http://bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

Not really a shock I guess. How much longer can we allow this type of stuff to go on? End the fed.

Nonsense. If we ended the Fed there wouldn't be anyone to buy our federal debt. Then what would we do? We would all starve to death if the government couldn't take care of us.

I'm still waiting for my fair share of the Obama Porkulus Program. Maybe the Fed can slip the Bammer a few dollars and we can all get a bailout.

Oh nos...The evil banks took advantage of $13B in below-market loans to do exactly what the point was - lend money. The fed is not in the business of lending private citizens and non-banks money (unless you include Fannie/Freddie/FHA in a very loose definition).

This is the sort of thing OWS is protesting. But they are all crazies right?

I Wear Pants;993800 wrote:This is the sort of thing OWS is protesting. But they are all crazies right?

Yep.

majorspark;993829 wrote:Yep.

Ergo everyone in this thread minus gut is crazy?

I Wear Pants;993865 wrote:Ergo everyone in this thread minus gut is crazy?

No. As far as I know none of them are camping out and defecating in parks, demanding the tax payers pay their bills, wanting more government, or acting like barking moon bats roaming the streets.

majorspark;993934 wrote:No. As far as I know none of them are camping out and defecating in parks, demanding the tax payers pay their bills, wanting more government, or acting like barking moon bats roaming the streets.

As far as I know the vast majority of OWS wasn't doing that either.

I Wear Pants;994029 wrote:As far as I know the vast majority of OWS wasn't doing that either.

Thats right the majority are at work busting their balls to pay off those student loans. All they want is the government to get off their backs so they can provide for themselves.

My problem is the Fed seems to be able to do whatever it wants with no care or repercussion of its actions. One thing I do agree with OWS on is Bailing Out the banks and Corporate Welfare. Not to mention they get to do all this without informing the Congress.

The idea that the Fed is above reproach makes me sick to my stomach

1913 was a bad year in US history. It brought us a constitutional income tax and the fed.

majorspark;994077 wrote:Thats right the majority are at work busting their balls to pay off those student loans. All they want is the government to get off their backs so they can provide for themselves.

What's it like to feel disdain for most people?

I Wear Pants;994112 wrote:What's it like to feel disdain for most people?

Most? Just a small minority. Those that act a fool.

majorspark;994175 wrote:Most? Just a small minority. Those that act a fool.

I had to.

And 99% isn't a small minority....(see above picture again)

I Wear Pants;994213 wrote:
I had to.

LOL

I Wear Pants;994213 wrote:And 99% isn't a small minority....(see above picture again)

Most of the 99% does not adhere to this movement. By the way I'm in the 99%.

You do you just think you don't because you misunderstand the movement. Unless you thought the bailouts were a good idea, that the practical nonexistance of upward mobility in the country is a good thing, etc, etc, etc.

Again, you disagree with what you believe to be the desired solutions to the problems of a lot of the OWS people (rightly or wrongly). From what I understand you don't really disagree with the main problems idendified though.

Could be wrong though, perhaps you think everything is fine.

I've said it 100 times before I care far more that people are at least talking about the problems and having discussions on how to solve them than I do that some people camped in a park. (Yes, shitting on things is certainly not something I'm cool with).

What exactly does upward mobility mean? It sounds like whining about meritocracy because, in a perfect meritocracy, everyone would be paid according to their ability and effort and there would be NO mobility. Technically not true, as people might choose to do something they enjoy rather than what pays the most - but not OWS they want study fruit flies and be paid far more than the value they create. Article the other day in the WSJ would seem to suggest that other forms of mobility (moving, changing jobs) used to be double what they are now, and of course those would be expected to go hand-in-hand with financial mobility. There's not a good paying job within 20 miles of my house - that's a personal problem, not an economy problem.

Back to the question, what does upward mobility mean? Are there not opportunities to "move up the wealth" ladder? How often should classes turn over - every 20 years maybe? How, why or should you leapfrog me of equal ability and effort, starting in the workforce behind me, unless I stagnate or go backwards? Upward mobility necessarily implies DOWNWARD mobility as well. Point me to a lack of opportunities. Point me to obstacles and hinderances. I don't see that. I do see people crying "oh, woe is me, my unskilled factory job doesn't pay me $80k a year any more".

