Occupy Wall Street? Nutbars.

[Rockie]

Are you implying the employees are somehow at fault for their own misfortune?

No.

But we have to get past this idea that "if I do nothing wrong, I'm guaranteed to be ok." It doesn't apply to health, happiness OR money. Life sh*ts on good people sometimes. Society makes it a lot better than it used to be, particularly for health, and to some extent money. But only to a limited extent.

LIfe just isn't fair, good people suffer. Get used to it.

People are not trusting that if they do nothing wrong they'll be ok, because they recognize that they've been taken for a ride and want to prevent it from happening again through regulation that protects society from the financial robber barons. There is a lot of resistence for that though from the same robber barons who have bought the political system using the money they took from the rest of society. That's why I don't get the vitriol aimed at the occupy wall street movement.

The top 1% got rich by virtue of living in a society. Their share of that society's total wealth is multiplying by offensive numbers, while the rest of that society is getting progressively poorer. That's not right nor can it last, and while the bottom 90% may not be all that great at articulating the problem that doesn't change the fact the system is not working for them.

Blaming them as if a society was "buyer beware" misses the point. Any society that causes such an imbalance of benefits cannot last and will eventually be in upheaval. Better in my mind to do so gradually and peacefully rather than traumatically like we've witnessed in the Middle East the last six months.

[photofly]

I don't think not being able to afford the latest iPhone is a cause for violent revolution; do you?

[Rockie]

I don't think not being able to afford the latest iPhone is a cause for violent revolution; do you?

Is that what you think Occupy Wall Street is? A violent revolution?

[Beefitarian]

Pay no attention to the source. The pictures are what you're looking for I believe.

http://www.paulkienitz.net/enron/enron-47.html

http://caldwellguardian.blogspot.com/20 ... -face.html

http://cnettv.cnet.com/top-enron-exec-a ... 08559.html

http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2005/ ... 2aug05.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/busin ... ardlmadoff

http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/03/9121 ... ot-testify



I'm sure there are more but you can look as well as I can. Also there should be LOTS more if there were any justice in the world.

Thanks, yeah there should be.

[niss]

I don't think not being able to afford the latest iPhone is a cause for violent revolution; do you?

I think that having someone lose your own savings to buy bad mortgages, while he himself was buying insurance against said investments, and paying someone to fraudulently rate them as absolutely rock solid, then when the whole bubble they created collapses causing you to lose your job, and not have any savings anymore to cover the payments same dickhead comes and takes away your house while he gets a bonus for all of it is certainly cause for a violent revolution.

[iflyforpie]

And it is not just a wealth class thing, it is a generational thing too. You Baby Boomers have no idea how good you've got it, and how much harder we younger ones will have to work to enjoy the same lifestyle....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... rom=sec431

PS: For those whom it matters, the Globe and Mail is pretty much a non-partisan newspaper, formed by the merger of the Liberal Globe and the Tory Mail, and has supported the policies of Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, and Stephen Harper.

[sky's the limit]

Citigroup to Pay Millions to Close Fraud Complaint
By EDWARD WYATT
Published: October 19, 2011


WASHINGTON — As the housing market began its collapse, Wall Street firms and sophisticated investors searched for ways to profit. Some of them found an easy method: Stuff a portfolio with risky mortgage-related investments, sell it to unsuspecting customers and bet against it.

Citigroup on Wednesday agreed to pay $285 million to settle a civil complaint by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it had defrauded investors who bought just such a deal. The transaction involved a $1 billion portfolio of mortgage-related investments, many of which were handpicked for the portfolio by Citigroup without telling investors of its role or that it had made bets that the investments would fall in value.

In the four years since the housing market began its steady descent, securities regulators have settled only two cases related to the financial crisis for a larger sum of money. This is also the third case brought by the S.E.C. accusing a major Wall Street institution of misleading customers about who was putting together a security and about their motive. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Company both settled similar cases last year.

The settlement will refund investors with interest and include a $95 million fine — a relative pittance for a giant like Citigroup. On Monday, the company reported that in the third quarter alone it earned profits of $3.8 billion on revenue of $20.8 billion. The settlement may also have trouble getting approval from Jed S. Rakoff, the federal district judge in New York who must ultimately sign off on the fine and who has taken a hard line on S.E.C. settlements.

Neither the S.E.C. nor the Justice Department would say whether the case raised questions about whether Citigroup had been involved in any criminal wrongdoing. But the case highlights a growing frustration felt by foreclosed homeowners, investors and Wall Street protesters alike that few, if any, senior banking executives have faced criminal charges for losses growing out of the financial crisis.

