Forum Post: If you guys want something REAL to protest, protest this.
Posted 11 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 7:55 p.m. EST by Onto
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It's unfortunate that 99% of the protesters have no idea what they should be protesting, or even know what a derivative is. So in the interest of helping to give you some focus on something REAL to protest, protest this!!!
Yeah, this is one of the things we are protesting. Do you people realize we aren't just protesting the buildings and street signs?
When I see signs that say "End Corporate Greed" and "Tax the Rich", I do get the perception that you all are missing the point entirely. Everybody want's more money and to be as wealthy as they can, protesters included. There are no exceptions to that unless you're a monk and even he wouldn't mind having a nicer rice bowl. Go ahead and tax the rich 90%, it's not going to get rid of the CDS's, it's not going to bring the jobs back and what good is more tax revenue when the currency is on the verge of becoming worthless?
We'll I don't think they're missing the point and I don't want to be as wealthy as possible I want to be as wealthy as I deserve based on my contribution to society. I'm not a capitalist, I'm a socialist.
Well, I could say much about Capitalism vs Socialism, but none say it better than this short little essay.
This is what OWS is about
Start the war against Injustice by starting our own banks to double the income of the Bottom 99% of Workers, for many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 1% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves, and thus doubling our income from Bank Profits which are 40% of all Corporate Profits; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
Join http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Online Congress, and related “new” Businesses, REPLACING the "old" Congress, and related “old” Businesses, according to your current Occupations & Generations, called a Focused Direct Democracy.
Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet, a political opportunist, just like today; what's important is the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing Power & Group Investment Power. In this, sequence is key, and if the correct mathematical sequence is followed then it results in doubling the income of the Bottom 99% of Workers from today's Bank Profits, which are 40% of all Corporate Profits.
Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.
The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 1% Management System of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.
Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupations & Generations.
So JOIN the 2nd link, and spread the word, so we can make 100,000 support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your current Occupation & Generation.
Just so I know, what did you think they were protesting?? By the way, I'm quite familiar with derivatives and I'm pretty sure a disproportionate amount of the protesters(compared to the general population) are familiar with derivatives also.
I think you may be assuming too little of the protesters as it seems they are not only on the same page as you are, but have actually progressed much further than you think.
I'm pretty sure repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley (and reinstating Glass-Steagall) addresses the problems mentioned in the article.
Glass-Steagall (along with Citizens' United) has been one of the most commonly occurring points among protesters.
If you don't think Glass-Steagall addresses what you mention, could you please explain why??
Glass-Stegall doesn't address the issuance of Credit Default Swaps because they didn't exist then. It's quite different than proprietary trading in the markets. The whole financial crisis has much less to do with MBS's or Sovereign Debt than it does the with the CDS's that banks and other institutions like AIG etc. have issued and will have to pay up on. The CDS market is hundreds of trillions of dollars. It's more money than actually exists. This article shows how the FED is doing all it can to protect it's shareholders, the Banks, and destroy the country if it was too. Just read the article.
While I don't think it gets as much mention, I believe repealing the CFMA would also address that issue.
But I really do think separating Investment Banks from Commercial Banks and Insurance Companies would address what the article mentions.
If I'm not mistaken, Bank of America(as a Holding Company) would basically fall under investment banking and Bank of America(the retail banking part) would fall under commercial banking. In the article, they are shifting the burden of having those derivatives in the Holding Company by putting it within the Retail Banking division??
Am I right or am I wrong??
Or maybe I'm misinterpreting some of the banking terms, but haven't been corrected yet??
You are right. They are shifting it to the retail where all the depositors money is. Where all the money that's supposed to be backed by the FDIC is. You won't see any media outlet reporting on this, but if I were running this movement I would be bringing that to light and right quick. I would be pressing the President to respond to that move.
Repealing the CFMA would be a good thing to do for sure, but the damage has been done. All the banks around the world have been in the business of collection insurance for CDS's which means the whole world is beyond broke. It's that knowledge which made Sen. Schumer gulp when the real situation was explained to him. I'm afraid things are going to end very badly in the next 5-10 years, but who knows? Maybe they will come up with ingenious scheme to keep it all going, but they sure got us all in a fine mess. I don't begrudge the banks though I hold the politicians of the last 90 years and especially the last 20 responsible. They are supposed to be there to protect the country and they sold us all out.
"You won't see any media outlet reporting on this, but if I were running this movement I would be bringing that to light and right quick."
To the media's credit, the cross-section between people that can comprehend the article's financial terms and people that advocate the notion of regulation improving the market is not a huge demographic.
If there were many of us, I'm pretty sure Eliot Spitzer would still have his own show.
"Repealing the CFMA would be a good thing to do for sure, but the damage has been done."
I was actually thinking that while typing the post.
"I don't begrudge the banks though I hold the politicians of the last 90 years and especially the last 20 responsible."
I also don't begrudge the banks for doing what they need to in order to compete under the circumstances, however I do blame them for their part in rewriting the rules. Just like I wouldn't blame football players for taking steroids if the NFL decided to permit all steroid use, I can't really blame the banks for doing what they have to.