Why? What did the Wells Fargo CEO in your mind do to deserve such treatment?

12/1/2011 3:26:15 PM

Mortgage and foreclosure fraud?

12/1/2011 3:40:49 PM

Wait, shouldn't the tea-party constituents who cried, "no bailouts" for "too big to fail" banks be outraged that those same banks (including wells fargo) have only gotten bigger since 2008?

12/1/2011 3:46:57 PM

^yeah they oppose bailouts. Yet they feel that businesses and individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices but face their consequences too. If you want to try to sell a 50k dollar prius, fine. If it doesnt sell, dont have the govt take my money to give it to you bc you were an idiot. Same with loans and individual piss poor choices.


This sums up my thoughts on idiots these days. (except for the terrorist comparision)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/adam-carolla-breaks-down-occupy-movement-fking-self-entitled-monsters/


Nails it. It is all ENVY.

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2011 3:50:21 PM

At no point in his rambling, incoherent response was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this message board is now dumber for having listened to it. I award him no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.

12/1/2011 4:02:20 PM

^points for the BM reference. And he does make a point about envy and the mindset of these trophy kids waking up to reality.

12/1/2011 4:36:30 PM

I think he's projecting his own insecurities onto OWS, the guy is washed up. Its got to be tough to watch Jeff Dunham and that fat hispanic dude rake in money on Comedy Central specials while you've been relegated to podcasts

12/1/2011 5:28:17 PM

Quote :

"Wait, shouldn't the tea-party constituents who cried, "no bailouts" for "too big to fail" banks be outraged that those same banks (including wells fargo) have only gotten bigger since 2008?"

Whatever they should feel, they shouldn't feel surprised, as one of the major arguments against the bailouts was that it would just make the TBTF banks even bigger.

Quote :

"Mortgage and foreclosure fraud?"

I seriously doubt any of that had anything to do with him. While I'm sure mistakes have and always will be made, the existing remedies to such mistakes seem more than appropriate. So I am against anyone protesting because of it.

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 6:00 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/1/2011 5:56:12 PM

^yep and I remember those teaparties were in 2007 and 2008 mostly...you know around the time the bailouts were happening. Now why the OWS decided to do that in 2011....hahah, fits right in with the rest of their thinking.

12/1/2011 6:01:49 PM

What a hack. If you disagreed with the bailouts then, then you should be in favor of the concerns OWS is bringing up now.

But since you perceive them as not being on your team, you dismiss them.

And if I'm not mistaken, some of the original members of the tea party group support Occupy because they felt that their own cause was co-opted and misdirected by corporate interests.

12/1/2011 6:15:09 PM

haha. Im going to try to explain this to you. Yes both the teaparty and OWS oppose the bailouts. Nothing to dispute there. It is who they choose to go after that is mind boggling.

So if I come to your house, take your money and your tv under the threat of violence. Then I go and give your money and things to my mother (who tells me she needs them.) You would then go and protest outside my mothers house instead of mine? When I am the one that is stealing your shit? Just makes no sense.

These banks cannot TAKE your money or your property legally. Only the govt is "allowed" to do that. But many of these people like the idea of big govt, so they somehow give them a big pass in all this.

12/1/2011 6:29:34 PM

No they don't, you idiot.


Most of these people are upset that the banks have merged with the government. It's that simple. If you can't see that, then you haven't been paying attention.

12/1/2011 6:40:40 PM

Sooooo.... you can only be mad at the financial industry, or you can only be mad at the government?

Why can't you be mad at both, but recognize that your efforts might be better spent focusing on one or the other.

12/1/2011 6:42:07 PM

And even if you absolutely believed your own theory, (that you totally just created to satisfy your own sensibilities - even though it's completely false) it would still be a stupid semantic argument to get hung up on.

Our banks have infested our government. It's as plain as day to see. Huge multi-national corporations own our politicians and financially back legislation that serves their interests at expense of the American voter.

12/1/2011 6:44:05 PM

So, honestly, does it really fucking matter where they protest? Does it really matter that they are targeting CEOs of corrupt financial institutions rather than the Senators who receive their financial backing? (by the way, they're targeting both, in case you're unaware).

I don't understand the hang-up here. The protesters are astutely aware that certain politicians are receiving huge incentives by certain corporations (Youtube the Scott Walker mic-check if you want) and are connecting the fucking dots to realize that our politicians serve their corporate sponsors more than their constituents.

