"Occupy Wallstreet" Video

  1. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

  2. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Believe the protest is a bit more selective, say against those that created naked shorts, synthetic credit default swaps, etc. and made billions $ off these creative finance schemes.

    "BLOOMBERG: The protesters are protesting against people who make $40-50,000 a year and are struggling to make ends meet. That
  3. Can0dope and tommy_ed like this.
  4. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Perhaps you're right, but I'm a bit older, but not wiser, believe we are rehashing what was going on during the Burn's PBS series Prohibition, pure capitalism, which doesn't work, but it's being sold as that old time religion, which must not be questioned.
  5. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I'm a bit confused about these protests. They seem very disorganized and I, as someone who's not following them closely, have no idea what the protesters want and what they want to accomplish.

    Let's say that I am some high muckety muck and I have a magic wand and have the ability to fix all the world's problems. What do these protesters want me to do? What policies do they want me to enact or cease? What laws do they want on the books or off the books? I have no idea what they want from me.
  6. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    These days I have grown to trust the not-so-organized protests much more than those orchestrated by a special interest group. Both have merit, of course, and the "Occupy.." protests we're seeing have a solid backing.

    The telling thing about this is the gradual feeling of legitimacy about it, and the growing number of groups of various occupations and trades joining in. It seems to be touching a nerve.
  7. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    It does seem to be touching a nerve, but I'm not sure what nerve they're touching. I'm on another forum where a guy posted a link to this site - We are the 99% and it touched a nerve to say the least. Members of that forum (liberal and conservative alike) are basically bashing the protesters as being hippy whiners who won't take personal responsibility for their actions. They all say that the protesters would be better off if they stopped protesting and actually started working on their problems. The other issue they raise is that the protests are so disorganized and seem to have no clear agenda. No one is sure exactly what these protesters want.
    OutofDate1980 likes this.
  8. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    Usually, when a protest doesn't seem centered, it's because of the diversity of the protesters themselves. But it can also be for the reason that those protesting are not sure who or what the target should be, exactly.

    The target in this case is probably Wall Street's apparent perception of sucking up money and making wealthy people grow wealthier while the middle class shrinks and the poor amongst us grow in numbers.

    Solutions? If they knew that they'd do it.. they don't, thus the rather meandering protests.
  9. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    And that's what gets me. They're out there protesting why? They want changes of some sort I take it? Fair enough. What changes do you want? They've been out there for a week or so now. They've drummed up some media coverage. They have people interested. Now is the time to get your message out and tell people exactly what changes you want and what you want to happen. Then we can debate on whether those changes should happen or not and the best way to implement them. Instead, they have no message at all or a convoluted one at best.

    I saw one list of demands that asked for a $20 /hr wage be paid to every single American of working age regardless of whether they were employed or not. It also advocated that ALL debt (student loans, mortgages, etc....) be abolished among other things. It claimed that doing those things would bring about vast prosperity. In reality it would completely cripple our economy and it would take decades to recover.
  10. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    I think at this point they realize something is wrong in regards the the ever larger divide between the haves and have-nots, but it does appear they are on the verge to become better organized. Democracy is messy.

    Occupy Wall Street: The scene on the ground - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

    "The demonstrators acknowledge that their burgeoning movement is still finding its feet, as Brendan Burke, a 41-year-old truck driver serving both as a security and communications operative, told a reporter. (Just that morning, veterans of the "Battle in Seattle" protest had suggested an organizational structure that the Occupy Wall Street protesters were considering adopting.) But he said that while there are a variety of individual demands, there is a unifying theme - anger at the "economic war" being waged by the nation's wealthy, who take advantage of an economic system that benefits the very few."
  11. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    That is a good read (it was included in post #7, btw ;)).

    It does add the reality to the protests some "up there" in the Wall Street brokerages, etc, seem to have to avoid.
  12. Gah. Thread skimming prior to coffee. Thanks for pointing that out.
  13. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    To me it doesn't. In my mind the success of the people at the top has nothing to do with the mire that people are in at the bottom. There is no reason why the people at the bottom can't be successful. It's not like the people at the top are conspiring to keep them down.

