Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Sorry guys....No revolution coming!

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 27, 2012, 6:23 p.m. EST by NOAMISRICH (28)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

You slept in a park for a couple months and complained. What was accomplished? nothing. you tried to overthrow the country and failed. now its time to head back to the real world.

95 Comments

95 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Most OWSers don't want to overthrow the country, in fact, most of them just want to go back to the economy in which the American dream was still attainable for most of the people. What's wrong with that?

[-] 3 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

The American dream is still attainable for those who care to work for it. Did you know that most entreprenuers are created during a recession?

In fact, more business were created in 2010 than any year in the previous 15 years. The increase in startups began in 2008.

Challenging economic times can serve as a motivational boost to individuals who have been laid-off to become their own employers and future job creators, Because entrepreneurs drive the economy, the growth in business startups is encouraging and hopefully points to a hopeful trend in terms of our economic recovery.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Its understandable that more people would try starting businesses if many people lost there jobs. I don't believe there will be a recovery though until Glass Steagall is passed.

Those people who do start business will face a difficult market for their products or services.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Agreed 110%! We need to restore Glass Steagall, implement derivatives regulation, etc. (until then, we can expect confidence to remain low), we need a new trade policy (as it stands now, our exports are charged an average VAT of 20% by virtually all of our trading partners--who, btw, do not charge a VAT on their exports--while most imports come into the US duty free, and without a border tax that levels the playing field, whatever productivity advantage American workers may have, will not be nearly enough), our government needs to stop trying to take away our internet freedoms, and we need to stop spending money on things we don't need, and invest in things we do need (but we also cannot ignore the need for fiscal discipline ... not austerity, but we need to balance our check book in the near future).

But most importantly, our system needs revolutionary change (not just momentary change, which even if we could accomplish, would be short lived). Without collaborative/democratic workplaces, without a participatory democracy (by that I mean a structure with high levels of participation/consensus built into it), any gains we make wouldn't even outlive our generation.

So while I'm not opposed to political reforms that move us in the right direction, I've come to agree with the main ideas expressed by anarchist thinkers (and I consider myself an advocate for peaceful revolution, not necessarily reform ... even though there may be some overlap, some of the things we're talking about can probably be described as reform, but for me it's the possibility of "real change" that motivates me, not political reform).

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

"NOAMISRICH" is an obvious troll.

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

all people

the support of a middle class

assumes others are in a lower class

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I try to avoid loans, I own my home, paid in cash.

Banks aren't necessarily bad. However, investment banks, and their wealthy clients, should not be allowed to gamble with the government guaranteed deposits we make in commercial banks.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

That would be related to the rescinding of Glass Steagall. Here is how one article explains it:

But in the late 1990’s, banks and insurance companies began looking over their walls in envy at the big profits that brokerage firms and mutual funds were making from the booming stock market. Brokerage firms looked over their wall at the profits that could be made from packaging home mortgages, auto loans, etc. into leveraged investment derivatives…

…in 1998 they began lobbying Congress, and bombarding the media with articles and interviews aimed at having the public accept the idea of tearing down the walls… Overnight the walls disappeared. Banks were suddenly in the brokerage business, introduced their own mutual funds, were neck deep in investment banking, had huge trading departments trading for their own profits, etc. Brokerage firms were providing home mortgages, packaging the mortgages of other lenders and selling them to investors, etc.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/142982-joseph-l-shaefer/41340-reinstate-glass-steagall-now

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by impalero (49) 2 years ago

The fault lies with those that are able to buy the government they want to help their cronies out, and it matters not if they are democrat or republican. They serve the same masters. There are Wall Street and Bankster Politicians embedded in our government. The solution though, as you hint, is not to trust anything or anyone in this country, since they are out to take you to the cleaners if they can.

That is where responsibility starts in recongnizing that facet.

Lets see how well our country does with no trust in the system or institutions further down the road, as you advocate.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by impalero (49) 2 years ago

If I am a head Wall Street Banker like Rubin, and get into politics to help out Wall Street, then, when my term is up, I go back to Wall Street to a cushy job waiting for me, after having done many favors. Am I a Wall Street Banker or a Politician?

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Obummer (-16) 2 years ago

If we "want to go back to the economy in which the American dream was still attainable" then we have to go back before OdumbAss was elected in 2008

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think you would have to go back to the time before JFK died.

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

We will have to go back to where we were before the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act during the last year of Bill Clinton and the deregulation of derivative trading and several other banking regulations under G.W. Bush.

[-] -3 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

There lies the problem YOU guys have given up on the American dream. I am here to tell you that yes the American dream is still very well alive. Look around outside your park. what do you see? Plenty of small business, lots of new cars, and plenty of people out shopping.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

And you don't see any poverty any where? Or, perhaps you just don't care about the increasing poverty in America today.