So what would you have them do differently?

12/1/2011 6:50:58 PM

Quote :

"So what would you have them do differently? "

Stop looking to solve the problem with more government. Corporations spend money lobbying the government because it's profitable to do so. If the government didn't have the powers it does to completely alter the market, it wouldn't be (as) profitable to lobby. This is especially true in specialized markets (such as banking) where the only way to really have a clue is to have worked in the industry, which by definition means your regulators and policy makers have to be insiders.

12/1/2011 7:05:25 PM

Soooo... What, exactly, will keep any of these banks/financial institutions from screwing up the economy again once the mostly toothless government finally loses all of it's teeth?

12/1/2011 7:17:20 PM

Quote :

"Stop looking to solve the problem with more government. Corporations spend money lobbying the government because it's profitable to do so. If the government didn't have the powers it does to completely alter the market, it wouldn't be (as) profitable to lobby. This is especially true in specialized markets (such as banking) where the only way to really have a clue is to have worked in the industry, which by definition means your regulators and policy makers have to be insiders. "

yep. Well said.

^oh yes, our toothless govt that pushed a whole sector into making loans they previously werent making? ( the first snow ball that started the avalanche)

AGAIN these BANKS/Corporations etc CANNOT TAKE YOUR PROPERTY without the consent of the govt. The ISSUE is with the govt. Limit their power, and it will not be profitable for politicians AND corps and other organizations to use govt coersion against the people to profit themselves. Yes, it REALLY is that simple. It is the same reason Bank of America doesnt pay YOU millions to help their business. Granted they do pay people millions to help their business, and SOME of them lobby for govt benefits. No different than unions, other industries, etc...

12/1/2011 7:24:42 PM

Quote :

"Yes, it REALLY is that simple"

No, it really isn't. Corporations have been lobbying and funding for years to remove legislation (like Glass Steagal). Remove all regulation, and it's every man for himself, with most of the chips being in one corner, and the average American being in the other.

12/1/2011 7:28:45 PM

So that ONE reg caused the recession? Seriously?

Btw, please dont take that I am in favor of NO GOVT regulation at all. You have to have a ref in every game to set the rules and enforce them. That should be the govts job, not picking winners and losers.

We have moved well beyond that. Where the govt forces entire industries to do something, fucks them up, and people somehow call for MORE GOVT. haha. It really is sad.

I know more about health care industry, but the history of govt in that and what is suggested to try now is unreal and never addresses the root of the problem.

12/1/2011 7:40:27 PM

Quote :

"So that ONE reg caused the recession? Seriously?"

I'd say it was a pretty big factor, yeah. Gramm Leach Bliley passed in 1999. Then this happened:






Enter the derivative markets, as foretold by this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAOoQEy0PI



[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 7:58 PM. Reason : someone should embed this video]

12/1/2011 7:53:01 PM

Quote :

"Soooo... What, exactly, will keep any of these banks/financial institutions from screwing up the economy again once the mostly toothless government finally loses all of it's teeth?"

Let's abolish the institution that gives them the ability to pile debt on top of debt with no real risk.

End the Fed, and we end the global banking debt scheme.

12/1/2011 7:55:59 PM

Quote :

"I seriously doubt any of that had anything to do with him. While I'm sure mistakes have and always will be made, the existing remedies to such mistakes seem more than appropriate. So I am against anyone protesting because of it. "

oh, the classic "He didn't know defense." See Ken Lay and Enron, Obama and the gunrunning scandal, and Butch Davis and UNCheat -- they all used the same excuse. Why is it that the leaders of large instituitions so easily accept credit when everything is going well (justifying their salaries) but the minute the shit hits the fan suddenly they are know nothings. Lets face it, if John Stumpf weren't in the 1% and running a too big to fail bank he would probably be in prison.

To bring the relevance back to this thread, the 1% hiding behind the massive hiearchies they've created is atleast PART of what OWS is about (among other things).



[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 8:47 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2011 8:41:20 PM

Quote :

"Soooo... What, exactly, will keep any of these banks/financial institutions from screwing up the economy again once the mostly toothless government finally loses all of it's teeth?"

Risk aversion, by way of no bail outs, government guarantees or special programs to prop up failed, failing or unsound business practices.

Prior lessons learned from smaller bubbles collapsing more frequently. The economy must grow and shrink, there is no such thing as infinite growth. Without the bail outs and government props, bubbles will still happen, but they will burst much more frequently.

