This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
I go to Zuccotti Park
Sunday was beautiful in NYC. Indian summer. I went to the OWS protest. Some observations and some pictures.
Zuccotti park is where the action is contained. This is a miserable excuse for a park. It’s about the size of a football field. Not a blade of grass to be found. As you will see from the pics, this place is already jammed. The limited space may prove to be an issue for this demonstration. You can’t get more than a few thousand in this cramped area.
The park is sandwiched between Broadway and Church. It’s bounded by Liberty St (and some other street I forgot the name of). On one side is the Brown Brothers Harriman Building (talk about white spats).
On the other is the rapidly rising world trade building.
The cops have the place surrounded. But it was very clear that these policemen were not looking for trouble. Two blocks away, I found where the police had set up a command post. I suspect the guys with the helmets were resting over there.
Congressman Eric Cantor made a foolish remark over the weekend. He referred to the happenings in lower Manhattan as a “Mob Scene”. Cantor’s an ass. He has no clue what is going on. This was just a dumb sound bite. He will regret it.
There was no mob. There were no professional provocateurs. There was festive attitude. There was no anarchy.
The following pictures are the scenes that I saw. Look at the people in the background; you will not see anything threatening at all.
There was some attempt to bring order. A library, medical area, kitchen, a media center, legal aid and even a store for “essentials”:
Some people were painting signs:
Others were just painting people:
Wherever you looked there were signs. Just a few of the many:
There was one sign that caught my eye. I’m willing to bet it has also caught the eye of the FBI.
I left the area thinking that this very small group of people couldn’t possibly make much of a difference. It’s a rag tag demonstration. More a party than a serious effort to change the financial system. But as I walked north I thought of a different time in history. One that I participated in. To me, there was a very similar feeling in Zuccotti Park in 2011 to what existed in San Francisco in 1967.
The 1967 Summer of Love was a period where social/political changes began. The allure of sex, drugs, and rock and roll were very powerful magnets for this 17 year old.
I crossed the country and spent a few memorable months in San Francisco’s Haight Ashbury District.
I slept in a crash pad. I went to the Fillmore West and watched Jim Morrison of the Doors sing “Light My Fire” till sun came up. And yes, there were drugs. And yes there was “Free Love” in the park. And yes, it was a hell of a party. And yes, there was not much relevance to the whole thing.
But three years later a million people marched on D.C. and it altered the outcome of a war. It also tore the country inside out. It would be a big mistake to dismiss what is going on in Zuccotti Park. Whatever is happening there, it's not going to go away. It’s going to get bigger.
»
- advertisements -
Don't forget the wars, Freddie! That is the real rathole....perpetual war. War on terror, war on drugs, war without end.
Unconstitutional wars.
That's the least that should be attempted. Cut everything that isn't constitutional and that will be a real start.
There are many ways to vote with your feet.
First they eat the rich, then the almost rich, then the wannabe rich... If looting were the answer, we'd know that by now. At least you and the cops are getting your exercise.
bruce,
i'm with you on the criticism of the banks and the money system and so many , many things.
but youre not the only one compairing the 60's to what this protest represents. other's are comparing this protest to the arab protests (as if the various arab protests are are all the same). people are always looking for a comparison, and to do a good job you have to compare causes and results of the protests. i just think you provided an effortless and hollow attempt at making a comparison.
furthermore, this isn't the 60's. and spewing cliches like 'history doesn't repeat itself it ryhmes' isn't cover for providing thoughtful analysis.
that said.....the bottom line is the protests will not be taken seriously until they provoke violence, or until they actually organize themselves and make very specific demands. neither of which they are willling or capable of doing right now. to boot, zucotti park and no megaphones allowed by police is like putting protesters in an open air jail and saying, hang out all you want but don't impinge on your surroundings. the right of assembly is all about the threat of the mob. if the mob had no threat by way of violence implicityly, then no one would be worried about them assembling 'nonviolently' to organize their effort at influencing voting and non-voting power.