Well, that's ok, as America continues to collapse, and hyperinflation destroys your savings, nobody will probably care about you either.

[-] -1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Poverty in America is taking on a whole new meaning today. The people defined as in poverty today have cell phones for everyone in the house, cable tv on a flat screen tv, high speed internet, a new car in the driveway, cigarettes in their pocket and food in their belly. That's poverty in America so yeah I see poverty every where. In fact everyone I know that is on food stamps, medicaid, tanf, and whatever else has all those things and more.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

And did you know that 5,000 - 10,000 people were loosing there home every day in the midst of the mortgage crisis? Owning a home was once the American dream. Then banks started making sub prime loans to people who never should have received them, and created a huge bubble that eventually crashed.

Course the banks had to do this once they moved most of the manufacturing out of this country. Since we didn't produce anything anymore, scams were the only way for them to make any money.

[-] 0 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Banks didn't move manufacturing out of the country. The person who took these loans are the ones at fault. They knew they couldn't afford 1,500 house payments making 3,000 a month, yet they still took the loans. Can't just blame the banks.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Who moved manufacturing out of the country then? The poor people? It's their fault again? I don't think so.

And regarding those home loans, in the past, they didn't give loans to people with sub prime credit ratings, then all of a sudden they decided to give those people the loans. Sounds fishy to me.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

then you are not looking very hard,, or you are reading the wrong dictionary

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

About 10 years ago there was an important book called Global Finance at Risk, by two well-known economists John Eatwell and Lance Taylor. In it they refer to the well-known fact that there are basic inefficiencies intrinsic to markets. In the case of financial markets, they under-price risk. They don't count in systemic risk — general social costs. So for example if you sell me a car, you and I may make a good bargain, but we don't count in the costs to the society — pollution, congestion and so on. In financial markets, this means that risks are under-priced, so there are more risks taken than would happen in an efficient system. And that of course leads to crashes. If you had adequate regulation, you could control and prevent market inefficiencies. If you deregulate, you're going to maximize market inefficiency.

This is pretty elementary economics. They happen to discuss it in this book; others have discussed it too. And that's what's happening. Risks were under-priced, therefore more risks were taken than should have been, and sooner or later it was going to crash. Nobody predicted exactly when, and the depth of the crash is a little surprising. That's in part because of the creation of exotic financial instruments which were deregulated, meaning that nobody really knew who owed what to whom. It was all split up in crazy ways. So the depth of the crisis is pretty severe — we're not to the bottom yet — and the architects of this are the people who are now designing Obama's economic policies.

Dean Baker, one of the few economists who saw what was coming all along, pointed out that it's almost like appointing Osama bin Laden to run the so-called war on terror. Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, Clinton's treasury secretaries, are among the main architects of the crisis. Summers intervened strongly to prevent any regulation of derivatives and other exotic instruments. Rubin, who preceded him, was right in the lead of undermining the Glass-Steagall act, all of which is pretty ironic. The Glass-Steagall Act protected commercial banks from risky investment firms, insurance firms, and so on, which kind of protected the core of the economy. That was broken up in 1999 largely under Rubin's influence. He immediately left the treasury department and became a director of Citigroup, which benefited from the breakdown of Glass-Steagall by expanding and becoming a "financial supermarket" as they called it. Just to increase the irony (or the tragedy if you like) Citigroup is now getting huge taxpayer subsidies to try to keep it together and just in the last few weeks announced that it's breaking up. It's going back to trying to protect its commercial banking from risky side investments. Rubin resigned in disgrace — he's largely responsible for this. But he's one of Obama's major economic advisors, Summers is another one; Summer's protégé Tim Geithner is the Treasury Secretary.

None of this is really unanticipated. There were very good economists like say David Felix, an international economist who's been writing about this for years. And the reasons are known: markets are inefficient; they under-price social costs. And financial institutions underprice systemic risk. So say you're a CEO of Goldman Sachs. If you're doing your job correctly, when you make a loan you ensure that the risk to you is low. So if it collapses, you'll be able to handle it. You do care about the risk to yourself, you price that in. But you don't price in systemic risk, the risk that the whole financial system will erode. That's not part of your calculation.

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

inthe1percent, What about all the people living in tent cities that have sprung up all throughout the country. Those people aren't there by choice. They are not taking a defiant political stance like OWS--they are there because they have no other place to go. Should we excuse the big banks and our political leaders for conspiring to set up a Disneyland-like system where the banks had all the upside potential and regular people had only the downside resulting in people losing their homes, savings, and retirements. This was no normal down business cycle, it was sheer recklessness by a financial/political system that is ROTTEN TO THE CORE!