Citigroup has settled one case stemming from the crisis. Last year, it agreed to pay $75 million to settle federal claims that it hid from investors vast holdings of subprime mortgage investments that were losing value during the crisis and that ultimately prompted the federal government to rescue the bank.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/busin ... f=business

[Nark]

Great link STL

What can we learn from it?

Civil complaints filed, over a year ago(?) in court.

The tools are there, use them.

These protesters are akin to using a screwdriver as a hammer.

[Rockie]

I think the point he's making Nark is that the tools available do not work. The civil penalties are embarrassingly insignificant compared to the level of the crime and the banks ability to pay (with your money), none of the actual people who committed that fraud have had to personally pay a cent, they're still there, and there is nothing to prevent them from doing it again.

[sky's the limit]

I think the point he's making Nark is that the tools available do not work. The civil penalties are embarrassingly insignificant compared to the level of the crime and the banks ability to pay (with your money), none of the actual people who committed that fraud have had to personally pay a cent, they're still there, and there is nothing to prevent them from doing it again.

Exactly Rockie, and that the system is self-propagating and out of control...

Try reading the whole article Nark.

stl

[Nark]

Criminal prosecutions related to the financial crisis have been few. Two former Credit Suisse brokers were sentenced to jail in their roles for misleading clients about purchases and thus inflating their sales commissions. Six executives at a mortgage company, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, have pleaded guilty in a scheme to issue false mortgages to obtain federal mortgage money and bank bailout funds. Lee B. Farkas, a former chairman of Taylor Bean, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his role in the case, which resulted in the demise of Colonial Bank of Montgomery, Ala.

Those crimes started long before the financial crisis. A prosecution of two former executives of Bear Stearns, the failed investment bank, ended in acquittals.

Taken from the article.
Add to that Rockies links of exec's in handcuffs.

The tools are in place, and being used.
What would you like to see? Public flogging? Hanging?

[Rockie]

Regulation of the financial industry to ensure the fraudsters can never again put the world economy in such danger and destroy the savings of millions of individual victims. Make those same fraudsters refund as much of that money as possible out of their own assets and put them all in prison would also be nice, but will never happen.

Then on a large scale governments do what it takes so that everybody can profit from the society they live in, not just the top few percent.

[sky's the limit]

Nark,

You are conveniently omitting scale here, and the scale of the problem is astronomical compared to the minuscule number of prosecutions, or their severity. Additionally, the tools are very much not in place, contrary to your assertion as the laws surrounding banking in America have been systematically eroded for many years now, and they continue to be despite all the bluster surrounding the 2008 "crash."

What would I like to see? Perhaps some of the trillions being spent on the ridiculous wars on "Terror" and "Drugs" redirected into fighting something that has affected far more Americans (and others) than either of those two red herrings have or ever will. The problem is, it will never happen, the foxes are running the henhouse and the Gov't is bought and paid for by the very people who should be prosecuted - just a bit of a problem there...

For a guy who consistently argues we should able to blow away people for breaking into houses, and execute drug dealers and other criminals, I would have thought you'd be all for hanging a few of these scumbags? No?

But all that said, I firmly believe if after all the banking scandals, scams, and robberies over the past few decades, that if people are still lured into investing in a system which has proven itself suspect at best, more accurately criminal, well you get what you deserve.

stl

[Nark]

I would very much like to see those who are convicted of fraud punished for their crimes. I'll boil the tar for the feathering.

Bernie Madoff and his ilk have a special place in hell reserved for them. I'm not defending anyone in the financial sector for their wrong doing.
However, my point is that many have said those on "Wall Street" are not held accountable, but they are. Your article cited a number of cases.

Rockie:
vis-a-vis death penalty; Are you capable of sending an innocent day-trader away to prison? Can you live with that irreparable consequence?



To digress:
The War on XXXX has a social spending context that is often over looked.


I'm beginning to feel like my grandpa, when he would tell his stories, so here I go:
When I first "signed the dotted line" I was issued a flak vest that was not capable of much. The US government spend multi-billion dollars upgrading that and other equipment used in the War on Terrorism.
Whats my point?

Just up the road from me in Oshkosh Wisconsin, thousands of employee's are paid every two weeks producing vehicles for guys in the military. The R&D has saved countless lives.
I was chatting the a general manager of company that produces gears for various equipment; he employ's 100 or so people producing various gears for the military and other commercial companies. That's 100 or so not on the dole.

