Occupy movement- remember them??

Realt Dearg Sec

Godge wrote: »

You miss the point.

The Irish government rescued a load of banks in 2008 without checking whether any deserved it. Anglo should never have been rescued.

Occupy rescued a load of people's medical bills without checking whether any of them deserved it. The plastic surgery and Botox bills of bankers' wives should not be forgiven.

If Occupy are trying to change the world, explain how doing the same thing but just to different people is a change. Occupy seem to have done less checking than the Irish government. How is that an improvement?

Occupy weren't foisting those debts onto the general public, for a start.

nesf

booom wrote: »

Ok, that's all taken in, and relevant. I do understand your point that future credit ratings may possibly be affected. However, and without getting into the whole first page of this thread, I believe that if someone who is a genuine case, both medically and financially, has their debt wiped out by the occupy movement (and even the natural skeptic in me believes there are many in the people in question), there is no need to show contempt for the people who do so. Nor is there any need to critique the recipients of such goodwill simply on the basis that they 'could' be anything other than genuine cases. The negativity and persistence displayed by some contributors in seeking to downplay an attempt to help others was disheartening. The level of flippant cynicism amongst some is, to my mind, nothing short of disgraceful. Having said all that, I thank you all for your input- nothing like a good jaw jaw.

But it doesn't downplay what Occupy did at all! The point is that regardless of whether Occupy helped these people or not their credit records would have been screwed by their debt being resold like it was.

The issue was that they are now "freed" from the consequences of this debt. The unfortunately reality is that they won't be, they won't have any more repayments to make but whenever they go for another loan it'll be more difficult and more expensive because of what happened before Occupy came along.


None of this diminishes the help Occupy have given individuals by removing the debt hanging over them! It's just a step too far when people say the slate has been wiped for these people, it hasn't and there isn't anything Occupy could do to wipe it.

booom

Godge wrote: »

You miss the point.

The Irish government rescued a load of banks in 2008 without checking whether any deserved it. Anglo should never have been rescued.

Occupy rescued a load of people's medical bills without checking whether any of them deserved it. The plastic surgery and Botox bills of bankers' wives should not be forgiven.

If Occupy are trying to change the world, explain how doing the same thing but just to different people is a change. Occupy seem to have done less checking than the Irish government. How is that an improvement?

This is the point where I ask you how you know this. You're stating as fact and basing your whole argument on the assumption what you've written here to be absolute, indisputable truth. Now, if you happen to be some disaffected Occupy insider who was in on the whole process, I'll have to take your word for it. If not, and to be honest I think this to be the case- I suggest you provide proof of these allegations - at this stage, I doubt I'll be (can't speak for others here) responding to any more of your remarks. I agree with you over the Anglo issue but fail to see how you classify that bunch alongside individuals who (as already pointed out) had around 5 grand in medical bills.

booom

nesf wrote: »

The issue was that they are now "freed" from the consequences of this debt. The unfortunately reality is that they won't be, they won't have any more repayments to make but whenever they go for another loan it'll be more difficult and more expensive because of what happened before Occupy came along.


.

Occupy are not liable for these peoples future credit rating status. They arrived on scene after the debt had made its wayy to the secondary market and could just as easily have fallen into the hands of Payusoryourbuggered Inc. To claim they are worse off because of what Occupy did is to ignore that A) the debt had already made its way to the market and b)the debt was forgiven.

Feck it, you know what- I'm going to call a halt here. I don't seem to be making my point clearly enough for some to see. I can only hope that some day, some of the individuals here find themselves in a tight corner and have to rely on the goodwill of others to ease their plight. To insist it is detrimental to a future stasis to accept aid is utter nonsense. Maybe some of you will find this out the hard way some day. Until then, I wish you all well, with your excellent credit ratings (which only implies you are lined up for more debt).

nesf

booom wrote: »

Occupy are not liable for these peoples future credit rating status. They arrived on scene after the debt had made its wayy to the secondary market and could just as easily have fallen into the hands of Payusoryourbuggered Inc. To claim they are worse off because of what Occupy did is to ignore that A) the debt had already made its way to the market and b)the debt was forgiven.

