Support NeoGAF

[XMonkey]

What corporate movement has actually won? The tobacco companies lost. The asbestos companies lost. The gun companies lost (here in Canada at least). Those pushing the housing bubble lost. McDonalds lost. The polluters have lost. Every time Wall St. runs amok they lose. We are up to our eyeballs with new regulations since the financial crisis.

This is insane. No, we are absolutely not up to our eyeballs in regulation since the financial crisis. Tell me how Wall St. loses when they gamble the financial system away, only to have citizens bail them out, while they then go back to making profit a few years later and the citizen is left holding the bill? The notion of risk is entirely backwards in this country. Banks now understand they can get away with making incredibly risky and fraudulent decisions, that ordinarily would put them out of business when it all came crashing down, only to have the citizens involuntarily bail them out. The same citizens they fucked over with their actions. There is no punishment for these actions so they will only keep trying to get away with it all over again.

Citizens do control corporations. Citizens make the laws that corporations have to follow. Citizens are speaking now in real time. The laws, regulations, and guidelines that corporations have to follow are changing. They have changed in massive ways since the financial crisis. Thanks to citizens.

Actually, lobbyists write a lot of the legislation in this country. Lobbyists, employed by wealthy special interests who can afford to staff hundreds of people to talk the ears off politicians, not you or I. I mean this literally: they craft the actual language in the bills. Citizens do not write the laws in this country.

Our laws have also not changed in massive ways since the financial crisis so I don't know where you're pulling that from.

I'm not ignorant. I'm living in the real world. A world where laws are drafted by politicians who are elected, and in some cases can be recalled, by the citizens they represent. Democracy is not unique to the United States. Democracies exist all over the world! And they all work the same. People are in charge.

You're obviously wrapped up in some sort of fantasy world

Couldn't agree more.

 

[sh4mike]

Are you fucking kidding me

Alright, I admit I didn't get past that horrendous second sentence. That combined with what you bolded put me off from browsing through the piece. I gave it another shot following your incredulous response, and I agree that it's actually a substantial look at indecent behavior.

My apologies.

 

[SouthernDragon]

RSTEIN is a sort of literalist, I figure. If you don't show him a file in Corporation X saying "RSTEIN" and is filled with documents detailing how they plan on controlling him, I'd say he won't accept it.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I may be going to the one in Seattle broken spine and all. Only thing holding me back is fear of people bumping into me. Ive been to every major riot and protest in Seattle for the last 15 years. Makes me weep to think about missing this one.

 

[Bloodbeard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SteFCO5wUu4&feature=player_embedded

 

[Karakand]

Yup, best thing we can do is to eliminate all deductions, uncap and lower the payroll tax, and increase the capital gains tax on people making over X amount of money.

I would also be fine with extending short-term capital gains to 3-5 years and the creation of a new tax bracket for people making over a million or something.

Fun thing: eliminate Schedule D and make all capital asset sale proceeds go through Schedule C. So much money for SS and Medicare.

 

[marrec]

I may be going to the one in Seattle broken spine and all. Only thing holding me back is fear of people bumping into me. Ive been to every major riot and protest in Seattle for the last 15 years. Makes me weep to think about missing this one.

No wonder you have a broken spine, that's like a riot a week.

Anyone have any info on an Occupy Pittsburgh? I don't want to participate, I just want to photograph.

 

[RSTEIN]

This is insane. No, we are absolutely not up to our eyeballs in regulation since the financial crisis. Tell me how Wall St. loses when they gamble the financial system away, only to have citizens bail them out, while they then go back to making profit a few years later and the citizen is left holding the bill? The notion of risk is entirely backwards in this country. Banks now understand they can get away with making incredibly risky and fraudulent decisions, that ordinarily would put them out of business when it all came crashing down, only to have the citizens involuntarily bail them out. The same citizens they fucked over with their actions. There is no punishment for these actions so they will only keep trying to get away with it all over again.

I see the regulation. I have a front row seat.

Wall St. firms went bankrupt. Thousands lost their jobs. I lost my job.

They had to be bailed out. People made bad decisions. Both the customers of the banks and the banks themselves made bad decisions. When it was apparent they were ALL going to go under, it didn't matter who did what up to that point. We avoided a catastrophe with the bailout.

I agree there is an assymetry. The consequences of risk taking should be there for the people who benefit from the risk taking. No institution should hold the economy hostage.

 

[Zabka]

Alright, I admit I didn't get past that horrendous second sentence. That combined with what you bolded put me off from browsing through the piece. I gave it another shot following your incredulous response, and I agree that it's actually a substantial look at indecent behavior.

My apologies.

Cool beans. No harm done.

 

[empty vessel]

I see the regulation. I have a front row seat.

You keep saying this but have yet to articulate it.

While we're waiting, here is a timeline of financial deregulation.

