Support NeoGAF

[timetokill]

Libertarians are against corporatism? They are the poster children for deregulation and the invisible hand. How could they be anti-corporate? They're more pro-corporate than the Republicans and Democrats combined.

See, this statement betrays your misunderstanding of corporatism and libertarianism. And be careful not to confuse pro-market with pro-corporatism.

In a corporatist state, the government is powerful through the "contributions" of the corporations. This isn't ideal to a libertarian because it distorts the market by promoting anti-competitive measures. The reason why many of those who agree with many libertarian positions (including me) support the OWS stuff is because of this. It's not simply a deregulated market that has led to this point -- simply put, it's not a purely deregulated market. We've gotten to this point due to a combination of deregulation PLUS government intervention. For instance, if there was no strong government protecting these corporations, there would have been no bailouts. These companies would have fallen due to their bad practices.

However, since the government is in their pocket, and the government has the power to basically steal wealth from the population and redistribute it to the corporations through monetary policy, these companies are not only protected but in many ways rewarded for what they did.


I don't agree with all libertarian positions, just as I'm sure you don't all agree with Democratic positions or Republican positions or anything like that. But if the heart of this protest is "we need to separate corporate wealth and influence from the government," it doesn't matter if you want the government to be "big" or "small" -- the first part is something you can still agree on.

 

[Dude Abides]

So didn't the government make money on the deal?

Do you understand what the term "below-market" means?

 

[Timedog]

Can't we just have a gentlemen's agreement to completely ignore both Manos and Enron in this thread?

I'm in.

We should remind the thread once in awhile if new members keep falling for their trolls.

 

[empty vessel]

Yep. They got a loan from the government at a below-market interest rate and paid it all back. So they got a nice subsidy from the taxpayer.

Indeed. And this doesn't even account for the $13 billion Goldman got that was passed through AIG as a shell, which it was able to keep free and clear. Goldman execs got $11.4 billion in bonuses that year. So, basically, we collectively took billions of our dollars and deposited it in a handful of individuals' private bank accounts--the same individuals who foolishly directed their company to make huge bets with an insolvent company.

It's like if I had bet a homeless guy a million dollars about something, won the bet, and then forced everybody else in the society to pay off the homeless man's debt to me. Life is good if you can pull that kind of heist off. And not only pull it off, but get a good chunk of the country to defend your actions and even to relentlessly attack the people who take issue with it and would like to do something about it and prevent it from happening again in the future.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Good luck!

you still ignore what you said in the other thread. clearly illustrates your character.

 

[travisbickle]

Sadly they've killed lots of people in various insurgency movements in the past and continue to do so in India today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_(Maoist)

Give me a break. Maoism is a political theory.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Indeed. And this doesn't even account for the $13 billion Goldman got that was passed through AIG as a shell, which it was able to keep free and clear. Goldman execs got $11.4 billion in bonuses that year. So, basically, we collectively took billions of our dollars and deposited it in a handful of individuals' private bank accounts--the same individuals who foolishly directed their company to make huge bets with an insolvent company.

It's like if I had bet a homeless guy a million dollars about something, won the bet, and then forced everybody else in the society to pay off the homeless man's debt to me. Life is good if you can pull that kind of heist off. And not only pull it off, but get a good chunk of the country to defend your actions and even to relentlessly attack the people who take issue with it and would like to do something about it and prevent it from happening again in the future.

Did the government make back it's loan money and with profit, yes or no?

I'm in.

We should remind the thread once in awhile if new members keep falling for their trolls.

What if people choose not to listen to you?

Do you understand what the term "below-market" means?

Do you understand the meaning of making money?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Give me a break. Maoism is a political theory.

An extremely dumb one embraced by numerous insurgency groups over the years, so I fail to see your point. I gave an example of a Maoist insurgent group, one with Maoism as main ideological bend.

 

[Dude Abides]

According to Bloomberg, GS repayment of TARP funds generated a 23% return for the US Gov't.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6pS.2Pr7bdQ

A below-market return. (from your own link)

That 23 percent return compares with the 42 percent surge in Goldman Sachs’s share price since October

Here's a link is to the WSJ further explaining why your statement doesn't hold up. Hopefully since it's the WSJ even you and Manos should be ok with it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2009/07/23/goldmans-23-return-doesnt-add-up/

 

[Joe]

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

A below-market return. (from your own link)

But still a return, correct?

