The liberal zoo has emerged once again, with a thousand or so clowns of various stripes in wall street, and now some other cities. If a republican were president, you know they'd be screaming about him. But they are in the bizarre position of wanting to protest their economic plight, without going after the person most responsible for the last three years, obama, a person just like them. So they pick an imaginary scapegoat, "wallstreet greed". The crash traces back strictly to low interest rates maintained by the fed, plus leftwing meddling in the housing market in creating the subprime mortgage market-driven housing bubble, plus huge regulation that strangles business. If the want to see a representative person of the creators of the bad economy, they merely have to look in a mirror.
The "occupy wallstreet" loons
- Thread starter Patrick
- Start date
-
- Tags
- loons occupy wallstreet
A few points:
1) The "occupy wall st" people have some very radical views that would decrease prosperity and are just flat out bad ideas.
2) Wall St. "greed" is not so much a problem as the system that pushes it. Wall St. has been able to buy government- that is the problem. The government needs to stop them but won't because they win elections and money because of them. No sympathy for Goldman and company though- their actions hurt most of the country as their bought DC continues to support them. This is not a free market.
3) Obama is not in line with the "occupy" crowd. He is a corporate shill just like most of DC.
1) The "occupy wall st" people have some very radical views that would decrease prosperity and are just flat out bad ideas.
2) Wall St. "greed" is not so much a problem as the system that pushes it. Wall St. has been able to buy government- that is the problem. The government needs to stop them but won't because they win elections and money because of them. No sympathy for Goldman and company though- their actions hurt most of the country as their bought DC continues to support them. This is not a free market.
3) Obama is not in line with the "occupy" crowd. He is a corporate shill just like most of DC.
Wall St. greed is hardly imaginary. But please, continue to support the sell outs and traitors when they're gone it'll be nice to know exactly who supported them.
What do you mean, "gone"? Are you planning violence? And what exactly is wall street "greed"? If they weren't "greedy" what should they do - hold a meeting in June and say "we've made enough profits for this year, so let's lay off our workers, stop production, and stop making any more profits because that would be greedy."?
The inability of the leftwing skull to understand even a shred of economics continues to amaze.
Let's note just in passing that GS upper management has been like a who's who of top democrats and democrat supporters. You leave us to guess how GS "hurt most of the country". And one might just as well say the auto workers, teachers, and other government unions use of the political system hurt the country with their endless greed on behalf of their members.
That comment is as absurd as anything I've ever read on the net - it's exactly backwards - corporations have become shills for the left.
First off, the democrat statement isn't true. GS could care less about that. It's all about the money- follow the money and you will see what is happening. Also, Hank Paulson was a Republican as were many of his ex-Goldman advisers during his tenure as Treasury secretary (hence the "government sachs" jokes).
As for hurting the country- they have what is essentially a rigged market in many instances and they buy that rigged market. The political game is a sideshow- they want you to keep blaming the Democrats and the Dems keep blaming Repubs- it diverts attention from what they are doing. Meanwhile, they'll fund the latest deregulation or regulation that opens up morally hazardous policy allowing them to increase private leverage, risk, and profits on the back of socializing losses.
The marketshare of the financial sector over the past few decades is evidence enough that they are thriving and it is very arguable that they should not have gotten so big. It is also undeniable one of the reasons they did though was because of favorable government policy.
Absolutely not. If that were the case they wouldn't make billions in profits and give bonuses of millions. You have it backwards- this is probably one of the fundamental reasons why we disagree so much- the government sold out to GS and company, the government did not force GS and company to buy them.
Greed is laying people off rather then cutting executive bonuses. Greed is golden parachutes. Greed is causing a recession (and borderline depression) then asking for even more of taxpayer's money. But your a traitor corporatist so you'll just keep cheering this on as Wall St. sells out America to the creditors.
1) What is and is not greed is subjective. That stuff is greed to you, not necessarily to all (especially the first point as sometimes laying off people is justified and sometimes paying bonuses for talent is also).
2) They didn't exactly single-handedly "cause" the recession- they helped cause it, but it wasn't all them. In that case everyone was greedy- the home buyers who bought homes they couldn't afford, the bankers, the investors, the rating agencies, and the government. That might be a more valid point though.
Laying people off doesn't increase profits, and is usually the result of whatever nutcase thing leftwingers have done lately to wreck an economy: raising taxes and discouraging businesses from being created or expanded by endless rivers of regulation.
So the guy who earns billions of dollars for the company should get the same as the idiot who sweeps the floors? Uh, OK.
Actually, the recession was caused by typical leftwing stupid meddling in markets by politicians who never read one page in an economics book, but want to serve their minority clients so they can get re-elected.
AND THERE'S NO GREED LIKE GOVERNMENT GREED - WHATEVER THEY CAN EXTRACT FROM PEOPLE IS NEVER ENOUGH.
Laying people off doesn't increase profits, and is usually the result of whatever nutcase thing leftwingers have done lately to wreck an economy: raising taxes and discouraging businesses from being created or expanded by endless rivers of regulation.
When you're $50 million in debt, you don't give out $150 bonuses. Simple mathematics.
So the guy who earns billions of dollars for the company should get the same as the idiot who sweeps the floors? Uh, OK.
I'm thinking more about the people who run their companies ino the ground then bailout (thus the term parachute
Actually, the recession was caused by typical leftwing stupid meddling in markets by politicians who never read one page in an economics book, but want to serve their minority clients so they can get re-elected.
AND THERE'S NO GREED LIKE GOVERNMENT GREED - WHATEVER THEY CAN EXTRACT FROM PEOPLE IS NEVER ENOUGH.
Politicians doing what the corporatists who own the tell them to do.
But don't worry, traitors such as yourself will get what's coming to you.