• 1978, Marquette vs. First of Omaha – Supreme Court allows banks to export the usury laws of their home state nationwide and sets off a competitive wave of deregulation, resulting in the complete elimination of usury rate ceilings in South Dakota and Delaware, among others.
• 1980, Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act – Legislation increases deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000, authorizes new authority to thrift institutions, and calls for the complete phase-out of interest rate ceilings on deposit accounts.
• 1982, Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act – Bill deregulates thrifts almost entirely, allowing commercial lending and providing for a new account to compete with money market mutual funds. This was a Reagan administration initiative that passed with strong bi-partisan support.
• 1987, FSLIC Insolvency – GAO declares the deposit insurance fund of the savings and loan industry to be insolvent as a result of mounting institutional failures.
• 1989, Financial Institutions Reform and Recovery Act – Act abolishes the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and FSLIC, transferring them to OTS and the FDIC, respectively. The plan also creates the Resolution Trust Corporation to resolve failed thrifts.
• 1994, Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act – This bill eliminated previous restrictions on interstate banking and branching. It passed with broad bipartisan support.
• 1996, Fed Reinterprets Glass-Steagall – Federal Reserve reinterprets the Glass-Steagall Act several times, eventually allowing bank holding companies to earn up to 25 percent of their revenues in investment banking.
• 1998, Citicorp-Travelers Merger – Citigroup, Inc. merges a commercial bank with an insurance company that owns an investment bank to form the world’s largest financial services company.
• 1999, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – With support from Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Rubin and his successor Lawrence Summers, the bill repeals the Glass-Steagall Act completely.
• 2000, Commodity Futures Modernization Act – Passed with support from the Clinton Administration, including Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bi-partisan support in Congress. The bill prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps.
• 2004, Voluntary Regulation – The SEC proposes a system of voluntary regulation under the Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowing investment banks to hold less capital in reserve and increase leverage.
• 2007, Subprime Mortgage Crisis – Defaults on subprime loans send shockwaves throughout the secondary mortgage market and the entire financial system.
• December 2007, Term Auction Facility – Special liquidity facility of the Federal Reserve lends to depository institutions. Unlike lending through the discount window, there is no public disclosure on loans made through this facility.
• March 2008, Bear Stearns Collapse – The investment bank is sold to JP Morgan Chase with assistance from the Federal Reserve.
• March 2008, Primary Dealer Facilities – Special lending facilities open the discount window to investment banks, accepting a broad range of asset-backed securities as collateral.
• July 2008, Housing and Economic Recovery Act – Provides guarantees on new mortgages to subprime borrowers and authorizes a new federal agency, the FHFA, which eventually places Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship.
• September 2008, Lehman Brothers Collapse – Investment bank files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
• October 2008, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act – Bill authorizes the Treasury to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program to purchase distressed mortgage-backed securities and inject capital into the nation’s banking system. Also increases deposit insurance from $100,000 to $250,000.
• Late 2008, Money Market Liquidity Facilities – Federal Reserve facilities created to facilitate the purchase of various money market instruments.
• March 2009, Public-Private Investment Program – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner introduces his plan to subsidize the purchase of toxic assets with government guarantees.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf

You can feel free to explain what pieces have been put back in place.

 

[Piecake]

You keep saying this but have yet to articulate it.

While we're waiting, here is a timeline of financial deregulation.

• 1978, Marquette vs. First of Omaha – Supreme Court allows banks to export the usury laws of their home state nationwide and sets off a competitive wave of deregulation, resulting in the complete elimination of usury rate ceilings in South Dakota and Delaware, among others.
• 1980, Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act – Legislation increases deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000, authorizes new authority to thrift institutions, and calls for the complete phase-out of interest rate ceilings on deposit accounts.
• 1982, Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act – Bill deregulates thrifts almost entirely, allowing commercial lending and providing for a new account to compete with money market mutual funds. This was a Reagan administration initiative that passed with strong bi-partisan support.
• 1987, FSLIC Insolvency – GAO declares the deposit insurance fund of the savings and loan industry to be insolvent as a result of mounting institutional failures.
• 1989, Financial Institutions Reform and Recovery Act – Act abolishes the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and FSLIC, transferring them to OTS and the FDIC, respectively. The plan also creates the Resolution Trust Corporation to resolve failed thrifts.
• 1994, Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act – This bill eliminated previous restrictions on interstate banking and branching. It passed with broad bipartisan support.
• 1996, Fed Reinterprets Glass-Steagall – Federal Reserve reinterprets the Glass-Steagall Act several times, eventually allowing bank holding companies to earn up to 25 percent of their revenues in investment banking.
• 1998, Citicorp-Travelers Merger – Citigroup, Inc. merges a commercial bank with an insurance company that owns an investment bank to form the world’s largest financial services company.
• 1999, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – With support from Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Rubin and his successor Lawrence Summers, the bill repeals the Glass-Steagall Act completely.
• 2000, Commodity Futures Modernization Act – Passed with support from the Clinton Administration, including Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bi-partisan support in Congress. The bill prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps.
• 2004, Voluntary Regulation – The SEC proposes a system of voluntary regulation under the Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowing investment banks to hold less capital in reserve and increase leverage.
• 2007, Subprime Mortgage Crisis – Defaults on subprime loans send shockwaves throughout the secondary mortgage market and the entire financial system.
• December 2007, Term Auction Facility – Special liquidity facility of the Federal Reserve lends to depository institutions. Unlike lending through the discount window, there is no public disclosure on loans made through this facility.
• March 2008, Bear Stearns Collapse – The investment bank is sold to JP Morgan Chase with assistance from the Federal Reserve.
• March 2008, Primary Dealer Facilities – Special lending facilities open the discount window to investment banks, accepting a broad range of asset-backed securities as collateral.
• July 2008, Housing and Economic Recovery Act – Provides guarantees on new mortgages to subprime borrowers and authorizes a new federal agency, the FHFA, which eventually places Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship.
• September 2008, Lehman Brothers Collapse – Investment bank files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
• October 2008, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act – Bill authorizes the Treasury to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program to purchase distressed mortgage-backed securities and inject capital into the nation’s banking system. Also increases deposit insurance from $100,000 to $250,000.
• Late 2008, Money Market Liquidity Facilities – Federal Reserve facilities created to facilitate the purchase of various money market instruments.
• March 2009, Public-Private Investment Program – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner introduces his plan to subsidize the purchase of toxic assets with government guarantees.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf

You can feel free to explain what pieces have been put back in place.

Glass-Steagall please.

Oh, and Marquette vs. First of Omaha was one shitty ruling. First time I contacted my Senator was when she voted no on the Whitehouse Bill.

