"Occupy Wallstreet" Video

[OutofDate1980]

CEO compensation is one issue that should draw protest. Compensation for US CEO is over the top compared to non-US CEO. Also the Boards who set CEO pay have business relations with said CEO's, a clear conflict of interest. As the CEO's run US business into the ground, CEO compensation grows ever larger. There is a disconnect between reality and CEO compensation.

 

[A.Nonymous]

CEO compensation is one issue that should draw protest. Compensation for US CEO is over the top compared to non-US CEO. Also the Boards who set CEO pay have business relations with said CEO's, a clear conflict of interest. As the CEO's run US business into the ground, CEO compensation grows ever larger. There is a disconnect between reality and CEO compensation.

One could argue that these are private companies and have every right to pay CEO's as much or as little as they choose. Steve Jobs got paid $1 a year for the past decade or so. He was much, much, much more valuable to Apple than that. Leo Apotheker got over $20 mil from HP for his 11 months of service. He was not worth anything close to that. You'd be hard pressed to argue that Apotheker's salary was somehow illegal though.

 

[9to5cynic]

The vast majority of these people were not victims of fraud. They signed up for mortgages that they could not afford. Plain and simple. How is that fraud? Why is there no personal responsibility at all?

Not trying to stir the pot here, but you have a source for this? I am very curious about this issue in general and some more info could be beneficial.

 

[OutofDate1980]

One could argue that these are private companies and have every right to pay CEO's as much or as little as they choose. Steve Jobs got paid $1 a year for the past decade or so. He was much, much, much more valuable to Apple than that. Leo Apotheker got over $20 mil from HP for his 11 months of service. He was not worth anything close to that. You'd be hard pressed to argue that Apotheker's salary was somehow illegal though.

The concept of corporations has changed. Corporations are a creation of the State, i.e. citizens. Perhaps if corporations no longer provide for the public good, they should lose the protection of the State ?

The Purpose of the Corporation in Business and Law School Curricula - Brookings Institution

"Today, it is common for corporations to direct their attention to serving shareholder and management interests, and to achieving the highest short-term financial return. Not only has this view become commonplace in society and the economy, it has permeated educational institutions and affected how young people see the role of corporations.


Lost in this orientation, though, is a sense of the corporation as a creature of the state, created and given special powers and privileges by the state. The historic balance between

 

[A.Nonymous]

I'm confused. Corporations have always been in business to make money and serve shareholder and management interests. That has always been the case. That has never changed. Serving customers is a means to that end. The better they do that, the better they achieve that end. I hear people rail against corporations because "they're only in it to make money." It makes me laugh. What do you think they're their for? It's like complaining about a fire hose because it's a piss poor road block and all it's good for is shooting water.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I'm confused. Corporations have always been in business to make money and serve shareholder and management interests. That has always been the case. That has never changed. Serving customers is a means to that end. The better they do that, the better they achieve that end. I hear people rail against corporations because "they're only in it to make money." It makes me laugh. What do you think they're their for? It's like complaining about a fire hose because it's a piss poor road block and all it's good for is shooting water.

Your confusion is understandable. At one time a corporate charter was a privilege given by a state to a group of investors to serve a public purpose.

This privilege has morphed into a right with no responsibility to serve a public purpose.

Up to 1866, corporate power, at least by law, was held somewhat in check.

Rise of Corporate Power Korten

"In 1886, in a stunning victory for the proponents of corporate sovereignty, the Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution-although, as noted above, the Constitution makes no mention of corporations-and is thereby entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech and other constitutional protections extended to individuals.

Thus corporations finally claimed the full rights enjoyed by individual citizens while being exempted from many of the responsibilities and liabilities of citizenship. Furthermore, in being guaranteed the same right to free speech as individual citizens, they achieved, in the words of Paul Hawken, "precisely what the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent: domination of public thought and discourse." The subsequent claim by corporations that they have the same right as any individual to influence the government in their own interest pits the individual citizen against the vast financial and communications resources of the corporation and mocks the constitutional intent that all citizens have an equal voice in the political debates surrounding important issues."

 

[tommy_ed]

The loan is irrelevant. You saw the terms of the loan before you signed it. You signed anyway. I'm sorry, but the "I was stupid" case rarely, if ever, holds up in court.

apparently you didn't read any of the links I posted. the courts diasagree with you.

No, they are idiots. I would love to see these people go to court, stand up in front of a judge and say, "Your honor, I should not be required to honor my commitments in this contract because I didn't read it before I signed it." That is not going to fly.



Again, all cases of people not reading what they signed. Do you really think, "I didn't read what I signed" should be a valid legal defense? 'Cuz if you do, then you can invalidate pretty much any contract you ever enter into. How do you prove that the signer really read the contract? Yes, they signed something at the bottom that said they read and understood, but that is meaningless apparently.

like I said, all of your agruments against my statements are null, because I've already provided you with literally thousands of court cases which ruled against your standpoint.

let's just agree on this: anyone who signs a contract without reading it is an idiot. lol

 

[A.Nonymous]

The Daily News is doing a live blog of the protests.

