Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[georgephillip]

LOL! That right there says it all about the mind-set of your sort.

What does your mind-set tell you about the role chattel slavery played in the creation of the first private fortunes on this planet?

Sorry Karl, but your stupid ideas have been proven a muderously horrible failure every time they have been imposed on a large scale. There is nothing left to your empty, irrelevant ideology.

Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.

 

[Intense]

What does your mind-set tell you about the role chattel slavery played in the creation of the first private fortunes on this planet?

Sorry Karl, but your stupid ideas have been proven a muderously horrible failure every time they have been imposed on a large scale. There is nothing left to your empty, irrelevant ideology.

Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.

Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.

Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page.
Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent, to enrich another?

Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you?
My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut?

I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we.

Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Intense again

Excellent reply anyway!

 

[Uncensored2008]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Intense again

Excellent reply anyway!

 

[georgephillip]

Sorry Karl, but your stupid ideas have been proven a muderously horrible failure every time they have been imposed on a large scale. There is nothing left to your empty, irrelevant ideology.

Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.

Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.

Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page.
Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent, to enrich another?

Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you?
My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut?

I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we.

Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.

You're avoiding the subject.

"Finance capitalism is a term in Marxian political economics defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. It also includes the lending of money at interest. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."

Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.

Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Samson]

Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.

Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.

Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page.
Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent, to enrich another?

Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you?
My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut?

I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we.

Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.

You're avoiding the subject.

"Finance capitalism is a term in Marxian political economics defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. It also includes the lending of money at interest. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."

Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.

Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's no "avoiding the subject."

There's only the difference of opinion: Marxist believe investing in financial products is "exploitive," and there are very few Marxist societies.

On the other hand, Financial Capitalism thrives all over the globe where it is considered beneficial to both lenders and borrowers...including governments.

 

[Intense]

Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.

Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.

Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page.
Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent, to enrich another?

Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you?
My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut?

I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we.

Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.

You're avoiding the subject.

"Finance capitalism is a term in Marxian political economics defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. It also includes the lending of money at interest. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."

Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.

Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No I'm not. You want to invest, and take your chances, go for it. You want to Borrow, agreeing to the Terms, go for it. You want to fold, stand apart, go for it. What we both may agree on is Government not having any place in Business Investment or Bailing out Poor Investment. I am also against Subsidies. There are better ways to provide for the General Welfare. Where we disagree with you, is the concept of the Marxist Utopia, where the same entities have control over the Law, the Market, and pretty much every aspect of our lives. It ain't happening. I'd rather trade in coin than bullets, prisons, and mass graves for all those it's to inconvenient to indoctrinate. Human Nature is what it is, Marxism is no fix for what ails us.

 

[georgephillip]

Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page.
Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent, to enrich another?

Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you?
My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut?

I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we.

Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.

You're avoiding the subject.

"Finance capitalism is a term in Marxian political economics defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. It also includes the lending of money at interest. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."

Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.

Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's no "avoiding the subject."

There's only the difference of opinion: Marxist believe investing in financial products is "exploitive," and there are very few Marxist societies.

On the other hand, Financial Capitalism thrives all over the globe where it is considered beneficial to both lenders and borrowers...including governments.

Where's the difference of opinion over the economic collapse of 2008?

Remember? When all the thriving financial capitalists plundered trillions of dollars worth of value from homeowners and pension funds. The richest 5% of Americans found this event beneficial since it nearly doubled their share of returns to wealth in less than a single generation; however, the remaining 95% found it less than beneficial.

 

[Samson]

You're avoiding the subject.

"Finance capitalism is a term in Marxian political economics defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. It also includes the lending of money at interest. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."

Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.

Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's no "avoiding the subject."

There's only the difference of opinion: Marxist believe investing in financial products is "exploitive," and there are very few Marxist societies.

On the other hand, Financial Capitalism thrives all over the globe where it is considered beneficial to both lenders and borrowers...including governments.

Where's the difference of opinion over the economic collapse of 2008?

Remember? When all the thriving financial capitalists plundered trillions of dollars worth of value from homeowners and pension funds. The richest 5% of Americans found this event beneficial since it nearly doubled their share of returns to wealth in less than a single generation; however, the remaining 95% found it less than beneficial.