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

If it somehow came down to OWS inciting violence than OWS would cease to exist.

 

[Dude Abides]

Do you understand the meaning of making money?

Sure. Apparently you don't, since you apparently consider a loan at below market rates to be "making money" rather than a subsidy. Market finance how does it work?

 

[kame-sennin]

Chris Hedges on OWS w/ OccupyTVNY -- 10/15/11

That was an amazing video. I think people should remember to post it every time someone asks about the end goal of this movement. Hedges really addresses the question perfectly.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Sure. Apparently you don't, since you apparently consider a loan at below market rates to be "making money" rather than a subsidy. Market finance how does it work?

In the end was more money than was initially loaned out paid back, yes or no?

 

[Enron]

A below-market return. (from your own link)



Here's a link is to the WSJ further explaining why your statement doesn't hold up. Hopefully since it's the WSJ even you and Manos should be ok with it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2009/07/23/goldmans-23-return-doesnt-add-up/

Uhm, where did I say anywhere that it was/wasn't a below market return? I just linked to an article that listed the total return, which was 23%. The poster I was responding to inferred that GS took the gov'ts money, and then turned around and handed it all out as gift bonuses to its employee, when clearly that wasn't the case. The money was payed back swiftly and with interest. I believe GS was one of the first banks to get totally free and clear of TARP.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

That was an amazing video. I think people should remember to post it every time someone asks about the end goal of this movement. Hedges really addresses the question perfectly.

You can't answer them yourself, you needed someone else to decide for you?

 

[empty vessel]

Did the government make back it's loan money and with profit, yes or no?

At a time when all the tough guys in Washington are making plans to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for high-living seniors and to cut Head Start for low-income kids, it was generous of Warren Buffett to point out that we taxpayers gave over $1 billion to Goldman Sachs through TARP. Buffett probably didn't intend to point out this fact to the country, but it is an unavoidable implication of his $2 billion profit on his loans to Goldman.

Buffett made his $5 billion loan to Goldman about a week before the Treasury lent $10 billion to Goldman through the TARP program. Buffet got 10 percent interest on his loans, while the Treasury got 5 percent on its loans. In addition, Buffett got a much more generous commitment of stock warrants, which is the basis of the $2 billion in profits that he is now set to pocket.

The Treasury boasted of getting a $1.1 billion profit on its loans to Goldman, but as Mr. Buffet showed, this was far below the market rate of interest on loans to Goldman at the time. The difference between the return received by Buffett and the return received by the Treasury was in effect a gift from taxpayers to the top executives at Goldman and their shareholders. When Treasury Secretary Geithner and other officials claim that the government made money on the TARP loans it is either due to their ignorance of the workings of financial markets or a deliberate effort to deceive the public.

It is also worth noting that the TARP money was only a portion of the extraordinary assistance that the taxpayers have given Goldman's top executives and shareholders. The FDIC also guaranteed tens of billions of loans to Goldman. Goldman was allowed to borrow tens of billions of dollars from the Fed at below market interest rates. And it was allowed to become a bank holding company, and thereby gain the protection of the Fed and the FDIC, at the peak of the crisis, averting a run that which would almost certainly have been fatal.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs...try-tarp-gave-over-1-billion-to-goldman-sachs

Now, did Goldman--in addition to these above-described generous subsidies from the rest of us to Goldman executives' private bank accounts--receive $13 billion it would not have otherwise had but for the government bailout? Yes or no?

If the government gives me a $10 billion dollar below-market loan, I would be happy to make the government a profit too. I would also welcome the government guaranteeing all the bets of every counterparty I make them with. As would 99% of the population. Yet, these benefits only seem to be reserved to a small fraction of us, say about 1% of us. Wait a minute, I see a theme emerging here...

 

[FlyinJ]

See, this statement betrays your misunderstanding of corporatism and libertarianism. And be careful not to confuse pro-market with pro-corporatism.