Apparently the city wanted to clean up the park that these protesters have been squatting in and needed to move them out to do that. That ended up causing problems. The cleanup got cancelled and there have been several arrests this morning. Some protesters are claiming the cops pushing them out of the park violates their free speech somehow.

 

[weiss27md]

A couple of really good videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY9-ARvX1VM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCRnkamitVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFz1VVXsWRU

 

[Bob Maxey]

The vast majority of these people were not victims of fraud. They signed up for mortgages that they could not afford. Plain and simple. How is that fraud? Why is there no personal responsibility at all?



Which doesn't apply here at all. They knew what they took home every month. They knew what their payments were going to be under the terms of the loan. They signed up anyway. If they didn't know those things, that's their fault as they had every opportunity in the world to find out. You're telling me that every single one of these people (or the vast majority at least) wanted to bring in a 3rd party who they trusted to look at the loan papers before they signed them and the lender refused? I have a hard time buying that.

Not to mention, many lenders were forced into making bad loans. For example, threats of "redlining."

When you combine poor people getting money to buy houses they should never EVER been able to have; lenders making a quick buck by offering loans that were fully backed, liars in congress telling us pure crap (not to mention, the press not reporting these problems to the public) and a few other things equals a big mess the tax payer will ultimately pay for.

There was a time when it took savings and good credit to buy a home. Some of these lenders were old school people that could smell a bad loan a mile away. They would have never made these loans (because if anything, lenders can read a P/L Statement) unless forced to do so.

If you are looking for a bad guy, look at Barney Frank and his crew.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The problem with these protesters is they want to put ALL of the fault on the lenders/bankers and none of it on themselves. Did greedy lenders loan people money when they never should've? Absolutely. But no one forced the greedy people to take the money. They chose to.

 

[electric monk]

The banks received massive bailouts, and are now making record profits. Taxpayer dollars were used for these bailouts. Ergo, the people in the streets right now paid to save the banks. And what have the banks and bankers done since the bailouts? Tightened lending restrictions on individuals and small businesses, introduced new fees for existing services despite their current profitability, fought tooth and nail against any increase in their taxes, and given themselves huge bonuses while denying their customers the right to withdraw their money.

Who's greedy again?

 

[OutofDate1980]

Not to mention, many lenders were forced into making bad loans. For example, threats of "redlining." ...

Urban myth, doesn't hold water.

Those poor bankers being "FORCED" to make bad loans. These poor banksters unable to afford lobbyist or make large donations to understanding politicians.

Yes it's the POOR PEOPLE who are the root of the problem and the current political/economic system is doing its best to increase the numbers.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The banks received massive bailouts, and are now making record profits. Taxpayer dollars were used for these bailouts. Ergo, the people in the streets right now paid to save the banks. And what have the banks and bankers done since the bailouts? Tightened lending restrictions on individuals and small businesses, introduced new fees for existing services despite their current profitability, fought tooth and nail against any increase in their taxes, and given themselves huge bonuses while denying their customers the right to withdraw their money.

Who's greedy again?

Both are greedy. Pure greed from both sides got us into the mess. Now you have greedy banks and a group of people who (appear) to want something for nothing. I've looked over their forum. There are people there who seriously advocate a cap on wealth. They would support a rule saying that the maximum anyone can earn a year is X and the maximum wealth a person can hold is X. I'm sorry, but punishing successful people is not a solution.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I have looked and found no less than three sets of demands from the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Some are more reasonable than others. Some are completely and totally off the wall and would financially cripple everyone and hit the protesters the hardest. I have no clue which of these lists is the "official" one.

http://coupmedia.org/occupy-vote.html

PROPOSED LIST OF DEMANDS (please help edit/add so this can be submitted for consideration to those maintaining the official list) | OccupyWallSt.org Forum

Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org Forum

 

[electric monk]

I'm sorry, but punishing successful people is not a solution.

Ask yourself what it has cost us, as a nation, so that a few people can be "successful". Ask yourself why it is so important to gloss over the greed of one group and to emphasize the assumed greed of the other. Ask yourself why the fruits of subprime lending, negligent oversight, and inflated bonuses are marks of "success".

 

[A.Nonymous]

Ask yourself what it has cost us, as a nation, so that a few people can be "successful". Ask yourself why it is so important to gloss over the greed of one group and to emphasize the assumed greed of the other. Ask yourself why the fruits of subprime lending, negligent oversight, and inflated bonuses are marks of "success".

You are assuming that all the successful people got that way due to those things. That is not true at all or even close to being true. You are looking at a small minority at the top who did get there that way and assuming it to be true for everyone. It's not. I consider myself to be success (though I may have a high opinion of myself) and I certainly did not engage in any of those practices, neither did I win the lottery or get lucky. My grandfather came to this country as an immigrant with little more than clothes on his back. Now he is a multi-millionaire. He's the most honest person I know. Don't assume that all successful people are the same and don't assume a very small minority speaks for all of them.

