Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A couple Questions...

Posted 2 years ago on April 25, 2012, 2:49 p.m. EST by BigMek (1) from Calgary, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

First of all I was wondering what the point of these protests is. I was, and still follow any activities like this over the news, but honestly I can't highlight one goal at the end of any of these gatherings. I was just a little curious.

Secondly, I was wondering why we believe that its the 1%'s fault that any of us are having hard times. They were the people who went to school, university and worked their whole lives. I guess I'm part of the 99%, but I sure don't share the same feelings.

I also believe this 1% is just a little inaccurate. My families not disgustingly rich; but we live comfortably, so percent is that? What about my friends, or people all over our city living just like us. In more accurate respects these percentages should look a bit more like 20% 20% 20% 20% 19% 1% in all honesty.

Lastly I'd like to know why we blame our problems on the "1%". We blame them for market crashes, and job loss. I also came across this interesting statistic here http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ (watch the video ) it says that if the 1% paid their fair share of taxes it would raise 231 billion dollars. Wow, thats a lot! But its a little undersized compared to 4,673,878,755,000 dollars of public debt. This wasn't caused by the 1%. These debts were your parents debts, and their parents, so at the end of the day we've caused our own demise.

thanks so much,

-Austin

197 Comments

197 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Your premise is that the 1% are the ones that work hard their whole lives is incorrect. That is more likely 1% of the 1% who started poor or middle class and then made it to the 1%.

The majority of the 1% are people born into wealthy families, have priviledged connections and opportunites, pass these priviledges to their children who pass it on to their children, and have no idea how people in the lower brackets slave and suffer.

They also need the poor and middle class to do all their work for them. As long as the poor and middle class think that they are going to get "rich" the 1% have willing slaves to play around with and do all their dirty work.

The best part is when they get the poor and middle class to feel sorry for them. And then they fight for and sacrifice and defend the 1%. Now that really gives them a good laugh

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Actually, as per a recent article in Fortune 264 out of 400 richest in the US are self made. I am not sure how many of them started very poor but many on that list are people who were in the middle class.

[-] 3 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Yes, people did cause there own demise by trying to live like they were middle class instead of poor. They wanted the community to see a house not a trailer. They wanted the police to see a well dressed child with a proper haircut. They thought if only they could send their child to a good school all would be well. People have been living a lie. They didn't say, "Hey kid, go flip burgers or scrub toilets, we can't afford to send you to school!" Trickle up has occurred. People were told the gap in wages is shrinking between men and women, between whites and minorities, Yay! They didn't say the gap is shrinking because they are now shafting everyone. No one was climbing except CEO's. Our government is bought and paid for and the people that bought it are gutting it for profits. Bush is planning to move to land he bought in Paraguay when this country stands in ruins. He is not the only wealthy person looking for a hidyhole, they plan to gut America and swim away like rats from a sinking ship. Your news is lies and propaganda, both parties serve the rich, not the people. And the rich don't care about the people, in fact they hate them. You have only to look at how they treat their workers to see how much contempt for people they have. Yeah, people have been living a lie and pretending they were OKAY. They are not ok. And most people didn't get into bad loans with their eyes wide open, they were lied to, they were swindled, laws were broken. You yourself live for lies and only care about yourself and your family and how good you have it. You only have to be a republican and you'll have a higher status in the community, you'll get the promotion, there are people looking out for you, everything is coming up roses. Spit on the the poor, hate them, cause that is what Jesus would do, right??? Step on as many as you can cause that's how to get more for you and yours. As long as you are okay, you can close your eyes and your heart to what is happening. You can tell yourself whatever lets you sleep sound and feel good about yourself. They information is out there, but you have read and watch something besides Fox News. If you don't really want to know, don't ask in the first place. You need to ask yourself if you really want to know what is going on. If you just want to convert people to your party line or run around trolling for .001%, go right ahead. Don't even pretend like facts matter to you. Most believe if they tell a big enough lie long enough everyone will believe them. If this is your game, be honest with yourself about it. This board can point you to stories and news and what is going on in the world but if you'd rather not see it, don't look.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I think property tax on US holdings could keep the rich from owning this country

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

They should do something to limit how much land can be held by single person or corporation. Housing costs were deliberately escalated above and beyond what they should be. Small farmers have suffered greatly. Controlling building materials and costs all jacked up the costs to build a house. Add to that the rising value of DIRT. People are being pushed towards town to get cable or internet because no one will lay line. Corporations need you to need that pack of Ramen or that hotdog, better if you don't have room for a garden or any means to feed yourself beyond Walmart. I support things that free people to make choices, I see many corporates and bankers that seek to take away people's ability to have choices at all. They get people in huge amounts of debt until they are virtual slaves to anyone who will hire them for whatever they can get. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Jewish people have laws about lending more money than person could pay back in seven years? Was it not a sin not plant extra food so you could share it with the hungry? I got flack for saying these things that have been done are wrong in a Biblical way. Many people who call themselves Christians all too often blame the poor for their poverty. All too many people who look middle class only look that way because they made themselves slaves to huge debts. They are too ashamed to say, "I can't afford it, now I am poor."

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

How can someone see bank collapse, stock market collapse, housing collapse, get stuck with the tab, and not protest?

[-] 2 points by indianstudent (42) 2 years ago

How are you stuck with the tab? The bailout money has long been paid back. And the stock market collapse affects the rich more because they have a lot of investments in the market and many of them are board members or in senior positions various companies. As for the housing collapse, that was always going to happen. As early as 2003-05, economists had predicted this, Wall Street is only responsible in hastening the inevitable collapse. And the sky high debt that is now was also not due to Wall Street but has accumulated over decades of US govt borrowing.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The stock market, and housing, collapse made many people poorer, but some much wealthier. That is the result of speculation. To make money from the loss of others. The money lost did not evaporate, it was transferred to someone else.

That huge transfer in wealth left both the banks, stock holders, and home owners in ill economic health. The only quick way to restore that health is to give a transfusion of money, which we did for the banks.

Giving the banks money further decreased the homeowners health, just like an ill person's health would be harmed by donating blood.

The homeowners have not received a transfusion to restore their health. In fact, the banks are denying transfusions to the same people who donated their blood to restore the banks health.

[-] 2 points by indianstudent (42) 2 years ago

Short selling isn't illegal. The guys who made money by selling short could as well have lost money if the market didn't tumble. Would you or I be pitying them then? Certainly not. Then why begrudge their success.

The homeowner's did not get adversely affected by the bailout, rather had the banks been allowed to collapse their entire savings would have been wiped out and they would have very likely lost their houses too.

The reason home-owners did not receive a bailout was because that money would be used for consumption and not to invest and therefore has very little likelihood of coming back with or without interest. The Fed did buy up MBS and a variety of other securities in an attempt to shore up their prices and ensure home-owners do not lose their homes. To that extent, I believe a little more can and should be done to protect homeowners and also regulate interest these homeowners are paying. I have heard awful stories of interest rate suddenly skyrocketing because the agreement was drafted in such a manner. That, we both agree, is wrong.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The banks should have been allowed to fail. The small depositors would have been covered, but the large ones would have lost. We bailed out the rich at the expense of the poor.

The banks are the supposed experts in finance who by their incredible reckless business practices nearly brought the entire worlds economy down. They are the lynchpins around which finance revolves and should have been replaced by new rather than reusing the old broken and rusty pins corroded by corruption.

Other banks could have taken their place. Instead of at least breaking them up into separate investment and consumer banks, they still remain too big to fail and are growing larger again for an even greater fall.

How did Goldman Sachs pay the money back so quickly? Look up "frontrunning".

[-] 1 points by indianstudent (42) 2 years ago

I don't think you bailed out the rich at the expense of poor. Even if we pursued that line of argument, considering the rich pay 40% of all income taxes in US, it was in effect the rich bailing out the rich.

But I don't buy that argument. The economy wouldn't have survived such a large scale banking failure. Banks were allowed to fail during during your Great Depression and you know what happened. Besides, I believe in US everyone has equal right to their bank balance whether the said bank balance is $50k or $500k or $50m. I don't see why you cherish the prospect of letting some people lose their money.