Feck it, you know what- I'm going to call a halt here. I don't seem to be making my point clearly enough for some to see. I can only hope that some day, some of the individuals here find themselves in a tight corner and have to rely on the goodwill of others to ease their plight. To insist it is detrimental to a future stasis to accept aid is utter nonsense. Maybe some of you will find this out the hard way some day. Until then, I wish you all well, with your excellent credit ratings (which only implies you are lined up for more debt).

Um, I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I'm not saying Occupy made things worse at all. I don't think that it's you're not making your point clear enough it's that you're misreading what's being said.

booom

nesf wrote: »

Um, I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I'm not saying Occupy made things worse at all. I don't think that it's you're not making your point clear enough it's that you're misreading what's being said.

You're right there, I did mis-read your last.

Good loser

booom wrote: »

You're right there, I did mis-read your last.

It would probably have been 'better' for all concerned if Occupy had sought out these people and given each of them a cheque for, say, $1,000.

I'm sure the beneficiaries concerned would have taken this option if offered it.

This way of course the credits the Occupy people feel should be reflected on themselves (through their actions) will not arise.

Jonny7

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I really don't see how that context changes anything in terms of how to interpret what you said. What should a poor person who can't afford their medical bills do if they get catastrophically sick?

Well, historically they've either died or become incapacitated, but thanks to recent advancements in universal healthcare, social welfare, refund systems, and so on they can actually receive help.

Unfortunately, it's still on a country by country basis and some countries seem to have more difficulty reforming their system to a fairer one (hint hint USA)

Jonny7

booom wrote: »

I take it you don't have any debt in any form then- credit card (even if paid off monthly)? mortgage? car loan? student loan? And if you do, you just assume your financial status will always meet the requirements of your obligations, thereby following your own example of not getting into debt in the first place?

Well your first mistake is assuming anything.

You don't know whether these were all poor people, or just **** who didn't bother to pay back, or drug dealers, or as someone said, a banker's wife and so on.

I "didn't bother" paying a hospital fee once of about 20 euros. Ended up being 30 times that. Where was Occupy when I needed them then? oh that's right charging their iphones on Dame Street and making substantial contributions to Time Warner.. just kidding (but not really)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

booom wrote: »

This is the point where I ask you how you know this. You're stating as fact and basing your whole argument on the assumption what you've written here to be absolute, indisputable truth. Now, if you happen to be some disaffected Occupy insider who was in on the whole process, I'll have to take your word for it. If not, and to be honest I think this to be the case- I suggest you provide proof of these allegations - at this stage, I doubt I'll be (can't speak for others here) responding to any more of your remarks. I agree with you over the Anglo issue but fail to see how you classify that bunch alongside individuals who (as already pointed out) had around 5 grand in medical bills.

I am saying that Occupy paid off debts without knowing whose debts they were and whether they deserved to be paid off and that this lack of thought was similar to the way the Irish government acted. So let us go back to your original OP and the article you linked to:

booom wrote: »

I know, I know, it's not Dublin. But to all the naysayers and hedgefund hitlers who were only too happy to deride the occupy movement when it was in full swing, here's a snippet from the Wall St. crowd. A joy to read.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/occupy-wall-street-activists-15m-personal-debt

"Due to the nature of the debt market, the group is unable to specify whose debt it purchases, taking on the amounts before it discovers individuals’ identities. When Rolling Jubilee has bought the debt they send notes to their debtors “telling them they’re off the hook”, Ross said"


So they take on the debt before they discover individuals' identities. So if cosmetic surgery X in New York sells its bad debt on the secondary market, Occupy may well have bought this without knowing what they were buying.


Permabear has already quoted from a Reuters report on the issue: "The group receives almost no information about the people whose debt they buy - only an address, Ross said."

Another strong possibility is that the bad debt relates to people who died and had no estate to pay the bill. In that case, all Occupy are doing is handing money over to private hospitals owned by large corporations.

So to answer your question, Occupy have themselves admitted that they don't know whose debt they are buying and therefore my point about the comparison between the Irish government that didn't know what it was doing is valid. Another valid point is that both the Irish government in September 2008 and Occupy in this case both thought that they were doing the right thing but their decision-making was so ill-informed that they had no way of knowing whether they were doing the right thing.

antoobrien

nesf wrote: »

The issue was that they are now "freed" from the consequences of this debt. The unfortunately reality is that they won't be, they won't have any more repayments to make but whenever they go for another loan it'll be more difficult and more expensive because of what happened before Occupy came along

Indeed, the article mentions how the debt ends up on the secondary markets:

If individuals consistently fail to pay bills from credit cards, loans, or medical insurance the bank or lender that issued the funds will eventually cut its losses by selling that debt to a third party. These sales occur for a fraction of the debt’s true values – typically for five cents on the dollar – and debt-buying companies then attempt to recoup the debt from the individual debtor and thus make a profit.