In a corporatist state, the government is powerful through the "contributions" of the corporations. This isn't ideal to a libertarian because it distorts the market by promoting anti-competitive measures. The reason why many of those who agree with many libertarian positions (including me) support the OWS stuff is because of this. It's not simply a deregulated market that has led to this point -- simply put, it's not a purely deregulated market. We've gotten to this point due to a combination of deregulation PLUS government intervention. For instance, if there was no strong government protecting these corporations, there would have been no bailouts. These companies would have fallen due to their bad practices.

However, since the government is in their pocket, and the government has the power to basically steal wealth from the population and redistribute it to the corporations through monetary policy, these companies are not only protected but in many ways rewarded for what they did.


I don't agree with all libertarian positions, just as I'm sure you don't all agree with Democratic positions or Republican positions or anything like that. But if the heart of this protest is "we need to separate corporate wealth and influence from the government," it doesn't matter if you want the government to be "big" or "small" -- the first part is something you can still agree on.

I get it. However, I find it extremely obvious as history has shown time and again that if you deregulate something, it will completely dominate and destroy anything it touches. Sure, it will fall apart because of unsustainable accounting and greed. However, even if there were no 'corporate government' to bail it out, it would still behave in the exact same manner. And when it collapses, another deregulated entity would rise up, take it's place, and do the exact same thing all over again.

So, instead of having government-backed corporations destroying everything, you'd have unbridled and deregulated entities able to wreck as much destruction as they could possibly muster in the name of pure profit. If anything, I would much rather live in a world with a paid-off government that at least forces the tiniest fraction of accountability on a corporate entity as opposed to none at all.

Anyhow, I'm sure you're one to think that somehow there would be an invisible hand guiding over the entire enterprise providing stability. I completely disagree with this idea, and I believe a large portion of OWS does as well.

 

[Dude Abides]

In the end was more money than was initially loaned out paid back, yes or no?

Do you understand what markets are? Do you understand that making a loan at 1% to a specific lendee when you could have made it at 2% in the market is essentially a subsidy to the lendee? Please acknowledge that you understand this simple concept before I further waste my time explaining basic finance to you.

If you do understand this simple concept, please explain it to Enron. He's struggling with it also.

 

[Fusion Pizza]

I'm heading back to SF soon, a week or so, I'll be down at OccupySF, going to donate my tent and other stuff as well.

 

[Enron]

Do you understand what markets are? Do you understand that making a loan at 1% to a specific lendee when you could have made it at 2% in the market is essentially a subsidy to the lendee? Please acknowledge that you understand this simple concept before I further waste my time explaining basic finance to you.

If you do understand this simple concept, please explain it to Enron. He's struggling with it also.

I'm not struggling with anything, because I am not the one that made that argument. A poster inferred that GS went and played with its TARP funds, when they had instead paid them back with interest. Others are arguing the below-market/not below market deal. I haven't said jack about it not being below market or whatever. That's Manos.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

....

So yes, the government did make a profitable return on the loans. Thank you that's what I needed to know the answer to.

 

[travisbickle]

An extremely dumb one embraced by numerous insurgency groups over the years, so I fail to see your point. I gave an example of a Maoist insurgent group, one with Maoism as main ideological bend.

That's my point!


You're a Republican? These are the Republicans, wiki to IRA, why would you want to be one of them unless you were Irish and wanted to blow up the Queen? They're violent and sick.

 

[Fusion Pizza]

Come on guys, don't feed Manos and Enron, I know they look hungry under that bridge, but it only encourages them.

 

[kame-sennin]

Christ.

So help changing the national conversation from spending cuts and deficit reduction to jobs and income inequality is a massive waste?

It is amazing how people ignore what a huge shift this is.

 

[timetokill]

Anyhow, I'm sure you're one to think that somehow there would be an invisible hand guiding over the entire enterprise providing stability. I completely disagree with this idea, and I believe a large portion of OWS does as well.

No, I think there has to be some regulation. But my feeling on it is more about having a small, powerful regulatory force rather than a big sprawling one. The bigger the government, in my opinion, the more easily corrupted it becomes. I think that the market can handle most things very efficiently, and the so-called "invisible hand" does work to a degree (though the concept today is really detached from what Adam Smith wrote back then). But I think that there are plenty of areas where externalities and such make a solid argument for a public solution.

