Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[RandFan]

Easy. This alleged prescience is not mentioned in any biography I've read of Eisenhower, nor in any American history survey text, nor in any of his own writings that I have read. The phrase only became relevant or memorable after its appropriation by Sixties radicals.

I'm sorry, are you serious? If his sentiments from the speech are not in any biography then the sentiments in the speech are invalidated? I'm sorry but I'm amazed that you would proffer such an absurdity. As if a person couldn't have an epiphany at the end of his presidency (though your own links belie that it wasn't a long term concern) and as if biographers are perfect historians. BTW: The point about 60's radicals is such a red herring. Even if we accept your ad hominem of the "radicals" it would still be fallacious. Assuming something malevolent about the "radicals" it's possible for a malevolent entity or group to use truths for their own purposes. IOW, that so called "radicals" appropriated the text, and I assume used Ike's gravitas for their own purpose, doesn't invalidate the point.

The other reasons are listed above.

?

EDIT: This is a pretty good brief on-line analysis of the speech but you really have to read biographies of Eisenhower himself to understand the context more fully:

Translation: The truth is buried in some biography so go read all the biographies or take my word for it.

Two words (abbreviated) B.S.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/aroundthemall/2011/01/eisenhowers-farewell-speech-50-years-later/

Could you be so kind and make a summary. I read it and I don't see the point you are trying to make. On the contrary, it seems to contradict you directly.

An important aspect of Eisenhower’s thought, which seems striking, given his standing as a preeminent leader in the US military over nearly 50 years, was the idea of “balance.” There should be a balance between a civil society and the role of the military; between the role of government and the role of corporations; between things that government needed to do to execute the Cold War and the liberties of individuals. The concept of balance was fundamental to Eisenhower’s perception of the country and to his idea of governance as a president.


He had built up and stimulated the idea within the American public that this threat was existential. This question of how one balances the kinds of concerns he raises in his farewell address, you can see during the course of his presidency, he could never find that place in which that balance was perfectly achieved.

Look, seriously, please stop. I'm not asking for you to agree with me. Either make a coherent argument backed by something more than links that don't agree with you and appeals to unknown texts without citations that require me to take your word for it, or just stop. Remember the first rule of holes.

 

[Brainster]

I will concede that I don't know that the these loans were inappropriate. It sure seems so. What experience did these women have to conclude that they could and would appropriately manage the money?

I am sure they were presented with a set deal, not that they were presented with a checkbook and told to go shopping. Their husbands are obviously very sophisticated investors, and I am sure that their subordinates ran complex spreadsheets analyzing the proposed transactions. For all that, I suspect that the deal did very poorly, as few people would have made the assumption that the economy performed as badly as it has the last three years. Post-closing, these women would not have any work to do; there are servicers that handle payment processing, collection efforts, etc.

If Taibbi is correct why were the loans kept off the public books? I do understand the logic behind the magic but I seriously distrust it. Why was there such a need to get the loans off the public books especially if the public were ultimately responsible for most of the risk? If I borrow money to purchase a car the finance company benefits from the interest I pay. How does the public (aside from perceptions) benefit from these loans other than offloading $15 million in risk?

There you butt up against the limits of my personal expertise. I know that banks have very strong mandates to get non-performing loans off their books, but I am completely in the dark as to why this is so. I'm also far from an expert on the workings of the Fed and whether this loan is public or private money.

 

[RandFan]

I am sure they were presented with a set deal, not that they were presented with a checkbook and told to go shopping. Their husbands are obviously very sophisticated investors, and I am sure that their subordinates ran complex spreadsheets analyzing the proposed transactions. For all that, I suspect that the deal did very poorly, as few people would have made the assumption that the economy performed as badly as it has the last three years. Post-closing, these women would not have any work to do; there are servicers that handle payment processing, collection efforts, etc.

Why take on the loans at all? Look, let's assume that it's in the public's best interest that the private firms service (assume some degree of risk for) these loans and therefore there is an impetus to provide incentive to get private firms to service the loans. What was the incentive and what was the interest to the public to offload the loans? Again, I understand the logic but I'm not impressed by it and I suspect you are not either but I could be wrong. Assuming there was no real benefit to the American public other than possible perception and perhaps some small reduced risk it seems to me that it was more of a way to turn a bad situation into a good opportunity for the banks and friends and families of those who were connected. Now, you can argue that to single out these two women is unfair if they were not the only ones that benefited. And I would agree, however, their lack of experience in the banking industry seriously calls into question the program regardless of the fact that could rely on others to buttress what they lacked in banking experience.