You are THERE because either you are unknowing, lazy, or you believe that nothing is worth the effort to see that things change for the better. We are HERE because we know that some things in life are worth fighting for! It's that simple.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Actually, on my way to work I pass by 18 small local businesses that have shut down. So, while you stand around with your fingers in your ears singing "lalala I can't hear you" the rest of us are discussing how to solve it. You either want to take part in those discussions or you want to be a douche bag. Your call.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I am curious,

What kind of businesses and why do you think they shut down?

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You want my honest assessment? All of your eggs in one basket.

Starting in 2000 we started seeing major layoffs in an industry, it is the only major industry in the area, pensions were stolen. There is no way around that. The people that were not able to be hired in the same industry were all sent to be retrained in heating and air condition. So, that was a flood. Meanwhile "restructuring" continued which means more layoffs.

People held on to what they could and found themselves competing for jobs that bank on underemployment. Then they went under and following that all of the businesses that were dependent on people purchasing goods or services could no longer operate. 'Cept fast food. It has this domino effect. We are/had been watching all of these other industries across the nation fold or "restructure" and/or had/were shipping their business overseas and it was really too late. Factories nearby were/had been hiring undocumented and documented immigrants because they could hire them for less. That had been ongoing for years and years. Even local businesses might (and did) hire undocumented/documented immigrants to pay them less.

When we had people that were losing their homes and the decision was made to jack up the prices of apartments/rentals specifically to extort as much money as possible then the greed in one area dramatically impacted any businesses. There was no expendable income.
In the long term this will kick them in the behind they just don't see it yet.

Even if we pretend that the financial sector did not play a pivotal role, we are still left with an all of your eggs in one basket problem. And greed. If we take the college out of a college town, will the town survive? What is our definition of survival today?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

That explains it. I was wondering because near me new businesses are opening every month. We have been recovering quite well from a slow down.

So what was the "only major industry in the area" and why did it fail?

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The industry itself didn't fail. I am not going to disclose that simply due to location. I will say it is run quite like OPEC.Every one says that they are going to sell at one price and then one party sells x amount under the table. It is/was successful because it is produced in state, so the money is in the state which is different than retail where all of the money is sent to headquarters in another state. It was unsuccessful in that they raided the pension funds and did not want to pay the money back. It had nothing to do with the unions. It had everything to do with not taking care of the people that had been with them through thick and thin. Further, they had become multinationals and had no vested interest really.

I was starting to research areas where there are now earthquakes due to fracking or putting together a list of who has what information and how far I was going to have to travel to get it. One of the things that I keep encountering are ghost towns where an industry has destroyed the town or where freebies (incentives) were offered for a limited time and they came set up shop a town grew around it and then they bailed as soon as they used up the freebies and bounced to another area offering freebies. Boom towns. I had also started studying urban history.

We have all of this history and all of these same reoccurring problems. Every single one of them. It seems ludicrous that the same mistakes are being repeated.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

It is legal to borrow from a pension fund but to not pay it back is illegal so I hope the officers went to jail. Some of your story sounds more like propaganda than reality. Especially since you will not name the company so I cannot research the story. I am sure there are real reasons why the company pulled out of town.

There are ways to keep a company in town. In 2009 Honeywell decided it was going to move out of Morristown NJ because of high property and income taxes. Governor Chris Christie renewed the "freebies" by offering them conditional tax incentives. Not only did the company stay, they are expanding the facility and bringing in 1,800 more jobs.

Some in the state claimed Chris Christie was evil for giving tax breaks to the rich however the 3,700 employees shop in the local stores, buy cars in town, own or rent homes, and pay property taxes to support the schools.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

how about this - People talk about a return to Keynesianism, but that's because of a systematic refusal to pay attention to the way the economy works. There's a lot of wailing now about "socializing" the economy by bailing out financial institutions. Yeah, in a way we are, but that's icing on the cake. The whole economy's been socialized since — well actually forever, but certainly since the Second World War. This mythology that the economy is based on entrepreneurial initiative and consumer choice, well ok, to an extent it is. For example at the marketing end, you can choose one electronic device and not another. But the core of the economy relies very heavily on the state sector, and transparently so. So for example to take the last economic boom which was based on information technology — where did that come from? Computers and the Internet. Computers and the Internet were almost entirely within the state system for about 30 years — research, development, procurement, other devices — before they were finally handed over to private enterprise for profit-making. It wasn't an instantaneous switch, but that's roughly the picture. And that's the picture pretty much for the core of the economy.

The state sector is innovative and dynamic. It's true across the board from electronics to pharmaceuticals to the new biology-based industries. The idea is that the public is supposed to pay the costs and take the risks, and ultimately if there is any profit, you hand it over to private tyrannies, corporations. If you had to encapsulate the economy in one sentence, that would be the main theme. When you look at the details of course it's a more complex picture, but that's the major theme. So yes, socialization of risk and cost (but not profit) is partially new for the financial institutions, but it's just added on to what's been happening all along.