---------------
i have my own sources on this protest. i've encouraged a few new york kids to go , 20 somethings, back in early august. they had no clue what i was talking about. but now theyre jumping on like parrot sheep and all about the protesting even though they have no clue what they are talking about...they are anti-fracking hippies who i met and tried convincing them fracking isn't the worst thing. we found some common ground and they trusted me enough to listen to my advice to check out the protests from day 1.
i won't participate in them myself. i've spent plenty of time eating lunch and playing chess in zucotti park in years past. it's a nice park. i really hope the protesters make it through the winter. i'd be honestly dissapointed in them if they did not. if they don't have direction, they can at least have sticking power. if they make excuses for the weather, then i will lose all respect for them.
I was down there this weekend. A guy was walking around with a small bowl filled with loose change. He asked me, "Do you need any money?" I said no thank you, and threw a few bucks in.
When was the last time anyone asked if you needed money, and made good on their offer???
"When was the last time anyone asked if you needed money, and made good on their offer???"
This happens frequently in the Christian community. It's better not to ask if they need it because a lot of people who need money will deny it out of pride. It's better just to give it to them privately or even better anonymously so they can't try to give it back.
Thanks for staying on topic and contributing something relevant to my original point.
One of the OWS complaints I read is that the banks made loans which they knew could not be repaid. So when is free money good and when is it bad?
"One of the OWS complaints I read is that the banks made loans which they knew could not be repaid."
Why would the banks do such a stupid thing? Of course, the reason is it wasn't stupid. Our government (thru Fannie and Freddie) agreed to buy any loans made by banks that met certain specific criteria. This included zero down payment loans on no income verification.
So the banks knew they would be paid--by the taxpayers. Had they not known that, they would not have made the loans. So should we be complaining about the banks? Or about a government that had the power to make it profitable for banks to act in what would otherwise be a stupid manner?
Power in the hands of folks who have a monopoly on the use of force is the most dangerous power. The OWS folks seem to think the problem is that government power is good. But it was not exercised wisely. My take is that any power will always be abused eventually and here we are at eventually in this iteration of human history. The solution is to remove power from folk who also have a monopoly on the use of force; not to gve them more power and demand that this time, they act wisely and without corruption. It's not different this time.
I'll step out on a limb here. I can support free money in the case it is given by one individual directly to another, in the absense of any institution or conditions attached as to how one should use the money. This is called charity.
Central banks who print money or governments who redistribute wealth have their own motivations other than charity. As a libertarian Austrian economist, you should support my right to give my money to those I see fit.
Your example of "banks that made loans which they knew could not be repaid" does not count as free money, because the loans are supposed to be paid back with interest, and collateral is siezed in the event of default.
In the case of OWS, the bowl of change has no stings attached, except for the honor system. Sure, I could have scooped the entire bowl and bought a subway pass or a falafel. Someone sleeping on the ground will need that money long before I do.
I loathe the banks and the Fed. Especially Robert Rubin (the genius) Dem's CitiCrap.
However - ACORN, community organizers and CRAs sued the banks in Chicago and other places years ago. They forced banks to throw away credit scoring or credit analysis to approving or denying loans because it was "racist." This was all part of Ayre/Cloward/Piven to wreck the system. Illegals and others got loans and mtgs they could never repay. It is not just the banks and Fed who caused this.
In return, ACORN got voters. Once again, politically motivated.
Of course it applies. If, as OWS suggests, the bankers knowingly made loans to those who couldn't pay the money back then no payback was expected.
Money can never be free. If money were to be handed out on a regular basis with no strings attached it would stop being money. That's why the Fed's policies are destroying the savings of regular folks.
Supposedly free money is one of problems with the system. Everybody wants some and then they find out they're buried in it. Then they blame the people who gave them the free money. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Payback does not have to be in the form of dollars. In the case of a mortgage, the loan is "paid back" when the bank siezes the property, and resells it at auction (assuming the foreclosure process has not been mucked up by documents robo signed by Linda Green). Loans at interest aren't free. Neither is entitlement spending, when entitlement recipients are expected to return the favor with votes.
Sorry, but where is the acceptance of responsibility on the part of dead beat borrowers? The allure of cheap credit was so demanding that it overcame the debtors' free will? We had a debt addiction?
This is part of the problem... when the debtors can come out and admit they fucked up and be the bigger man, then they can make all the demands in the world upon the banks... until they're willing to do so, their efforts will be undermined by moral illegitimacy.