 

[AbsoluteZero]

Occupy Sacramento Protesters Lash Out at Local Media

Protestors, getting angry at news crews isn't helping your cause.

Knowing what you're there for helps as well.

Edit: Blonde chick with the glasses reminds me of Britta.

 

[etiolate]

Sacramento local news is hilariously dumb.

 

[Enron]

Occupy Sacramento Protesters Lash Out at Local Media

Protestors, getting angry at news crews isn't helping your cause.

Knowing what you're there for helps as well.

Edit: Blonde chick with the glasses reminds me of Britta.

That was so bad, I half expect that those people were just hired to go on camera and make Occupy look bad. But I know they weren't. Yikes.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

You keep saying this but have yet to articulate it.

While we're waiting, here is a timeline of financial deregulation.

• 1978, Marquette vs. First of Omaha – Supreme Court allows banks to export the usury laws of their home state nationwide and sets off a competitive wave of deregulation, resulting in the complete elimination of usury rate ceilings in South Dakota and Delaware, among others.
• 1980, Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act – Legislation increases deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000, authorizes new authority to thrift institutions, and calls for the complete phase-out of interest rate ceilings on deposit accounts.
• 1982, Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act – Bill deregulates thrifts almost entirely, allowing commercial lending and providing for a new account to compete with money market mutual funds. This was a Reagan administration initiative that passed with strong bi-partisan support.
• 1987, FSLIC Insolvency – GAO declares the deposit insurance fund of the savings and loan industry to be insolvent as a result of mounting institutional failures.
• 1989, Financial Institutions Reform and Recovery Act – Act abolishes the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and FSLIC, transferring them to OTS and the FDIC, respectively. The plan also creates the Resolution Trust Corporation to resolve failed thrifts.
• 1994, Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act – This bill eliminated previous restrictions on interstate banking and branching. It passed with broad bipartisan support.
• 1996, Fed Reinterprets Glass-Steagall – Federal Reserve reinterprets the Glass-Steagall Act several times, eventually allowing bank holding companies to earn up to 25 percent of their revenues in investment banking.
• 1998, Citicorp-Travelers Merger – Citigroup, Inc. merges a commercial bank with an insurance company that owns an investment bank to form the world’s largest financial services company.
• 1999, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – With support from Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Rubin and his successor Lawrence Summers, the bill repeals the Glass-Steagall Act completely.
• 2000, Commodity Futures Modernization Act – Passed with support from the Clinton Administration, including Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bi-partisan support in Congress. The bill prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps.
• 2004, Voluntary Regulation – The SEC proposes a system of voluntary regulation under the Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowing investment banks to hold less capital in reserve and increase leverage.
• 2007, Subprime Mortgage Crisis – Defaults on subprime loans send shockwaves throughout the secondary mortgage market and the entire financial system.
• December 2007, Term Auction Facility – Special liquidity facility of the Federal Reserve lends to depository institutions. Unlike lending through the discount window, there is no public disclosure on loans made through this facility.
• March 2008, Bear Stearns Collapse – The investment bank is sold to JP Morgan Chase with assistance from the Federal Reserve.
• March 2008, Primary Dealer Facilities – Special lending facilities open the discount window to investment banks, accepting a broad range of asset-backed securities as collateral.
• July 2008, Housing and Economic Recovery Act – Provides guarantees on new mortgages to subprime borrowers and authorizes a new federal agency, the FHFA, which eventually places Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship.
• September 2008, Lehman Brothers Collapse – Investment bank files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
• October 2008, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act – Bill authorizes the Treasury to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program to purchase distressed mortgage-backed securities and inject capital into the nation’s banking system. Also increases deposit insurance from $100,000 to $250,000.
• Late 2008, Money Market Liquidity Facilities – Federal Reserve facilities created to facilitate the purchase of various money market instruments.
• March 2009, Public-Private Investment Program – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner introduces his plan to subsidize the purchase of toxic assets with government guarantees.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf

You can feel free to explain what pieces have been put back in place.

Wow. A list of regulations eventually dealt away with. If you want to get serious you're going to have to explain how each one of those deruglations has been harmful to our economy and society and I want proof of each one.

 

[Bloodbeard]

Occupy Sacramento Protesters Lash Out at Local Media

Protestors, getting angry at news crews isn't helping your cause.

Knowing what you're there for helps as well.

Edit: Blonde chick with the glasses reminds me of Britta.

smfh

 

[Piecake]

Wow. A list of regulations eventually dealt away with. If you want to get serious you're going to have to explain how each one of those deruglations has been harmful to our economy and society and I want proof of each one.

Well, if Glass-Steagall was still around, we would not have had to bail out those banks since the consequences of letting them fail would not have been catastrophic. I would say repealing that was definitely harmful.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Wow. A list of regulations eventually dealt away with. If you want to get serious you're going to have to explain how each one of those deruglations has been harmful to our economy and society and I want proof of each one.

You only need one.

Financial collapse of 2008.

 

[RSTEIN]

You keep saying this but have yet to articulate it.

While we're waiting, here is a timeline of financial deregulation.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours? give me an example of how the so-called corporate elite have taken advantage of you or have interfered with your basic rights. I keep asking but you but you never give me an answer.

 

[UltimaPooh]

I'll show you mine if you show me yours? give me an example of how the so-called corporate elite have taken advantage of you or have interfered with your basic rights. I keep asking but you but you never give me an answer.

Arbitration agreements? Just to name a tiny common one.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Arbitration agreements? Just to name a tiny common one.

Hyping up and selling shitty assets then betting against them.

 

[dave is ok]

I'll show you mine if you show me yours? give me an example of how the so-called corporate elite have taken advantage of you or have interfered with your basic rights. I keep asking but you but you never give me an answer.

