Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Let me know when these OWS goals have been met...
Stomping out Capitalism
Here is a list of other OWS goals, from their own website...
Oh, and don't forget... according to OWS, there is a difference between personal and private property.
From your link:I voted for Occupy on the grounds that prior to its emergence Wall Street was unopposed. The fact that an opposition has arisen where there was none means that the opposition is winning, although there are many battles yet to fight.
As usual, my friends on the right have no clue what the movement is about or even where the battlefield lies, and so are evaluating it based on false criteria (e.g. how the stock market is doing). The target has always been, not Wall Street itself, but the corrupt influence of Wall Street over the government, so forget the stock prices and try to evaluate that. It's still in existence, of course, but the fact that the subject is being addressed in politics now and that liberalism in the Democratic Party is starting to show feeble signs of life counts as a victory.
As for the effect on the dialog, let's see what comes up in a Google search for "income inequality":
Debating the future of the middle class - latimes.com
Income inequality: The not-quite-winning issue | StarTribune.com
AFP: Obama challenges rivals on US income inequality
Obama and income inequality | The Salt Lake Tribune
And for "campaign finance" or "campaign finance reform":
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/us/politics/restore-our-future-attack-ads-harm-gingrich-in-iowa.html
City's 'Pay to Play' Campaign Law Survives Lawsuit - NYTimes.com
Best Of: Occupy Wall Street group protests at campaign finance HQ | Florida Independent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/books/republic-lost-campaign-finance-reform-book-review.html
Ill. task force offers public financing options - BusinessWeek
So there you go. As usual, Occupy can quote Mark Twain regarding exaggeration of the reports of its demise.
Let me know when these OWS goals have been met...
Stomping out Capitalism
Here is a list of other OWS goals, from their own website...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-ows-has-goals-here-are-the-ows-goals/
yup. Empty page. Seems their primary goal is to stomp out capitalism.
Oh, and don't forget... according to OWS, there is a difference between personal and private property. It's OK for them to take someone else's private property, but it's not ok for someone to take their personal property.
Bunch of fucknuts.
If you don't spank your kids when they are little, the po-po's are gonna spank 'em when they're big.Good for Hyatt or free speech?Ha ha, good.
Good that the Occutards got abused.
Here's a timeline from 1973 to 2010:First you said deregulation "throughout the '80s, '90s and the first decade of the new century" was to blame. But, when pressed, you showed one whole example from 1999. Signed into law (and still defended) by one Bill Clinton, no less.Yeah, exactly. Removing restrictions among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies had nothing to do with Wall Street's latest looting.Yeah, deregulation. Go with that.
People that work in the financial sector can't scratch their ass without filling out four forms for various government agencies.
In the same way Gramm-Leach-Bliley's repeal of conflict of interest restraints "against simultaneous service by any officer. director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank had nothing to do with the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.
So where's the rest of the deregulation you claimed?
Well, it was in response to something someone else said about the disappearance of Occupy and its issues from the media. I wasn't presenting it as proof of anything beyond disproof of that. However, I disagree. The mainstream media are corporate owned and corporate dominated and generally hew to an agenda laid down by the owners. Those owners and Occupy are on opposite sides of the fence, and they would have greatly preferred to ignore Occupy, which they did for a long time.
Deregluation, granted. Mainly only affected the credit card industry.Here's a timeline from 1973 to 2010:First you said deregulation "throughout the '80s, '90s and the first decade of the new century" was to blame. But, when pressed, you showed one whole example from 1999. Signed into law (and still defended) by one Bill Clinton, no less.Yeah, exactly. Removing restrictions among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies had nothing to do with Wall Street's latest looting.
In the same way Gramm-Leach-Bliley's repeal of conflict of interest restraints "against simultaneous service by any officer. director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank had nothing to do with the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.
So where's the rest of the deregulation you claimed?
"1978, Marquette vs. First of Omaha Supreme Court allows banks to export the usury
laws of their home state nationwide and sets off a competitive wave of deregulation,
resulting in the complete elimination of usury rate ceilings in South Dakota and Delaware,
among others.