The +/-4% of GDP we spend on the DoD/DoJ goes a lot further than you would think.

[sky's the limit]

The defence related spending in America is crippling the country. Are there side benefits for some? Sure, but once again I would point you to scale.

Your take on the Wall St accountability issue is, with all due respect, not representative of what is happening in relation to the size of the issue - just reread the article and look at the main point. Are people being prosecuted? Sure, but once again I would point you to scale... I'm sure you get my point.

I'm sick as a dog, so it's nap time for me.

stl

[niss]

[Rockie]

Rockie:vis-a-vis death penalty; Are you capable of sending an innocent day-trader away to prison? Can you live with that irreparable consequence?

I don't know what this has to do with the death penalty, but why would a day trader go to jail? They trade only for themselves and so only harm, or benefit themselves. Likewise if I call up my broker and tell him to buy 1000 shares of XYZ company why would he be at fault? He's not an advisor and he didn't sell it to me, he's only carrying out my instructions and doesn't really care if I've done my due diligence or not.

But, if a financial advisor sells me something without full disclosure knowing it will lose me money because they personally will gain from it then yes, that person deserves to be charged with a crime. And that kind of stuff my friend goes on ALL THE TIME.

Hard prison time is definitely appropriate for the high powered financiers who developed those toxic investments, sold them to millions and then bet against them knowing they were going to tank. That's fraud on a massive scale and nobody is even getting charged. Why not? Instead they're continuing to rake in the billions in bonuses without a hiccup after Americans bailed them out, and they're spending untold millions more lobbying to prevent regulation that would prevent them from doing it again.

[azimuthaviation]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/pol ... 03055.html

Poll: More agree than disagree with Occupy Wall Street goals

Forty-three percent of respondents to a new CBS/New York Times survey said they agree with Occupy Wall Street's goals, while, 27 percent said they disagree. Thirty percent were unsure.

And 46 percent said Occupy Wall street represents the views of most Americans, while 34 percent said it doesn't.

Younger Americans, those with more education, and those who describe themselves as liberal were most likely to support the protests.

The old, uneducated, right wingers, youre in good company Fogger

[The Old Fogducker]

I was flying (riding in the back) yesterday, and and had the chance to listen to a full 3 hour archived show from a financial talk show host that I listen to regularly via a shortened podcast. ... "The Dave Ramsey Show."

This is by far the best look at the "Occupy .... " movement in any media that I've seen or heard to date.

Here's a link to the achive site ... from the dropdown menu, choose Wednesday, October 19, then select the way you'd like to listen, and spend some time checking out the callers, and Dave Ramsey's debunking of their erroneous beliefs. Once started, I couldn't stop. http://www.daveramsey.com/radio/home/#archives-tab

[Sulako]

Wow another Fox news guy. I wonder what his take will be on this...

[The Old Fogducker]

Oops ... your subject matter ignorance and personal bias is showing Sooley ... he's not "a Fox guy" ... which in your lexicon is a derisive term. David Ramsey is a successful broadcaster and financial guru, heard on approximately 450 radio stations.

You simply don't like the tasteful, call by call factual refuting of the twisted viewpoint of the "Occupy blah, blah Street" group who for marketing purposes, have self identified as "The 99%"

The Old Capitalist Fogducker .... (not quite in the 1% yet, but after 45 years of working, I'm not hurting, and I'm not giving any to you just because you're unhappy and want some.)

[Beefitarian]

OFD you call other people ignorant then say you're "Not quite in the 1%." I know I'm doing well, I even went flying again a few times so perhaps I should be happy to be in the top percent of people wealthy enough to be fat but I am aware of the rather large spread bettween us and the top 1%.

Carry on.

[Sulako]

OFD, my fine muskrat, I have a couple of things to say: First of all, don't put words in my mouth. Secondly, I am not ignorant on this subject - I have formed my opinion after reading a variety of sources, and it's clear to me which people in this discussion are reading information to learn, and which people are only interested in reading information that reinforces their current beliefs.

That being said, I owe you an apology, sort of - Dave isn't a Fox News guy any more - he was axed from the Fox Business network last year - "He possessed the lethal combination of lacking the charisma and warmth to carry his own television show combined with the delusional arrogance to think he was the next Dr. Phil.”

He does have some sound financial ideas though - I like that he advocates buying things with cash instead of credit, and he does have some simple financial tips that do work for people, though he could probably go a little easier on the fundamental Christian evangelism that he injects into it.

I do like that he created a foundation for the purpose of working with other non-profit organizations (such as housing initiatives, work to success projects, domestic violence shelters, drug and alcohol recovery programs, crisis pregnancy centers, youth outreaches, and high schools) to help others become financially literate.

Then again, he did file for bankruptcy after over-leveraging himself and defaulting on more than a million bucks in loans...

Anyway, let's look at what he says:

1. He's upset that the Occupy movement seems to have vague goals. I start to tune him out when he says "The whole group is just coming across like a bunch of jacked-up, jobless, wannabe hippies." because that's absolutely not the case, and because he's ignoring the actual message they are sending, which is "The system is broken for 99% of the people. Oh yeah, and how come nobody from Wall Street has been prosecuted for the financial meltdown"

2. He then points out one of the things the Occupy movement is stating: No government bailouts, ie corporate welfare. I agree, and I bet you do too. Strange he first says they have no goals and then summarizes one of the goals, but whatever.

3. "Down with corporate greed". He gets it wrong again. Nobody is saying that corporations don't have a right to make an honest buck. See how I highlight the word honest? That's not what happened on Wall Street, and that's kind of the crux of the whole matter.

4. "Wall Street is Evil" see point #3. He also loses me when he compares the Occupy protesters to 'ignorant jungle natives' - you can imagine why that's not cool.

5. "Wealth redistribution is the answer" Again, see point #3. A better term might be "take back the wealth that Wall Street stole from hard-working people".

6. "Celebrate the Land of Opportunity" - America used to be that, but the system has been perverted so that 99% of the people don't even have a fair chance of making it rich because they are stuck in a broken system, overseen by people with no interest in changing it.

See, I read stuff from a variety of sources - he just happens to get it wrong

[Shiny Side Up]

The Old Capitalist Fogducker .... (not quite in the 1% yet, but after 45 years of working, I'm not hurting, and I'm not giving any to you just because you're unhappy and want some.)

I always find it interesting that people are under the illusion that they are working within a capitalist system. Its also amusing that someone who is in a reasonably well off position is more afraid that the 99% is going to come take some more of their wealth, but has no fear that the 1% is going to snatch it from them. Unfortunately they usually have to learn the hard way how the system really works.

I think in all my time in the workforce, out of at least twenty or so different companies and corporations I worked for only two have been operated under any sort of capitalist ethic, both of which I would say also have been the best places to work for, and probably not by coicidence realitively small companies - litterally mom and pop operations. Capitalism operates under the premise that competition is good and hard work is rewarded. So far those two workplaces - both with only 30 to 40 workers at each have held true to that. The rest I quickly realised operated under a bizarre system which one might only call corporate slavery or serfdom. Hard work was never recognized, workers were really only motivated to work just hard enough to not get fired. Oddly enough where art imitates life the movie Office Space wasn't far from the truth. In many cases causing trouble or stirring up shit was the surest (in some cases only way) to get farther along. Competition was also absent from these companies - there was really no effort to out do the competition by doing a better job. Competition was mostly engaged in by who could screw their own workers more so as to create more profit. Unpaid overtime and substantial lack of workplace safety were often the order of the day, or in some cases just plain not paying the workers - something that soon dispelled my foolish notion I grew up with that if I worked hard I would get ahead, that only holds true if you're working for yourself.

The 1% can f*ck you over faster than you can say "hoochimama" when they want to. If you don't believe it, it just hasn't happened to you yet. The 99% might want another 1 or 2 % more tax out of you to pass around and generally make it better for all of out there. The 1% want everthing you got.

[The Old Fogducker]

My comment regarding your ignorance was with respect to broadcasting, media, and specifically Dave Ramsey.

You've formed your opinion with respect to the demonstrators ... and more power to you. I'm just diametrically opposed to their position, which has all the appearance of advocating a socialist system where they expect the government to redistribute wealth .... so if they are in favour of that, it smacks of Communism to me.

So, anyway Sulako, I'll need to be careful from here on out in the thread, because I'll be issued "a strike" for not being a Politically Correct member of the board and I'll end up perhaps banned like other prominent posters who have expressed differing opinions from yours over time.

So Sulako ... I'll dutifully grovel and snivel to avoid persecution in your capacity as a moderator ....

Gee Mr Sulako ... you're right. In all my years of studying and reporting on human nature, I've never met anyone as insightful as you.

Those protestors in "Occupy Toronto" have a really good grip on reality, and I sure hope they smash some windows, start some fires, fight with some cops, smoke lots and lots of weed, take over some banks and drag bankers into the streets and behead them, just like Roseanne Barr has advocated.