Support NeoGAF

[Karma Kramer]

lol, true. Not dead, no. But definitely zombiefied.

Sometimes people go off the deep end, especially the whole "corporate elite/Wall St-engineered destruction of the economy." Just like 9/11 truthers.

If you're the head of Bear Stearns and you're making millions in compensation and own a boat load of stock, why the hell would you want that to end? You wan to keep the gravy train going! During the financial crisis, the greatest amount of wealth destruction happened to the 1%.

Corporate profits just hit another all-time high.

Unemployment. Three years after the financial crisis, the unemployment rate is still at the highest level since the Great Depression (except for a brief blip in the early 1980s)

CEO pay is now 350X the average worker's, up from 50X from 1960-1985

 

[ezrarh]

lol, true. Not dead, no. But definitely zombiefied.

Sometimes people go off the deep end, especially the whole "corporate elite/Wall St-engineered destruction of the economy." Just like 9/11 truthers.

If you're the head of Bear Stearns and you're making millions in compensation and own a boat load of stock, why the hell would you want that to end? You want to keep the gravy train going! During the financial crisis, the greatest amount of wealth destruction happened to the 1%.

I wouldn't say they purposely engineered the destruction of the economy but they were participating in a huge bubble and most knew it was going to end sometime. Goldman Sachs foresaw this and was getting rid of as much of their toxic assets as possible. I'm sure everybody wanted to keep the gravy train going but like all bubbles, they have to burst eventually. The problem was that so many of these financial institutions were stuck with these toxic assets and it was so systemic that that many institutions failing at once was devastating to the economy and would have been much more so if some of them weren't bailed out.

 

[RSTEIN]

Corporate profits just hit another all-time high.

Unemployment. Three years after the financial crisis, the unemployment rate is still at the highest level since the Great Depression (except for a brief blip in the early 1980s)

Yes, the situation is horrible. The jobs recovery out of this recession has been the worst, no doubt about it. My point was that it was in nobody's interest to ENGINEER a crisis (empty vessel's claim).

 

[Karma Kramer]

I wouldn't say they purposely engineered the destruction of the economy but they were participating in a huge bubble and most knew it was going to end sometime. Goldman Sachs foresaw this and was getting rid of as much of their toxic assets as possible. I'm sure everybody wanted to keep the gravy train going but like all bubbles, they have to burst eventually. The problem was that so many of these financial institutions were stuck with these toxic assets and it was so systemic that that many institutions failing at once was devastating to the economy and would have been much more so if some of them weren't bailed out.

Regulation to break up these large banks so they aren't too big to fail is one way of preventing this from happening again... arguing there has been enough regulation, doesn't really tackle this problem.

 

[ronito]

During the financial crisis, the greatest amount of wealth destruction happened to the 1%.

GAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Even if it were true, which it totally isn't, that'd be like saying during times of famine the fat people lost tons more weight than the skinny! Poor fat people!

 

[Deku]

Perhaps some of you need to re-examine your biases if you can accept the premise that the top 1% engineered the destruction of their own wealth in a nefarious plot to rob the 99% or some such.

This is why some people will compare the OWS crowd to the Tea Party, even though the other is actually organized politically and don't occupy, but get people elected instead.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Yes, the situation is horrible. The jobs recovery out of this recession has been the worst, no doubt about it. My point was that it was in nobody's interest to ENGINEER a crisis (empty vessel's claim).

You can't know that... it could have certainly been in the interest of the wealthiest Americans. Considering their wealth gap is at an all time high with the average American.

 

[Marleyman]

Until Goldman Sachs is standing trial these protests should continue.

 

[Deku]

Until Obama is standing trial these protests should continue.

uncanny!

 

[Marleyman]

uncanny!

Oh?

 

[Evlar]

Yes, the situation is horrible. The jobs recovery out of this recession has been the worst, no doubt about it. My point was that it was in nobody's interest to ENGINEER a crisis (as empty vessel was saying).

I agree it was in no one's interest, but I do think they engineered it in a sense. The point is, it wasn't purposeful. They built an engine of destruction without knowing it; intending it for one purpose while unaware of the unintended effects. This lack of awareness was compounded by other false beliefs. For instance, the smart money near the end of the bubble saw it coming but thought they could avoid catastrophe by hedging (even more than usual) through purchase of CDS against their own positions. The 'false belief' in this particular case was that the disaster coming would be of small enough scale that the counterparties in these CDS (particularly AIG) could stay solvent. They couldn't.

A few very bright people did see the coming crisis. A few of them tried to sound the alarm, a few others made bets against the bubble and won massively. But it's the nature of bubbles that these actors must go unheeded by the majority with the money through the duration of the bubble; they must necessarily, or the bubble would end.

 

[Foxtastical]

The guy who wrote that and anyone who believes it to be true and applicable to their own situation are ignorant and gullible.

Some of the posts on the "We are the 53" are hilarious. There is one about a single mother that runs a business, works two full time jobs, goes to school full time and has two children. She apparently gets no help from anyone.

This is gold Jerry, gold. Neoliberalism ahoy!

Perhaps some of you need to re-examine your biases if you can accept the premise that the top 1% engineered the destruction of their own wealth in a nefarious plot to rob the 99% or some such.

This is why some people will compare the OWS crowd to the Tea Party, even though the other is actually organized politically and don't occupy, but get people elected instead.

Only silly people think it was purposely engineered. As a jumping off point, I really recommend reading Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism." http://www.amazon.com/dp/0199283265/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[ronito]

Perhaps some of you need to re-examine your biases if you can accept the premise that the top 1% engineered the destruction of their own wealth in a nefarious plot to rob the 99% or some such.

This is why some people will compare the OWS crowd to the Tea Party, even though the other is actually organized politically and don't occupy, but get people elected instead.

I'm not saying they engineered it, but let me put it this way.

There's a tower made of blocks. Some of the blocks are made of gold throughout. At first people take the gold blocks from the top and other safe places of the tower. No problem. Then after those are gone they start pulling the gold blocks from lower and deeper into the tower. They keep doing that until the tower fell.

Did they "engineer" the collapse of the tower? Not per se. But did they do so in effect? Absolutely.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I'm not saying they engineered it, but let me put it this way.

There's a tower made of blocks. Some of the blocks are made of gold throughout. At first people take the gold blocks from the top and other safe places of the tower. No problem. Then after those are gone they start pulling the gold blocks from lower and deeper into the tower. They keep doing that until the tower fell.

Did they "engineer" the collapse of the tower? Not per se. But did they do so in effect? Absolutely.

Yeah this is a good way of phrasing it.

 

[RSTEIN]

You can't know that... it could have certainly been in the interest of the wealthiest Americans. Considering their wealth gap is at an all time high with the average American.

You're right. There is no way to know 100% that some secretive plot wasn't conjured up by the wealthiest Americans to destroy the economy.

The null hypothesis is that no secret plot was created
The alternative hypothesis is that some sort of plot existed

I have seen no evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

 

[Marleyman]

Matt Taibbi said it best about Goldman Sachs:

"The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."

 

[ezrarh]

Regulation to break up these large banks so they aren't too big to fail is one way of preventing this from happening again... arguing there has been enough regulation, doesn't really tackle this problem.

I agree. We can't let these banks get so large where they can hold the country (and the world) hostage if we don't bail them out when they fuck up.

 

[Karma Kramer]

You're right. There is no way to know 100% that some secretive plot wasn't conjured up by the wealthiest Americans to destroy the economy.

The null hypothesis is that no secret plot was created
The alternative hypothesis is that some sort of plot existed

I have seen no evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

The economy wasn't destroyed. These guys knew they would be bailed out if bubbles did start to burst, so it didn't pose any real threat to them. It doesn't mean they planned it out, just means they carelessly didn't give a fuck what happened as long as they were making short term record profits.

 

[Deku]

I'm not saying they engineered it, but let me put it this way.

There's a tower made of blocks. Some of the blocks are made of gold throughout. At first people take the gold blocks from the top and other safe places of the tower. No problem. Then after those are gone they start pulling the gold blocks from lower and deeper into the tower. They keep doing that until the tower fell.

Did they "engineer" the collapse of the tower? Not per se. But did they do so in effect? Absolutely.

I'm aware how they securitized subprime mortagages.

The act of securitizing mortage payments and giving a portion of the cash stream AAA isn't controversial however, as with a large pool of consumers you can be certain that some percentage of people will be paying their mortages, even if its not the same person month to month.

But the loose credit prior to the subprime collapse has many causes, up to and including consumers who were maxed out and were using their homes as a bank, and those who bought a home well above their means, if they had any.

The fact that banks were all to eager to lend them the money is not just the bank's fault.