It also forced banks to follow the Fed's rules. Net effect is more regulation." 1980, Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act Legislation
increases deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000, authorizes new authority to thrift
institutions, and calls for the complete phase-out of interest rate ceilings on deposit
accounts.
And the S&L's turned right around and face planted because the market couldn't support them. Deregulation, yes. The market worked." 1982, Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act Bill deregulates thrifts almost
entirely, allowing commercial lending and providing for a new account to compete with
money market mutual funds. This was a Reagan administration initiative that passed with
strong bi-partisan support.
Not deregulation." 1987, FSLIC Insolvency GAO..."
The rest of the list is the same. The author made some interesting exaggerations (Gramm-Leach-Bliley did not repeal "the Glass-Steagall Act completely.")
"1996, Fed Reinterprets Glass-Steagall – Federal Reserve reinterprets the Glass-SteagallDeregluation, granted. Mainly only affected the credit card industry.Here's a timeline from 1973 to 2010:First you said deregulation "throughout the '80s, '90s and the first decade of the new century" was to blame. But, when pressed, you showed one whole example from 1999. Signed into law (and still defended) by one Bill Clinton, no less.
So where's the rest of the deregulation you claimed?
"1978, Marquette vs. First of Omaha Supreme Court allows banks to export the usury
laws of their home state nationwide and sets off a competitive wave of deregulation,
resulting in the complete elimination of usury rate ceilings in South Dakota and Delaware,
among others.
It also forced banks to follow the Fed's rules. Net effect is more regulation.
And the S&L's turned right around and face planted because the market couldn't support them. Deregulation, yes. The market worked.
Not deregulation." 1987, FSLIC Insolvency GAO..."
The rest of the list is the same. The author made some interesting exaggerations (Gramm-Leach-Bliley did not repeal "the Glass-Steagall Act completely.")
Burden not met.
At least these particular officers didn't play favorites:"Undue corporate influence on politics is one of the mainstay complaints of the Occupy movement and it did not go unnoticed in this city (San Francisco).
"'When I arrived at Justin Herman Plaza [renamed Bradley Manning Plaza by Occupy] the General Assembly was just beginning and people were standing in a circle in the park, holding a meeting – the very definition of peaceful assembly. Suddenly we were surrounded by riot cops brandishing nightsticks. We never even heard a dispersal order.”
"Emma was trapped with about 50 others inside the police perimeter for over three hours.
“'At first, people went up to the police and asked if they could leave. The cops refused to talk. Anyone who approached the police line was struck with nightsticks and one man was seriously injured.
"'I was pretty scared. The cops didn’t arrest us but they kept us trapped in the park under threat of physical harm.'"
Low Friends in High Places: Triad of Business, Cops and Politicians Attack Occupy | Truthout
Well if true,that is wrong and tragic. Our Police Force has become Militarized and that does concern me. I watched a good Documentary on that the other night. Our Police Force is being trained on Para-Military tactics. It is starting to look a little scary. I fully support peaceful protests and i do believe our Police need to be re-trained on dealing with their fellow Citizens. The Para-Military approach is just wrong.
They have grossly over-reacted in some of these protests. I don't like where this is headed. Dressed in Black with all those weapons? Reminds me a little too much of the you-know-whos in that place in Europe. All Citizens should be concerned with our Police and their militarization. That's not what America is about.
"' Adding some comic relief to the situation was the single "one percenter" who was trapped with us. Despite hollering repeatedly that, "I’m not with them" and summoning his lawyer to the scene, the man was not allowed to leave the area either.”
"Shaw San Liu, the activist with CPA, was also encircled by the cops and said of that evening: 'What is this if not harassment and intimidation aimed at discouraging peaceful dissent?'”
I agree. The militarization of domestic law enforcement since 9/11 is a bigger threat to civil rights in the US than anything I've seen in my 64 years. The connection between the police and corporations like Hyatt is turning public law enforcement into a Praetorian Guard for the 1%.
