Wall St. protests

[Mitchrapp]

Make that 700.

And I bet they were very peaceful, lol.

 

[hockeywings]

show evidence mitch...

 

[Mitchrapp]

For what? Some on here are just assuming the cops are arresting for no reason. I ask why this time, got no answer except for another post saying the arrest total was upped. Maybe you should show me proof.

 

[redandguilty]

Mitch[/color]]For what? Some on here are just assuming the cops are arresting for no reason. I ask why this time, got no answer except for another post saying the arrest total was upped. Maybe you should show me proof.

You didn't ask a question. You made a statement.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I just find it odd that on the 2nd or 3rd instance that the police just came and arrested for no reason. Again. Because all you wrote was 500 more, 700 now. Not much to go on, but it obviously couldn't be the young and jobless causing trouble.

 

[redandguilty]

Mitch[/color]]I just find it odd that on the 2nd or 3rd instance that the police just came and arrested for no reason. Again. Because all you wrote was 500 more, 700 now. Not much to go on, but it obviously couldn't be the young and jobless causing trouble.

I can't tell what you're getting at. I don't know why you think the police are arresting people for no reason or what your question is.

I posted the number of people getting arrested because at the time, the few news reports that existed made it sound like only a few hundred people were participating. For the police to arrest 500 or 700 is a significant escalation from 80. The big arrest got much wider coverage. When you replied "Police fault again, lol", I didn't deem that as a question or a point worth responding to. I just updated the number as new reports came out. From there you jump to some claim that people are assuming that the police are arresting for no reason, that you asked a question about it, and that nobody answered you. None of that ever happened. It's all in your head.

 

[Michchamp]

they were arrested for blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge. Blocking traffic is a non-violent protest method. It is against the law, but given the ends they are seeking (legal reform, finding and holding Wall Street accountable for the widespread lawbreaking that lead to the 2008 collapse), I think the means here are reasonable since just going out and voting has now been PROVEN to be pointless in this regard... If the Obama DOJ isn't going to do anything about it, you can sure as hell bet the other party isn't going to do anything about it.

 

[redandguilty]

Bingo Champ.

If Obama won't let the Bush tax cuts expire "you can sure as hell bet the other party isn't going to do anything about it."

If Obama won't close Guantanamo, support habeas corpus, or end "extraordinary rendition practices "you can sure as hell bet the other party isn't going to do anything about it."

 

[TheVictors]

I started a really long and genuine post about working "on Wall Street" for a small firm that was created because of Glass-Stegall and how many abuses I see first hand from the elimination of GLB and how abusive the monolithic institutions are and how Wall Street gives money to both parties equally (not the Insurance companies, they're the biggest GOP lobby of all) and how Wall Street and the Gov't are so intertwined at this point.....


But then I realized this was eroding into a debate between reporting the events of the protests and castigating "stupid, jobless liberals" and deleted it.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Closing Guantanamo, blashemy. The one good think Obama has done.

 

[redandguilty]

Question for dH2dRob: would the Volcker rule be a sufficient replacement for Glass-Stegall or is it watered down?

 

[Michchamp]

Mitch[/color]]Closing Guantanamo, blashemy. The one good think Obama has done.

you mean, blasphemy?

 

[Mitchrapp]

Pardon me you English nazi.

 

[TheVictors]

Question for dH2dRob: would the Volcker rule be a sufficient replacement for Glass-Stegall or is it watered down?

The phrase the 'horses are already out of the barn' comes to mind but anything resembling G-S being re-enacted would be a good thing, IMO.

Too many abuses the 'average investor' has no idea about. There was no monitoring of risk in an un-regulated playground and Greenspan for all his 'genius,' made a pretty big miscalculation regarding the Uber banks.

 

[Michchamp]

Question for dH2dRob: would the Volcker rule be a sufficient replacement for Glass-Stegall or is it watered down?

The phrase the 'horses are already out of the barn' comes to mind but anything resembling G-S being re-enacted would be a good thing, IMO.

Too many abuses the 'average investor' has no idea about. There was no monitoring of risk in an un-regulated playground and Greenspan for all his 'genius,' made a pretty big miscalculation regarding the Uber banks.