So one sided blame isn't the answer, and I've always been fairly critical of the profligacy of the Bush era consumer culture which culminated in some industries with the idea that selling a $599 console at a loss was a sustainable business model.

 

[RSTEIN]

The point is, it wasn't purposeful. They built an engine of destruction without knowing it; intending it for one purpose while unaware of the unintended effects.

It doesn't mean they planned it out, just means they carelessly didn't give a fuck what happened as long as they were making short term record profits.

I agree 100% with this. But there's a HUGE distinction--and HUGE differences in required policy response--between a system gone wonky and the stuff that some of the people in this thread and the Occupy people have been saying.

We're talking manslaughter, NOT MURDER. Blankfein did not murder the economy. No one actor or agent pulled the trigger, and no Illuminati secret corporate elite type stuff went down. People who believe this are just angry and need an enemy to blame.

Cake was made and people stuffed themselves full. Obviously, as we've seen many times in history, people can't control themselves. So we need regulation. We need transparency. We need the banks broken down and right-sized so the tail does not wag the dog.

Slowly this is happening. The amount of regulation since the first crisis in 1800 has grown exponentially.

 

[ronito]

I'm aware how they securitized subprime mortagages.

The act of securitizing mortage payments and giving a portion of the cash stream AAA isn't controversial however, as with a large pool of consumers you can be certain that some percentage of people will be paying their mortages, even if its not the same person month to month.

But the loose credit prior to the subprime collapse has many causes, up to and including consumers who were maxed out and were using their homes as a bank, and those who bought a home well above their means, if they had any.

The fact that banks were all to eager to lend them the money is not just the bank's fault.

So one sided blame isn't the answer, and I've always been fairly critical of the profligacy of the Bush era consumer culture which culminated in some industries with the idea that selling a $599 console at a loss was a sustainable business model.

Here's the thing

I'm a consultant. I get paid to be an "expert" on how clients should build systems.

If a client brings me in and asks, "Hey, I want to build it like this, should I build it this way?" And I know that's a bad idea and instead say "Yeah totally!" And they proceed to build it that way and it utterly fails, who is at fault?

 

[Karma Kramer]

Slowly this is happening. The amount of regulation since the first crisis in 1800 has grown exponentially.

Over the past 30 years it has been heavily deregulated.

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

 

[Evlar]

You're right. There is no way to know 100% that some secretive plot wasn't conjured up by the wealthiest Americans to destroy the economy.

The null hypothesis is that no secret plot was created
The alternative hypothesis is that some sort of plot existed

I have seen no evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Here's an example of an engineering disaster: The Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

Were the structural engineers responsible for the bridge intending for it to fail and collapse so spectacularly? Obviously, no. Was the bridge itself engineered and built for some purpose? Well, obviously, or it wouldn't have been there. The point is, bad practices allowed a structure built for one purpose (provide a thru-way for traffic) to exhibit unintended negative effects (gigantic transverse oscillations leading to catastrophic collapse). Thus the engineers were responsible not for their intentions but for their lack of care in design and limited understanding of the physics of wind-driven oscillations.

And what happened? The engineering discipline altered its procedures for analyzing bridge-like structures to take positive feedback from external drivers (like wind) into account. Fancy that!

EDIT: I see you addressed the 'unintentional outcomes' part below. I'm leaving the post here for the comparison to Tacoma Narrows.

 

[empty vessel]

Yes, the situation is horrible. The jobs recovery out of this recession has been the worst, no doubt about it. My point was that it was in nobody's interest to ENGINEER a crisis (empty vessel's claim).

Yes it was. Individuals who used their corporations as vessels for personal enrichment kept everything they "earned" by their fraudulent enterprise. Are you telling me it is not in somebody's interest to have multiple millions of dollars in his or her bank account? Because that's a bizarre assertion to make.

Obviously, the goal was not to cause a crisis. It was to rip people off (including investors) for personal gain. And that is exactly what happened.

The fact that banks were all to eager to lend them the money is not just the bank's fault.

How is the bank's eagerness to lend money not the bank's fault?

 

[Muffdraul]

I'm aware how they securitized subprime mortagages.

The act of securitizing mortage payments and giving a portion of the cash stream AAA isn't controversial however, as with a large pool of consumers you can be certain that some percentage of people will be paying their mortages, even if its not the same person month to month.

But the loose credit prior to the subprime collapse has many causes, up to and including consumers who were maxed out and were using their homes as a bank, and those who bought a home well above their means, if they had any.

