|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Occupy Wall Street, London and Evereywhere Else | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What and where next for the Occupy movement? That's what I haven't understood since the beginning... What are the protester really expecting to happen? Its not like either the banks or politicians are gonna go: "Oops, yeah, we fucked you all. We're sorry. Here's your money back." I just don't see any actual results from all this. Seems the ballot box would be a better place to make changes. Although, I guess the portests can win the hearts and minds of the voters and get them out there to actually vote. But that isn't really the message I'm getting from them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Wow this is a global phenomenom!?! this thread should be under humor. it's fricking hilarious.
Cue taken...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That's what I haven't understood since the beginning... What are the protester really expecting to happen? To elicit social, and then political change. You think that's working for them? It started out pretty good, but they seem to be getting more and more ridicule these days.
I just don't see any actual results from all this. Seems the ballot box would be a better place to make changes. Just about any movement that's ever succeeded has had people respond to it in this fashion. Of course, since one of the complaints is systematic corruption, the ballot box isn't necessarily the first solution. That's true. And its not like we have somebody good to vote for anyways. All politicians suck. I think its a function of wanting to be a politician. We need that reluctant nominee: "but I don't want to be a politician".., "that's why you're perfect for the job". Rather than all the complaining, I think the efforts would be better spent on the solution. Find some good leaders that will do what you want and tell everyone that these are who we're all gonna vote for.
Polls indicate that a majority of Americans are in some way sympathetic to OWS' goals. This is as a result of the movement existing. If politicians cared about what the people think, we should see this reflected in those that are running. The issue, though, is that politicians who should care about what the people think, instead care about those that donate significant sums for their campaign. Yeah, they are complaining about some of the same things that everybody is, but not everybody is "occupying". Too; why Wall Street? That's what I'm getting at: why occupy Wall Street? why occupy Wall Street? It makes sense if we're talking about being pissed at the bankers, but this other stuff doesn't seem to tie into that. At least, its awefully tangential.
Its not like either the banks or politicians are gonna go: "Oops, yeah, we fucked you all. We're sorry. Here's your money back." It's not like the politicians are gonna say "Oops, yeah we disenfranchised you all. We're sorry, ladies, here's your rightful vote" Well, that's hardly analogous, but I don't think your point is lost.
Now obviously, nobody is expecting the corrupt politicians to safeguard or return taxpayers money. But it might be nice if we started voting for people who want to change the system to minimize corruption. It's not easy, perhaps it is not even likely, but that's what movements are traditionally all about: the little people banding together against the power elites and making change happen. Okay, but that's not really the sense I have been getting from the Occupy Wall Street protests. I'm feeling like they're pissed that they got screwed and want some retribution, not that they're out to put a bunch of work into fixing the system itself. Maybe I'm not seeing the right coverage... (no TV, just random internet stuff)
Vote for who? Just about all the candidates on offer are essentially part of the corrupt system. There certainly does not appear enough principled politicians out there to outweigh the power of the greedy opportunists. One of the problems is that being principled is penalized in the system that is being run by the greedy opportunists. So we kinda have the "whose gonna police the police" problem.
What can be done? Well one thing that can be done is gather together and discuss with one another what can be done. To quote from some of the work that is being done in these discussion groups: Maybe its all just really preliminary at this point... I guess I just see all these people bitching in the streets and think they could be doing something more or better and that they should focus their efforts on obtaining some real goals. My 'take it to the polls' comment does seem shallow, and in hind sight I think I was too flippant.
