Wall Street Protestors

[Boom_70]

Can anyone explain what these people are protesting? I've yet to see a coherent explanation.

 

[The Big Ragu]

It's not a very focused protest, because "Wall Street" is not some monolithic entity. But economically the country is suffering and that always breeds unrest. And the people protesting believe that our financial system, as represented by Wall Street (and I believe an emphasis on banks), are the cause of our economic problems.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Sounds to me like they're barking up the right tree.

 

[deskslave]

The general theme, I think, is that we're time trying to rebuild the previous system when we should be coming up with a whole new one.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Sounds to me like they're barking up the right tree.

If you want to look at the root causes of the meltdown in 2008, banks are the place to start.

But if you want to look at where we are economically today, U.S. fiscal and monetary policy (our last several Congresses and presidents) added to the disaster that is the Euro, added to individual fiscal policies of just about every European country that has put them on the verge of a bankruptcy are the places to start. Then add to that one big piece of populist regulation known as Dodd-Frank, which is going to hurt, not help.

In 2008, people should have never bought the "too big to fail" crud. But this is not 2008. And there have been so many bad decisions at the policy level since 2008 that kicked a can down the road to the point where we now have a crisis, that focusing on banks is bewildering. The banks people are so angry at are teetering. Look at the stock charts of Bank of America and Morgan Stanley, for example. B of A is down more than 50 percent this year. Morgan is down close to 50 percent. As is Citigroup. These are companies that seriously might not be around a year from now if we start seeing sovereign defaults in Europe and a double dip recession. And it has nothing to do with 2008 or anything any of those companies have done that is illegal or immoral.

If anything, the overreaction to what happened in 2008 has created a lot of the resentment we are now seeing. Dodd-Frank has been a disaster of populist-driven regulation that as is often the case when "the government comes to help people," is (and will) hurt consumers. By limiting how much banks can charge for transactions, they ****ed with a free marketplace, and now we are seeing the consequences. Those banks are in business to make money for their shareholders. Tie their hands and they will start kicking with their feet to make up the revenue you are denying them. It was predictable all along

That's not particularly a "bank" issue. If the government steps in and tells ANY business what it can and can't charge for certain services or transactions, consumers are ultimately the ones who are going to pay.

In any case, those people have every right to protest. I personally think the President has set the tone by creating an atmosphere of scapegoating and class warfare to try to quell the unrest because of a bad economy and unemployment. And the protests we are seeing are an extension of that. When you asked "why are they protesting?" I get it, in that unemployment is high and the economy is in a stupor. People want to express their dissatisfaction. And as is often the case, the form of protest is simplistic (in my opinion).

 

[Flying Headbutt]

The idea that the middle and lower classes are responding with "class warfare" is angering. The very top has been buying off the rulemakers in the public and private sector for decades.

 

[Azrael]

This is the original premise:

www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html

 

[The Big Ragu]

The idea that the middle and lower classes are responding with "class warfare" is angering. The very top has been buying off the rulemakers in the public and private sector for decades.

I'm not saying the middle and lower classes are "responding with class warfare." I am saying people are fed bull**** and they react emotionally.

EVERY special interest has been buying off lawmakers for decades, FHB. And it ALL works to our detriment. Go to OpenSecrets.org, which is one of the most amazing website databases out there. The top lobbyists in this country over the last 25 years are disproportionately represented by labor unions and trade associations that can only exist in a world in which they receive legislative favors, because they have no bargaining leverage on their own.

The buyoffs go both ways, and one reason I always come on here trying to convince people who are having silly Republican/Democrat arguments that there is no difference, is that there *IS* no difference.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Check out the organizations. Check out where the money is going.

We are a country of special interests (that includes corporations, but it also includes organizations that pretend to represent the interests of the middle and lower classes you mentioned) that sling bags of money at our legislators, who somehow have gotten to the point where they wield the power of the purse to the tune of close to $4 trillion a year. And that money doesn't go to public services. The large majority of it goes to legalized payouts to benefit one interest over another, all to the detriment of our economy, which functions best when we have a demand-driven economy, not one with power brokers corruptly diverting money from potentially productive areas of the economy to their cronies.

If you're angry that Goldman Sachs or GE plays that game, right on. But you are fooling yourself if you don't see that it's also ActBlue (the biggest of them all) and the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees and the Teamsters playing that game, and in many cases playing it better.

 

[dixiehack]

On an unspoken level, I think people sense your point Ragu. There's a reason this has been a faceless, leaderless movement that didn't look to established groups for direction. And while some unions have started to join in, they've been pointedly told they are welcome to be part of it, but aren't going to hijack it.

 

[Boom_70]

On an unspoken level, I think people sense your point Ragu. There's a reason this has been a faceless, leaderless movement that didn't look to established groups for direction. And while some unions have started to join in, they've been pointedly told they are welcome to be part of it, but aren't going to hijack it.

To get any traction it seems like the group needs to have more of a
"Tea Party" like framework.

At this point in our history I think it's good to see grass roots protests. As citizens the only thing that will change the tide in
Washington is militant action.

