#OccupyWallstreet

[Ninjahedge]

LJ, that too may change.

The best thing that can happen in these protests is the raising of the awareness of the people.

Many protesting do not want one particular thing or another. It is very difficult to boil something like this down to a list of specifics. The key to remember is that we no longer have a nice sloped line going from $0 to $Bajillion. We have one that looks like a deficit roadmap with a few bumps in it and an extraordinary peak at one end.

We are headed into a new-found hierarchy in which our leaders will be chosen by executive boards and lineage rather than by the people... AND WE ARE LETTING IT HAPPEN!

The one thing to remember, which everyone will undoubtedly forget (they always do) is that this is a LONG TERM problem that requires a long term solution.

Banks can't be "spanked" and sent on their way, and any radical policy change only blindsides the pendulum of policy, knocking things over as it swings back and forth in reaction to the change.

What we need is a way to get that pendulum back in center, moving a bit to incite change, but not hoisted up so far to one side that it will eventually fall, giving us a diametrically opposed "solution" that will be, if we are LUCKY, as bad as the current situation.


Flat out, this is a marathon, and all of us should be ready to go the distance to make things work. Otherwise we will get a house with half a roof. Fine for the people under it... but eventually the entire house falls from water damage (again).

 

[cubby1223]

They already have taken it seriously. Even if everyone packed up and went home today they have already been enormously successful as they changed the national conversation. It's too late, they already won. The only question now is how big a victory will it be?

I'd bet more people are paying attention to Conrad Murray or Baby Lisa than Occupy Wall Street. Yes, Occupy is *below* those.

The national conversation has not been changed from what I see.

I know Rachel Maddow sees things differently - just, well, I don't care about her

 

[fskimospy]

I'd bet more people are paying attention to Conrad Murray or Baby Lisa than Occupy Wall Street. Yes, Occupy is *below* those.

The national conversation has not been changed from what I see.

I know Rachel Maddow sees things differently - just, well, I don't care about her

The national conversation absolutely changed. Go look at the news stories immediately before OWS got started, it was all about cutting the social safety net. That all changed.

I have no idea what Rachel Maddow thinks about this, I don't watch opinion programming.

 

[PokerGuy]

Interesting. Perhaps you should learn to say what you mean then. You initially said you favored the "demise" of the whole OWS movement. Given that the OWS movement is protesting corruption, that seems to make you a corruption supporter.

Perhaps you should try to apply logic. I do despise OWS, it's idiotic and pointless, anti-American, not to mention ineffectual, and it focuses on the wrong targets. That doesn't mean I support corruption, just that I don't support OWS.

 

[PokerGuy]

They already have taken it seriously. Even if everyone packed up and went home today they have already been enormously successful as they changed the national conversation. It's too late, they already won. The only question now is how big a victory will it be?

LOL, keep dreaming. Nothing has changed, and OWS will change nothing. Just a bunch of drivel and whiners protesting that will ultimately turn into violence. Changed the national conversation? Really? You think that means anything? More delusional than I thought.

 

[cubby1223]

We are headed into a new-found hierarchy in which our leaders will be chosen by executive boards and lineage rather than by the people... AND WE ARE LETTING IT HAPPEN!

Then I believe the anger should be directed at "the people", not executive boards. "The people" need to change, not the executives. And "occupying" is not the right path in my view.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL, keep dreaming. Nothing has changed, and OWS will change nothing. Just a bunch of drivel and whiners protesting that will ultimately turn into violence. Changed the national conversation? Really? You think that means anything? More delusional than I thought.

Of course it means something. Not that I expect you to understand it, I mean look at how you post. You act like a 12 year old, calling people 'dimlibs' or whatever. I mean what kind of idiot behaves that way?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Some people believe negative attention is better than no attention at all. Look for more of the these "Peaceful Protests" to become disruptive/destructive as it will provide the OWS movement more media attention.

 

[airdata]

See 1 person at #occupy asking for a handout. Assume everybody is just asking for a handout. Base entire #occupy view off of 1 person.

Smart.

 

[airdata]

Anti government in washington.

Pro government in wallstreet.

Smart.

 

[spidey07]

Some people believe negative attention is better than no attention at all. Look for more of the these "Peaceful Protests" to become disruptive/destructive as it will provide the OWS movement more media attention.

If you listen to them they believe this is their revolution (proletariat revolution against the bourgeois to be specific), just like arab spring they say. They want violence, they crave it. And Obama will be happily stoking the class warfare flames in incite and motivate them.

It's not that the conversation changed because of the protests, this administration and the left changed the conversation to stoke them on. These are Obama's useful idiots. It's all playing out as marx predicted and Obama is gleefully playing his part willingly. Community agitator.

 

[cubby1223]

The national conversation absolutely changed. Go look at the news stories immediately before OWS got started, it was all about cutting the social safety net. That all changed.

I have no idea what Rachel Maddow thinks about this, I don't watch opinion programming.

How do you know what the "national conversation" is if you don't watch people who discuss the "national conversation"?

When I refer to "national conversation" I'm referring to what the people of the country are paying attention to - I'm not looking at what the current political talking points are coming out of the two parties.

I still believe the entitlements must be cut, and my reasoning for that is math. I also believe taxes should be higher not just for "the rich" but for everyone, and again my reasoning for that is math.

 

[fskimospy]

How do you know what the "national conversation" is if you don't watch people who discuss the "national conversation"?

When I refer to "national conversation" I'm referring to what the people of the country are paying attention to - I'm not looking at what the current political talking points are coming out of the two parties.

