Wall Street

[wayfriend]

(CNN) -- Despite political criticism and ongoing arrests, Occupy Wall Street rode a wave of global momentum into its second month Tuesday, showing no sign of losing steam.

The largely leaderless, vaguely defined movement has already lasted longer than many expected.

I can't help but compare and contrast to the health care protests, which were organized so that the Republicans in Congress could leverage them in the health care debate. These guys seem to be out on their own with no political support, and no one is picking up the ball in Congress.

[Cybrweez]

I've seen some angst about the few dems who are jumping on board, on DailyKos at least. I'm cynical a bit, so I see anyone getting behind it doing it for political points, and I get the feeling that's the feeling in general.

[Holsety]

Avatar,

I have to agree with Alexis de Tocqueville , Democracy dies when people start actively using the force of taxation to bribe themselves with other peoples money.

So, in other words, the day the first government gets elected?

--A

Government using taxation is not a necessity immediately, so I'm not sure that follows (though I agree it's a funny observation), though it might become one eventually since even an electronic currency system would have limits on how much currency there could be in the economy.

I can't help but compare and contrast to the health care protests, which were organized so that the Republicans in Congress could leverage them in the health care debate. These guys seem to be out on their own with no political support, and no one is picking up the ball in Congress.

Maybe that's because no one in congress can figure out how to pick up the vaguely defined ball. I'm not saying it's not a failure on congress's part.

[Avatar]

I can't help but compare and contrast to the health care protests, which were organized so that the Republicans in Congress could leverage them in the health care debate. These guys seem to be out on their own with no political support, and no one is picking up the ball in Congress.

Hmmm, a liberal version of the Tea Party in the making if they actually get it? (These guys are liberal, right?)

--A

[SerScot]

Avatar,

I don't think the "Occupy" groups can be nailed down politically. I'm seeing "rightist" and "leftist" people among the protesters her in Columbia.

[Cail]

Avatar,

I don't think the "Occupy" groups can be nailed down politically. I'm seeing "rightist" and "leftist" people among the protesters her in Columbia.

Same with the Tea Party. At their core they're apolitical. The GOP is trying to absorb them, but notice how the TP spurned them in the last election cycle.

[Holsety]

Sure they can be nailed down politically. They are nailing themselves down politically as "OWS" and "The Tea Party", and what they do will define what they are believed to be and how they are viewed. Now, I might agree that they can't be nailed down as "right" or "left" or "democrat" or "republican" but that's no surprise.

[Avatar]

Avatar,

I don't think the "Occupy" groups can be nailed down politically. I'm seeing "rightist" and "leftist" people among the protesters her in Columbia.

Same with the Tea Party. At their core they're apolitical. The GOP is trying to absorb them, but notice how the TP spurned them in the last election cycle.

Gods, maybe we'll finally see some cross-boundary political activism.

--A

[Cail]

Color me surprised.....

Report: Fed directors benefited from bailouts

Multiple directors or former directors of the Federal Reserve banks who played a key role in the 2008 bailouts had an apparent conflict of interest, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. These directors had business relationships with companies and banks that received large infusions of government money.

The office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who caucuses with the Democrats, noted that the report did not name any names, "but unambiguously described several individual cases involving Fed directors that created the appearance of a conflict of interest." The group of 18 people connected to both the Federal Reserve and a bailed out company included: the CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt (who is now President Obama's jobs czar); Stephen Friedman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; and Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase.

Friedman chaired the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 2008, when the New York Federal Reserve approved Goldman Sachs as a bank holding company, which Sanders' office explains "[gave] it access to cheap Fed loans." Friedman received a waiver from the Federal Reserve to keep his chairmanship, even though he was "a current board member and shareholder of Goldman Sachs Group Inc." When Friedman received this waiver, "the Federal Reserve Board was unaware that the then-FRBNY chairman had purchased additional shares in Goldman Sachs via an automatic stock purchase program," according to the full report (here).

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York also consulted with General Electric about creating an "emergency program to assist with the commercial paper market" while Immelt served as a New York Fed director, the report indicates. Sanders' office adds that "the Fed later provided $16 billion in financing for GE under the emergency lending program" even while Immelt held his position with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and GE.

Dimon served as director for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York when JP Morgan received $29 billion through the Federal Reserve in order to pruchase Bear Stearns. Sanders' analysis of the larger GAO report says that "Dimon also convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank."