For example, I think the TSA is an egregious overreach of government power, and I think that the "War on Drugs" is as well. But I can see the need for some public health care options, or pollution management, some public transportation solutions, etc.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

That's my point!


You're a Republican?

No, I'm a registered Democrat. Maoism is a very specific form of political ideology, you're not adding it just to spiff up the name, if you use the ideology odds are you are a Maoist.

Besides even embracing Maoism just as a political ideology is a sign that a person is an idiot.

 

[FlyinJ]

No, I think there has to be some regulation. But my feeling on it is more about having a small, powerful regulatory force rather than a big sprawling one. The bigger the government, in my opinion, the more easily corrupted it becomes. I think that the market can handle most things very efficiently, and the so-called "invisible hand" does work to a degree (though the concept today is really detached from what Adam Smith wrote back then). But I think that there are plenty of areas where externalities and such make a solid argument for a public solution.

For example, I think the TSA is an egregious overreach of government power, and I think that the "War on Drugs" is as well. But I can see the need for some public health care options, or pollution management, some public transportation solutions, etc.

Well, you're one of the most level-headed Libertarians I've ever encountered.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Do you understand what markets are? Do you understand that making a loan at 1% to a specific lendee when you could have made it at 2% in the market is essentially a subsidy to the lendee? Please acknowledge that you understand this simple concept before I further waste my time explaining basic finance to you.

If you do understand this simple concept, please explain it to Enron. He's struggling with it also.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm not struggling with anything, because I am not the one that made that argument. A poster inferred that GS went and played with its TARP funds, when they had instead paid them back with interest. Others are arguing the below-market/not below market deal. I haven't said jack about it not being below market or whatever. That's Manos.

Correct. Goldman paid back the taxpayer investment at a below-market rate, and kept the difference; some of which went to those infamous bonuses. Yay for Goldman I suppose for fooling some people into thinking that executive comp didn't stem from the govt's gift?

So yes, the government did make a profitable return on the loans. Thank you that's what I needed to know the answer to.

A below-market return on an investment isn't considered a profitable investment. For someone so emotionally invested in defending the righteousness of financial institutions, you sure are ignorant about extremely basic finance.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Dude Abides just got testy, it's not that uncommon, heck he even apologized to zmoney for acting the same way in the Troy Davis thread.

 

[travisbickle]

No, I'm a registered Democrat. Maoism is a very specific form of political ideology, you're not adding it just to spiff up the name, if you use the ideology odds are you are a Maoist.

Besides even embracing Maoism just as a political ideology is a sign that a person is an idiot.

Did you just say the Irish Republican Army are using "Republican" to spiff up their name?

 

[kame-sennin]

You can't answer them yourself, you needed someone else to decide for you?

I understand that the video contradicts everything you've said in this thread, and that the prospect of the speaker's predictions coming true unnerves you, but that's really no excuse for being rude.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Did you just say the Irish Republican Army are using "Republican" to spiff up their name?

No, I said it was the case with Maoist groups if they used Mao in the name.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I understand that the video contradicts everything you've said in this thread, and that the prospect of the speaker's predictions coming true unnerves you, but that's really no excuse for being rude.

What does he say? I've been watching videos of Glocks and Beretta's trying to figure out which might make a better first gun, so I haven't seen it. I'm experienced disappointment that you couldn't on your own come up with an endgame and that you need someone to tell it to you.

 

[kame-sennin]

What does he say? I've been watching videos of Glocks and Beretta's trying to figure out which might make a better first gun, so I haven't seen it. I'm experienced disappointment that you couldn't on your own come up with an endgame and that you need someone to tell it to you.

Yep. That's what I said in my post.

Of course, you know that's not what I actually said. You know I was promoting the video because it stated the point in the clearest, most succinct fashion. Why you chose to ignore this, I do not know.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yep. That's what I said in my post.

That's what I said. Though for some reason autocorrect switched expressed to experienced.

 

[Enron]

Looks like no news today about Occupy Atlanta except for this little gem - crazy dude tries to interrupt the proceedings

http://blog.sfgate.com/abraham/2011...-wild-dude-occupy-wall-st/?gta=commentlistpos

 

[dave is ok]

The fact that Goldman repaid TARP is irrelevant. It has been borrowing money from the FED at 0% interest rates for years. TARP wasn't the only bailout.

