forty
Active member
maybe he's hoping his lady is gonna give it up to him after work?
Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!
- Thread starter Anti
- Start date
- Status
maybe he's hoping his lady is gonna give it up to him after work?
forty
Active member
hmm, what do you suppose is the cause of the european sovereign debt crisis?
ijim
Member
Big media and wall street one and the same. What I don't understand about this movement is the place of the unions in it. And protesting the programs and ways of the administration without mentioning the administration. Politically correct protest without palling a spade a spade is impotent.
It really doesn't matter what the market does one way or another. Those supposed gains for the most part ARE NOT REAL. It's inflated money having to go somewhere.
The stock value doesn't represent greater production and wealth creation. It's simply a reflection of fund managers and banks looking for a safe haven for billions of dollars driving pricing. A bubble, if you will.
They ain't putting too much money in malls and real estate any more.
Face it. The Ivy league Whiz Kids have no more tricks up their sleeve to hide the fact that the dollar and most of the developed worlds currency has been inflated to worthlessness and all the smoke and mirrors aren't going to prevent "The Big Correction".
The market always wins and the really smart economists are going to scratch their heads and wonder how we can deflation at home and wild inflation of prices of oil and goods we import.
Because the dollar ain't gonna be worth a Continental.
As soon as no one wants it, the jig is up, and that day is around the corner.
Look up OPEC and basket currency. Fun read.
The stock value doesn't represent greater production and wealth creation. It's simply a reflection of fund managers and banks looking for a safe haven for billions of dollars driving pricing. A bubble, if you will.
They ain't putting too much money in malls and real estate any more.
Face it. The Ivy league Whiz Kids have no more tricks up their sleeve to hide the fact that the dollar and most of the developed worlds currency has been inflated to worthlessness and all the smoke and mirrors aren't going to prevent "The Big Correction".
The market always wins and the really smart economists are going to scratch their heads and wonder how we can deflation at home and wild inflation of prices of oil and goods we import.
Because the dollar ain't gonna be worth a Continental.
As soon as no one wants it, the jig is up, and that day is around the corner.
Look up OPEC and basket currency. Fun read.
They are, but the reality is there are no painless solutions to our situation. Gross economic distortions cannot be stopped from reverting to the mean. I would much rather have deflationary Armageddon vs Hyperinflationary Armageddon.
There is nothing worse for a society than currency destruction. They aren't roasting marshmallows. They are roasting the 99%.
To use your bleed out analogy. Deflationary Armageddon is getting out the machete and chopping off some limbs. It hurts, but you get patched up and live to fight another day. Hyperinflationary Armageddon is attempting death by a thousand cuts thinking we are smarter than every other country that has tried to print their way out of a balance sheet depression. One day when we are pale and near death a large monster comes in and tears you apart from limb to limb. Hard to live to fight another day after that.
Ever wonder why casinos in Vegas never offer "stupid gamblers" insurance at little vending machines by the door?
Ain't no money in it.
I'm surprised the Govt. hasn't rushed in to fill that niche market.
They've hit every other market they could find.
They should have a commercial...
"Like stupid risk?
You'll love US...
We take the pain out of stupid."
Ain't no money in it.
I'm surprised the Govt. hasn't rushed in to fill that niche market.
They've hit every other market they could find.
They should have a commercial...
"Like stupid risk?
You'll love US...
We take the pain out of stupid."
Naw, never inferred painless. I suggested a gold standard wouldn't do anything for a top run amok. We're flooding dollars because banks won't reassess their bottom lines and we're powerless to force their hand. Obama can't do anything that amounts to controlling the chaos because the house is divided. If we get a democratic house and hold the senate we've got a good chance to pass meaning Wall Street reform. IMO, the debt ceiling debacle jaded Obama's compromise wet dream and it's all or nothing next term.
I know you disagree, but O is Wall Street's boy IMO. Past all the rhetoric his actions mimic his predecessor in many ways.
I can't trust the people in office (D's or R's) to fix these problems any longer. That's what makes me want to go out and protest. I think thats the underlying foundation for all global protesting and unrest right now.
I can't trust the people in office (D's or R's) to fix these problems any longer. That's what makes me want to go out and protest. I think thats the underlying foundation for all global protesting and unrest right now.
I thought you were linking Obama and Bernanke. Sounds like it's Obama o' the time.
Article on the Economist about the protest: http://www.economist.com/node/21531481
One of the better reader comments (pretty insightful if ya ask me) --
"Modern protesters do not know how to protest anymore.
Take something like the Civil Rights movement. People marched in their Sunday best and made sure that the message itself was the only thing that challenged society. This was why the images of them getting hit with fire hoses were so strong. By being presentable and on point, they could enter the national consciousness without inspiring revulsion and at the same time make the reaction of the people who opposed their message seem more extreme.
Contrast to today's protesters. The uninvolved people would cheer if they got sprayed down because it would mean they're finally getting a shower. Not that most of the protesters are dirty or unhygienic, but the perception is that they are, because media coverage is going to focus on the most extreme images it can find. It's better copy to get a wild eyed guy with a banjo then it is to get the clean cut lady in her early 30's. Inclusiveness and open mindedness is a great ideal, but at some point you have to realize that letting the turtle costume guy hang out at an anti wall street protest invalidates the whole thing.
Protests like this always hand the public easy reasons to dismiss them out of hand. And the news stories inevitably go something like, "the protest is supposed to be about A, but we saw various crazy people protesting B,C, and D." It makes it look like the protesters don't actually care about A."
One of the better reader comments (pretty insightful if ya ask me) --
"Modern protesters do not know how to protest anymore.
Take something like the Civil Rights movement. People marched in their Sunday best and made sure that the message itself was the only thing that challenged society. This was why the images of them getting hit with fire hoses were so strong. By being presentable and on point, they could enter the national consciousness without inspiring revulsion and at the same time make the reaction of the people who opposed their message seem more extreme.
Contrast to today's protesters. The uninvolved people would cheer if they got sprayed down because it would mean they're finally getting a shower. Not that most of the protesters are dirty or unhygienic, but the perception is that they are, because media coverage is going to focus on the most extreme images it can find. It's better copy to get a wild eyed guy with a banjo then it is to get the clean cut lady in her early 30's. Inclusiveness and open mindedness is a great ideal, but at some point you have to realize that letting the turtle costume guy hang out at an anti wall street protest invalidates the whole thing.
Protests like this always hand the public easy reasons to dismiss them out of hand. And the news stories inevitably go something like, "the protest is supposed to be about A, but we saw various crazy people protesting B,C, and D." It makes it look like the protesters don't actually care about A."
I
Iron_Lion
I have to admit, some of the theatrics I have seen kind of makes the whole thing look retarded. Too many people with too much time on their hands meeting up for some L.A.R.P in the park.
Im almost starting to wonder if some people's motviation is "to be seen" picked up and cast for the next great reality show.
I have a hard time getting behind this because most of the people I see on wallstreet and at local protests look like a bunch of idiot college kids whining about their student loans when it was their fault for getting a go-nowhere degree and not having ANY recorded work history. Some of these people I wouldnt even want to sit next to on the subway much less camp out with them.
I seen some people in some news thing the other day all dressed up like zombies marching around like a bunch of little kids, I mean come on...who could take that seriously, I cant and the situation disgusts me just and much as the next guy.
Yeah, it's too bad they're not all a bunch a white people so fat they have to bring lawn chairs.
I
Iron_Lion
Now that's my kind of protest! While your up can you get me some mo fried chicken pweese.
Don't forget the Pabst Blue Ribbon.
Attachments
yes, it does appear incongruity dilutes the actions of the protesters...but with this spreading they are getting more attention...we should probably have our own contingency
...most would support our efforts, as our efforts are being ground under the heels of apathy and opression atm.
...most would support our efforts, as our efforts are being ground under the heels of apathy and opression atm.
... In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you’ve forgotten, it was a play in three acts.
In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.
Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html?_r=2
In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.
Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html?_r=2
How Lobbyists Are Undermining Dodd-Frank: A Case Study
Darius Tahir - Oct 6, 2011
On October 18 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) will vote on a proposed rule to limit the percentage of contracts in a given commodity that any individual trader can own. The rule, mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, could potentially be very important: If a trader or bank is allowed to own too high a share of any given market, financial reform advocates argue, that entity can control the price of the market for its own purposes; or, even if there is no manipulation, market prices may simply rocket higher, untethered to any real-world conception of supply and demand. Indeed, in the past few years, allegations of speculation and market manipulation have been thrown at grain markets, oil markets, and even commodities like silver and cocoa.
But if the logic behind regulating the size of traders’ positions in a given market is sound, the process of bringing the necessary rules into existence has proven difficult, to say the least. The partisan nature of the CFTC and the active lobbying campaigns to influence the rule-making process are making it uncertain if the rule will pass the committee and, if so, whether the final version will be strong enough to live up to Dodd-Frank’s original intent.
Proponents of tight position limits argue that excessive speculation in a market means prices will generally be both higher and more volatile. The consequences of higher prices are easy to understand—for example, a Goldman Sachs report in April estimated that the speculative premium on a barrel of oil was then between $21.40 and $26.75 a barrel, roughly a sixth of the total price at that time. As Marcus Stanley of Americans for Financial Reform told me, all sorts of people rely on predictable commodity markets for their business: gas stations, businesses that supply heating oil, enterprises that order food in bulk such as confectioners, and so on. Higher volatility often ends up being passed on to businesses as a higher cost on their balance sheet, with predictable consequences.
The rule has no chance of going into effect, however, unless it garners enough votes. At present, the CFTC is divided along partisan lines, with two presumed votes for the rule (Chairman Gary Gensler, appointed by Obama, and Bart Chilton, appointed by Bush and reappointed by Obama) and two votes against (Jill Sommers and Scott O’Malia, both former Republican Congressional aides). Meanwhile, Commissioner Michael Dunn, the swing vote who was appointed and re-appointed by Bush, appears to be leaning towards voting no, arguing the CFTC hasn’t performed the proper cost-benefit analysis to back up the rule. An appeals court recently struck down an SEC rule on the basis that it lacked a cost-benefit analysis, which has led the opposed commissioners to argue that all of Dodd-Frank’s proposed rules need such an analysis to be legally valid.
Such sentiments from the commissioners are causing financial reform advocates to fear that the situation is grim. “I am absolutely worried,” Michael Greenberger, professor of law at the University of Maryland and formerly of the CFTC, said in a phone interview about the rule’s prospects. Privately, an aide to Senator Bernie Sanders told me that he shares Greenberger’s worries.
Moreover, even if the rule passes, it faces serious questions about whether a very active lobbying process will have rendered it effectively meaningless. The position-limits rule, in particular, has been subjected to a fierce lobbying effort, especially by big financial institutions. The Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for transparency in government, counted over 13,000 comment letters to the CFTC concerning the rule, with groups from airlines to investors pressing their case. Gary Gensler, the chair of the CFTC, has stated that “large institutions” have an “outsized interest” in the rules and that there’s a “little imbalance” in how much access they’ve gotten to the commission. Gensler has estimated the CFTC has held 1,000 meetings to hear comments relating to the rule, and that the “vast majority are from large financial institutions.”
Given all this interest, it’s no surprise that advocates for strong position limits are worried about whether the resulting rule will be tight enough to weed out the kinds of abuse it was intended to curb. The first worry is that the position limits the commissioners have set are simply too high to curb speculation. In its current form, the rule distinguishes between two types of contract ownership—“spot-month” (the number of contracts an entity can own in any given month), which has a limit of 25 percent of the market, and “all months combined” (the number of contracts an entity can own over all months in a single year), which limits investors to 10 percent of the first 25,000 contracts and then 2.5 percent of the remainder. Silver analyst Ted Butler told me by e-mail that the “all months combined limit” allows an interested investor in the silver market to acquire a total number of contracts that exceeds the total yearly amount of silver consumption. In oil markets, the same aide to Sanders described the proposed limits to me as too high.
Then there’s the worry that the rule might not apply to the types of investors it is trying to regulate. Professor Greenberger told me—and also wrote in a comment letter to the CFTC—that the rule has a number of loopholes that will exempt a large portion of speculative trading. Greenberger wrote that “the Commission has adopted some of the biggest swap dealers’ and future exchanges’ arguments” by allowing hedging exemptions to cover all sorts of trades. In other words, there is a good chance the CFTC will allow overly broad exemptions for what is called “netting,” which would allow traders to claim that speculative trades are in fact simply intended to hedge and reduce risk for a client.
It’s not at all clear, therefore, that the position limits rule will have much of an effect. No wonder Brian Hurst, a principal of the hedge fund AQR Capital Management, told The Economist, “My guess is that when the actual rules are in place, it’s going to be underwhelming.” In addition, a report from Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, a small investment bank, estimated a decline in total trading volume in commodity markets of somewhere between 5 percent and 12 percent, and that’s before any exemptions are counted. After exemptions, they predict a decline in trades of less than 5 percent. Perhaps the lobbyists have won this round.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/95818/dodd-frank-lobbying-cftc
Darius Tahir - Oct 6, 2011
On October 18 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) will vote on a proposed rule to limit the percentage of contracts in a given commodity that any individual trader can own. The rule, mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, could potentially be very important: If a trader or bank is allowed to own too high a share of any given market, financial reform advocates argue, that entity can control the price of the market for its own purposes; or, even if there is no manipulation, market prices may simply rocket higher, untethered to any real-world conception of supply and demand. Indeed, in the past few years, allegations of speculation and market manipulation have been thrown at grain markets, oil markets, and even commodities like silver and cocoa.
But if the logic behind regulating the size of traders’ positions in a given market is sound, the process of bringing the necessary rules into existence has proven difficult, to say the least. The partisan nature of the CFTC and the active lobbying campaigns to influence the rule-making process are making it uncertain if the rule will pass the committee and, if so, whether the final version will be strong enough to live up to Dodd-Frank’s original intent.
Proponents of tight position limits argue that excessive speculation in a market means prices will generally be both higher and more volatile. The consequences of higher prices are easy to understand—for example, a Goldman Sachs report in April estimated that the speculative premium on a barrel of oil was then between $21.40 and $26.75 a barrel, roughly a sixth of the total price at that time. As Marcus Stanley of Americans for Financial Reform told me, all sorts of people rely on predictable commodity markets for their business: gas stations, businesses that supply heating oil, enterprises that order food in bulk such as confectioners, and so on. Higher volatility often ends up being passed on to businesses as a higher cost on their balance sheet, with predictable consequences.
The rule has no chance of going into effect, however, unless it garners enough votes. At present, the CFTC is divided along partisan lines, with two presumed votes for the rule (Chairman Gary Gensler, appointed by Obama, and Bart Chilton, appointed by Bush and reappointed by Obama) and two votes against (Jill Sommers and Scott O’Malia, both former Republican Congressional aides). Meanwhile, Commissioner Michael Dunn, the swing vote who was appointed and re-appointed by Bush, appears to be leaning towards voting no, arguing the CFTC hasn’t performed the proper cost-benefit analysis to back up the rule. An appeals court recently struck down an SEC rule on the basis that it lacked a cost-benefit analysis, which has led the opposed commissioners to argue that all of Dodd-Frank’s proposed rules need such an analysis to be legally valid.
Such sentiments from the commissioners are causing financial reform advocates to fear that the situation is grim. “I am absolutely worried,” Michael Greenberger, professor of law at the University of Maryland and formerly of the CFTC, said in a phone interview about the rule’s prospects. Privately, an aide to Senator Bernie Sanders told me that he shares Greenberger’s worries.
Moreover, even if the rule passes, it faces serious questions about whether a very active lobbying process will have rendered it effectively meaningless. The position-limits rule, in particular, has been subjected to a fierce lobbying effort, especially by big financial institutions. The Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for transparency in government, counted over 13,000 comment letters to the CFTC concerning the rule, with groups from airlines to investors pressing their case. Gary Gensler, the chair of the CFTC, has stated that “large institutions” have an “outsized interest” in the rules and that there’s a “little imbalance” in how much access they’ve gotten to the commission. Gensler has estimated the CFTC has held 1,000 meetings to hear comments relating to the rule, and that the “vast majority are from large financial institutions.”
Given all this interest, it’s no surprise that advocates for strong position limits are worried about whether the resulting rule will be tight enough to weed out the kinds of abuse it was intended to curb. The first worry is that the position limits the commissioners have set are simply too high to curb speculation. In its current form, the rule distinguishes between two types of contract ownership—“spot-month” (the number of contracts an entity can own in any given month), which has a limit of 25 percent of the market, and “all months combined” (the number of contracts an entity can own over all months in a single year), which limits investors to 10 percent of the first 25,000 contracts and then 2.5 percent of the remainder. Silver analyst Ted Butler told me by e-mail that the “all months combined limit” allows an interested investor in the silver market to acquire a total number of contracts that exceeds the total yearly amount of silver consumption. In oil markets, the same aide to Sanders described the proposed limits to me as too high.
Then there’s the worry that the rule might not apply to the types of investors it is trying to regulate. Professor Greenberger told me—and also wrote in a comment letter to the CFTC—that the rule has a number of loopholes that will exempt a large portion of speculative trading. Greenberger wrote that “the Commission has adopted some of the biggest swap dealers’ and future exchanges’ arguments” by allowing hedging exemptions to cover all sorts of trades. In other words, there is a good chance the CFTC will allow overly broad exemptions for what is called “netting,” which would allow traders to claim that speculative trades are in fact simply intended to hedge and reduce risk for a client.
It’s not at all clear, therefore, that the position limits rule will have much of an effect. No wonder Brian Hurst, a principal of the hedge fund AQR Capital Management, told The Economist, “My guess is that when the actual rules are in place, it’s going to be underwhelming.” In addition, a report from Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, a small investment bank, estimated a decline in total trading volume in commodity markets of somewhere between 5 percent and 12 percent, and that’s before any exemptions are counted. After exemptions, they predict a decline in trades of less than 5 percent. Perhaps the lobbyists have won this round.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/95818/dodd-frank-lobbying-cftc
I'm not giving you those thumbs down lol.
I'm not linking them. They serve separate purposes. Ben is much more powerful than O could ever dream of being.
rootfingers
Active member
This thread has degraded a bit. Here's to the people on wall st. protesting
Looks like it got cleaned up a bit nvmnd. Hope you all have a great weekend. Perhaps occupy something while wearing a white zombie costume and eating beer battered cheese curds.
occupytogether.com
- Status
