#occupy<insertlocalehere>

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

It just sounds very stupid.

Take out "corporate greed," "bad banking" and "stupid people making selfish decisions at the top" and leave "governance systems" and you've finally got some proper focus.

And if that's where you are - protesting "governance systems" - then why are you protesting on Wall St?

You should be at the state legislature or in Washington or on the campaign trail attacking politicians because that is where "governance systems" will be influenced.

I was just listening to Obama's speech on TV and he basically said, almost word-for-word, the same thing I said earlier in this thread . . . . . . that we are likely finding, generally, that no laws were broken in 2008, hence a lack of criminal charges, that Wall St. types are among the best and brightest among us and very clever and opportunitistic if an opening is presented to them through a weakened regulatory environment, that they are very profit-oriented even in the face of moral ambiguity, which isn't a crime in the current regulatory environment, and that the regulatory and supervisory functions had been weakened too far by politicians through multiple administrations.

Seriously, he said exactly that.

And, my point earlier in the thread, if you loosen the cages at the zoo enough so that the Lions can get out, don't be surprised if they do what comes instinctively and naturally, including taking down innocent men, women and children in the streets.

This is really about the regulatory environment.

Put the lions back in regulatory cages where they can do what they do best and which is extremely helpful to global commerce . . . . but keep the cage just tight enough that they can't hurt you as well.

That's the job of your duly elected politicians.

In Egypt, in Iran, in Syria, in Libya . . . . its about regime-change. The demand is pretty clear and simple.

I guess you gotta protest somewhere and probably about something but yes, a lack of a focussed message with a clear agenda is probably hurting the Occupy Wall St. movement. They're frustrated but they sound like illiterate dummies frankly.

Cowperson

That's fantastic Cow. Now can you convince the growing number of people who are participating in these protests and the dearth of people supporting them across the United States and into Canada? I'm not sure how it's hurting the message. Seems like people who have been affected by bad governance and for-profit banks that didn't stop these people when they were bombarded with "it's not bad for you!" advertising for subprime mortgages are the ones losing their jobs and livelihoods.

You can frame the picture the way you want, and say no crimes were committed - but somebody clearly won at the expense of others - and it's affecting people's lives. And that's more than enough to send the common man to the streets to protest, even if educated types who know more about the situation see a bigger picture.

[Ozy_Flame]

BTW, protesting Wall Street, in particular, is clearly a symbolic figurehead. I'm pretty sure that's obvious. It has name value and serves as a beacon for what's broken, even if some don't agree.

[mikey_the_redneck]

If dumping private banking losses on the public balance sheet isn't a crime, then I don't know what is. The clowns down at Goldman Sachs/J.P. Morgan knew exactly what they were doing, and over the years have infiltrated/lobbied the government to create favorable conditions for themselves and eliminate competition.

People are finally becoming aware that Wall St. and the Whitehouse are basically business partners. They are one and the same. Get out the guillotines!

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by valo403

We would be well and truly f'd. Completely. People act like only the banks benefited from those bailouts, when the reality is that there was such a lack of liquidity in the market that employers of millions would have been unable to make payroll.

...it was just delaying the inevitable. we are truly f'd SOON, just not in '08.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

...it was just delaying the inevitable. we are truly f'd SOON, just not in '08.

Possibly, but a failure to act in 08 would have guaranteed it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If dumping private banking losses on the public balance sheet isn't a crime, then I don't know what is. The clowns down at Goldman Sachs/J.P. Morgan knew exactly what they were doing, and over the years have infiltrated/lobbied the government to create favorable conditions for themselves and eliminate competition.

People are finally becoming aware that Wall St. and the Whitehouse are basically business partners. They are one and the same. Get out the guillotines!

So what crime was it exactly? What charges do you propose be brought? Under what laws?

I don't think everything was done according to the law, nor has that changed today, but the vast majority of the transactions and conditions that lead to the mortgage crisis were completely above board. They were the product of a system that allowed banks and related entities to do almost as they pleased, conditions that lead to some pretty high living years before the eventual crash. The system certainly needs to be overhauled, and regulatory bodies need to actually regulate, but it's hard to call past actions in a virtually lawless land a crime.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by valo403

So what crime was it exactly? What charges do you propose be brought? Under what laws?