Point being, I can spin that right around to be a good thing - look at the lack of downward mobility in our economy! That is excellent - people are getting theirs and maintaining it! Because there are winners and losers, and higher upward mobility implies higher backward mobility which is more problematic, actually, with the uncertainty and lack of stability that creates.

gut;994299 wrote:What exactly does upward mobility mean? It sounds like whining about meritocracy because, in a perfect meritocracy, everyone would be paid according to their ability and effort and there would be NO mobility. Technically not true, as people might choose to do something they enjoy rather than what pays the most - but not OWS they want study fruit flies and be paid far more than the value they create. Article the other day in the WSJ would seem to suggest that other forms of mobility (moving, changing jobs) used to be double what they are now, and of course those would be expected to go hand-in-hand with financial mobility. There's not a good paying job within 20 miles of my house - that's a personal problem, not an economy problem.

Back to the question, what does upward mobility mean? Are there not opportunities to "move up the wealth" ladder? How often should classes turn over - every 20 years maybe? How, why or should you leapfrog me of equal ability and effort, starting in the workforce behind me, unless I stagnate or go backwards? Upward mobility necessarily implies DOWNWARD mobility as well. Point me to a lack of opportunities. Point me to obstacles and hinderances. I don't see that. I do see people crying "oh, woe is me, my unskilled factory job doesn't pay me $80k a year any more".

Point being, I can spin that right around to be a good thing - look at the lack of downward mobility in our economy! That is excellent - people are getting theirs and maintaining it! Because there are winners and losers, and higher upward mobility implies higher backward mobility which is more problematic, actually, with the uncertainty and lack of stability that creates.

Increasingly there are not.

The problem is not that talented people receive more. It's that it's becoming increasingly difficult for talented people to improve their position in society. It's handicapped very heavily for those that already have standing to retain it and to limit people from moving "up".

Except that there is a lot of downward mobility.

Printing money takes value away from every dollar I have and you have so that the new money has some value. Then they take this value that they stole from us and give it to bankers so they can speculate on commodities or mortgage securities or sovereign debt securities. That is what we call theft.

I Wear Pants;994302 wrote: Except that there is a lot of downward mobility.

You cannot have downward mobility without upward mobility, that is the point - it's 1 for 1. It's gauged by quintiles, so if the population grows, those quintiles necessarily have to expand, which would be upward mobility. If the population is relatively stagnant, then for 1 person to move up a quintile another person has to move down.

Where this becomes potentially a REAL issue (and not a politicized talking point) is mobility should be an expected result of a well-functioning economy with regard to transitioning of resources to more optimal uses. Of course, it's theoretically possible resources are already optimally allocated, but safe assumption it's not. Certainly the more govt taxation, subsidies and regulation we have creates frictions that slow or prevent transitioning all together. But back to that WSJ article I referenced - if people aren't willing to relocate or change jobs, that's going to hurt the ability for an economy to transition and would also be a cause of lower "upward mobility".

gut;994314 wrote:You cannot have downward mobility without upward mobility, that is the point - it's 1 for 1. It's gauged by quintiles, so if the population grows, those quintiles necessarily have to expand, which would be upward mobility. If the population is relatively stagnant, then for 1 person to move up a quintile another person has to move down.

Where this becomes potentially a REAL issue (and not a politicized talking point) is mobility should be an expected result of a well-functioning economy with regard to transitioning of resources to more optimal uses. Of course, it's theoretically possible resources are already optimally allocated, but safe assumption it's not. Certainly the more govt taxation, subsidies and regulation we have creates frictions that slow or prevent transitioning all together. But back to that WSJ article I referenced - if people aren't willing to relocate or change jobs, that's going to hurt the ability for an economy to transition and would also be a cause of lower "upward mobility".

Yes you can. More people moving down in socioeconomic status and few moving up = net downward mobility.