[-] 2 points by Jfynn1964 (2) 2 years ago

"The state sector is innovative and dynamic. It's true across the board from electronics to pharmaceuticals to the new biology-based industries."

You truly believe this?

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

how to solve it? lower taxes and less govt intervention with regulations.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You will need to carefully define that. Because the smaller to medium businessess should not carry the weight while the larger ones don't pay jack. Yes, we do need regulations depending on the business.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

talk to immelt, head of GE one of obama's backers and friends. he was also on the board of obamas ecomonic advisors. GE paid no taxes on their profits.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No, I am asking you.

[-] -1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Maybe those businesses weren't needed anymore or weren't providing a good service to their customers. You say 18 businesses closed I can count hundreds that have been hiring because they provide a good service that people want.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

People talk about a return to Keynesianism, but that's because of a systematic refusal to pay attention to the way the economy works. There's a lot of wailing now about "socializing" the economy by bailing out financial institutions. Yeah, in a way we are, but that's icing on the cake. The whole economy's been socialized since — well actually forever, but certainly since the Second World War. This mythology that the economy is based on entrepreneurial initiative and consumer choice, well ok, to an extent it is. For example at the marketing end, you can choose one electronic device and not another. But the core of the economy relies very heavily on the state sector, and transparently so. So for example to take the last economic boom which was based on information technology — where did that come from? Computers and the Internet. Computers and the Internet were almost entirely within the state system for about 30 years — research, development, procurement, other devices — before they were finally handed over to private enterprise for profit-making. It wasn't an instantaneous switch, but that's roughly the picture. And that's the picture pretty much for the core of the economy.

The state sector is innovative and dynamic. It's true across the board from electronics to pharmaceuticals to the new biology-based industries. The idea is that the public is supposed to pay the costs and take the risks, and ultimately if there is any profit, you hand it over to private tyrannies, corporations. If you had to encapsulate the economy in one sentence, that would be the main theme. When you look at the details of course it's a more complex picture, but that's the major theme. So yes, socialization of risk and cost (but not profit) is partially new for the financial institutions, but it's just added on to what's been happening all along.

[+] -4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

They folded because of the recession. There is no hiding from this.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

@GurlFried - Yes, life in the ObamaAge of crony capitalism sucks, but how do you know why they folded?

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

actually, the average age of a car was 6 yeas old, under obama , it's now 10 years old. people are not buying.

[-] -1 points by NOAMISRICH (28) 2 years ago

well they are watching the gloom and doom media. Its always the end of the world. People still have money.

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

Corporations are sitting on some $2,000,000,000,000+, that they have to report.

I got $50.

Bit of a contrast there, don't you think?

[-] -1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Go work and earn more, then you'll have more than $50.

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

They don't want to pay anything.

You know how they are, they piss and moan about everything, can't do your job, don't want to offer any benefits, but they sure do want you to be a loyal employee.

Whiny lazy corporate ass bitches.....

Don't even ask the cunts to pay their taxes. They'll spend more on lawyers to get out of them.

Pissing and moaning and whining all the way.

$50 will get me through the weekend.

They can't get through for under $1,000.

And that's just for lunch.

Shiftless whiners.

[-] 2 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

People talk about a return to Keynesianism, but that's because of a systematic refusal to pay attention to the way the economy works. There's a lot of wailing now about "socializing" the economy by bailing out financial institutions. Yeah, in a way we are, but that's icing on the cake. The whole economy's been socialized since — well actually forever, but certainly since the Second World War. This mythology that the economy is based on entrepreneurial initiative and consumer choice, well ok, to an extent it is. For example at the marketing end, you can choose one electronic device and not another. But the core of the economy relies very heavily on the state sector, and transparently so. So for example to take the last economic boom which was based on information technology — where did that come from? Computers and the Internet. Computers and the Internet were almost entirely within the state system for about 30 years — research, development, procurement, other devices — before they were finally handed over to private enterprise for profit-making. It wasn't an instantaneous switch, but that's roughly the picture. And that's the picture pretty much for the core of the economy.

The state sector is innovative and dynamic. It's true across the board from electronics to pharmaceuticals to the new biology-based industries. The idea is that the public is supposed to pay the costs and take the risks, and ultimately if there is any profit, you hand it over to private tyrannies, corporations. If you had to encapsulate the economy in one sentence, that would be the main theme. When you look at the details of course it's a more complex picture, but that's the major theme. So yes, socialization of risk and cost (but not profit) is partially new for the financial institutions, but it's just added on to what's been happening all along.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

envy much?

