Interesting parallels

[Beefitarian]

Well I'm lucky I guess. I'm overweight, get to fly a little, have great kids, live in a nice warm house, get to drink a variaty of beverages I enjoy and can afford to drive places in a nice vehicle that's paid for.

I see a fair amount of people working way harder than me and struggling to pay their bills. One summer I was driving a dump truck and during a conversation in the office after work learned I was the only one that was only working one job. A few of the other employees had three.

[JakeYYZ]

All these nutbars are displaying are qualities that successive Liberal governments have bestowed upon us as "Canadian values". They think they are 'entitled' to free education, free health care, free room(affordable housing) and board (living wage) and they expect all this from a benevolent government. Hopefully they'll all still be there when the big freeze comes, and we can stack them like cord wood and keep the generators running a while longer, at least then they'll be truly useful idiots.

[Rockie]

Thoughtful and compassionate as usual Jake.

[WileyCoyote]

I don't think people are protesting the bankers in general. I think it has to do with the fact that some of these companies willingly sold crappy products that ended up bankrupting them, and then taking taxpayer money to pay for their mistakes AND pay out gross bonuses.. And that I agree with. More people need to be in jail. And why are banks "too big to fail" In the old days if companies got too big they were broken up..

[GoinNowhereFast]

Two years ago, I worked for one company that treated their employees like crap. I didn't give a rats ass about that company. I would swear in front of customers, not care about their issues, or delivering the services properly. Sure, I'd get the job done, but I'm sure I left a bad impression about myself and that company.

I quit that job and now I have my current one. They treat me much better, actually care about their employees, pay me 50% better. Now guess what? I do my damn best to protray a good image for myself and the company. I am nice and polite to the customers and I accomidate their needs as best as I can.

Treat employees like crap, and they'll protray the company as crap. Treat employees well and they'll protray the company well.

[Shiny Side Up]

See how far your business goes without any.

That's a fair point. But also see how far your business goes without the $500million loan you need to build that new factory, or invest in R&D to come up with the new product.

Well here we're getting closser to the root of the issue. What happens when that loan from the bank is misused? You can screw over a lot of people with $500 million. Make a lot of promises, do a lot of robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep up a house of cards on it, and in the meantime make a pretty good living at it. The bank don't care, they'll get their money back - most of the time - they can seize assets, firesale and get some of their capital back. The people at the bottom get screwed. The people who built the factory, the people who worked in it. Currently the law is very loose when it comes to creating a business plan, who checks into this? A lot of the laws out there favour the "Job Creators" to help them out, and understandably so, but there's a lot of loopholes that should be tightened up. Gives a "Job Creator" a lot of room to take the money and run so to speak. Aren't we tired of hearing how some fat cat declared bankruptsy then the next day is starting a new business?

I don't think the people who camp out on Wall Street (or wherever) understand very much about the system they're attacking.

Probably not, but they do understand that they've been being screwed around for too long. Maybe the banks aren't directly screwing them, but one could make a good case that the banks are certainly enabling the people who are screwing them. I'm not sure why the world holds so much contempt for the average working Joe. The world depends on them being content to work and average job for fair pay, raise some kids and have a beer on the weekend and retire peaceably.

[photofly]

Make a lot of promises, do a lot of robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep up a house of cards on it, and in the meantime make a pretty good living at it.

That would be fraud, and anyone who wants to campaign against it gets my support.

But unless I'm mistaken that's not what these protests are about. You don't need to be a fraudulent executive to make a sound business decision that people have to be laid off, or that wages can't be increased, or that pensions are unaffordable - or whatever. Business leaders have statutory responsibilities to their shareholders in ways that they don't towards their employees. That's somewhat different in much of Europe, with workers councils, much stronger labour protection law and so forth. It certainly hasn't worked out so well for economies there either.

On the subject of respect towards "working Joes" - where do you see evidence of a lack of this? I don't.

[Rockie]

Make a lot of promises, do a lot of robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep up a house of cards on it, and in the meantime make a pretty good living at it.

That would be fraud, and anyone who wants to campaign against it gets my support.

But unless I'm mistaken that's not what these protests are about.?

To a large extent that's exactly what these protests are all about. The problem is people are protesting a lot of other things as well, and the loonier ones are what some people seize on to discredit and dismiss the entire movement. Kind of like one person on here dismissing the whole thing because of violence in one city without knowing why the violence occurred in the first place, and forgetting about the weeks of peaceful protest in New York and elsewhere.

