• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Occupy Wall St - Occupy Everywhere, Occupy Together!

Status
Not open for further replies.
empty vessel said:
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.

Your own article suggests that increased Corporate Finance demands, IPO activity, and high yield demands can explain much of the rise in human capital concentrated in law and finance since the late 70s. In other words, banking has evolved from 1940s out of necessity as the market evolved as well.
 
saw this at Reddit....

kamRX.jpg
 
Muffdraul said:
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.

I think people forget that consumers have always wanted things and really do stretch out to get them. They want homes and to obtain homes, they want loans...qualified and unqualified.

Irresponsible people already demanded loans, but the kicker was the banks going in the wrong direction of allowing them to get it...that's the game changer amonst all of the other poor decisions that they made.

You can easily blame the banks, easily.
 
I've been down to "Occupy Wall Street" twice now, and I love it. The protests building at Liberty Square and spreading over Lower Manhattan are a great thing, the logical answer to the Tea Party and a long-overdue middle finger to the financial elite. The protesters picked the right target and, through their refusal to disband after just one day, the right tactic, showing the public at large that the movement against Wall Street has stamina, resolve and growing popular appeal.

But... there's a but. And for me this is a deeply personal thing, because this issue of how to combat Wall Street corruption has consumed my life for years now, and it's hard for me not to see where Occupy Wall Street could be better and more dangerous. I'm guessing, for instance, that the banks were secretly thrilled in the early going of the protests, sure they'd won round one of the messaging war.

Why? Because after a decade of unparalleled thievery and corruption, with tens of millions entering the ranks of the hungry thanks to artificially inflated commodity prices, and millions more displaced from their homes by corruption in the mortgage markets, the headline from the first week of protests against the financial-services sector was an old cop macing a quartet of college girls.

That, to me, speaks volumes about the primary challenge of opposing the 50-headed hydra of Wall Street corruption, which is that it's extremely difficult to explain the crimes of the modern financial elite in a simple visual. The essence of this particular sort of oligarchic power is its complexity and day-to-day invisibility: Its worst crimes, from bribery and insider trading and market manipulation, to backroom dominance of government and the usurping of the regulatory structure from within, simply can't be seen by the public or put on TV. There just isn't going to be an iconic "Running Girl" photo with Goldman Sachs, Citigroup or Bank of America – just 62 million Americans with zero or negative net worth, scratching their heads and wondering where the hell all their money went and why their votes seem to count less and less each and every year.

No matter what, I'll be supporting Occupy Wall Street. And I think the movement's basic strategy – to build numbers and stay in the fight, rather than tying itself to any particular set of principles – makes a lot of sense early on. But the time is rapidly approaching when the movement is going to have to offer concrete solutions to the problems posed by Wall Street. To do that, it will need a short but powerful list of demands. There are thousands one could make, but I'd suggest focusing on five:

1. Break up the monopolies. The so-called "Too Big to Fail" financial companies – now sometimes called by the more accurate term "Systemically Dangerous Institutions" – are a direct threat to national security. They are above the law and above market consequence, making them more dangerous and unaccountable than a thousand mafias combined. There are about 20 such firms in America, and they need to be dismantled; a good start would be to repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and mandate the separation of insurance companies, investment banks and commercial banks.

2. Pay for your own bailouts. A tax of 0.1 percent on all trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01 percent tax on all trades of derivatives would generate enough revenue to pay us back for the bailouts, and still have plenty left over to fight the deficits the banks claim to be so worried about. It would also deter the endless chase for instant profits through computerized insider-trading schemes like High Frequency Trading, and force Wall Street to go back to the job it's supposed to be doing, i.e., making sober investments in job-creating businesses and watching them grow.

3. No public money for private lobbying. A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer's own money to lobby against him. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can't do both. Butt out for once and let the people choose the next president and Congress.

4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers. For starters, we need an immediate repeal of the preposterous and indefensible carried-interest tax break, which allows hedge-fund titans like Stevie Cohen and John Paulson to pay taxes of only 15 percent on their billions in gambling income, while ordinary Americans pay twice that for teaching kids and putting out fires. I defy any politician to stand up and defend that loophole during an election year.

5. Change the way bankers get paid. We need new laws preventing Wall Street executives from getting bonuses upfront for deals that might blow up in all of our faces later. It should be: You make a deal today, you get company stock you can redeem two or three years from now. That forces everyone to be invested in his own company's long-term health – no more Joe Cassanos pocketing multimillion-dollar bonuses for destroying the AIGs of the world.

To quote the immortal political philosopher Matt Damon from Rounders, "The key to No Limit poker is to put a man to a decision for all his chips." The only reason the Lloyd Blankfeins and Jamie Dimons of the world survive is that they're never forced, by the media or anyone else, to put all their cards on the table. If Occupy Wall Street can do that – if it can speak to the millions of people the banks have driven into foreclosure and joblessness – it has a chance to build a massive grassroots movement. All it has to do is light a match in the right place, and the overwhelming public support for real reform – not later, but right now – will be there in an instant.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-20111012

I actually disagree with Matt. I think the protests are better off airing a long list of grievances and spotlighting inequality in our country. Politicians can sort out policy issues. If we narrow down our goals, it's just that much easier for politicians to give us a half-assed solution and take the wind out of the movement.

Also, here's a video of him with Imus:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/taibbi-on-imus-occupy-wall-street-20111012
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
Rocket Scientist said:
Can someone explain how this is possible?
1. You can spread losses over multiple years on your tax returns. So corporations that had a very bad year in 2008 (read: many) are still paying very low tax rates in 2011.

2. You lay off 50% of your workforce and make the remaining 50% do twice the work, your productivity (and profit) rises.

3. Lots of companies are sitting on your money instead of lending it, reinvesting it, or using it to hire more workers.
 

RSTEIN

Comics, serious business!
Rocket Scientist said:
Can someone explain how this is possible?

Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist ;)

The global economy is bumping along, recovering slowly from the recession. Worldwide industrial production is at or near an all-time high. Many commodities have recovered and until recently were also at or near all time highs. Emerging markets such as China, India, Brazil, etc., are powering the world forward. As far as business goes, life is OK at the moment.

Keep in mind much of the destruction of the profits you see in the chart reflects the obliteration of the banking system and several large industrial companies such as GM, Ford, etc. In reality, most of corporate America skated through the recession with little impairment to their valuations.
 
Hasphat'sAnts said:
Your own article suggests that increased Corporate Finance demands, IPO activity, and high yield demands can explain much of the rise in human capital concentrated in law and finance since the late 70s. In other words, banking has evolved from 1940s out of necessity as the market evolved as well.

Yes, and I suspect some demand for skill will remain in those areas. What the article says about that:

The second set of forces that appear to have a large influence on the demand for skills in finance are non-financial[/b] corporate activities: in particular, IPOs and credit risk. New firms are difficult to value because they are often associated with new technologies or new business models, and also for the obvious reason that they do not have a track record. Similarly, pricing and hedging risky debt is an order of magnitude harder than pricing and hedging government debt. Indeed, we find that increases in aggregate IPO activities and credit risk predict increases in human capital intensity in the financial industry. ...

The entry of new firms increases the informational requirements from financial analysts. New firms are difficult to value because they are often associated with new technologies or new business models, and also for the obvious reason that they do not have a track record. We therefore expect the intensity of IPOs to increase the returns to skill in the financial sector. We measure IPO activity from 1900 to 2002 using data from Jovanovic and Rousseau (2005). ...

Another area where financial activity has changed dramatically over long periods is credit risk. Corporate defaults were common until the 1930s, and the market for high yield debt was large. This market all but disappeared for 30 years, until “junk” bonds appeared in the 1970s. Pricing and hedging risky debt is an order of magnitude harder than pricing and hedging government debt. Risky debt affects all sides of the financial sector. It is used to finance risky firms with high growth potential. Rating risky debt requires skilled analysts: this explains the dynamics of rating agencies, which were important players in the interwar period, small and largely irrelevant in the 1950s and 1960s, and growing fast from the 1970s until today (Sylla (2002)). To measure credit risk, we use a three year moving average of the U.S. corporate default rate published by Moody’s. ...

Apart from regulation, we find an important role for corporate finance activities linked to IPOs and credit risk. Once again, we would not argue that IPOs are exogenous, but historical research suggest that they are exogenous enough for our purpose. Jovanovic and Rousseau (2005) have shown that IPO waves follow the introduction of General Purpose Technologies (GPT), such as electricity (1900-1930) or IT (1970-today). The timing of these technological revolutions is exogenous, and it explains the bulk of historical fluctuations in IPOs. Credit risk also increases during and after IPO waves, because young firms are volatile, and because they challenge established firms.