Same goes for the administration or legislature attempting to implement any remedial measures or austerity prior to prosecuting the hordes of assholes who took a big shit on the country.
The simple fact is that it took two to tango... but everyone's desire to play the victim has caused them to deny this fact.
Way off my original point of a couple bucks worth of free change, but here we go. When the fraction reserve banking system creates only principal, but loans must be repaid with principal AND interest, there are bound to be defaults. If you analyze a pool of mortgages, the expected default rate is very easy to determine, and modify.
Borrowing from the banks is a rigged game that on the macro level, the banks always win. Sure, some folks win and pay back their loans plus interest, but their simply isn't enough money in the system for everyone to do so. The only way to add money to the system is through inflation or creating more loans.
And if prospective borrowers demand inflation (although they don't know it) and/or new loans, then what? The entire point is that so long as there is demand for drugs, drugs will exist. So long as there is demand for credit, credit will exist. Now, the war on credit will end about as successfully as the war on drugs, but I digress.
So when people go into the casino, you blame the casino rather than the patrons? Do you not believe in some semblance of free will sufficient enough to force people to be responsible for their own actions?
Why is it so hard for people to admit that anytime you borrow money, EVEN TO BUY A HOUSE, you are a speculator? (you're virtually always a speculator, given how you spend your time, but that's not really the point). That even if buying the home solely as a humble abode, you are still a speculator? Why is it so hard to admit this?
Again, until deadbeat debtors are able to blame themselves, at least in part, for the present ills of our system, they will have no goodwill or viable political fuel or moral legitimacy to their claims... their efforts to change the system will be solely via mob justice, if at all. This is unreasonable.
If the government would take this approach and admit its own wrong doing and punish those who gamed the shit out of it (broke the law, bought rule changes, etc.), then they would have the goodwill to actually implement a much needed dose of austerity. Good luck with that shit in the meantime.
When all the casino games are rigged in the house favor, I blame the casinos. An American roulette wheel has 38 possible outcomes counting 0 and 00. However, it only pays out 36 to 1. Over long timeframes, that 2/36 is pure profit for the house, about 5.2%. Slot machines are programmed to payout out less than they take in. Don't even get me started on state lotteries. Interest works much the same way.
You, I and ZH readers are smart enough to realize this, but a lot of people aren't. They are blinded by the flashing lights and a shot at fortune. Casino opperators understand this and marekt themselves to people's emotions. Through informational asymmetry, they fleece those who do not know any better.
To take your speculator example out to the level of hyperbole, every economic transaction is a speculation. Even a farmer who sells his crop forward in the futures market to hedge costs is speculating. On which speculators do we blame market volatility?
While there certainly were deadbeats, I believe they are the exception rather than the norm. Peoples' sense of wealth is based on their position relative to those around them. You are probably closer to becoming a deadbeat yourself than you are to becoming part of the 1%, or 0.1%.
I beleive this is the overriding message of OWS: The 1% (especially the 0.1% or 0.01%) live a lifestyle of privledge the rest of us can't even imagine. The system is set up to benefit the 1% at the expense of the rest.
There's no doubt about me being closer to a deadbeat than getting in the illustrious 1%... but the difference between me (and many others) and the rest is that we're willing to call a spade a spade... we're willing to admit that we made speculative mistakes which lead to our demise. There is no mandate of fundamental/moral framework that requires everyone to OWN a house... or have a job... or anything else. However, too many people took these things for granted and, at the same time, ignored completely obvious signs time and time again that things were turning south. Kudos to all those who called the market downturn (I know I didn't)[although fuck all those who caused it in the first place and then bet the other side knowing it was a winner].
Ultimately, your viewpoint of your fellow citizenry is contemptuous. They're apparently too stupid to understand rudimentary math, the law of diminishing returns, or the effects of compounding interest. I'm sorry, but there are certain requisite thresholds from which no governmental regulation, no intervention, no external force can save people... I will posit that the vast majority of the present "deadbeats" have the mental ability and knowledge to have circumvented most of their present predicaments, especially on the topic of housing. Ultimately, it is your contemptuous viewpoint that leads to the nanny state and its inevitable ninnies and socialist/centrally planned collapse (see generally, the developed world at present).