There is also talk within the movement of formally drafting grievances and serving them to the government, and of forming an independent third party if the grievances are not addressed. Yeah, see, this seems better to me. Actually do something, don't just bitch in the streets.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yup, thanks for the reply. Cheers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It sounds simple. But when for decades we have been employing many of our most educated people to (rather than do anything socially useful) conceive of ever more ingenious methods of selling intertwined debt to each other things get more complicated. Simply letting failed banks go to the wall is an option. But if the result of letting a huge bank with billions of interbank liabilities fail is a domino effect of banking collapses, a complete collapse of the short-term money market and the eventual collapse of the global financial system then that isn't really a good thing for anyone. People with money in accounts would not have been able to access it and might never have seen it again. Companies with accounts there would not have been able to pay salaries or suppliers. Conceivably a point where cash machines just stopped working would come about. Imagine the social consequences of all of this. I don't know what I'm talking about.... But couldn't you just let those banks fail, and then we people weren't getting their money from their accounts, then you just bail out those people? Isn't that kinda what the whole FDIC thing is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But how do you go about doing that in practise? I certainly don't know. You go to the bank to withdraw some money. They respond: "We done goofed, we ain't got your money". You call the Feds and report the problem and then they give you the money. But FDIC insures the banks, not the people, so I dunno.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"and they give you the money".....? Just like that? Simple. I'm sure I missed some steps and there's probably some paperwork to fill out.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiment you are expressing about bailing out people rather than corrupt banks. But your statement seems incredibly naive. What part of "I don't know what I'm talking about" aren't you getting
The banking system is the system by which money gets distributed. If it collapses how does the government "give you the money"? I suppose they'd just mail me a check like every other time they've given me money.
Does the government setup cash dispensing booths on every street corner and just give it to people who seem worthy or who claim to have money in the bank they can't access? What about company payrolls, supplier payments and all the other behind the scenes transactional goings on? Why couldn't we just use the other banks that didn't fail? If all banks fail simultaneously, then yeah, we're fucked. That isn't the consideration tho.
Governments could arguably just take over failed banks, nationalise them rather than bail them out. Then at least the banks in question could continue to function without requiring the government to setup whole new methods of money distribution. Is nationalisation effectively what you are advocating as an alternative to bailout? I thought we were talking about just letting some of banks fail, and then bailing out the people who end up not getting the money that's theirs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Rightly or wrongly that is exactly what many of those who acted to bailout the banks around the world did think was about to happen. The entire global banking system was believed to be on the verge of collapse. Large banks "too big to fail" going under and taking others down with them in a domino effect. A panic of confidence where savers all start withdrawing their funds simultaneously because they don't believe their money is safe in any bank at all. Etc. Complete paralysis of the financial system. That is exactly what we are talking about. So we cannot consider letting some banks fail without considering making every bank fail? What kind of flimsy house-of-cards are we talking about? I don't see how letting, say, Bank of America fail would mean that my Local Building & Loan would fail as well. Why would everyone pull their money out of their local bank because a corporate one failed? How about this scenario: Joe the Banker opens up a new local bank for people that have left the big corporate ones. Couldn't that work?
Which you just take down to the bank to cash. Oh..... If there were other banks, tho, then it wouldn't be the problem you're making it to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
A check drawn on what account, though? I dunno, where'd the last one come out of? I think I have a copy of the check at home that I could look at... But couldn't they just print up the money instead of using an account
Seriously, CS, you should look up how the FDIC closes banks. I don't say that to criticize you; No offense taken, but honestly (and maybe this means that I shouldn't participate in these topics) I think I'd rather go read Twilight.
I say that because I think you'd really enjoy it, it's seriously some super-spy shit because it has to be a big secret or else the presence of the FDIC causes a run on the bank and embezzlement by the top execs. I bet. I guess I can take a look.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
FDIC insurance does not cover trust accounts nor many other types of securities. My families entire nest egg...retirement future...everything! You should know not to put all your eggs in one basket.
...Is at Wells Fargo and if anyone had let Wells Fargo fail and we lost everything, I'd be out there with a gun aiming at the politicians responsible! What kind of gun do you have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Just look at our local conservatives: they are all 3 very anti-OWS. Are you counting me? I'm not anti-OWS at all, let alone "very"... I asked a lot of questions. And they got answered. Er, wait, is this one of those 'if you're not with us you're against us' sorta things?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Given what you have heard - Are you now pro the Occupy movement? In what way? I'm not gonna occupy anywhere but my computer chair(s). I get what they're complaining about. I feel sorry for them. But I don't feel like I'm one of them. I don't sympathize with their plight.