[Wilbur]

Actually, the banks care a great deal about issuing bad loans and that's why they don't issue debt that isn't secured. It's one of the biggest complaints about Canadian banks; The inability of start-up, small and mid-size businesses to access sufficient capital. "Serial entrepeneurs" and other high risk business operators rarely get money from the banks, rather they turn to venture capital markets. They might use private money from individuals or venture capital funds, or go public via OTC or Pink Sheets. Those types of investors accept they will often lose their money, but will occasionally hit a home run that might generate a return of several thousand percent. If you go to work for a start-up, especially an airline, you better go in with your eyes wide open to the reality that most go broke within a few years. On the other hand, you are also gambling that you get in early on a company that turns out to be another Westjet with you high on the seniority list and maybe raking in a small fortune in share purchase and profit sharing programs.

In the end, what these protests are really about is jealousy. The protesters are jealous of what wealthier people have, and it is easier to find ways to demonize their success than it is to look in the mirror and admit you're siimply not as smart, hard working, lucky, etc. It's easier to be a victim than admit your limitations. In my observed life experience, that ability to look in the mirror honestly is what separates the top half of the middle class and above from the bottom half of the socio-economic ladder. The top half do the best they can within their personal limits, the bottom half make excuses and blame others.

[sky's the limit]

In the end, what these protests are really about is jealousy. The protesters are jealous of what wealthier people have, and it is easier to find ways to demonize their success than it is to look in the mirror and admit you're siimply not as smart, hard working, lucky, etc. It's easier to be a victim than admit your limitations. In my observed life experience, that ability to look in the mirror honestly is what separates the top half of the middle class and above from the bottom half of the socio-economic ladder. The top half do the best they can within their personal limits, the bottom half make excuses and blame others.

You have got to be joking, really. It seems rather obvious you have very little idea of what makes the world go around, how people of various "classes" fit into the equation, and why they fit where they do. Perhaps your observations need to be increased in both depth and breadth...


Is this really what you believe, or are you just trolling?

stl

[Nark]

Why is it that a hard working, intelligent person can go from rags to riches, (ie Jobs, Wozniak, Zuckerberg etc) and not be the attention of these protests, but a hard working rags-to-riches no-name on Wall Street is the target of these "social warriors"?


Apple being at one time, the largest traded company ahead of BP for a brief moment on the Dow.

It's the hypocrisy of this latest movement that I cannot get behind.

[iflyforpie]

What product or service did the robber barons of Wall Street provide for the money they took?

Even the Railroad Barons of the 1860s in the US with their inflated construction contracts and watered down stocks at least got a rail connection across the country--something that even 20 years before was considered an impossibility.

[Rockie]

Why is it that a hard working, intelligent person can go from rags to riches, (ie Jobs, Wozniak, Zuckerberg etc) and not be the attention of these protests, but a hard working rags-to-riches no-name on Wall Street is the target of these "social warriors"?


Apple being at one time, the largest traded company ahead of BP for a brief moment on the Dow.

It's the hypocrisy of this latest movement that I cannot get behind.

The answer to that is rather obvious Nark. The people you mentioned got rich by being innovative and building an honest business. What the masses can't abide anymore is Wall Street financial firms sucking up all the money by selling bad mortgages to millions of people who can't afford them, then wrapping them all up in a disguise and selling those mortgages to other unsuspecting people who don't understand finance and the risks involved.

Then when the whole thing comes crumbling down, THE MASSES get to bail out the criminals who did it, watch them rake in even more billions in bonuses and revenue that THE MASSES provided, and use that money to prevent the government from regulating the criminals so they can't do it again.

What's hypocritical about that?

If you've read up on this at all you will have heard the term "profits are private, losses are public". What that means is if the lower 95% is going to pay for the losses of the top 5, then they have a right to keep more of the profits as well.

Pretty simple concept. Think of it as capitalism for the little people

[photofly]

What the masses can't abide anymore is ...

What "the masses" have conveniently forgotten is that they are the ones who borrowed the money - without the income to repay it - in the first place. I don't think anyone was forced to borrow with a gun to their head, were they?

[Rockie]

What the masses can't abide anymore is ...

What "the masses" have conveniently forgotten is that they are the ones who borrowed the money - without the income to repay it - in the first place. I don't think anyone was forced to borrow with a gun to their head, were they?

Mass fraud is mass fraud. Do the victims (millions of them) deserve all the blame for being conned?

People are bombarded with credit card ads and bankers who are very clever at convincing people a mountain of debt is good not only for them, but for the economy.

People have woken up a little bit, and a major part of what they want are controls on the financial community so they can't be so reckless with other people's money anymore. It amazes me that so many people resist that.

[sky's the limit]

It's the hypocrisy of this latest movement that I cannot get behind.