Again, if the "deadbeats" will accept some blame in the equation... not all (it sure as fuck wasn't all their fault), but just some (and even expressed as a percentage of culpability, theirs pales in comparison). Once they do this, they will have the moral legitimacy to demand change... until they do so, they will be hypocrites and dismissed as such. Further, the solution is counter intuitive... it isn't to give them more governmental protections, because this will just create more ninnies... the solution is to end the stranglehold on centrally planned interest rate targets (goosing the shit out of the economy for a short period of time causing wild speculative bubbles), especially by an organization, at least in formality, separate and apart from the citizenry.
I am not trying to be contemptuous in stating Americans that the average citizen does not understand math, diminishing returns, or compound interest. When Henry Ford said something along the lines of "if more Americans understood the nature of banking, there would be revolution in the streets tomorrow" he was referring to the same fractional, Federal Reserve system we have today. 90 years later, they still don't get it. Your average American still thinks the Federal Reserve is a branch of the Federal Government.
I also don't believe in socialist central planning. When the government provides for those who can't provide for themselves, yes it does create ninnies, like the ACORN drones. Having a job or owning a home is not a human right.
For the most part, people are good and honest. I do see a huge problem when a small percentage are allowed to profit enormously off the ignorance of the masses. And this is the message behind OWS. 1% of the population truly is taking advantage of the other 99%.
I agree with you that there are things the 99% must atone for, but it goes far beyond admitting taking out a mortgage was a bad speculation. If you work for a big corporation, especially a big bank, you are part of the problem. Anyone who buys cheap products manufactured by 3rd world slave labor is part of the problem. Take your money out of big banks, turn off the tv, and stop eating processed, manufactured food. Ending the Fed is a good start to accomplishing these goals.
The first step is to build a moral foundation for your prospective actions... At present, this is "they gamed the system better than us, AND THATS UNFAIR!@#@(@#@!" Ultimately, every protest for more bread and circuses (greece, wisconsin unions, et al) is saying just this... we're pissed because someone else gamed the system better [even though it was designed that way...] Sour grapes are sour... This needs to change to, "we admit that we have a problem... a spending problem... a problem keeping up with the joneses... and we were willing to overlook all else, including future generations, in order to recklessly spend. However, our transgressions were, in the scheme of things, not as severe as x, y, and z. Further, we seek structural changes to the system to ensure that no governmental entity or its bitch banking system(s) can unnaturally incite our addiction to credit. In addition, we want to implement rule changes that benefit those who did not partake in the credit party and who behaved responsibly throughout."
We're so far away from this it's not funny...
I'll also posit that you are contemptuous... if you feel like the ninnies deserve saving, then what point is there to having that thought if you are unwilling to implement regulation saving the ninnies? These issues are contradictory... Necessarily, any intrusion by the government to inter-meddle in the market and to save the ninnies is per se central planning. Either you're an idealistic dreamer whose theories are inconsistent with any practical application or you are simply in denial of your desire to centrally plan... I see no reconciliation of these beliefs.
I disagree that people are good at heart... they're only so good as their self interest coincides with yours... the trick is to keep the incentives mutual... something no central planner is capable... no matter how many computers, phds, or talking heads state otherwise.
"In addition, we want to implement rule changes that benefit those who did not partake in the credit party and who behaved responsibly throughout."
This statement is the epitome of sour grapes. You are clinging to a failed system. You are not your credit score. When Tyler spoke of the Great Reset in Fight Club, he said said "everyone goes to zero." He did not make an exception for those who have their mortgage paid off or acted responsibly. Are you going to dig through the rubble of the bombed out credit card company buildings to determine who was and wasn't responsible? Talk about impractical and idealistic.
I'll reiterate the fact that I am neither contemptuous in stating that the majority of people do not understand basic finance or econ, nor do I secretly desire central planning. I don't know how to make myself any clearer on this.
I never said the ninnies deserve to be saved. Rather, the 1% should not be accumulating wealth by exploiting their ignorance. As you said, a strong moral foundation is a good place to begin. In the short time I have spent at at various occupy events (both NYC as well as my local occupation) I have found their core self interests to be quite mutual. It is the interests of the 1% that are out of whack.
