QuakerOats;930357 wrote:http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_wallison_dissent.pdf


I know this for a fact, what happened in 2008 would never have happened in a true free market, with zero government regulation or intereference.

^Laughable and not supported by the evidence but as your statement heree clearly indicates...this is true for you a priori and requires no reliance on empirical justification or experience.

gut;930330 wrote:I'll give you that on the credit ratings agencies. Again, I don't consider that Wall Street. The credit analysts at the agencies are hacks and sophisticated investors don't rely on it in place of their own due diligence. Anyone at Moody's or S&P worth a damn would take a job making multiples more at a bank or hedge fund.

But the credit ratings agencies aren't involved in gaining on the insurance, so your conflict of interest argument still fails miserably. You're just throwing darts now.

I think the problem here is a lot of people would consider Wall Street to be more than your very specific 7 banks classification.

I read a quote from a eulogy today that reminds me of how I got to where I am today. It goes like this:

"Yeah, I've lived my dream, but I thought I would live my dream. But you've got to go get it. You've got to fight for it, and you've got to dominate.''

Regarding the Occupiers...is there anyone in their gang that would have such a thought? More importantly....why don't more people have this thought?

BGFalcons82;930426 wrote:I read a quote from a eulogy today that reminds me of how I got to where I am today. It goes like this:



Regarding the Occupiers...is there anyone in their gang that would have such a thought? More importantly....why don't more people have this thought?

There are plenty in the Occupy _____ protests that would share that thought. They're fighting for their abilities to pursue their dreams which they feel Wall Street/Government/Corporations have made increasingly difficult for people to achieve.

I Wear Pants;930414 wrote:I think the problem here is a lot of people would consider Wall Street to be more than your very specific 7 banks classification.

"Wall Street" generally refers to the investment community in that area, comprised almost exclusively of the BB's and the exchanges. Granted, you could include AIG but insurance is not normally considered part of the Wall Street "investment" community, although with billions in assets that's obviously changed.

If you want to revolt against financial services firms, then you have a point, but of course the target is "Wall Street" - Countrywide was a CA-based firm, FNMA and FMAC are hq'd in D.C. But why would the masses bother understanding that when they understand so little else about the crisis? They need a symbol, an entity to lash out against no matter how misplaced and misguided.

Of course, the sloppy use of Wall Street and making it the target is to put a "face" on the boogeyman, the evil, greedy crook and what better symbol/association in the class warfare game than the mecca of capitalism? These people hate capitalism and wealth. I get it. Screw them, go live in China where the fat cats are all bureaucrats and and the poor make $200 a month.

In all seriousness, the demonization of Wall Street is pretty ignorant and absurd. It's like - no it IS - the buyer and seller blaming the middle man for bringing them together to screw each other.

I Wear Pants;930439 wrote:There are plenty in the Occupy _____ protests that would share that thought. They're fighting for their abilities to pursue their dreams which they feel Wall Street/Corporations have made increasingly difficult for people to achieve.

Fixed it for ya. No, they are looking for the govt to equalize things - the more handouts the merrier.

And I'm not sure what Wall Street and Corporations have to do with the ability of people to pursue their own dreams. Nothing prevents them from opening a business. Very few people get rich - aka the "dream" - from working for someone else. Besides, housing is much cheaper than before, so we got that going for us.

BGFalcons82;930426 wrote: Regarding the Occupiers...is there anyone in their gang that would have such a thought? More importantly....why don't more people have this thought?

Because it's easier to expect the govt to make things better for you, especially if you lack talent.

I Wear Pants;930439 wrote:There are plenty in the Occupy _____ protests that would share that thought. They're fighting for their abilities to pursue their dreams which they feel Wall Street/Government/Corporations have made increasingly difficult for people to achieve.

Horse-pucky, Pants.

Isn't their demands to provide equal salaries for all? Isn't their demand to wipe all all debt, no matter who/what/why for? Isn't their demand to have government step up their activities to regulate every known capitalist person/entity within the 50 states?

