Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[JihadJane]

My job has brought me down there a couple of times last week. What I saw in the park I would call disgusting. One of the protestors kept yelling, "Jews Run Wall Street!" Yeah, that was pretty disgusting too.

Yes, Im sure that's all you heard... To be honest, due to your previous record of posting propagandistic nonsense (e.g. they're all sleeping in their own feces) it's reasonable to doubt that you even heard that, or perhaps you were even yelling it yourself so you could get it into the New York Post!

Here's the link to the minutes of their general assemblies. A large part of a recent one was taken up by a discussion of the fact they have a lot of wet laundry and no one seems to want to wash it. No discussion about what is wrong with Wall Street and solutions on how to fix it (or overthrow it).

http://www.nycga.net/2011/10/23/nycga-minutes-10232011/#more-1075

Perhaps they could wash it with some of your free-flowing, vacuous gossip!

Is it the wet laundry that makes all the people you know too afraid to go to Zuccotti Park?

'Occupy Wall Street brings homelessness into the open
The homeless have long been criminalised by US laws against outdoor living. Now Occupy activism highlights their plight'

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Gone viral:

 

[JihadJane]

Yeah, I do. It's called free speech.



So if someone disagrees with the OWS protestors they are, according to you, on the right. Wrong. Why do you think that folks can't oppose the OWS protestors for non-political reasons?

If you are not objecting for political reasons to what purpose do you post made-up, propagandistic nonsense?

In US America much of the "left" is on the right.

They had goals.

They had goals.
They had goals.

OWS has goals., e.g. to reverse to financial coup d'etat and re-establish the rule of law.

 

[Virus]

OWS has goals., e.g. to reverse to financial coup d'etat and re-establish the rule of law.

Commies and anarchists want rule of law?

It's about the 1% all right. The 1% who are nuts.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Dumb Commies at OWS get mocked by Russian ex-pat:

It's good to see Yakov Smirnoff working again.

 

[RandFan]

Just out of curiosity, is there anything that participants of Occupy Wall Street could say or do that you would find acceptable to bring up in discussions about Occupy Wall Street?

Anything is fair game. To be intelectually fair and honest a person needs to not focus on simply the anecdotes and anomalies. Using rhetoric that paints all of the protestors in a bad light or dismissing all of them as not having any goals does your position no favors.

A person can come here to vent or contribute. Contributing doesn't mean being nice and kind. Contribution can and often should be about criticism. But criticism that ignores realities can't be taken seriously.

I've been critical of this movement. Particularly at the beginning. There's a lot I don't like about it and I've said so. But I resent ham handed dismissal of people who are sick and tired of the BS going on. WS really is hurting people. Something really does need to be done. At first I didn't think this was the right venue but now that people are starting to take notice, now that the agitation is working, I think it was probably the right decision.

 

[RandFan]

Thanks JJ, you and I don't get along much as we have some critical disagreements but I appreciate this picture. This is what we are talking about.

 

[eeyore1954]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/263894ea68b654edf9.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks JJ, you and I don't get along much as we have some critical disagreements but I appreciate this picture. This is what we are talking about.

I agree with what the signs says but I am wondering if there is evidence that the sign is what happened?

Did they know the loans were bad?
Did they knowingly bundle loans that they knew were misleadingly rated?
Did the buyers of these loans do any due diligence? We are not talking about some guy trying to bilk me out of money but instead multi billion dollar organizations purchasing the bundles.

I know several people in the industry and this is not how they tell it. It was more of a feeling that prices would never go down, so there would be security in the loans, plus many were federally backed , although I do not really know much about Fannie and Freddie.
Should these people have know better sure. Sure, the same as the people who were spending hundreds of billions buying tech stocks before the tech stock collapse. That is what drives these bubbles.

Of course I am sure there were a few who did what the sign said but I don't think that was the cause in general.
As an accountant though I tend to think a good deal of blame falls on the "independent auditors" of AIG and other companies that never dug deep enough and also the ratings agencies.

 

[RandFan]

Did they know the loans were bad?

Statistically, hell yeah. They knew the credit scores.

Did they knowingly bundle loans that they knew were misleadingly rated?

Obviously as what they claimed about the derivatives didn't match the reality.

Did the buyers of these loans do any due diligence?

If I tell you I own the empire state building and you buy it, we can give you a hard time for being a sucker but my actions are still fraudulent. Just because you can defraud someone because they have come to trust you doesn't mean it's okay.

Look, it's simple, when someone finally looked at all of these investments they easily and quickly labeled them "toxic". It really wasn't hard to do. Should the purchasers have been skeptical? Sure, but they had been led down a path to the slaughter. For years the folks selling the investments had been on the up and up.

 

[eeyore1954]

Statistically, hell yeah. They knew the credit scores.

Obviously as what they claimed about the derivatives didn't match the reality.

If I tell you I own the empire state building and you buy it, we can give you a hard time for being a sucker but my actions are still fraudulent. Just because you can defraud someone because they have come to trust you doesn't mean it's okay.