The article suggests that IPOs and the assessment of credit risk attendant with it comes in waves, and obviously whatever skill is needed for that purpose is needed to perform real work. However, the skill needed for "financial creativity and innovation" in general--the kind that came up with CDOs and CDSs and the kind that would be eliminated by reintroducing the regulations that have been removed over the last 30 years--is clearly key to stability of the financial industry. We wouldn't have to read nonsense like this anymore: "U.S. Bank is one of the largest providers of trust, agency and administrative services to the capital markets and is a leading trustee for asset- and mortgage-backed transactions globally. Our Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) Services are among the most innovative in this industry."

See also Courting Disaster the E.T.F. Way:

It didn’t take long for financial engineers to find a new playground. Fresh from dreaming up collateralized debt obligations (C.D.O.’s), structured finance specialists are applying similar techniques to exchange-traded funds. E.T.F.’s are wildly popular with big and small investors who love the liquidity and diversification such investments promise. But derivatives, special purpose vehicles and skewed incentives, hallmarks of the last boom and subsequent bust, have found their way into E.T.F.’s as well.

The Financial Stability Board and the International Monetary Fund sounded the alarm this week, warning that E.T.F. innovations could pose a threat to financial stability. In an eerie echo of what many said about C.D.O.’s and other complex financial products a few years ago, the regulators noted that no one really knows how these E.T.F.’s will stand up when markets next freak out.

Regulate Wall Street!
 
empty vessel said:
Yes, and I suspect some demand for skill will remain in those areas. What the article says about that:



The article suggests that IPOs and the assessment of credit risk attendant with it comes in waves, and obviously whatever skill is needed for that purpose is needed to perform real work. However, the skill needed for "financial creativity and innovation" in general--the kind that came up with CDOs and CDSs and the kind that would be eliminated by reintroducing the regulations that have been removed over the last 30 years--is clearly key to stability of the financial industry. We wouldn't have to read nonsense like this anymore: "U.S. Bank is one of the largest providers of trust, agency and administrative services to the capital markets and is a leading trustee for asset- and mortgage-backed transactions globally. Our Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) Services are among the most innovative in this industry."



Regulate Wall Street!

If you talk to any, and I mean any, risk manager at a bank/insurance company/brokerage, he or she will tell you that financial innovation and derivative contracts are absolutely essential for better risk control. What we need to do is to find prudent banking practices that discourages banks from speculating with derivative contracts, allowing them to do what they were created to do.

Outlawing them altogether is absolutely the wrong way to go.
 
Hasphat'sAnts said:
If you talk to any, and I mean any, risk manager at a bank/insurance company/brokerage, he or she will tell you that financial innovation and derivative contracts are absolutely essential for better risk control. What we need to do is to find prudent banking practices that discourages banks from speculating with derivative contracts, allowing them to do what they were created to do.

Outlawing them altogether is absolutely the wrong way to go.

Despite the empirical evidence that says otherwise?
 
dave is ok said:
OTC Derivatives should be outlawed.

Bullshit. How would companies hedge interest rate risks without interest rate swaps?


empty vessel said:
Despite the empirical evidence that says otherwise?

Outlawing derivatives is the financial equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 

Evlar

Banned
... better risk control than what? And for whom? If you mean it's better at eventually passing the risk on to the tax payer, I agree.
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
Hasphat'sAnts said:
Outlawing derivatives is the financial equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If the nose had the ability to kill the entire body, sure.

Come up with a way of doing derivatives without counterparty risk and you can have them
 

RSTEIN

Comics, serious business!
Derivatives exist to hedge risk. They are hedging instruments first and foremost. A farmer needs to sell his crop forward to provide income throughout the season. Corporations need to hedge currency risk. This goes back hundreds and hundreds of years and is essential to our economic system.

Speculators use these derivatives to control large amounts of stuff (equities, currencies, commodities, etc.) with little upfront payment. The payoffs can be mind numbingly huge (both good and bad, I know because I used to be a professional equity options trader).

It's not the farmers that are the problem. It's not the corporations that are the problem. Hell, it's not even speculators like me that are the problem. It's the 'weaponization' of the derivatives that occurs when they are concentrated and re-re-leveraged up the whazoo. This is done by very large financial instutions both on the sell side (JPM, Goldman, etc.) and on the buy side (check out Long-Term Capital Management and Victor Niederhoffer). When these instruments are weaponized they become, as Warren Buffett says, financial weapons of mass destruction. They become critically leveraged to even small perturbations to the market or the economy. This needs to be regulated heavily.
 