[-] 2 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

People talk about a return to Keynesianism, but that's because of a systematic refusal to pay attention to the way the economy works. There's a lot of wailing now about "socializing" the economy by bailing out financial institutions. Yeah, in a way we are, but that's icing on the cake. The whole economy's been socialized since — well actually forever, but certainly since the Second World War. This mythology that the economy is based on entrepreneurial initiative and consumer choice, well ok, to an extent it is. For example at the marketing end, you can choose one electronic device and not another. But the core of the economy relies very heavily on the state sector, and transparently so. So for example to take the last economic boom which was based on information technology — where did that come from? Computers and the Internet. Computers and the Internet were almost entirely within the state system for about 30 years — research, development, procurement, other devices — before they were finally handed over to private enterprise for profit-making. It wasn't an instantaneous switch, but that's roughly the picture. And that's the picture pretty much for the core of the economy.

The state sector is innovative and dynamic. It's true across the board from electronics to pharmaceuticals to the new biology-based industries. The idea is that the public is supposed to pay the costs and take the risks, and ultimately if there is any profit, you hand it over to private tyrannies, corporations. If you had to encapsulate the economy in one sentence, that would be the main theme. When you look at the details of course it's a more complex picture, but that's the major theme. So yes, socialization of risk and cost (but not profit) is partially new for the financial institutions, but it's just added on to what's been happening all along.

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

Unlike you, I don't like to whine and piss and moan.

Not an once of envy, although I begin to think it's your primary motivation.

A Freudian slip, you abuse and accuse rather often.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

it's a Jungian observation, not a freudian slip.....

You reveal your Archetype by your comments...

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

Now you're psycho therapist too?

You're just full of talented BS.

Unfortunately, for you, it's still BS.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

nah, I read Jung, Frankl, Adler, Skinner, and Freud for pleasure....

[-] 2 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

did you read "memories dreams and reflections?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

I read: "Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious", "Modern Man in Search of a Soul" and "The Undiscovered Self"....do you recommend that book...if so I will check it out.....most of his books are a commitment to read....but, tell me your opinion and perhaps I'll put it in the que...

[-] 2 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

it is his autobiography - i thought it was an easy interesting read - his interaction with freud made the man look a bit petty!

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

I'll take a look......

He was dismissive of freud and freud's insistence of sexuality being a major influence on psychology....

Jung was also much more positive in his concepts than was Freud...

I Imagine BOTH men were somewhat petty with those they disagreed with.....including each other..

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

Too bad you didn't "get" any of it.

Nor gained the ability to self apply it.

It was by the way, a Freudian slip.

Or perhaps just a repetition of a propagandized term.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

you apparently don't understand that term...it's OK, I know you wanna look intelligent....feel free to try again

[-] 2 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

About 10 years ago there was an important book called Global Finance at Risk, by two well-known economists John Eatwell and Lance Taylor. In it they refer to the well-known fact that there are basic inefficiencies intrinsic to markets. In the case of financial markets, they under-price risk. They don't count in systemic risk — general social costs. So for example if you sell me a car, you and I may make a good bargain, but we don't count in the costs to the society — pollution, congestion and so on. In financial markets, this means that risks are under-priced, so there are more risks taken than would happen in an efficient system. And that of course leads to crashes. If you had adequate regulation, you could control and prevent market inefficiencies. If you deregulate, you're going to maximize market inefficiency.

This is pretty elementary economics. They happen to discuss it in this book; others have discussed it too. And that's what's happening. Risks were under-priced, therefore more risks were taken than should have been, and sooner or later it was going to crash. Nobody predicted exactly when, and the depth of the crash is a little surprising. That's in part because of the creation of exotic financial instruments which were deregulated, meaning that nobody really knew who owed what to whom. It was all split up in crazy ways. So the depth of the crisis is pretty severe — we're not to the bottom yet — and the architects of this are the people who are now designing Obama's economic policies.

Dean Baker, one of the few economists who saw what was coming all along, pointed out that it's almost like appointing Osama bin Laden to run the so-called war on terror. Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, Clinton's treasury secretaries, are among the main architects of the crisis. Summers intervened strongly to prevent any regulation of derivatives and other exotic instruments. Rubin, who preceded him, was right in the lead of undermining the Glass-Steagall act, all of which is pretty ironic. The Glass-Steagall Act protected commercial banks from risky investment firms, insurance firms, and so on, which kind of protected the core of the economy. That was broken up in 1999 largely under Rubin's influence. He immediately left the treasury department and became a director of Citigroup, which benefited from the breakdown of Glass-Steagall by expanding and becoming a "financial supermarket" as they called it. Just to increase the irony (or the tragedy if you like) Citigroup is now getting huge taxpayer subsidies to try to keep it together and just in the last few weeks announced that it's breaking up. It's going back to trying to protect its commercial banking from risky side investments. Rubin resigned in disgrace — he's largely responsible for this. But he's one of Obama's major economic advisors, Summers is another one; Summer's protégé Tim Geithner is the Treasury Secretary.

