#OccupyWallstreet

[Nebor]

Crash and burn = total economic collapse. No more 401Ks. No more statements breaking down their investment and wealth portfolio. No man's land. Apocoloypse. Total catastrophe.

And I'm saying in that case, the rich will be far better prepared to weather the storm than the average person. They have walled compounds guarded by private security, mercenaries and the US military. They have bunkers stocked with a lifetime supply of food and water. Generators, fuel, solar panels, etc. If they're going to push the system to collapse, they're at least going to prepare for when it does, and their resources until that point far exceed the average persons'.

 

[Nebor]

We eat babies as well.

Well if you're going to abort them anyway, that's just being practical. :whiste:

 

[Macamus Prime]

Well if you're going to abort them anyway, that's just being practical. :whiste:

At that point, they aren't babies - they are fetuses - and they frankly lack the flavor.

We eat them just after they are baptized. Christians only, of course, since we are out to destroy Christianity and allow Islam to over run the USA.

 

[Macamus Prime]

And I'm saying in that case, the rich will be far better prepared to weather the storm than the average person. They have walled compounds guarded by private security, mercenaries and the US military. They have bunkers stocked with a lifetime supply of food and water. Generators, fuel, solar panels, etc. If they're going to push the system to collapse, they're at least going to prepare for when it does, and their resources until that point far exceed the average persons'.

The point is, everything goes poof. Debt is wiped off the face of the Earth.

 

[Franz316]

I get the feeling that this is only the beginning of things like this, the general frustration in the country is rising steadily. The Government/Wall Street is probably preparing behind the scenes. If there is one thing that Wall Street fears, it is disorder and chaos, and with enough people it is definitely possible.

 

[halik]

They must have seized brains behind that iron curtain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvPe2lBVmaA&NR=1

Starting out with an ad hominem is the best way to win an argument. AMIRITE?

 

[halik]

You know that Adam Smith was a big fan of bank regulations, right?

We created a situation that allowed Wall St. to fuck us over, yes. That doesn't change the fact that they were the ones that made the decision to do it. You can understand how a kid's upbringing may have created the conditions that pushed him towards being a criminal, you can accept our society's complicity, and you can work to change that. You still throw him in jail.

Again how did wall street fuck you over? Black van in the middle of the night dragged you to 1 new york plaza and Hank Paulson forced you to sign a mortgage note?

 

[fskimospy]

Again how did wall street fuck you over? Black van in the middle of the night dragged you to 1 new york plaza and Hank Paulson forced you to sign a mortgage note?

Not sure if you missed the news about that worldwide financial crisis, but it affected everyone, even those without mortgages.

 

[Zargon]

PokerGuy on the Westboro Baptist Church protesting dead soldiers' funerals:


PokerGuy on people protesting Wall Street:
ARREST THEM ALL.

yeah WTF.

its not like they are protesting something stupid, or crying at the g20/g8 summits being stupid anarchists.

they are protesting a system that 'just got done' ruining millions of lives


LOL at the one article that is crediting bloomberg for calling this 2 weeks ago, I have a NCIC brief on my desk written in august warning about the protest

 

[halik]

Not sure if you missed the news about that worldwide financial crisis, but it affected everyone, even those without mortgages.

Really? I'm still not hearing you explain how exactly it's totally because of Wall street?

 

[fskimospy]

Really? I'm still not hearing you explain how exactly it's totally because of Wall street?

Nobody claimed it was TOTALLY because of Wall St. In fact, had you read my previous post more carefully you would have seen that.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be deliberately obtuse here or what.

 

[PokerGuy]

PokerGuy on the Westboro Baptist Church protesting dead soldiers' funerals:


PokerGuy on people protesting Wall Street:
ARREST THEM ALL.

Legal vs illegal. Yep, very difficult to understand huh?

 

[halik]

Nobody claimed it was TOTALLY because of Wall St. In fact, had you read my previous post more carefully you would have seen that.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be deliberately obtuse here or what.

Im just trying to point out the absurdity of camping at Wall and Broad with the premise of "punishing" the people solely responsible for what in reality was a cascading failure of a complex system.

Between deregulation of lending standards, gov't mandate to provide financing to people that had no business buying real estate, no capitalization requirement for bond insurers, unchecked leverage in OTC derivatives, no personal responsibility in financing assets n times your income, little due diligence on the side of the sponsors, rating agencies unable to determine the extent of the fat tail etc. etc. Camping out in the financial district because wall street fat cats made you foreclose your house is the same as terrirsts attacking us because they hate our freedom. Same ignorant nonsense, opposite side of the isle.

 

[fskimospy]

Im just trying to point out the absurdity of camping at Wall and Broad with the premise of "punishing" the people solely responsible for what in reality was a cascading failure of a complex system.

Between deregulation of lending standards, gov't mandate to provide financing to people that had no business buying real estate, no capitalization requirement for bond insurers, unchecked leverage in OTC derivatives, no personal responsibility in financing assets n times your income, rating agencies unable to determine the extent of the fat tail etc. etc. Camping out in the financial district because wall street made you foreclose your house is the same as terrirsts attacking us because they hate our freedom. Same ignorant nonsense, opposite side of the isle.

No it isn't, that's an attempt at false equivalence.

Saying the terrorists hate us for our freedom is simply idiots saying something incorrect to make themselves feel better. Blaming Wall St. for this situation is completely correct. Who do you think pushed for the deregulation of lending standards? Who do you think chose to push their leverage that far? etc? etc? Just because there are other parties that also contributed to the meltdown does not in any way absolve those banks of their complicity in it. If you are arguing that they should add a few more stops on the protest route that's perfectly fine, but those banks knew exactly what they were doing.

