Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Occupy Movement right about global recession (see MOD WARNING Post #14)
Options
Comments
-
KyussBishop wrote: »Heh, see this is pretty much the caricature that gets pulled out all the time, as the summary of any topic that covers tackling income inequality: Frame people as petty and begrudging, instead of addressing their actual points of view.
The irony in this, is that the majority of the people supporting proliferation of such income inequality, seek to be part of the entrepreneurial class, but are blind to the fact that only a tiny fraction of them will ever get there.
It's a zero-sum game, and people that support increasing income inequality, support pushing others down in the hope that they will be successful (be one of the 'priviledged' class), but in doing that they just make it less likely that they themselves will ever get there, short of sucking up to someone 'priviledged' enough who is already there.
There is always the generalization/caricature of one groups argument as "trying to pull others down", when their own set of policies promotes "pushing everyone else down", so they can rise.
You misunderstood. Real inequality is not between the fellas on Dame St with their starbucks Cafe lattes/imacs and the fella with the 100K BMW. Inequality is between anybody in the Western world, and the billions eeking out a living
If everything was equal, in your "zero sum game", I'm not sure that the average Occupy person would be better off! Anyone in the West is rich0 -
It's income inequality though, not wealth people already have; it is the distribution of earnings throughout the population, and when 1% of the population is taking in 90% of the earnings (as in the US), that is severe income inequality.You misunderstood. Real inequality is not between the fellas on Dame St with their starbucks Cafe lattes/imacs and the fella with the 100K BMW. Inequality is between anybody in the Western world, and the billions eeking out a living
If everything was equal, in your "zero sum game", I'm not sure that the average Occupy person would be better off! Anyone in the West is rich
Added to this are various forms of economic 'rent seeking', which make up part of this income disparity, through the 'rents' extracting income from others, without any productive effort.
Saying that this should not be dealt with locally first, it must be dealt with globally all at once, or that "it's not so bad relative to the entire planet, so we shouldn't try to improve anything", would just be a red herring, trying to muddy the waters.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »It's income inequality though, not wealth people already have; it is the distribution of earnings throughout the population, and when 1% of the population is taking in 90% of the earnings (as in the US), that is severe income inequality.
Added to this are various forms of economic 'rent seeking', which make up part of this income disparity, through the 'rents' extracting income from others, without any productive effort.
Saying that this should not be dealt with locally first, it must be dealt with globally all at once, or that "it's not so bad relative to the entire planet, so we shouldn't try to improve anything", would just be a red herring, trying to muddy the waters.
The occupy "movement" are entitled to protest what they want. But if they give me some moral high ground position I'll gladly tell them to fu$k off. They don't want "equality". They just want to be the rich ones. In that sense, they are no better than this mythical 1%. And if the rules were changed so that they became the 1%, they wouldn't give a shite about theoretical morality.
The population of Europe and America the USA is about 1bn. Which is about one-seventh of the World. And that includes a lot of poorer Eastern European countries and really poor people in the USA. The people protesting aren't the poorest of the poor in Europe or the US. They are usually college-educated comfortable people. Don't tell me that they're not in the top 10% globally. They're hypocrites0 -
Just one addendum:
6.7% of the worlds population have a college degree. If you're from the west and have one, consider yourself to be easily inside the top 6.7%
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/19/percent-of-world-with-col_n_581807.html0 -
There's not really any arguing with (paraphrasing) "it's worse elsewhere therefore problems here should not be fixed", and ad-hominem "they just want to be the rich ones", as that's much a waste of time when there isn't even the pretense of a real argument.The occupy "movement" are entitled to protest what they want. But if they give me some moral high ground position I'll gladly tell them to fu$k off. They don't want "equality". They just want to be the rich ones. In that sense, they are no better than this mythical 1%. And if the rules were changed so that they became the 1%, they wouldn't give a shite about theoretical morality.
The population of Europe and America the USA is about 1bn. Which is about one-seventh of the World. And that includes a lot of poorer Eastern European countries and really poor people in the USA. The people protesting aren't the poorest of the poor in Europe or the US. They are usually college-educated comfortable people. Don't tell me that they're not in the top 10% globally. They're hypocrites
Same pretty much goes with other clearly facetious/smearing arguments, that they're just "endlessly planning another tent city".