Lobbying for caps on damages in civil courts nationwide and putting pro-defendant judges in state supreme courts has diminished the ability for a lone citizen to fight a corporation in the one branch of government that wasn't already bought and paid for.

 

[cooljeanius]

So I managed to catch the march on the IMF as it was coming by the IMF, because the IMF is right on campus. I joined in and followed it back to McPherson Square, where they still had my sign I had left there earlier! The movement's definitely grown, there are actually a lot of people there now. Not enough to fill up the entire square yet though. We filled up about half, while the other half was divided into one quarter where Jewish people were holding a Yom Kippur service, and the other quarter was filled with ducks. I attended the General Assembly at 6, which was definitely really interesting. It's kind of amazing how quickly this movement has already created its own processes for making decision-making and its own subculture's norms. The stack, the "People's Mic" (repeating what someone's saying so everyone can hear them), finger wiggling instead of applause... Anyway, I also took pictures:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150325363551297.338700.605966296&type=3&saved

 

[Bloodbeard]

Whttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1MOMKZ8BI&feature=player_embedded

 

[demon]

Just unfriended somebody on facebook after getting sick of his intellectual diarrhea shitting up my wall, particularly the last week or two. And he's an otherwise pretty sharp guy. This was the last straw:

http://i.imgur.com/CxhkQ.jpg

I think it had thousands of shares too so it's making the rounds. The mental gymnastics it must take to convince yourself that this is what the movement is about. Sorry but I don't see any "end corporations" signs in that picture. ugh.

 

[XMonkey]

I'll show you mine if you show me yours? give me an example of how the so-called corporate elite have taken advantage of you or have interfered with your basic rights. I keep asking but you but you never give me an answer.

Please explain how we're "up to our eyeballs in new regulation" that followed after the financial crisis, as well as how the laws in our country have "massively changed" following the financial crisis.

Besides that, don't you live in Canada? If so, have you ever once lived in the US?

 

[empty vessel]

Wow. A list of regulations eventually dealt away with. If you want to get serious you're going to have to explain how each one of those deruglations has been harmful to our economy and society and I want proof of each one.

I think it's bizarre that you would request an example of how "each one" of those deregulations has been harmful, as if that would be required to show how the deregulatory agenda has harmed the economy. But here's how some of them contributed to the financial crisis:

Many factors have contributed to the growth of subprime lending. Most fundamentally, it became legal. The ability to charge high rates and fees to borrowers was not possible until the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) was adopted in 1980. It preempted state interest rate caps. The Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (AMTPA) in 1982 permitted the use of variable interest rates and balloon payments.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/ChomPennCross.pdf

And this:

This study analyzes the trends in the financial sector over the past 30 years, and argues that unsupervised financial innovations and lenient government regulation are at the root of the current financial crisis and recession. Combined with a long period of economic expansion during which default rates were stable and low, deregulation and unsupervised financial innovations generated incentives to make risky financial decisions. Those decisions were taken because it was the only way for financial institutions to maintain market share and profitability. Thus, rather than putting the blame on individuals, this paper places it on an economic setup that requires the growing use of Ponzi processes during enduring economic expansion, and on a regulatory system that is unwilling to recognize (on the contrary, it contributes to) the intrinsic instability of market mechanisms. Subprime lending, greed, and speculation are merely aspects of the larger
mechanisms at work.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/files/download.php?file=wp_573_2.pdf&pubid=1171

Not to mention this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAH-o7oEiyY

Deregulation in other areas has contributed to other problems as well, of course (e.g., S&L crisis). In many instances, it was not even so much what Congress did as much as what organized business interests used their financial influence to thwart Congress from doing, such as, e.g., regulating CDSs.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours? give me an example of how the so-called corporate elite have taken advantage of you or have interfered with your basic rights. I keep asking but you but you never give me an answer.

I did give you an answer. You chose to ignore it and pretend I didn't. Citizens United pulled the rug out from the last vestiges of popular sovereignty, transforming the US from a democracy founded on popular sovereignty into a country with a government of inherent authority no longer requiring the consent of the governed. Citizens United was decided by five justices appointed by an executive and approved by a Senate heavily influenced by organized business interests (Reagan, Bush I and Bush II).

Beyond that, pervasive corporate influence over government throughout the last three decades has resulted in policy changes (whether through affirmative deregulation, "policy drift" (unresponsiveness to changed circumstances), and changes to the tax code) that have caused approximately 95% of Americans to have lower standards of living (amounting to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of income per household cumulatively) than they otherwise would had policy not shifted to accommodate the increasing injection of money into the political system by organized business forces over the last thirty years:

If the politics of electoral spectacle is about winning elections, the politics of organized combat is about transforming what government does. Did the shifting balance of organized interests lead to major changes in the governance of the American political economy? The answer is yes, and in this section, we document these changes in four crucial policy arenas: taxation, industrial relations, executive compensation, and financial markets. ...

Piketty and Saez’s results, presented in Figure 5, are striking in several respects. First, they suggest that the role of taxes in rising inequality is much more pronounced if one concentrates on the very top income groups. As they put it, “t is important to decompose the top of the income distribution into very small groups to capture the progressivity of the tax system.”69 The changes of the tax rate for those at the ninetieth percentile, and even the ninety-eighth percentile, have actually been quite modest over the past four decades. By contrast, there have been startlingly large changes for those in the top 1 percent. This is mostly because of the declining role of the corporate income tax and the estate tax. Progressivity used to be very pronounced at the very top of the tax code; now it is almost entirely absent. ...