This brings me back to my original point about the bowl of free money. It was given by protesters to protesters, with a moral sense of trust that the funds would not be misappropriated. While this happens in religious communities, the same cannot be said about business (especially large corporations), government, or nearly any institution. What the occupiers are doing is a building a community that largely opperates outside the bounds of the current monetary/corparte system.
You and I have more in common than you think. It is the Federal Reserve that allows the exploitative status quo to operate, and should be abolished immediately
If you want to bring the bowl down here, I'll clean it out and go buy some useless shit made in china. It's easy for a household to behave ideally... broaden that to a city, country... hell, even a neighborhood... and well, things unravel pretty quickly. I don't think the example has any place except for the vacuum it currently resides.
My statement about building a system that doesn't punish the prudent is not sour grapes... it's NECESSARY for any moral legitimacy... I'm not saying that the practitioners of the FIRE industry and purveyors of fraudulent financial instruments are in any way productive nor prudent... There are many people out there who are not connected, do not have any inside information, do not have any politicians in their pockets, but through their own due diligence and not stepping on the backs of all others, ended up pointing to center field and then knocked it over the center field bleachers.
This is the paradox of communism/central planning... how does the perfect realization of the distribution of resources occur with no incentive to marginally produce? In this type of environment, there is no growth... there is only uncertainty, despair, and consternation. Production might occur, but only with the threat of the gun and then only so much as to not get killed.
This is why there are no free lunches and, likewise, no free houses. Moving forward, if you fucked up, you lose the house and we go on. No write downs, reductions, rewriting of contracts... just an eviction notice with a little picture of a middle finger at the bottom. This occurs contemporaneously with a remedial effort to reduce the wealth gap and to prosecute material financial crime with biblical zealotry. [no policy purveyor has a chance in hell of enacting austerity without punishing wrong doers and, likewise, no ninny has a chance in hell of asking for assistance without giving up the material ghost]. The two sides are basically at a standstill because neither is willing to accept the first step. And, frankly, familiarity is a more comfortable partner.
Again, part of the reason why people are "ignorant" isn't because of a lack of capacity... it isn't a lack of intelligence... these issues are not hard to understand... if something requires perpetual growth and growth does not keep up due to finite resources, what happens? If you spend more than you earn, is that sustainable? Simple, simple, simple. Ignorance is a willful refusal to see the obvious... and with this requisite mental state comes culpability.
You posit that the 1% should not be able to exploit the ignorance of the masses, well I posit that a willful refusal to educate yourself is tantamount to waiver. Aside from the fact that demand for americans' mindless consumption of goods and services is created via manipulation BY THE SELLER of the goods and/or intrinsic psychological functions... not out of real necessity or want. If you really want to get down to it, it's not just the FED, it's the lion's share of all business transactions... It all involves some degree of subterfuge or chicanery... obviously, though, to varying degrees... However, all of this process is DEMANDED by the "ignorant." Strange thing... The desire to be ignorant... willful suspension of disbelief. Kind of like a battered wife that initiates the relationship with the understanding that she'll be beaten...
So, the blanket statement that the FED should not be allowed to profit from the ignorance of others is completely the antithesis of the free market... in essence, it is the simple derivative of the "but they gamed the system better" argument... In other words, it's ok for mom and pop to do so, but the FED just does it too well... My proposal is that we take the training wheels off and send no mixed signals... You will be held accountable for your actions, no matter your size or systemic risk, so be aware that your ignorance of the law or your surroundings will not be an excuse... buyer beware. I'm not asking for a revision of a few hundred years of consumer protection, but clearly there is a happy medium in there somewhere that the protections created are not offset by ninnies created. The children of the depression wised up pretty damn quickly... and NEVER FORGOT the lesson.
The big problem through all of this is not the FED... it is the obnoxious expansionary prowess of government. As B9K9 says, if the banks did not exist, government would create them... If we are able to reduce the size and scope of governments, then there is no MIC (notice it expands proportionately with the government), there is no directive to give everyone a home, to indoctrinate every child, or even sovereigns to loan money to...
You might say it's as though banks were operating with the underlying assumption that they would be bailed out... This is because they're but a mere branch of the government itself... helping facilitate its directives.
In short, I consider the FED to be a distraction, like much else... the real focus should be on government in general... looks like Harrisburg has taken the first step in the right direction. I strongly suspect they'll take two back, but here's to hope.
Obamaville - All your parks are berong to us!
I just discovered a new interest in art.
There will be many outcomes from this protest movement. For me personally, who suffered an acute take down from the 2008 crisis and who suffered during a 30 year career in private industry watching my benefits diminish year after year while the top execs came and went always taking a huge hunk of cash regardless of the job they did, I am LIBERATED. Hope is blossoming.
I am energized by these recent events. Even if they come to nothing from the perspective of enabling systemic change they will assist more creative endeavors OUTSIDE of the "status quo". These demonstrations will enable community building by providing a forum for people to exchange ideas.
The elites depend upon the populous to be atomized, staying home and watching the propaganda machine. Now there is an alternative.
This is a great day.
From what I can see the propaganda machine loves OWS. Local news had a happy and bubbly story about OWS coming to Pittsburgh soon.
I just cannot figure out what the Obama adminstration is up to with the move against pot dispenaries in an election year. Let see. . . we're sucking in the polls . . . I know let's bust the post dispensaries in CA, the biggest democrat state in the country where we've already alienated the liberal wing of the party? WTF is going on? This isn't an accident, not in an election year . . . or maybe they're just that stupid?
Pigs just adore low-hanging fruit.
Obam's giving guns to the mexican drug cartels to try to disarm Americans. The Latin Drug Cartels do not want competition. Pot pharamacies drive prices down. You fail to understand the sick liberal mind.
Like the the astroturfers in NYC deficating on NY PD cop cars. If they deficated all over Goldman Sachs trading desk and in Buffett's bath then I might take these astroturfers seriously.
The aggressive crackdown comes a little more than two months after the Obama administration toughened its stand on medical marijuana.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/10/06/national/a132031D55.DTL#ixzz1aOMpKOMJThe anti pot effort is probably to appeal to the conservatives both North and South. Look at it as an experiment.
Never tried it myself. I am so dumb I need all my faculties, all the time; except, of course, when I am relaxing with friends with a good grade of Scotch.
But realistically, life is good. So what if my retirement managers lost a few hundred kilobucks at the '08 low. Within our family, at the low, Brandis did -47+%, Alliance Bernstein -40%, TIAA CREFT -~31%, and Fidelity (with some intervention by my Brother in Law, ~ 25%.
Need campaign money from Big Pharma...
LOL!!!! How could I be so dumb? Of course! Duh.
It is worse than that Amigo. The Hussein Administration was told by their bosses in MS-13, The Zetas, Mexicali and other drug cartels that they don't like competition in the drug business.
Competition lowers prices Amigo! You stupid Gringos know nothing of the Adam Smith - I theeenk. We like the monopolies like the GE and Senor Buffett have and your The GoldMan Sack -Muchacho! We poor drug cartel members like the Calamari named Blankfein. We no like to lose the money or pesos like the senor Paulson - hee's mo-mo investing is not so good I theeenk.
The drug cartels do like the free guns Obama gives them to kill American agents and Mexican citizens.
They probably make good campaign contributions too. And the banksters make good dough laundering their money . . . another eroding bankster profit center.
The anarchy supporters dont even know what pure anarchy would mean to everyone.
"Anarchy and capitalism are the same thing, you can't have one without the other." -- Rothbard.
Freedom is good.
Deep.
Here's the source of the quote and much more from my favorite Enemy of the State, Murray Rothbard:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard103.html
I think this has jumped the shark... The news was talking about an occupy memphis protest/rally...
The New York Times endorses OWS with some very good points:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/protesters-against-wall...
Since when is the NYT a scource of credible information?
Not one mention of how the economic disaster was perpetrated by Congress with its rules and regulations that created a housing bubble by requireing millions of bad mortgage loans. The toxic loans created big profits every time they were sold, back and forth between the banks until the bubble popped. Now the banks are stuck with all those toxic loans courtesy of Frank and Dodd.
Fannie and Freddie led the way and despite all the warnings to Congress by people such as GWB and McCain, Frank and Dodd kept pressing for more bad loans. Go back to the Glass Steagall Act of 1932 and this will not happen again. Oh, and keep Gramm, Leach, and Billie away from it.
Since when is the NYT a scource of credible information?
