114 replies to this topic

[Rational Madman]

Although I consider a restructuring of our economy highly desirable, such would be self-destructive in the short run, and misguided, given the multiple variables that are influencing the current stagnation. Indeed, with the emasculation and destruction of towering pillars of the financial services sector, I believe they've received more than their fair share of consequences for the time being. But what's more important, if they feel gravely threatened, we can't pretend that an irrational change in behavior of a sector that enjoyed the largest share of corporate profits----and remains critically important to the global economy---won't likely destroy the entire system with its frightened actions. Again, restructuring is highly desirable, but it won't be as easy as turning on a switch, and given the changed rules of the marketplace, overzealous reforms will very likely lead to disastrous consequences that no federal entity will be able to contain. The financial services sector has responded to Fed incentives by relaxing lending standards, but because the system remains paralyzed by fear and loss, this change has had no serious effect. And although some take comfort with past precedents of dubious values, this is not Sweden, Japan, France, or Great Britain; but a country with an industry that once reached a peak of over 30% of GDP---not to mention potential liabilities that have a notional value in the hundreds of trillions (globally). Therefore, we need to approach this problem very cautiously, and subordinate it to problems that are more pressing, and where policymakers have more traction.

Edited by Rol82, 07 October 2011 - 08:06 PM.

[niner]

Rol82, can that be summarized as "the status quo is suboptimal, but let's keep it anyway"?

[Rational Madman]

Yes, unless you think the task would be easy in a context of poisonous politics, a looming election, and with a recession that's likely imminent---which would be ridiculous to blame largely on Wall Street. I mean, if the passage of health care legislation took a year in much more favorable conditions, how well do you think taking on Wall Street will go right now? Then again, everything seems easy these days, like NATO's war against Libya. Anyway, in my opinion, it's better to wait for a recession to hit, when the White House will have more leverage to push through meaningful reforms.

Edited by Rol82, 07 October 2011 - 10:45 PM.

[niner]

Yes, unless you think the task would be easy in a context of poisonous politics, a looming election, and with a recession that's likely imminent---which would be ridiculous to blame largely on Wall Street. I mean, if the passage of health care legislation took a year in much more favorable conditions, how well do you think taking on Wall Street will go right now? Then again, everything seems easy these days, like NATO's war against Libya. Anyway, in my opinion, it's better to wait for a recession to hit, when the White House will have more leverage to push through meaningful reforms.

Well, no one said it would be easy... If a recession is imminent, how could that not be blamed largely on Wall Street? It would just be a further consequence of the damage they did. I didn't expect to be discussing Libya, but if we could call in a NATO airstrike on 200 West Street, that would be awesome.

Given the toxic state of our politics, I think it would take more than another recession to give the White House enough leverage to push through meaningful reforms. If the last one wasn't enough, what would it take, a Zombie Apocalypse?

When the economy still sucks at the end of the Romney Administration in 2016, maybe people will be pissed off enough to make some substantive changes. Or... Maybe Obama will be the first president to be reelected with numbers like his. 2012 should be a tough year for incumbents, though.

[maxwatt]

By the time they realize what is happening the peasants will be too poor to buy pitchforks

[Mind]

Well, no one said it would be easy... If a recession is imminent, how could that not be blamed largely on Wall Street? It would just be a further consequence of the damage they did. I didn't expect to be discussing Libya, but if we could call in a NATO airstrike on 200 West Street, that would be awesome.

Niner, this is not one of your typical well-reasoned opinions. There is so much blame to go around in the nexus between Wall Street/D.C. nexus. I can't believe you cannot see the political corruption. Consider this: Obama is the Chief Executive of the Country, his office is the top of the food chain when it comes to the SEC and the Treasury, he has been in office 3 years AND has yet to perp-walk any of the people on "Wall Street" that you like to place all the blame on. They were his largest campaign contributors and it shows. Now he is trying to get behind the protestors in typical hypocritical Machiavellian fashion:

Obama (October 6th) "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel, that we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country ... and yet you're still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place."

WTF!? He could have taken care of this 3 years ago if he was a real leader.