Proper, useful enforcement of fair, informed commerce. You shouldn't mistake me for thinking there isn't room for the government, certainly there is, but as an arbitrator and a prosecutor, not a regulator and a guarantor. How many times have some of these banks been under investigation? How many times were they and their executives allowed to settle without admission to wrong doing? We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have.

12/1/2011 9:29:34 PM

Except for the fact that some of these banks have become so large that fighting them and enforcing the laws that we already have would require deep pockets, which the banks have, and the govt does not.

And not to mention that the repeal of glass steagal allowed some of these banks to merge when they were previously forbidden to do so made them even bigger, with even deeper pockets.

It was ILLEGAL for Citibank and Travelers Group to merge in 1998. It wasn't in 1999. Then they, along with other savings banks that merged with investment and securities banks (Bank of America, Merril Lynch, etc) shat all over us. So how would we go about prosecuting them when we legalized their previously illegal mergers?

So I ask you, how can the government be an arbitrator and prosecutor in this case after it removed the regulations that legalized these mergers?

It can't. Until these giant banks are broken up and forced to separate savings from securities, we'll continue to be served shit sandwiches every time they create new bubbles, exploit them, and then come crawling to us because their collapse would bring about a deeper depression.

12/1/2011 10:02:13 PM

There were no insinuations or understanding of a bail out the past time around, and it didn't stop them.

It's naive frankly to think that if given the opportunity again, bankers wouldn't drool at the short-term profits, despite long term consequences, as they did recently. This is human nature.

12/1/2011 10:10:54 PM

^^ So if the government can't even afford to successfully prosecute the current laws and regulations against the banks, what in the world makes you think that adding more laws and regulations will fix anything?

^ So the history of the government bailing out corporations since the 70's set no implications of future bailouts?

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 10:54 PM. Reason : dsf]

12/1/2011 10:52:55 PM

You're mis-characterizing my argument. I'm saying that the repeal of key laws allowed banking giants to become virtually immune to prosecution.

Most of these protesters don't want bigger government. They just want a representative government. They want a split between government and corporate interests. They don't want to continue down this path where giant monopolies own our politicians who then in turn draft legislation that squashes competition and actively fucks over the American voter.

You guys keep coming in here and turning this debate into the tired small vs large government argument that's been had a million times over. And while that might be a worthwhile discussion worth having, it adds nothing to the discussion at hand. The size of the government is completely null and void when the government is fully controlled by corporate oligarchs. Sever the relationship between corporation and government, and THEN you can argue about the governments size.

12/1/2011 11:48:54 PM

This is pretty telling.

Quote :

" "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism." 1. Don't say "capitalism" - Use "economic freedom" or "free market" 2. Don't say government "taxes the rich" - Say government "takes from the rich" 3. Forget "middle class" - Use "hardworking taxpayers" 4. Don't talk "jobs" - talk "careers" 5. Don't say "government spending" - Say "waste" 6. Don't say "compromise" - Say "cooperate" 7. Say "I get it" 8. Don't say "entrepreneur" - Say "job creator" 9. Don't ask people to "sacrifice" - Say "we're in this together" 10. Always blame Washington - Say "instead of occupying Wall Street you should be occupying Washington" Bonus item! Don't say "bonus" - Say "pay for performance""

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html

12/2/2011 12:37:45 AM

Quote :

"If you disagreed with the bailouts then, then you should be in favor of the concerns OWS is bringing up now."

Quote :

"Yes both the teaparty and OWS oppose the bailouts. Nothing to dispute there."

Absolutely untrue. Polls have been conducted and OWSers were mostly in favor of the bank bailouts. They are merely upset that they themselves are not also receiving a bailout.

12/2/2011 1:44:35 AM

[citation needed]

12/2/2011 3:12:17 AM

At the time, most people supported the bank bailouts because not bailing out the banks would have resulted in the financial annihilation of millions of undeserving people. Yes, it was a very serious threat, the size of the banks coupled with their interconnectedness to the entire economy essentially made them analogous to a gigantic tumor that has a dozen major blood vessels passing through it.

I don't believe the government should be in the business of bailing out any business, but when the failure of that business means the entire economy will take a hit such that millions of people will suffer for no fault of their own, it's more important to protect those innocent people than let calamity occur for the sake of ideological consistency. That's not how a moral society works, nor a meritocratic one.