Look, it's simple, when someone finally looked at all of these investments they easily and quickly labeled them "toxic". It really wasn't hard to do. Should the purchasers have been skeptical? Sure, but they had been led down a path to the slaughter. For years the folks selling the investments had been on the up and up.

You don't think the credit ratings (or quality) associated with the bundles were disclosed? Can you offer any evidence that this is true?



Just because when the economy started to turn down the loans lost value doesn't mean the bundlers knew they were misleading.

You don't think anyone was looking at these bundles before. Once the value was no longer there because of falling home prices the loans became "toxic".

Personally I blame the purchasers more than the bundlers except in cases where it can be shown there was fraud which I suspect is a small fraction of the cases.

I agree that just because the purchasers should have done due diligence does not exonerate anyone who was involved in fraud.

 

[RandFan]

You don't think the credit ratings (or quality) associated with the bundles were disclosed? Can you offer any evidence that this is true?

I'm not sure if you are being obtuse or if you are sincerly naive about the facts. I'm not stating anything controversial or secret. Folks like Matt Taibbi, John Stewart and many prominent journalists have been reporting on this for a long time.

It was known what was happening before the crash. People tried desperately to warn people.

HOUSING CRASH IMMINENT: EXPERTS REPORT ALARMS

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Additionally, he argues that excessive derivative use by banks has caused a huge and increasingly complex web of financial instruments. According to his statistics, $55 trillion worth of derivatives are in existence in the U.S. alone. In his view, these derivatives have the power to potentially collapse our financial system if something goes even remotely wrong. John Rubino is not alone as he shares this same view as Warren Buffett. Buffett equates complex derivatives to financial weapons of mass destruction.[/FONT]

(yes it's a crap site but those are the facts dated March 2005.)

Personally I blame the purchasers more than the bundlers except in cases where it can be shown there was fraud which I suspect is a small fraction of the cases.

I think that is complete and utter nonsense. I think the buyers should bear responsibility and hey, they paid a price, a big one. But these asses that bundled these investments deserve serious jail time IMO. They hurt just about everyone. The argument that hey, they should be able to do anything they want so long as they can pull of the con is okay if the buyer doesn't do his due diligence. Nonsense.

If it is going to cause serious and long term harm, and it has, then one ought not to be able to pull that crap.

 

[RandFan]

I agree that just because the purchasers should have done due diligence does not exonerate anyone who was involved in fraud.

I appreciate this but given your ignorance of the facts I'm hesitent to give you credit. It seems to be a token sop to show that you are not entirely indifferent to the many people who lost their pensions and investments. This caused very real harm. A guy who robs people of their wallets pales to the degree of harm caused by the greedy bastards who pushed worthless loans and then repackaged them in complex derivatives to hide them.

BTW: Deregulation made this possible as firms that would provide the credit ratings for the derivatives were making money from the derivatives thus creating a conflict of interest. No, the truth was not made known to the buyers.

 

[RandFan]

One last thing. Obama with folks like Elizabeth Warren have tried to regulate the industry so the dynamics that caused this harm won't happen again. Guess what, the GOP is fighting them tooth and nail. They've demonized Warren and neutered any new policies. Do you know that little has changed. Do you know that this can happen again?

Do you know THAT THIS CAN'T HAPPEN IN CANADA? Do you know why? Because they are not idiots like we are. Their financial policy isn't built solely on caveat emptor and therefore whatever the banks and brokers can get away with is okay. Hell, not only is it okay but the American people will back their own sodomy. Screw us good and we will reward you handsomely. And we did. No dinner, no kiss we just picked up the check.

Jesus I hate our collective stupidity. Wake up people. PLEASE.

 

[eeyore1954]

I appreciate this but given your ignorance of the facts I'm hesitent to give you credit.

Show me the facts instead of saying Matt Taibbi, John Stewart and other have shown it to be fact. I may very well be ignorant of the facts but you should also be careful of what you consider facts.

I do know that so far aside from a few smaller cases there have been no charges filed yet. Do you believe this is because it has not been looked into? Or is it possible that it has been looked into and there is no evidence of fraud in most cases.

It was known what was happening before the crash. People tried desperately to warn people.

Of course there were some who warned of it before. There are enough pundits and advisors out there that you can always find people who know something was going to happen. But was it the general belief? I don't think so.

I think that is complete and utter nonsense. I think the buyers should bear responsibility and hey, they paid a price, a big one. But these asses that bundled these investments deserve serious jail time IMO. They hurt just about everyone. The argument that hey, they should be able to do anything they want so long as they can pull of the con is okay if the buyer doesn't do his due diligence. Nonsense.

Did you read what I said?
Personally I blame the purchasers more than the bundlers except in cases where it can be shown there was fraud. I fulhearted agree those engaged in fraud should be prosecuted and it has nothing to do with the due diligence.

One last thing. Obama with folks like Elizabeth Warren have tried to regulate the industry so the dynamics that caused this harm won't happen again.