Low Friends in High Places: Triad of Business, Cops and Politicians Attack Occupy | Truthout
Need further evidence of this. I don't trust the author."1996, Fed Reinterprets Glass-Steagall Federal Reserve reinterprets the Glass-SteagallDeregluation, granted. Mainly only affected the credit card industry.Here's a timeline from 1973 to 2010:
"1978, Marquette vs. First of Omaha Supreme Court allows banks to export the usury
laws of their home state nationwide and sets off a competitive wave of deregulation,
resulting in the complete elimination of usury rate ceilings in South Dakota and Delaware,
among others.
It also forced banks to follow the Fed's rules. Net effect is more regulation.
And the S&L's turned right around and face planted because the market couldn't support them. Deregulation, yes. The market worked.
Not deregulation.
The rest of the list is the same. The author made some interesting exaggerations (Gramm-Leach-Bliley did not repeal "the Glass-Steagall Act completely.")
Burden not met.
Act several times, eventually allowing bank holding companies to earn up to 25 percent of
their revenues in investment banking.
A corporate merger is not deregulation. 1998, Citicorp-Travelers Merger Citigroup, Inc. merges a commercial bank with an
insurance company that owns an investment bank to form the worlds largest financial
services company.
Same one you started out with, same one I commented above that the author is being disingenuous by claiming it repeals the Act "completely." 1999, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act With support from Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury
Secretary Rubin and his successor Lawrence Summers, the bill repeals the Glass-Steagall Act
completely.
That makes three. 2000, Commodity Futures Modernization Act Passed with support from the Clinton
Administration, including Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bi-partisan support in
Congress. The bill prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating
most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps."
Explain how repealing conflict of interest restraints "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director or employee of any member bank" qualifies as a "narrow measure."Need further evidence of this. I don't trust the author."1996, Fed Reinterprets Glass-Steagall Federal Reserve reinterprets the Glass-SteagallDeregluation, granted. Mainly only affected the credit card industry.
It also forced banks to follow the Fed's rules. Net effect is more regulation.
And the S&L's turned right around and face planted because the market couldn't support them. Deregulation, yes. The market worked.
Not deregulation.
The rest of the list is the same. The author made some interesting exaggerations (Gramm-Leach-Bliley did not repeal "the Glass-Steagall Act completely.")
Burden not met.
Act several times, eventually allowing bank holding companies to earn up to 25 percent of
their revenues in investment banking.
A corporate merger is not deregulation.
Same one you started out with, same one I commented above that the author is being disingenuous by claiming it repeals the Act "completely."
That makes three. 2000, Commodity Futures Modernization Act Passed with support from the Clinton
Administration, including Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bi-partisan support in
Congress. The bill prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating
most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps."
So massive deregulation = three narrow measures. Got it.
Explain how repealing conflict of interest restraints "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director or employee of any member bank" qualifies as a "narrow measure."Need further evidence of this. I don't trust the author."1996, Fed Reinterprets Glass-Steagall Federal Reserve reinterprets the Glass-Steagall
Act several times, eventually allowing bank holding companies to earn up to 25 percent of
their revenues in investment banking.
A corporate merger is not deregulation.
Same one you started out with, same one I commented above that the author is being disingenuous by claiming it repeals the Act "completely."
That makes three.
So massive deregulation = three narrow measures. Got it.
Would you say Alan Greenspan endorsed "narrow measures" of deregulation?
"Early in his (Greenspan"s) tenure, the Federal Reserve reinterpreted Glass-Steagall
to allow banks to deal in certain debt and equity securities, so long as it did not exceed the 10
percent limit rule.
"Later, in 1996, the Federal Reserve issued an audacious ruling, allowing bank
holding companies to own investment banking operations that accounted for as much as 25 percent
of their revenues.
"The decision rendered Glass-Steagall effectively obsolete, since virtually any
institution would be able to stay within the 25 percent level.19.
http://www.openthegovernment.org/sites/default/files/otg/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf
Source. Emphasis mine.Katherine Mangu-Ward said:The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 prohibited investment banks from acting as commercial banks, and vice versa. Signed by Bill Clinton (who continues to defend the legislation), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed those aspects of the law. Many on the left blame at least part of our current woes on that move. With the repeal, Barack Obama said in a March economic address, we have deregulated the financial services sector, and we face another crisis.
