“Occupy Wall Street”

[SeattlePioneer]

Here in Seattle the "occupy" folks are trying to recruit homeless people to occupy their tents while they go home to a warm home.

 

They aren't having much success, since the homeless seem to prefer their nice warm shelters.

 

It's degenerating into a pointless and corrupt sideshow. If they were smart they would fold up their tents and go home.

 

At this point, I'd like to see them stay myself. They are demonstrating their ability to take our most important and public downtown park and turn it into a seedy slum.

[JoeBob]

Calico,

 

I think you've gotten Lincoln bassackward:

 

"a set of men that should do all the eating and none of the work" seems to describe the OWS protesters who want all the money without having to work for it.

 

Of course that description also fits union bosses...

[CalicoPenn]

Well what can I say, Pack. I'm eternally an optimist and a strong believer in hope.

 

Ironically, I played Eeyore in a school production of Winnie the Pooh when I was a lad.

[Beavah]

Of course that description also fits union bosses...

 

And CEOs, bankers, and attorneys, eh?

 

I'm curious, JoeBob. What do yeh think of da bailout CEOs gettin' 8-figure bonuses?

 

Do yeh think banks should be makin' 10-20% "profit" in various transactions for producing...nothing? Especially when they are not takin' any risk, since they are "too big to fail"?

 

Most importantly, when a bank or a brokerage house makes "big profits" for bonuses and such, where do yeh think it comes from, since they aren't actually producing any real products?

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad]

>>I'm curious, JoeBob. What do yeh think of da bailout CEOs gettin' 8-figure bonuses?

[scoutingagain]

"why Obama makes a pretty big deal of rich people, why hasn't he said anything about these guys?"

 

And that is the $3 Trillion question.

 

I will happily vote for the Republican candidate that will aggessively pursue criminal charges against bank executives for their part in the massive mortgage fraud that signigicantly contributed to the financial meltdown that required the kind of bailouts initiated by the Bush Administration. However right now the only candidate collecting more $$ from Wall Street than Obama is Mitt Romney.

 

One this front, I really don't expect much to change no matter who wins the election.

 

SA

 

[Eagledad]

Here is some real Hope and Change.

 

""Sixty Senators Decry 'Wildly Imprudent' Bonuses at Fannie, Freddie""

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/04/sixty-senators-decry-wildly-imprudent-bonuses-at-fannie-freddie/

 

[Scoutfish]

Eagledad,

Are they upset about the bonuses or just upset they didn't get the same themselves. I mean, you are talking about Senators.

[packsaddle]

Beavah, your question keeps me thinking back to what we did to Martha Stewart for something that seems trivial in comparison. She spent time in prison and paid more than triple her gains in fines and penalties.

BUT...she's a woman.

[Mr. Boyce]

re: Obama and the Democrats

 

My take on them is that they'd LOVE the Occupy Movement to go away!

 

It's distracting in so many ways, especially with the election coming up. And we've already seen the Democrats, when handed MANY OPPORTUNITIES to reform Wall Street, shy away from doing so. The Democrats are on the Wall Street Dole just as much as the Republicans.

 

It's a shame. There are nutcakes and lunatics involved in the Occupy Movement, and conservative slammers always will point to the froot loops. In reality, the bulk of the country wants a free and fair market. . . rather than Crony Capitalism.

[frank10]

Can we start Occupy Fort A.P. Hill?

[JoeBob]

Beavah, et.all;

 

I think the Bank Bailouts were terribly wrong. The banks should have been allowed to fail, so that the market could correct without government interference.

 

Criminal Charges? What law was broken? The execs are just using the convoluted laws that the Feds set up. Flat tax / Fair Tax anyone? If stupid legislating could be criminalized, could we lock up Dodd Frank?

 

(Tangental rant: You think Eric Holder, whitewasher of voter fraud, prosectutor of states enforcing immigration laws, perpetrator of Fast and Furious; is going to pursue nebublous fraud charges against his boss' biggest donors?)

[Beavah]

I think the Bank Bailouts were terribly wrong. The banks should have been allowed to fail, so that the market could correct without government interference.