The important bit is "If individuals consistently fail to pay bills" - meaning that the people who have had their debt "abolished" still have tarnished credit histories.

All occupy have done is remove the immediate problem of owing money (which is some cases will be enough), not the long consequences of failure to pay the original bill/debt - which will be more damaging in the long term.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

So to answer your question, Occupy have themselves admitted that they don't know whose debt they are buying and therefore my point about the comparison between the Irish government that didn't know what it was doing is valid. Another valid point is that both the Irish government in September 2008 and Occupy in this case both thought that they were doing the right thing but their decision-making was so ill-informed that they had no way of knowing whether they were doing the right thing.

The big difference though is the Irish government used taxpayers money. Occupy are using money they raised themselves. The Irish gov bailout banks Occupy are bailing out people.

antoobrien

20Cent wrote: »

The big difference though is the Irish government used taxpayers money. Occupy are using money they raised themselves.

Presumably off taxpayers.

20Cent wrote: »

The Irish gov bailout banks Occupy are bailing out people.

I still shake my head that people believe that if the banks weren't bailed out we'd have been okay.

20Cent

antoobrien wrote: »

Presumably off taxpayers.

Donations, voluntarily.

antoobrien wrote: »

I still shake my head that people believe that if the banks weren't bailed out we'd have been okay.

Different issue this case was not voluntary.

Looks like every effort was made to make it as deserving as possible. Using people who couldn't pay medical bills instead of just writing off any debt.

oscarBravo

20Cent wrote: »

Donations, voluntarily.

An Occupy supporter is decrying the government taxing and spending, and advocating voluntary charity in its place.



We're through the looking glass.

20Cent

oscarBravo wrote: »

An Occupy supporter is decrying the government taxing and spending, and advocating voluntary charity in its place.



We're through the looking glass.

Not really considering Occupy was a reaction against the taxpayer having to bail out the financial industry for a crash they caused. Totally consistent.

20Cent

New Yorks mayoral race is a another example of the success of Occupy. Bill de Blasio campaigned against the corporatist legacy promising to raise taxes on the wealthy and use the revenues for pre-school and after-school programs. He beat the Bloomberg the Wall Street candidate despite all the money they poured into his campaign. America's income inequality with its economic and democratic consequences are a major talking point. Campaigning against the 1% is a vote winner.

Larry Summers the Wall Street candidate for head of the fed dropped out because he said his selection would be too acrimonious, the new head is Janet Yellen the only candidate not in wall streets pocket.

There has been the court cases taken against big financial institutions like HSBC and JP Morgan for illegal and fraudulent behavior. Some of the largest fines ever paid.

Lastly is the rise of Senator Elizabeth Warren who is big into regulating and stopping the excesses of Wall street. She could even be a potential presidential candidate.

Occupy didn't run candidates or go the same route as the tea party but have had a much more subtle influence. Having this money written off is another success and considering its the first such action expect a lot more to come.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You might be reading too much into my post. The point is that the hawkish, deregulation style of Summers was rejected and a more dovish candidate Yellen was picked. Yellen has said she would pop bubbles when they appear and use regulation to police the banks to avert another crisis like 2008. It is an indication of the rejection of the wild casino style 90's and early to mid 2000's.
Yellen isn't going to pierce her nose and join a drum circle anytime soon but as far as heads of the fed go she is a more progressive pair of hands.
My contention is that the Occupy movement protests and actions are a part of this rejection of deregulation type management of the economy. Summers himself said his nomination would be acrimonious.

20Cent

“This is a very serious problem, it’s not a new problem, it’s a problem that really goes back to the 1980s, in which we have seen a huge rise in income inequality… For many, many years the middle and those below the middle [have been] actually losing absolutely. And frankly a disproportionate share of the gains, it’s not that we haven’t had pretty strong productivity growth for much of this time in the country, but a disproportionate share of those gains have gone to the top ten percent and even the top one percent. So this is an extremely difficult and to my mind very worrisome problem.”
Janet Wellen

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Looks like every effort was made to make it as deserving as possible.