 

[electric monk]

You are assuming that all the successful people got that way due to those things. That is not true at all or even close to being true. You are looking at a small minority at the top who did get there that way and assuming it to be true for everyone. It's not. I consider myself to be success (though I may have a high opinion of myself) and I certainly did not engage in any of those practices, neither did I win the lottery or get lucky. My grandfather came to this country as an immigrant with little more than clothes on his back. Now he is a multi-millionaire. He's the most honest person I know. Don't assume that all successful people are the same and don't assume a very small minority speaks for all of them.

No, I'm not. I've been addressing the issues with the banks today, and I apologize for not making that clearer. I'm sure you and your grandfather came by your wealth in an honest way, and I'm glad that this country gave you the opportunity to do so. That being said, I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say that I don't think it's a terrible crime if your taxes go up a little. Small price to pay for living in the greatest nation in the world, yeah?

I have to ask again, and in a more direct way: Are the monetary gains that resulted from subprime lending, negligent oversight, credit default swaps, and bonuses for those bad actors marks of "success"?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Those people were successful long before all of those things happened and if you made them go away right now, they'd continue to be successful so the question is not really relevant.

 

[A.Nonymous]

My biggest issue with these protesters is their seemingly complete lack of any sort of focus. There is a group of people in the streets screaming that they're mad as heck and aren't going to take it any more. Then they have people ask them what reforms/changes they'd like and they adamantly and categorically state that they intentionally have no demands. Except for the "unofficial" lists of demands of which there are many. To a lot of people I talk to, they come off as left wing whiners because of this. Now, they have every right to protest all they want. That's their right. Until they actually come up with a list of demands for people to rally around and discuss/debate, nothing at all will come of their protests. They have put themselves in the position though that they can criticize anything that is done. They have no demands so they can always claim that whatever is done is not enough.

 

[Bob Maxey]

My biggest issue with these protesters is their seemingly complete lack of any sort of focus. There is a group of people in the streets screaming that they're mad as heck and aren't going to take it any more. Then they have people ask them what reforms/changes they'd like and they adamantly and categorically state that they intentionally have no demands. Except for the "unofficial" lists of demands of which there are many. To a lot of people I talk to, they come off as left wing whiners because of this. Now, they have every right to protest all they want. That's their right. Until they actually come up with a list of demands for people to rally around and discuss/debate, nothing at all will come of their protests. They have put themselves in the position though that they can criticize anything that is done. They have no demands so they can always claim that whatever is done is not enough.

I agree. nobody in the movement really has any ideas. When they tell us their ideas, they are torn apart because what most/many seem to want is unworkable and spells doom. all they see is how a few are paid vast sums and they want salary caps.

These people are largely clueless.

Seems to me that these Occupied Zones are filled with people look at these gatherings as a party place. They no more care about or understand business than I understand how to plot a direct course to Pluto.

The republicans tick me off because most want to play it safe and not criticize the OWS gang. Mayors and cops do not want to do anything for any number of fears. Most likely, they see interference as a way to loose votes.

What needs to happen is, well, I wont say.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The cops did try to clear them out of the park a few days ago. Things started to turn ugly so the cops pulled back. They don't want to be seen as part of a fascist police state. You get any group of people that big and that angry in one place and things can easily turn ugly in a hurry. No one wants that so I can't really blame them.

My prediction is that these protests will continue until winter really hits and then everyone will go home where it's warm and nothing will ultimately come of all of this.

 

[Bob Maxey]

The cops did try to clear them out of the park a few days ago. Things started to turn ugly so the cops pulled back. They don't want to be seen as part of a fascist police state. You get any group of people that big and that angry in one place and things can easily turn ugly in a hurry. No one wants that so I can't really blame them.

My prediction is that these protests will continue until winter really hits and then everyone will go home where it's warm and nothing will ultimately come of all of this.

So what? Yes, there could be riots. In fact, I think cooler heads will prevail and either things go way wonky or the protesters will grab a clue and decide they have had enough.

I think the police must do whatever it takes to protect property and keep the peace. Perhaps the cops were ordered to stand down. If so, the cops are stuck. If the cops decided to back off because things got scary, then what good are the police? They must uphold the law and if things get too hard, they call in more troops.

Doing nothing sends a bad message.

 

[OutofDate1980]

So what? Yes, there could be riots. ...

It appears you missed the OP, there was a riot, but it was certain members of the police. These few bad apples will need to be removed from the force and removed from society to protect the integrity of the PD and the law.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I agree. nobody in the movement really has any ideas. When they tell us their ideas, they are torn apart because what most/many seem to want is unworkable and spells doom. all they see is how a few are paid vast sums and they want salary caps.

These people are largely clueless.

Seems to me that these Occupied Zones are filled with people look at these gatherings as a party place. They no more care about or understand business than I understand how to plot a direct course to Pluto.

The republicans tick me off because most want to play it safe and not criticize the OWS gang. Mayors and cops do not want to do anything for any number of fears. Most likely, they see interference as a way to loose votes.

What needs to happen is, well, I wont say.

Well since you don't want to say "What needs to happen", perhaps we can learn from history, a STRONG LEADER has successfully solved problems like this in the recent past.

I believe there are many that agree with the "official stance towards the incident is that its actions were necessary in order to control a 'political disturbance'[146] and helped to ensure stability and economic success."

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia