Tim O'Reilly on OccupyWallStreet(plus.google.com)
plus.google.com
Tim O'Reilly on OccupyWallStreet
https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/Sy8Z2uWy655?hl=en
15 comments
Financial capital has always been at war with productive capital. Because it's more concentrated in power (and even geographically) it's easier for financial capital to be aware of its interests and work together towards them. Productive capital is dispersed and varied. Tim O'Reilly is the rare CEO who's smart enough to know what's going on and what side he's on. Good for him.
Describing these two types of capital as "at war" isn't a tremendously exhaustive explanation of that relationship in my view. Isn't it also very much a symbiosis?
Someone needs to provide productive capital in the form of equity. If that equity wasn't tradable, fewer people would be ready to provide that capital. If there was no financial capital, there wouldn't be any credit either.
So without much equity capital and without loans everything would have to be funded out of cash flow. There would be no large projects, no investment in future demand or longer term infrastructure, it would all be hand to mouth.
Also, in many cases that cash flow would eventually outgrow what a company or individual can productively deploy. Without creating financial capital out of that cash flow, ie lending the money to someone who can productively deploy it, that capital would be stuck even though it could be used productively elsewhere.
Someone needs to provide productive capital in the form of equity. If that equity wasn't tradable, fewer people would be ready to provide that capital. If there was no financial capital, there wouldn't be any credit either.
So without much equity capital and without loans everything would have to be funded out of cash flow. There would be no large projects, no investment in future demand or longer term infrastructure, it would all be hand to mouth.
Also, in many cases that cash flow would eventually outgrow what a company or individual can productively deploy. Without creating financial capital out of that cash flow, ie lending the money to someone who can productively deploy it, that capital would be stuck even though it could be used productively elsewhere.
That's how it's supposed to work, finance as essentially the servant of productive industry, increasing liquidity and lubricating the economy. But owners of finance capital, like any capital, want to employ it in the maximally profitable ways, not "just" run a service industry, so also try to get the upper hand where they're in control of markets and the direction of businesses, with owners of productive capital essentially servicing them. Who actually is making decisions is a bit more complex than "a war", but I think there is a constant bit of power struggle, at least, with non-finance businesses wanting finance perform a service role, and finance not wanting to be boxed into one.
Is he the only multi-million CEO willing to speak out about this?
Or is the protest somehow in his realm that we're hearing about it?
Either way, there's little doubt that one $100 million CEO outweighs a lot of scruffy students. And in this case, amounts to something sadly futile. Even if he'd just got one friend CEO ... "and this is my friend Liz: she's a $150 million CEO, listen to what she thinks."
Or is the protest somehow in his realm that we're hearing about it?
Either way, there's little doubt that one $100 million CEO outweighs a lot of scruffy students. And in this case, amounts to something sadly futile. Even if he'd just got one friend CEO ... "and this is my friend Liz: she's a $150 million CEO, listen to what she thinks."
[deleted]
How hard would it be to organize a protest with a hundred $100M CEOs? I don't think it would be that hard to find 100 CEOs willing to do it.
How are you defining 'productive capital'? It's not a term I hear used in the economic community...at least not in the context you're using it.
"Occupy Wall Street", and their buddies "We are the 99" and "Days of Rage", dislike Wall Street because they dislike wealth. The Tea Party dislikes Wall Street because the wealth comes from implied government guarantees and regulatory barriers to competition. They could agree on cutting the Washington / New York interconnections.
But that's not actually in the interests the smart money actually funding the "Occupy Wall Street" types. The last Congress gave us "finance reform" that left us Too Big Too Fail and a bunch more regulatory levers. The pols got more scope for favors and campaign donations, the bankers got more regulatory barriers to competitive entry.
The chief author of that "reform"? Progressive Barney Frank.
The Tea Party is the GOP's reckoning for failing their principles. The Democrats has yet to come.
But that's not actually in the interests the smart money actually funding the "Occupy Wall Street" types. The last Congress gave us "finance reform" that left us Too Big Too Fail and a bunch more regulatory levers. The pols got more scope for favors and campaign donations, the bankers got more regulatory barriers to competitive entry.
The chief author of that "reform"? Progressive Barney Frank.
The Tea Party is the GOP's reckoning for failing their principles. The Democrats has yet to come.
I think you misunderstand the left position. The left does not dislike wealth or the wealthy. Karl Marx himself acknowledges the importance of capitalism generating wealth like no system before it. The left has an issue with the unjust creation of wealth. In the case of financial capital, the right and the left have a great deal in common - both right and left agree these financial methods by which people became wealthy during the housing bubble at the cost of others was unjust. The left would go a step further and say that there are some forms of productive capital that result in the unjust creation of wealth, such as businesses that are heavily reliant on manual labor for ultra low wages.
For this reason, I think #OccupyWallStreet as a movement against unjust investment of financial capital really does have the capacity to unite elements of the left and right.
For this reason, I think #OccupyWallStreet as a movement against unjust investment of financial capital really does have the capacity to unite elements of the left and right.
Marx recognizes the _material_ productivity of capitalism, while claiming that its _human_ consequences are so destructive of spirit and values that the material productivity is besides the point. That's what the "alienation of labor" is all about. Any form of bourgeois wealth, no matter how benign it may seem, necessarily dehumanizes and is thus unjust. And that's before we get into its perpetuation of a system that will lead necessarily to more openly malelovent wealth. His vision of "productive capital" occurs in a set of social arrangements lacking any feature which we might recognize as economic wealth.
The viability of those economic arrangements is hard to assess, as he himself couldn't actually specify them. (They would emerge, he claimed, upon destruction of the bourgeois framework that limits our imagination of other possibilities.) But whatever his merits as an economist (he cribbed heavily from Adam Smith) or a social theorist (cribbed from Rousseau), he was a lousy historian and completely missed the inevitable distortion of high-sounding ideals in service of the accumulation of power.
#OccupyWallStreet likely aren't Marxist, if only because they don't strike me as the sort to buckle down to "The German Ideology" never mind "Das Kapital". (And I don't conflate them with "the left", which comprises great variety, some of it considerably more thoughtful.) But phrases like "unjust creation of wealth" show an uncomfortable similarity to the Marxist technique. Such phrases are written to be undeniable -- geez, who is in favor of unjust creation of anything? But the power lies in adopting the vocabulary beneath them, the definitions of justice which turn out to reflect a particular agenda that is considerably more controversial than our common disgust at the unjust. It turns out that these organizational procedures create considerable power for those determining the language by which "just" and "unjust" shall be determined. The organized, having accepted the adoption of language as an organizational tool necessary for the correction of "injustice", lose the use of language for independent analysis -- and perhaps so deeply they don't even notice the loss. At that point, it becomes impossible for the organized to challenge the determinations of justice made by those controlling the organizational language.