None of this is really unanticipated. There were very good economists like say David Felix, an international economist who's been writing about this for years. And the reasons are known: markets are inefficient; they under-price social costs. And financial institutions underprice systemic risk. So say you're a CEO of Goldman Sachs. If you're doing your job correctly, when you make a loan you ensure that the risk to you is low. So if it collapses, you'll be able to handle it. You do care about the risk to yourself, you price that in. But you don't price in systemic risk, the risk that the whole financial system will erode. That's not part of your calculation.

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

Stop your GD whining and I might believe you.

'Till then it's still a slip.

You don't even understand the what is apparent, is not necessarily what is.

But then, as with most "conservatives", you assume a whole lot.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

I assume nothing, my experience is my guide...and the experiences and observations of others

and, do-tell.....where have I "whined" about anything?

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

here is noam - People talk about a return to Keynesianism, but that's because of a systematic refusal to pay attention to the way the economy works. There's a lot of wailing now about "socializing" the economy by bailing out financial institutions. Yeah, in a way we are, but that's icing on the cake. The whole economy's been socialized since — well actually forever, but certainly since the Second World War. This mythology that the economy is based on entrepreneurial initiative and consumer choice, well ok, to an extent it is. For example at the marketing end, you can choose one electronic device and not another. But the core of the economy relies very heavily on the state sector, and transparently so. So for example to take the last economic boom which was based on information technology — where did that come from? Computers and the Internet. Computers and the Internet were almost entirely within the state system for about 30 years — research, development, procurement, other devices — before they were finally handed over to private enterprise for profit-making. It wasn't an instantaneous switch, but that's roughly the picture. And that's the picture pretty much for the core of the economy.

The state sector is innovative and dynamic. It's true across the board from electronics to pharmaceuticals to the new biology-based industries. The idea is that the public is supposed to pay the costs and take the risks, and ultimately if there is any profit, you hand it over to private tyrannies, corporations. If you had to encapsulate the economy in one sentence, that would be the main theme. When you look at the details of course it's a more complex picture, but that's the major theme. So yes, socialization of risk and cost (but not profit) is partially new for the financial institutions, but it's just added on to what's been happening all along.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

do you think noam is rich? and what do you know about him?

[-] 1 points by NOAMISRICH (28) 2 years ago

I don't think noam is super rich, but he has a couple of million. In the top 3% for sure.

[+] -4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

He knows that. He is just trying to start crap. No one tried to overthrow the country. He is one of those little bitches that thrives on negative attention.

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

The real world of lizard endorsed car insurance?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Troll Alert.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

Oh ya? Wait till this gets circulated...

Section 140 of the new OWS constitution shall read: Corporations and businesses who get rich off the backs of others, shall be limited on how much profit they may keep, at just enough to maintain operating expense of that business for 1 additional year, and all other profit shall be equally distributed to all the workers in proportion to the hours they worked for that company.

Section 141 of the new OWS CONSTITUTION (Also shall come to be known as the US VS. THEM AMMENDMENT) shall read:

Banks shall be immediately ceased by the government, and financed by the federal reserve at a minimal operating cost, with the goal to finance homes and businesses at or as near as 0% as possible to serve the people, and not rich bankers anymore. This is to facilitate familes who are paying as much as 80% of the cost of their homes in long term interest compilation, to hellp families pay off their homes early so they can save for their own retirements, and not add to the inevitable collapse of another housing pyramid scheme, that still exists today.

Section 141 B (PRELIMINARY purpose is to discourage the housing pyramid scheme that creates an inevitable collapse in our economy and educating the people who think raising the prices of homes back up and repeating the same failed practice will somehow have a different result) . To shall discourage investors from getting rich off basic necessities of another individual, and encourage people to work for their own wealth instead of enslaving poor families who needs a basic place to live) shall read: Homes shall be evaluated based on how old they are in proportion to their depreciation and shall not be allowed to sell for more than the original buyer paid for with exception of exact value of receipts paid for actual and competitive fair market value of improvements of goods and services provide to improve the home.
* SPECIFIC INCLUSIONARY EXAMPLE: If a home is sold for a hundred dollars, then that home shall not be allowed to sell for two hundred dollars without $100 dollars of actual improvements being added to the home.
* EXAMPLE 2: If a home is sold for $100 dollars then the property tax on that home shall be valued on the 100 dollars even if their neighbor is paying tax on $160k in value. Also if a home is sold for $0 dollars, then as a reward for helping another family, that home shall be forever exempt for paying taxes, as tax on $0 = $0.