 

[deskslave]

Of course, the Tea Party is a patriotic group. The Wall Street protesters are criminals.

 

[Boom_70]

Of course, the Tea Party is a patriotic group. The Wall Street protesters are criminals.

Depends who you are talking too. From what I've read on SJ the Tea Party is the Anti Christ.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Sounds to me like they're barking up the right tree.

If you want to look at the root causes of the meltdown in 2008, banks are the place to start.

But if you want to look at where we are economically today, U.S. fiscal and monetary policy (our last several Congresses and presidents) added to the disaster that is the Euro, added to individual fiscal policies of just about every European country that has put them on the verge of a bankruptcy are the places to start. Then add to that one big piece of populist regulation known as Dodd-Frank, which is going to hurt, not help.

In 2008, people should have never bought the "too big to fail" crud. But this is not 2008. And there have been so many bad decisions at the policy level since 2008 that kicked a can down the road to the point where we now have a crisis, that focusing on banks is bewildering. The banks people are so angry at are teetering. Look at the stock charts of Bank of America and Morgan Stanley, for example. B of A is down more than 50 percent this year. Morgan is down close to 50 percent. As is Citigroup. These are companies that seriously might not be around a year from now if we start seeing sovereign defaults in Europe and a double dip recession. And it has nothing to do with 2008 or anything any of those companies have done that is illegal or immoral.

If anything, the overreaction to what happened in 2008 has created a lot of the resentment we are now seeing. Dodd-Frank has been a disaster of populist-driven regulation that as is often the case when "the government comes to help people," is (and will) hurt consumers. By limiting how much banks can charge for transactions, they ****ed with a free marketplace, and now we are seeing the consequences. Those banks are in business to make money for their shareholders. Tie their hands and they will start kicking with their feet to make up the revenue you are denying them. It was predictable all along

That's not particularly a "bank" issue. If the government steps in and tells ANY business what it can and can't charge for certain services or transactions, consumers are ultimately the ones who are going to pay.

In any case, those people have every right to protest. I personally think the President has set the tone by creating an atmosphere of scapegoating and class warfare to try to quell the unrest because of a bad economy and unemployment. And the protests we are seeing are an extension of that. When you asked "why are they protesting?" I get it, in that unemployment is high and the economy is in a stupor. People want to express their dissatisfaction. And as is often the case, the form of protest is simplistic (in my opinion).

Banks were making money even before they started charging fees to customers. Fees are only a fairly recent phenomenon. And there's no free market when everyone is doing the same thing (except for the local credit unions). If all the banks all decide to charge $5 per transaction, the only free market then is deciding to take your money and put it under your mattress.

What happened was banks got too greedy for their own good, gambled away their money thanks to deregulation and needed the government to bail them out. Glass-Steagel should never have been repealed in the first place.

 

[deskslave]

Those banks are in business to make money for their shareholders.

Then they need to stop telling us how it's vital that they be allowed to do what they want so that they can make loans to people.

It's selfish **** like this that pisses people off. Yes, banks have shareholders. But they also have customers. Once upon a time, those people were more than a source of revenue.

Banks are NOT just another corporation. They serve a vital, fundamental purpose in the economy, as they are fond of telling us about every 6.2 seconds. Therefore, they are and must be about more than just "making money for their shareholders."

If they don't want to put the interests of actual, real people somewhere on the totem pole, then we have every right to make them do it.
And if they still don't want to, then maybe it really is time for a new system.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Sounds to me like they're barking up the right tree.

If you want to look at the root causes of the meltdown in 2008, banks are the place to start.

But if you want to look at where we are economically today, U.S. fiscal and monetary policy (our last several Congresses and presidents) added to the disaster that is the Euro, added to individual fiscal policies of just about every European country that has put them on the verge of a bankruptcy are the places to start. Then add to that one big piece of populist regulation known as Dodd-Frank, which is going to hurt, not help.

In 2008, people should have never bought the "too big to fail" crud. But this is not 2008. And there have been so many bad decisions at the policy level since 2008 that kicked a can down the road to the point where we now have a crisis, that focusing on banks is bewildering. The banks people are so angry at are teetering. Look at the stock charts of Bank of America and Morgan Stanley, for example. B of A is down more than 50 percent this year. Morgan is down close to 50 percent. As is Citigroup. These are companies that seriously might not be around a year from now if we start seeing sovereign defaults in Europe and a double dip recession. And it has nothing to do with 2008 or anything any of those companies have done that is illegal or immoral.

If anything, the overreaction to what happened in 2008 has created a lot of the resentment we are now seeing. Dodd-Frank has been a disaster of populist-driven regulation that as is often the case when "the government comes to help people," is (and will) hurt consumers. By limiting how much banks can charge for transactions, they ****ed with a free marketplace, and now we are seeing the consequences. Those banks are in business to make money for their shareholders. Tie their hands and they will start kicking with their feet to make up the revenue you are denying them. It was predictable all along

That's not particularly a "bank" issue. If the government steps in and tells ANY business what it can and can't charge for certain services or transactions, consumers are ultimately the ones who are going to pay.

In any case, those people have every right to protest. I personally think the President has set the tone by creating an atmosphere of scapegoating and class warfare to try to quell the unrest because of a bad economy and unemployment. And the protests we are seeing are an extension of that. When you asked "why are they protesting?" I get it, in that unemployment is high and the economy is in a stupor. People want to express their dissatisfaction. And as is often the case, the form of protest is simplistic (in my opinion).

Banks were making money even before they started charging fees to customers. Fees are only a fairly recent phenomenon. And there's no free market when everyone is doing the same thing (except for the local credit unions). If all the banks all decide to charge $5 per transaction, the only free market then is deciding to take your money and put it under your mattress.

What happened was banks got too greedy for their own good, gambled away their money thanks to deregulation and needed the government to bail them out. Glass-Steagel should never have been repealed in the first place.

This shows an unawareness of, or disregard for, how markets work. Most banks are charge similar fees and have similar pricing structures, precisely because they operate in a market. They have found a market equilibrium, in which one bank can't undercut the others without losing overall revenue, and other banks can't charge higher fees without losing revenue by costing themselves customers. There is plenty of competition in the commercial banking area. If I run Chase, and I can somehow boost volume of loans enough by charging a lower interest rates, OF COURSE, I am going to do it. But that isn't possible, because everyone is already maximizing their revenue by charging an equilibrium price, where the mix of rates plus consumers in at those rates brings in the most money. Anyone in business finds that price point that maximizes revenue.

All businesses operate that way. They have competitors. They price things in a way that takes into account that competition. "If I raise prices, as much as I would love to, I risk losing more business than I make up from the higher prices." "If I lower prices, I may get more customers, but the lower margins will lead to decreased revenues." It's why unless you have some competitive advantage that allows you to shave costs in a way that your competitors can't, prices in competitive businesses tend to be similar -- for example, in commercial banking.

Name your area of commercial banking. You have your choice of dozens of companies offering credit cards. Dozens of places to open your money market account. Dozens of places to get a checking account. These are highly competitive busineses, and each prices their services in a way that takes into account their competition, what price point can maximize revenue (and hopefully profits), and in the case of things like lending, risk.

Now you get the Federal government stepping in (and mind you, this plays into my earlier post about special interest, because Dodd-Frank was special-interest driven) and putting price ceilings on what businesses can charge. The end result isn't surprising. It messed with that equilibrium, and now is costing consumers, as banks find other ways to make up the revenue government took away from them.

 

[trifectarich]

Someone please explain why a bank borrows money at 1 percent and needs to charge 28 percent for someone who doesn't pay off their credit card balance in full.

(No need to actually answer the question unless you start with the words "scam" or "fraud.")

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I can't believe the damn libruhl lamestream media hasn't given these protests more coverage.

 

[Boom_70]

I can't believe the damn libruhl lamestream media hasn't given these protests more coverage.

I've read that the protestors have made a concerted effort not to
speak to the media. Perhaps this is why their message is unclear.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Those banks are in business to make money for their shareholders.

Then they need to stop telling us how it's vital that they be allowed to do what they want so that they can make loans to people.

It's selfish **** like this that pisses people off. Yes, banks have shareholders. But they also have customers. Once upon a time, those people were more than a source of revenue.

Banks are NOT just another corporation. They serve a vital, fundamental purpose in the economy, as they are fond of telling us about every 6.2 seconds. Therefore, they are and must be about more than just "making money for their shareholders."

If they don't want to put the interests of actual, real people somewhere on the totem pole, then we have every right to make them do it.
And if they still don't want to, then maybe it really is time for a new system.

I disagree with you. They are just corporations. That is all they are. Corporations beholden to their shareholders. The rest of it: The politicians pointing fingers at them; the rhetoric from them about regulation and how they'd loan if only. ... ; your posts about greed and selfishness, as subjective criteria as those are; it's just senseless noise. Bank of America doesn't owe me anything. And frankly, I am glad for that, because I don't think it is going to survive another year. At least I give it less than a 50/50 shot. Maybe this time around we don't get more special interest cronyism from our government, and we let BofA and Morgan Stanley and any others that don't have viable businesses to go by the wayside rather than handing out unfair favors that add to our debt. Banking can be a great business--if you have the ability to minimize risk and maximize profits. A lot of the largest banks in the world have failed miserably at the minimizing risk problem, whether it was CDOs on mortgages or exposure to sovereign debt that presupposed that the global economy would continue to expand infinitely.

There are plenty who can manage their risk better, and will do it better than the ones that have failed. We should just let it happen. The same way any business that mismanages itself goes out of business.

But this notion that any of these companies owes use anything? They are in business to earn a profit. And somehow, because of attitudes like the one you expressed in your post, they get put in the position of apologizing for trying to do it.

 

[Azrael]

Someone please explain why a bank borrows money at 1 percent and needs to charge 28 percent for someone who doesn't pay off their credit card balance in full.

(No need to actually answer the question unless you start with the words "scam" or "fraud.")

We're sorry, but your most recent post posted late. We've therefore assessed a $36 charge from your account. Per your customer service update of 10/7/11, your credit rating here, and at every other message board, may be negatively affected by this charge. Have a pleasant day.