The fact that banks were all to eager to lend them the money is not just the bank's fault.

So one sided blame isn't the answer, and I've always been fairly critical of the profligacy of the Bush era consumer culture which culminated in some industries with the idea that selling a $599 console at a loss was a sustainable business model.

The simple fact is, after the Great Depression regulations were put into place to protect the economy and prevented Wall Street from causing harm. To keep rampant greed in check. Over the last 30 years, those regulations were systematically removed, and this is the result. Every administration from Reagan forward deserves blame for it.

Personally I don't put too much blame on the people who took those predatory home loans. For many decades the system was set up so that the only way a bank would give someone a home loan was if they were sure it could be paid back, and the average person simply trusted that that's how the system worked. Because for so long, regulations dictated that a bank loaned the money to the borrower, and the borrower paid it back to the bank. Simple. When regulations were removed, the bank could give the loan, and then sell that loan to someone else. i.e. The bank didn't give a damn if the loan was ever paid back or not, it wasn't their problem anymore. And then the new owner of the loan could basically insure the loan so that they got paid whether the original borrower could pay back the loan or not. And not only that, OTHER investors could also make an insurance claim against the loan as well, even though they had nothing to do with it. So now a new system was in place where everyone made money on loans that never had any hope of being repaid. This is the kind of horse shit Wall Street is responsible for. This is why it's so fucking infuriating that none of them have been punished.

 

[Karma Kramer]

*waits for Manos to ask where's the message of OWS for the 320th time*

 

[Van Owen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQlYC8Yjirc&sns=em


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX-zcYygIE8&sns=em

lololol at these people. Getting things done I see.

 

[Deku]

Here's the thing

I'm a consultant. I get paid to be an "expert" on how clients should build systems.

If a client brings me in and asks, "Hey, I want to build it like this, should I build it this way?" And I know that's a bad idea and instead say "Yeah totally!" And they proceed to build it that way and it utterly fails, who is at fault?

Your fault for not doing your job.
Your client's fault for having a bad idea

However, in your scenario, you both run the risk of losing money and unless there was implied duty for you to advise your client, there certainly won't be lawsuits from the client saying you're 'at fault';


But let's not pretend managing personal finances is like building a system. There's quite a bit greater expectation of personal responsbility for it.

I am willing to accept conditions will disadvantage some, perhaps even many and the state can help. But I'm not willing to accept the debtors had no responsbility at all.

 

[Muffdraul]

However, in your scenario, you both run the risk of losing money and unless there was implied duty for you to advise your client, there certainly won't be lawsuits from the client saying you're 'at fault';

The difference is, in the Wall Street scenario, the consultant was not risking losing money. Quite the opposite.

 

[Karma Kramer]

It amazes me how much good will people seem to have for bankers that CONTRIBUTED to this mess.

 

[Deku]

The difference is, in the Wall Street scenario, the consultant was not risking losing money. Quite the opposite.

That's completely untrue, a great deal of wealth was destroyed, even with bailouts.

 

[Deku]

It amazes me how much good will people seem to have for bankers that CONTRIBUTED to this mess.

It's more of a symptom of some in movement thinking it has carte blanch to venture into the crazy, or perhaps people posting here thinking they can just blame everything on Wall Street.

There's broad consensus Wall Street screwed up and is responsible. But some of the statements being made about it are just 'out there' and I'm adressing those specifically.

Note that I'm not saying everyone in the movement thinks this way, just the fringe who are trying to co-opt it for their own political gain.

 

[Muffdraul]

That's completely untrue, a great deal of wealth was destroyed, even with bailouts.

Eventually the banks collapsed, and the predatory loan scam could no longer be sustained. But the "consultants" who were giving bad advice didn't lose any of the wealth they'd already amassed. They just couldn't make any more doing what they'd been doing.

 

[ronito]

Your fault for not doing your job.
Your client's fault for having a bad idea

However, in your scenario, you both run the risk of losing money and unless there was implied duty for you to advise your client, there certainly won't be lawsuits from the client saying you're 'at fault';


But let's not pretend managing personal finances is like building a system. There's quite a bit greater expectation of personal responsbility for it.

I am willing to accept conditions will disadvantage some, perhaps even many and the state can help. But I'm not willing to accept the debtors had no responsbility at all.

I'll admit that they should have been smarter.