And I doubt if these banks would have been replaced by new ones. At best their names would have changed (think Arthur Anderson and Accenture). As for frontrunning, that is absolutely illegal in any country and your SEC is rather strict about it. GS remained mostly unscathed throughout the whole crisis.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"Even if we pursued that line of argument, considering the rich pay 40% of all income taxes in US, it was in effect the rich bailing out the rich."

That is not a logical argument. The majority, who pay 60% of taxes paid the bulk of the bailout. As usual it's a case of the poor bailing out the rich.

"The economy wouldn't have survived such a large scale banking failure."

Banks during the depression had no deposit insurance, so they failed. Banks currently have insurance for the smaller depositors. Only the banks who deserved to fail would have.

Even after they received the bailout funds, they wouldn't lend money, so how were they able to make money to pay back the TARP loan?

Doesn't it seem odd that major banks who went bankrupt, who took decades to become large as they are, were able to repay the bailout in just a few years?

Frontrunning is illegal but who is going to prosecute Goldman Sachs? Not one person has been prosecuted so far in the financial crisis. Just a few slaps on the wrist.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Don't you recognize a troll when you see one?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Yeah I know, sometimes I just can't help it.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Just as long as you know what you are investing in.....??

[-] 0 points by BannedAgain (6) 2 years ago

I'm beginning to think that TROLL means someone who thinks for themselves!

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

That has to change their nickname frequently so their reputation doesn't follow them?

Of course that comment implies that those who keep the same identity and don't shill for the 1%, don't think independently. Not much factual support for that. It's a soft insult.

[-] 1 points by indianstudent (42) 2 years ago

FDIC guaranteed deposits upto $250k. A lot of non 1% er would have that kind of deposits (or more) in their accounts which they might have saved over many years. You are assuming that everyone in the 99% (who pay 60% of the taxes) has less than $250k deposits.

Banks, by and large, paid TARP funds back by borrowing from the Fed at slightly higher interest rates(borrowing from the Fed is a common thing and happens all the time). Which is also why it did not take them a lot of time to pay back the money

As for frontrunning it is easy to detect that and any trader doing that would have the SEC up his/her ass in no time. Besides, I am not sure how you are linking front running with the financial crisis. Also, most firms do very little prop trading (trading on their own account).

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"You are assuming that everyone in the 99% (who pay 60% of the taxes) has less than $250k deposits."

That's exactly what most logical people would assume.

"Banks, by and large, paid TARP funds back by borrowing from the Fed at slightly higher interest rates"

So by borrowing money from one person to pay off another, you can pay off the loan quickly? Where do you get the money to pay off the second loan?

Watch this PBS newshour report on Goldman's frontrunning.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june10/goldmansachs_02-11.html

[-] 1 points by indianstudent (42) 2 years ago

And what data do have to make that assumption. Most of the alums in my university (I am MS in CS from a reputed American univ) start off with incomes of around $80k-$110k a year. Even if I were to assume that these guys never got promoted and their salaries stayed the same, in 10-15 years time one can easily see $250k in their account. Frankly, making such assumptions out of thin air only goes to show that there is no iota of logic there.

The second loan can be paid off gradually. In this case, the banks did not want TARP loans because those had other regulatory clauses. Hence they borrowed from the Fed by regular means to pay off TARP.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

50% of the U.S.workers make $26,000 or less. That doesn't leave much to put in a savings account. On average Americans save less than $2000 a year. Americans making $75K to $100K accounts for just 5% of the population. Saying a lot of the 99% have bank deposits near $250K is not a reasonable assumption, unless you can provide evidence that underlies your logic.

"The second loan can be paid off gradually. In this case, the banks did not want TARP loans because those had other regulatory clauses. Hence they borrowed from the Fed by regular means to pay off TARP."

Provide an example of a major bank who paid off their TARP loan by borrowing from the fed.

[-] 1 points by indianstudent (42) 2 years ago
  1. Well yes America's savings rate is well below countries like India and China despite the proportionately higher levels of income. I am not sure if only 5% make $75k to $100k. As per this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Distribution) I could say at least 10% people do and that figure could easily be 15% or 20%. And again, these 20% would be paying a far higher share of income taxes than the rest 80%. And I don't understand how you think that a portion of the people losing their money is 'fair'. Besides, if banks were to fail, with out without FDIC, it would still be disastrous for the economy. Interest rates would suddenly sky rocket and lending would come to a standstill hurting business, big or small.

As for the TARP thing, just google "Banks pay off TARP by borrowing from Fed". You will find enough articles from CNN, Bloomberg, WSJ etc on this.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

1.Wrong wiki page, go here for personal income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

Just 5.3% had incomes between $75K and $100K. 10%, 15%, 20%? Back up your statements with facts. Otherwise what is the point in having a discussion with a person who just guesses at them.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the banks have most of the money

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

The main, if not the sole, qualification for getting help from the Fed was to have lost huge amounts of money. The Fed bailouts rewarded failure, and penalized success. . . .

During all the time that the Fed was stuffing money into the pockets of failed banks, many Americans couldn’t borrow a dime for a home, a car, or anything else. If the Fed had extended $26 trillion in credit to the American people instead of Wall Street, would there be 24 million Americans today who can’t find a full-time job?

All in the Name of Liquidity It was all explained, said Congressman, Allan Grayson, with “the Fed’s all-time favorite rationale for everything it does, ‘increasing liquidity.’” In 2008, bank liquidity dried up after Lehman Brothers collapsed, and the banks could not get the cheap, ready credit on which their lending scheme depends. The Fed then stepped in as “lender of last resort,” doing what it had to do to keep the banking scheme going.

Left unexplained is why the banks’ need for “liquidity” justifies such extraordinary measures. Why do banks need cheap and ready access to funds? Aren’t they the lenders rather than the borrowers of funds? Don’t they simply take in deposits and lend them out?

The answer is no. Today when banks make loans, they extend credit FIRST, then fund the loans by borrowing from the cheapest available source. If deposits are not available, they borrow from another bank, the money market, or the Federal Reserve.

Rather than loans being created from deposits, loans actually CREATE deposits. They create deposits when checks are drawn on the borrower’s account and deposited in another bank. The originating bank can then borrow these funds (or others created by the same process at another bank) at the Fed funds rate—currently a very low 0.25%. In effect, a bank can create money in the form of “bank credit,” lend it to a customer at high interest, and borrow it back at very low interest, pocketing the difference as its profit.

If all this looks like sleight of hand, it is. The process has been compared to “check kiting,” defined in Barron’s Business Dictionary as:

[An] illegal scheme that establishes a false line of credit by the exchange of worthless checks between two banks. For instance, a check kiter might have empty checking accounts at two different banks, A and B. The kiter writes a check for $50,000 on the bank A account and deposits it in the bank B account. If the kiter has good credit at bank B, he will be able to draw funds against the deposited check before it clears, that is, is forwarded to bank A for payment and paid by bank A. Since the clearing process usually takes a few days, the kiter can use the $50,000 for a few days and then deposit it in the bank A account before the $50,000 check drawn on that account clears.

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/pulling.php

[-] 2 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

the accuracy of the percentages is not important. the crash which was created by wall st. has caused a permanent recession ( I call it a depression) for the rest of america. what makes us angry is wall st. is booming again but it's not trickling down, wall st. has also dumped millions of dollars in lobbying to stop washington from instituting market reforms that might prevent this from happening agian. actually re-instituting market rules which were put in after the great depression. which have been subsequently undermined in the last 30yrs. people are just tired of the cosy relationship between washington and wall st. this country is run by the 1% for 1% and it's leaving the 99 behind. OH great news the recession is over (for the 1%) meanwhile the unemployment is stagnent. and inacurate, apparently the 8.5% is the official unemployment rate. I like my math better which is multiply by 2 so unemployment is more like 16-17% Im not counted like most people who aren't collecting. according to the federal government I'm not looking for work either. how does the fed know what I'm doing? I am looking and I'm not to proud to take any work. thirdly with unemployment so high companies can keep wages artificailly low while prices keep rising. So mr. bigmek when you live in the back of a pickup truck for 3yrs then you can tell me why i'm not supposed to be pissed off at the 1% who fucked this country up

[-] 2 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

The problem isn't so must who to blame. But it's a simple fact that it's unsustainable to have a society where a small few have so much while the big majority is told to pay. Humanity has the resources to ensure a good life for everyone. Yet we choose to let babies die of hunger because somehow we find it right that all the wealth is re-distributed toward the super rich.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if one losses their job on has no source of income

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

A couple Questions...

is not a valid thread title

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

story; there are ten apples. one guy takes 9 & 9/10s of the apples. the other 9 people get to share 1/10th of an apple. they consider their options. they stop the 1 guy from taking more than one apple in the future,. and they take back compensation for the past theft.

the 1%'s governments, borrowed money from the 1%s banks,. all for the profit of the 0.1%

Are we just supposed to pass this endless compounded 'debt' to our children? this seems fair to you? well, to many of us,. it looks like corporate-bankster feudalism, and we recall how pitchforks, torches, and tall slicing machines are useful during periods when small groups of individuals screw over everyone else for their own gain. what goes around comes around,. kid.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Mr/ Troll. What you should do is spend a couple of weeks reading the threads here. I am sure all of your questions will be answered. That way you won't be embarrassing yourself as you are now?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

First if you do not know the point you are dumber than a post.Second if you do not know why it is the one percent's fault see number one above.Third if you are so unconcerned you must not be honest at all.And last liers figure and figures lie and you do both.Now go F$$k off.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

WallStreet raised the costs of the "public" debt, in order to increase their profit margins.