    Full disclosure - I would also add that the way they describe the 99% does not include me. So I'm probably one of the white, elitist upper class even though I make less than the national average and am a minority.
  14. Vihzel

    Vihzel Destroying Balls Everyday VIP Member

    From same article beneath that:

    Actually, the median salary for stockbrokers is approximately $88,000 a year. But that is besides the point. The demonstrators are not targeting the individuals who work on Wall Street, they are targeting the financial institutions and practices they represent.

    Recall, the banks were the primary actors who set off the global recession, and that recession plunged 60 million people into extreme poverty worldwide. By protesting in favor things like a financial transactions tax, Americans can hope to get some of that wealth back from financial institutions that are anything but “struggling to make ends meet.”
  15. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    How is it the fault of the banks and stock brokers that people who make $40-50k a year struggle to make it? How is that Wall Street's fault that those people borrowed too much money, are swimming in debt and live above their means? There's no reason in the world someone making $40-50k a year should struggle to make it if they manage their money well. The Median Income in my state (KS) is about $50k in the latest census. There is no reason for people making the median income to struggle to make ends meet unless they have made foolish decisions on their own.
  16. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Just finished watching "Inside Job". It starts with Iceland's experiment with deregulation of the financial sector then compares with the US experience. The main focus is the concentration of power in the financial sector corrupted the political, educational and economic sectors.

    From my post #48 http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/145843-u-s-falling-apart.html#post3187105

    I know it was a long post so just a little regarding those "who borrowed too much money".

    "One reason to believe this is that many of the same people who were creating the self-destruct CDOs in 2006 had also seized control of major mortgage companies. Once in control of the mortgage companies, the financial operators loaded them with debt that they used to finance fraudulent mortgages, which were precisely the sort of mortgages they needed for their self-destruct CDOs (i.e., their bets against the fraudulent mortgages they had created)."
    Can0dope likes this.
  17. Vihzel

    Vihzel Destroying Balls Everyday VIP Member

    I'm not qualified to be able to answer those questions with full confidence but I do know that there were and are major issues with predatory lending, subprime mortgage loans, and deceptive practices by mortgage brokers and bankers in the real estate field.

    I remember hearing about mortgage brokers lending people too much money and letting people believe that they can afford the mortgages. That with the economy led to so many foreclosures.

    Your questions can't be answered on here and I think some author needs to write an entire book to explain the issues we're having today.
    Can0dope and Frisco like this.
  18. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    No question that some of those people got taken for a trip, but they did sign up for it. These are adults of sound mind who signed loan documents that they had every opportunity to read before they signed. If they wanted to have the documents looked over by their own lawyer or their own financial adviser they would have been well within their rights to do that. Now they're arguing that they should bear no responsibility at all for their decisions?
  19. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    That's well said, and highlights the irony of those reasons being obscured from the general public (the victims). It's such a convoluted mess that it takes experts to unravel and make sense of it.

    All we see are headlines and stories, anecdotes from our neighbors, etc.

    The hell of it is that those people expert enough to know how it works are by and large probably the ones benefiting from such a system.
    Can0dope likes this.
  20. I 100% agree, most Americans could not find the common sense if they where handcuff to it, in a metal box, with a flashlight.

    But here is the my problem with it. The American dream was sold as owning your own home. A group of banks specificly set out with the intention to inflate the housing market to make every home more and more expensive.

    Loans had to be given to people to full fill the American dream. Which means that banks created the mess we are in. The only reason I did not buy a home, was I knew that housing market was going to crash. I am now currently looking for a home, because the market is about as low as it is going. But I am picking over the carcass of the American dream.

    So which is it?

    Is the American dream alive, and the banks are to blame for exploiting people?


    Is the American dream dead, and people where trying to live in a fallacy?