But, at the same time I find it hard to fault them when every other commercial on the TV was like "You can own a home! Yes you! No down!" and "Borrow against your home! House prices keep going up! Do it now now now now!"

True, they could've been like me and thought "Wait I can't afford that. I'll wait." But is it really surprising that a bulk of people fell for the huge marketing machine? I mean I've honestly heard people say "Why would the bank lend me money if they knew I couldn't pay it back?" Naieve yes. But surprising? No. I leave out donutslaced with ex-lax at work in a Krispy Kreme box, it's a pretty safe bet most people will take one without thinking twice.

 

[Dude Abides]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQlYC8Yjirc&sns=em


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX-zcYygIE8&sns=em

lololol at these people. Getting things done I see.

I'm reserving my views until I hear what Bubba the Love Sponge and Mancow have to say about this.

 

[Mortrialus]

Sorry, but you can't post a quote or link from Media Matters and expect it to be taken seriously. That site is radically partisan. It's just like if I posted from Foxnews or Brietbart, I would be laughed out of here. So am I saying I don't believe them? Yeah, that's what I'm saying...I am much more inclined to believe the New York Times version.

Media Matters's research is generally quite good and accurate. That their organization is based around countering misinformation from conservatives. The reason posting Brietbart will get you laughed at is that he has been shown to be a fraud who eagerly published and promoted obviously selectively edited video of a speech which drastically distorted Shirley Sherrod's comments, which resulted and in her losing her job and then went on to proclaim that he didn't care if she lost her job over a lie. He has done this multiple times.

 

[RSTEIN]

Obviously, the goal was not to cause a crisis.

So we are in agreement that no crisis was engineered by the corporate elite. Hopefully we can start talking about some real policy responses and regulations that will allow us to avoid such a crisis in the future. We need to put the people who engaged in fraud behind bars.

How is the bank's eagerness to lend money not the bank's fault?

Where do the people fit into your analysis of the situation? People have zero responsibility? If I sell Big Macs and people get fat is that my fault?

 

[lazybones18]

http://occupyherbstreit.tumblr.com/

 

[Muffdraul]

Where do the people fit into your analysis of the situation? People have zero responsibility? If I sell Big Macs and people get fat is that my fault?

For that to be an accurate analogy, McDonalds would have had to sell Big Macs that *didn't* cause anyone to get fat from the 1930s to the 1990s, and then suddenly start selling fattening Big Macs one day without saying a word to anyone about the change. Other than maybe "NEW & IMPROVED! NOW 40% MORE DELICIOUS!"

 

[RSTEIN]

For that to be an accurate analogy, McDonalds would have had to sell Big Macs that *didn't* cause anyone to get fat from the 1930s to the 1990s, and then suddenly start selling fattening Big Macs one day without saying a word to anyone about the change. Other than maybe "NEW & IMPROVED! NOW 40% MORE DELICIOUS!"

Well until recently there was no nutritional information for fast food (another example of corporations and lobbyists losing to citizen action). So, perhaps people could claim they had no idea Big Macs were so bad for them. Regulation has clamped down so every purchaser of a Big Mac knows it's gonna make them fat.

Just like Wall St. If I'm Goldman operating in the 1800s, wow there's a lot of bad stuff I could do. Now every security I sell has a whole team of lawyers and regulators covering it. Plus the buyer has to agree to the terms which are fully disclosed.

 

[Timedog]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...excop_we_fabricated_drug_raps_for_quotas.html

Hope nothing like this happens to the protesters. Or course we've already seen the kind of unlawful activity some members of NYPD are capable of.

 

[dave is ok]

Just like Wall St. If I'm Goldman operating in the 1800s, wow there's a lot of bad stuff I could do. Now every security I sell has a whole team of lawyers and regulators covering it. Plus the buyer has to agree to the terms which are fully disclosed.

Mortgage backed securities nearly destroyed the U.S. economy only three years ago. I'd expect a little extra scrutiny

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

I wouldn't really call Texas A&M a "university," but here we are.

Ice cold.

 

[Muffdraul]

Well until recently there was no nutritional information for fast food (another example of corporations and lobbyists losing to citizen action). So, perhaps people could claim they had no idea Big Macs were so bad for them. Regulation has clamped down so every purchaser of a Big Mac knows it's gonna make them fat.