If not what is it that you disagree with? We've set-up my life to avoid most of the problems I've heard from them. I don't owe on a student loan, I have a moderately salaried position with benefits, I bought a modest home that I don't have problems affording, I'm purposefully frugal and don't blow a lot of money, own a small amount of diversified investments. In a another post, crashfrog mentioned that "medium chill" thing. That's been me for a while.
You are almost certainly one of the much fabled 99% so in what sense do you disagree with the Occupy aims? I'm with them in that I don't like that the banks got bailed out when it was their fault and they were fucking everybody (but I can understand that the bail out could have been necessary). I do think that the guy who bought a really expensive house that he could barely afford because he thought the value would keep going up took a risk, himself, and is partially to blame for the problem. Too, the kid who owes $50,000 for an education that didn't prepare him for aquiring a job that he could pay back the loan with did something stupid, himself. One of the biggest shocks for me when I grew up (that is, got out of college and into the 'real world') was realizing that nobody is going to hand you anything. I sorta (naively) figured that after I graduated that I would just get in the job line and be handed a position somewhere. But that never happened. I had to go and root through shit and claw my way into and carve out my position. I think that some of the protester still need to learn that lesson that the real world is tough, and it ain't pretty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I don't entirely disagree, but I think the bulk of the blame has to go to the professional "experts" - I tend to ascribe more to personal responsibility than getting duped by a pro.
including the guy who sold him the mortgage - that told him, over and over again, that he could afford it, that home prices would continue to increase, and who profited greatly because that homeowner did exactly what they told him to do. Well that right there, that the guy is selling me something, tells me that I can't fully trust him.
The whole point of having a mortgage broker is that he's not supposed to be your adversary. You're supposed to be able to trust, somewhat, that he's not trying to screw you. A broker is a middleman who tries to negotiate between competing interests. The mortgage broker who has his own agenda - in opposition to yours - is a direct betrayal of what mortgage brokers are supposed to do. And a lot of those brokers did have their own agenda - pushing homeowners into higher interest rate loans than they deserved, larger loans than they could afford, and so on. It was different for me. I didn't consult a morgage borker to determine how much I could afford. I went to a lender and they approved me for a certain maximum amount and then we determined how much different amounts would cost me per month, and then it was up to me to determine how much I was capable/willing to spend each month and that determined how much I was going to borrow. Then I went and found a house within that amount. I didn't talk to the morgage broker until the very end when it came to determining what the exact rate on the loan amount I picked would be.
Sure, but what if he thought he was preparing himself for a job? What about all the colleges who tell you that a BA comes with a significant wage premium, regardless of your major? What about all the professors who said that it doesn't matter what you study, because the point of a liberal arts education is to make you a better citizen and not a better employee? It became apparent to me when I was looking at different colleges, that they were trying to sell their schooling to me. Every place had a similiar pitch of how great they were and how awesome I'd be if I went there. Again, if someone's trying to sell you something, you can't just take their word for everything. I guess you could blame the seller for selling to people, but I just don't have a lot of sympathy for the position: "I got sold on this and they tricked me into buying it" I'm sorry the ShamWow wasn't as absorbant as you were lead to believe, but that's just sales. Sure, you can't outright lie and there should be some accountability to the sellers, but there's personal resposibility of the buyer too. And I realize you said you don't totally disagree with that, but you do seem to want to blame the seller more than I do.