Unfortunately, Obama and most of the federal politicians do not seem to grasp, or if they know - they are not letting on, that we are entering a disruptive time with accelerating technological progress (and declining population growth) - creating structural unemployment. Their answer - let's build more stuff (infrastructure) - on borrowed/printed money, of course. How about let's not build more stuff and (openly and transparently) focus on how society is going to adapt to these structural problems? How about we finally take our (debt) medicine and get the great recession over with? Imminst, and Angie's List, and PatientsLikeMe, and open Cures, etc., even Facebook - are a great model of VOLUNTARY open international cooperation to solve problems. The top-down tyranny proposed by most (not all) of the Occupy Wall Street movement is not the way forward.

[niner]

Well, no one said it would be easy... If a recession is imminent, how could that not be blamed largely on Wall Street? It would just be a further consequence of the damage they did. I didn't expect to be discussing Libya, but if we could call in a NATO airstrike on 200 West Street, that would be awesome.

Niner, this is not one of your typical well-reasoned opinions. There is so much blame to go around in the nexus between Wall Street/D.C. nexus. I can't believe you cannot see the political corruption. Consider this: Obama is the Chief Executive of the Country, his office is the top of the food chain when it comes to the SEC and the Treasury, he has been in office 3 years AND has yet to perp-walk any of the people on "Wall Street" that you like to place all the blame on. They were his largest campaign contributors and it shows. Now he is trying to get behind the protestors in typical hypocritical Machiavellian fashion:

Sigh. I'm not trying to claim that there is no corruption. That's what OWS is all about- the fact that our government is bought and paid for by Wall Street and other monied interests, and acts overwhelmingly in their favor. Obama is part of the problem, but be serious, he inherited the mess. I guess calling in an airstrike on 200 West isn't my most well reasoned opinion ever... It was, after all a joke, but a joke with a message. Goldman Sachs is a criminal enterprise. Please don't interpret that as an attack on Capitalism; it isn't, any more than my opposition to the Mafia is an attack on Capitalism. Remember, I AM a Capitalist. That's how I support myself.

Obama (October 6th) "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel, that we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country ... and yet you're still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place."

WTF!? He could have taken care of this 3 years ago if he was a real leader.

You are totally overstating the power of the Executive in our government. He can't do crap if the Republicans pull out the filibuster every time he says boo. America is not a monarchy, nor is it a democracy. It's a plutocracy that is only somewhat democratic. I would argue that this should change. In fact, I think you feel the same way, and both the OWS guys AND the Tea Party would agree with us. BTW, I'm not trying to absolve Obama of all guilt here. If he had not aligned himself with Geithner et al. in the early days of his presidency, he might have been able to do more. However, he was faced with a financial mess of unprecedented magnitude. I think his first thoughts were probably "do no harm" rather than creating fundamental change. John McCain's economic guy has been quoted as saying that if McCain had been president, they would have done the same thing, and gotten the same results.

Unfortunately, Obama and most of the federal politicians do not seem to grasp, or if they know - they are not letting on, that we are entering a disruptive time with accelerating technological progress (and declining population growth) - creating structural unemployment. Their answer - let's build more stuff (infrastructure) - on borrowed/printed money, of course. How about let's not build more stuff and (openly and transparently) focus on how society is going to adapt to these structural problems? How about we finally take our (debt) medicine and get the great recession over with? Imminst, and Angie's List, and PatientsLikeMe, and open Cures, etc., even Facebook - are a great model of VOLUNTARY open international cooperation to solve problems. The top-down tyranny proposed by most (not all) of the Occupy Wall Street movement is not the way forward.

I'm pretty sure that those federal politicians with a clue, and there are some, are aware of the changes wrought by globalization. They have a limited toolkit for fixing our problems, which were a good quarter century (if not more) in the making. You don't fix recessions by massive cutbacks in spending. That's how you create depressions. We need to get the economy back on its feet, and cut back pretty hard on our future spending. We need to gore a lot of oxen here, and it isn't going to be pretty. I'm glad you are at least allowing as to how SOME of OWS are not tyrannical Marxists. That's kind of like saying "oh, I guess a FEW of the Tea Party aren't racist stooges". In other words, both of those sentiments are mis-characterizing the respective movements. There are a few clowns in both camps, and they get way more press from the opposing camp than they deserve. That's just more Machiavelli in action.