OWS's main complaint regarding that, and mine, is that after bailing out the banks we didn't break them up or even make a serious effort to revive the regulations that had kept them not-so-big in the past, just let them for the most part carry on with business as usual.

To quote Adam Smith:

Quote :

"“Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But these exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments…[T]he obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.”"

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM. Reason : /]

12/2/2011 1:23:12 PM

I feel like the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was responsible for making the crash as widespread and as severe as it was; however, I would put more blame for the cause of the crash on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

Quote :

"our toothless govt that pushed a whole sector into making loans they previously werent making?"

Are you referring to small, local banks providing affordable housing to poor communities through low-risk, highly regulated loans that had lower default rates than those of the general population?

12/2/2011 4:07:23 PM

Quote :

"They just want a representative government. They want a split between government and corporate interests. They don't want to continue down this path where giant monopolies own our politicians who then in turn draft legislation that squashes competition and actively fucks over the American voter. "

And I'm saying you will never have that if you have a government with the power and authority to choose winners and losers.

Quote :

"I'm saying that the repeal of key laws allowed banking giants to become virtually immune to prosecution. "

You haven't shown that however. Evidence suggest that these banks have been screwing people over for years, and that the SEC has continued to turn a blind eye to this for years, even before the repeal of one law.

12/2/2011 6:24:25 PM

Quote :

"And I'm saying you will never have that if you have a government with the power and authority to choose winners and losers."

Again, you're sidestepping the grievance. The issue is that the companies buy our politicians who in turn sponsor corrupt legislation. It's the MERGER between corporation and the state that upsets people. The corporations are paying the referees. The solution is not to remove the referees. The solution is to reform the system so that the referees go back to being impartial.

Quote :

"You haven't shown that however. Evidence suggest that these banks have been screwing people over for years, and that the SEC has continued to turn a blind eye to this for years, even before the repeal of one law."

Dude, seriously? Look at the graph above. And I explicitly gave an example about Citibank and Travelers merging. THAT WAS ILLEGAL before the repeal of Glass Steagal. Now Citigroup is the largest bank in the world and it was a huge beneficiary of fraudulent activity. What more do you need to see?

And c'mon, if you're going to accuse me of not giving evidence, then at least back up your claim instead of copping out with a "evidence suggests" clause.



To continue to mis-label the discussion as small vs big government is a huge disservice to the debate. There is virtually no line between corporation and state. You need only look at campaign contributions and lobbying donations to realize that banks and corporations are BECOMING the state. The size of the government is completely IRRELEVANT when it is completely in the corner of the politically well connected corporations and banks.

It's a chain of events that has already occurred and is continuing to accelerate. It's a level of corruption that cannot be solved with your classic left vs right argument. I know it's convenient to categorize it as a free market vs regulation debate, but that's not really the case here. I'm sure you can find people who are for bigger government within the OWS crowd, but they're just less informed. I'd say that the most lucid arguments are coming from those who see that the corporate interests have gotten in bed with political leaders to screw over the majority of working class americans.

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 6:53 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2011 6:39:51 PM

Quote :

" The solution is not to remove the referees. The solution is to reform the system so that the referees go back to being impartial."

Again, you can't do this until the referees stop being allowed to pick winners and losers. Look at it this way, since you're going with the sports analogy. Sports referees have been bribed throughout history, and sometimes it works, but usually they get caught, they get fired and the team gets fined or ousted from the league. As a result, things work out for all involved 99% of the time.

Now imagine if referees had the authority to change rules in the middle of a game, completely ignore some rules, impose new rules, and pick and chose which rules applied to which teams. Imagine in addition that because everyone loves watching say Dallas play in the superbowl, that every time it looked like Dallas was having a bad season or wasn't going to make it, the referees had the power to alter the rosters of the teams, or alter Dallas' rankings.

Imagine further that in addition to all of the above, the referees had been doing this for years, and every time a referee got caught, they got a slap on the wrist, or were fired, only to be immediately hired as a coach on one of the teams, and new ref was hired from the pool of coaches. And every time a team got caught? They paid a pittance of a fine without ever admitting to any wrong doing.

Do you suppose that in such a world, where the referees are so empowered and have such free reign and control to affect the game and alter the rules, that there would be more or less corruption and referee buying?

Quote :

"What more do you need to see?"

The evidence which shows that you graph means these banks are immune from prosecution?

