Occupy Wall Street Movement

401 posts in this topic

 

Where did this crisis start? In the US. Who should we be angry at for beginning much of this- Banks in the US. Point proven

 

Google Greg Lippman.

 

DB did mortgage in the US just like the other big banks.

 

Why discriminate?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

His name is Jesse LaGreca, a freelance writer. We've come a long way from Joe the Plumber.

 

Jesse is one smart guy. He should be the spokesperson for the Left/Liberal/Democrats in this country. Thanks for posting that link to yesterday's interview. It saved me from having to do it.

 

Edit: But then again, there is Alan Grayson who appeared on Bill Maher Friday night and got a standing ovation from the crowd. Here's the link to the segment in the show on HBO.

 

What is the message of OWS?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

**Note: I do understand how the basic banking sector works- banks are *meant* to facilitate appropriate loans to the right borrower, and assist in trying to make sound investment advice for certain customers. Without loans, yes any economy would not be able to function. That however was not the point here, given ludicrous amounts of money that were unwisely loaned out during the housing bubble of the 2000's. That is where the banks went wrong and why people are so angry.

 

After making a lot of unwise loans in the 2000s, and given the weak economy, is it possible that the banks are now being very prudent in their lending? That's quite possible, and it's a bit hard to say for sure without looking at the same data they are (obviously impossible). Are they still carrying a lot of bad loans on their books? How much are they leveraged? What do their shareholders, i.e., the owners of the banks, want them to do? All of those things matter when looking at their current lending practices.

 

As for mortgages, ask yourself if you want regulation that would force banks to maintain traditional lending standards, e.g., at least a 20% downpayment and loan amount 28-36% of monthly income. If you don't, then you won't be able to prevent another housing crisis at some point in the future unless banks maintain very prudent lending standards of their own volition.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you're resorting to Glenn Beck/Ann Coulter tactics, out of resentment because no one cited your blog in this thread? I hope I'm misreading the message there.

 

 

 

I hope I'm misreading the message there.

You sure do.It is just my kind of sarcasm as I went through that kind of situation before and what I see developing is a mirror image of the 1930th.I just hope it does not get that far for your blessing as I'm to old to care very much anymore.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conky: Sure some people made stupid real estate loan decisions back in the day, but when 8 million people lost their job in 2008-09 and with no 'real' recovery since, how is that the middle class' fault?

 

For example: My brother moved to Vegas from LA a few years ago and his house is worth HALF of what he paid for it. He didn't get a mortgage, he paid cash. How is that his fault?

 

Our tax dollars supported the banks without representation. President Bush signed over 700 billion dollars with no strings attached. Congress approved it! No regulation to prevent it from happening again, and no transparency to prevent the banks from issuing those bonus checks either. Don't you know that if everyone was paying attention in '08 and '09, and heard the banks giving out billions in bonuses, that people got angry? I heard over and over, "Where's my bailout?" But what exactly could they do? This Occupy Wall Street is the first thing they came up with that has caught on despite the media blackout.

 

This is way late and a dollar short but the people are fighting back. It's about freaking time.

 

Should we continue this thread about the costs of college? We can go point by point on my previous post if you want.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Google Greg Lippman.

 

DB did mortgage in the US just like the other big banks.

 

Why discriminate?

 

Kropotkin- Given that this is a protest against large corporate American banks, I don't particularly feel inclined to protest at DB (even though they very likely were part of the scheme)

 

 

After making a lot of unwise loans in the 2000s, and given the weak economy, is it possible that the banks are now being very prudent in their lending? That's quite possible, and it's a bit hard to say for sure without looking at the same data they are (obviously impossible). Are they still carrying a lot of bad loans on their books? How much are they leveraged? What do their shareholders, i.e., the owners of the banks, want them to do? All of those things matter when looking at their current lending practices.

 

As for mortgages, ask yourself if you want regulation that would force banks to maintain traditional lending standards, e.g., at least a 20% downpayment and loan amount 28-36% of monthly income. If you don't, then you won't be able to prevent another housing crisis at some point in the future unless banks maintain very prudent lending standards of their own volition.

 

Conquistador- That is a very good point, and I did think about that as I typed my "note" earlier at the bottom of the other message. A lot of my guess is that the government laid out stricter regulating laws which may have them sitting on a lot of money. You could also argue (and wrongly so) that the American Dream should include a house and a mortgage for every family. There was a time that society in the US greatly favored this view. With the housing bust, I think it more realistic that (for better or worst) everyone cannot own a home in their name. Alternatives being apartments, trailers, etc. I am not advocating that people don't have housing; exactly the opposite.

 

You bring up a very good point. I still can't excuse for myself the other corporations (not within the banking sector) that are sitting on mountains of money, righteously calling themselves job creators, and then not hiring anyone.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-85138-1318190376676.jpg

 

From Daughter #1.

 

EDIT: Oops, attributed it to wrong daughter!

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just sat and watched that 'Inside Job' documentary ... in the hope that it can be shown (and needs to be shown) to a large scale audience I think I'll go out and invest in pitchforks and burning torches. Enough is enough, it's about time some bastards paid for what they have done and continue to do.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Conky: Sure some people made stupid real estate loan decisions back in the day, but when 8 million people lost their job in 2008-09 and with no 'real' recovery since, how is that the middle class' fault?