Nark,

I would submit to you that we are all so vested in 'the system' now, that to voice opinions of any kind, from any side of a given issue is hypocrisy on one level or another. Every movement has inherent hypocrisy, but to summarily discount it based on that assumption would be cutting ones's nose off despite one's face, would it not? Given that fact, how about looking at this particular world-wide problem (and it is a significant one, corporate involvement in our lives and government, corruption, the separation of rich and poor, etc) a little more closely and try to understand that there are some very, very, serious problems with the way our society fundamentally operates?

stl

[azimuthaviation]

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then we win."

[Shiny Side Up]

What the masses can't abide anymore is ...

What "the masses" have conveniently forgotten is that they are the ones who borrowed the money - without the income to repay it - in the first place. I don't think anyone was forced to borrow with a gun to their head, were they?

Mass fraud is mass fraud. Do the victims (millions of them) deserve all the blame for being conned?

People are bombarded with credit card ads and bankers who are very clever at convincing people a mountain of debt is good not only for them, but for the economy.

One should also point out that no one is forced to lend money with a gun to their heads either. Who was going to benefit from people forclosing on their mortgages? Certainly not the people being forclosed upon. With that in mind as well, while no one is forced to borrow, you pretty much have to if you want to get anywhere in what we'd like to think is a "capitalist" society. Renting after all is a temporary game, and this ain't the world anymore where we have the option to buy a chunk of land ourselves from the government for ten buck and go build our own sod-shanty. Most of the populace have the choice to borrow or flip burgers and live in Mom's basement for the rest of their lives, unless of course Mom doesn't have a basement either.

This man is like a prophet.

[Wilbur]

Those nebulous purveyors of all evil in every workplace and government operation; "Big Business," "They," and "Management." Busnesses, they, and management don't run your life, lobby politians, or make decisions; people do. Funny thing I've noticed through the years, when you ask people to identify who exactly these evil people are, rarely can they identify an actual person or people. Only last week at work I had an employee complaining to me about how management doesn't care about staff, screws employees, etc. Being one of three managers, I asked him if he was talking about me; he said "no." I asked him if he was talking about Bill, and he said "no." So I said, "then you must be talking about Susan?" Of course, he said he wasn't. After I pointed out we three are the only management, we had a conversation. It became clear the issue had nothing to do with "management" or even the workplace, and a whole lot to do with his own dissatisfcation in life. It was just a lot easier to scapegoat "management" than it was to deal with his own unhappiness and the fact that his views on how things should run don't have to be in agreement with those of the decision makers.

My life is what it is because "they" are screwing me. "They," of course, are always better off than me, have mystical powers over me, were born with a silver spoon, never had to work, etc, etc. "They" are somehow able to make me lease a new car so I'm perpetually in debt to them, mysteriously coerce me into buying that big screen TV with nothing down and no payments for 6 months, etc. Get real I say. How many people know more about the characters on Survivor than they do about their own finances? I wonder if they tend to be the people who wind up in debt trouble?

[Wilbur]

Shiny, you can pretty much put borrowing into one of two categories; money borrowed to make more money, and money borrowed to buy consumables. Borrowering to buy a house is almost always going to be an investment that makes money over the long term. That kind of debt is good debt.

Borrowing to buy a new car, TV, vacation, etc is almost always bad debt and almost always unnecessary. You can then compound the mistake with how you borrow that money, with high interest credit cards being second only loan sharks on the stupidity scale.

I have almost 200 employees at my worksite, with most making exactly the same annual income. How is that 20 years after starting, some own their homes, a couple revenue properties and are debt free, while others live paycheck to paycheck and have the repo man hooking their car out of the staff parking lot? And I'm talking people with identical life stories - no wife making big money, no inheritence, etc. The well off people have a plan, pay cash or their credit card in full every month, don't drive new cars, and have zero consumer debt. A mortgage is the only debt most have ever had. On the other end of he spectrum are those with maxed out credit cards, a new leased car every 3 years, and not a pot to otherwise piss in.

[Shiny Side Up]

Shiny, you can pretty much put borrowing into one of two categories; money borrowed to make more money, and money borrowed to buy consumables. Borrowering to buy a house is almost always going to be an investment that makes money over the long term. That kind of debt is good debt.

Borrowing to buy a new car, TV, vacation, etc is almost always bad debt and almost always unnecessary. You can then compound the mistake with how you borrow that money, with high interest credit cards being second only loan sharks on the stupidity scale.

The people occupying wall street aren't mad because the bank repoed their cars or their big screen tvs. They're people who are losing their homes. So by your definition they're people who were trying to make a good investment in their own futures. They're mad because this should have been a good investment for them to get into - and it bit them.