"Less than beneficial" relative to what? Chinese Marxism?

You seem to believe there is a perfect model: There isn't.

2008 happened, and will happen again. Economic cycling is a fact of economic life.

 

[georgephillip]

Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page.
Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent, to enrich another?

Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you?
My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut?

I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we.

Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.

You're avoiding the subject.

"Finance capitalism is a term in Marxian political economics defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. It also includes the lending of money at interest. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."

Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.

Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No I'm not. You want to invest, and take your chances, go for it. You want to Borrow, agreeing to the Terms, go for it. You want to fold, stand apart, go for it. What we both may agree on is Government not having any place in Business Investment or Bailing out Poor Investment. I am also against Subsidies. There are better ways to provide for the General Welfare. Where we disagree with you, is the concept of the Marxist Utopia, where the same entities have control over the Law, the Market, and pretty much every aspect of our lives. It ain't happening. I'd rather trade in coin than bullets, prisons, and mass graves for all those it's to inconvenient to indoctrinate. Human Nature is what it is, Marxism is no fix for what ails us.

Does the Security and Exchange Commission have any place in business investment?
What about the Federal Reserve?

Have you noticed how the richest investors with the fastest computers have their own utopia on Wall Street?

What institution should regulate criminal behavior among the investor class if not government?

 

[Katzndogz]

New risk for Occupy Wall Street: less media interest | Reuters

OWS is losing interest. It's getting boring. Time to move on.

 

[georgephillip]

There's no "avoiding the subject."

There's only the difference of opinion: Marxist believe investing in financial products is "exploitive," and there are very few Marxist societies.

On the other hand, Financial Capitalism thrives all over the globe where it is considered beneficial to both lenders and borrowers...including governments.

Where's the difference of opinion over the economic collapse of 2008?

Remember? When all the thriving financial capitalists plundered trillions of dollars worth of value from homeowners and pension funds. The richest 5% of Americans found this event beneficial since it nearly doubled their share of returns to wealth in less than a single generation; however, the remaining 95% found it less than beneficial.

"Less than beneficial" relative to what? Chinese Marxism?

You seem to believe there is a perfect model: There isn't.

2008 happened, and will happen again. Economic cycling is a fact of economic life.

2008 happened because of an epidemic of control accounting fraud the FBI began reporting on in 2004.

Are you saying fraud is a fact of economic life among financial capitalists?

Or Chinese Marxists?

 

[Samson]

Where's the difference of opinion over the economic collapse of 2008?

Remember? When all the thriving financial capitalists plundered trillions of dollars worth of value from homeowners and pension funds. The richest 5% of Americans found this event beneficial since it nearly doubled their share of returns to wealth in less than a single generation; however, the remaining 95% found it less than beneficial.

"Less than beneficial" relative to what? Chinese Marxism?

You seem to believe there is a perfect model: There isn't.

2008 happened, and will happen again. Economic cycling is a fact of economic life.

2008 happened because of an epidemic of control accounting fraud the FBI began reporting on in 2004.

Are you saying fraud is a fact of economic life among financial capitalists?

Or Chinese Marxists?

I'm saying that fraud is a fact of life, George.

Humans are fallible; so are the institutions that govern them. However, a Marxist Utopia that eliminates all barrowing and lending to "cure" fraud strikes me as a solution that only those that amputate heads to prevent toothaches might pursue.

 

[georgephillip]

"Less than beneficial" relative to what? Chinese Marxism?

You seem to believe there is a perfect model: There isn't.

2008 happened, and will happen again. Economic cycling is a fact of economic life.

2008 happened because of an epidemic of control accounting fraud the FBI began reporting on in 2004.

Are you saying fraud is a fact of economic life among financial capitalists?

Or Chinese Marxists?

I'm saying that fraud is a fact of life, George.

Humans are fallible; so are the institutions that govern them. However, a Marxist Utopia that eliminates all barrowing and lending to "cure" fraud strikes me as a solution that only those that amputate heads to prevent toothaches might pursue.

Crime is a fact of life.
Should it be encouraged or discouraged?
Should government bailout criminals at the expense of their victims?

I'm not calling for a Marxian solution to this problem.
An all powerful state isn't something I find acceptable.
Neither is oligarchy, imho.