[Brainbox]

It's like the handling of EU economic issues. The issues experienced now result in combating the problems we had in the 80's of the previous century.

Apart from all the details discussed here that result in inconclusive standpoints, isn't the economical turmoil we are in today the result of the failed experiment to implement the Keynesian economical model?

[Ben]

They're just a bunch of uneducated berks trying mindless violence to get something they have not earned (a liberal arts degree is not an education these days.)

Why waste any energy criticising this?

[niner]

Apart from all the details discussed here that result in inconclusive standpoints, isn't the economical turmoil we are in today the result of the failed experiment to implement the Keynesian economical model?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you mean Obama's stimulus package, then no, not even remotely. If you mean Greenspan's overly loose monetary policy of the post-9/11 period, which nearly everyone now thinks was carried on for far too long, and which pretty clearly created a variety of asset bubbles, then yes, but I wouldn't exactly call that Keynesianism. I'd call it irresponsible pumping up of the markets. However, that was far from the only cause, and was not the most important one.

Edited by niner, 09 October 2011 - 04:58 AM.

[chris w]

This map from Mother Jones has made quite an impression on me. I don't live in US so I just didn't realise exactly how widespread this thing has gotten (even in Canada).

They don't have the time on their side though, protesting outside at the brink of autumn. At least Democrats sure aren't waisting any of theirs to capitalise on the movement.

[maxwatt]

The are organizing for the coming winter weather, likely occupying in shifts. They are soliciting donations for cold weather gear. This is not going to go away, and is growing. Yesterday they started organizing in Washington Square Park, forming working groups, asking for volunteers to form groups. The crowd in the Park near Wall Street is just the visible manifestation, tip of the iceberg. It is getting organized, wide spread. The will be acting locally throughout the country.

I went downtown to see first hand. (Photos if requested.) Typical college protest people made up half, but lots of older middle class types, an upside-down mortgage holder, someone who can pay his monthly mortgage, but cannot refinance to a lower rate because the bank won;t lend against the current appraised value. Some union members, and people who work on Wall Street in support roles, every political cause vaguely on the left, some anti-fed people. Even the IWW, the Industrial Workers of the World were there, supporting and recruiting. Any leadership, if you can call it that, seemed to be coming from the techie-internet types who started the movement. Philosophy like the Free Software Association. They discourage divisive political discussion, discussion of religion, on their forums, and are keeping the movement focused on the 1% of the population who control most of the wealth in the US. They are focusing of the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1 to 3% of the country, a redistribution that started 40 years ago and has been accelerating and consolidating since the financial crisis. They keep bringing it back to that wealth disparity. Bill McKibben was addressing them Friday on the coming consequences of climate change, which is also tied in with the anti-corporate anti-1% message they ARE espousing, (FWIW, few beside white American conservative males believe climate change is not happening, or that is man-made.)

Perhaps the worst part of the wealth consolidation is that ey are good at making money, often by unethical and technically criminal means, have no scruples, and outside that narrow focus, are rather stupid. There is something to be said for old money, when it carries a sense of noblesse oblige.

As for Obama not taking action, some things are curious. He ordered Geitner according to some insider rumors, to split up Citibank during the crisis. Orders were directly disobeyed. His powers are limited. Every president who has ever challenged the power-elite has been assassinated or died under suspicious circumstances. Kennedy was the most recent, (if you recall he publicly humiliated Roger Blough, president of US Steel, when the man raised prices immediately after a request from the white house to exercise price restraint .... Blough was forced to apologize on network television. It was more of a justification than an apology, but must of been humiliating none the less.) Could be coincidence....

[rwac]

As for Obama not taking action, some things are curious. He ordered Geitner according to some insider rumors, to split up Citibank during the crisis. Orders were directly disobeyed. His powers are limited.

The game is not Republican vs Democrat. It's a three-way Republican vs Democrat vs The System.

Please post pics. I sympathize with OWS despite my political leanings.

Edited by rwac, 09 October 2011 - 04:09 PM.