If the facts are so obvious that fraud was involved why hasn't the current administration pushed to have more charges yet.

 

[Neally]

BTW: I grew up a conservative in a conservative household. My father spewed the same rhetoric at the protestors then that you are doing now. "Dirty hippy." "Trying to get laid." "Lazy won't work". "Stoned, drunk, peeing on lawns".

Sometimes father really does know best:

“There’s a lack of sanitation, a lack of controls for hot and cold water,” Yon said. He saw at least 15 violations of the city’s health code -- the type that would easily shut down a food establishment.

He noted the lack of lavatory facilities, as neighbors repeatedly complain about protesters defecating in the area and the stench of urine.

-Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/health_expert_condemns_park_rats_Vk7kl3EMepB4d2DkeFNmFL#ixzz1boK834Sh

 

[Segnosaur]

Look, it's simple, when someone finally looked at all of these investments they easily and quickly labeled them "toxic". It really wasn't hard to do. Should the purchasers have been skeptical? Sure, but they had been led down a path to the slaughter. For years the folks selling the investments had been on the up and up.

You don't think the credit ratings (or quality) associated with the bundles were disclosed? Can you offer any evidence that this is true?

According to the documentary Inside Job, the derivatives were rated by the bond rating agencies (such as Moody's and Standard&Poors) and were known to the purchasers, but the ratings were, shall we say, worthless.

Unfortunately the buyers didn't know that.

Personally I blame the purchasers more than the bundlers...

Well, the bond rating agencies were supposed to give an honest assessment (saying "This derivative is junk", "This one is OK", etc.) The purchasers basically trusted the "experts".

As an analogy, its a little like me going to buy a car... I could bring in a mechanic to check it out to see if its in good condition, but if the mechanic lies and says "its good" when the engine is about to fall out of it, you can't really blame me for purchasing it since I was relying on someone who (in theory) had more knowledge than I did.

 

[Neally]

According to the documentary Inside Job, the derivatives were rated by the bond rating agencies (such as Moody's and Standard&Poors) and were known to the purchasers, but the ratings were, shall we say, worthless.

Unfortunately the buyers didn't know that.


Well, the bond rating agencies were supposed to give an honest assessment (saying "This derivative is junk", "This one is OK", etc.) The purchasers basically trusted the "experts".

So if the agencies made a mistake, shame on them, but I don't think they guaranteed that they couldn't make a mistake. On the other hand if they knowingly issued bogus ratings they could be liable for crimes.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, the bond rating agencies were supposed to give an honest assessment (saying "This derivative is junk", "This one is OK", etc.) The purchasers basically trusted the "experts".

So if the agencies made a mistake, shame on them, but I don't think they guaranteed that they couldn't make a mistake.

No, they couldn't guarantee perfection.

Problem is, it wasn't just one or 2 derivatives that they "made mistakes" on... it was pretty much everything.

The problem appeared to be due to the fact that they got paid based on issuing "positive" ratings. If they stated that "this derivative is worthless" they'd likely get less business.

On the other hand if they knowingly issued bogus ratings they could be liable for crimes.

Possibly. From what I understand, the ratings agencies are hiding behind the "freedom of speech" argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

One last thing. Obama with folks like Elizabeth Warren have tried to regulate the industry so the dynamics that caused this harm won't happen again.

Your faith in Obama is charming, though misplaced.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/o...all-street-lobbyist-for-re-election-campaign/

Guess what, the GOP is fighting them tooth and nail.

Well, when the Democrats are trying to re-inflate the housing bubble, maybe that's not such a bad thing. But this really doesn't look like the Democrats are trying to change the dynamics so much as simply turn back the clock:

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...for-government-backed-loans-clears-the-senate

Their financial policy isn't built solely on caveat emptor and therefore whatever the banks and brokers can get away with is okay. Hell, not only is it okay but the American people will back their own sodomy. Screw us good and we will reward you handsomely. And we did. No dinner, no kiss we just picked up the check.

I will gladly join with you in calling for the abolition of Fannie and Freddie. It is indeed time we changed the dynamic, and stop letting privileged insiders screw over the American taxpayer for their own profit.

 

[bikerdruid]

So if the agencies made a mistake, shame on them, but I don't think they guaranteed that they couldn't make a mistake. On the other hand if they knowingly issued bogus ratings they could be liable for crimes.

this is more than a'mistake'.
they knowingly made alse statements.
in canada, we call that 'fraud'.
perhaps that word has a different meaning to americna capitalists.

 

[eeyore1954]

No, they couldn't guarantee perfection.

Problem is, it wasn't just one or 2 derivatives that they "made mistakes" on... it was pretty much everything.

The problem appeared to be due to the fact that they got paid based on issuing "positive" ratings. If they stated that "this derivative is worthless" they'd likely get less business.


Possibly. From what I understand, the ratings agencies are hiding behind the "freedom of speech" argument.

I doubt very much this argument would hold any water in court.