You've helped caused the "demise" by you ignorance of that simple fact.

[-] -1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

and how did they raise the cost of public debt? care to enlighten me.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

There's lot's of ways they do that.

1.) Raise the cost of materials.

2.) Encourage low wages and offshoring.

3.) The BIG people never pay their share of taxes, they'd rather just by government directly..

4.) Raise the cost of public debt.

There's four.

[-] -1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

I still don't see a logical link between raising the cost of public debt and any of the factors you mentioned. The 'cost of public debt' in strict financial term would mean the coupon payment on govt debt (T bills and bonds). And none of the stuff you mentioned (including the 4th argument which was in fact the thesis you had to support) affects the coupon rates.

See I know you don't really have any argument here and so do you. So in the interest of saving my time, and saving you the painful task of coming up some cockamaime arguments, I will let you lay this particular argument to rest. You will not be the first guy making baseless arguments on the net.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's because you're not very logical.

In it's essence, it's all about extraction.

If it doesn't come full circle, it becomes debt.

[-] -1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Yes I am sure that is the problem. In essence, you are stupid like the rest of the jokers here. And get away with your crap because there aren't many educated/well informed/smart people around to call your bluff.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You say that like calling someone stupid is a logical argument.

It isn't any where this side of FLAKESnews.

You just didn't understand what I said.

Shall I toss in WallStreet induced consumer inflation?

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

And is calling someone 'illogical' a logical argument? You do not even understand what the term 'cost of debt' is. I simply asked you to relate coupon rates (I am sure you dont know what that it but I am happy you have discovered that your thumbs can press against one another) to any of the 4 factors you mentioned (the 4th item not being a factor is another story). Being stupid is not a crime. But not realizing you are stupid should be.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I can't help it you're blind like bat.

I saw this coming after my very first economics class.

WallStreet profits from consumer inflation. It's quite simple really, they just use jargon to cover it up.

I won't call you stupid.......yet, but I will call you ignorant.

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Lol... Dude you don't even know how to evade a question properly. Bad try. I strongly suggest you do and complete your econ class (though I believe you will need a good primer on math before that.)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Unfortunately for you macro-economics doesn't work that way.

Wallstreet does profit from driving up costs and consumer inflation, among other non produtive methods.

Every time they insist on layoff and offshoring. It increases the public debt.

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

yes sir Mr John Maynard Keynes

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Wrong again. You should stop making a habit of it.

So what are you an Ayn Rand fan? A fan of the destructive properties the Austrian school?

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

i espouse ideas in econ not politics. politics repels me.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Espouse ideas? Only old ones. Just the same old, same old.

Look into MMT.

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

never read ayn rand

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Maybe not, but you do advertise her tenets.

If you're a "free market" libe(R)tarian, you might as well, because that's where that shit comes from.

[-] 1 points by badreadnaught (55) 2 years ago

Well, it sure seems like everything is skewed toward the wealthy. They can spend large sums of money to insure that laws and rules are passed or recinded so as to favor their getting a maximum return on their money, whether it be environmental regulation, banking, investments, subsidies and tax breaks. It also seems that these sorts of things are harming everyone else. Increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans may not rid us of our national debt, but it sure would be a start. We need to get the influence of corporate dollars out of our politics, too, I think. That seems obvious to me.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Their goal is to upset the apple cart and cause chaos.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

You'll find the answers to all your questions in the Archives of this forum, and elsewhere on the site. These same questions have been answered many times over on these boards.

Similarly, you can visit an occupation, rally, or other activity and get the answers you seek "straight from the horse's mouth."

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The idea of blaming somebody else for your problems is dangerous. Blaming somebody else is a way to shift all of the responsibility away from yourself. Blaming the Jews for Germany's problems after WWI was a popular idea, because if everything was the Jews' fault then that absolved Germans of the blame.

During the recent recession, people felt powerless and wanted somebody to blame. Because they didn't want to face the idea that millions of 99%ers contributed to the financial collapse by buying real estate that they knew that they couldn't afford. Occupy's theme is that it wasn't our fault, it was rich peoples' fault for letting us do it. It's just self-serving blame shifting.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

We're supposed to be back to blaming people buying a place to live in?

This was proven to be phoney reasoning some time ago.

Did you miss all that?

Didn't you just "blame shift" yourself?

Hey! Look over there. That guy just got laidoff and can't make his payments.

All the while it was WallStreet that set up the conditions that got him laidoff?

How do you keep missing these important facts?

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The financial collapse was caused by many people all taking risks. Some of those people were borrowers, some of those people were lenders. It takes to to tango. The housing bubble would not have built up and burst if millions of borrowers had not been pumping money into real estate investments that they couldn't afford. They're not 100% to blame, but neither are banks, or the 1%. Lots of people were to blame. Occupy's narrative is that all of the blame is on the 1%.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

As real estate prices rose on paper, people who owned homes were told that they were wealthier then they really were, that there net worth had gone up with their home value.

Add to that cheap money, the lowest interests in decades and Financial Advisers were telling rational people to use this new found wealth to better their lives. So many remortgaged their homes and invested in home improvements. This was to make their homes even more valuable for sale as real estate prices rose even more.

The truth was, their net worth had not gone up, the increased wealth was on paper only, and the Financial Advisors had lied. Now they are underwater as real estate prices have dropped significantly.

The story is a little different with each income level, but this is how many of the 'Middle Class' got skunked.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Buying a home should NOT be a risk, nor would it, if it wasn't for WallStreet leveraging in the real estate markets You know this.

So please, cut the BS. Stop blame shifting.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Buying any investment includes risk. You're hoping that it will appreciate. It might not. That's the risk. Millions of borrowers convinced themselves that real estate could only appreciate, that it could never drop in value. They were proven to be wrong.

Lenders also took a lot of risks, and there is a lot of blame to spread around. My point here is that the blame for the financial collapse is not solely on the 1%, or on banks. They couldn't have done it without our help. Pretending that it's all their fault, and not also our fault for taking those risks, is blame shifting.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

A home is a home. It's a place to live.

Investing is what WallStreet does.

Leveraging is what WallStreet does

You can not place the blame on consumers, because that's just WallStreets name for regular little people.

It's what WallStreet and it's fellows demand that they do.

The blame for this falls squarely on WallStreet.

There is little if any doubt, if you've paid any attention at all.

so why didn't you?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

A home was not just a home for a lot of the people who bought property as an investment during the real estate bubble. You want to blame banks but not those people. But really both are to blame.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Your primary residence is you home. Considering your primary residence as a financial asset is a huge mistake, and part of the lie that mortgage companies used to swindle people.

If you bought a second piece of property for investment purposes, to flip or rent. Then its not a home..... might be someone elses though.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's not the way it went for most buyers.

Just the WallStreet wannabes. Stop pretending for them.

For most home buyers, a home is place to live and raise a family. Face that simple fact.

You've been watching way too much HGTV.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Lots and lots of people watched way too much HGTV. Those people were the speculators that caused the bubble.

It's interesting to watch you struggle to rationalize that the speculators were in no way to blame for the bubble and subsequent collapse. Your narrative says that the banks screwed people over, and so you're trying to pretend that the home-buyers who speculated on real estate investments have no blame for what happened. But in reality there is a lot of blame and it spreads around pretty widely. The financial collapse wasn't solely caused by the 1%, any more than Germany's economic problems after WWI were solely caused by Jews.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're just wrong.

I don't know one person who EVER bought a home for the reasons you state. Not one.

Do you have some figures to support it? Or do you just spout the same lie over and over and over?

WallStreet jacked the prices,. WallStreet lowered the wages and caused the layoffs.

WallStreet jacked the costs of everything!!!

Everything.

Not the home buyer. Not the consumer

WallStreet, and it's attendant banks..

NOT what you stated.

[-] -3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

MILLIONS of Americans speculated on real estate. And yes, I know lots of them. What you're saying doesn't make any sense. You're saying that home values skyrocketed through no fault of any home buyer, and that it was all the fault of the banks. But the banks weren't buying those properties, they were financing them. Individual home buyers were driving up the prices by betting on ever-increasing home values. They made bets that didn't turn out well. The banks didn't set property values. The market set the property values. The bubble couldn't have happened without home buyers speculating on real estate investments, and it also couldn't have happened without the banks financing that speculation. Both are to blame.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Come back when you are able to stop repeating yourself.

WallStreet is to blame. I've showed how in many ways. You've disproven NONE of them

You ignored them all and repeated yourself yet again.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

How long do you think it will try to run on an empty tank. I wonder what color the sky is in it's world. Think it's face is all angles and plains ? I mean Bizzarro world would make more sense than he might actually believe this crap he spews for real.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

He's offered 0 proof of his assertions.

He just repeats himself, and ignores all other pertinent info.

He must be a bankster wannabe..

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Quite delusional so that kinda fits.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

property tax would best access peoples wealth

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You're just repeating that Wall Street is 100% to blame and nobody else is. That's an over simplification, because you're not blaming the individual speculators for causing the bubble and the collapse. You're only blaming the banks that financed the bubble. Both are to blame.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

What happened to you Tech! You were on a get out the vote drive not too long ago.

I find the circus of the primary amusing. Watching the Repubs court all the gun nuts and Jesus freaks (people that can't distinguish fact from fiction. Clearly a problem. That the Repubs use to their full advantage).

The House Repubs frighten me. The Ryan Budget is terrifyingly awful. But Romney loves it. Gutting social services and giving $265M government assistance to millionaires. How come millionaires need government assistance again? I know it's just a budget. But come on. Tell me again why Ayn Rand batshit crazy capitalism on steroids is a good thing and the wealthy need government assisstance?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Occupy could have made government more responsive to their concerns by electing candidates, but not a presidential candidate. That never would have worked. Seeing Obama spend four years continuing Dubya's policies after running on a "Change" platform definitely made me even more cynical than before about presidential politics.

And I have a feeling that Romney's attitude toward a lot of Ayn Rand batshit crazy proposals is going to change a lot now that he's shaking the Etch A Sketch and repositioning his image for the general election.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

The 1% - see the Vulture Chart.

http://ed.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/12/10139301-introducing-eds-vulture-chart

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1916- 1939

And yes I agree with you that there's plenty blame to go around for the financial crisis. People took on too much debt or debt they knew, or should have known, they could not repay. But there were also lots of shady mortgage originators who defrauded, lied, and falsified documents to sell bad mortgages. Who made their money by offloading the bad loans to Wall Street. Wall Street made their money by offloading them again, slicing them up in convoluted ways to get AAA ratings. That's fraud. It's like a car dealer selling a Chevy, putting a Mercedes logo on it and telling the customer it's a Mercedes. Can't do it. The loans were bad. They knew they were bad. They were selling them as something they were not. The shitty packages got AAA ratings. The really shitty bundles got AA ratings. The super shitty ones got A ratings. The horrifically shitty ones got B ratings.

The ratings agencies were somewhat complicit in this. Clearly this was a breakdown. That even if the greed of Wall Street was out of control, one would have hoped that the ratings agencies (not to mention the regulators - whole other subject) would have been the backstop to this.

But there were also many warnings far earlier about rampant fraud happening in the beginning of the process, with the shady mortgage originators. The FBI itself issued warnings about in 2001 I believe. Nobody listened. One of the strongest warnings was from Brooksley Born of the CFTC. She was shut down by the Clinton Admin and Alan Greenspan.

Most economists agree that the bubble would not have been nearly as damaging to the economy as a whole had it not been for the repeal of Glass Stegall. Legislation that was bought and paid for by Wall Street. And there is still no substantive financial reform. And Wall Street is fighting every piece of Dodd Frank. Most of which has not even been enacted yet. The Volcker rule is one of the important pieces which attempts, in a much more complex way, to do what Glass Stegall did. It is so complex that even the regulators can't figure out how to write the rules for it, and it has just recieved another 2 year extension until the banks have to comply. This just gives Wall Street more time to fight it off with lobbying efforts and campaign contributions to buy the repeal of this - just as they bought their repeal of Glass Stegall.

The Wall Street banks are terrifying. Nothing has changed. It's worse because now they're bigger 75% of the assets in this country are held by the 12 banks. It used to be 50% by the top 30. There will be another crash. It's just a matter of time.

Maybe someone will listen to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and break up the banks. But I doubt it. Just like the FBI warnings, and Brooksley Born's warnings. Nobody has the power to fight Wall Street. Their derivative market is worth some $300trillion, by some estimates. I don't think anyone really knows. Some estimates are in the quadrillions. I don't even know what that number means. The world economy is worth $63 trillion. Do the math. Try not to think about when you go to sleep at night.

I don't put all of the blame on Wall Street for the financial crisis. But I think they get the lions share of it.

http://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/fed/annual/2011/ar11.pdf

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

There you go, ratings agencies. More blame to spread around even further. And let's put some blame on HGTV also. And our government too, blame them for lax regulation. But we're on that list also.

My point in all of this is that singling out one group and heaping all of the blame on them is a mistake. Because if they weren't solely to blame, then all of the energy put into vilifying them won't make things any better. At best it's a distraction, and at worst like Germany blaming the Jews. Occupy has framed their entire debate around the idea of the 99% shifting 100% of the blame onto the 1%. That's just a cop out. Scapegoating. People are angry, and so they want to be angry at somebody else because they can't cope with being angry at themselves.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Occupy won't be more than a fringe social movement thing. I'm over thinking it will be anything more.

I don't really blame Obama. They all promise change. It's just that we we're more hopeful about Obama. But like all the others before him, they hit the brick wall of Congress. Congress is just doing what Congress needs to do. To make sure nothing too drastic takes place. I appreciate their role. Even while I think they're batshit crazy. He's had the nutball Repub House fighting him like crazed velociraptors. I think Obama could do more with an agreeable Dem House in a second term.

I think the Repubs have really gone off the deep end economically. There's no ground beneath them. There's just no justification for giving government assistance to millionaires that would amount to $.5 trillion - a year. There's no ground beneath them.

I think Romney is as Ayn Randian batshit crazy for the trickle down crap as Ryan and Cantor. It's in their DNA. Look what he did for a living. He won't be able to run from it.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Now that we're agreed on that - what do you think of Romney, or the election in general.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I don't think that it matters at all whether Obama is re-elected or whether Romney wins. I think that they're both smart and capable and competent, and the outcome will be virtually the same for the country either way. Look at how similar Obama's policies are to George W Bush's policies. Obama and Romney are even more similar. They'll try to position themselves as wildly different alternatives but really they're both the same, so who cares?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I explained HOW WallStreet is to blame.

You ignored it, so don't give that crap.

All bubbles need to be financed. So now you're going to tell me banks have NOTHING to do with WallStreet?

Please don't repeat yourself.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, Wall Street is to blame for financing the bubble.

And individual home buyers who speculated on real estate investments are also to blame, for driving up the prices. BOTH components contributed to the bubble and the collapse.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I think we're agreeing. I'm not blaming the 1% for the financial crisis. I included originators, debtors, banks, ratings agencies, and regulators. Did I miss anyone? I'll throw the Fed in for good measure. Bad govt policies. And all of us who weren't paying enough attention.

But it's a matter of degrees. I do think the banks take a larger degree of the blame. Just follow the money. They had the most to gain and the least to lose.

Couple of good books on it, "All the Devils Are Here", "Too Big to Fail" by Andrew Sorkin and "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis.

Anyway - it's an echo chamber anti-capitalism around here. So what'd ya expect? I only jumped in 'cause I saw you and wanted to say hi. : ) Somehow I ended up on a Wall Street rant. Sorry. Really just wanted to say hi to ya!

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

You can blame all the above people individually...the originators..the debtors..banks...ratings agencies...and regulators, thereby lessening the bank's culpability...BUT what it all comes down to is the banks bribed our politicians to set up this irresponsible, and corrupt system. That makes the banks alone responsible for at least 98% of the blame for the financial crisis.

Please tell your friend TJ not to confuse this with an us-against-them mentality, as I have no problem with anyone who works hard, plays by the rules, and becomes rich in the process. I learned not to be jealous of someone that had more than I had at an early age. I was told by my Dad, that he probably worked hard for what he got. Clearly that is not the case today in the big-banking world.

Once again, the system was rigged, and it got rigged by the BIG BUCKS that poured into political campaigns from the BIG BANKS. That's what caused this corrupt system to come about, and hence our financial crisis..... and you do not need an economics degree to figure that out.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Hi April! I agree. A lot of people including specifically a lot of people on Wall Street took a lot of risks and we all paid the price. I just find the scapegoating aspect of Occupy's narrative to be kind of interesting. It expands my horizons to chat with people who see the world differently from the way I do. Especially when those people have hard core us-versus-them mentalities, like religious fundamentalists or racists or homophobes or anti-communists, or like people associated with Occupy Wall Street.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

"But the banks weren't buying those properties, they were financing them."

They seem to own quite a few of them now don't they. I guess the banks were idiots and thought the investments were good as well in order to agree to the financing.... no wait that would require due diligence, which the banks did not do because they SOLD the mortgages as soon as they wrote them.... to other banks who must have thought that the investments were good. I guess bankers can't tell what a good investment is.

"The banks didn't set property values. The market set the property values."

The market was rigged.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we pay the prices

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

No, the banks pay the prices unless you are paying cash. They get appraisals to verify whether their money is going towards a good deal.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we take the loans

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Low interest rates, ARMs, MBS's, GSE's with govt backing, CDO/CDS's.... these things created the real estate bubble.

Not HGTV....

FFS!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

None of those things could have driven up prices without people buying properties. The buyers are also to blame. Especially the greedy ones who thought that they were going to get rich.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Tell you what: when the ones who wrote the laws and profited off the laws man up and take a little responsibility, then you will be taken seriously blaming the victim. Sure, there is blame to go around, but as long as those who are sitting fat and not admitting guilt are allowed to go unpunished, I believe it is a little sickening that you want to defend predatory lenders at the expense of those who are broke because of their own decisions.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

When did I defend predatory lenders? Acknowledging my own share in the blame as a person who bought real estate during the bubble doesn't absolve predatory lenders of their fair share of responsibility.

Who do you mean, 'who wrote the laws and profited off the laws'? You seem to be implying a sort of direct political corruption and I would love to hear specifics.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Like I said earlier: "Your primary residence is you home. Considering your primary residence as a financial asset is a huge mistake, and part of the lie that mortgage companies used to swindle people."

Financial Advisers stated the same thing. The banks that financed the mortgages, who also pushed that their (the banks) money was wisely invested in the home purchase, believed it or they wouldn't have given the loan. Who has more financial knowledge... the average homeowner or a banking underwriter?

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

No, the BLAME falls squarely on the BANKS as they were the ones who set up this irresponsible, and corrupt system in the frist place. Just for the record too...I do not have an "us-against-them mentality." Anyone who is willing to work hard, play by the rules...if they get rich...no problem. The problem here of course is the banks played by the dirty rules that they were able to put in place via huge BRIBES to our crooked politicians. All the other irresponsible, and corrupt behavior that went down afterward stemmed from this. You do not have to have a degree in economics to understand this. For you to get off on a different tangent, and then overlook and muddle this singular fact makes me wonder why you are here??? Then again, I think we both know...don't we?!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That's right, there is no room for independent thought here. Everybody here either agrees 100% with the us-versus-them narrative, or they're paid psy-ops cognitive infiltrators bent on sabotage and disruption. You got me.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Your version of "independent thought" is to take a good portion of the blame off the banks, and spread it around like fertilizer. Your purpose is to clearly take the overwhelming amount of culpability off the banks.... by ignoring how this corrupt, self-serving, and irresponsible way of doing business came about. These guys should all be in prison....and NO, there is no room for your twisted so called "independent thought" here, as I believe you are either one of these people, or that you have sold your soul for the almighty $, or giving you the benefit of the doubt...your critical thinking skills are not functioning well.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That's right. I'm a banker. I must be, if I don't necessarily think that it makes sense to scapegoat the 1% for all of society's problems. Or if I think that real estate speculators were at least partly to blame for the real estate bubble. That kind of thinking must mean that I'm a 1%er bent on destroying the resistance by posting snarky comments to prevent the masses from rising up and destroying our cabal.

Sorry for being sarcastic but your paranoia is ... not even entertaining any more. It's just sad at this point. I never even implied that real estate speculators were solely to blame, I just objected to the idea of trying to scapegoat a small minority for society's problems. Blaming other people is a way of shifting responsibility away from yourself.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

That was beautiful, but not applicable to the reason that our economy was ruined. I feel so ashamed, I'm "scapegoating" the bankers. LOL , and "blaming other people......a way of shifting responsibility away from [myself]." Oh really....is that what I am doing? That's funny. One more time, The banks lobbied long and hard for this unrealistic, self-serving, corrupt, and irresponsible system by paying billions of dollars in bribes over years, and years to finally on the twelth try have the Glass-Steagall Act overturned, and the Financial Modernization Act put in its place. Add to that the defanging of the CFTC by the bankers' cohorts Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Arthur Levitt....and then the near non-existent regulators....and THE BANKERS were ready to run rough-shod over peoples lives. Every other form of cheating, stealing, greed, and lying after that stemmed from the bank's original mis-deeds. . There can only be one reason for you to be here defending the BANKERS the way you are.

This is not meant to be entertaining, and there is no "paranoia" on my part. I'm a facts person. You just like to twist, and obfuscate the issues for your own selfish purposes which have nothing to do with reason, or the facts. You are a troll sir!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well said. Very well said.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

This guy tries to get you into a lot of little issues to purposely obfuscate you , and take you away from the big picture. See ya. i'm getting ready for tomorrow. Thanks for your support here and earlier.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Take it easy - will catch ya later.

OH - BTW - Have a good time at OTS.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Just got back from NYC at 0030, and had a great, fun day, and met a lot of interesting people. I met, and had good conversations with several people including a bright young German dude, and Phil Rokstroh. Do you remember his essay here on the OWS site? He laughed when I told him that I had to keep my dictionary out when I read it. I am going to find his essay later. His wife is a real sweetheart, and very interesting. Of course we are friends DK> Alright then......go ahead and finish him off, or i will take car of it after I get up. Someone has been botting us down. Not use to seeing a '0' beside my pseudonym...Hmmm... wonder who that could be? lol :-)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sounds like you had a great day. I look forward to hearing more. We who were here on site had a decent day too. Yeah the trolls have been a constant pest but what are ya gonna do? The price for having a good forum I guess. {:-D

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Thanks, I will, and I'll finish of my little friend TJ after I get back. Feel free to go a round with him in the interim though

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hey? I thought we were friends! {:-])

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I don't dispute all of the things that you're saying about the financial industry.

But why is it such a crazy idea that real estate speculators share responsibility for causing the real estate bubble? Why are we starting from the assumption that everything was 100% their fault and 0% our fault?

Because that's a self-serving world view. It feels good to blame somebody else. But when you do that, you neglect your own responsibility. Maybe you don't own property but I do. I own an under water luxury condo in Miami Beach. Do I blame the financial industry for getting me into that? A little. Scumbag mortgage brokers tried to convince me to buy an even more expensive property. To extend my credit to the limit. I resisted that, but I still played a part in the bubble. I accept partial responsibility. I'm not a banker but I accept partial responsibility for playing a part in the over valuation of real estate that led to the financial collapse. I'm part of the 99%, and I'm guilty too. We can't blame all of our problems on other people.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

LOL, I do not want you to waste your time either. You can go back to wallowing in the mud now.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You say that like it's a bad thing?

Chuang Tzu with his bamboo pole was fishing in the Pu river

The prince of Chu sent two vice-chancellors with a formal document: We hereby appoint you prime minister

Chuang Tzu held his bamboo pole still. Watching the Pu river, he said: “I am told there is a sacred tortoise offered and canonized three thousand years ago, venerated by the prince, wrapped in silk, in a precious shrine on an altar in the temple. What do you think? Is it better to give up one’s life and leave a sacred shell as an object of cult in a cloud of incense for three thousand years, or to live as a plain turtle dragging its tail in the mud?”

“For the turtle”, said the vice-chancellor, “better to live and drag its tail in the mud!”

“Go home!”, said Chuang Tzu. “Leave me here to drag my tail in the mud.”

That might seem irrelevant but this story actually helped me to stay out of trouble during the real estate bubble.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

yes, i can see you are an ass, and everyone knows that people like you are unreachable

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Once again, you are an ass the way that you try to demean people with your stupid little self-righteous platitudes. This discussion is over for me as I know that you are unable to grasp simple concepts.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

This discussion has been over for a long time, because you haven't been able to focus on the topic at hand for days. Do you plan on changing the world by ... confronting people who don't agree with you and calling them names? Did you see how XenuLives and I ended up in agreement? Because we were talking about the housing bubble and the financial crisis, rather than calling each other names.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Read Xenulive's new post. She said it much more eloquently than me. Translation for you....'you are an ass.' The defense rests.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

He asked if I would blame the customers of a burger place if the place closed down. Which relates to the real estate bubble ... how, exactly? In the real estate bubble, prices went UP, to crazy levels. Real estate didn't go out of business, it went into insane levels of business. Can you possibly think of a better analogy that actually does relate to the real estate bubble and subsequent financial collapse? I have my doubts that you'll be able to focus on anything other than personal insults, but I'll be thrilled to discuss it if you manage to come up with something. How about tulips? Ever heard of tulip mania?

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

You chased Xenulives away with one your slights, and then shooz. I am sure that you felt you won both arguments because of the world of illusionment that your mind lives in. They left only because they knew, long before me that your brain has become calcified, and hence you don't even listen to their/our arguments. All you do is throw out one of your stupid mean platitudes at them/us. You are an annoying little man who has long ago lost the ability to think....A.H.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

What? I'm still here. I'd just rather spend my time doing other things than arguing with a bunch of Gordon Gecko wannabe's.

They're never going to understand, so that's why we need to legislate their actions to the point where their reckless financial mindsets can't hurt anyone else. I've realized through months on this site, that these trolls are operating out of a ignorance for humanity. Its a similar infliction to what causes some religious folk to selectively enforce some of their teachings in order to attack other groups of people. It must be some sort of superiority complex that is causing these thoughts to occur.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Another squandered opportunity to discuss the topic at hand, wasted on the logical fallacy of an ad hominem distraction.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Look asshole, I have made my case over and over again as did the people before me, who are both highly regarded posters here. You ignored everything that they said, and kept shooting your stupid little demeaning comments at them, and then me. You simply cannot handle it. They knew that long before me. You looked stupid to them, and you do to me too.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The only case that you made is that I'm an asshole. You spent all of that time making that point but you failed to establish anything about the topic at hand. And the only way that you made your case that I'm an asshole was by just calling me names over and over, so you didn't do a very good job of establishing that either. If your point was that I'm an asshole, and you're worried about what other people who read this are thinking, then I don't think that you did yourself any favors by attacking me personally over and over and over instead of discussing the topic at hand. That doesn't exactly make you look like a saint.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Keep living in your little world of ignorance. You're happy there.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yet again you get distracted from the topic at hand to attack the person. And you wonder why I keep using the term "ad hominem". It's considered a logical fallacy because attacks on the person have nothing to do with the merits of what the person is saying. It's wasted energy at best. Your incessant direct insults end up outweighing any potentially legitimate complaint that you may have had about me coming off as pompous. You've spent post after post attacking me personally rather than making a case for why real estate speculators should not bear any responsibility for the real estate bubble that led to the financial collapse.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

You are a lost cause TJ.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

(ad hominem)

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

"The truth does not cease to exist because it is ignored." Aldous Huxley

The truth being all the subsequent corruption stemmed from the BANKERS original misdeeds.

That is why the BANKERS by far and away should be held the most culpable.

They should be imprisoned, and have all their ill-gotten gains confiscated, not out of "spite" as you claim...but for true justice to be served.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Corruption? There was a financial collapse. Brought on by insanely over-valued real estate holdings. There was definitely a lot of fraud involved. But corruption? Did somebody take a bribe to keep the game going so that other people could profit?

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Had to respond here. See all my previous posts before your nasty little self righteous platitudes started piling up, and that you also flung around here on two other posters before me. You ignore the facts because you are either ignorant or you are a troll. Plain and simple for you. "ad hominem" to you too!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yet again, you're not capable of discussing any of those "facts" that you mentioned, you can only talk about me. Which means that not only are you failing to make your case, you're also committing the very sin that you're complaining about by trolling me over and over with your personal insults.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago
  1. Surely you are not that stupid that you cannot understand that the overwhelming majority of the deviant behavior in the financial industry would not have been able to occur if the investment, and commercial banks had not merged? I am going to take this step by step with you this time to make it easier for you. So is it yes, I am that stupid.....or no, I am not that stupid? OK now the question is:

  2. Who lobbied long and hard, spending billions of dollars to have this corrupt self-enriching system put in place? Come on now...you know the answer!! lol And now the last question....this is a toughie.

  3. Would any of the deviant human behavior been able to take place under the old system that had checks, and balances...you know.... accountability? Come on, you can do it!? For most people here, this would be an easy test, and I expect they would ace it, but I kind of think that you.....well might be 0 for 3! Am I right? Please put your answers at the top of your post! :-)

Do you think I am a child, and you are the wise one here? How do you like being treated like a child. You have lambasted not just me, but the two previous posters here as being paranoic....irresponsible...scapegoaters....transferring blame to others...and having a self-serving world view. You are a funny twisted little man, and I am having all I can do to keep from laughing at you!! I know who I am, and I know your type. You have the need because of your own personal deficiencies... to put other people down, in the hope that you can raise yourself up. Plain and simple.

Gee...I wonder when I became paranoic, and irresponsible. lol It must have been some time after I was in charge of handling millions of gallons of highly flammable petroeum products....or possibly it was after having raised three enlightened daughters, and paying off two college educations.....and when did I get that self-serving world view? Maybe after I traveled to four other continents, and visiting first cousins, and in-laws on three of them. Maybe some time after that I suddenly withdrew, and became a small-minded ass-hole like yourself. lol

What wasn't funny though was when you shut one poster down with your analogy with the Jews in Germany. Congratulations once again you temporarily succeeded in bolstering your argument, and yourself by putting that poster down at any expense. You are one base little fucking twerp.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nice - but reign in the heat a little as I think it made you let him off a bit to easy. I can fully understand and appreciate the passion. But it holds you back from truly tearing off the head and shitting down the throat properly. That being said - It was a start. {:-])

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Yes that is probably good advice. Anyway, I have always said there is a way to make a guy look like an ass without having to say it. This guy though is a pompous AH. How's that DK? It's 0325, and still not home from the city.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hey Odin - Have a good Day?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Ad hominem. I simply asserted that real estate speculators (buyers) share some responsibility for the real estate bubble. Not all of it, just some. It's not a crazy concept.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Did you learn a new word? That has got to be the fifth or sixth time that you have used "ad hominen" over the last three posters here. "Throwing a few bankers in jail out of spite,"....NO not out of spite...for justice...for all the human misery that they have caused.

Your insidious attacks are commom to people who have no argument. IGNORE the facts.... IGNORE the reasoning as you cannot handle the truth. Consider yourself victorious in our debate..... because you are indeed a winning asshole troll!...and you are definitely a LESSER than the people you have tried to debase here. lol lol

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I've been repeating that term a lot with you because you keep getting distracted with the topic at hand to attack me on a personal level. There is a term for that.