The government also made sure Goldman got 100 cents on the dollar of all of the money AIG owed them, which is offensive to me as a taxpayer

 

[Dude Abides]

Dude Abides just got testy, it's not that uncommon, heck he even apologized to zmoney for acting the same way in the Troy Davis thread.

It's cute that you follow me so closely. I did apologize to zmoney for my tone in that post. Even though he was wrong, law students should be encouraged when they're at least trying. Are there any other irrelevant posts of mine you'd like to bring up?

In any event, if you'd at least make a good-faith attempt to engage with actual arguments rather than haphazardly derping about subjects you apparently know nothing about, such as TARP, I might be more charitable to you as well.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It's cute that you follow me so closely. I did apologize to zmoney for my tone in that post?

See there is hope.

 

[kame-sennin]

That's what I said. Though for some reason autocorrect switched expressed to experienced.

I edited my post for clarity.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I edited my post for clarity.

Well then what is the endgame in your own words, because I haven't seen anyone post on the subject before, if you did before and I missed it then, I apologize.

 

[Bad_Boy]

well this thread is shit again.

since manos is still ignoring what he said...

In the interest of letting people discuss the issues at hand, whatever they may feel they are or however they feel about them, I withdraw from posting in this thread and any future thread on the subject.

using the ignore feature doesnt seem like that bad of an idea.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

using the ignore feature doesnt seem like that bad of an idea.

Then use it.

 

[kame-sennin]

Well then what is the endgame in your own words, because I haven't seen anyone post on the subject before, if you did before and I missed it then, I apologize.

Thanks. Essentially, the goal is to create a critical mass that is so great that the government can not ignore it. Many people have rightly pointed out that OWS has little power as a voting block. There will never be enough protesters to represent an electoral threat on their own. However, movements have a way of influencing the populace at large. You may be skeptical of this, but it is already happening. The democrats are attempting to co-opt the movement and the republicans are softening their rhetoric. This is a dramatic change from the first few weeks. In the tri-state area, major news coverage of OWS is actually very positive. This will slowly filter out to the media at large, and the population along with it. When the American people start asking why the OWS demands aren't being met - regulating the banks, de-coupling business and government, prosecuting fruad - the politicians in office will have no choice but to address these demands or loose their seats.

The other effect is that OWS de-legitimizes the government. Just by bringing up the issue of corruption, they remind the American populace that the government is no longer acting in a democratic fashion. This again forces the government to quickly correct course or acknowledge through inaction their abandonment of democratic principles. If they do the latter, the reaction from the American public would be unpredictable.

 

[HarryHengst]

Hahaha, the financial corporations and banks aren't even pretending they are literally buying the government anymore:

After the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a recent email urging supporters to sign a petition backing the wave of Occupy Wall Street protests, phones at the party committee started ringing.

Banking executives personally called the offices of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and DCCC Finance Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) last week demanding answers, three financial services lobbyists told POLITICO.

“They were livid,” said one Democratic lobbyist with banking clients.

The execs asked the lawmakers: “What are you doing? Do you even understand some of the things that they’ve called for?” said another lobbyist with financial services clients who is a former Democratic Senate aide.

Democrats’ friends on Wall Street have a message for them: you can’t have it both ways.

[...]

more behind the link.


This is the best quote though:

“In some ways, I think this is worse than [Dodd-Frank] because it is more symbolic,” said a Democratic financial services lobbyist. “People from Wall Street can deal with regulation, they deal with it all the time … I think it’s just the bashing that sort of drives them crazy.”

Their disconnection from reality is just amazing to watch.

 

[Jenga]

guys i think timetokill is an illuminati plant

 

[akira28]

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

If this is in reference to one particular gafffer, if we follow the time line, this actually happened in reverse.

 

[kame-sennin]

Hahaha, the financial corporations and banks aren't even pretending they are literally buying the government anymore:


more behind the link.


This is the best quote though:


Their disconnection from reality is just amazing to watch.

If the protests have no chance of success, why is Wall Street so scared?