    You can not have both.
  21. Vihzel

    Vihzel Destroying Balls Everyday VIP Member

    It's more complicated than simply that. Until we have a firm understanding of what exactly caused such an economic crash in 2008 and 2009, then it'll be hard to answer all of these. I don't know if we already do have a firm understanding because I haven't been following that.

    The American dream is definitely not dead, but I'd say critically injured for so many of our brothers and sisters in this country. Who's to blame? I'm not exactly sure.

    So simply put...

    The American dream is critically injured and the _____ and _____ and _____ and _____ etc. etc. are to blame for exploiting people.
  22. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I don't disagree with that at all. You can't go out and blame other people for your lack of common sense though. If you walk into a car dealership, the salesman is not going to look at you and tell you you have no business buying a car regardless of how bad your finances are. Anyone who expects otherwise is a fool.

    Sure you can. IF the American dream is a home in the suburbs with white picket fences, a dog in the backyard and 2.5 kids it's not the banks fault if I over reach in order to attain it. The problem these people are pissed about is they borrowed way more money than they had any business borrowing in the first place. No income, no job, no assets and banks loaned several hundred K to buy homes. The bank is 100% at fault for that. But so are the people who borrowed the money. Then we have people who borrowed twice what they could afford. They are selling their homes are bargain basement prices so they can downsize and buy the houses they should've bought in the first place. If they'd bought a reasonable house to begin with they'd be fine. Instead they bought twice what they could afford. They could easily afford the American dream. Instead they got greedy. Who's fault is that?

    I've got good credit. I could qualify to buy a luxury sports car I'm sure. Can I afford one without spending every dime I make on payments? No. But if I go out and buy one anyway, is it the dealerships fault when it gets repo'd? Sure. But am I completely faultless? Not a chance in the world.

    We do know what caused the economic crash. That's another thread though. There are all kinds of economists all over the web who break it down.
    persim likes this.
  23. Vihzel

    Vihzel Destroying Balls Everyday VIP Member

    You do realize that underwriters working in mortgage lending institutions are the ones who determine if you are able to pay off the mortgage debt. If you're told that you are approved to obtain a $150,000 loan, that number comes from a lot of analysis of financial records. No trustworthy lender (hence I say trustworthy and not predatory) is going to allow you borrow more money than you are able to afford. There is a lot of fraud going on in the lending market when dealing with lenders giving you the perception that you are financially secure to obtain a certain amount when they actually expect you to default and with the acceleration clause in a lot of mortgages, force you to either pay everything at once or proceed to foreclosure.

    For those people who had mortgages and were doing fine until the economy crashed... well... now they either are struggling to make those payments or are foreclosed on since they lost their job. Those people can blame those who crashed the economy and caused the loss of millions of jobs.

    People are selling their homes at low, low prices because the housing market crashed and property values for the vast majority of real estate markets crashed along with them. I know my parent's home went from $1.5 million in 2005 to $750,000 in 2009 when they got an appraisal to take out a mortgage.
  24. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry, but that's just not true. When I bought my house I was approved for twice the amount of house that I ended up getting. Had I gone with what I was approved for I would've been paying 50-60% of my net pay in mortgage payments. This was not from a sub-prime lender either. This was from Countrywide. My real estate agent was happy to sell me houses in the price range that I was approved for and was shocked that I didn't want to buy in that range. I can do math though. Spending half of your pay check on your mortgage is a recipe for disaster.

    Yes lenders give you the perception that you can afford more than you actually can. They're trying to sell you a loan. A car dealer is going to do the exact same thing when you go to buy a car. Buyers should've expected the same thing when they go looking for mortgages.

    No. They can blame themselves. They were stretched thin and were an accident waiting to happen. No one put them there except themselves. If I lost my job today I could spend 6 mos and not earn a dime and still survive. Why? Because I've saved and prepared for rainy days. Most people don't. That's no one's fault but their own.

    My house's value has crashed as well. I had a realtor look at it a few weeks ago as I considered snatching up one of the many fire sales on the market. The realtor told me I'd likely have to sell my house at a loss. But the loss of value of my home doesn't concern me much as I'm not in the market to sell.

Share This Page