The Tea Party types are necessarily unsophisticated. But they've noticed that they've gone along with a lot of fine-sounding language, only to find themselves with the short end of the stick. It's hardly to be wondered that they prefer to keep it simple, or that they find the #OccupyWallStreet types all too recognizable.
The viability of those economic arrangements is hard to assess, as he himself couldn't actually specify them. (They would emerge, he claimed, upon destruction of the bourgeois framework that limits our imagination of other possibilities.) But whatever his merits as an economist (he cribbed heavily from Adam Smith) or a social theorist (cribbed from Rousseau), he was a lousy historian and completely missed the inevitable distortion of high-sounding ideals in service of the accumulation of power.
#OccupyWallStreet likely aren't Marxist, if only because they don't strike me as the sort to buckle down to "The German Ideology" never mind "Das Kapital". (And I don't conflate them with "the left", which comprises great variety, some of it considerably more thoughtful.) But phrases like "unjust creation of wealth" show an uncomfortable similarity to the Marxist technique. Such phrases are written to be undeniable -- geez, who is in favor of unjust creation of anything? But the power lies in adopting the vocabulary beneath them, the definitions of justice which turn out to reflect a particular agenda that is considerably more controversial than our common disgust at the unjust. It turns out that these organizational procedures create considerable power for those determining the language by which "just" and "unjust" shall be determined. The organized, having accepted the adoption of language as an organizational tool necessary for the correction of "injustice", lose the use of language for independent analysis -- and perhaps so deeply they don't even notice the loss. At that point, it becomes impossible for the organized to challenge the determinations of justice made by those controlling the organizational language.
The Tea Party types are necessarily unsophisticated. But they've noticed that they've gone along with a lot of fine-sounding language, only to find themselves with the short end of the stick. It's hardly to be wondered that they prefer to keep it simple, or that they find the #OccupyWallStreet types all too recognizable.
Just to note that you can have "left" leaning views without having any relationship to the ideas of Marx. The co-operative movement arguably demonstrates that you can have very succesful businesses that have a social component:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_cooperative_move...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_cooperative_move...
[deleted]
If your argument hinges on mind-reading your opponent's view into something simplistically stupid ("they dislike wealth"), it's probably not a very good argument.
Also, Barney Frank is wicked smaht.
Also, Barney Frank is wicked smaht.
What are the Democrats' principles?
O'Reilly is wrong about the Tea Party-- the entire movement got started during the crisis in 2008. The Tea Party and conservative Republicans initially defeated the TARP bailout in the U.S. House. And the Tea Party and Ron Paul are the main reason that the Federal Reserve -- the kingpin of America's corrupt banking regime -- is under political fire.
The Tea Party doesn't have much presence in NYC and its leaders weren't involved in this particular protest, and "Occupying" is a sixties lefty word that's not going to turn out the Tea Party rank and file.
The Tea Party doesn't have much presence in NYC and its leaders weren't involved in this particular protest, and "Occupying" is a sixties lefty word that's not going to turn out the Tea Party rank and file.
Also, the Tea Party has so far found a far more effective means of political engagement than protests like these. For better or worse, they've actually gotten involved with electoral politics, and they've had a huge impact.
They've managed to take over the Republican party. It's far from clear if they've had a huge impact. We won't know that for a while.
I don't think they have actually taken it over. The leadership is not aligned with the tea party values. I think we are more at a split-purposes under the same house. To my mind, the 2012 primaries will be the break point.
It really is the worst of both worlds. The existing republican establishment has harnessed the Tea Party's discontent to justify their policies without actually reforming how the party operates. All the tea party caucus can do is occasionally grind things to a complete and utter halt, and the leadership can to a large extent control when and how that happens.
What's the result? Tea partiers aren't going to get what they want (since it's never been on the table to offer them), and they're being used as a weapon to prevent thing that citizens in general agree with (the wealthy should pay more in taxes, the FAA should keep operating, that sort of thing).
This really is political coopting at it's finest.
What's the result? Tea partiers aren't going to get what they want (since it's never been on the table to offer them), and they're being used as a weapon to prevent thing that citizens in general agree with (the wealthy should pay more in taxes, the FAA should keep operating, that sort of thing).
This really is political coopting at it's finest.
Like I said, I do believe the primaries for the 2012 election will tell the story. It either will be business as usual or the leadership takes a beating. I am particulary interested in Hatch's seat.
The leadership can be aligned with whatever it wants; what matters is how they actually vote, and it's a fact that at the moment, the congressional leadership (as well as nearly all of their presidential candidates) is playing the tea party tune.
If the leadership was playing the tea party tune, they would have gone with Ryan's spending cuts instead of the costly debt ceiling raise. The leadership is ignoring the tea parties desires and doing business as usual.
Making a credible threat to drive the global economy into a ditch is not even close to "business as usual".
Even without a debt ceiling increase the US wouldn't have defaulted. There were a couple of plans to keep things going. The actions taken increase debt by a rather large amount, so I do believe it was meaningless theater which is pretty much business as usual.
That's just nonsense. There were no "plans to keep things going" -- if that were so, then whose plans were these, exactly, and why weren't those plans enacted?
If the default threat were really no big deal, why did the stock market plunge 15% during the Republican-engineered budget crisis? Clearly somebody thought it was a big deal, because it requires a hell of a lot of selling to make the market move like that.
The Republican congressional leadership stated outright that default was preferable to raising one penny of taxes to balance the budget. That's not "business as usual". It's arguably not even constitutional. But it's certainly never happened before in the history of the United States.
If the default threat were really no big deal, why did the stock market plunge 15% during the Republican-engineered budget crisis? Clearly somebody thought it was a big deal, because it requires a hell of a lot of selling to make the market move like that.
The Republican congressional leadership stated outright that default was preferable to raising one penny of taxes to balance the budget. That's not "business as usual". It's arguably not even constitutional. But it's certainly never happened before in the history of the United States.
Treasury keeps paying the debt service with the money that comes in. A lot of program stop getting funded (including, strangely, a couple of taxes). A couple of freedom of information act requests to treasury got the fact there was a plan, but only 17 pages were actually released (which didn't tell a whole lot).
A default would be a huge deal, but not passing the debt ceiling increase doesn't automatically equal a default. The leadership wanted to pass an increase (that is pretty clear from their rejection of some of the more honest spending cut packages), they also are being pressured to not raise taxes but cut spending. The final deal was not what any tea party house member or senator wanted.
"It's arguably not even constitutional" - The Congress is in charge of the budget per the US Constitution, not the President. The US Constitution evens goes as far as saying where such bills must start (Article I, Section 7, clause 1).