What about all the parents who told him that working at a McDonalds (or even being a plumber) is demeaning and unworthy of him, and are now telling him what an irresponsible douchebag he is because he won't take a job at McDonalds? Doesn't a culture that demeans trade and vocational school as being for... those people... share any of the blame? I suppose, but again it was different for me. One of my best friends knew right away that he wasn't gonna make it through college so he went to welding school and now has a good job. Nobody disrespects him at all for that. In fact, I respect him more for that. Definately more than other friends who just partied instead of educating themselves and now have children on welfare and cry about how bad they have it. They reaped what they sowed.
I don't see how we can blame kids these days for doing exactly what we told all of them to do if they wanted a good job and security. It's our fault, not theirs, that we live in a world where it's just not enough, now, to have a good education. I consider myself more on the victim side than the side with the fault, but I get what you're saying.
Why do you think it was a shock? Because all the adults you grew up with were telling you that if you got with the program, followed the rules, you would get handed something - the chance to work, to do something that mattered, and to get some kind of security as a result so that you could raise kids and own a home without every day being a fight for mere survival. Weren't all those adults living in the "real world"? Isn't that exactly how it worked for them; they got the grades, got the degrees, got the job and the house and the yard? The question isn't whether or not "kids today" are going to wake up and see how that isn't true, anymore. I think pretty much everybody knows that isn't true anymore. The question is how we, and our parents, let it stop being true. And I don't know the answer to that question... Its a good one tho and the right one to be asking. I think that the conservative parents think they're being reactive to the liberals who are trying to spread their hard-won earnings to all 'those other people' who took the easy route or didn't have enough personal responsibility. Them tightening up only fuels the flames and causes more pressure from the other side and I think its all just snowballed into this mess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Would you put up a sign on your lawn that supports OWS? A bumper sticker on your car? No (more because of those particular methods than any dislike for OWS).
But you admit you are one of the 99%, yes? Sure.
And we are 100% for the OWS protest and approach to resolving social and financial injustice. Not because we would benefit directly from it, but because society as a whole would benefit from it. I tend to focus my efforts on my friends and family directly. I don't trust "society as a whole".
Do you think it is just for a CEO to "earn" over a million dollars a year, while their lowest paid employee's annual salary is below the poverty line? I think it can be. Sure, the floors need to be cleaned, but a CEO who brings in 10 million dollars in new revenue is worth the million he got to do that.
My opinion is that much better would have been to bail out the people. That's how I lean, but I've seen good arguments for needing to bail out the banks too.
Note that IF the people had been able to pay their mortgages that the whole financial "crisis" would not have occurred Yeah, I just don't know about that.
Why? The bank approved the loan. The amount my bank approved to loan me was more than I was comfortable borrowing. I took less than was approved on purpose because I didn't want to risk being unable to afford it.
The problem is not that he bought the house but that the bank approved an overextended mortgage. The mortgage broker is supposed to check and ensure that the person would be capable of paying the mortgage. If they haven't done that, then they have made a bad investment. This is why the banks should NOT have been bailed out. There's still the personal responsibility of the borrower tho. A car-salesman is gonna tell you that you should buy the Corvette, is it his fault if you do?
A mortgage on the other hand, is an unequal partnership, where one partner, the mortgage company, makes a profit whether the house value increases or decreases, as long as the mortgagee makes payments. Well yeah, its their money that you are using to buy something for yourself.
When you get a loan, that is someone making an investment in you. If they make a bad investment, then they are to blame. I dunno, if you enter a contract that says you're gonna pay back a particular amount every month, and they're betting on you fullfilling that contract, then when you don't/can't then that is your fault for violating the contract.
Personally, I feel that an investment in education will pay off in the long run, whether it results in lucrative employment or not, but that this is more of a social program than a money investment issue. I would support an extension of government paid education for those who want to pursue higher education. I would take senior year out of high school and then add an optional three year program that would terminate with an associates degree, fully paid for those who want to take it. This would also replace freshman year and universities, so that a Bachelor's Degree would only take three years instead of four and the kids would be better prepared than they are currently from most high schools. That's cool.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024