In fact that's why in my original post I mentioned society's role in this meltdown. As I said before however, just because we might share some guilt in a kid becoming a criminal, you still punish that kid.

 

[Ausm]

If you don't like what wall street has done, then feel free to support the Tea Party who oppose the bailouts in the first place.

I really don't think you have to go to the extreme of backing the Tea party to be against the bailout of Wall Street

 

[halik]

No it isn't, that's an attempt at false equivalence.

Saying the terrorists hate us for our freedom is simply idiots saying something incorrect to make themselves feel better. Blaming Wall St. for this situation is completely correct. Who do you think pushed for the deregulation of lending standards? Who do you think chose to push their leverage that far? etc? etc? Just because there are other parties that also contributed to the meltdown does not in any way absolve those banks of their complicity in it. If you are arguing that they should add a few more stops on the protest route that's perfectly fine, but those banks knew exactly what they were doing.

In fact that's why in my original post I mentioned society's role in this meltdown. As I said before however, just because we might share some guilt in a kid becoming a criminal, you still punish that kid.

Presumably all those that benefitted form it - lenders to increase volume, sponsors to increase volume, people with subprime credit to get in on the housing, politicians representing district with predominantly low income/subprime districts, lefties as it fits their agenda of lifting low income, righties as it fits their agenda of laissez faire policy, anyone that owned real estate at the time ... and the list goes on and on.

Singling out one party in a complex game theory outcome is simply just fitting someone's narrative. That's why the analogy above is actually rather fitting, both of them are attempts boil down very complex issues into easily digestible black & white talking points.

 

[momeNt]

Presumably all those that benefitted form it - lenders to increase volume, sponsors to increase volume, people with subprime credit to get in on the housing, politicians representing district with predominantly low income/subprime districts, lefties as it fits their agenda of lifting low income, righties as it fits their agenda of laissez faire policy, anyone that owned real estate at the time ... and the list goes on and on.

Singling out one party in a complex game theory outcome is simply just fitting someone's narrative. That's why the analogy above is actually rather fitting, both of them are attempts boil down very complex issues into easily digestible black & white talking points.

You should have just said that your first post lol.

 

[fskimospy]

Presumably all those that benefitted form it - lenders to increase volume, sponsors to increase volume, people with subprime credit to get in on the housing, politicians representing district with predominantly low income/subprime districts, lefties as it fits their agenda of lifting low income, righties as it fits their agenda of laissez faire policy, anyone that owned real estate at the time ... and the list goes on and on.

Singling out one party in a complex game theory outcome is simply just fitting someone's narrative. That's why the analogy above is actually rather fitting, both of them are attempts boil down very complex issues into easily digestible black & white talking points.

No, it's not fitting. One describes something that is a simple falsehood, (terrorists don't hate us for our freedom) and one describes something that is correct, but incomplete.

Go look at the legislation that caused this catastrophic deregulation and look at what groups lobbied for it. You will find that far and away those contributors were the banks. Did you think that the subprime credit score lobby was somehow influencing bill passage? The banks were far and away the largest contributor to the meltdown. No CRA, no politician representing a poor district, the banks. They lobbied for deregulation and then abused it when they got what they wanted.

 

[halik]

No, it's not fitting. One describes something that is a simple falsehood, (terrorists don't hate us for our freedom) and one describes something that is correct, but incomplete.

Go look at the legislation that caused this catastrophic deregulation and look at what groups lobbied for it. You will find that far and away those contributors were the banks. Did you think that the subprime credit score lobby was somehow influencing bill passage? The banks were far and away the largest contributor to the meltdown. No CRA, no politician representing a poor district, the banks. They lobbied for deregulation and then abused it when they got what they wanted.

Well if you wanna get technical, starting in the mid 90s FNMA and FHLMC had a mandate of what % of their portfolio had to be subprime (combined they two entities are 40% of the secondary market) and after 96 it included mandate for "specially affordable loans". Those percentage requirements went up as well.

It's not surprising (in retrospect) that there was a self-reinforcing dynamic in the system - each and every person i've listed was benefitting from what was happening. As I said, placing blame exclusively on a single action is just showing your bias.

 

[fskimospy]

Well if you wanna get technical, starting in the mid 90s FNMA and FHLMC had a mandate of what % of their portfolio had to be subprime (combined they two entities are 40% of the secondary market) and after 96 it included mandate for "specially affordable loans".

RThis has been argued to death on here and I have no interest in doing it yet again, particularly as it is at best tangential to the point here.

Protesting Wall St. is perfectly legitimate in this situation. Period.

 

[JSt0rm]

Oh snap he done brought out pointy graphs.

 

[PokerGuy]

Protesting Wall St. is perfectly legitimate in this situation. Period.

It's idiotic and pointless and can not possibly result in anything useful. I guess the good part is that those idiots are over there wasting their time instead of doing something else stupid instead.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's idiotic and pointless and can not possibly result in anything useful. I guess the good part is that those idiots are over there wasting their time instead of doing something else stupid instead.

So then by your own admission it did result in something useful.

 

[fskimospy]

It's idiotic and pointless and can not possibly result in anything useful. I guess the good part is that those idiots are over there wasting their time instead of doing something else stupid instead.

The purpose of protesting is to draw attention to an issue. The fact that we are discussing it means that it did exactly that. Mission accomplished.

 

[Zeze]

The purpose of protesting is to draw attention to an issue. The fact that we are discussing it means that it did exactly that. Mission accomplished.

I live 5 blocks from Wall St. I had no idea this happened nor anything was slightly different here.

No one gave a shit. These Wallstreet CEOs probably mosquito farted at this cute 'protest'.

Nothing happened. They're still corrupt and rich as fuck. Not a single fuck was given that day.