A default would be a huge deal, but not passing the debt ceiling increase doesn't automatically equal a default. The leadership wanted to pass an increase (that is pretty clear from their rejection of some of the more honest spending cut packages), they also are being pressured to not raise taxes but cut spending. The final deal was not what any tea party house member or senator wanted.
"It's arguably not even constitutional" - The Congress is in charge of the budget per the US Constitution, not the President. The US Constitution evens goes as far as saying where such bills must start (Article I, Section 7, clause 1).
> not passing the debt ceiling increase doesn't automatically equal a default
Sorry, that's what everybody in government was saying during the manufactured crisis. If you have some kind of insider information that contradicts what everyone in government was saying, then produce it. Otherwise, it sounds like you're making up facts to fit an agenda (quoting the constitution is a common symptom of this).
Sorry, that's what everybody in government was saying during the manufactured crisis. If you have some kind of insider information that contradicts what everyone in government was saying, then produce it. Otherwise, it sounds like you're making up facts to fit an agenda (quoting the constitution is a common symptom of this).
Everyone wasn't saying that, just all the people trying to get the big air time and push an agenda. Heck even the wikipedia article even says different. Judicial Watch was the organization that filed the FIA to get the alternatives (17 pages released out of slightly over 200 that pertained). Plus, look at the history of the Eisonhower administration.
"quoting the constitution is a common symptom of this"
Forgive me for quoting the actual section of the document when you raised the "unconstitutional" claim. I would expect a programmer to quote the actual language standard when claiming a compiler didn't implement a feature correctly. You sound like a priest from the middle ages who is mad that someone has actually read the bible.
My only agenda is that I think the American people are getting well and truly screwed by pundits on TV and in office. Everything is a drama and not one statement is checked or even questioned. Heck, no national news network actually talked about the actual text of the health care bill when it was available. The reporting on the new jobs bill might as well be propoganda compared to what the thing actualy says (not much fun to read, but the gaps show). I am well and truly sick of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. Scream and demonize are everything, ignore history, ignore the actual documents (yes, the constitution too), and see which pundit looks best while we ask none of the hard questions.
"quoting the constitution is a common symptom of this"
Forgive me for quoting the actual section of the document when you raised the "unconstitutional" claim. I would expect a programmer to quote the actual language standard when claiming a compiler didn't implement a feature correctly. You sound like a priest from the middle ages who is mad that someone has actually read the bible.
My only agenda is that I think the American people are getting well and truly screwed by pundits on TV and in office. Everything is a drama and not one statement is checked or even questioned. Heck, no national news network actually talked about the actual text of the health care bill when it was available. The reporting on the new jobs bill might as well be propoganda compared to what the thing actualy says (not much fun to read, but the gaps show). I am well and truly sick of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. Scream and demonize are everything, ignore history, ignore the actual documents (yes, the constitution too), and see which pundit looks best while we ask none of the hard questions.
The Tea Party is a creation of FreedomWorks, formerly Citizens for a Sound Economy. It's little more than a rebranding of the loony bin portion of the Republican party.
No, the Tea Party is the loose aggregation of disaffected middle class types who are tired of excessive taxation, regulation, and governmental bureaucratic meddling; having finally acquired the impromptu organizational networking via the internet, they can discuss what they're tired of, and what they can do to change things.
We're not loony. We're not the creation of any group. Anyone claiming to be a Tea Party "leader" or "creator" isn't. We're your neighbors and friends who are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore". We're dismayed that our kids are obligated to pay six digits in government debt before they can talk. We know what happens when anyone spends $2 of every $1 that comes in. We're outraged that the Republicans agreed to allow this administration another $2.4T in spending of money we don't have and our kids won't have. We're tired of having our money taken from us to spend on wasteful cronyism, meddling, and funding idleness, while told we can't be trusted to wisely spend our own money we earned. We're tired of being dismissed as looney by people who vote for confiscating our hard earned income under threat of fines, imprisonment or death.
The Tea Party is middle Americans who, on the whole, just want to be left alone. Yes we'll fund "safety nets", build infrastructure, etc. No, we don't want people to starve and die...we also want the able to take care of themselves, and for people to cope with the obvious consequences of their own actions.
Our protests are, on the whole, spontaneous. On boards like this we express concerns, discuss under-reported news, and decide "hey, let's call Senator X and let him know we exist" or "hey, let's rally at location Y at time T" and spontaneous groups gather and act. Oh, BTW, we clean up our own trash too.
We see $1.5T in deficit spending, and know that despite our objections we're the ones saddled with paying it off. We object to getting shafted, and you dismiss us as "looney".
We're not loony. We're not the creation of any group. Anyone claiming to be a Tea Party "leader" or "creator" isn't. We're your neighbors and friends who are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore". We're dismayed that our kids are obligated to pay six digits in government debt before they can talk. We know what happens when anyone spends $2 of every $1 that comes in. We're outraged that the Republicans agreed to allow this administration another $2.4T in spending of money we don't have and our kids won't have. We're tired of having our money taken from us to spend on wasteful cronyism, meddling, and funding idleness, while told we can't be trusted to wisely spend our own money we earned. We're tired of being dismissed as looney by people who vote for confiscating our hard earned income under threat of fines, imprisonment or death.
The Tea Party is middle Americans who, on the whole, just want to be left alone. Yes we'll fund "safety nets", build infrastructure, etc. No, we don't want people to starve and die...we also want the able to take care of themselves, and for people to cope with the obvious consequences of their own actions.
Our protests are, on the whole, spontaneous. On boards like this we express concerns, discuss under-reported news, and decide "hey, let's call Senator X and let him know we exist" or "hey, let's rally at location Y at time T" and spontaneous groups gather and act. Oh, BTW, we clean up our own trash too.
We see $1.5T in deficit spending, and know that despite our objections we're the ones saddled with paying it off. We object to getting shafted, and you dismiss us as "looney".
If you honestly think that the Tea Party is some kind of popular, spontaneous grassroots movement that looks out for the interests of the middle class, then I'm sorry, but you're being taken for a ride.
You may wish it were that way. It may have even actually been that way for two weeks back in 2009. But it's not that way today.
You may wish it were that way. It may have even actually been that way for two weeks back in 2009. But it's not that way today.
Not paying the bills you have already run up or reneging on existing legal obligations is definitely the loony way of cutting government spending.
If you rent a large house, the way to cut spending is not to stop paying your rent or threatening your wife so she doesn't pay the rent or stop feeding your kids.
Being "mad as hell" is no replacement for thinking.
If you rent a large house, the way to cut spending is not to stop paying your rent or threatening your wife so she doesn't pay the rent or stop feeding your kids.
Being "mad as hell" is no replacement for thinking.
Where did you get THAT notion of the Tea Party? We're not saying "don't pay the rent and stop feeding the kids", we're saying "move into a smaller apartment that we can actually afford AND can afford to feed everyone AND save enough to pay off the massive credit card bill".