 

[Samson]

2008 happened because of an epidemic of control accounting fraud the FBI began reporting on in 2004.

Are you saying fraud is a fact of economic life among financial capitalists?

Or Chinese Marxists?

I'm saying that fraud is a fact of life, George.

Humans are fallible; so are the institutions that govern them. However, a Marxist Utopia that eliminates all barrowing and lending to "cure" fraud strikes me as a solution that only those that amputate heads to prevent toothaches might pursue.

Crime is a fact of life.
Should it be encouraged or discouraged?
Should government bailout criminals at the expense of their victims?

I'm not calling for a Marxian solution to this problem.
An all powerful state isn't something I find acceptable.
Neither is oligarchy, imho.

I recon there will be additional regulations emplaced a la, Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) 2002, which was preceeded by the infamous Enron Ordeal.

A must admit though, that I'm more than a little amazed that the Administration and Congress hasn't seemed to have been anywhere near as concerned about the 2008 financial sector crisis as they were with Enron's Shenannigans. My guess is that, unlike Enron, Government complicity (Fannie May/Mac) had more to do with 2008 than anyone in a Democratically controlled government would like to admit, at least until after the 2012 elections.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is the fact of having money along proof of criminality?

Why aren't we divesting lottery winners of their winnings as having too much money and being criminals?

 

[georgephillip]

I'm saying that fraud is a fact of life, George.

Humans are fallible; so are the institutions that govern them. However, a Marxist Utopia that eliminates all barrowing and lending to "cure" fraud strikes me as a solution that only those that amputate heads to prevent toothaches might pursue.

Crime is a fact of life.
Should it be encouraged or discouraged?
Should government bailout criminals at the expense of their victims?

I'm not calling for a Marxian solution to this problem.
An all powerful state isn't something I find acceptable.
Neither is oligarchy, imho.

I recon there will be additional regulations emplaced a la, Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) 2002, which was preceeded by the infamous Enron Ordeal.

A must admit though, that I'm more than a little amazed that the Administration and Congress hasn't seemed to have been anywhere near as concerned about the 2008 financial sector crisis as they were with Enron's Shenannigans. My guess is that, unlike Enron, Government complicity (Fannie May/Mac) had more to do with 2008 than anyone in a Democratically controlled government would like to admit, at least until after the 2012 elections.

The Savings and Loan Scandal of the late 1980s offers another striking contrast with the current looting. William K. Black figured prominently in uncovering many of those crimes:

"Black was a central figure in exposing Congressional corruption during the Savings and Loan Crisis. He took the notes during the Keating Five meeting that were later published in the press, and brought the event to national attention and a congressional investigation.

According to Bill Moyers,

"'The former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks. The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating — after whom the senate's so-called "Keating Five" were named — he sent a memo that read, in part, 'get Black — kill him dead.' Metaphorically, of course. Of course.'"[4]

William K. Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black has stated numerous times that hundreds of bankers were prosecuted and jailed for their role in the S&L crimes. It isn't likely Democrats or Republicans will prosecute Wall Street today unless there is a powerful grass roots movement that makes them do it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yeppers whether or not they did anything illegal. They got bucks - Get 'Em.

 

[georgephillip]

Is the fact of having money along proof of criminality?

Why aren't we divesting lottery winners of their winnings as having too much money and being criminals?

Over the past 40 years the richest 1% of Americans have seen their share of national income increase from about 8% to nearly 25%. Those gains have come from shipping middle-class jobs to Mexico and China. Shareholders have become richer at the expense of productive workers.

Contrast the US experience with that of Germany where the richest Germans earned about 11% of their nation's income in the 70s and they earn about the same percentage today. That is due to the fact German labor unions have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for.

German jobs were NOT outsourced to China like they were in the US.

OWS is saying it's time to reverse the trend of outsourcing US jobs and prosecute those responsible for the Great Recession.

Or are you in favor of promoting accounting fraud and state capitalism.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not enough American jobs are outsourced to China and India. Outsourcing should continue and be a flood until the confiscatory taxation and overregulation stops.

Think of it like a union strike. The union members refuse to go to work. Well companies don't have to hire either. They can leave and should.