There you butt up against the limits of my personal expertise. I know that banks have very strong mandates to get non-performing loans off their books, but I am completely in the dark as to why this is so. I'm also far from an expert on the workings of the Fed and whether this loan is public or private money.

Understood. I'll leave it that at then. I too am lacking and I'll concede that Taibbi has not demonstrated anything that would give justify his aspersion in that regard either..

 

[portlandatheist]

Without a dogma or appropriate methodology to control for bias how do you judge the behavior? There are criminals and bad people in every group, and?
....

Have you done appropriate methodology of Wall Street? How many Wall Streeters, as a percentage, sold securities and investments they knew were toxic? How many received bail outs? How many have seedy relationships with politicians and influence policy? Maybe most of them are honest people just trying to make an honest living. I'm not being serious but I think you get my point: it doesn't really matter. What I think you would like to see is better regulation of the financial markets, more transparency and accountability and so on to prevent this from happening again in the future. Whether or not its a "few bad apples" or not is really not relevant.
I think the same thing can be said about OWS: The overall effect is really not so good. In fact, its a complete ***************. They aren't creating jobs or making the communities better places to live and they really have no discernible goals or objectives other than collective whining. Furthermore, the "mainstream" OWS (if there is such a thing) really should do more to prevent and distance themselves from the trouble makers and a "few bad apples" excuse just isn't going to cut it.

 

[portlandatheist]

Occupy LA is a loony town where loonies fight other loonies for control over the loonies:

The Occupation of Los Angeles - Part 7 - 10/28/2011
Infighting, Pot Smoke & Chemtrails - One Hundred Minutes at Occupy L.A.



http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20111028

What a nightmare!

 

[RandFan]

Have you done appropriate methodology of Wall Street?

NO! But then I make no claims that would require it. I only assert I am of the following opinion and that many of the OWS protestors share the following opinions.

• The economy has not favored the middle class for 10 years.
• Washington has done little to nothing to improve the lives of citizens.
• Washington has done much to benefit and favor the rich who are doing quite well at the moment.
• There are people who are fed up with Washington and want a change.
• Some and perhaps most of the protestors feel that what happened on wall street was criminal and that regulations need to be put in place.
• Some and perhaps most of the protestors feel that there are systemic problems and we need fundamental changes.

I concede that there are many different agendas and ideas for how to accomplish those goals so there is no need for me to rely on protocols or methodology. I state that my opinions are based on anecdote up front and want only to have a discussion as to the merits of the many ideas and to contribute to the dialect. I'm not trying to prove that OWS is monlithic entity or that they are universally correct or that there methods are appropriate.

But thanks for that question. I appreciate it.

 

[eeyore1954]

??? You are really trying my patience here.

Show me where you get the fact that the loans were not on the books.Aside from Taibbi saying so.

 

[RandFan]

Show me where you get the fact that the loans were not on the books.Aside from Taibbi saying so.

So why all the games? Why not just be up front and say you believe that Taibbi is making it up? I can't prove that Taibbi isn't making it all up. While it's not proof I would have thought that it would have been a great point to discredit him with. I've no reason to doubt him. He would have to invent that there was information kept hidden and that congress had to act to get to the information.

 

[eeyore1954]

Do you see the womens lack of experience has nothing to do with it. Here is some information and TALF Waterfall, who organized and managed it.
http://m.citybizlist.com/city/details/18/8202
Waterfall TALF Opportunity Fund, LLC is managed by Tom Capasse and Jack Ross, who were named in the filing. Capasse and Ross, who also manage Waterfall's Eden ABS fund.

 

[RandFan]

Do you see the womens lack of experience has nothing to do with it. Here is some information and TALF Waterfall, who organized and managed it.
http://m.citybizlist.com/city/details/18/8202
Waterfall TALF Opportunity Fund, LLC is managed by Tom Capasse and Jack Ross, who were named in the filing. Capasse and Ross, who also manage Waterfall's Eden ABS fund.

I will concede that point even though I can't access the link.

 

[eeyore1954]

I will concede that point even though I can't access the link.