 

Yah, I'm certainly sympathetic to da argument. Problem is it really would have been Great Depression II. Things were so convoluted it's taken nearly 3 years to try to straighten out who owed what, and some of da major banks still aren't really solvent, eh?

 

Remember that after da Great Depression, congress granted statutory immunity for bank directors for misfeasance, eh? In exchange for that get out of jail free card and da ability to protect their personal assets, and the guarantee of federal deposit insurance, da banks accepted federal regulation. Under Clinton, da Republicans led by Phil Graham (who should have gone to jail for takin' bank bribes) repealed the regulation, but left all the benefits in place - banks still offered deposit insurance, and directors still have immunity.

 

If yeh want real free market, yeh have to repeal both of those, eh? People have to have an incentive to look into whether the bank they put their money in is responsible. And they should be able to sue the bank directors back into da stone age if they gamble with depositor funds.

 

Had we not bailed out da banks, we would have had to spend that much money bailing out da depositors anyways, because of federal deposit insurance. There just would have been a huge tax on da wealthy, since anything on deposit above da FDIC limit would be lost. . And da directors would have skated.

 

I think it's a perfectly reasonable argument to repeal ALL da regulations. People will then be inclined to move their money back into small, local banks where they know the directors and can watch da finances more closely.

 

I think, given da history of the U.S., though, that adds a lot of economic friction. Da average person doesn't have the time or expertise to really evaluate the solvency of their bank. Heck, if we believe da bank CEOs, even they can't manage to do that. . In that case, regulation is more reasonable, eh? We do da same thing for other specialty areas. Da average person doesn't have da expertise to evaluate da safety and maintenance practices of airlines, so we regulate that. Successfully. By having that regulation, we have da safest air transport system in the world, so that da average person can rely on it. We probably want da same thing for deposit banks.

 

But that regulations has to come with severe penalties for those who deliberately put da system at risk in pursuit of short-term, highly leveraged "profits" with other people's money. If an airline cuts corners, da directors are liable, da execs can go to jail, da individual pilots and mechanics who go along with it lose their licenses and livelihood if they don't go to jail themselves. Every participant faces severe penalties, and that helps build a culture of professional responsibility. Not a perfect one, as enforcement has been required on occasion. But a solid one.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[scoutingagain]

"What laws were broken?" While banks claim to be victims in many mortgage fraud cases, in many others banks knowingly lent money on properties they knew or never bothered to check if they were worth the collateral stated to people they knew or never bothered to check if they could pay back the loan. Then package the mortages to sell to others as "mortgaged backed" securities and then never passed the mortgage note on to those they sold the loand to. Basically the system was rigged so banks could make not just risky loans, but loans they knew would never be paid so they could sell them to other suckers. This wasn't just small time mortgage brokers but major banks and mortgage service companies. We're just beginning to see lawsuits from those that bought securities against the banks.

 

Don't take my work for it, see what the FBI has to say;

 

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/fbi-reports-banks-still-actively-engaging-in-mortgage-fraud-1549310.htm

 

"Incredibly, the fraud now involves brand new loans or loan transfers, where the banks are continuing to subject the American public to the same practices that started the meltdown in 2008."

 

"The FBI has found the fraudulent practices to be widespread, with banks believing there is little chance of being caught," remarked Michael S. Riley, the Firm's managing partner. "We would expect to see this. In my history as a prosecutor, the hallmarks of widespread financial fraud are pervasive industry practices, a profit motive, and a seeming ability to get away with it. We have all those elements here."

 

 

 

SA

[SeattlePioneer]

The top executives of Washington Mutual were probably as guilty as anyone in negligently managing a 100 year old bank right into failure and being sold off. The Federal prosecutors announced there was not enough evidence of criminal activity to justify charging any of them with criminal action.

 

However, the Feds have gone after them and their money and assets on a civil basis.

 

 

Frankly I'm not interested in self serving claims by the FBI. Federal prosecutors simply haven't found the basis for criminal charges.

 

The simple fact is that many decades of rising housing prices and government encouragement of debt made everyone sloppy, careless and stupid. That's why bubbles happen.

 

We have other similar bubbles developing right now that no one is willing to deal with ---- the student loan bubble and the hospital -medical care bubble are two examples among many. These are things that are going to fail sooner or later. But right now ---- WHEEE! Go for it!