The quote I posted was from a man that started out as a busboy/waiter and made it to the zenith of the NFL. He didn't clamor for others to do his work for him. He didn't blame ambiguous entities for his lot in life. He didn't whine and complain that his future is solely dependent on somebody else getting punished. He was the quintessential definition of a rugged individualist.

No, Pants, I believe you couldn't be more wrong. The whining, dope-smoking, free-sex, Guevera-loving, America-hating, blame-others society of Occupiers is the antithesis of how the man I quoted, Al Davis, lived his life.

gut;930467 wrote:Fixed it for ya. No, they are looking for the govt to equalize things - the more handouts the merrier.

And I'm not sure what Wall Street and Corporations have to do with the ability of people to pursue their own dreams. Nothing prevents them from opening a business. Very few people get rich - aka the "dream" - from working for someone else. Besides, housing is much cheaper than before, so we got that going for us.

I caught a little bit of Hannity and he was doing one of his on the street interviews. He had some babe that was in grad school a Columbia university. Had a daughter (no father mentioned), she was on unemployment and finishing school. Not out looking for a job but occupying wall street. She was not an uneducated hippy. She had 80,000 in student loans and was dead serious that someone else should pay it off.

I Wear Pants;930439 wrote:There are plenty in the Occupy _____ protests that would share that thought. They're fighting for their abilities to pursue their dreams which they feel Wall Street/Government/Corporations have made increasingly difficult for people to achieve.

They aren't "fighting" for anything. They're laying around naked in their own feces smoking pot and screwing.

But just for shits & giggles...let's say they are actually "fighting" for what you claim. What specific ways have Corporations/Wall Street torpedoed their ability to pursue their hopes & dreams? I mean other than employing people, loaning them money to buy stuff and giving them a way to fund their retirement...and other egregious acts like that.

The time to be pissed at Wall Street was three farking years ago. The Bolsheviks are a little late to the party imo.

majorspark;930474 wrote:She had 80,000 in student loans and was dead serious that someone else should pay it off.

Ahhhh....Must be an MBA student. I don't believe you can dissolve student loans in bankruptcy, or imagine how many would!

You have to have a little sympathy, though. People who left a job to go to grad school in 2008/2009 can't ignore their own responsibility in a gamble that didn't pay off. Someone who went to grad school in 2009/2010, though, would have seemed prudent to ride out the recession. Still, why in the world should someone else have to pay for your loans?

gut;930481 wrote: Still, why in the world should someone else have to pay for your loans?

Didn't you get the 'shared sacrifice' memo?

Get in the game.

gut;930469 wrote:Because it's easier to expect the govt to make things better for you, especially if you lack talent.

God how refreshing it would be if we had a real leader in the White House who said to these people:

"Stop blaming other people for your lot; look within yourselves to improve your position in life; keep working at it; keep encouraging each other; be responsible for your actions. And I will do my best to allow the business climate to improve without so much government instrusion and cost, so that economic conditions can improve, and your chances of success will get better." Or something similar ......

Instead, we essentially have one of them in the White House ...... wow!

O-Trap;929798 wrote:Well said, and far more succinctly that I would have.

Regarding anti-trust laws, or a lack thereof, it's not a belief that big biz will just play nicely together in the sandbox that validates it as a position (at least in theory). It's the belief that the ills of a monopoly breed competition. Naturally, the chess game ensues, with the big business trying to go low enough for long enough to drive the little guy out of business, but the problem will remain that if that is successful, and prices go back up, another competitor pops back up. The reality is that more than one at a time would likely be showing up as well.

An industry whose players continue to arouse discontentment among consumers will always be a breeding ground for competition.

I'd be curious if such a model has been proven to not work in the Austrian model, as I've certainly never heard of anything of the sort.

But anti trust legislation is geared much more towards oligopolies with unfair competitve advantages versus pure monopolies. Think "cartels". Adam Smith had it right when he cited the evils of an incorporated business entity. And Smith was a proponent for unbridled free markets...but recognized and for warned the potential corruption of his system. He recognized the human spirit, and an innate desire to cheat...in a supposed "invisible hand" business world.