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Just more proof that all the people responsible are gaming the system and defining the rules specifically to benefit themselves.

It surprises me that anyone is surprised why people are occupying places like Wall Street.

edit: Meanwhile, Citigroup pays $285 million in a settlement about its selling of CDOs back in 2007; the settlement allows Citi to avoid admitting or denying any wrongdoing. The CDOs were built of subprime mortgages and investors were led to believe that a third party had chosen the investment products.

[Farsailer]

My favorite quote so far:

Why would they listen to anyone asking them to leave? Their parents have been asking them to leave their basements for the past 15 years. Unsuccessfully.

A comment in this article about the Occupy Charlotte, North Carolina protest. The alert among you will remember that Bank of America's headquarters is located in Charlotte.

I agree about the "gaming the system" aspect. This mentality is hugely present at BOTH the top and the bottom rungs. The big boys gaming the system to get off with a slap on the wrist for the overrated mortgages they sold while the small fry do it from the other end. And why would the small fry go that way... How about this? Living in poverty is frickin' hard. That day to day grind of never knowing when or where your next day's meal is coming from. People are always looking for the easy way out and if it's provided to them, they'll not only take it, they'll game the system to get more of it or to get what they're not entitled to, etc. Huge problem at both ends.

The difficulty of living in poverty without a safety net was a very large motivation to get out of there, hence the scenario repeated over and over again of individuals and families pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and catapulting themselves into the middle class within a generation or two. And succeeding because they put the work in. I really think this aspect of those days gets way too little credit because it's gone now.

Fast forward, we now have the dependent class that's getting fed and so doesn't have the motivation to do much more, hence locking themselves into the poverty mindset more permanently.

[Avatar]

Just more proof that all the people responsible are gaming the system and defining the rules specifically to benefit themselves.

Just like always. Does this mean the "occupiers" (is that what we call them?) have a point?

--A

[Cybrweez]

Well, those occupiers that are talking about that issue. Of course, there is no central occupiers message, so you can't generalize. In fact, many occupiers get pretty upset if you try.

Nice point farsailer, there is a sort of gaming from both sides.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Problem is, a central message can be put on the crawl at the bottom of the news channels, but a manifesto list of dissatisfactions isn't as ADHD friendly from a newsworthiness standpoint.
So, in the absence of a soundbite-able message, the news agencies seem to painting the occupiers as discordant, tantrum-throwing-angry sheeple.

dw

[Cybrweez]

Yea, and I can grok that that is ok by most of them. I think though it won't gain any real mass b/c average people will feel the same way, either due to media portrayal, or by their own ADHD tendencies.

[Worm of Despite]

The protest is totally misguided and uneducated, bearing nothing but emotion and no message.

Their hugest failure: target D.C. first, who is just as or more culpable for this mess than the financial sector. Yes there were some bad people in the big banks. But those bad people get away with it all and are still empowered if Washington feels no heat/demand from the American people to investigate them.

But what do we get instead? No people at D.C., just some generalization saying "Wall Street is evil, let's change everything."

Talk about missing the mark.

[aliantha]

We've got protestors here in DC, LF. Granted, they went to Wall Street first. But they're set up here in McPherson Square and at least one other park.

I think they were right to go to Wall Street first. We get protestors here all the time -- there's always somebody set up in Lafayette Park -- so we're kind of jaded. Going to Wall Street first got them more notice.

[Cail]

LF makes a fair point though, and if you look at the thrust of the protests, they're glossing over the fact that the government is complicit in the entire affair.

[Worm of Despite]

Ali,

I don't know the numbers of these protesters in D.C. you speak of, but it sounds like they're cold fish indeed. A far cry from the energy, angst and size of the protests you near Wall Street and/or the rest of the world.

Bring it to Washington!

Only then will the financiers listen, because that's the only people they answer to.

[aliantha]

LF makes a fair point though, and if you look at the thrust of the protests, they're glossing over the fact that the government is complicit in the entire affair.

But that makes sense if one believes that government is being paid for by big business. If it is, then protesting against the government doesn't matter. Hell, even voting doesn't matter -- if we vote one guy out, the banks and the corporations will buy the guy who replaces him. Don't forget, the Supreme Court threw out the restrictions on soft money donations.

If I may borrow a line from Super Chicken, Corporate America is now "the brains behind the rubber duckie"....