[EDIT per responses: sometimes you have to threaten to stop paying the bills in order to persuade others to, in fact, move into the smaller apartment and stop swiping the credit card as if it costs nothing. It's called "brinksmanship", based on the premise "either we stop spending so d@mned much now by choice or we're going to have, in fact, nothing to spend later"; a rhetorical device both sides use.]
BTW: I run http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com precisely to help people see how they can afford decent meals for just a buck a plate. Nobody needs to starve when you can eat for a day for just $3.
[EDIT per responses: sometimes you have to threaten to stop paying the bills in order to persuade others to, in fact, move into the smaller apartment and stop swiping the credit card as if it costs nothing. It's called "brinksmanship", based on the premise "either we stop spending so d@mned much now by choice or we're going to have, in fact, nothing to spend later"; a rhetorical device both sides use.]
BTW: I run http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com precisely to help people see how they can afford decent meals for just a buck a plate. Nobody needs to starve when you can eat for a day for just $3.
> "Where did you get THAT notion of the Tea Party? "
I'd imagine based on the behavior of the representatives they sent to congress. In particular, regarding the debt ceiling fiasco in which the position of legislators the Tea Parties endorsed, supported and voted for was quite clearly: "the government may have agreed to buy certain things on the nation's credit card, but we're able to block payment of the bill, so we're willing to force the country to default unless you come up with more spending cuts".
I'd imagine based on the behavior of the representatives they sent to congress. In particular, regarding the debt ceiling fiasco in which the position of legislators the Tea Parties endorsed, supported and voted for was quite clearly: "the government may have agreed to buy certain things on the nation's credit card, but we're able to block payment of the bill, so we're willing to force the country to default unless you come up with more spending cuts".
Did you already forget about that whole debt crisis thing 2 months ago?
we got that notion from Team Party leaders' actions during the debt limit debate this past summer.
Nobody is talking about reneging legal obligations. Also, the 'you' being referred should be directed at the government and not the parent post.
>> No, The Tea Party is the loose aggregation.
I think you should have stopped using the first party plural there. Some of them are loony; and they are in part the creation of some older, tireder, Republic faction.
But I guess they do all share vaguely Republican values, and the belief that both major parties (not just the Democrats) have been taxing too much.
My issue is that they are attacking taxing, not spending. It's spending that's the problem, as total revenue (tax) will eventually have to match total spending. And the Republicans can be cynical bastards who spend like crazy, then force the Democrats to raise taxes (later down the track) for fear of the debt becoming unsustainable.
But I guess "Spent Enough Already" doesn't have the same ring, or historical kitsch.
I think you should have stopped using the first party plural there. Some of them are loony; and they are in part the creation of some older, tireder, Republic faction.
But I guess they do all share vaguely Republican values, and the belief that both major parties (not just the Democrats) have been taxing too much.
My issue is that they are attacking taxing, not spending. It's spending that's the problem, as total revenue (tax) will eventually have to match total spending. And the Republicans can be cynical bastards who spend like crazy, then force the Democrats to raise taxes (later down the track) for fear of the debt becoming unsustainable.
But I guess "Spent Enough Already" doesn't have the same ring, or historical kitsch.
We are not the ones saddled with paying it off. This is the biggest myth in Politics today. Government bond transactions are settled in us dollar reserves. Reserves come from government spending. That's the only place they come from. As a point of logic, the reserves used to purchase government bonds comes from government spending in the first place. Tax revenue does not fund the federal government. Neither does bond sales. Federal Government is self-funded. The private sector provides goods and services to the federal government in exchange for dollars. Modern Monetary Theory explains all of this. Read Mosler's "The 7 deadly innocent frauds of economic policy" its free in pdf form.
http://moslereconomics.com/2009/12/10/7-deadly-innocent-frau...
We're dismayed that our kids are obligated to pay six digits in government debt before they can talk
Maybe I am alone on this, but I've never had to send a check to the US government to pay for my share of the government debt. Have you?
Maybe I am alone on this, but I've never had to send a check to the US government to pay for my share of the government debt. Have you?
You are not alone and you are correct. Politicians take these abstract deficit numbers and use words like "unsustainable", and "our grandchildren are straddled with debt" to try to make them meaningful when they are not. What is the difference between 1.7 trillion , 20 trillion, or 5 trillion and what does it mean to joe schmo today? Read Mosler for more.
Where did the Tea Party come from? Committed Republicans with ... strong views on race:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-p...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/new-data-on-tea-party...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-p...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/new-data-on-tea-party...
eh?... TARP was passed under bush, before the Tea Party was a thing. And has turned out to be a pretty solid investment.
TARP is Exhibit A in the government's special treatment of the banking sector, and that vote helped ignite the Tea Party. Many of the politicians who voted for TARP have been replaced by the Tea Party...it was a huge factor in the 2010 election gains by the GOP, and also the purging of GOP moderates in primaries during the same cycle.
TARP will still end up losing tens of billions, but TARP was superseded by far larger (and less transparent) bailouts run through the Federal Reserve. The banks that have repaid TARP only did so because they had other forms of government support, from over a trillion in Fed lending guarantees, to bailouts of their counterparties at AIG, to the bailout of worthless bondholdings at Fannie and Freddie.
And, we aren't out of the woods. Today the banking system is more concentrated and perhaps just as fragile as it was in 2008.
TARP will still end up losing tens of billions, but TARP was superseded by far larger (and less transparent) bailouts run through the Federal Reserve. The banks that have repaid TARP only did so because they had other forms of government support, from over a trillion in Fed lending guarantees, to bailouts of their counterparties at AIG, to the bailout of worthless bondholdings at Fannie and Freddie.
And, we aren't out of the woods. Today the banking system is more concentrated and perhaps just as fragile as it was in 2008.
The first bailout was supported by Bush and a majority of Democrats and voted down by a majority of Republicans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30bailout.html?pa...
Although the official "Tea Party" didn't have their first protest until Jan 2009, it was the same people pushing their congresscritters to oppose the bailout.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30bailout.html?pa...
Although the official "Tea Party" didn't have their first protest until Jan 2009, it was the same people pushing their congresscritters to oppose the bailout.
There are a fair number of people who hated the Bush part too. They might not have had the name, but the split was there. I get the feeling if McCain had won the Tea Party would still be here. It's not like the policy would have changed.
I would really like to know what you would cite from TARP as a solid investment.
I would really like to know what you would cite from TARP as a solid investment.
> I would really like to know what you would cite from TARP as a solid investment.
TARP's purpose was to buy off various groups, which it did.
What? You thought that it was supposed to help the economy? What evidence is there for that proposition?
TARP's purpose was to buy off various groups, which it did.
What? You thought that it was supposed to help the economy? What evidence is there for that proposition?
