappeared decades ago: world economic crisis.


Steroids for the giant

Last century, the United States already suffered from one deep economic crisis that gradually spread to the rest of the world. The Great Depression lasted 10 years and brought mass unemployment and starvation to the United States.

Today's investors face a difficult choice, one they're not to be envied for. They can see the relative weakness of the US economy and they're registering the tectonic shifts in the world economy. They know that a great statistical effort is being made to prolong the American dream.

The United States is an economic giant on steroids -- doped so its decline in performance doesn't become too apparent.


Weaker than they say

These days, the dollar is making a lot of people uncomfortable. One morning many dollar-owners will wake up and look at the facts about the US economy without their rose-colored glasses -- just as private investors woke up one day and took an unflinching look at the New Economy, only to see companies whose market value couldn't be justified by even the most dramatic of profit increases.

Much the same fate is in store for the dollar and for dollar loans. The United States has sold more security than it has to offer. The expectations traded will turn out to be valueless because they can't be met.

Biologists have observed similar phenomena in plants contaminated by toxins. Before they wither, they produce one last batch of healthy shoots -- to the point that they can hardly be distinguished from healthy plants. Some speak of a panic bloom.

Right now, everyone is watching everyone else closely. Everyone knows the dream of the stable economic superpower has ended, but everyone is keeping his eyes shut just a little longer.

So who will be the first to destroy the dollar illusion? Aren't all investors bound together by an invisible link, since every attack on the key currency would lead to a loss of value for them, perhaps even destroying a large part of their financial assets? Why should the central banks of Japan or Beijing throw their dollars onto the market? What could make US pension funds wilfully destroy their wealth, held in dollars? What sense would it make to send the United States into a deep crisis when that crisis could drag all the other states along?

The underlying motive is the same as the one that once prompted investors to buy dollars -- fear. This time it is fear that someone else may be faster, fear that the dollar's strength won't last, fear that every day spent waiting may be one day too long. It's fear that the herd instinct of global financial markets will set in and overtake those who can't keep up.

The dependence of foreign central banks on the dollar will defer its crash, but it won't prevent it. Today's snowdrift will become tomorrow's avalanche. The masses of snow are already accumulating at breathtaking speed. The avalanche could happen tomorrow, in a few months or years from now. Much of what people today think is immortal will be buried by the global currency crisis -- perhaps even the leadership role of the United States.

Incidentally, the commission that former US President Bill Clinton created to investigate the negative balance of trade concluded in clear terms that the government has to do whatever it can to put an end to the growing disparity between imports and exports. It demanded that the public give up its optimism and return to realism, that people start saving again and that the state reduce its imports in order to prevent too hard a crash landing.

None of that has been done. In fact, what is being done is the opposite of everything the experts recommended. Debt is growing, imports are increasing and an optimism now lacking every basis in reality has become official state policy. Lester Thurow, a member of Clinton's commission, draws the sober conclusion that no one will believe the US balance of trade could produce a crisis "until it happens."
dane
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:06 pm
Clans: [RUNS], |nL|, uL, [e]xceptional, Revamped

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by dane »

oil at 147$/barrel had a lot to do with it, but hey, let's bail out the banks who caused the crisis by over leveraging themselves in the nymex and OTC commodities market and fucked up when they got it wrong, seems like sound business.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

ending the wars in iraq and afghanistan! oh wait...
How could we possibly even suggest to end those wars that have helped secure our freedom?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is telling Congress that deeper defense cuts would force the Pentagon to cut back ship and construction projects, furlough civilian workers and leave the military with the smallest force since 1940.

Panetta described the implications if a special congressional supercommittee fails to come up with a deficit-cutting plan by Nov. 23. On top of some $450 billion in defense cuts already under way, the Pentagon would face another $500 billion in reductions.
Can you imagine the horror? How could anyone suggest that we cut back on defense? Don't they support our wonderful troops?

Sure we spend more than China, Russia, France, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, Brazil, India, Italy, Spain, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, United Arab Emirates, and South Korea COMBINED, but how do we know when we're really safe from these so called "allies"?

Of course this paltry appropriation, just under $750 billion (1000 Million...750 times) for defense excludes the entire department of homeland security, Veteran's affairs funding included in the Department of Veteran Affairs, Foreign military Aid covered in the State Department Budget, the funding for nuclear weapons that's under the department of Energy, and the CIA budget.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_II0H7X ... re=related

To be honest, I cannot figure out why the domestic economy isn't doing well. If we would finally grow the nerve to slash education, social security, teachers, welfare, unemployment benefits, medicare, infrustructure, and NASA; maybe we could get this ship righted.
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
lowcarb
Posts: 691
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:55 am
Clans: ghadGaming
Location: Delaware

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by lowcarb »

#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE#OCCUPYSTREETSOFRAGE
CharlieGiteau
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 9:49 pm
Clans: solidworks, pUr/fp^, gddLam, TeamLess, [38th], NB
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by CharlieGiteau »

Quite funny from both sides. I'm surprised the guy didn't end up getting beat up by some hippies who have nothing to do with the protest, but rather pitch tents, not work and smell other peoples' girlfriends feet while they're sleeping(read about that one).
[youtube]qdLa6c3hN1w[/youtube]
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

CharlieGiteau wrote:Quite funny from both sides. I'm surprised the guy didn't end up getting beat up by some hippies who have nothing to do with the protest, but rather pitch tents, not work and smell other peoples' girlfriends feet while they're sleeping(read about that one).
[youtube]qdLa6c3hN1w[/youtube]
Peter Schiff is a brilliant man. Then, you have some idiot yelling who offers no rational argument. It's not funny to me at all. It's actually sad how ignorant someone like her is. She confuses being loud with being right.

The rich don't pay their fair share? I'm pretty sure the bottom half or so of the income tax bracket doesn't PAY ANYTHING. They TAKE OUT money on net.

"What kind of car do you drive? THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A CAR. THEY'RE ON FOODSTAMPS"

In what fantasy land is someone entitled to a car? In what country and time was anyone ever entitled to ANYTHING, let alone a car? They should consider themselves lucky to even able to have access to public trasnportation or even a bike. What does it matter what he worked for to be able to drive?

Peter
"I employ 150 people. How many do you employ?"
*Silence*
"I pay more taxes than the entire group of you around me"
*Silence*


Those people don't want fair. They want what is already tilted in their advantage to be tilted even further. As they said, the avg tax rate payed is 17%, well the top bracket pays more than that in most cases 35-50%+. Far above average.

My father makes $100,000 in the midwest--hardly rich. He works from Jan until May as a slave basically (40k taken in taxes). Fair? What about the section 8 people laying on their ass every day soaking up every form of assistance imagineable. Fair?
Post Reply