Equally striking is the enduring nature of the policy shift. Although the early years of the Reagan administration figure prominently, the change began in the 1970s. The initial drop came through large cuts in the capital gains tax and other taxes on the well-to-do passed, after very intense business lobbying, by a Congress composed of large Democratic majorities in both chambers and signed into law by a Democratic president.

Moreover, it is difficult to trace these developments to any straightforward shift in public opinion regarding taxation. Research on both the tax cuts of the early 1980s and those of the past few years suggest that organized interests have played a prominent role, both in keeping tax cuts on the agenda and shaping policy to focus the gains of tax-policy changes on those at the very top of the income distribution. ...

The evolution of industrial relations in the United States provides the second crucial chapter in the tale of winner-take-all inequality’s rise. ... The severe decline of organized labor in the United States was in part a political outcome, driven by new antiunion enactments as well the failure to update policy to reflect the increasing relative strength of employers in a more global, service-oriented economy. There were policy alternatives that would have reduced the decline, and that had advocates within the United States. The opponents of such reforms, possessing formidable and growing organizational resources, mobilized effectively to stop them. They then used their organizational resources to exploit the resulting drift and launch a vigorous assault on American labor, with effects felt not just in the economic sphere but also in American politics. ...

While changes in taxation and the reach of unions are obviously germane to inequality, the case for discussion of corporate governance requires some defense. No one disputes that rising executive pay has played a central role in mounting American inequality. Although it is difficult to generate precise numbers, Piketty and Saez suggest that perhaps half of the pretax gains of the top 1 percent reflect the explosion of executive compensation. ...

The rise in executive pay seems related to a broader shift in structures of corporate governance, ostensibly toward maximization of “shareholder value” but arguably toward what Peter Gourevitch and James Shinn call “managerism,” in which opportunities for well-positioned elites to extract resources increase. The hypothesis to consider is that the capacity of managers to engage in such extraction has increased. The issue, as the financier John Bogle has recently put it, is whether the United States moved toward an “ownership society” in which managers serve owners or an “agency society” in which managers serve themselves.

A school of thought (prominent in the field of law and economics) sees the United States’s and other systems of diffused ownership as representing the best protections for stockholders. That view relies heavily on a principal–agent analysis that sees boards of directors as protecting shareholders through “arm’s-length negotiations” with executives. Yet in many cases, boards are not playing the role outlined in this theory. Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried provide many findings more consistent with a “board-capture” view, in which boards are so beholden to managers that they offer little countervailing authority. Perhaps most telling, the design of CEO compensation often varies markedly from what one would expect if it were intended to encourage good performance. Indeed, in much the same way that our view of interest groups suggests opportunities to outflank disorganized “outsiders” (exploiting structural advantages under conditions of asymmetric information), Bebchuk and Fried demonstrate the prominence in corporate arrangements of what they call “camouflage.” Patterns of executive compensation seem designed to mitigate public outrage rather than limit excessive pay or link it more closely to value.

Most accounts of American inequality, if they touch on these issues at all, regard them as matters of markets, not politics. At a minimum, however, policy makers (like police officers who studiously look the other way) have done little to constrain the dramatic shift that has taken place. This is in sharp contrast to the experience abroad, where—even though executive pay is much lower—there have been substantial efforts to monitor and impose limits on executive pay, and where sources of countervailing power appear to be much stronger. Again, the comparative evidence of American (or at least Anglo) exceptionalism with regard to executive pay suggests that there is nothing about the structure of modern capitalism that makes such extraordinary increases in executive salaries inevitable or even likely. ...

To its credit, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which oversees accounting practices, recognized the distorted incentives [of paying executive compensation in stock options] early on. In 1993, it announced plans to require the expensing of stock options. At the time options were issued, firms would be required to estimate the likely costs of this form of compensation. Adopting the practice would have forced firms to acknowledge the true (large) cost of issuing stock options in advance, and would almost certainly have diminished their meteoric rise.

It never happened. Managers, especially in the rapidly growing tech industry, mobilized opposition against the change. Led by Senator Joe Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, elected officials moved quickly to block the proposed reform. By overwhelming margins, the Senate passed a resolution expressing its disapproval. Facing clear indications that action could lead elected officials to strip FASB of its authority, the regulators backed off. This is a clear and important example of drift—where organized political action effectively prevents the updating of policy in response to changing market outcomes that were advantageous to the wealthy and powerful.

http://pas.sagepub.com/content/38/2/152.full.pdf

 

[Divvy]

Oh I doubt he's going to respond to you.

 

[empty vessel]

Let us also consider the implications of these two things:

(1)

We study the evolution of human capital in the U.S. financial industry over the past century. Our analysis sheds light on how the financial sector performs its economic role, on its interactions with the rest of the economy, and on the consequences of financial regulation. ...

Our analysis reveals a set of new stylized facts. First, the relative skill intensity and relative wages of the financial sector exhibit a U-shaped pattern from 1909 to 2006. From 1909 to 1933 the financial sector was a high skill, high wage industry. A dramatic shift occurred during the 1930s: the financial sector rapidly lost its high human capital and its wage premium relative to the rest of the private sector. The decline continued at a more moderate pace from 1950 to 1980. By that time, wages in the financial sector were similar, on average, to wages in the rest of the economy. From 1980 onward, another dramatic shift occurred. The financial sector became once again a high skill, high wage industry. Strikingly, by the end of the sample relative wages and relative education levels went back almost exactly to their pre-1930s levels.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~tphilipp/papers/pr_rev15.pdf

(2)

 

[Angry Fork]

I want to shake empty vessels hand, dude is consistently awesome and tears shit up in these kinds of threads.

 

[Black Republican]

http://www.demotix.com/news/861582/colorful-occupy-wall-street-protest-texas-dalas

Dallas is awesome

 

[Karma Kramer]

I want to shake empty vessels hand, dude is consistently awesome and tears shit up in these kinds of threads.