Evlar said:
Given that your link is to an education site and behind a paywall, I'll repeat my question in a different form: How do derivatives reduce systemic risk?

By hedging exposures to both assets and liabilities on a bank's balance sheet? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Derivatives as a hedging tool lowers risk for every balance sheet. Netting effects reduce exposures as well.
 
A brief history of the regulation of derivatives:

Derivatives have been around since the Civil War, when grain merchants came together to hedge the risk of changes in the price of corn, Wheat and other grains on a central exchange. These derivatives are called futures. Nearly 60 years after they first traded, Congress brought Federal regulation to these markets. In the 1930s, the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), which created the CFTC’s predecessor, became law.

From the 1930s until 1980, derivatives and publicly listed securities were subject to comprehensive oversight by federal regulators. This meant that derivatives were traded on regulated exchanges and policed to ensure fair and orderly trading. We refer to these on-exchange derivatives as futures.

Things began to change in 1981 with the first over-the-counter derivative transaction. Instead of trading through exchanges and being cleared through clearinghouses, over-the-counter derivatives are generally transacted bilaterally and are not subject to regulation.

The absence of a regulatory framework for over-the-counter derivatives in the United States was reflected in a combination of the statutory language of the CEA, Congressional action, CFTC interpretations and policy statements, case law and regulatory practice. For instance, in 1974, Congress introduced the “Treasury Amendment,” which exempted transactions in foreign currencies, government securities, mortgage securities and certain other debt instruments from CFTC regulation.

By the mid to late 1980s, the question of whether or not swaps should be regulated as futures started getting asked. They were initially unregulated as the marketplace was bilateral and highly customized. In 1989, the CFTC issued the Policy Statement Concerning Swap Transactions, in which the agency took the position that most swap transactions “were not appropriately regulated” as futures contracts under the CEA.

Congress subsequently addressed the issue of regulating swaps in the Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992 (FTPA). In that legislation, Congress afforded the CFTC broad exemptive authority over swap agreements and certain hybrid bank products. The FTPA Conference Committee noted that it granted the Commission this authority to specifically address the legal status of swaps and the possible exemption of swaps from the CEA. This authority was utilized starting in January 1993, when the CFTC concurrently published separate final rules that generally exempted swap agreements and hybrid instruments from provisions of the CEA. In particular, the January 1993 “Exemption for Certain Swaps Agreements” was relied upon by the market to exempt swap transactions as long as they were between eligible swap participants, were not standardized, had credit as a material term and were individually negotiated.

Later, in April 1993, the Commission issued an “Exemption for Certain Contracts Involving Energy Products,” which exempted various energy swaps from regulation, provided they were between covered commercial participants, individually negotiated and imposed binding delivery obligations upon the parties.

In the 1990s, the over-the-counter derivatives marketplace continued to grow significantly. Swaps started to become more standardized, though – it may be hard to remember now – we still lived in a world where the vast majority of these transactions happened over telephones, on a bilateral basis and had many components of individual negotiation, particularly on credit terms.

By 1998, the Bank for International Settlements estimated the total notional value of outstanding swaps to be approximately $80 trillion. The notional value of outstanding exchange-traded futures and options at that time was approximately $13.5 trillion. That year, the CFTC, under the leadership of Brooksley Born, issued a Concept Release on Over-the-Counter Derivatives that stated the agency’s intention to “reexamin[e] its approach to the over-the-counter derivatives market.”

In the Concept Release, the CFTC solicited industry and public input on whether the “regulatory structure applicable to OTC derivatives under the Commission’s regulations should be modified in any way in light of recent developments in the marketplace and to generate information and data to assist the Commission in assessing this issue.” As a result of the Concept Release being published, regulators, Congress and market participants engaged in a significant policy debate with regard to the swaps market. Some market participants also raised concerns that had been debated in earlier years with regard to legal certainty in the existing swaps market. Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) in 2000 to, among other things, confirm the then-existing regulatory practice of exempting swaps from regulation.

http://www.commodityonline.com/news/History-of-derivatives-regulation-culprit-OTCs-29636-3-1.html
 
I think the trolls that keep repeating things like "the protesters dont do anything" will be happy to learn that this offshoot movement actually affects the banks.