I can't remember who said it (Roubini, Stiglitz, Krugman, or maybe all three of them), but they said the Volcker rule would not be sufficient to prevent the same abuse from happening. anything short of an absolute barrier between commercial banks and investment banks will be abused.

Call investment bankers on their boasts: if they really are the "genius financial innovators" they claim to be, they shouldn't need to feed off of the federally insured deposits & deep reserves of commercial banks.

 

[mhughes0021]

Anyone against this protest is either A) rich or B) stupid. ALl these people are doing are voicing that they are over all the corporate bullshit that has driven most of america into poverty. Theyve taken away 2.7 million jobs in one year and employed 2.9 million jobs over seas in the past year just to make more money. That should piss everyone off and I applaud them for doing something about it.

 

[Michchamp]

Anyone against this protest is either A) rich or B) stupid. ALl these people are doing are voicing that they are over all the corporate bullshit that has driven most of america into poverty. Theyve taken away 2.7 million jobs in one year and employed 2.9 million jobs over seas in the past year just to make more money. That should piss everyone off and I applaud them for doing something about it.

it's also shitty that the media, specifically the right-wing entities like FoxNews or the WSJ (both owned by News Corp) are attacking some of the protesters for their lack of eloquence or clarity in articulating their goals... yet these same news organizations have no problem broadcasting the idiotic rants about "socialism" and taxes from the Tea Party retards, and branding their bullshit lobbyist-funded rallies as true "populist rage."

the media has also cherry-picked and edited interviews with the Wall Street protesters to suit their editorial goals... yet they ignore the ones that turn the lens back on them like this: http://www.observer.com/2011/10/exclusiv....terview-vi deo/

 

[redandguilty]

it's also shitty that the media, specifically the right-wing entities like FoxNews or the WSJ (both owned by News Corp) are attacking some of the protesters for their lack of eloquence or clarity in articulating their goals... yet these same news organizations have no problem broadcasting the idiotic rants about "socialism" and taxes from the Tea Party retards, and branding their bullshit lobbyist-funded rallies as true "populist rage."

the media has also cherry-picked and edited interviews with the Wall Street protesters to suit their editorial goals... yet they ignore the ones that turn the lens back on them like this: http://www.observer.com/2011/10/exclusiv....terview-vi deo/

media cherry picking does go both ways (left and right), unless all tea partiers are motivated by racism. On the other hand, media slamming any kind of protest is becoming the common denominator.

 

[TheVictors]

I've been surprised by the lack of coverage of the Wall St protestors but then again, these corporste sponsors who buy commercial time all do business with the Big Banks.


* We took no TARP money! And all took 8-12% paycuts, company-wide

 

[kingofdetroit57]

I started a really long and genuine post about working "on Wall Street" for a small firm that was created because of Glass-Stegall and how many abuses I see first hand from the elimination of GLB and how abusive the monolithic institutions are and how Wall Street gives money to both parties equally (not the Insurance companies, they're the biggest GOP lobby of all) and how Wall Street and the Gov't are so intertwined at this point.....


But then I realized this was eroding into a debate between reporting the events of the protests and castigating "stupid, jobless liberals" and deleted it.

You hit the nail on the head with G-S repeal being a catalyst. Look at the DJIA from start to 1980 when G-S was rolled back. It basically operated in the 50-1000 range over an 80yr timespan. From 1980 to present, it's operated in a 600-14000 range in 30yrs. When savings banks were allowed to become investment banks with little to no oversight and plenty of government intervention to reduce downside risk of failure, it was a recipe for disaster. Bankers became speculators with others' money overnight. The creation of derivatives and speculative bubbles in tech, housing, etc. have only fueled the fire even more.

I really honestly believe the market is in for a fundamental reset very soon. It's long overdue. When we hit 6000 in '08, that was a shift in the right direction and was where trendlines under the new reality of 1980 forward should have been when the dot com and housing bubbles were removed from the equation. The problem is that everybody has been trained to believe they should make huge sums in the market in tiny time spans, but that just isn't sustainable. We've been jumping from one bubble to the next from 1980 until now. It simply can't last because money has to come from somewhere other than printing presses.