I suppose the link is for smart phones. With the m. in front.
I don't know what is meant about off the books. If you search for TALF or TALF waterfall Opportunity there is plenty of old information on the web. It was not a secret, there were detailed requirements about participation in TALF, the risks and much more.
In the article he make a big deal about only part of the loan has been repaid. The loans were usually at least 3 year terms and there is still the collateral.

 

[RandFan]

I suppose the link is for smart phones. With the m. in front.
I don't know what is meant about off the books. If you search for TALF or TALF waterfall Opportunity there is plenty of old information on the web. It was not a secret, there were detailed requirements about participation in TALF, the risks and much more.
In the article he make a big deal about only part of the loan has been repaid. The loans were usually at least 3 year terms and there is still the collateral.

Where does Taibbi say that all of TALF was off the books?

From Wiki:

As TALF money did not originate from the U.S. Treasury, the program did not require congressional approval to disburse funds, but an act of Congress forced the Fed to reveal how it spent the money.

...

In April 2009, Congress passed legislation that included an amendment telling the Fed to reveal the names of the banks and other institutions that received $2.3 trillion in taxpayer-backed bailout loans and other financial assistance

Further. So, the point isn't that TALF was secret itself, it's that the people who received the money were. Why?

Michael Schlachter, the managing director of an investment consulting firm in Santa Monica, California called it "absolutely ridiculous" that banks may profit from speculating on toxic debt, when their pursuit of it caused the financial crisis.

That's been my point from, day one.

 

[WildCat]

I have been thinking that the OCW needs a simple unifying piece of legislation. And that is pass legislation that corporations are not persons in law.

Cool, you just made it impossible to sue a corporation or hold a corporation to a contract.

Good luck with that approach!

 

[WildCat]

Actually, House of Representatives member Donna Edwards recently introduced a resolution to overturn the Citizens United decision by adding a 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

So the 28th Amendment would repeal the 1st Amendment?

 

[WildCat]

So, GDP is up. Corporate profits are up. The rich are getting richer. And the middle to lower class? Drum roll please.....

That's right. You are getting hosed by a system that is set up to hose you. But laugh at OWS and it will make you fell better. Why are you getting hosed?

The Top 1% Vs YOU

What we need is immigration reform! I bet a few million more unskilled immigrant workers will fix that problem!

 

[RandFan]

What we need is immigration reform! I bet a few million more unskilled immigrant workers will fix that problem!

Why is immigration suddenly a factor now?

In any event, I seriously doubt immigration has anything to do with it. However, immigrants do make for convenient scape goats. Given the natural human tendency for xenophobia such claims don't usually require evidence.

 

[WildCat]

Why is immigration suddenly a factor now?

On this very message board you supported letting in more immigrants, because corporations want cheaper labor. Now you're concerned about income gaps.

I can't imagine what one has to do with the other.

 

[RandFan]

On this very message board you supported letting in more immigrants, because corporations want cheaper labor. Now you're concerned about income gaps.

I can't imagine what one has to do with the other.

Immigration keeps the cost of labor low but Immigration hasn't changed suddenly so it can't be an answer for the current problem. Stopping immigration would very likely move labor costs, particularly for the lower middle class. However eliminating unemployment would not significantly solve unemployment problems. I understand you are looking for a gotcha moment but this isn't it. Sorry.

 

[WildCat]

Immigration keeps the cost of labor low but Immigration hasn't changed suddenly so it can't be an answer for the current problem. Stopping immigration would very likely move labor costs, particularly for the lower middle class. However eliminating unemployment would not significantly solve unemployment problems. I understand you are looking for a gotcha moment but this isn't it. Sorry.

The wage gap hasn't suddenly changed either.

You want to boost wages? Get rid of the 90% of work visas that aren't actually needed, particularly in agriculture. Crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, especially in the construction and hospitality indistries.

Do that, and the bottom of the wage scale gets a 30% boost and millions of unemployed legal workers find jobs.

You won't close the wage gap by continually importing (legally and otherwise) workers for the sole purpose that they will work for compensation and conditions American workers won't.

And no, I don't blame or demonise illegal immigrants. I blame the employers who hire the and the government that looks the other way at best and actively encourages illegal immigration at worst.

 

[RandFan]

The wage gap hasn't suddenly changed either.

Actually it has. Relatively, it's been getting worse for the last decade. Bottom line is that there is no correlation to immigration.