  • Governments shall be specifically be limited from interfering or otherwise fining a private citizens right to sell their home for $100 or any other price, in order to lower their taxes, or to transfer their wealth to a family member, or another private citizen.

Section 141 C: In the event that the government falls short in financing their operations, they shall be allowed to enter in to private for profit operations to raise funds to operate, just as they have in the past, and continue to do in many industries that are unaware to the american people (they do in the author's industry for example).

Section 141 D: If government agenices make a profit to finance their operations they shall be taxed on that profit and shall pay taxes equal to the taxation on its citizens, to further lower our cost of living for citizens.

Section 142 A : of the OWS new constitution shall read: Businesses and government agencies shall cease from forcing their products from posting private information online without citizen's express written consent, nor shall they be forced to make it their ownly option of putting their information online, such as pictures, *.pdf documents, HP printer software, Turbo Tax 1099 forms, including payroll accounting software.

Cell phone companies that have booby trapped their phones to save pictures in a folder called "my album" (tmobile) when in fact it is an online folder where .25 cents per picture is charged adding cost to their phone bill unaware to customers who have no text service shall also cease this type of deceptive business practice immediately or risk being ceased and its assets including those responsible whether private or corporate being redistributed to we the people.

Companies who fail this order shall be broken up and / or ownership of offending companies shall be immediately taken over by we the people.

Section 142 A. No company online, including credit reporting agencies, and local government agencies, such as business license division shall post or publish or otherwise distribute any information regarding a citizen without the express written consent of that citizen. A credit reporting agency shall not publish any information on a citizen without their permission. Any failure of this shall result in that agency immediately losing all governing authority and financial assets and those assets shall be redistributed to the people.

Section 142 B. Any fine imposed on a US Citizen by a peace officer or any other government agency shall be held in an account to be used by other US citizens in need of the funds collected. Such people may include those who suffered bodily injury from an accident or cannot afford to repair their vehicle, or pay for their insurance, or otherwise afford an automobile. Damage to personal property is also included in compensation to US citizens from collected fines. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL A GOVERNMENAT AGENCY BE ENTITLED TO ANY FINE IMPOSED UPON A CITIZEN, but rather all collected fines shall be immediately redistributed to another citizen in need of those funds. Should there be no citizen in need of funds for these stated examples, then the funds shall be payed for utility bills of a US citizen in need, starting with in priority of need, those citizens who have had one or more of their utilities shut off, or have otherwise been slow at paying their utility bills, or their rent. EXEMPTION: Home Owners shall not be entitled to any collected funds, not until every other citizen is also a homeowner, and in this case, only those who own a single residence shall be entitled to any funding.

Financing of government agencies shall consist of collection of gold from mining, silver, coal, natural gas, and oil and other valuable commodites and shall be the primary source of paying for government services. Should there be an excess of moneys collected by government agencies over 10 million dollars, all funds over this shall be refunded to the american public.

Because of the publics dependance on oil, oil shall no longer be provided by private corporations who have made too much profit during a time when the price of oil was at all time highs. The government as represented by the people shall now run and distribute the oil and gas as needed by the people.

Also due to the corruption exposed in the utilities industry as exposed by Enron and its planting of execs in the utilities oversight commitee, utilites shall also be run by government, and no private for profit corporation shall be allowed to provide energy to the people.

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

The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. -Thomas Jefferson

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. -James Madison

If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. -Andrew Jackson

The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln

Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands. – Theodore Roosevelt

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 2 years ago

OWS is bringing awareness to more and more people, the country does'nt have to be overthrown just changed i.e. a living wage for workers,clean energy, JOBS, etc.etc.etc rebuild America don't overthrow it.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

Than why do you concern yourself? Perhaps you are craping your pants in anticipation of what is to come!

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

this is not the end, it's the beginning

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

You posted Three sentances.Made a false statement.Achived nothing,go back to Burger King.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Hmmm....I could have sworn that someone told us 'THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED!!"

So, what are we looking at here..on the internet??

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=occupy+across+the+globe+january+2012

[-] 0 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Please tell us about your "real world." What kind of hellish bullshit do you do for a living? If you have kids, how many hours do they spend playing video games and watching Jersey Shore? I'd love to hear about your favorite bands and movies, if you have any. I doubt you have a favorite book (the Bi-fucking-ble doesn't count). I am quite sure your life is an exercise in mediocrity, yet you think you're special, you fucking joke of a human.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Call to Action!

Help Us Undo NDAA By Petitioning Your State Supreme Court For A Protective Writ of Habeus Corpus Like This One:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/petition-to-supreme-court-of-alaska-to-block-ndaa-/

You do NOT have to be a lawyer to file this petition, but the aid of attorneys is welcome!