In fact, multiple exemptions to Glass-Steagall had been granted for years before Gramm-Leach-Bliley was signed into law. Most European financial markets, not normally known as more deregulated than the U.S., never separated commercial and investment banks in the first place. And there is no correspondence between institutions that benefited from the repeal and those that recently collapsed. Institutions that didnt take advantage of the Glass-Steagall repeal, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, were the ones that failed most spectacularly, in part because they lacked the stability provided by commercial banking deposits.
If anything, Gramm-Leach-Bliley may have softened the blow. The George Mason economist Tyler Cowen argues that Gramm-Leach-Bliley made way for more diversity in the financial sector, and so far in the crisis times the diversification has done considerably more good than harm. Under the Glass-Steagall rules, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase would not have been able to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. Nor would Goldman Sachs and Citibank have their current unified form, which may have helped them survive.
There is a significant body of academic work supporting this idea. The Rutgers economist Eugene Nelson White, for example, has found that national banks with security affiliatesthe sort of institutions Glass-Steagall was designed to preventwere much less likely to fail than banks without affiliates.
How about mass prosecutions for control fraud?Wall Street is winning, they always do, but that does not make the battle any less worth fighting because the alternative is to be scared little serfs afraid to speak up and irritate the bosses.
What would be a sign that Wall Street was losing, a huge financial panic?
"In the late 1990s, the fight over these and other exotic new derivatives pitted a committed regulator named Brooksley E. Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, against the powerhouse triumvirate of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr.Explain how repealing conflict of interest restraints "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director or employee of any member bank" qualifies as a "narrow measure."Need further evidence of this. I don't trust the author.
A corporate merger is not deregulation.
Same one you started out with, same one I commented above that the author is being disingenuous by claiming it repeals the Act "completely."
That makes three.
So massive deregulation = three narrow measures. Got it.
Would you say Alan Greenspan endorsed "narrow measures" of deregulation?
"Early in his (Greenspan"s) tenure, the Federal Reserve reinterpreted Glass-Steagall
to allow banks to deal in certain debt and equity securities, so long as it did not exceed the 10
percent limit rule.
"Later, in 1996, the Federal Reserve issued an audacious ruling, allowing bank
holding companies to own investment banking operations that accounted for as much as 25 percent
of their revenues.
"The decision rendered Glass-Steagall effectively obsolete, since virtually any
institution would be able to stay within the 25 percent level.19.
http://www.openthegovernment.org/sites/default/files/otg/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdfSource. Emphasis mine.Katherine Mangu-Ward said:The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 prohibited investment banks from acting as commercial banks, and vice versa. Signed by Bill Clinton (who continues to defend the legislation), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed those aspects of the law. Many on the left blame at least part of our current woes on that move. With the repeal, Barack Obama said in a March economic address, we have deregulated the financial services sector, and we face another crisis.
In fact, multiple exemptions to Glass-Steagall had been granted for years before Gramm-Leach-Bliley was signed into law. Most European financial markets, not normally known as more deregulated than the U.S., never separated commercial and investment banks in the first place. And there is no correspondence between institutions that benefited from the repeal and those that recently collapsed. Institutions that didnt take advantage of the Glass-Steagall repeal, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, were the ones that failed most spectacularly, in part because they lacked the stability provided by commercial banking deposits.
If anything, Gramm-Leach-Bliley may have softened the blow. The George Mason economist Tyler Cowen argues that Gramm-Leach-Bliley made way for more diversity in the financial sector, and so far in the crisis times the diversification has done considerably more good than harm. Under the Glass-Steagall rules, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase would not have been able to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. Nor would Goldman Sachs and Citibank have their current unified form, which may have helped them survive.
There is a significant body of academic work supporting this idea. The Rutgers economist Eugene Nelson White, for example, has found that national banks with security affiliatesthe sort of institutions Glass-Steagall was designed to preventwere much less likely to fail than banks without affiliates.
Along with Hank Paulson, Alan Greenspan, Christopher Cox, and Phil Gramm. (You should go along with Phil since he's been elected as both a Democrat AND Republican during his time in "public service."How about mass prosecutions for control fraud?What would be a sign that Wall Street was losing, a huge financial panic?