Quote :

"You need only look at campaign contributions and lobbying donations to realize that banks and corporations are BECOMING the state. The size of the government is completely IRRELEVANT when it is completely in the corner of the politically well connected corporations and banks."

You are completely missing the point that "size of the government" in this case has to do with the amount of power the government has, and that as that amount of power grows, the profit to be gained by buying a piece of that government also grows. Therefore, the only way to remove the corporations is to remove the powers that the government has that makes owning the government worthwhile.

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 6:54 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/2/2011 6:51:28 PM

Quote :

"Again, you're sidestepping the grievance. The issue is that the companies buy our politicians who in turn sponsor corrupt legislation. It's the MERGER between corporation and the state that upsets people. The corporations are paying the referees. The solution is not to remove the referees. The solution is to reform the system so that the referees go back to being impartial."

Our leaders are not the referees. They never have been. A lot of Americans believe that the government is benevolent, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that. Look around - our government is doing some really, really fucked up shit.

The system cannot be reformed. It's impossible for individuals to act impartially when they have power. Just look at the founders. These guys were very liberal. Thomas Jefferson and a lot of the other founders had great ideas. Look at what they did once in office - they trampled liberty when it was politically convenient, despite having fought for the principles they betrayed.

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 6:54 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2011 6:54:04 PM

Quote :

"The evidence which shows that you graph means these banks are immune from prosecution?"

How many bankers have gone to jail since 2008? How many banks have been broken up? Why have these banks only gotten bigger? Why is there currently legislation being pushed through that would get banks off the hook for fraud if enacted? Why are banks trying to settle fraud investigations without having to admit guilt?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-29/how-henry-paulson-gave-hedge-funds-advance-word-of-2008-fannie-mae-rescue.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/business/judge-rejects-sec-accord-with-citi.html?_r=2&hp

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/14/367446/one-day-after-attending-private-economic-crisis-briefing-gop-financial-services-chairman-bet-on-stocks-tanking/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6wyLCHUQyQ

Quote :

"Our leaders are not the referees. They never have been. A lot of Americans believe that the government is benevolent, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that. Look around - our government is doing some really, really fucked up shit."

I'm not really seeing how any of this is different from what I was getting at? I'm not arguing for bigger government, just responsible and accountable government. We don't have that. Our "referees" our tappin' some sweet, corporate ass on the side. That needs to stop, obviously



[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 7:20 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2011 6:56:17 PM

Quote :

"I'm not really seeing how any of this is different from what I was getting at? I'm not arguing for bigger government, just responsible and accountable government."

What you're asking for basically impossible, given the current system.

It's possible to at least have a more accountable government. Look at the U.S. government, though. It has the apparatus of the Federal Reserve, commanding the issuance of the world reserve currency. It has the most powerful military in the world. We have an authoritarian federal government that practically ignores the Constitution. For Christ's sake, we have Congressmen that are insider trading, while people are going to jail for using marijuana.

I wish I had some viable solutions, but I don't. I think the power elite in this country will try to take every last one of us down before they loosen their grip on government. There will be police crackdowns on peaceful protesters; we will have an increasingly militarized police force. Shit's gonna get ugly all over the world, so get ready. Those that have built their lives around extracting wealth from the population at large will stop at nothing.

12/2/2011 7:14:36 PM

Ron paul and OWS is last hope before bloodshed.

12/2/2011 11:29:24 PM

JesusHChrist is dead on. Additionally if this doesn't disturb you I don't know what will as it relates to these issues:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-1-2011/america-s-next-tarp-model

12/3/2011 2:29:24 PM

Quote :

"How many bankers have gone to jail since 2008? How many banks have been broken up? Why have these banks only gotten bigger? Why is there currently legislation being pushed through that would get banks off the hook for fraud if enacted? Why are banks trying to settle fraud investigations without having to admit guilt?"

I'm still not sure how this favors your theory (that the banks are immune to prosecution) over mine (that the government / regulators aren't interested in prosecuting the banks, because they have been bought and paid for many times over as a result of them having so much unneeded power over the industry).

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me, people should be going to jail, the banks should have been allowed to collapse so that they were broken up instead of bailed out with tax payer money that they then used to grow bigger (remember, they used the tax payer bailouts to buy up the competition that the government decided wasn't worth saving), we shouldn't have any more banking legislation being passed at all, and the government should not be settling with repeat offenders. The federal government is bargaining with the banks the same way local prosecutors bargain with habitual drunk drivers, and with the same predictable results.

12/3/2011 3:19:46 PM

Quote :

"I'm still not sure how this favors your theory (that the banks are immune to prosecution) over mine (that the government / regulators aren't interested in prosecuting the banks, because they have been bought and paid for many times over as a result of them having so much unneeded power over the industry)."

This seems like a semantics argument. So I'll try to clarify. There is almost no difference between the State and the Corporate interests anymore. The two have practically merged completely. The state wants what the corporations want, and the corporations want what the corporations want.

I still think you see government as the root source of the problem, though. I don't think that's true. I think an effective and accountable government (which we don't have -- maybe we never had, but it's more apparent now than ever) should serve the interest of the public, which may or may not be good for certain businesses. But when corporations attain soooo much power and influence, they can buy politicians (a point we both agree on) and manipulate legislation to favor their interests at the expense of the public. Corporations are the modern day church, and until we separate them from the state, we're gonna have problems.

When politicians become puppets for their corporate oligarchs, and given massive campaign donations, lobbied endlessly, and promised seats in the board of directors the minute they retire from the senate, it becomes easier to see who's really in charge. I think you have the idea that Government is still at the top of the pyramid. It's not. It hasn't been for a while now. The problem isn't that government has gotten too big or out of control, the problem is that government is firmly in the pocket of the ruling interests that have unlimited supplies of cash. This is an important distinction to make, as it shows that unchecked power (in this case, unchecked corporate power) has the same ability to corrupt and manipulate as unchecked government power.

Quote :

"we shouldn't have any more banking legislation being passed at all"

This, I just flat-out disagree with, though. It was the removal of key banking legislation that opened the flood-gates for savings banks to buy securities and loans banks to manipulate mortgage information that they had insider knowledge of that created this mess. While the actual number of legislation may have gone up, the foundation of the legislation was removed. It doesn't matter how many screws you put into the wall, if you remove the foundation, the house is still gonna collapse.

We've been living in a culture for at least 30 years now, where the government tells us that what's good for business is good for the country. We're now starting to figure out that what's good for business might be good for some, but on the whole, the country feels the burden of businesses merging with the state.

12/3/2011 4:51:12 PM

Quote :

"There is almost no difference between the State and the Corporate interests anymore. The two have practically merged completely. The state wants what the corporations want, and the corporations want what the corporations want. I still think you see government as the root source of the problem, though. I don't think that's true."

Made me think of this:

12/3/2011 5:16:05 PM

Quote :

"I still think you see government as the root source of the problem, though. I don't think that's true."

Not government, our current government, which has long overstepped its original bounds, obtaining powers that are clearly unconstitutional. As a result, of course businesses bought the government. Government is always for sale. The only check against this is to limit the reach of the government and make it difficult if not impossible for the government to change the rules of the game and pick the winners and the losers.

You seem to think it's possible to remove the corporate influence from the current government by giving it more authority to regulate and influence the companies in question. I'm telling you that just isn't possible. The very power and control that the government has over these industries is exactly the reason they spend so much money buying the government. Giving more control to the government will only make the value of controlling the government go up, which means more money will be spent by larger corporations to control the government. And no matter how hard you try, you will never prevent the corporate money from flowing with legislation. It is extremely difficult to get people unelected and get laws overturned in this country, so for the corporations, it doesn't matter how many laws against them spending money you make, they just need to find away to get the money in and get the law in place or the senator elected. Even if they get caught, they'll just pay a fine and they still have the law they wanted.

12/3/2011 6:39:43 PM

^exactly.

Quote :

"Are you referring to small, local banks providing affordable housing to poor communities through low-risk, highly regulated loans that had lower default rates than those of the general population? "

Please read this. Hell the NY TIMES even recognized the possible problems back in 1999.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?src=pm

Let me ask you what do you think happens to the price of a good when govt pushes millions of people into a market they were previously kept out of?(due to basic market forces) Yes, the price goes up. It signals that we need more SUPPLY. So people start building more houses. As the prices start climbing EVERYONE jumps on the opportunity to make MONEY. Cheap credit and new investment ideas helped make the net bigger on who would get caught in this bubble.