Well, sometimes reading the purpose / preamble in the bill that they voted on gives some insight to the purpose. So, the answer is no, it was not a solid investment.
> Well, sometimes reading the purpose / preamble in the bill that they voted on gives some insight to the purpose.
Let me guess - you also think that the title also has something to do with the purpose.
I think that both are marketing fluff. I think that because neither one has any substantive effect. Given that, it's unclear why you'd think that they have meaning.
Instead, I think that the purpose is what the substantive provisions would be reasonably expected to accomplish.
The alternative is that comgress-critters are incompetent, and I'm pretty sure that they're not. They're just trying to do something other than what you and I might like, hence the preambles and the titles.
Note that "they're incompetent" isn't doesn't excuse what they do.
Let me guess - you also think that the title also has something to do with the purpose.
I think that both are marketing fluff. I think that because neither one has any substantive effect. Given that, it's unclear why you'd think that they have meaning.
Instead, I think that the purpose is what the substantive provisions would be reasonably expected to accomplish.
The alternative is that comgress-critters are incompetent, and I'm pretty sure that they're not. They're just trying to do something other than what you and I might like, hence the preambles and the titles.
Note that "they're incompetent" isn't doesn't excuse what they do.
> Let me guess - you also think that the title also has something to do with the purpose.
No, I don't believe that, and am kind of insulted you would suggest it. I do believe that some proposed purpose can be gotten from the introductory text in a bill. In some legislation they are incompetent, particularly when finance is concerned. Marketing it is, but even marketing gives an intent.
The actual provisions in a bill are just that, provisions. They don't tell actual intent or purpose for the most part unless they include funding for a study to prove results.
No, I don't believe that, and am kind of insulted you would suggest it. I do believe that some proposed purpose can be gotten from the introductory text in a bill. In some legislation they are incompetent, particularly when finance is concerned. Marketing it is, but even marketing gives an intent.
The actual provisions in a bill are just that, provisions. They don't tell actual intent or purpose for the most part unless they include funding for a study to prove results.
> I do believe that some proposed purpose can be gotten from the introductory text in a bill.
How about some evidence supporting that belief?
Note that said evidence must somehow distinguish the preamble, which you think goes to purpose, from the title, which you think doesn't.
How about public statements by the authors?
> In some legislation they are incompetent, particularly when finance is concerned.
How do you know? More to the point, why does it matter? What will you do differently if they're incompetent vs they're trying to do something other than what the fluff says?
Surely you're not going with "if they knew better, they'd behave differently"? After all, they keep doing the same things, so they've had ample opportunity to learn (and you wouldn't be the first to point out their "mistakes").
> Marketing it is, but even marketing gives an intent.
Marketing is nothing more than an attempt to send a message. Attempting to send the message "I want to cure cancer" does not imply that I actually want to cure cancer.
How about some evidence supporting that belief?
Note that said evidence must somehow distinguish the preamble, which you think goes to purpose, from the title, which you think doesn't.
How about public statements by the authors?
> In some legislation they are incompetent, particularly when finance is concerned.
How do you know? More to the point, why does it matter? What will you do differently if they're incompetent vs they're trying to do something other than what the fluff says?
Surely you're not going with "if they knew better, they'd behave differently"? After all, they keep doing the same things, so they've had ample opportunity to learn (and you wouldn't be the first to point out their "mistakes").
> Marketing it is, but even marketing gives an intent.
Marketing is nothing more than an attempt to send a message. Attempting to send the message "I want to cure cancer" does not imply that I actually want to cure cancer.
It is one thing to think everyone has an agenda, but expecting everyone to deceive with every word is really wrong. I knew some of the staffers in the 90's who wrote the bills for a certain senator and they always wrote the intro text to explain what they intended the bill to do. The titles were mush (they would admit that) and sometimes very funky so they could get a good acronym. They believed what they wrote.
I believe the incompetence comes from not actually having run a small business and pulling the levers of the economy in an attempt to fix things. Chaos will damage an economy in pretty short order.
I believe the incompetence comes from not actually having run a small business and pulling the levers of the economy in an attempt to fix things. Chaos will damage an economy in pretty short order.
> It is one thing to think everyone has an agenda, but expecting everyone to deceive with every word is really wrong.
That's nice, but irrelevant because I'm not claiming that anyone is trying to "deceive with every word". I'm claiming that they're trying to accomplish what the substantive provisions would reasonably be expected to do and the other stuff is just marketing to get it passed.
> I believe the incompetence comes from not actually having run a small business and pulling the levers of the economy in an attempt to fix things.
I'm not convinced that "having run a small business" is relevant because they're not just hosing small biz. However, it is sort of absurd to expect them to be experts in any of the fields in which they make decisions, let alone all of them.
That's nice, but irrelevant because I'm not claiming that anyone is trying to "deceive with every word". I'm claiming that they're trying to accomplish what the substantive provisions would reasonably be expected to do and the other stuff is just marketing to get it passed.
> I believe the incompetence comes from not actually having run a small business and pulling the levers of the economy in an attempt to fix things.
I'm not convinced that "having run a small business" is relevant because they're not just hosing small biz. However, it is sort of absurd to expect them to be experts in any of the fields in which they make decisions, let alone all of them.
I don't know if anyone here watches Suits. But basically the reason the Harvey character wins is the reason Wall Street has not been held accountable. A lot of people pay a lot of money and there is enough ingenious strategizing to protect assets for large Wall Street firms (and enough tangential interests among any large American investor), that it makes complete sense that Wall Street has not and will probably not be held accountable.
However, if you truly want to fix a problem like that, you have to out-strategize back. Which doesn't necessarily mean legal measures. E.g., no need to occupy Wall Street, as long as the lessons are learned and it's replaced by something better.
However, if you truly want to fix a problem like that, you have to out-strategize back. Which doesn't necessarily mean legal measures. E.g., no need to occupy Wall Street, as long as the lessons are learned and it's replaced by something better.
I haven't watched the Film you suggested.
What you seem to be saying is that somehow this will resolve itself. I honestly doubt that is even remotely possible. Investment banks and hedge funds are making huge amounts of money, why would they change their business model? If the investment bank model stops working smart money will move. Smart money already has moved, look at Goldman Sachs. Goldman has since the crash been playing new tricks and old games that worked to make money. Why would someone stop playing when the game they know is still helping them to win? There is no incentive to change. Devious practices continue in multiple institutions, the market is more volatile than ever and the profits are still increasing.
Change only comes from within because of some internal conflict or contradiction. There is no conflict of ideas in the banking industry, their goal is still making money with money. Their goals and methods are still closely aligned. That means that the change must come from outside. Either reform (legislation and government force), revolution (social force) or depression (economic force through a market collapse). Doing nothing just delays the inevitable.