You're changing the analogy, and it still isn't apt. For over sixty years, banks only loaned money to people who could afford it. There was no announcement that this system was suddenly tossed in the shitter. The idea that banks would loan money to people who couldn't pay it back is completely counter intuitive and absurd. Even if anyone had figured it out, they probably would have thought "Hmmm, this doesn't seem right. But hey, obviously the bank knows a lot more about this than I do. Why would they give me a loan if I couldn't pay it back? How could they be that dumb?" The banks and Wall Street knew damn well that people would continue operating under the assumption that the system was still working the same way it had for the previous six decades. They relied on that.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

The screwed up risk incentives on Wall Street have to change. But regulation (clarification: regulations many of the OWS'ers are calling for) won't help to change it. That change has to come from within the bank. What we need is policy that guides banks to that decision.

Not policing them to do what we want them to do.

 

[ronito]

You're changing the analogy, and it still isn't apt. For over sixty years, banks only loaned money to people who could afford it. There was no announcement that this system was suddenly tossed in the shitter. The idea that banks would loan money to people who couldn't pay it back is completely counter intuitive and absurd. Even if anyone had figured it out, they probably would have thought "Hmmm, this doesn't seem right. But hey, obviously the bank knows a lot more about this than I do. Why would they give me a loan if I couldn't pay it back? How could they be that dumb?" The banks and Wall Street knew damn well that people would continue operating under the assumption that the system was still working the same way it had for the previous six decades. They relied on that.

Sorta like you assume your pilot will not attempt to buzz the tower on approach. And suddenly they start buzzing the tower then saying, "Well, you should've known better. Shoulda checked that guys mental history."

 

[Wazzim]

It amazes me how much good will people seem to have for bankers that CONTRIBUTED to this mess.

Oh but the bankers won't do anything bad to me the customer! Oh but I can freely choose which banker so suck dick from! Oh but the bankers store my money! Oh but the bankers let me take a loan for them! Oh but the bankers are why we are relatively rich! Oh but the banker-

People are mostly being fed good stuff about banks, ofcourse they're going to defend them. Even though many of them should be jailed if we even acted like we were following the very same constitution the government and police whine about every day.

 

[empty vessel]

So we are in agreement that no crisis was engineered by the corporate elite.

No, a crisis was definitely engineered by the corporate elite. It was not their specific intent to engineer a crisis, but that does not mean they did not do it. They clearly did. And they clearly did so with the specific intent of enriching themselves at the expense of Americans and even the investors of the companies they worked for. It's called collective embezzlement.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/collective-embezzlement-origination-fraud/

Hopefully we can start talking about some real policy responses and regulations that will allow us to avoid such a crisis in the future. We need to put the people who engaged in fraud behind bars.

Where do the people fit into your analysis of the situation? People have zero responsibility? If I sell Big Macs and people get fat is that my fault?

If you advertise Big Macs to children (people whose brains are literally undeveloped) and they normalize the behavior of eating Big Macs and become fat as a result, you do indeed have some responsibility for that. Of course, selling Big Macs is not what the financial industry was doing. It was engaging in fraud, e.g., buying credit ratings, selling products it was betting against, and making bets it knew it lacked the assets to cover.

 

[empty vessel]

The screwed up risk incentives on Wall Street have to change. But regulation (clarification: regulations many of the OWS'ers are calling for) won't help to change it. That change has to come from within the bank. What we need is policy that guides banks to that decision.

Not policing them to do what we want them to do.

I already posted an article directly refuting this. It found that regulation suppressed skill and wages in the financial industry and deregulation increased it. In other words, with deregulation comes people trying to manipulate the system for personal gain. It is as plain as day. Loaning money, the principle service finance provides, is not something that takes a lot of skill.

 

[speculawyer]

I've largely ignored OWS, but they are generating some momentum.

In the protest movement popularity contest, Occupy Wall Street is whooping the Tea Party.

The demonstrations against big banks has a 54% favorability rating compared to the conservative group's 27%, according to a new Time magazine poll.

A sizable number - 23% - said they didn't know enough about the Wall St. protesters to make a decision.

In contrast, 23% said they had a negative opinion of Occupy Wall Street compared to 65% who said the Tea Party's influence has been negative or negligible.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ce_as_popular_as_the_tea_party_time_poll.html

I hope something useful can come from it. Our system is currently a mess. Corporate Governance is a mess. If CEOs are successful, they make massive amounts of money. But if CEOs fail . . . THEY STILL MAKE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY. Thus our system rewards execs for failure and creates an incentive for them to take crazy risks because they are playing with the houses money . . . they win either way so they might as well take huge risks.