It is clear Occupy is offensive to you both in some way, because otherwise there's little real reason for disparaging their quite clear success in bringing income inequality to greater attention and discourse, or for the smears directed at them.
Again, it's the reinforcement of the idea that we should all just sit down and shut up, and not protest or fix anything; that's what it seems to be, the actual smearing of protesting itself, because it is exactly the fact that Occupy did not have one coherent plan of action, that makes them a general protest movement, not one homogeneous group with a fixed set of ideas.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not offensive to me. It might be to the vast population of the world that will never get a sniff of what the beal bocht occupiers have.KyussBishop wrote: »It is clear Occupy is offensive to you both in some way, because otherwise there's little real reason for disparaging their quite clear success in bringing income inequality to greater attention and discourse, or for the smears directed at them.
Protest all you want. Just don't paint it as some high and mighty global "fairness and equality" movement. It's not. It's just rich people who want more of what the even richer people have.KyussBishop wrote: »Again, it's the reinforcement of the idea that we should all just sit down and shut up, and not protest or fix anything; that's what it seems to be, the actual smearing of protesting itself, because it is exactly the fact that Occupy did not have one coherent plan of action, that makes them a general protest movement, not one homogeneous group with a fixed set of ideas.
Edit: The heterogeneity of the movement is proof in itself that they are all each focused on their own separate, selfish, agendas.0 -
What real change specifically?
Far too much to mention.
As someone already said, it's a start. What's important is the massive worldwide support for its general aims.Funny how bankers are crooks and liars until they say the right thing.It's the reason that disaffected youths could camp in parks for months and live off money from the government.I eagerly await the "Clouds cause rain" movement to enlighten the world.The core goal was camping on the streets for months protesting a huge raft of random issues with no apparent achievable solutions.Hold your finger up and circle it three times if you agree
Is that you Bill?0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
Pure hyperbole. If jobs are the issue then putting legislation in place to stop another Lehman brothers, sub prime mortgage crash, Libor scandal, a trader loosing a few billion in a few seconds or some similar crash need to be put into place. This will protect the economy far more. After the experience of the 2008 crash it is clear that this is needed.
No serious economist, commentator or politician is blaming the financial crisis on too much regulation. The problem is that the laws there already are not enforced and additional regulations need to be added. Too big to fail institutions which can hold the country to ransom for a bailout, separate the arms of these financial institutions so that one part can do the high risk stuff
without harming the other parts, punish fraud and corruption instead of encouraging it. There needs to be an awareness of how big money affects legislation and gov policies.
All this requires an effort which won't come from politicians as they are basically paid off, it has to come from a mass movement of people, part of which is Occupy.
No one is suggesting legislating the financial industry out of existence just putting in some safeguards to prevent another crash like 2008.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
This post had been deleted.
The hyperbole is the suggestion that regulation will cause the whole finance industry to move east.
One doesn't need to legislate for every conceivable calamity no one is saying that. But there are gaping holes in the current system where another 2008 collapse is just waiting to happen. Current regulations have not been enforced enough but that is beginning to change thanks in part to Occupy by highlighting the abuses and the close relationship between Gov and Wall street.0 -
The Bishop! wrote: »Far too much to mention.
Woah.. you saidThe uncomfortable fact that the Occupy movement has actually helped to create real change is undoubtedly hard to stomach for its most vociferous detractors
Like what change?As someone already said, it's a start. What's important is the massive worldwide support for its general aims.
Then they should have no problem with their latest November 5th proposal right?0 -
This post had been deleted.
A recent poll of...investment bankers?:)
Call me a cynic, but what else are investment bankers going to predict in an attempt to stave off nasty regulations and transaction taxes except threats of capital flight and relocation?
This fellow Haldene pointed out as much in his speech:For his part, Haldane broke some interesting ground during the evening’s extended question-and-answer session. At one point, he signalled that “there was no great ideological chasm” preventing the adoption of a Financial Transaction Tax that would be “felt disproportionately” by high frequency traders and that the risk of large banks moving their headquarters out of the country was “somewhat overblown"
http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17783
So who are we to believe? The investment bankers themselves or those tasked with regulating them?0 -
Like what change?
Sorry, but i don't have time to reference every individual thing achieved by every branch of Occupy worldwide. For starters one could go here to read about Occupy the SEC. Or here for Occupy Nigeria. That's real change right there.
Certainly that can't yet be classed as 'success' on the big issues; for some, nothing the movement does will ever be seen by them as a success.
But a big achievement so far imv is that they've helped to put inequality and it's pernicious effects firmly on the agenda. For that alone they should be applauded.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
-
This post had been deleted.
Just out of curiosity, are you confident that locations like Shanghai and Hong Kong represent good long-term prospects as hubs for international finance? Hong Kong may have a very free economy right now, but it is controlled by China, and that's not a country whose government is noted for its liberalism.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
In the absence of Libtopia governments and central banks will set interest rates. Pointing out what is wrong now is not proposing a solution.
Too big to fail refers to financial institutions that are so large and so interconnected that their failure is widely held to be disastrous to the economy, and which therefore must be supported by government when they face difficulty. So your solution would be just let the lot go and the massive damage to that will occur to happen anyway. Life savings, insurance policies pensions etc of anything connected to the institution all wiped out.
To be prosecuted through the courts for fraud something must first be deemed illegal. So your proposing more laws then?0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
Well that's the way it currently is central banks set interest rates. Since there is very little chance of that changing or the west moving to a gold standard its what we have to work with.This post had been deleted.
The Bernie Madoff situation is very different some of his money was recovered.
Banks depositors don't usually lose out because they are insured by Governments. Too big to fail institutions are connected to many others so people with nothing to do with them suffer when they crash. There would be a string of bank failures. Then you'd have the insurance companies go bust followed by stock market freefall.
This doesn't mean I advocate the bailouts it means that these institutions should not be allowed get themselves into this position in the first place. At the very least break up the different parts so that they don't have a knock on affect.But I'm amused to hear that the Occupy movement wants to protect pensions and insurance policies now. I thought they wanted to burn the bondholders? (Maybe you don't realize that pension and insurance companies invest in bonds to generate the income that they use to pay insurance policies and annuities — so you may as well be shouting "burn the policies and pensions.")
But the Occupy movement opposes banking bailouts as well, right? So what's their solution to these so-called "too big to fail" banks?
Don't know what the Occupy solution is but I've proposed one above, don't allow them to be too big to fail. (Also do you really have to use the patronising tone all the time? Its not conducive to debate)This post had been deleted.
Depends what you consider to be fraud. Selling bonds as triple A when they are known to be total sh1t isn't fraud apparently. Anglo's bed and breakfast arrangement should be fraud imo. A lot of the things large financial institutions do would be considered fraud by the man on the street but aren't.0 -
What regulations exactly are you talking about here? What specific policies are causing job losses? This is just another narrowly-framed anti-regulation argument really, simply hyperbole as 20Cent says.Permabear wrote:This post had been deleted.
The lions share of the entire economic crisis has been caused by getting rid of previous regulations, so it is the most narrowly-framed and absurd argument, that regulations should be removed to help the financial industry, when doing that has already caused enormous job losses everywhere.
It's an argument not far removed from "everything we do will cause more job losses, so therefore we should do nothing"; completely self-interested and ridiculous.
Again also, absolutely no mention of what regulations are, they are laws covering specific issues, and if we had no regulation, fraud would be rampant because you would be removing any legal definition of it.
Not even a pretence of acknowledging that, and you're advocating even more deregulation in the place that spawned the LIBOR scandal, one of the most massive frauds in history that likely affected everyone.
The money being siphoned off through rigged LIBOR deals was 'profit' too, and you do not distinguish in any way from legitimate profit, and that kind of rent seeking which costs everyone money; no, if it reduces 'profit', ill-gained or not, it's bad; so it's de-facto support of any kind of profits, and legitimizing fraud (though you would try to get around this semantically by trying to remove any definition of fraud).
It's ridiculous in the extreme, that you promote conditions that would enormously increase income inequality, would give finance unchecked rent-seeking abilities through the markets, and expect others to actually believe there is a good reason for that outside of pure greed and self interest; that rent seeking is a tax imposed on the economy, that to you is legitimate only because it is not going to government.
The hyperbole is ridiculous, "slashing and burning one of its biggest industries", how about "bringing it under ****ing control, so it doesn't destroy more of the economy or society"; there's not even the slightest concept of the potential for societal harm in your posts, it's just "profit at all costs", even if that means finance taxing unearned dividends from society through fraud (I'm sure that'd be really beneficial to the poor).
Regulation is about clamping down on fraud, and the greshams dynamic created in a market by fraud is demonstrably harmful, because fraudulent business practices push out legitimate business; if financial companies start moving to Asia because of deregulation, that is because they want to engage in business practices that are illegal here; great, they can piss off.
Any scaremongering about this, that it will result in apocalyptic job losses etc. is ridiculous; Wall Street did not move to London, because they were more deregulated, and they're sure as **** not going to move off to Asia in entirety, and abandon their previous markets behind.
Oh that's great a "they do it too" argument, so in other words, yes you think the LIBOR scandal should be left be, because "government do it too" (with the most specious of comparisons).The LIBOR "scandal" amuses me endlessly. People became apoplectic with rage at the idea of banks such as Barclays trying to manipulate a key rate — while somehow overlooking the fact that central banks (including the Bank of England, Mr Haldane's employer) routinely manipulate rates, create credit bubbles, and bring currencies to the brink of collapse. This recession was caused not by Barclays but by the Fed and the ECB holding interest rates too low for too long.
Companies would not be "too big to fail" if not for government.
Fraud can be prosecuted through the courts.
Okey so we should let these massive frauds happen, and wait decades for it to come out, and not have any regulators investigating these companies, so even when it does come out the courts are completely incapable of doing anything because they can't investigate the companies, they can't even find out which companies might be involved, because they have no information, information they depend upon regulators discovering.
There wouldn't even be a definition for fraud to make LIBOR manipulation illegal in the first place, but you pass over all that to pretend there'd still be some rule of law, some checks and balances, when there would be none.
LIBOR is the perfect example of the kind of taxation finance wants to impose on society, as this one cost everyone money (in every country LIBOR affected), through rates being manipulated on such a fundamental level. You're pretty much against government tax, and for finance imposing their own tax upon society, through fraud.0 -
Occupy aren't claiming anything, its the bank of England saying it.
Hang on, I have only realised that this banker guy was speaking at an Occupy event.
http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17783
I followed the link to the speech and I discover the following disclaimer
"The views are not necessarily those of the Bank of England or the Financial Policy Committee"
So that makes is clear that it was not the Bank of England saying it, just one banker wined and dined by Occupy giving a speech. If you are speaking somewhere, you are always going to say something nice about your hosts, "influencing the debate", "putting inequality on the table" are the sort of platitudes you would expect. When you can deny the words the following day in work as being a personal view, even better.
Maybe you should correct the above post to note that it was "one banker from the Bank of England, speaking in a personal capacity at an Occupy function acknowledged some influence of the Occupy Movement".The Bishop! wrote: »This thread brings me back i must say. Some of the vitriol on this board towards the movement when it started was truly something to behold.
The uncomfortable fact that the Occupy movement has actually helped to create real change is undoubtedly hard to stomach for its most vociferous detractors.
:
What real change?
I see no change to direct democracy, only some cosmetic changes to banking regulation and some nice words thrown in Occupy's direction.
We in Ireland have yet to reclaim our gas and oil (if they exist).0 -
Hang on, I have only realised that this banker guy was speaking at an Occupy event.
http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17783
I followed the link to the speech and I discover the following disclaimer
"The views are not necessarily those of the Bank of England or the Financial Policy Committee"
So that makes is clear that it was not the Bank of England saying it, just one banker wined and dined by Occupy giving a speech. If you are speaking somewhere, you are always going to say something nice about your hosts, "influencing the debate", "putting inequality on the table" are the sort of platitudes you would expect. When you can deny the words the following day in work as being a personal view, even better.
Maybe you should correct the above post to note that it was "one banker from the Bank of England, speaking in a personal capacity at an Occupy function acknowledged some influence of the Occupy Movement".
Being pedantic again, its clear for the OP who made the comment and where. The fact is that the Bank of England have acknowledged that the regulatory framework was unsuitable prior to the 2008 crash and that new regulations are needed, Too big to fail is an issue which must be addressed. Some of these are addressed in the Financial Services Bill http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/financialservices.html
Why these changes are coming about is due to many issues.
The director for financial stability in the Bank of England says that Occupy helped stir the BOE to bring about these changes. You seem to be implying he is either lying or just placating the crowd. I'll take him at his word if you have evidence of otherwise please post it up.0 -
Hang on, I have only realised that this banker guy was speaking at an Occupy event.
http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17783
I followed the link to the speech and I discover the following disclaimer
"The views are not necessarily those of the Bank of England or the Financial Policy Committee"
So that makes is clear that it was not the Bank of England saying it, just one banker wined and dined by Occupy giving a speech. If you are speaking somewhere, you are always going to say something nice about your hosts, "influencing the debate", "putting inequality on the table" are the sort of platitudes you would expect. When you can deny the words the following day in work as being a personal view, even better.
Maybe you should correct the above post to note that it was "one banker from the Bank of England, speaking in a personal capacity at an Occupy function acknowledged some influence of the Occupy Movement".
The fact that he was saying what he said at an "Occupy function" as you put it beautifully contradicts the main thrust of your argument. Amusingly.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Being pedantic again, its clear for the OP who made the comment and where. The fact is that the Bank of England have acknowledged that the regulatory framework was unsuitable prior to the 2008 crash and that new regulations are needed, Too big to fail is an issue which must be addressed. Some of these are addressed in the Financial Services Bill http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/financialservices.html
Why these changes are coming about is due to many issues.
The director for financial stability in the Bank of England says that Occupy helped stir the BOE to bring about these changes. You seem to be implying he is either lying or just placating the crowd. I'll take him at his word if you have evidence of otherwise please post it up.
Just checked the OP again (see below) and nowhere does it mention that he is speaking at an Occupy function.
I have already posted a link showing it was his own views and not those of the Bank of England.
If you are taking him at his word, do you accept his disclaimer that his views are not those of the Bank of England?
Do you accept his call for better pensions for bankers?
Do you accept everything else in his speech?Seems it was worth it Occupy has resulted in stricter and more ethical regulation of the financial industry.
According to the British Central Banker responsible for overseeing the City.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/29/bank-of-england-occupy-movement
The Occupy Movement has found an unlikely ally in a senior Bank of England official, Andrew Haldane, who has praised protesters for their role in triggering an overhaul of the financial services sector.
Haldane, who oversees the City for the central bank, said Occupy acted as a lever on policymakers despite criticism that its aims were too vague. He said the protest movement was right to focus on inequality as the chief reason for the 2008 crash, following studies that showed the accumulation of huge wealth funded by debt was directly responsible for the domino-like collapse of the banking sector in 2008.
also
Haldane said Occupy's voice had been "loud and persuasive" and that "policymakers have listened and are acting in ways which will close those fault-lines" with a "reformation of finance that Occupy has helped stir". He said inequality was fuelled by bank lending for speculation on property and other assets that enriched some in society at the expense of others.The Bishop! wrote: »The fact that he was saying what he said at an "Occupy function" as you put it beautifully contradicts the main thrust of your argument. Amusingly.
???0 -
You seem to be inventing a narrative purely to suit your argument. That Haldene is being disingenuous about his sentiments in that speech and is apparently now subversively plotting to go against his mandate and his previous actions and statements about regulation etc.
You're claiming he is misleading you and i as to the influence of Occupy and to his real intentions. Claiming he is just paying lip service to the general public as to the nature of the crisis and it's solution.
So who is grasping at straws exactly? The OP?0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
Advertisement