Cheers 2 this

 

[sh4mike]

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~tphilipp/papers/pr_rev15.pdf

You're a bright guy with an agenda to push. It's a shame that you simplify issues with one-sided arguments that are unnecessarily biased to support your position. Your verbiage is political and sterile -- very us against them. I respect its effectiveness on people looking for easy answers, and you employ these tactics as well as anyone on the forum.

It feels good to believe one is special. Conspiracy theorists are generally lonely men, and the theory represents their out-group for association. It's an easy sell to those looking for excuses on why life hasn't thrown them a bone. It is human nature for the desperate to target the elite to avoid feelings of inferiority, a self-defense mechanism to remain happy and content with life. I see your arguments as selling financial religion to a group of debt prisoners and scared individuals without options. It's a luxurious position to be in.

I'd be interested in your recommendations to fix the problems presented in the copy-paste charts you employ. It's considerably easier to rip apart reality given life's complexities. It's hard to construct a superior alternative that is impervious to similar nitpicks.

Easier to destoy than create, I'm sure you've heard this all before. I know many people in the industry who can punch holes in strategies. Very few have the willingness to present their ideas in fear of looking silly, even ignorant. That level of hypocrisy might ruin your image.

Enjoy life.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Just unfriended somebody on facebook after getting sick of his intellectual diarrhea shitting up my wall, particularly the last week or two. And he's an otherwise pretty sharp guy. This was the last straw:

http://i.imgur.com/CxhkQ.jpg

I think it had thousands of shares too so it's making the rounds. The mental gymnastics it must take to convince yourself that this is what the movement is about. Sorry but I don't see any "end corporations" signs in that picture. ugh.

Yeah, what BS. That guy had clearly not seen a Gillette razor in quite some time.

Spoiler

kidding

I tend to shy away from social networking because I like to pretend that people I associate with aren't particularly douche-like by nature.

 

[Tristam]

You're a bright guy with an agenda to push. It's a shame that you simplify issues with one-sided arguments that are unnecessarily biased to support your position. Your verbiage is political and sterile -- very us against them. I respect its effectiveness on people looking for easy answers, and you employ these tactics as well as anyone on the forum.

It feels good to believe one is special. Conspiracy theorists are generally lonely men, and the theory represents their out-group for association. It's an easy sell to those looking for excuses on why life hasn't thrown them a bone. It is human nature for the desperate to target the elite to avoid feelings of inferiority, a self-defense mechanism to remain happy and content with life. I see your arguments as selling financial religion to a group of debt prisoners and scared individuals without options. It's a luxurious position to be in.

I'd be interested in your recommendations to fix the problems presented in the copy-paste charts you employ. It's considerably easier to rip apart reality given life's complexities. It's hard to construct a superior alternative that is impervious to similar nitpicks.

Easier to destoy than create, I'm sure you've heard this all before. I know many people in the industry who can punch holes in strategies. Very few have the willingness to present their ideas in fear of looking silly, even ignorant. That level of hypocrisy might ruin your image.

Enjoy life.

This is the longest "no u" post I've ever seen on GAF.

And, although empty vessel's policy prescriptions might be easily inferred without explication, he often does state his mind about what needs to be done--e.g., reinstating regulations that ought to have prevented the financial collapse had they never been removed. If you haven't seen that then you simply haven't read many of his posts.

 

[sh4mike]

Agreed. I regretted posting it and logged back on to delete it. Oh well.

Not sure what I'm doing in this thread. Perhaps I felt that the arguments were too much to one side, but given the thread topic, the content probably deserves to stay that way. What you see on the menu is what you get.

I won't post in here again. My apologies for being argumentative.

 

[milkyjay20]

i don't know if i can stand behind this protest any longer. i don't like their solutions, or their overall message (and yes, there is an overall message, otherwise i couldn't disagree with it.) saying "let the government fix it" ain't gonna fix it. of course we need regulation, but not when that regulation is written so that the big banks can loophole it so that they can get rid of their competition.

the buffett tax garbage isn't gonna impact people like buffett himself, because the idea of "rich" in that legislation is the owner of your local company, or the millionaire down the road. they're not part of the 1%! they're middle class, especially in light of the diminishing power of the dollar, and this is going to squeeze them, and inspire them to hire less workers, so it's gonna squeeze everybody. meanwhile, the ultra rich has their money safe and sound in offshore accounts.

do you know what occupy wall street and the tea party have in common? they don't talk about war and they don't talk about free trade. the wars obviously cost a lot, and obviously they're immoral, so why aren't they talked about? and free trade is the greatest job killer by far. not talking about these huge issues is what gives me the inkling that this is the "establishment" steering these movements to their favor. with moveon.org openly announcing that it will co-opt, and that "man of the people" michael moore becoming the de facto voice, i'd say that this movement is politically dead.

don't get me wrong, of course i stand by the people of this movement. the people themselves are legitimate. it's the leadership and whoever wrote the demands on their website that i have a problem with.

 

[Fusion Pizza]

I tend to shy away from social networking because I like to pretend that people I associate with aren't particularly douche-like by nature.

Same reason I've been using it less and less!

