Occupy Wall Street

[MKTrader]

Quote from Samsara:

You have a point about the speculation boom due to the Greenspan put, but injecting liquidity is an entirely different animal than a full-scale bailout. There was no precedent to assume the Fed would <i>take</i> all of your toxic assets onto its balance sheet.

Sure, no one knew exactly what the Fed would do, but the big financial institutions were pretty much the same as John Q. Public. They fully expected the Fed and/or gov’t to “do something.” This was especially true in an election year. No one dreamed they’d let all those big institutions just fail and go bankrupt.

Think about it this way—what if there were no gov’t involvement with S&Ls and no “emergency” rate cuts or other reactionary moves by the Fed in the 90s? It would’ve been an uglier time, but you’d need suicidal tendencies to play with leverage or certain derivatives the way people later did if they knew the buck stopped with them.

 

[Samsara]

Quote from MKTrader:

Sure, no one knew exactly what the Fed would do, but the big financial institutions were pretty much the same as John Q. Public. They fully expected the Fed and/or gov’t to “do something.” This was especially true in an election year. No one dreamed they’d let all those big institutions just fail and go bankrupt.

Think about it this way—what if there were no gov’t involvement with S&Ls and no “emergency” rate cuts or other reactionary moves by the Fed in the 90s? It would’ve been an uglier time, but you’d need suicidal tendencies to play with leverage or certain derivatives the way people later did if they knew the buck stopped with them.

I hear you. That's a fair point. But I think you're considering it as if people knew the risks they were taking and were pricing moral hazard into their behavior. No one could see from above the big picture of the huge systemic risk to do that correctly -- at best there was just the expectation that the Fed would drop rates to 0. In other words, people may have expected the gov't to <i>do something</i>, maybe for a black swan event, but didn't gamble on the risk of the entire system's collapse.

In reality, very few understood those AAA CDOs (certainly not some pension fund), and no one accurately modeled those instruments or widespread counterparty risk. That's exactly why only a sage few speculators like Paulson's fund was able to identify a pristine trading opportunity.

I think you get a part of the problem, but not the systemic aspect of it.

 

[oldtime]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the banks made bad loans, the taxpayers bailed the banks out but the little guy got screwed. The banks got the money AND the mortgaged assets.

Couldn't we have just paid off the bad loans for the little guy?

Do we really need big banks? Wouldn't many small banks be ok?

The little guy does need a house. We bailed out the bank he owed the money to and then the bank took his house.

 

[nitro]

Quote from oldtime:

Maybe I'm missing something, but the banks made bad loans, the taxpayers bailed the banks out but the little guy got screwed. The banks got the money AND the mortgaged assets.

Couldn't we have just paid off the bad loans for the little guy?

Do we really need big banks? Wouldn't many small banks be ok?

The little guy does need a house. We bailed out the bank he owed the money to and then the bank took his house.

LOL! Good point. I am telling you, these guys CAN'T lose. It is locked in profits. There is no risk. if you default, it will follow you for ever, they see to it. In the age of computer databases, you are fucked.

It's ok though, because eventually, all things revert to the mean. In the age of the internet, we will use the same databases, and it is people that will have long memories.

 

[dumb_mother]

Quote from oldtime:

Maybe I'm missing something, but the banks made bad loans, the taxpayers bailed the banks out but the little guy got screwed. The banks got the money AND the mortgaged assets.

Couldn't we have just paid off the bad loans for the little guy?

Do we really need big banks? Wouldn't many small banks be ok?

The little guy does need a house. We bailed out the bank he owed the money to and then the bank took his house.

and here i thought the little guy lied on his application about his income and got to live in a palace for a couple years after he stopped paying any mortgages, and is now complaining that since the papers weren't signed properly he should be able to live in the house for another couple of years without paying anything.

no bailouts for anyone. big bank, small bank, individual- you reap what you sow.

occupy wallstreet? = get a job i'm not going to feed you forever with my tax money. can't find a job to pay off your 100k+ student loans you got getting an art history degree? well that sucks you shouldn't have gotten a worthless lib arts degree for so much money, go back home and live with your parents that allowed you to waste your life.

 

[DT-waw]

Quote from oldtime:

Maybe I'm missing something, but the banks made bad loans, the taxpayers bailed the banks out but the little guy got screwed. The banks got the money AND the mortgaged assets.

Couldn't we have just paid off the bad loans for the little guy?

Do we really need big banks? Wouldn't many small banks be ok?

The little guy does need a house. We bailed out the bank he owed the money to and then the bank took his house.

Hell, umm, oh yeah - you miss something.
the little guy is often greatly greedy, irresponsible, delusional little bastard. he does not care about his future, finances, health, nothing.

all he wants is: free money! give me money so i can buy huge house and a car and a big flat TV.
i'll tell you, such people deserve only one fate: poverty under the bridge.

each and every person who desperately wants to be rich or perceived as rich, will be very poor.

 

[nitro]

Quote from nitro:

"Don't Underestimate 'Occupy Wall Street'"

""The medium is the message," Marshall McLuhan's slogan from 1964, is a notion that's come up often this year as protests have rocked the world, from the Arab Spring to those in Southern Europe and the UK. Many have focused on social media changing the nature of protests and their coverage, and while I won't deny that impact, that's not the point I'm trying to make.


Rather, with the Occupy Wall Street movement, it's the structure of the protests -- their medium -- that has changed. Naysayers don't appreciate this. The "business model" of protests during the 1960s focused on getting as many people as possible to a location for a few hours where there could be any combination of speeches, marches, and sign-waving. The goal was to make a big enough splash to attract TV, radio, and newspaper coverage. They were rare, novel events.
..."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Dont-Underestimate-Occupy-minyanville-3266206564.html?x=0&.v=1

Imo everyone that is unemployed should camp outside smack in the middle of the financial centers of the four major cities in this country + Washington DC, in Washington DC in front of the three governing buildings. Be prepared to be arrested and refuse to move. When freed, go straight back and repeat. That is about 25 Million, or about 5 million per city. Then let's see what happens.

In fact, this is tame and needs to be scaled at least 100x to 1000x. One thing, understand why you are there and be able to articulate it. Practice in front of the mirror if you have to.

Be respectful of people that have jobs, after all, that is your own goal. Remember, the true enemy isn't innocent people, but an abstract system that has a life of its own, with no one behind the wheel, otherwise known as Free Market Capitalism. It is not Capitalism that is at fault imo, just the "Free Market" part.

Bring a suit and tie in case you get an interview, and in fact, dress as best you can every day.

Getting back on point.

 

[DT-waw]

100% agree with dumb_mother.

the people who took loans are the problem.
the banks didn't forced them to do it.

sheeple demand free lunch. demand luxuries without effort.
they're speculating with extremely high leverage taking student loans.
buying useless gadgets on credit cards.

who wanted government protection from fake terrorists? the sheeple.
who demands super expensive medical "care", which is making health worse? the sheeple.

 

[Eight]

Quote from DT-waw:

100% agree with dumb_mother.

the people who took loans are the problem.
the banks didn't forced them to do it.

sheeple demand free lunch. demand luxuries without effort.
they're speculating with extremely high leverage taking student loans.
buying useless gadgets on credit cards.

who wanted government protection from fake terrorists? the sheeple.
who demands super expensive medical "care", which is making health worse? the sheeple.

The government policies that FORCED banks to make bad loans were the beginning of the whole thing... Jimmy Carter and Clinton era leftist bullshit..

 

[GordonTheGekko]

Quote from Eight:

The government policies that FORCED banks to make bad loans were the beginning of the whole thing... Jimmy Carter and Clinton era leftist bullshit..

Exactly.