So arresting a bunch of Democrat politicians and executives from Fannie Mae and Freddie Max is the sign?
The question you asked was whether it represented a "narrow measure." That's why I bolded the portion I did."In the late 1990s, the fight over these and other exotic new derivatives pitted a committed regulator named Brooksley E. Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, against the powerhouse triumvirate of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr.Explain how repealing conflict of interest restraints "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director or employee of any member bank" qualifies as a "narrow measure."
Would you say Alan Greenspan endorsed "narrow measures" of deregulation?
"Early in his (Greenspan"s) tenure, the Federal Reserve reinterpreted Glass-Steagall
to allow banks to deal in certain debt and equity securities, so long as it did not exceed the 10
percent limit rule.
"Later, in 1996, the Federal Reserve issued an audacious ruling, allowing bank
holding companies to own investment banking operations that accounted for as much as 25 percent
of their revenues.
"The decision rendered Glass-Steagall effectively obsolete, since virtually any
institution would be able to stay within the 25 percent level.19.
http://www.openthegovernment.org/sites/default/files/otg/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdfSource. Emphasis mine.Katherine Mangu-Ward said:The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 prohibited investment banks from acting as commercial banks, and vice versa. Signed by Bill Clinton (who continues to defend the legislation), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed those aspects of the law. Many on the left blame at least part of our current woes on that move. With the repeal, Barack Obama said in a March economic address, we have deregulated the financial services sector, and we face another crisis.
In fact, multiple exemptions to Glass-Steagall had been granted for years before Gramm-Leach-Bliley was signed into law. Most European financial markets, not normally known as more deregulated than the U.S., never separated commercial and investment banks in the first place. And there is no correspondence between institutions that benefited from the repeal and those that recently collapsed. Institutions that didnt take advantage of the Glass-Steagall repeal, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, were the ones that failed most spectacularly, in part because they lacked the stability provided by commercial banking deposits.
If anything, Gramm-Leach-Bliley may have softened the blow. The George Mason economist Tyler Cowen argues that Gramm-Leach-Bliley made way for more diversity in the financial sector, and so far in the crisis times the diversification has done considerably more good than harm. Under the Glass-Steagall rules, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase would not have been able to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. Nor would Goldman Sachs and Citibank have their current unified form, which may have helped them survive.
There is a significant body of academic work supporting this idea. The Rutgers economist Eugene Nelson White, for example, has found that national banks with security affiliatesthe sort of institutions Glass-Steagall was designed to preventwere much less likely to fail than banks without affiliates.
"Unsurprisingly, Greenspan, Rubin, and Levitt won. The result was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which gave the SEC only limited anti-fraud oversight of swaps and otherwise relied on industry self-regulation.
"The Washington Post has closely chronicled the clash, concluding that 'derivatives did not trigger what has erupted into the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. But their proliferation, and the uncertainty about their real values, accelerated the recent collapses of the nations venerable investment houses and magnified the panic that has since crippled the global financial system.'
"In other words: The absence of a regulation didnt cause the crisis, but it may have exacerbated it."
Is Deregulation to Blame? - Reason Magazine
In some other words if government as it's existed for the last 5000 years isn't sufficiently competent to regulate Wall Street and Wall Street lacks the integrity for self-regulation, is it time for a wall of separation between private wealth and the state?
Joseph Stiglitz makes the point that Glass-Steagall worked well during that quarter-century after WWII when there was almost no financial or banking crises and a period of rapid economic growth combined with a reducing of the inequalities in US society.
Interviews - Joseph Stiglitz | The Warning | FRONTLINE | PBS
Asked and answered."narrow
(figuratively) Restrictive; without flexibility or latitude..."
Repealing Glass-Steagall removed conflict of interest restraints "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director or employee of any member bank."
Try responding to what I write if you expect the same consideration.
Along with Hank Paulson, Alan Greenspan, Christopher Cox, and Phil Gramm. (You should go along with Phil since he's been elected as both a Democrat AND Republican during his time in "public service."How about mass prosecutions for control fraud?
So arresting a bunch of Democrat politicians and executives from Fannie Mae and Freddie Max is the sign?