Funny thing I've noticed through the years, when you ask people to identify who exactly these evil people are, rarely can they identify an actual person or people.

Then you and I have had the opposite experiences. I could give you a list of names of the people who have or tried to f*ck over myself and or my fellow workers. Just because someone gets you from behind and you can't identify them, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You will of course get those blamers and those folk who got no one but themselves to blame for their misfortunes, but fortunately they are the minority otherwise the world would have fell apart a long time ago.

For example, I was there when that lying bastard Stockwell Day (back when he was the minister of Transportation for the province of Alberta, before he stepped into federal politics) told my father and the rest of the group of concerned provincial employees that their jobs were secure, one month before they gutted their pensions and laid them all off. 24 years of loyal work down the tubes. Its shit like this that the people are unhappy about and have had enough. Its one thing to tell them that they ain't getting pensions, that they could deal with if they at least knew so they could plan for it. Right now the system is leaving them in the lurch after nothing but a series of lies to hide the @#$! ups. There's no transparancy in the system and people are tired of it.

[Wilbur]

Notwithstanding there are dishonest people out there, often politicians with bibles in hand, most are not.

Anyone taking out a mortgage better make dam sure they know what they are getting into, and I'm afraid most of those Americans who jumped on sub-prime loans and lost their houses didn't. Many Canadians are not far off from the experiences of our southern neighbours, albeit for excessive consumer debt rather than their mortgage. The banks didn't commit a fraud on the US public with sub-prime mortgages. Rather, government sponsored interference in the marketplace through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in creating the sub-prime mortgage plan forced private retail banks to also enter into that game or risk losing a big piece of their mortgage lending businesses. The scheme allowed borrowers to defraud the banks by taking on debt they ought to have known they couldn't ultimately afford. The banks and their shareholders were left holding the bag with virtually worthless repossessed homes while the defaulters packed up and went back to renting.

Any purchase scheme that involves have now, pay later, ought to send up red flags for most people. If that kind of offer sways you to make a purchase, you're probably irresponsibly impulsive with your money and headed for a financial train wreck. Credit is never free and you are either paying too much for the item, too high an interest rate when you have to start paying, or some sort of "processing" fee. Sadly, a great many people can't understand anything beyond I want it, I deserve it, and I need it now.

People need to take responsibility for their own financial affairs. While there are certainly many examples of "collateral damage" to responsible people who lost their jobs in the economic downturn, most people who are carrying little or no consumer debt are reaping the benefits of much more competitive pricing and buying opportunities. They will get richer while the debt laden dummies get poorer.

[photofly]

Borrowering to buy a house is almost always going to be an investment that makes money over the long term. That kind of debt is good debt.

Why should it make money in the long term? And what are the parameters of "almost always", please?

There's no such thing as a certain investment - that includes houses. If you buy your house because you live in it and it's cheaper than paying rent in the long run that's one thing. If you buy in the expectation of making money you are suddenly a speculator, and what's more you're gambling with your own home. As the people who have lost their houses have now found out. Is that a difficult concept?

[Rockie]

When I bought my first home the bank showed me a number they were willing to lend me based on my salary and I just about croaked. Lots of sell sell sell, but conspicuously absent was advice that although they would give it to me I couldn't really afford it. For that I had to rely on my own low tolerence for debt.

The vast majority of people are not all that financially adept and rely on investment advisors and banks to give them the straight goods, which as we know is not in the advisor's interest. They'll gleefully sell you crap investments because they make their money regardless of whether it goes up or down. They make money taking your money, not by making you better off.

It's a crooked scam epitomized by the "freedom 55" lie. The only people realizing that dream are the people who thought it up.

[Beefitarian]

I completely agree with Rockie's last post there. Most people, especially the ones at the bank that you actually talk to, are not smart enough to be having this coversation Wilbur.

I believe the people at the bank that you don't talk to that are in charge of setting up all this credit are trying to intentionally get regular folks in debt over their heads as well as invested in bad funds that make money for them instead of us. You can't blame them for duping the general public for profit but my concience won't allow me to think it's not corrupt and it's just business.

In my opinion it's like a theif that steals something out of an unlocked car. Just because the owner was a moron and didn't take their valubles with them and lock the door doesn't make it right even if it's not a crime anymore.

The system is broken, my buddy is a musician for a living. He had a custom guitar valued at a couple of thousand dollars stolen from a gig. The police told him that even if he knew who took it and he found it at a pawn shop it's their word against his and they could not recover it. The guy just had to lie and say, "He owed me money and gave me the guitar as payment." Pretty much the same thing in my opinion, you can fault my pal for not looking after his guitar better but the guy who took it is still scum to me.