Not one mention of how the economic disaster was perpetrated by Congress with its rules and regulations that created a housing bubble by requiring millions of bad mortgage loans. The toxic loans created big profits every time they were sold, back and forth between the banks until the bubble popped. Now the banks are stuck with all those toxic loans courtesy of Frank and Dodd.
Fannie and Freddie led the way and despite all the warnings to Congress by people such as GWB and McCain, Frank and Dodd kept pressing for more bad loans. Go back to the Glass Steagall Act of 1932 and this will not happen again. Oh, and keep Gramm, Leach, and Billie away from it.
Lets face it. No news source is credible with anyone anymore unless is agrees with an individuals world view no matter how fucked up that may be.
But on to your Bullshit which I have to assume is more feces flung on the CRA that you bought wholesale from your favorite purveyors of false facts. I've asked people on here repeatedly to bring me one iota of evidence that congress forced banks to make bad loans. I haven't seen shit nor have received a single link from a unimpeachable source that this was true. Congress did facilitate the bubble but by no means did they cause it.
That's because they never forced a bank to make a bad loan. Why would they do that if they knew the govt would pay it back for the bank with your money. . The banks reverse red-lined the very same zip codes that the CRA asked them not to red line against making loans. In other words a person's skin color or their zip code should not automatically exclude them from the loan decision making process. That was the original thought.
The Banks turned that right on it's head and went after those zip codes as if there was gold down there. Because those were what was known as "marks" in the trade of cons and swindles. The people in those zip codes had never had a bank chasing them offering them a loan that was just conveniently priced with the teaser rate right under their rent until 2004. They weren't sophisticated buyers of financial products nor amazingly enough weren't they able to read 1 Point Arabic Type.
That doesn't make them any more responsible for trusting people they thought were trustworthy (who were pressuring them to "sign now" because the house would "double in a year" and "They wouldn't qualify") as apparently the big money, smart money did too because they didn't know those mortgages were toxic and designed to fail when they bought the CDOs that the rating houses gave out Triple AAA ratings to anyone with the money, yet wouldn't supply the underlying loan tapes to their analysts as they told them exactly what the client wanted: "A Triple AAA rating or your fucking job". That is why one email in between analysts stood out " We would rate a Cow" wrote one to the other.<P>
So here is what you can do: Supply the news source that has the data that you are creatively using to craft your "unassailable argument" or at least give us the page where you grabbed your talking points off of. I 'd really be curious to see how you confused the Frank and Dodd act with the senators themselves who you somehow think personally made the banks loan money out against their will as you creatively dodge a thousand news reports from all sources that the whole thing was a scam that will probably cost us the country even though it was against existing law that will never be enforced.<P>
Law enforcement could have used the Glass Steagull act but it really wasn't necessary with RICO available for corporations that had turned into criminal enterprises and regular everyday statutes against wire fraud, falsifying loan documents, kickbacks, perjury and all the rest. For the top .1% there was the Sarbane's Oxley bill that made the CEO criminally responsible if they signed off on financial statements that were fraudulent whether they knew it or not.
In short your BS is like a dog at the beginning of dog race that finds his balls more interesting and starts licking them furiously which causes him to miss the call "Here comes Sparky" along with the bell. The same way you apparently missed the hundreds of articles off these pages that provided half asleep law enforcement officials all the evidence they needed for probable cause at the very least and many times "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence that the banker indeed brought the world to it's feet, not two senators, some poor people and some electronic gadgets.
Ideologues who ignore contrary proof to their preferred ideology are no better than Economic Academics who actually think Economics is a science where validation experiments of theory are implemented as policy that governs millions of people.
Go ahead and keep licking your balls. Nothing to see here.
dup
But the Old Gray Lady has an all poof-fairy editorial board. How can you be so politically incorrect? ;)
of course the irony of the Haight Ashbury cohort is that they populate Wall Street, Washington and layed the foundation for the "new morality" we are enjoying today
I noticed a lot of union membership & the usual communist/anarchist crowd at the protest. Credibility dropped immediately. One person was demanding a 4 day work week. LOL.
A four day work week would certainly go a long way in helping with unemployment. I recall one company I worked for that implemented that very strategy in the 90's to keep their people.it wasn't popular with everyone but sure did take the stress out of losing your job especially for our older workers. One of the best companies I ever worked for.