Bank Transfer Day is getting more and more press.

In an effort to send a message to big banks, some organizers, who are supported by the protestors of the Occupy Wall Street movement, have organized an event to remove all funds from banks and into credit unions.

Organizers are calling the event "Bank Transfer Day" and are encouraging people nationwide to participate November 5.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44800021

33,000 have now signed up on the facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=281139538577206


I have a BofA account, and even though I dont use a debit card, Ive been thinking of switching to a credit union. I think I shall next week.
 

Evlar

Banned
jamesinclair said:
I think the trolls that keep repeating things like "the protesters dont do anything" will be happy to learn that this offshoot movement actually affects the banks.


Bank Transfer Day is getting more and more press.



http://www.cnbc.com/id/44800021

33,000 have now signed up on the facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=281139538577206


I have a BofA account, and even though I dont use a debit card, Ive been thinking of switching to a credit union. I think I shall next week.
Hmm... my wife has been pushing for us to move our money from our faceless BankCorp branch to a credit union. If I propose this she'll agree in an instant.

Though honestly I'll be doing it in the interest of my personal finances.
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
A lot of people think Bloomberg is going to kick them all out tomorrow morning.

Hope he doesn't, that will likely make things get ugly
 
Evlar said:
Hmm... my wife has been pushing for us to move our money from our faceless BankCorp branch to a credit union. If I propose this she'll agree in an instant.

Though honestly I'll be doing it in the interest of my personal finances.

It's a win-win-win....win!

Save money.
Make money with better interest rates.
Help a local union.
Hurt a cheating mega-corporation.


A lot of people simply don't realize that CUs are superior in every way.

The banks, with their relentless advertising and lobbying have managed to trick america into thinking CUs are risky or subpar.
 

BorkBork

The Legend of BorkBork: BorkBorkity Borking
jamesinclair said:
It's a win-win-win....win!

Save money.
Make money with better interest rates.
Help a local union.
Hurt a cheating mega-corporation.


A lot of people simply don't realize that CUs are superior in every way.

The banks, with their relentless advertising and lobbying have managed to trick america into thinking CUs are risky or subpar.

I'm in Canada, so my situation's not the same, but my wife's been urging me to do the switch, and I am in the process of transferring my stuff over from a giant bank to the local credit union. When I think about it, there's not really any reason NOT to, and all those reasons you listed above to do so. It's just overcoming that inertia to do something about it.
 

alstein

Member
Bank transfer day is symbolic at best.

The people doing this aren't really super-profitable customers at the banks they go to, unless they rack up a ton of overdraft fees/etc.

I don't know if there's anything the 99% can do to pressure the banks outside of populist rage at the ballot box.
 
Anabuhabkuss said:
Not sure what your point is there. You can't negate a point by simply quoting Krugman.

He's a Nobel Prize winner. Just like Myron Scholes and Robert Merton.

I admire Scholes and Merton quite a bit, but their track record says that even the most brilliant in the field can be blinded by their own biases and ego.
 

Baraka in the White House

2-Terms of Kombat
Dude Abides said:
LoL. I doubt sensitive ponytail guy is all that busy, unless he's busy getting friendzoned. Probably majored in theater or medieval lit.

And he's probably gonna vote for Oba~, er... Romney, too. Such a conservative bias to these 53 percenters, I tell you. /remnant.
 

epmode

Member
I can't deal with this 53% shit. It's so monumentally stupid and short-sighted, it hurts to read.

I should just stay out of this thread.
 

Ripclawe

Banned
Seriously? A port a potty is a basic human right?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10...says-zuccotti-park-will-be-cleaned-up-friday/

It could be the beginning of the end of the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstration.

On Thursday, Brookfield Office Management employees were passing out notices to protesters, who have been camped out for 26 days, saying that tarps, sleeping bags and tents are all prohibited in the park, as is lying on the ground and on benches when it becomes an interference for others.

“They might as well as just said ‘You’re done,’” one protester told CBS 2′s Ann Mercogliano.

“This is an eviction notice,” said another.

In response to the new regulations, Occupy Wall Street called for supporters to come to Zuccotti Park at 6 a.m. on Friday to “defend the occupation from eviction.” In a statement on their website, the group also encouraged supporters to call 311 and demand that the mayor “support our right to assemble and to not interfere with #OWS.”