[-] 0 points by patronus919 (5) 2 years ago

Seems to me " Girlfriday " is the negative one. All he / she / it / can do is bash people for having an opinion other than it's own.

Liberals do that because they don't have the intelligence to leave a civil comment., and I'm MORE than sure this comment will be removed as with my acct.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

yup occutards.. sorry to disappoint you.. no free riding pal

[+] -4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That's right. Get used to that. NO free riding pal. No handouts, no bailouts and NO COP OUTS.

[-] -2 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

They are so lost and delusional that they think they are in the real world. Sad really!

[-] 0 points by NOAMISRICH (28) 2 years ago

Even Noam Chomsky will not go down there. By the way, Noam has evil tax shelters.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Noam Chomsky quote: " It's not radical Islam that worries the US -- it's independence"

Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid..... Corporate America needs dummies like you to exist, you know... THE WALKING DEAD!!!

Don't think this planet will exist when CA crumbles...? Oh yes...and it will!!

Think again...planet earth is a survivor!!! It was here before Corporations existed and it will be here long after they dissolve.. Civilizations rise and civilizations fall...isn't it great to be a witness within your own lifetime??

http://adonialights.tripod.com/what-do-you-believe....html

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Oh, gee, looky there. Another douche bag rolls right in.

Hi, there douche bag. There is some cookies and milk over to the side and you can join the other douche bags.

[-] 0 points by NOAMISRICH (28) 2 years ago

you guys lost! the 13,000 out of 300 million people.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Hey, you carry the same odor as the rest....FEAR.

lol lol lol lol. :/

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

thought you might like this.....About 10 years ago there was an important book called Global Finance at Risk, by two well-known economists John Eatwell and Lance Taylor. In it they refer to the well-known fact that there are basic inefficiencies intrinsic to markets. In the case of financial markets, they under-price risk. They don't count in systemic risk — general social costs. So for example if you sell me a car, you and I may make a good bargain, but we don't count in the costs to the society — pollution, congestion and so on. In financial markets, this means that risks are under-priced, so there are more risks taken than would happen in an efficient system. And that of course leads to crashes. If you had adequate regulation, you could control and prevent market inefficiencies. If you deregulate, you're going to maximize market inefficiency.

This is pretty elementary economics. They happen to discuss it in this book; others have discussed it too. And that's what's happening. Risks were under-priced, therefore more risks were taken than should have been, and sooner or later it was going to crash. Nobody predicted exactly when, and the depth of the crash is a little surprising. That's in part because of the creation of exotic financial instruments which were deregulated, meaning that nobody really knew who owed what to whom. It was all split up in crazy ways. So the depth of the crisis is pretty severe — we're not to the bottom yet — and the architects of this are the people who are now designing Obama's economic policies.

Dean Baker, one of the few economists who saw what was coming all along, pointed out that it's almost like appointing Osama bin Laden to run the so-called war on terror. Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, Clinton's treasury secretaries, are among the main architects of the crisis. Summers intervened strongly to prevent any regulation of derivatives and other exotic instruments. Rubin, who preceded him, was right in the lead of undermining the Glass-Steagall act, all of which is pretty ironic. The Glass-Steagall Act protected commercial banks from risky investment firms, insurance firms, and so on, which kind of protected the core of the economy. That was broken up in 1999 largely under Rubin's influence. He immediately left the treasury department and became a director of Citigroup, which benefited from the breakdown of Glass-Steagall by expanding and becoming a "financial supermarket" as they called it. Just to increase the irony (or the tragedy if you like) Citigroup is now getting huge taxpayer subsidies to try to keep it together and just in the last few weeks announced that it's breaking up. It's going back to trying to protect its commercial banking from risky side investments. Rubin resigned in disgrace — he's largely responsible for this. But he's one of Obama's major economic advisors, Summers is another one; Summer's protégé Tim Geithner is the Treasury Secretary.

None of this is really unanticipated. There were very good economists like say David Felix, an international economist who's been writing about this for years. And the reasons are known: markets are inefficient; they under-price social costs. And financial institutions underprice systemic risk. So say you're a CEO of Goldman Sachs. If you're doing your job correctly, when you make a loan you ensure that the risk to you is low. So if it collapses, you'll be able to handle it. You do care about the risk to yourself, you price that in. But you don't price in systemic risk, the risk that the whole financial system will erode. That's not part of your calculation.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I do like that.

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

That's what the trolls are trying to bring forth.

The New World Odor.

They do smell funny, don't they?

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Pungent odor of Fear. They smell something fierce.

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

They smell of fearfully decomposed propaganda.

It's reeks in their every post.

[+] -4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yep. Death and fear.