 

[Fusion Pizza]

i don't know if i can stand behind this protest any longer. i don't like their solutions, or their overall message (and yes, there is an overall message, otherwise i couldn't disagree with it.) saying "let the government fix it" ain't gonna fix it. of course we need regulation, but not when that regulation is written so that the big banks can loophole it so that they can get rid of their competition.

the buffett tax garbage isn't gonna impact people like buffett himself, because the idea of "rich" in that legislation is the owner of your local company, or the millionaire down the road. they're not part of the 1%! they're middle class, especially in light of the diminishing power of the dollar, and this is going to squeeze them, and inspire them to hire less workers, so it's gonna squeeze everybody. meanwhile, the ultra rich has their money safe and sound in offshore accounts.

do you know what occupy wall street and the tea party have in common? they don't talk about war and they don't talk about free trade. the wars obviously cost a lot, and obviously they're immoral, so why aren't they talked about? and free trade is the greatest job killer by far. not talking about these huge issues is what gives me the inkling that this is the "establishment" steering these movements to their favor. with moveon.org openly announcing that it will co-opt, and that "man of the people" michael moore becoming the de facto voice, i'd say that this movement is politically dead.

don't get me wrong, of course i stand by the people of this movement. the people themselves are legitimate. it's the leadership and whoever wrote the demands on their website that i have a problem with.

There isnt any real leadership, and I would say give it some more time, the fact that the GOP has started to denounce it shows that they are scared of it.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Wow. A list of regulations eventually dealt away with. If you want to get serious you're going to have to explain how each one of those deruglations has been harmful to our economy and society and I want proof of each one.

Well, if Glass-Steagall was still around, we would not have had to bail out those banks since the consequences of letting them fail would not have been catastrophic. I would say repealing that was definitely harmful.

Brad DeLong argues that the repeal of Glass-Steagall actually had a stabilizing effect on the banks. Lehman was a pure investment bank, for example, while many investment/commercial amalgams fared better. Krugman also claims that Glass-Steagall was not a significant factor, arguing that...

I don’t think that too-big-to-fail is at the heart of our financial problems. But Krugman goes on to say... you have to admit that the growth of the shadow system was fueled, in part, by FDIC-backed players providing credit lines and so on to their shadow-banking arms, and that the sheer size of some players has posed real difficulties for resolving crisis.

DeLong rebukes this by saying...

I have seen no evidence that pieces of the shadow banking system that could draw on FDIC-guaranteed funds (like Wachovia, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase) were any more highly fueled than pieces of the shadow banking system that could not (Countrywide, Bear-Stearns, Lehmann, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, et cetera).

And the shadow banking system - which exists in the shadows precisely because it's highly unregulated - is the exact force that turned a large housing bubble into a huge global crisis. The unregulated financial innovations are an important component here, despite what some people may say. Here's an except from the book This Time is Different by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff:

Using a fifity-three-country sample for the period 1980-1995, Demirguc-Kunt and Detragiache also show, in the context of a mutivariate logit model, that financial liberalization has an independent negative effect on the stability of the banking sector and that this result is robust across numerous specifications. The stylized evidence presented by Caprio and Klingebiel suggests that inadequate regulation and lack of supervision at the time of the liberalization may play a key role in explaining why deregulation and banking crises are so closely entwined. Again, this is a theme across developed countries and emerging markets alike. In the 2000s the United States, for all its this-time-is-different hubris, proved no exception, for financial innovation is a variant of the liberalization process.

 

[Karma Kramer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5zCqHnd_pY&feature=player_embedded

VIDEO: Noam Chomsky Statement in Support of the #OccupyBoston Movement

Edit: Also I just read through http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm and I'm wondering if there are any well written critiques debunking his conclusions.

Edit 2: Maybe I will make a separate thread. I know Chomsky isn't unheard of or anything, but I find his analysis scarily paranoid yet well sourced and supported.

Watching this video now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ghoXQxdk6s

 

[Measley]

You keep saying this but have yet to articulate it.

While we're waiting, here is a timeline of financial deregulation.

• 1978, Marquette vs. First of Omaha – Supreme Court allows banks to export the usury laws of their home state nationwide and sets off a competitive wave of deregulation, resulting in the complete elimination of usury rate ceilings in South Dakota and Delaware, among others.
• 1980, Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act – Legislation increases deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000, authorizes new authority to thrift institutions, and calls for the complete phase-out of interest rate ceilings on deposit accounts.
• 1982, Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act – Bill deregulates thrifts almost entirely, allowing commercial lending and providing for a new account to compete with money market mutual funds. This was a Reagan administration initiative that passed with strong bi-partisan support.
• 1987, FSLIC Insolvency – GAO declares the deposit insurance fund of the savings and loan industry to be insolvent as a result of mounting institutional failures.
• 1989, Financial Institutions Reform and Recovery Act – Act abolishes the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and FSLIC, transferring them to OTS and the FDIC, respectively. The plan also creates the Resolution Trust Corporation to resolve failed thrifts.
• 1994, Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act – This bill eliminated previous restrictions on interstate banking and branching. It passed with broad bipartisan support.
• 1996, Fed Reinterprets Glass-Steagall – Federal Reserve reinterprets the Glass-Steagall Act several times, eventually allowing bank holding companies to earn up to 25 percent of their revenues in investment banking.
• 1998, Citicorp-Travelers Merger – Citigroup, Inc. merges a commercial bank with an insurance company that owns an investment bank to form the world’s largest financial services company.
• 1999, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – With support from Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Rubin and his successor Lawrence Summers, the bill repeals the Glass-Steagall Act completely.
• 2000, Commodity Futures Modernization Act – Passed with support from the Clinton Administration, including Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bi-partisan support in Congress. The bill prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps.
• 2004, Voluntary Regulation – The SEC proposes a system of voluntary regulation under the Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowing investment banks to hold less capital in reserve and increase leverage.
• 2007, Subprime Mortgage Crisis – Defaults on subprime loans send shockwaves throughout the secondary mortgage market and the entire financial system.
• December 2007, Term Auction Facility – Special liquidity facility of the Federal Reserve lends to depository institutions. Unlike lending through the discount window, there is no public disclosure on loans made through this facility.
• March 2008, Bear Stearns Collapse – The investment bank is sold to JP Morgan Chase with assistance from the Federal Reserve.
• March 2008, Primary Dealer Facilities – Special lending facilities open the discount window to investment banks, accepting a broad range of asset-backed securities as collateral.
• July 2008, Housing and Economic Recovery Act – Provides guarantees on new mortgages to subprime borrowers and authorizes a new federal agency, the FHFA, which eventually places Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship.
• September 2008, Lehman Brothers Collapse – Investment bank files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
• October 2008, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act – Bill authorizes the Treasury to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program to purchase distressed mortgage-backed securities and inject capital into the nation’s banking system. Also increases deposit insurance from $100,000 to $250,000.
• Late 2008, Money Market Liquidity Facilities – Federal Reserve facilities created to facilitate the purchase of various money market instruments.
• March 2009, Public-Private Investment Program – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner introduces his plan to subsidize the purchase of toxic assets with government guarantees.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf

You can feel free to explain what pieces have been put back in place.

I read (and know) this, and then I hear corporations and Republicans saying that companies can't do business here in America because there's "too many regulations" that inhibit their bottom line.

What's sad is that there's a good portion of Americans who actually believe their bullshit.

 

[goodcow]

Decided to go down to Zuccotti Park yesterday... it's like a big, unorganized, outdoor homeless shelter.

I really have no idea what they're doing and I'm not anti-protest. It's just so chaotic, disorganized and you can barely walk around. It also can't be sanitary, there are tents and cardboard boxes everywhere.

As I said on my facebook last week, I feel like they should march down and occupy City Hall, much like Minnesota did after the Scott Walker union battle. Wall Street is comprised of corporations whose sole duty is to make profit, by any means possible. That's what a corporation does. They don't give a shit that these people are out there protesting. If you occupy City Hall and refuse to leave while demanding new laws, regulations, and an end to things like lobbying, that makes more sense to me.

Great place to take photos though.

 

[Wazzim]

Did this got posted yet?
I've been following this guy for some time now, he has great videos.

 

[travisbickle]

The people that need to wake up and listen to the "occupy" protesters are the idiots who believe they are in the top 1% because they earn $400,000 a year and part own a holiday home in the Med.

You're not in the top 1% because you're wealthy, you are in the top 1% because:

1. you live in a country that exploits workers, a country where a man can work 45+ hours a week and still not earn enough to feed his family.
2. you live in a country where 1/100 people are incarcerated, the country with the highest number of prisoners in the world.
3. the real wealthy people hide their wealth, they do not collect a yearly income, they channel their wealth to appear less wealthy.
4. "the top 0.1%" doesn't have as good a ring too it, the top 1% contains people with yearly earnings/net worth of $300,000/1mill to 100s of millions/billions.
5. you're in a country with unemployment figures of 10/15/20% whatever they are?

Bloody idiots sitting at home believing they're are in the top 1% because they have a fat pay cheque, when probably at the moment their debts (student loans/mortgage) outweigh their assets. Whereas the real wealthy their assets can pay for the debts of their children, their children's children, their children's children' children etc... for generations to come.

An increase of 1% (not just income, all assets/savings etc...) to the "top 1%" would pump billions if not trillions into the economy over a few years. To the 1% who are earning approx. $500,000 it'll be what a few thousand a year, the savings for their kid's to go to university.

Yet if they allow the tax increase it may mean:

- free education for their children's children or at least a better education for cheaper because of spending on the public school system.
- improved medical services by the time they are old from increases in spending.
- a retirement package that might mean something because interest rates will go back up when the economy is healthy.

and many other benefits from increases in spending. Wake up the faux riche of America/England/Europe before it's too late.

 

[DarkKyo]

Wow.. Erin Burnett is a huuuuge bitch. How does she expect to get viewership with segments like that?

 

[Ripclawe]

Why am I not shocked by these actions?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/n...-chafe-its-neighbors.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Panini and Company Cafe normally sells sandwiches to tourists in Lower Manhattan and the residents nearby, but in recent days its owner, Stacey Tzortzatos, has also become something of a restroom monitor. Protesters from Occupy Wall Street, who are encamped in a nearby park, have been tromping in by the scores, and not because they are hungry.

Ms. Tzortzatos’s tolerance for the newcomers finally vanished when the sink was broken and fell to the floor. She installed a $200 lock on the bathroom to thwart nonpaying customers, angering the protesters.

“I’m looked at as the enemy of the people,” she said.

In a widely distributed pamphlet, “Welcome to Liberty Plaza: Home of Occupy Wall Street,” participants were instructed where to find relief. “After you’ve dined,” it reads, “feel free to refresh yourself in the restrooms of neighboring businesses like Burger King and McDonald’s without feeling obligated to buy anything.”

A manager of the Burger King in question said he had no trouble with the protesters, though a maintenance worker at the McDonald’s, Deon Cook, said that in recent days he had been forced to clean the bathroom every five minutes.

“I’m looking forward to it being over,” Mr. Cook said.

Some businesses do welcome the newly arrived neighbors.

A woman who tends the Dunkin’ Donuts kiosk a block from the site said coffee and doughnut consumption had jumped.

Yves Delva, a manager at a nearby Modell’s Sporting Goods, said sales had been brisk for sleeping bags, sweatshirts, hand warmers, sweatpants and goggles — that last item presumably bought to protect the eyes from pepper spray, which has been used by the police in response to the demonstrations.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Me & empty have our fair share of disagreements.

However, he always backs up his opinion, and he will always outline what he thinks should be done instead, when he makes a pointed criticism.

It's your choice as to whether you agree with it, or not.

 

[Timedog]

NM

 

[pompidu]

Empty vessel, excellent work. *slowclap.gif*