[maxwatt]

A few photos

Attached Files

•  IMAG0986.jpg   1.51MB   9 downloads
•  IMAG0985.jpg   1.27MB   15 downloads
•  IMAG0984.jpg   1.33MB   15 downloads
•  IMAG0983.jpg   1.4MB   12 downloads

[maxwatt]

A few more pics

Attached Files

•  IMAG0989.jpg   1.4MB   4 downloads
•  IMAG0991.jpg   1.09MB   5 downloads
•  IMAG0992.jpg   1.25MB   9 downloads
•  IMAG0988.jpg   1.2MB   6 downloads

[maxwatt]

more ows posts

Attached Files

•  IMAG0996.jpg   1.32MB   2 downloads
•  IMAG0999.jpg   1.32MB   2 downloads
•  IMAG1000.jpg   1.06MB   3 downloads
•  IMAG1001.jpg   1.4MB   4 downloads

[maxwatt]

and

Attached Files

•  IMAG1004.jpg   1.64MB   10 downloads
•  IMAG1003.jpg   1.33MB   10 downloads

[okok]

excellent post, niner. thanks maxwatt.

[maxwatt]

Short video afternoon of October 9. Note many of the "organizers" were not there that afternoon, having gone to Washington square to start another "occupation". That park has a curfew, so it can't be 'occupied 24x7, but they did start other "committees" to spread the "occupation" to other venues. I met many of them as I walked uptown and they were marching back to Wall Street. Some funny signs and costumes, but most looked indistinguishable from a New York street crowd.

Edited by maxwatt, 10 October 2011 - 01:08 AM.

[chris w]

Thanks for the pictures, Max.

A story from the "No shit" department below.


"Tea Partiers to counter Wall Street protesters"

By Eric Mayes, Special to the NNPA from The Philadelphia Tribune - A coalition of local Tea Party groups – under the umbrella of the Independence Tea Party Association – is “monitoring” Occupy Philadelphia protestors camped out at city hall.


“Occupy Philadelphia has threatened to block traffic and set up tents – all without acquiring the proper permits. The Tea Party condemns such behavior,” said Teri Adams, the association’s president, in a statement.

Tea Partiers said they joined together and are forming a group called Liberate Philadelphia to “unequivocally restate their commitment to free enterprise and the U.S. Constitution against a potential political force and social movement which they say could threaten both” adding that it would be “closely watching” protestors.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, which has now reportedly sprung up in 100 cities across the country, came to Philadelphia last week bringing hundreds of protestors to Dilworth Plaza on the western side of city hall. Their numbers thinned from a peak of about 1,500 at noontime Thursday to about 300 people milling around at about 11 a.m. Friday.

So far, the demonstration has remained peaceful. Police reported no arrests or citations, at Tribune press time on Friday.

City officials acknowledged that the group lacked the required $20 permit adding that protest leaders have been very cooperative.

"While they have not secured the permit yet, they certainly have cooperated with the police department,” said Mark McDonald, a spokesman from the mayor’s office. “We’re hoping they will soon take the appropriate action.”

The southern end of Dilworth Plaza looked like a tent city Friday as protestors settled in for what appeared to be a protracted stay. Protestors in Manhattan have occupied Zuccotti Park for nearly three weeks.

Echoing their counterparts in New York City, local protestors said they represented 99 percent of the American people who were struggling in the current recession and were venting their anger against corporations and the wealthy.

“A large part of where we find ourselves is because of dereliction of duty by a lot of people - pension managers, bankers and fund managers,” said protestor Robert Creamer. “Why are we seeing countries going bankrupt? People who are in control of multi-millions of dollars need to be aware of what their doing. Are they co-conspirators perhaps?”

Tea Partiers had a starkly different view.

“Their notion that Wall Street and corporations are the root of all evil is foreign to us,” Rich Davis, founder of a Tea Party group called Leaders of American Sheepdogs. “The recent death of Steve Jobs should serve as a reminder of the beneficial nature of businesses such as Apple Inc., of which Mr. Jobs had contributed substantially.”

Both the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement give vent to what is seen as growing political and economic discontent, albeit from different ends of the political spectrum.
Members of the Tea Party want less government and have coalesced around their opposition to President Obama.

“The federal government, led by the Obama Administration, is stifling the American economy with its reckless deficit spending and zealous over-regulation of the private sector economy,” said Adams.