I still believe the entitlements must be cut, and my reasoning for that is math. I also believe taxes should be higher not just for "the rich" but for everyone, and again my reasoning for that is math.

I read newspapers and consume actual news. Opinion shows are basically the current political talking points coming out of the two parties.

I don't believe entitlements need to be cut so much as the systems the entitlements relate to need broader reform.

 

[momeNt]

If you listen to them they believe this is their revolution (proletariat revolution against the bourgeois to be specific), just like arab spring they say. They want violence, they crave it. And Obama will be happily stoking the class warfare flames in incite and motivate them.

It's not that the conversation changed because of the protests, this administration and the left changed the conversation to stoke them on. These are Obama's useful idiots. It's all playing out as marx predicted and Obama is gleefully playing his part willingly. Community agitator.

Shouldn't you be pushing for the direction of OWS to change from a marxist revolution to simply a level playing field that isn't skewed with banks writing legislation (federal reserve) and harmful economic policies that force jobs overseas?

You're blaming Obama for commandeering OWS towards class warfare with the only answer being wealth redistribution by the government. Somebody like Ron Paul who considers himself conservative has talked about OWS and tried to direct them towards occupying the Federal reserve and attacking wall street and the fed with the goal being an end to manipulation by the banks and government in favor of the wealthy.

To simply condemn it as you do shows that you remain in favor of the status quo with violent market corrections and manipulated currency which leaves us at the mercy of competitors who happily take our jobs and leave our youth jobless and protesting what they think is symbol of capitalism - Wall street.

I personally feel that you may be just as blind as those that actually favor a marxist revolution out there at OWS. They at least see the problem whereas you do not.

 

[spidey07]

Shouldn't you be pushing for the direction of OWS to change from a marxist revolution to simply a level playing field that isn't skewed with banks writing legislation (federal reserve) and harmful economic policies that force jobs overseas?

You're blaming Obama for commandeering OWS towards class warfare with the only answer being wealth redistribution by the government. Somebody like Ron Paul who considers himself conservative has talked about OWS and tried to direct them towards occupying the Federal reserve and attacking wall street and the fed with the goal being an end to manipulation by the banks and government in favor of the wealthy.

To simply condemn it as you do shows that you remain in favor of the status quo with violent market corrections and manipulated currency which leaves us at the mercy of competitors who happily take our jobs and leave our youth jobless and protesting what they think is symbol of capitalism - Wall street.

I personally feel that you may be just as blind as those that actually favor a marxist revolution out there at OWS. They at least see the problem whereas you do not.

I have it pretty dang well, the president and left even consider me to be rich (I'm not). I have zero reason to support raising my taxes or distributing my money or property. I love the status quo, I love America.

Why would I change what has worked so well for me?

 

[momeNt]

I have it pretty dang well, the president and left even consider me to be rich (I'm not). I have zero reason to support raising my taxes or distributing my money or property. I love the status quo, I love America.

Why would I change what has worked so well for me?

So your wealth has made you apathetic to the problems our government has caused for us and as long as you don't see yourself being harmed by this you see no reason to change. That's perfectly understandable.

I hope for your own sake though you don't have any debt obligations that can't be settled by liquid capital. If you do then you're just a pig the banks wanted a little fatter than the rest of them before the slaughter. We aren't on a sustainable path and we do need change, you should be rooting for that change to be in favor of capitalism.

 

[airdata]

I have it pretty dang well, the president and left even consider me to be rich (I'm not). I have zero reason to support raising my taxes or distributing my money or property. I love the status quo, I love America.

Why would I change what has worked so well for me?

That's the view of alot of people. And that is why nothing will change. Sure there's a recession going on. But alot of people haven't noticed any differences in their lives.

So let bank of America stick its 75 Trillion dollars worth of dirivatives under FDIC protection.. Let that bail out come under the guise of FDIC protection.

 

[halik]

That's the view of alot of people. And that is why nothing will change. Sure there's a recession going on. But alot of people haven't noticed any differences in their lives.

So let bank of America stick its 75 Trillion dollars worth of dirivatives under FDIC protection.. Let that bail out come under the guise of FDIC protection.

I think we already established that there's nowhere near $75T of derivatives exposure anywhere in the world... world GDP is $65T. Try to keep up.

 

[momeNt]

I think we already established that there's nowhere near $75T of derivatives exposure anywhere in the world... world GDP is $65T. Try to keep up.

The claims of bilateral netting working flawlessly exists only in academia. Please see how AIG required a bailout to gather some empirical evidence to see that notional derivative exposure actually does matter.

 

[Nebor]

I have it pretty dang well, the president and left even consider me to be rich (I'm not). I have zero reason to support raising my taxes or distributing my money or property. I love the status quo, I love America.

Why would I change what has worked so well for me?

That's pretty much how I've always felt. Thus my total lack of interest in politics, voting, etc.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think we already established that there's nowhere near $75T of derivatives exposure anywhere in the world... world GDP is $65T. Try to keep up.

how much is it?

 

[halik]

how much is it?

Their VaR as well as their tier I / II capital is in their 10K. Regulators would step if their risk capital wasn't adequate.

 

[Patranus]

how much is it?

Well......
Bank of America holds $2.2 trillion dollars worth of assets so I would probably start there.

 

[JSt0rm]

Their VaR as well as their tier I / II capital is in their 10K. Regulators would step if their risk capital wasn't adequate.

what does that mean in laymen's terms.

 

[JSt0rm]

Well......
Bank of America holds $2.2 trillion dollars worth of assets so I would probably start there.

You are a idiot so I don't listen to anything you have to say one way or the other.

I'll ask halik about it though.