What you seem to be saying is that somehow this will resolve itself. I honestly doubt that is even remotely possible. Investment banks and hedge funds are making huge amounts of money, why would they change their business model? If the investment bank model stops working smart money will move. Smart money already has moved, look at Goldman Sachs. Goldman has since the crash been playing new tricks and old games that worked to make money. Why would someone stop playing when the game they know is still helping them to win? There is no incentive to change. Devious practices continue in multiple institutions, the market is more volatile than ever and the profits are still increasing.
Change only comes from within because of some internal conflict or contradiction. There is no conflict of ideas in the banking industry, their goal is still making money with money. Their goals and methods are still closely aligned. That means that the change must come from outside. Either reform (legislation and government force), revolution (social force) or depression (economic force through a market collapse). Doing nothing just delays the inevitable.
>However, if you truly want to fix a problem like that, you have to out-strategize back. Which doesn't necessarily mean legal measures. E.g., no need to occupy Wall Street, as long as the lessons are learned and it's replaced by something better.
Not sure what you're trying to say there.
Not sure what you're trying to say there.
[deleted]
Since 1967, real median household income in the USA has risen from ~$40k to ~$49k, a growth of about 0.5% a year. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/US_...)
Since 1967, real GDP of the USA rose from 4T to 13T, a 320% increase (2005 dollars), or a growth of about 2.8% a year. (http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354)
This would be my sign:
US household income growth: 0.5% a year since the 60s.
US GDP growth: 2.8% a year since the 60s.
Who is stealing our growth?
Since 1967, real GDP of the USA rose from 4T to 13T, a 320% increase (2005 dollars), or a growth of about 2.8% a year. (http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354)
This would be my sign:
US household income growth: 0.5% a year since the 60s.
US GDP growth: 2.8% a year since the 60s.
Who is stealing our growth?
Extra people being born "steal" a lot of the growth, but they create a lot of it too. The GDP per capita figure, according to the Wikipedia article linked to your graphic, grew by only 1.35% per year over the same period.
Typical household sizes have shrunk too, so your median household income might well be feeding 2 people rather than 3. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/hh4.csv
Typical household sizes have shrunk too, so your median household income might well be feeding 2 people rather than 3. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/hh4.csv
Doh, you're right. I really didn't compare apples to apples ther.
Still:
1967 - 59,236k households, GDP 3.9T ~= 65k / household (2005 dollars).
2010 - 117,538k households, GDP 13T ~= 111k / household (2005 dollars).
That's something like 1.2% GDP growth per household, while median household income is going up at 0.5%.
On one hand, there might be less dependents per household, but on the other hand, there's a lot more women working. Despite all the housewives burning their bras, forgoing large families, putting their kids in childcare and getting a job, household income still hasn't risen.
Maybe there's a lot of low-payed single women, dragging the median down. That doesn't convince me that everything is OK though.
Let's look at incomes of income-earning over 15s:
Between 1960 and 2004, the salaries of white males went up 0.068% a year. White women's salaries grew at 2%, probably because they were working much greater hours. Black men did well, and black women did even better. But overall, it was a 0.74% per year increase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...
People are better off, but mostly because the women are working longer hours, they don't have kids. Soon, they will also be working more years, as the boomer realize they can't retire. It's a lot better if you're black, but not because of productivity growth trickling down to median workers.
I could track down the numbers, to find how many workers over 15 there are (or maybe how many people there are over 15, or between 15 and 65), but I just don't think productivity growth is <1%, like median income growth. If productivity growth is <1%, then we have another problem altogether.
OK, here we go, real growth by percentile (1960 to 2007):
95th: 1.86% / year. 80th: 1.58% / year. 60th: 1.4% / year. 40th: 1.1% / year. 20th: 1.05% / year.
Arguably (as pg says), this is a good thing, because risk-takers and innovators are being rewarded, driving growth. But it's not as simple as high inequality = high growth, and that doesn't explain why inequality is growing. pg says it's because corporate structures are becoming more efficient, cutting out deadwood managers. Whatever. If this is the case, why isn't GDP growing at a higher rate than the 60s? Has our society simply reached the point where technology no longer drives growth? That's scarier than greedy executives, compliant governments, self-serving boards of directors looting society; but I don't think it's happened yet.
China had huge inequality in the from 1750 to 1950, and stagnent growth, low inequality and moderate growth from 1950 to 1990 (with a few hiccups, notably the Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution, but communism worked a lot better than their previous system of capitalism + corrupt feudalism), then high inequality and high growth from 1990. While inequality might be a requirement for high growth, it's not always a good sign. It can just mean that the rich and powerful are screwing the poor, which makes it harder for a poor innovator to take their idea from rags to riches.
Still:
1967 - 59,236k households, GDP 3.9T ~= 65k / household (2005 dollars).
2010 - 117,538k households, GDP 13T ~= 111k / household (2005 dollars).
That's something like 1.2% GDP growth per household, while median household income is going up at 0.5%.
On one hand, there might be less dependents per household, but on the other hand, there's a lot more women working. Despite all the housewives burning their bras, forgoing large families, putting their kids in childcare and getting a job, household income still hasn't risen.
Maybe there's a lot of low-payed single women, dragging the median down. That doesn't convince me that everything is OK though.
Let's look at incomes of income-earning over 15s:
Between 1960 and 2004, the salaries of white males went up 0.068% a year. White women's salaries grew at 2%, probably because they were working much greater hours. Black men did well, and black women did even better. But overall, it was a 0.74% per year increase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...
People are better off, but mostly because the women are working longer hours, they don't have kids. Soon, they will also be working more years, as the boomer realize they can't retire. It's a lot better if you're black, but not because of productivity growth trickling down to median workers.
I could track down the numbers, to find how many workers over 15 there are (or maybe how many people there are over 15, or between 15 and 65), but I just don't think productivity growth is <1%, like median income growth. If productivity growth is <1%, then we have another problem altogether.
OK, here we go, real growth by percentile (1960 to 2007):
95th: 1.86% / year. 80th: 1.58% / year. 60th: 1.4% / year. 40th: 1.1% / year. 20th: 1.05% / year.
Arguably (as pg says), this is a good thing, because risk-takers and innovators are being rewarded, driving growth. But it's not as simple as high inequality = high growth, and that doesn't explain why inequality is growing. pg says it's because corporate structures are becoming more efficient, cutting out deadwood managers. Whatever. If this is the case, why isn't GDP growing at a higher rate than the 60s? Has our society simply reached the point where technology no longer drives growth? That's scarier than greedy executives, compliant governments, self-serving boards of directors looting society; but I don't think it's happened yet.
China had huge inequality in the from 1750 to 1950, and stagnent growth, low inequality and moderate growth from 1950 to 1990 (with a few hiccups, notably the Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution, but communism worked a lot better than their previous system of capitalism + corrupt feudalism), then high inequality and high growth from 1990. While inequality might be a requirement for high growth, it's not always a good sign. It can just mean that the rich and powerful are screwing the poor, which makes it harder for a poor innovator to take their idea from rags to riches.
To round out the numbers in fairness...
Since 1967, US population increased from 198,712,056 to 310,000,000, a growth of about 1% a year.
Per person income has risen about 1.2%/yr.
Per person GDP has risen about 1.6% over per person income.
BTW: nobody stole your growth. You get what you agree to in exchange for your efforts. If you work the same menial job year after year, don't expect much income growth. If you take risks and innovate and work hard, you can see huge income growth. This, of course, is the purpose of this discussion board: to take opportunities and profit from them. A lot of people are content with not much income growth; they're quite comfortable where they are. Those of us frequenting ycombinator.com are interested in doing a lot better than "comfortable where we are", and the numbers show there is a lot of money to be made by taking the marvelous opportunities this nation affords us.
Since 1967, US population increased from 198,712,056 to 310,000,000, a growth of about 1% a year.
Per person income has risen about 1.2%/yr.
Per person GDP has risen about 1.6% over per person income.
BTW: nobody stole your growth. You get what you agree to in exchange for your efforts. If you work the same menial job year after year, don't expect much income growth. If you take risks and innovate and work hard, you can see huge income growth. This, of course, is the purpose of this discussion board: to take opportunities and profit from them. A lot of people are content with not much income growth; they're quite comfortable where they are. Those of us frequenting ycombinator.com are interested in doing a lot better than "comfortable where we are", and the numbers show there is a lot of money to be made by taking the marvelous opportunities this nation affords us.
>> per capita.
As I already replied (to another poster), my bad.
>> You get what you agree to in exchange for your efforts. If you work the same menial job year after year, don't expect much income growth.
This just isn't true. A menial worker makes a little more than they would have in 1960, and a lot more than they would have in 1920. Innovation trickles down. Rich bankers riding a bubble on the way up, and bailouts on the way down does not.
"The system" isn't totally broken, but it's a little rigged. It always has been. The more corrupt the system is, the more certain people get paid for not innovating, taking risks, and working hard; which doesn't create a lot of real growth.
I'd say a lot of the corrupt growth is the result of bubbles at the moment - making short term gains at the cost of long-term gains. Tactics include dodgy financialization, creative accounting, ripping off customers at the cost of goodwill, mistreating employees then being screwed when talented staff abandon the company, outsourcing cost centers then getting hit by bait-and-switch prices (Chinese and Indian wages will rise), and so on.
People who are already rich benefit (due to good dividends, higher stock prices, and performance bonuses), but will lose in the long run (unless they get bailed out). Nobody complained when the rich were making money, because they though the benefits would trickle down; but now that a lot of the benefits have proved to be illusionary, people are pissed.
Name one person (not a left-wing nut-job) who bagged the Enron execs when everyone thought they were actually making money ;)
My point is, I don't see any good reason for relative difference between the rich and poor to change over time (past a certain point, say, what it was in the 60s). If it does, it might be because something is broken.
As I already replied (to another poster), my bad.
>> You get what you agree to in exchange for your efforts. If you work the same menial job year after year, don't expect much income growth.
This just isn't true. A menial worker makes a little more than they would have in 1960, and a lot more than they would have in 1920. Innovation trickles down. Rich bankers riding a bubble on the way up, and bailouts on the way down does not.
"The system" isn't totally broken, but it's a little rigged. It always has been. The more corrupt the system is, the more certain people get paid for not innovating, taking risks, and working hard; which doesn't create a lot of real growth.
I'd say a lot of the corrupt growth is the result of bubbles at the moment - making short term gains at the cost of long-term gains. Tactics include dodgy financialization, creative accounting, ripping off customers at the cost of goodwill, mistreating employees then being screwed when talented staff abandon the company, outsourcing cost centers then getting hit by bait-and-switch prices (Chinese and Indian wages will rise), and so on.
People who are already rich benefit (due to good dividends, higher stock prices, and performance bonuses), but will lose in the long run (unless they get bailed out). Nobody complained when the rich were making money, because they though the benefits would trickle down; but now that a lot of the benefits have proved to be illusionary, people are pissed.
Name one person (not a left-wing nut-job) who bagged the Enron execs when everyone thought they were actually making money ;)
My point is, I don't see any good reason for relative difference between the rich and poor to change over time (past a certain point, say, what it was in the 60s). If it does, it might be because something is broken.
Why does every political argument resort to "tea party this" or "liberal that." Drives me nuts we can't have conversations without sweeping generalizations and broad attacks.
Ironic isn't it that the people that are most effected by financial polices - the working class and poor - usually don't come out to these kind of things.
But I wouldn't give up on it yet, a core seems to be prepared for long-term occupation and it could grow.
But I wouldn't give up on it yet, a core seems to be prepared for long-term occupation and it could grow.
This isn't ironic, it's completely expected. The people most effected can't afford to come out to something like this. Their boss (or bosses for those that work multiple jobs) aren't going to give them any more time off than they must. If they even heard that an employee went to something like this they would fire them for sure.
Oh I agree, probably should've stated as such in my post.
The working stiff has to go to work or lose hist job in a shitty economy. Besides he already noted that the number of protesters was larger during the weekend. But then Monday rolls around and it's back to work. Plus the audience wasn't that appealing. If there were more middle class people mixed in the protest than it might have broader appeal, if there was even a few that represented the group, clean shaven and able to eloquently speak that would go a long way.
From the outside it just looks like a bunch of hippies.
From the outside it just looks like a bunch of hippies.
Certainly. But the hope is that if the core keeps some sort of energy going that other people can join in when they can. We'll have to see if it can gain any momentum at all.
Silicon Valley should look itself in the mirror if it wants to throw stones at Wall Street.
Tim O'Reilly is posting to the site of a corporation that funnels money to Bermuda so that it only has to pay a 2.4% tax rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_Arrangement http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho...
And O'Reilly probably has Eric Schmidt and Larry Page's phone numbers.
Tim O'Reilly is posting to the site of a corporation that funnels money to Bermuda so that it only has to pay a 2.4% tax rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_Arrangement http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho...
And O'Reilly probably has Eric Schmidt and Larry Page's phone numbers.
Please bookmark this thread and reread the post (and your response) after you've calmed down.
There is a big difference between what Tim was talking about ("constructed a set of financial products with intent to defraud") and what you're talking about ("[using the website of / knowing the founders of] a corporation that funnels money to Bermuda [after getting an okay to do so from the IRS] so that it only has to pay a 2.4% tax rate [on overseas income]").
There is a big difference between what Tim was talking about ("constructed a set of financial products with intent to defraud") and what you're talking about ("[using the website of / knowing the founders of] a corporation that funnels money to Bermuda [after getting an okay to do so from the IRS] so that it only has to pay a 2.4% tax rate [on overseas income]").
[deleted]
O'Reilly is critical of tech companies that try to avoid paying taxes. In fact he posted a lengthy article about why amazon should stop trying to avoid paying taxes in California:
https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/QypNDmvJ...
For the record the low Irish corporate tax rate of 12½% has created hundreds of thousands of highly paid jobs in Ireland. "Google Ireland" and "Amazon Ireland" aren't brass plaque companies with no employees, they employ thousands of people. Here's Google Ireland when their street view car passed http://maps.google.com/?ll=53.339416,-6.236528&spn=0.002...
In Ireland the low corporate tax rate is viewed as vital to creating jobs here.
In Ireland the low corporate tax rate is viewed as vital to creating jobs here.
Some more large american companies with large offices in Ireland:
Microsoft: http://maps.google.com/?ll=53.276525,-6.207876&spn=0.004...
Intel: http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=leixlip+intel&hl=en&ll=...
IBM: http://maps.google.ie/maps?ll=53.332712,-6.241581&spn=0....
Oracle (and/or Sun): http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&ll=53.358473,-6.227601&...
Microsoft: http://maps.google.com/?ll=53.276525,-6.207876&spn=0.004...
Intel: http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=leixlip+intel&hl=en&ll=...
IBM: http://maps.google.ie/maps?ll=53.332712,-6.241581&spn=0....
Oracle (and/or Sun): http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&ll=53.358473,-6.227601&...
You have a problem with the laws, write your Congressmen. Otherwise you're just player-hating.
There's nothing wrong with campaigning against companies who do things you find unethical, even if they aren't criminal. In this case perhaps the laws should be changed, but in general it's not even desirable for every unethical act to be illegal, yet that doesn't mean we should completely ignore them either. You could, for example, do a classic free-market thing: choose to only do business with companies who act in a way you consider appropriate, and avoid those who don't, perhaps actively campaigning against the ones you find particularly egregious.
The "it's just a game, these are the rules" mentality is actually deeply anti-free-market in the classic sense of intelligent individuals making free choices--- it's the view shady corporate types take, who try to stack the rules and then also promote the view that everyone has to just listen to what the government says the rules are, and not make individual decisions.
The "it's just a game, these are the rules" mentality is actually deeply anti-free-market in the classic sense of intelligent individuals making free choices--- it's the view shady corporate types take, who try to stack the rules and then also promote the view that everyone has to just listen to what the government says the rules are, and not make individual decisions.
> There are a set of people who constructed a set of financial products with intent to defraud. They took our country to the brink of ruin, then got off scott free, even with multi-million dollar bonuses.
I have a feeling this movement would be much more effective if it could actually name names and link to evidence. "Read Taibbi" isn't enough. I've read all of Taibbi's pieces, and it's hard to see a real criminal case succeeding out of what he presents. Some of it might seem outrageous, but investors were aware of the risks in CDOs well before the bubble burst and wanted them anyway. Claiming a little marketing spin from Goldman Sachs is a criminal attempt to defraud doesn't pass the laugh test for me.
I have a feeling this movement would be much more effective if it could actually name names and link to evidence. "Read Taibbi" isn't enough. I've read all of Taibbi's pieces, and it's hard to see a real criminal case succeeding out of what he presents. Some of it might seem outrageous, but investors were aware of the risks in CDOs well before the bubble burst and wanted them anyway. Claiming a little marketing spin from Goldman Sachs is a criminal attempt to defraud doesn't pass the laugh test for me.
loved one of the posters about the student loan crisis being the next housing crisis. i have a bachelors with three majors. i graduated in 2008. my education has been worth (45000) plus (5 years) plus an ability to recognize bullshit. yep, 45k. i thought i'd get a decent job. now i realize that i have to manufacture my own job.
edit: shame sallie mae loans can't be bankrupted anymore.
edit: shame sallie mae loans can't be bankrupted anymore.
Thanks Tim O'Reilly.
http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/tahrir-moment-...
http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/tahrir-moment-...
The Tim O'Reilly Factor?
In my only semi informed opinion, it seems that this sort of crime is so distributed and hard to prove that it likely is just too difficult to create a convincing case to a jury of folks who may or may not really grasp what really happened on wall street. I am not even sure that many of the fraudsters even knew the full consequence of their actions. I am by no means defending anyone here, I just think that the "crime" is too difficult to package up neatly.
In my only semi informed opinion, it seems that this sort of crime is so distributed and hard to prove that it likely is just too difficult to create a convincing case to a jury of folks who may or may not really grasp what really happened on wall street. I am not even sure that many of the fraudsters even knew the full consequence of their actions. I am by no means defending anyone here, I just think that the "crime" is too difficult to package up neatly.
Anytime there is money, there is always an extensive paper trail. Enforcing financial laws is possible to do if you apply the requisite resources. Unfortunately, we don't do that in this country.
But at the end of the day, if a financial product is so complicated that it can't be regulated, that's a good sign that it never should have been created in the first place.
But at the end of the day, if a financial product is so complicated that it can't be regulated, that's a good sign that it never should have been created in the first place.
... in which the Radar rises to face the Factor
> The smirk on the face of the Fox News reporter who was interviewing various participants said it all. "These people are easy to dismiss."
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-X-DagzpHhDU/TnevQadAJeI/A... https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Che5TfKQre8/TnevQT7sqZI/A...
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-X-DagzpHhDU/TnevQadAJeI/A... https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Che5TfKQre8/TnevQT7sqZI/A...
Well if that's not a face that says 'Smug' I don't know what is.
This photo looks like it's about to be converted to an internet meme.
I watch Fox News when I run out of Onion News Network episodes.
Now that I successfully bashed their reporting, Fox News reaches the public that needs to be educated in these issues the most.
Now that I successfully bashed their reporting, Fox News reaches the public that needs to be educated in these issues the most.
The photos of that interviewer are ripe for a image macro. Based on the first photo:
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/353ysx/
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/353ysx/
In Egypt, half a year before Tahrir Square January-February 2011, they had the "silent stand"[1] -- which consisted of just showing up in public places en masse and saying nothing, in memory of a young man who'd been tortured to death by security services. I'm pretty sure I heard Wael Ghonim say that even he thought it was a slightly daft idea until it actually happened, and then it seemed that they'd found a catalyst for average people to join in a protest.
I too hope for some sort of movement that can bridge the artificial divide between Tea Partiers and scruffy leftist kids. Fundamentally, nobody is asking for particularly radical reforms here; so it should be possible to have widespread support.
[1] http://www.demotix.com/news/394309/khaled-said-silent-stand-...