 

For example: My brother moved to Vegas from LA a few years ago and his house is worth HALF of what he paid for it. He didn't get a mortgage, he paid cash. How is that his fault?

 

Our tax dollars supported the banks without representation. President Bush signed over 700 billion dollars with no strings attached. Congress approved it! No regulation to prevent it from happening again, and no transparency to prevent the banks from issuing those bonus checks either. Don't you know that if everyone was paying attention in '08 and '09, and heard the banks giving out billions in bonuses, that people got angry? I heard over and over, "Where's my bailout?" But what exactly could they do? This Occupy Wall Street is the first thing they came up with that has caught on despite the media blackout.

 

This is way late and a dollar short but the people are fighting back. It's about freaking time.

 

Should we continue this thread about the costs of college? We can go point by point on my previous post if you want.

 

Maybe I'm missing something here, but when Congress approves legislation such as TARP, how could that possibly be "without representation"? TARP was something needed to prevent a systemic meltdown, which it, along with Fed policy, did. The middle class would have been a lot worse off if we had had systemic failure in the financial system. Now banks are apparently being quite prudent in their lending, and people are complaining about that- you can't have it both ways. I didn't like seeing the banks bailed out, but letting them all fail would have been far worse.

 

What year did your brother buy his house? I'll bet it was at or near the top of the market in Vegas, i.e., 2005 or 2006. Surely he bears at least some blame for that- didn't he know how much prices had increased in Vegas since around 1999?

 

The blame for the housing crisis and the recession can be hung on a lot of doorsteps, and since this is a balance sheet recession, i.e., caused by a huge debt buildup, it's not going to be fixed by Fed easing and some stimulus spending alone- the debt is going to have to be brought down to manageable levels and that takes time. The idea that bonuses would be given to those who presided over a huge increase in leverage, decline in loan quality and tangible bank equity is offensive, I agree. However, why wasn't anyone protesting a la OWS in 2009?

 

As for OWS, I think such protests aren't going to have any long-term effect. The problems in the US are a lot deeper than banks having bought Congress and the White House.

 

Feel free to discuss college tuition, that's a great topic, and we should, for starters, ensure community colleges have the power to award four year degrees.

 

moctoj2, it's possible to go on forever about someone is getting screwed over, but we need to ask why in order to have any hope in ameliorating the situation. Getting angry and protesting may feel satisfying, but, personally, I'd rather see problems actually solved.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Trabi

 

 

the market was relatively deregulated under the Bush years and they could create these financial instruments out of thin air.

The bank and Wall Street deregulation started with Reagan. Anyone remember Reaganomics. Yes, it continued through Clinton and the Bushes.

 

People, please watch the documentary. It ain't Michael Moore.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You sure do.It is just my kind of sarcasm as I went through that kind of situation before and what I see developing is a mirror image of the 1930th.I just hope it does not get that far for your blessing as I'm to old to care very much anymore.

 

That's a relief. Initially I thought you might be comparing the Occupy Wall Street movement to some proto-Hitler Jugend organization. In the Daily Show clip elsewhere in this thread, there's a montage of right-wing reactions. Coulter says the rhetoric and stance of the OWS protestors is similar to the rumblings heard before the French and Russian Revolutions and the takeover by the Nazis. (Don't forget Freedom Fries, the French are still our enemies as well as the Russkis!)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As Cinzia stated above, banks (and even other large corporations) are currently sitting on excess of ONE trillion dollars of cash (google it). It is small business that is hurting here, not large corporations, because even though large banks have this excess money (much of it from the Tax Payer), they are not loaning it out to small business owners.

 

And, it must be said, neither were they required to perform any such services to the American taxpayer under the legislation bailing them out.

I guess Congress just thought, or hoped, it wouldn't be necessary.

 

Remember President Obama's speech to the Wall Street honchos in 2010? A lot of people interpreted it at the time as a smack down on the large salaries and bonuses still enjoyed by executives after the bailout. Today, I think Obama comes off as pleading for the execs not to oppose what turned out to be weak regulations that eventually came of Congress' wish to show some legislative action on Wall Street before the mid-term elections.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Popped by the Dublin one today, Occupy Dame Street. About 30 people and a few tents outside the Central Bank. Probably not a good idea to sit around smoking joints at your protest. The police have kept their distance although tomorrow morning might be a different story.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why wasn't anyone protesting in '08 or 09 for that matter??? There were protesters but apparently the Media didn't cover it. I WISHED I KNEW WHY because my blood was boiling. . . . I think the masses were just in a state of shock and didn't know what to do.

 

I would guess that there was still a lot of hope at that time that the bailouts would turn things around and people could get back to their lives. Patience has run out by now, and meanwhile the unemployment numbers have gotten worse while the stock market has, for the most part, made gains.

 

It must be galling to turn on the financial news and hear all the rosy reports there when your own reality, and that of your neighbors, is so different. The financial news in the past few weeks has been gloomier because of the European debt mess, of course, but before that hit the press, the contrast between the financial and economic news was pretty startling.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now