If one read the articles regarding those with a brain at Occupting Wall Street, none of them are claiming that capitalism per se is the problem. Nobody is clamoring for Marxist communism...at least not the 3 articles that I read and posted.They are beyond irritated that neo Capitalism is not what it was designed to be. And these people, IMHO...are correct in their analysis.

The 1% fights back...Pretty Funny

http://www.occupyoccupywallstreet.org/

BoatShoes;930524 wrote:The 1% fights back...Pretty Funny

http://www.occupyoccupywallstreet.org/

When did Ron Jeremy leave porn for Wall Street?

gut;930554 wrote:When did Ron Jeremy leave porn for Wall Street?

Dunno, but he IS probably wealthy enough to be closer to a 1% guy than a 99% guy.

O-Trap;930634 wrote:Dunno, but he IS probably wealthy enough to be closer to a 1% guy than a 99% guy.

The only place Ron Jeremy is in the 1% is below the belt.

Mooney44Cards;930162 wrote:And committing fraud while doing it? Honestly do you even know what happened with the housing bubble? Are you able to explain it to me in the simplest way possible so I know that you understand why we are where we are?

you are right, people wanting free handouts taking out loans they couldnt afford is wall streets fault? people should use a mirror more often and look in it.

I Wear Pants;930439 wrote:There are plenty in the Occupy _____ protests that would share that thought. They're fighting for their abilities to pursue their dreams which they feel Wall Street/Government/Corporations have made increasingly difficult for people to achieve.

Baloney. These folks are all about being VICTIMS -- not folks who take charge of their lives and make the world a better place for themselves and others. They are about whining and looking for a handout.

I have no doubt this is why they are play well in most of the MSM. The MSM loves a good victim story and has helped perpetuate the victimization of America...where nobody is responsible for anything THEY do; it's always the fault of someone (or some thing) else.

Writerbuckeye;930688 wrote:Baloney. These folks are all about being VICTIMS -- not folks who take charge of their lives and make the world a better place for themselves and others. They are about whining and looking for a handout.

I have no doubt this is why they are play well in most of the MSM. The MSM loves a good victim story and has helped perpetuate the victimization of America...where nobody is responsible for anything THEY do; it's always the fault of someone (or some thing) else.

Two things. First: I love how you use a gigantic brush to paint everyone of these people as the same and make character assessments of them.
Second: The MSM has not been showing these protests in a good light or giving them the coverage it deserves. It's starting to get more coverage but there was a long time where it was ignored.

majorspark;930651 wrote:The only place Ron Jeremy is in the 1% is below the belt.

Maybe not 1%, but the dude is LOADED! Internet porn icon. Makes bank doing Internet marketing in the adult niche.

Writerbuckeye;930688 wrote:Baloney. These folks are all about being VICTIMS -- not folks who take charge of their lives and make the world a better place for themselves and others. They are about whining and looking for a handout.

I have no doubt this is why they are play well in most of the MSM. The MSM loves a good victim story and has helped perpetuate the victimization of America...where nobody is responsible for anything THEY do; it's always the fault of someone (or some thing) else.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the great "Writer", who will always be there to criticize any and all media which fail to play by HIS rules.


Please, the Rush impersonation is really lame. You need to spruce it up a bit.

stlouiedipalma;930885 wrote:Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the great "Writer", who will always be there to criticize any and all media which fail to play by HIS rules.


Please, the Rush impersonation is really lame. You need to spruce it up a bit.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the great "stlouiedipalma" who incessantly whines like a little girl every time I write a little bit of truth about the mainstream media...and never fails to throw in a lame reference to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh to try and make some non-existent and nonsensical "point" that only plays well with those on the left of the political spectrum. Everyone else thinks it's childish.

Here's some actual comparisons of MSM coverage of the Tea Party vs. the OWS folks, and the differences in how the two movements were viewed and reported on. The reports include quotes and date references, so don't whine about the source.

Tell me again, louie, how I was wrong?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2011/10/11/bozell-column-protesters-occupy-liberal-media