Look at how you're foaming at the mouth and insulting me because I suggested that real estate speculators played a part in the real estate bubble. It's kind of entertaining actually.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

You completely ignore people's reasoning, and spew out your platitudes which are indeed demeaning. It is as if you think you are on a higher plateau than the rest of us. Look...LOOK at them with shooz...XenuLives, and then me. They may make you feel good, but they are baseless, and they are the height of hypocritical self-righteousness. As far as you faux act of contrition....that was cute at best. So just keep ignoring the fact...that none of the deviant human behavior would have occurred if not for the CRIMINAL BANK'S GREED........and I know that you will ....IGNORE that fact because either your critical thinking skills are ..not up to par...or indeed you are a troll....as spreading the blame around like cow shit is EXACTLY what they would want to do too.

The narrative that you are trying to implant in us all is, 'Well we all have some blame here, but we can move on together to make this a better country.' RIGHT?? lol lol lol Yes we can move on .....but only after all these criminal bankers are in jail first!

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

More ad hominem, which is doing nothing for anybody's cause, yours included. You really do need to find the strength to focus on the topic at hand.

But yes that's correct about my message. Throwing a few bankers in jail out of spite isn't going to change the system.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Just reread my comments...minus my insults. 98% of the blame goes to the big bankers because everything else stemmed from their greed in setting up this stupid system that they enriched themselves on, and you know it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Assigning a specific percentage is kind of a silly thing, so as long as you can face that real estate speculators played at least some part in the bubble then that's good enough for me.

And FYI, you can't ever expect anybody to look past your insults when you go ad hominem. Especially the person who you're insulting. You're smarter than that. The moment that you call somebody a "fucking twerp" in a debate, you have lost.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

You were attacking people here with your stinking little self-righteous platitudes long before i arrived on this thread. You just don't seem to realize how obnoxious and stupid they make you look. Your view of yourself as an 'independent thinker' is amusing, and screwed up by your inability to absorb the facts. I know people like you, fortunately not many people though.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

See, none of that had anything to do with the real estate bubble or the financial collapse or any other topic at hand. Try to focus or don't waste my time.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Had to reply here. Yes it has been entertaining for me too. You have used that word over and over again on multiple posters here. I know that it makes you feel superior, along with your repeated little insidious mean digs. Your reluctance to put the over-whelming majority of the blame on the banks by ignoring the facts is a sign of a much deeper personal problem. Go away little man.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The overwhelming majority of Occupiers, you mean? It's true that there is an orthodoxy of thought in Occupy and it's true that I don't always agree. But there is no need for you to attack me on a personal level because I don't agree with you. It doesn't score any points for you. It doesn't further your argument,

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

whatever you say. don't you think your stupid, self-righteous, platitudes are demeaning? and you have been flinging them around all over the place, long before i got on this thread. you are a troll,...plain and simple

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I include myself when I say that the real estate speculators share in the blame for the bubble, so how is that demeaning?

And no I am not a troll. I've been around on this site since near the beginning and it's true that I don't always echo the conventional Occupy mentality on a lot of things, but I am not a troll. Playing devil's advocate is not trolling. Considering the nature of Occupy, I think that this site can handle a few people who think differently, who express themselves clearly and without stooping to ad hominem. I get lambasted constantly on a personal level and yet I've never stooped to that level in eight months.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Funny you say that now. Derivatives were marketed as 'risk free' to sophisticated investors. For the mortgage scam, investors believed the GSE's would be backed by the US Govt and bailed out, making MBS's risk free.

Derivatives are used today to 'hedge risk' in commodities markets. We live in an era of risk free Capitalism, made so by computer algorithms.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Another flaw in the system. I never said that I believe in the system as being risk free. That is how it is marketed. Thats what hedging and CDS's and derivatives are all about, lowering risk, often to the point of being told its inconsequential.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Who was responsible for the banking collapse?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You can't blame just the subprime lenders and the banks that bundled those subprime loans into toxic assets. The subprime borrowers were also partly to blame. But the 1% are 100% responsible according to most Occupiers.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Any business that goes bankrupt can only blame itself, not it's customers. When you walk too close to the edge of a high cliff, a fall is imminent.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That's an argument that the blame should also be shared by the individual investors who took risks in the hopes of making a lot of money through real estate appreciation. Each of those borrowers was in business for themselves, and collectively they contributed to the collapse. There was a lot of blame to go around, but Occupy only blames banks and the 1%.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

and lack of taxes and regulation on business

There is a move to reinstate Glass-Steagall

http://occupywallst.org/forum/forum-topics/#comment-376323

to separate investments from property loans

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

When you buy a house, you're making an investment. Glass-Steagall won't change that. Millions of Americans took financial risks, looking for an investment that would appreciate in value. It was a bubble. All of those people who pumped up the bubble are partly to blame for the collapse. Including especially the ones who bought property that they couldn't afford.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the gambling house always wins

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Plenty of borrowers win, when property values appreciate. Lots of people took risks and bet on property values appreciating. All of that combined risk-taking, plus the risk-taking by the lenders, caused the financial collapse. Unless you're an Occupier, in which case the borrowers didn't do anything wrong when they took risks, but when the banks took risks it was a sin. That's just shifting the blame. Everybody who took risks shares in the blame. Lenders and borrowers alike.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The banks approved the risky loans. They gambled and lost. It was their fault. If they had not approved those loans, there would not have been a collapse.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Correct. And if so many people hadn't taken out loans that they couldn't afford, there also wouldn't have been a collapse. There is a lot of blame to go around.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Do you blame the customers of a burger joint if they close down too?

Maybe that place just made bad burgers? Or they screwed over one too many customers?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

No, but I would blame the customers if so many people wanted to buy burgers from the place that they all drove up the price to ridiculous levels.

The financial crisis was brought on by rampant speculation in real estate. Banks and investment firms made a lot of mistakes responding to that speculation. But they wouldn't have been able to make those mistakes if millions of people had not been speculating on real estate. I'm not trying to excuse the banks and investment firms, I'm just acknowledging that all of the people who bought real estate with the vision of flipping properties and getting rich, share in the blame for the bubble.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I don't understand how "so many people wanted to buy burgers from the place that they all drove up the price to ridiculous levels" isn't a recipe for incredible success. You're basically saying that demand was TOO high?

When demand is that high, traditional businesses either expand or face competition when other businesses try to meet the increased demand. The price of the supply also goes up in order to make the demand more manageable. In short: High demand -> lots of business.

How do you screw up when you have lots of business? I mean, you are flush with cash, more is coming in everyday, and you can raise prices because there's more than enough demand to meet your supply. If you run your business in a smart manner you save that extra money that the increased demand brought you and either prepare for a rainy day (when demand dries up) or plan to expand.

What did the banks do with all of that extra money? They got greedy. They put their money into derivatives and shaky loans that we have now discovered to have been fraudulently graded. Investment firms wanted to sell their toxic packages, so they lied about how they felt about those products. All the consumers did was provide the capital for these banks to play games with.

If demand is high for the product that you are selling (in this case, mortgages) it should be impossible for you to fail, unless YOU do something boneheaded with all of your profits. Why is it the customers' fault for buying a product if the business can't manage their money? All the customer provides in this equation is the capital. All the business has to do is provide the product in exchange for said capital. What the business does with its capital after the fact is its own fault.

Imagine if I went to a burger joint and told the cashier that I want to buy some food, but I want the money to be spent on lottery tickets instead of fryer grease, or potatoes, labor, electricity, etc.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, demand was too high. The real estate bubble burst because properties were over valued. It was not a good thing that real estate prices skyrocketed, because they rose to untenable values. Banks and financial firms and real estate speculators all bet on prices continuing to rise indefinitely. When they stopped rising and started to fall, that caused a financial collapse. All of that couldn't have happened without buyers driving up prices. Buyers are not solely to blame for the financial crisis but they are primarily to blame for the real estate bubble.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

"Banks and financial firms and real estate speculators all bet on prices continuing to rise indefinitely."

They bought the investment equivalent of lottery tickets. Why should average Joe American who just wanted to buy ONE home, not speculate or invest or do any of that other crap that HDTV likes to glorify, have to pay for other people's lottery tickets? Because that's what happened with the housing crisis. A bunch of people gambled on the industry and went crying for a bailout when they're numbers weren't called.