If you are being sarcastic, you should say so.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/13/us-usa-occupy-debt-idUSBRE9AC00020131113

"The group receives almost no information about the people whose debt they buy - only an address, Ross said"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/occupy-wall-street-activists-15m-personal-debt

"Due to the nature of the debt market, the group is unable to specify whose debt it purchases, taking on the amounts before it discovers individuals’ identities"


Those involved admit that no effort was made to ensure the people being forgiven were deserving. The debts paid off could have been debts owed to an upmarket New York cosmetic surgery for all we know (or they for that matter).

Of course, they could have checked up and down every tree in north Dublin like Bertie checking on Ray Burke.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

If you are being sarcastic, you should say so.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/13/us-usa-occupy-debt-idUSBRE9AC00020131113

"The group receives almost no information about the people whose debt they buy - only an address, Ross said"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/occupy-wall-street-activists-15m-personal-debt

"Due to the nature of the debt market, the group is unable to specify whose debt it purchases, taking on the amounts before it discovers individuals’ identities"


Those involved admit that no effort was made to ensure the people being forgiven were deserving. The debts paid off could have been debts owed to an upmarket New York cosmetic surgery for all we know (or they for that matter).

Of course, they could have checked up and down every tree in north Dublin like Bertie checking on Ray Burke.

So tell us what more they could have done since all they had was addresses?

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

So tell us what more they could have done since all they had was addresses?

Come on, that is like saying tell us what more Cowen and Lenihan could have done since all they had were banks losing deposits.

There are a million and one better things you can do for the 99% than pay the medical bills of rich Americans (remember these were private medical bills, not people forced to rely on Medicare).

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

Come on, that is like saying tell us what more Cowen and Lenihan could have done since all they had were banks losing deposits.

There are a million and one better things you can do for the 99% than pay the medical bills of rich Americans (remember these were private medical bills, not people forced to rely on Medicare).

Don't get what you are saying about Cowen and Lenihan

In this case they seem to have done all they could to ensure that the debt relieved was those who needed it most. Haven't seen the breakdown of all the debt bought but the first few buys were emergency room debt which cuts out the paying for cosmetic surgery for rich Americans argument.

Jonny7

Occupy clearly don't really know who the debt belonged to, the payment was symbolic more than anything.

In essence they are yet again trying to do something positive but it's rooted in ignorance and misguided idealism.

Ironically, in this case, Occupy seem to be doing the banks a favour by paying off bad debt. I am pretty sure if said banks approached Occupy with an identical proposal they'd be told to **** right off

Blowfish

20Cent wrote: »

So tell us what more they could have done since all they had was addresses?

They could have not bought random debt and instead used the money to set up something similar to Mabs. They'd then be in a far better position to target the money they have directly to those struggling the most.

nesf

Blowfish wrote: »

They could have not bought random debt and instead used the money to set up something similar to Mabs. They'd then be in a far better position to target the money they have directly to those struggling the most.

This. The problem often isn't the debt itself, it's the reasons that got the person into the debt in the first place. Not that it's people's own fault that they're defaulting on debt but often the likes of Mabs can help a person get their income and expenditure under control which benefits people for the very long run.

20Cent

nesf wrote: »

This. The problem often isn't the debt itself, it's the reasons that got the person into the debt in the first place. Not that it's people's own fault that they're defaulting on debt but often the likes of Mabs can help a person get their income and expenditure under control which benefits people for the very long run.

Face it whatever they do there would be someone moaning about it. Re the mabbs idea that would require offices and staff 400k wouldn't past long doing that. Plus there are many organisations doing that already. With the resources they have the manpower helping people with 15 million of medical debt is damn impressive.
They originally wanted to raise 50k got over 600. After all this publicity I imagine their next fundraising drive will get even more.

nesf

20Cent wrote: »

Face it whatever they do there would be someone moaning about it.

If that's the attitude you take, why bother with anything? I mean really, do anything in politics or economics and you'll piss off someone.

We're not saying Mabs and only Mabs, we're saying trying to address the long term problems rather than a short term fix that doesn't change the underlying issues regarding credit is the correct, if far less sexy and publicity friendly path.