I don't think everything was done according to the law, nor has that changed today, but the vast majority of the transactions and conditions that lead to the mortgage crisis were completely above board. They were the product of a system that allowed banks and related entities to do almost as they pleased, conditions that lead to some pretty high living years before the eventual crash. The system certainly needs to be overhauled, and regulatory bodies need to actually regulate, but it's hard to call past actions in a virtually lawless land a crime.

And no one - NO ONE - that was high up enough saw collapse in the near future, or if they did, raised the red flags. Banks were all too happy to let it continue as long as they were making the bucks.

There might not have been criminal activity per se (although that's highly debatable), but at what point does doing a disservice to society constitute a social crime.

I just keep coming back to the philosophy that EVERYONE should have lived by before 2008 - Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

And no one - NO ONE - that was high up enough saw collapse in the near future, or if they did, raised the red flags. Banks were all too happy to let it continue as long as they were making the bucks.

There might not have been criminal activity per se (although that's highly debatable), but at what point does doing a disservice to society constitute a social crime.

I just keep coming back to the philosophy that EVERYONE should have lived by before 2008 - Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Well that's all nice and cute, but it's completely disconnected from reality. Social crime? Seriously? Why wouldn't banks be all too happy to continue as long as they were making the bucks? That's their job!!

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That's fantastic Cow. Now can you convince the growing number of people who are participating in these protests and the dearth of people supporting them across the United States and into Canada? I'm not sure how it's hurting the message. Seems like people who have been affected by bad governance and for-profit banks that didn't stop these people when they were bombarded with "it's not bad for you!" advertising for subprime mortgages are the ones losing their jobs and livelihoods.

You can frame the picture the way you want, and say no crimes were committed - but somebody clearly won at the expense of others - and it's affecting people's lives. And that's more than enough to send the common man to the streets to protest, even if educated types who know more about the situation see a bigger picture.

Its not a crime to win. Nor should it ever be.

Its not a crime to see a hole in a regulatory umbrella and exploit it, in spite of moral ambiguity . . . . something Obama himself said earlier today.

Its not actually a crime to have a short term profit point of view while lacking vision of the long-term consequences . . . . and shareholders can throw out Boards if they disagree and can organize the votes.

Its not a crime, necessarily, to be a flat out idiot either.

Certain types of "crimes" were actually committed in 2008 in terms of "failure to disclose" and weighty fines were imposed on financial firms and duly paid. And again, those types of fines/penalties, the structure of it all, are effectively created by politicians.

Obama said today that the future might be that you make those "crimes," for which the penalties are only fines right now, into "crimes" in which people pay with time in jail . . . . . . . . but right now they are not. Hence no one in jail and probably not going to happen either.

As I said, all of this has happened before and all of this will happen again.

In 1987, I think Prudential had to come up with about $1.2 billion in a class action plus regulatory penalties for failing to disclose certain oil/gas trusts were depreciating assets - the oil would eventually be pumped out of the ground and the well would go dry - and income streams would end.

I kind of laugh a bit at the "corporate greed" thing since the Dow returned about 1.9% per annum for the 2000's. Not a lot of people got rich on the stock market. Right now, today, the S & P 500 is sitting in the same place it was in 1998. Zero growth. Stock options can also be a noose around your neck in that kind of situation.

They got rich in unregulated and unsupervised environments, in some cases markets easily manipulated, like derivatives and real estate where the greed of the common man came into play as well. You didn't have to own two or three houses and you didn't have to buy a $1 million house with zero down.

It started to look a little like the Tulip Mania.

We saw this in Canada in the 90's I think when insurance companies were in danger of being pulled down by massive losses in subsidiary trust companies. Smaller scale then but kind of similar to today where investment banking arms were taking down generally successful banks.

And it will happen again, in spite of protests and tighter regulations. Someone always has a bright idea and everyone piles in, usually with leverage and usually in an environment lacking oversight or regulation. The lions being let out of the cage. Then it explodes.

A few thousand protesters in a USA/Canada population of 360 million or so isn't exactly an epidemic yet.

We'll see where it goes.

People are frustrated though but generally I get the sense that frustration is over politicians failing to govern.

If dumping private banking losses on the public balance sheet isn't a crime, then I don't know what is.

Government, duly elected by taxpayers, decided to take that upon itself.

You have lots of opposing points of view among the duly elected that government shouldn't have done that. And history in the 1920's and 30's where that actually happened.

If I'm not mistaken, about 3,000 banks/financial institutions have gone belly up in the USA since about 1980. Its not like there isn't precedent.

Pure financial firms, by the way, have largely paid back the money forwarded to them by taxpayers, generally to the profit of taxpayers actually. I think it was in the 1990's that taxpayers also profited in a similar, but smaller and more contained situation.

It would be more fair to say economic damage coming from a loss of global confidence, created by a financial system being completely paralyzed and bringing the global economy to a grinding halt, led to a very large dollar amount of lost tax revenues and excessive expenditures.

That's the bill government is dealing with.

Cowperson

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well that's all nice and cute, but it's completely disconnected from reality. Social crime? Seriously? Why wouldn't banks be all too happy to continue as long as they were making the bucks? That's their job!!

I don't think thousands of people protesting these very 'crimes' is disconnected from reality. It's happening right now. And the banks doing the 'job' they did are damn near bringing the American economy to its knees.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by valo403

So what crime was it exactly? What charges do you propose be brought? Under what laws?

I don't think everything was done according to the law, nor has that changed today, but the vast majority of the transactions and conditions that lead to the mortgage crisis were completely above board. They were the product of a system that allowed banks and related entities to do almost as they pleased, conditions that lead to some pretty high living years before the eventual crash. The system certainly needs to be overhauled, and regulatory bodies need to actually regulate, but it's hard to call past actions in a virtually lawless land a crime.

From my view, the Wall Street firms were not the only criminals. The people in government who enabled/legislated the banks to plunder the nations wealth are also guilty for legitimizing the whole charade, and should be charged for treason. The bank lobby was even threatening Congress members behind the scenes into accepting the bail outs, saying that total chaos and martial law would result if the banks were not bailed out. Americans were fooled plain and simple.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

And jpold, the people you work with might not be the same people that have caused America's issues, but rest assured they are similar. The financial industry, banks, the greed, it's all exactly what is wrong with the world today and the reason for this recession. There is no solution now. I know you might not want to believe it because you're probably a good, honest guy and you chose that career path but how can you deny the fact that the financial sector has basically doomed America?

Holy generalization. Have you ever met any of the people I work with? Let alone anyone who works in the investment banking industry? I’m not going to sit here and tell you that they are all saints, they aren’t, but to point a single profession or industry and lay all the blame is missing the point. The financial sector played a large role in a system that was unsustainable and eventually popped, but they weren’t the only cause. You have to look at the big picture, which is the lifestyle of the western world. The reality is the middle class didn’t start disappearing in 2008 after the bailouts, it started disappearing in the early 1970’s when the rest of the world opened up and middle class American jobs could be outsourced to workers in third world countries for pennies on the dollar. But you couldn’t see the ramifications of those actions in the everyday lifestyle of middle America, even though the jobs where disappearing and the wages weren’t increasing everyone seemed to be doing well, why? Now it’s clear the answer was runaway debt. When the bubble popped in 2008 the level of household debt to income was 127%, whose fault is that? The banks for creating such an enormous supply of crappy loans? Yes, but the average consumer can’t be absolved from any blame either. If you signed up for a credit card and maxed it out and couldn’t pay it back is it entirely the credit card companies fault for lending you the money, or do you have some responsibility to live within your means as well? At the end of the day people are looking for someone to blame, and bankers/Wall Street are and easy target because of the bailouts. But at the end of the day all Wall Street does is help prop up a system that is broken on more levels than just a financial one.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't think thousands of people protesting these very 'crimes' is disconnected from reality. It's happening right now. And the banks doing the 'job' they did are damn near bringing the American economy to its knees.

What's disconnected from reality is your notion of this lovey dove world where we all think about social crimes. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's simply not reality.

And what would you have had the banks do? Not act as banks? Not act to pursue their mandates? Don't blame banks for taking advantage of regulations, blame the people drafting and enforcing the regulations.

Would you blame Iginla for scoring on a PP brought about by an over the glass penalty if you believed that to be a stupid rule and there is video of the puck deflecting out? It's a very similar situation, the opportunity was created by a faulty rule (I actually like the rule but for the purpose of the example let's call it stupid) and bad enforcement. Do you expect that penalty to be declined as a 'social crime' or do you expect teams and players to pursue their mandate?

[THE SCUD]

Cow and valo: The educated folks amongst us, who understand and appreciate what you're saying, would like to thank you for attempting to educate the unwashed masses. If I tried I am pretty sure I'd be banned by my second post. I think if I was a teacher I'd also be fired by my second day after punching the dumb kid in class.

Your calm logic and intelligent posts are greatly appreciated, I'm sure, by a larger-than-expected group on the side-lines.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Cow and valo: The educated folks amongst us, who understand and appreciate what you're saying, would like to thank you for attempting to educate the unwashed masses. If I tried I am pretty sure I'd be banned by my second post. I think if I was a teacher I'd also be fired by my second day after punching the dumb kid in class.

Your calm logic and intelligent posts are greatly appreciated, I'm sure, by a larger-than-expected group on the side-lines.

I'd just like to echo this as well.

Just once I’d like to see some specific grievances that people have with one wall street and bankers; the key world being “specific”.

"Greed" is not specific. "Selfishness" is not specific. "No one went to jail" is not specific. "Too Powerful" is not specific.

What crimes did Wall Street commit that should result in people going to jail? What do you mean by greed? Are you accusing banks of trying to turn a profit? Are you upset that we they, like every other major industry, use lobbyist?

What exactly is it?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by valo403

What's disconnected from reality is your notion of this lovey dove world where we all think about social crimes. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's simply not reality.

And what would you have had the banks do? Not act as banks? Not act to pursue their mandates? Don't blame banks for taking advantage of regulations, blame the people drafting and enforcing the regulations.

Would you blame Iginla for scoring on a PP brought about by an over the glass penalty if you believed that to be a stupid rule and there is video of the puck deflecting out? It's a very similar situation, the opportunity was created by a faulty rule (I actually like the rule but for the purpose of the example let's call it stupid) and bad enforcement. Do you expect that penalty to be declined as a 'social crime' or do you expect teams and players to pursue their mandate?

Social crime: Doing something because you can, even though you know it may hurt others. If you can't see the callousness in that, then I fear for the lack of humanity in you. I certainly hope you're not running a bank. In fact, I hope you don't hold a position of power, because its people arguing "we're not guilty!" who are bound to portend the same problems all over again.

And BTW, Iginla doesn't serve the public interest the way banks do. But nice try though.

[Cowboy89]

I think the protests really are just an expression of frustration that the world didn't materialize in the way envisioned by the protesters and that someone other than themselves must be to blame for that. The reality is this is a complex issue that punatively punishing corporations or banks won't solve (in fact it might make it even worse).

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Social crime: Doing something because you can, even though you know it may hurt others. If you can't see the callousness in that, then I fear for the lack of humanity in you. I certainly hope you're not running a bank.

And BTW, Iginla doesn't serve the public interest the way banks do. But nice try though.

Ah I see . . . as a banker you cannot win!

2008: It's a social crime putting the economy at risk to lend people the money they want to do with it as they want.

2011: It's a social crime against the economic recovery to NOT lend the people the money they want to help the housing market.

Soley blaming Wall Street for all of life's economic problems is like blaming a knife used as a murder weapon for being so sharp.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Ah I see . . . as a banker you cannot win!

2008: It's a social crime putting the economy at risk to lend people the money they want to do with it as they want.

2011: It's a social crime against the economic recovery to NOT lend the people the money they want to help the housing market.

Soley blaming Wall Street for all of life's economic problems is like blaming a knife used as a murder weapon for being so sharp.

Who is solely blaming just Wall Street? It's also political and governing systems that let it happen. I've said that before and I'll say it again. In fact, let me re-iterate it for you:

It's not just banks who were the problem, it was the political and governing system in which they operated.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Social crime: Doing something because you can, even though you know it may hurt others. If you can't see the callousness in that, then I fear for the lack of humanity in you. I certainly hope you're not running a bank. In fact, I hope you don't hold a position of power, because its people arguing "we're not guilty!" who are bound to portend the same problems all over again.

And BTW, Iginla doesn't serve the public interest the way banks do. But nice try though.

Well at least we know you're incapable of understanding how examples work.

Honestly there's no point in discussing this issue with you if you think that banks should be held responsible for make believe concepts like social crimes. Should there be a responsibility for them to give one compliment to every employee each hour as well? Tell them how special they are? A bank has a mandate, typically to act in the best interests of its shareholders, asking them to take actions that run counter to that mandate demonstrates your lack of understanding and general disconnect from real life.