“In 2012, we plan on electing a new president to occupy the White House, one who shares our convictions and can lead our nation back to economic prosperity.”

The Occupy movement, which has a less articulate focus, has called for more government regulation of the nation’s banks and the stock market.

“From the day Obama took office the Republicans were out to stop him,” said protestor John Speer.

“They didn’t want him in office and were willing to risk the nation to unseat him. They haven’t put the people first, they put unseating Obama first. That’s the one percent who are behind this.”

Pretty low that this Rich Davis uses the name of the late Steve Jobs as a political tool.

[Brainbox]

Apart from all the details discussed here that result in inconclusive standpoints, isn't the economical turmoil we are in today the result of the failed experiment to implement the Keynesian economical model?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you mean Obama's stimulus package, then no, not even remotely. If you mean Greenspan's overly loose monetary policy of the post-9/11 period, which nearly everyone now thinks was carried on for far too long, and which pretty clearly created a variety of asset bubbles, then yes, but I wouldn't exactly call that Keynesianism. I'd call it irresponsible pumping up of the markets. However, that was far from the only cause, and was not the most important one.

Well, from a somewhat macro perspective and probably ignoring some important details, but it are the greasy details that obfuscate the issue a lot:

The banks (and the political system they work in, which are also guilty as not charged), do / did take a great gamble in implementing a Keynesianish approach to bottom-feed the economy. It failed, either due to the fact that the concept is mute (which I think it is) or because they overdid it. Throwing to much wood at a fire will kill it. Keep throwing more wood will not reignite the fire if there are no sparks. Sparks are absent because most people are passively waiting for some miracle solution that allows continuation of a former irresponsible lifestyle. Most politicians ignore this impossibility for electorate gain or avoid of loss.

Sure, banks are to blame for taking irresponsible investment risks, but it seems that there was an illusion of a win-win situation where you bottom-feed the economy and harvest ultra high investment profits at the top. A kind of economical collaboration (either explicit or implicit) between capitalist corporations, left-wingish power to the people movements and "in between" governments. Like a kind of economic perpetuum mobile.

Would have been very nice if it worked. The fairytail kind of nice I'm afraid.

We all are part of the problem, blaming just the banks is witch-hunting.

On the positive side, we can all participate in a solution as well, provided we are not going to passively sit at some square in New York, Amsterdam or Timbuktu.

Edited by Brainbox, 12 October 2011 - 09:11 PM.

[Mind]

Sigh, I haven't seen much progress over the last week. Seems that if Obama or the "elite" throw some goodies (free health care, debt forgiveness, free housing, free education) the protesters way, they will be pretty happy.

Even though I see and understand the political corruption that allows TBTF banks and other crony-capitalism to run amok, I just can't get behind the OWS protesters. I went to college and it took me 10 years to pay off my loan. I also worked during college. I bought a house I could afford and I pay the mortgage. I vote, work, and opine against the "system" quite often, but I don't sit around with my hand out asking Obama to shower me with free.....everything.

In one respect that is positive, at least the OWS protesters are asking for donations. This is at least one free market principle at work. At least they aren't getting all their support from unions, democrats, and socialist/communist agitators.

[Brainbox]

We all are part of the problem, blaming just the banks is witch-hunting.

On the positive side, we can all participate in a solution as well, provided we are not going to passively sit at some square in New York, Amsterdam or Timbuktu.

What I did mean to express is that we all are part of the cause. Sorry for the inaccuracy.

This is at least one free market principle at work. At least they aren't getting all their support from unions, democrats, and socialist/communist agitators.

But it still seems to be a good old incarnation of the battle between the rich and the poor. An open door, yes, but I think it is important to recognize that explicitly.

Old wine in new bags. Like I tried to express above, it's my view that the last 20 years or so have been subjected to a kind of economical development that was able to serve both the rich and the poor. Possibility for individuals to obtain a loan to build a house that was otherwise not affordable or the possibility for less developed countries to feed their economy using loans from developed countries. Which subsequently were able to provide their citizens with loans and wages conform international market level. It seemed to be a possibility to obtain a practical synergy between capitalism and socialism, where all parties got their share of the profit from economical growth. While the growth lasted.

Economical growth that was for a significant part driven by a hyped stock market, resulting in over valued stocks all over the place. Or so to speak, development on the working floor was not able to follow this hype. Air bubble extra ordinair. Or to follow my metaphor above, to much wood for the amount of sparks that are available to keep the fire burning.

But again, my most important insight is that we all did benefit from this approach, so that I think it's kind of odd that we are going to blame the banks exclusively.
It was a kind of at least temporary successful implementation of a Keynesian model, where the redistribution of resources was carried out not only by government, but also by banks. Where governments use taxes to support their part, banks were able to invest in the working class and poorer countries based on the hyped stock market profits. With the aim to feed the economy by feeding consumption through injecting loans and market conform wages. Activities that on their own were not able to create a positive balance for the bank on short term alone. Returns on other (stock market) investments were essential for the short term survival of this approach.

We all know what happened. Bummer.

So now the loss of this experiment has to be shared, resulting in a good old battle between the rich and poor.

Edited by Brainbox, 16 October 2011 - 03:36 PM.

[niner]

We all are part of the problem, blaming just the banks is witch-hunting.

On the positive side, we can all participate in a solution as well, provided we are not going to passively sit at some square in New York, Amsterdam or Timbuktu.

What I did mean to express is that we all are part of the cause. Sorry for the inaccuracy.
[...]
So now the loss of this experiment has to be shared, resulting in a good old battle between the rich and poor.

Many of us (certainly not all of us) contributed to the cause of the problem, but some of us (certain financial institutions, corrupt and failed-ideology-driven government, unregulated predatory lenders) contributed more than others. WAY more. That's why people are sitting in the squares. They aren't being passive; they are being active. It's the rest of us that are being passive, since all we're doing about it is talking. I guess we could argue that by talking here instead of around the water cooler, we're influencing more people...

As for the loss from this experiment being shared, that doesn't seem to be equal. The formerly middle class families that are now on food stamps seems to be sharing a little harder than the Wall Street bankers who are raking in giant payouts once again.

OWS as a movement isn't asking for handouts (though some clowns who have latched on to it might be). They're asking for an end to the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and Washington. I think that's exactly what most of us are looking for, too.

[Brainbox]

OWS as a movement isn't asking for handouts (though some clowns who have latched on to it might be). They're asking for an end to the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and Washington. I think that's exactly what most of us are looking for, too.

The last decade or 2 this relationship did work quite well. Maybe based on a few incorrect economical assuptions, but it did work surprisingly well in generation of economical wealth for a very broad range of the population for a significantly long period. That is the positive situation we are coming from. The greasy details hyped in the media are not the cause of current problems, but easy targets for journalists and other pointy fingers.

Maybe we should try to cooperate to find out what went wrong, tune the system, and continue. Polarization and conspiracy theories are so 19-something-ish.

At least I'm very pleased, as ever, with my nice apartment that I can afford even when I experience a personal or global economical mishap. And I have some savings to.

[niner]

OWS as a movement isn't asking for handouts (though some clowns who have latched on to it might be). They're asking for an end to the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and Washington. I think that's exactly what most of us are looking for, too.

The last decade or 2 this relationship did work quite well. Maybe based on a few incorrect economical assuptions, but it did work surprisingly well in generation of economical wealth for a very broad range of the population for a significantly long period. That is the positive situation we are coming from. The greasy details hyped in the media are not the cause of current problems, but easy targets for journalists and other pointy fingers.

Maybe we should try to cooperate to find out what went wrong, tune the system, and continue. Polarization and conspiracy theories are so 19-something-ish.

The incestuous relationship between Wall Street and Washington has worked well if you consider the near destruction of the world economy to be "well". The financial cataclysm that we've been through was a disaster for a huge number of people, and we will be lucky if our economy fully recovers by 2016, if not 2020.

Maybe the European experience was different than the American experience. In the past decade or two in America, the financial industry has become a large fraction of our total economy. Although they do create some real value in that they create markets and underwrite stock offerings, they also engage in destruction of value (prop trading scams, asset stripping, LBOs) and the massive amount of money they extract from the economy goes into the hands of the few. The middle class in America has not benefited in any significant way from this development. The middle class here has been stagnating or declining for about 40 years now. Partly this is globalization, and partly it is changing government policies. All of the benefit of the productivity increases in this period have accrued to the wealthy rather than to the middle class. Particularly in the last decade, an unregulated predatory lending industry was allowed to run amok, generating vast numbers of bad mortgages. A lot of ordinary people were hurt by this, and continue to be hurt by it. I'm not sure what you mean by the greasy details hyped in the media. If you really want to know how the credit crisis came about, I could point you to some reliable sources. I'm not seeing very many journalists pointing the finger of blame anywhere, actually. I'd like to see that happen, in fact, if they got it right. I sometimes see the finger pointed at the innocent, which I do find rather maddening.

I fully agree that we should find out what went wrong, tune the system and continue. I guarantee you there are a number of people who know exactly what went wrong. There are also a lot of people who don't want the needed changes to take place, because that would make it harder for them to extract huge sums of money out of the productive economy. The problem is that they use their money to buy influence in Washington, to keep those changes from being made. That's what OWS is protesting against. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's the way business is done in Washington DC, and it's broken.

Edited by niner, 17 October 2011 - 03:47 AM.

[okok]

Introductory material i found accessible and informative:

Paul Grignon: Money as Debt
Chris Martenson: The Crash Course

Also watch Inside Job to see a few of the guys that had/have a hand in this cornered.
Some interesting reactions:

That wasn't supposed to be part of our discussion.
I'm not going to answer that.
Can we turn this off for a second?
And actually, you have a few more minutes, and then this interview is over.

In fact, you've got three minutes. SO GIVE IT YOUR BEST SHOT.

Edited by okok, 17 October 2011 - 06:11 AM.

[rwac]

Hmmm, OWS seems to be highly socialist/communist.

Almost every organization present at OWS is explicitly communist or socialist. Almost every piece of literature being handed out is explicitly communist or socialist. I don’t mean half, and I don’t mean the overwhelming majority — I mean almost all of it. Yes, there are the usual union goons trying to figure out how to get OWS to do the bidding of the AFL-CIO and the Democratic party, and the usual smattering of New Age goo (the “Free Empathy” table) and po-mo Left wackiness (animal-rights nuts), the inevitable Let’s-Eradicate-Israel crowd (“Free Palestine, from the river to the sea!”). But, that being said, almost every organized enterprise and piece of printed material I have encountered has been socialist or communist. It’s been a long time since I saw anybody peddling books by Lenin. It’s been a long time since anybody told me the Ukrainians had it coming.

http://www.nationalr...in-d-williamson

It’s not an overstatement to describe Zuccotti Park as New York’s Marxist epicenter. Flags with the iconic face of the Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara are everywhere; the only American flag I saw was hanging upside down. The “occupiers” openly refer to each other as “comrade,” and just about every piece of literature on offer (free or for sale) advocated socialism in the Marxist tradition as a cure-all for the inequalities of the American economic system.

http://newyorkpost.c...ezP82E3Gkki2IvO

[niner]

Hmmm, OWS seems to be highly socialist/communist.

I'm not terribly surprised to see that coming from the national review or the ny post. I'm just not so sure that it's a true representation of OWS. The Philadelphia Inquirer has been covering the local Occupy protest, and they aren't calling them commies. There are some anti-fed types there. One of the messages I heard in a radio interview involved 'getting money out of politics'. (Specifically, passing legislation to address Citizens United.)

I've been seeing a lot of OWS-bashing from the Right, like the Rupert Murdoch organs- Fox News and the NY Post. A movement like this must be scary to the wealthy. Next thing you know, some hedge fund managers 110 room mansion in the Hamptons will get stormed by the rabble... I wonder if that's what they're worried about? Or is it just that the present setup, where the wealthy get a sweet deal out of Washington in exchange for a few million bucks thrown around here and there, is starting to look a little indefensible, and they'd rather not have a lot of people questioning it? I kinda think it's the latter.

[rwac]

The Philadelphia Inquirer has been covering the local Occupy protest, and they aren't calling them commies.

On the other hand, it's possible the Inquirer is soft-pedaling the politics of the protesters since socialism is a dirty word these days.