That statement also went on to say that if Mayor Michael Bloomberg really cared about sanitation at the park, “he should support the installation of portopans and dumpsters.”


The notification followed Wednesday night’s announcement by the mayor’s office that protesters need to leave the park on Friday so it can get cleaned up.

“The last three weeks have created unsanitary conditions and considerable wear and tear on the park,” said the mayor’s office.

The cleaning operation is set to take place in three stages, each lasting about four hours. Protesters will have to move from portions of the park that are being cleaned. Although the protesters can return to the cleaned areas of the park, they have to abide by the rules. And those strict rules distributed Thursday seem to suggest a showdown with the NYPD may be imminent.

Mercogliano reported that some of the protesters she spoke with have said they will leave. Others have said they won’t.

Bloomberg visited the park Wednesday night. He was greeted by a mix of cheers and jeers. His office says that after the park is sanitized, the protesters are welcome to return.

Some folks opposed to the Occupy Wall Street movement have taken to calling them the “Flea Party,” mocking their makeshift camp and ad-hoc cleanup crews.





Some protesters say they’ve gone to great lengths to keep the park clean.

“I think the mayor and some of his ‘clonies’ are trying to use tactics to get us to move out of the park,” one demonstrator told 1010 WINS’ John Montone.

“There’s a lot of stuff we wouldn’t have to clean up if the city provided basic human rights, like a Port-A-Potty,” said demonstrator Gene Wagner. “If you would’ve given us a Port-A-Potty 30 days ago, we would’ve maintained it ourselves.”


“Every day, all day, we clean up the park,” Max Hodes told CBS 2′s Dave Carlin.

“This is a protest; it’s not a camping area. People aren’t camping here, they’re protesting and we have the right to have sleeping bags. Where are they gonna sleep? How are they gonna protest? Without sleeping bags, they can’t protest,” one demonstrator told 1010 WINS’ Stan Brooks.

Some protesters who found themselves caught in rain squalls Thursday morning took shelter in a Bank of America ATM kiosk to stay dry.

WINS’ John Montone asked a protester if there was anything ironic about that.

“We’re using them like they use us,” was the reply he got.




They’re getting a boost from musician Tom Morello of Rage Against The Machine. Morello is putting on a performance at Zuccotti Park.


While the mayor has said the park will be cleaned Friday, the protesters don’t seem to be making any plans on going anywhere. They’ve planned a “Family Sleep Over” in the park, set to start at 4 p.m. Friday.

What’s more, the weekend looks as though it may be a busy one for the demonstrators. According to their website, they’re planning a “Mass March on the Banks” followed by a plan to “Occupy Times Square” at 5 p.m. Saturday.

According to the site, the function in Times Square will be a party “in the festive sense of the word.” At 6:30 p.m. Saturday, there’s an event planned called “Occupy the Subway,” but no details on that have been made available.

All of those planned events meant little to some nearby businesses. Mike Keane, owner of nearby O’Hara’s Pub, told CBS 2′s Carlin demonstrators use his bathrooms and disrupt his business.

“I really hope this circus moves on. I’ve had my fill of these people,” Keane said.


He said the clean-up plan is not enough.

“Somebody’s going to wind up getting killed and maybe then someone will say let’s get them out of here. Hopefully it doesn’t take that,” Keane said.
 

JCX

Member
jamesinclair said:
I think the trolls that keep repeating things like "the protesters dont do anything" will be happy to learn that this offshoot movement actually affects the banks.


Bank Transfer Day is getting more and more press.



http://www.cnbc.com/id/44800021

33,000 have now signed up on the facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=281139538577206


I have a BofA account, and even though I dont use a debit card, Ive been thinking of switching to a credit union. I think I shall next week.

Credit unions are great. I don't even have a bank account.
 

Alucrid

Banned
jamesinclair said:
I think the trolls that keep repeating things like "the protesters dont do anything" will be happy to learn that this offshoot movement actually affects the banks.


Bank Transfer Day is getting more and more press.



http://www.cnbc.com/id/44800021

33,000 have now signed up on the facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=281139538577206


I have a BofA account, and even though I dont use a debit card, Ive been thinking of switching to a credit union. I think I shall next week.

Well, I hope that actually happens. But, you know, it's a lot easier to click the 'Like' button than to actually transfer all your funds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom