4 Reasons for Occupying Wall Street

Submitted by: ilovesean23 5 years ago in

Reinstating Glass Steagall the answer?
There are 39 comments:
Male 290
at 3:00, those are the guys. the few, the elite. they run shyt. they call the shots. THOSE are the kykes whose heads we gotta blow off.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Glass-Steagall should never have been[/quote] enacted in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 2,593
Glass-Steagall should never have been repealed
0
Reply
Male 416
@OldOllie: No, Europe didn`t have an equivalent to Glass Steagall, but it did suffer huge economic misfortunes roughly equivalent to that in the US.

Central European countries such as Germany suffered the most, with unemployment levels roughly the same as in the US (~20%). France and the UK were able to avoid some of the repercussions of the worldwide economic downturn because of cooperative agreements in their respective legislative bodies. Other Western European nations such as Italy had (at the time, moderately) totalitarian regimes that used armed force to control their people.

The American approach at the time was regulation, but `Europe` had other ways of handling it.

(I`d like to point out that - especially then - `Europe` cannot really be lumped into a single bin, because sovereignty reigned supreme and different national factions acted differently across the continent.)
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Europe never had anything like Glass Steagall. How come they didn`t have any huge financial crises between 1945 and 1980? In fact, they didn`t go nearly as far as Roosevelt did to regulate their economies. Maybe that`s why they had a depression, and we had "The Great Depression."
0
Reply
Male 270
REVOLUTION!!!!!!!

We are living in the Last Day of the American Empire, watch it fall!
0
Reply
Male 514
nothing will change as long as we are willing to keep being taxed
0
Reply
Male 39,524

M_Archer. Gee I wish we were friends in the real world.
Seriously, I mean it!

I soooooo want to be around to watch when you try to get a job.
0
Reply
Male 525
"Isn`t it called a hasty generalization fallacy? Your comment, not the video."

Not really. Hasty generalization fallacy would be if I said, "This woman is a socialist and uses fallacies. Therefore, all socialists use fallacies."

The fallacy she used was right at the start of the video i.e. she put in a building block to her argument that won`t hold anything--therefore, her entire argument fails and isn`t worth anyone`s mental energy.
0
Reply
Male 2,737
Power to the people.
0
Reply
Male 210
I can imagine M-Archer complaining about children who are abused. Sure, power is being exploited and misused, but at least you get something out of the deal, imirite? Granted, no better expert on financial policy than a Canadian teenager.

0
Reply
Male 356
"I got about thirty-nine seconds into the video until I spotted the first fallacy (post hoc fallacy); I then gave up, since I know the rest of the video will probably be socialist nonsense. "

Isn`t it called a hasty generalization fallacy? Your comment, not the video.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
OMG gerry said something kinda intellectual! GO Gerry! keep it comin
0
Reply
Male 7,378
He can`t right now Gerry, He`s busy getting a brain transplant from his state sponsored healthcare.
0
Reply
Male 39,524

M_Archer - stand up please. The entire point of the protest has gone over your head.
0
Reply
Male 525
I got about thirty-nine seconds into the video until I spotted the first fallacy (post hoc fallacy); I then gave up, since I know the rest of the video will probably be socialist nonsense.

Someone earlier posted a picture of the protest; on the picture, all the products from multi-billion dollar corporations were labelled and currently being used by the protestors. No doubt, they used Twitter, Facebook and smartphones to organize the protest. They`re protesting the people who made that protest even POSSIBLE.

Take away all the things from the protesters that were made by corporations, and you have a naked caveman. Unbelievable.
0
Reply
Male 3,310

0
Reply
Male 39,524

In the video {2:42} we heard,
[quote]"I have a hard time understanding how do you put 2 trillion dollars at risk..." [/quote]
The answer to that is, "It`s easy when it`s someone elses money!"
0
Reply
Male 416
(Continued...)

I think one of the most basic problems in our investment industry is that the directors of investment funds figured out a way (a long time ago) to manage our money in a way that allows most of their earnings to come from the *maintenance* of funds, rather than their growth. As such, few fund managers have an incentive to manage funds in a way that is consistent with the preferences of their investors (other than high net-worth individuals who hold tremendous control over their livelihoods - rightfully so). This sets up a situation whereby fund managers either have no incentive to grow wealth for their investors or take undesirable risks to do so (and thus line their own pockets in the process).
0
Reply
Male 416
To add to Gerry`s point: I agree.

Governmental regulation and intervention should be limited to those things which market mechanisms can`t handle to the point where they may result in `market failure`. Examples of this are most prominently seen when there are conditions of extreme asymmetries of information between buyers and sellers of goods or services.

In the case of Wall St. firms, this is most fundamentally a case of the classic principal-agent problem in which the principal (in this case, `small` investors) entrust their funds or their retirement to agents who are expected to act in their best interest, but who - in fact- have unaligned incentives. The solutions to these problems are many, but generally require either enforced contracts [the government refused to prosecute violators] or regulation. (There are other mechanisms too.)
0
Reply
Male 39,524

Norris - [quote]"Ya know the people working on Wall Street aren`t the rich pos`s that are assraping you right?" [/quote]
No, the secretaries and clerks aren`t. But Wall Street is the symbol of the Corporate greed that landed us in this mess. It is the place where Corporations, Banks and Politics meet.

That`s why it`s Occupy Wall Street not Occupy Washington.
0
Reply
Male 39,524
0
Reply
Female 2,761
what Gerry said...
0
Reply
Male 39,524

I`m republican & prefer small government that does not regulate or interfere. But on this topic I am with the protestors. Two reasons why...

Investment groups knowingly took junk & high risk investments but repackaged them, sold them to Retirment Investment Plans as `safe investments`. Remember your 401K sign up when you ckecked the box of which type of investment to make? High or Low risk? You check low risk, they sold you high risk. Now due to their cheating your retirement fund is gone.

And second, Large Corporation lobbied and got Congress to pass loop hole regulations allowing them to dip into the retirement funds of their employees benefit packages. 10 years ago those were 100% funded, now the CEO`s complain these union benefits are crippling their companies! Congress did the exact same thing with Social Security - the took the money now want to scrap it because it`s broke.

OCCUPY EVERYTHING untill this stops.
0
Reply
Male 550
overthrowing of government the answer?
0
Reply
Male 688
"You have the logic of a Palin child EricWRN."

Lol.
0
Reply
Male 1,231
@EricWRN; in the UK at least Blair`s lack of banking regulation has been a catalyst to our banking crisis. He was too busy riding the bubble to care. Not so sure about the US, but if, as you say, the government, federal reserve and banking system are all intertwined (completely agree with that btw), then surely de-regulation of the banks would be mutually beneficial to all three parties, and therefore contribute to the economic crisis we`re now in.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Yeah you buy that whole "liberal" is bad line thing? You should look up liberal in the dictionary. WTH, I`ll do it for you. Liberal: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Obama might not be the savior he was seen as but he`s been working against a congress more interested in his failure than America`s success. He`s accomplished a lot including National health care, Killing OBL, Ending the Iraq war and turning around the recession. He deserves the credit you so willfully refuse to give him.
0
Reply
Male 590
But George Bush is a neo-con non-nice individual, Elizabeth Warren and Obama are liberal non-nice individuals... what does GWB have to do with her?

Oh wait... you`re one of those team-chearing, black and white, "my team is the best", "the other team is the reason things suck" types, huh?

The moment someone starts cheering for their political team and blaming another group you can immediately infer that you won`t be having any type of logical discussion.
0
Reply
Male 590
what? George Bush was an non-nice individual. I didn`t vote for him.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Yeah and George W. Bush was the republican savior? You have the logic of a Palin child EricWRN.
0
Reply
Male 590
Elizabeth Warren is a pro-socialism demagogue who intentionally revises history and uses bullpoo statistics to sell her agenda and feign compassion for the middle class.

She is the 1%. She`s a wolf in sheep`s clothing and of course the sheep are chiming right up about what a savior she`s going to be. Remember your last "savior" lib-sheep? Yeah, not so great after-all, huh? Unemployment up, deficit up, new wars, cost of living up, dollar worth less... Maybe THIS socialist demagogue will be better though, huh!
0
Reply
Male 590
@mal BB, the banks haven`t been running themselves and anyone that says the problem is "deregulation" is either a propagandist or simply uninformed about how intertwined the government, federal reserve, and banking system are.
0
Reply
Male 590
Elizabeth Warren: liberalisms latest revisionist demagogue.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Elizabeth Warren for President!
0
Reply
Male 1,011
Couple things strike me as this OWS stuff is going on;


1) If you`re so angry, why isn`t Wall Street on fire?

2) Ya know the people working on Wall Street aren`t the rich pos`s that are assraping you right?
0
Reply
Male 2,528
If you have to be given reasons for the Occupy Wall Street protests, then you are a moron who hasn`t paid attention to your surroundings for the last several (or even last 4) years.
0
Reply
Male 1,231
power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Since the banks have proved time and time again that they can not regulate themselves; that their greed surpasses their common sense, they need to be regulated. There`s no other way forward.
0
Reply
Female 109
Link: 4 Reasons for Occupying Wall Street [Rate Link] - Reinstating Glass Steagall the answer?
0
Reply