Are you going to pay for my lottery tickets if I go buy some and I don't win anything? Gambling seems much nicer when I can just shift the losses onto someone else!

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, I agree. All investments come with risk. All of those people who bought into the HGTV fantasy of buying property and flipping it for hundreds of thousands in profit took risks. The sum total of that risk was huge, and then it was amplified by the risks that the banks took. Both the buyers who took risks and the banks who took risks share in the blame for the collapse that happened next.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

We are in agreement then. It was investors that gambled us into this mess, and poor Average Joe is the one who is suffering from the outcome.

[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

Consider, Hitler was described by Albert Speer as worried, he might be purged as a "mischling," that is part-Jewish. Names ending in "ler" may be of German-Jewish origin. Certainly, calling the NSDAP by the nickname, "NAZI" indicates somebody knew something, since ASHKENAZIs are light-skinned Jews. The real source of many, many white people may be the former Israelite kingdom, which became Babylonian and Assyrian slaves, whereupon their descendants ended up in the Caucasus, hence, CAUCASIANS. Hitler said, if the Jews start another war (Adolf started a large part of WWII), they would regret this. He made sure a lot of people died, and Germany lost, by invading the Soviet Union, instead of Palestine, whereupon the Wehrmacht could have pincered the British, at Suez, to win in Africa. But NOOOOOO. Adolf invaded Stalin, who goofed around but prevailed. The Japanese had already been slapped silly in Manchuria, by Zhukov, who was called west, as were Siberian reserves, while Japan went after Pearl Harbor. What was it, 27 million people died, over all this? We aren't done. Heard of Israel? Zionism has been killing people, since Moses was stoned.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Apparently "you" are a junkie. That would explain you flights of insane fancy and the denial of truth as it stares you in the face.

I just have to wonder why you bother trolling here as no one is going to buy your shit.

Do you just like being laughed at?

Do you enjoy receiving derision?

Is that it?

Are you a masochist and enjoy being spanked?

Or are you like a child who gets the giggles when making prank phone calls?

Any way you must not mind wasting your time - though I suppose you may not have anything constructive to do or any one who would let you try.

Sad - sad and pathetic.

In the past you even tried to make a good case here and there - too much work? No facts to back you up and everyone asking if you could provide some?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I try not to use the word "you" when I post

donkey

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well it is hard to avoid when it is applicable.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Ad hominem.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is funny that you would employ that term as that is what you are doing as you have no argument so - Ad Hominem to you.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Obviously we need a refresher on the meaning of "ad hominem".

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So what you are telling me that you were aiming that at yourself and I need not have bothered with the rejoinder. I am cool with that. I believe you could be mistaken about having aimed that at yourself.

But - Whatever. I agree you have nothing.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The topic at hand is the degree to which the blame for the financial collapse should be shared by the borrowers, not just the lenders. You're very preoccupied with talking about me. "Ad hominem" is a logical fallacy, because you're not discussing the issue at hand when you attack the person. Why should the borrowers not share in the blame for the financial collapse, along with the lenders?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Go watch a couple of documentaries it might help with your understanding of reality and the chain of events - cause = effect. Having lived through the time period does not seem to have helped your cognition.

Or perhaps being a junkie you need to get your fix on. Look at all the pretty colors and nod off. You would be spending your time just as usefully.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Cause: risk-taking

Effect: financial collapse

Who took risks? Both borrowers and lenders.

(I'm ignoring the rest of what you said which was just more ad hominem.)

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26744) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Ignore what you want that behavior is already more than apparent.

Does not change the facts that either you have no connection to the reality of the meltdown or you do not care and just like to sling the Bull as they say.

Either way I am done with your mind-less jabber.

Good day, thanks for playing.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Mine wasn't, but you've ignored it..

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Calm down, I got to all of you. Typing takes time...

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'm quite calm, but you just lied..........again.

I mean is there some kind of time line for reintroducing failed thinking?

To repeat the same disproven lie? .Thinking it might get over this time?

[-] -3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

What was a lie, that typing takes time? Or that all of the people, both borrowers and lenders, who participated in the housing bubble share in the blame for the financial collapse?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The housing "bubble" didn't cause the collapse. There's one.

Consumers don't cause "bubbles". There's an implied one.

People buy homes for a place to live. It's not a "bet" for most of us.

That's what WallStreet does.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Speculating investors cause bubbles. Millions of Americans taking risks on real estate investments caused a housing bubble, and the collapse of that bubble caused a financial collapse because banks took risks with those investments. People buying homes with the hope of "flipping" their properties for quick profit were betting on never-ending real estate appreciation. Occupy wants to pretend that those people had no responsibility for the bubble that formed due to their speculation, and the repercussions of the collapse.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

"Speculating investors cause bubbles".

You've said all you need to say, "right" there.

The rest is crap.

The average homeowner had NOTHING to do with it.

Nothing at all. So stow it.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Millions of average home buyers speculated on real estate investments. They thought that they could get rich quick by buying properties and then flipping them a few months later. They bet on real estate values appreciating indefinitely. They took on more debt than they could afford because they assumed that they would be able to sell at a profit. That's speculation. That's what causes bubbles.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Very true. Millions did speculate, even foreigners bought homes here. I saw the dollar signs light up in some of my neighbors eyes as they pictured the profits they could make.

The important question is how do we prevent this. It has to be by lending regulations. Without a large percentage of borrowed money available to make a purchase, speculation can not flourish.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Nice fantasy.

Now prove it, and STOP repeating the same lies over and over and over.

WallStreet causes bubbles, not consumers.

Stop confusing the issue with language the average home buyer wouldn't even understand.

Stop blame shifting.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm not blame shifting, I'm attributing the blame fairly to all parties involved. You, however, are repeating a blame-shifting bumper sticker slogan, "Wall Street causes bubbles, not consumers." That's religious dogma, not a conclusion based on reality. Wall Street finances bubbles. Speculators cause bubbles. Both played a part in the bubble and the collapse.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're blame shifting. That's all your doing.

WallStreet finances and speculates, and so much more.

That's why they purchase controlling interest.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

When two people are to blame, and you blame just one of them, that's blame shifting. That's what you're doing, not me. When two people are to blame, and you blame both of them, that's fair attribution. When Germany tried to blame the Jews for all of its economic problems after WWI, that was blame-shifting, because it was taking blame that really was shared by all of society and shifting it to one minority group. Which is exactly what Occupy is doing when it blames only the 1% for the financial collapse.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

As an emotionless robot, it is certainly apt to sit back and say all people share blame in the financial bubble. But by that same extension of logic, there is a gross injustice you are seriously overlooking - the repercussions of the collapse has not been shared equally, from my understanding of reality, the banks got bailed out on our backs and are bigger and more profitable than ever, and the little guys got screwed. If the blame is equal as you say, then shouldn't the burden be the same also?

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The banks got bailed out because we all depend on them. As evidenced by the fallout from the financial collapse. What does that have to do with blame?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Then the banks who depend on us should bail us out.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

We depend on them more than they depend on us. Most banks would be thrilled to have a customer base made up solely of the 1% and not any riff raff from the 99%.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The banks and people are mutually dependent. Who is more dependent, a bee or a flower?

There is rif raf in all 100%.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes but 1% riff raff are way more profitable.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

We don't need banks. Many of us have, and will, for Credit Unions that fulfill the same functions as any of these "too big to fail" banks.

Let the banks fail.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I am pointing out that you have the root cause wrong.

Yes, people are outraged. Not over who is to blame, but over the fallout from the crisis. How is it bankers skated away with something like a seven hundred billion dollar blank check to cover their assets, or should I say asses, while the people you admonish with your insensitive words lose their very jobs and homes in vast numbers. Even if your assessment that it is unfair to blame wholly the 1% for the financial crisis is not a point without any merit, it is, nonetheless, a heartless point. Further, it is far more unjust to thrust the entire burden of this debacle solely on the shoulder of the little guys and then tell them to suffer it quietly while bankers pay no price. It's almost like you enjoy rubbing salt in an injured person's open wound.

When I live in a world where CEO's do not receive outrageous bonuses for crashing the world economy, I will gladly eat my words. Until then, fare thee well, my emotionless robot acquaintance.