No it's not. You keep accusing Patrick of being blinded by illogical ideology and while I often agree with you on that, you are doing just that here. Either that, or you don't understand economic valuations.
For example, giving that $150 in bonuses could mean keeping an employee that adds more than his salary in productivity who would otherwise leave. Look at all the engineering and math talent GS and the big banks have recruited over the past few years. Those kids go there simply because of the money- that isn't the field they chose to study in, but these companies are able to make them offers they can't refuse and in turn, they make these companies tremendous amounts of money. Even if the company might have debt, that one employee even after bonuses might make them money. Usually, when layoffs are made it is because those other employees are not.
That aside, the term "debt" isn't the best word choice here as GS and company deal largely in the debt and capital markets. A better term would be a red balance sheet, but even that isn't always a problem depending on prospectives- saying they were undercapitalized and at risk of not meeting obligations (and cutting lending) is probably the best use of words pertaining to this crisis.
My comment was aimed more at the executives who run their companies into the ground then demand their quarterly bonuses anyway and issue layoffs to cover the difference, not the ones that are actually competent (though it seems competent executives in ailing companies do forgo their bonuses and even salaries).
What I hate is when a complete failure like the HP dude gets paid millions after a few months. Hell they fired him because he was useless. But he still gets paid the "golden parachute".
Most of the losers camped out on wall street will mention the bank bailouts when asked what they mean by "corporate greed", from what I've seen in news reports. They'll say things like "why do they bail out the giant banks but not me?" The banks were bailed out because otherwise, credit would have certainly frozen, and the whole country would have gone into a 1930s style depression, not because the government loves the banks.
One young guy there said "I'm $80,000 in debt for my education, and now I can't get a job." Questions for that idiot: What major did you have? Did you ever delve into why college tuition has surged far ahead of inflation for years? Did you vote for obama and support him at the koolaid rallies, like most of your generation? Do you think anyone OWES you a job?
If government bailed out the banks, the reason for doing so aside, whose fault was it they were bailed out? Do you want to tax away the big "greedy" corporations' profits? If so, can you explain how that leads to an economic recovery? Do you really think that the harder government comes down on corporations, the better will the economy flourish? If so, how?
One young guy there said "I'm $80,000 in debt for my education, and now I can't get a job." Questions for that idiot: What major did you have? Did you ever delve into why college tuition has surged far ahead of inflation for years? Did you vote for obama and support him at the koolaid rallies, like most of your generation? Do you think anyone OWES you a job?
If government bailed out the banks, the reason for doing so aside, whose fault was it they were bailed out? Do you want to tax away the big "greedy" corporations' profits? If so, can you explain how that leads to an economic recovery? Do you really think that the harder government comes down on corporations, the better will the economy flourish? If so, how?
You're assuming they want to keep the capitalist (or rather corporatist) system going. Sticking it to Wall St. is a pretty good idea if their destruction as a major power player is the point.
I don't have a side in this one. But I doubt it will have much effect on Wall Street. They don't have to even see these people. They can do their business from anywhere. They can operate from their home or even on the beach with the right phone.
Many of them don't know or care how hard they make other people's lives.
Which is 1 of the few universal points of this protest. America is ripe for revolution, the gov't isn't trusted by anyone, separatist movements are gaining steam (Vermont will likely have a separatist gov't by the end of the decade if the 2nd Green Republic movement keeps growing like it is) and the economy is on the verge of depression. People are out of work in bread and soup lines, the people who still have jobs are working for min. wage part-time, tuition is sky high, prices are sky high and we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world and yet the best we can do is match Cuba (where healthcare is free BTW). The right had it's chance to shape the revolution and blew it by letting the crazies and quasi-fascists take over the TP, now it's the left's turn.
Those minority clients in this case are the big banks. If a fellow citizen bribes an official to pass a law that helps him and hurt the rest, will you only blame the politician, or both? Add in that the citizen also commits several accounts of fraud and the politician turns the shoulder since he was paid- do you still defend the citizen?
Well we are talking about the big banks here. Who'd you have in mind? Fuld maybe? Either way, the pay, etc. is not our business but that of the business and its shareholders- the people who actually have a stake. If they want to make a bad business decision, let them. Business is about successes and failures, good decisions and bad ones and it is often hard to tell what is good and what is bad- until hindsight that is.
If his shareholders agreed to it, who cares? They own the company, let them do what they want with their money.
And why did the banks get that way? They took on too much. A vital component of markets is failure. The government ended up having to bail them out due to moral hazards in place that were fought for by the banks. It allowed them to make such ridiculous investments. See my question above about the citizen and corrupt politician.
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll give you my response. No, of course not. They should also not be in the pockets of corporations though- which both the Republicans and Democrats are doing right now, allowing said banks to socialize losses and privatize profits.
They also have important market roles that improve things. The moral hazard with government entanglement is the real problem. As for caring about negative externalities- most people create negative externalities- the ones we don't realize, we don't feel bad for.
Sensationalist much? We are no where near such a bad position. And comparing our HC system to Cuba? Laughable.
Who says life expectancy is a good measure of a healthcare system? Correlationary evidence, especially weak evidence like that, has very little significance. A quick example: island A and island B are the same (including in healthcare system) except that island A has a volcano that kills half the population every 20 years. Island A's life expectancy will be much lower than island B's as a result of that, even though both healthcare systems are the same.
It is ironic to me that you find Patrick and company's arguments so weak, yet when it comes to scientific conclusions, you choose to use inconsequential datapoints just as they do. If you did it unintentionally (thinking it was a good measure), then apologies for this, but I feel like especially of late a lot of your arguments rely on little to no evidence. If you want to make a claim you need to use sound arguments otherwise you are either just misguided or being intellectually dishonest.