One of my best friends works in the mortgage industry. In its "prime" they were told to make as many loans as they could because the govt was going to buy anything. They didnt care it wasnt their company or bank that was going to be left holding the bag if the note went south. Hell some were threated with being audited if they didnt write ENOUGH of these loans. It is a win win for everyone while the bubble is growing. People get homes, make easy money, politicans can brag about great numbers, boom in jobs and ecomic growth...until basic supply and demand hits and eventually someone has to start actually paying for their own mortgages.

It is really funny/sad for those that can remember a little history to what people are saying about things now. Republicans were pushing for new and stronger regulations on GSEs and dems opposed it. haha Of course they all said that things were fine and Fannie and Freddie were in great shape.

[Edited on December 3, 2011 at 8:29 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2011 8:10:33 PM

Right, but I don't think that your friend was being forced by the government to give loans to poor people. The loans that banks were being forced to provide were required to be kept on file at those specific banks and those loans had lower rates of default than loans provided to the general population.

Do you honestly believe that providing poor communities affordable housing had more of an impact on the economic collapse than, say, trillions of dollars in unregulated derivatives?

1) I don't think those poor peoples' homes would have amounted to very much.

2) I don't think that contractors were clamoring to build brand-spanking-new houses for a bunch of poor people.

12/4/2011 12:09:37 AM

Quote :

" Not government, our current government, which has long overstepped its original bounds, obtaining powers that are clearly unconstitutional. As a result, of course businesses bought the government. Government is always for sale. The only check against this is to limit the reach of the government and make it difficult if not impossible for the government to change the rules of the game and pick the winners and the losers. You seem to think it's possible to remove the corporate influence from the current government by giving it more authority to regulate and influence the companies in question. I'm telling you that just isn't possible. The very power and control that the government has over these industries is exactly the reason they spend so much money buying the government. Giving more control to the government will only make the value of controlling the government go up, which means more money will be spent by larger corporations to control the government. And no matter how hard you try, you will never prevent the corporate money from flowing with legislation. It is extremely difficult to get people unelected and get laws overturned in this country, so for the corporations, it doesn't matter how many laws against them spending money you make, they just need to find away to get the money in and get the law in place or the senator elected. Even if they get caught, they'll just pay a fine and they still have the law they wanted."

I was going to post nearly exactly that last night. Also want to add, it has been my observation that many of my friends/acquaintances are like JHC and believe that if we could just get the right people in government they'd fix all our problems. With only 2 parties to choose from and a main stream media that either by design or by incompetence is their mouthpiece I don't ever see this altruistic and wise body of congress coming to America. Never gonna happen. Our best hope is to unwind any sort of legislation that shows favoritism in some way and let the people decide what is best for themselves.

12/4/2011 7:48:49 AM

Pupils if you read the article and how much money the new "push" was YES it would make a difference. You are talking about MILLIONS of people who are now in the market due to govt intervention. That doesnt have an effect?

Remember we were coming out of a recession (dot com bubble) and housing was where people were making money. It is no surprise everyone else jumped on. (just like other bubbles) Please dont think Im saying that banks, financials, or borrowers didnt play a role in the problem. They certainly did. I just talking about how it all got started. Like most problems govt creates they typically start with good intentions....then grows into a big fing mess. SS, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps... Im sure when the idea of basic medical care for the poor was being kicked around they never dreamed it should cover luxuries. It is where we are though.

^ I agree. Im not sure there is away to back off of the power washington has these days. Politicans love it, it makes them rich. Companies and organizations love it because it is far easier to have a politican change the rules to benefit you and hurt your competition vs actually competing in the market.

[Edited on December 4, 2011 at 8:19 AM. Reason : .]

12/4/2011 8:15:12 AM

Quote :

" I'm telling you that just isn't possible. The very power and control that the government has over these industries is exactly the reason they spend so much money buying the government. Giving more control to the government will only make the value of controlling the government go up, which means more money will be spent by larger corporations to control the government. And no matter how hard you try, you will never prevent the corporate money from flowing with legislation. It is extremely difficult to get people unelected and get laws overturned in this country, so for the corporations, it doesn't matter how many laws against them spending money you make, they just need to find away to get the money in and get the law in place or the senator elected. Even if they get caught, they'll just pay a fine and they still have the law they wanted.""

This.

However I think there's a temporary solution:
1. Electoral spending reform.
2. Completely ban TV and radio campaign advertisements.
2. Completely dissolve congress, resetting the behind-the-scenes network of corporate control.

Yea, I know it won't happen.

12/4/2011 9:57:12 AM