Occupy The Senate - now discussing: a world without banks

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by SuperWatto, Oct 22, 2011.

  1. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Linky


    Matt Taibbi's piece about the 'jealousy' of the OWS crowd. And how they don't really want to abolish banks. Soo...the premise of this thread goes poof? Or something.

    Good point. Where can I get my free billion? After reading this article and this from Mother Jones, I tend to agree with the idea that all these protests are doing is calling for an even playing field. And thus far we're not getting it. I also like how Huntsman called for an even playing field as well. Even if his stance on abortion I disagree with, I think he'd be the best choice. He's certainly to the left of everybody in this election field--including Obama.
  2. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    The premise of the thread will go poof when the crowds go poof.

    Nice post, Kawphy... it offers some hope, I guess. But in the end, if this balloon entirely deflates, so will my wallet. See, there's euros in it.
  3. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    The right wing propaganda in this country is pulling out the big guns: ACORN is supposedly behind OWS. You know...the group they helped destroy. Funny that a group that's now defunct is this shadowy organization responsible for what's going on now.

    So yeah...ACORN, ooga booga!
  4. New_York_Jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 16, 2002
    star 6
    Well that's ridiculous. Dude wants to repeal both Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley, embraced the Ryan medicare plan, and likes to complain about the EPA and NLRB. Just because he said he wants to do something about too big to fail banks and isn't as insane as the rest of the field sans Romney doesn't mean he's left of Obama.

  5. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    That's true, but he does put on a better public persona than any of the GOP candidates.
  6. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    I belong to RI Credit Union. My parents and sister belong to our city's credit union. They serve tens of thousands.




    Where did I say size alone is that big of a factor?

    What I said:




    All I said was credit unions are superior because they're usually designed for one set geographic region (or function), and that they're also designed differently... credit unions are more "democratic" than banks.


    From my credit union's "eligibility and benefits" page:


    Rhode Island Credit Union is a community credit union. Membership is open to anyone who lives or works in Rhode Island. As a member of Rhode Island Credit Union, you'll enjoy many financial benefits and always be provided with prompt, courteous and professional service.

    The benefits of membership with a credit union far outweigh those with another type of financial institution. Credit unions are not-for-profit, member-owned, democratically controlled financial cooperatives. They are organizations operated entirely by and for their members.

    As cooperative organizations, credit unions exist solely to meet their member
  7. yankee8255 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2005
    star 6
    A big part of the problem with the big banks, apparently, is deregulation, especially the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which prohibited commercial banks from doing investment banking. The thing is though, when I was getting my BBA in Finance n the late 80s, every professor I had, regardless of where they sat on the political spectrum (and most were probably significantly on the left) talked about how it should eb repealed, using the portfolio theory argument that allowing banks to diversify their portfolios would reduce risk. So much for that idea.

    As for the protesters, love this economist article.


  8. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    So, UC Davis is apparently going to look into the pepper spraying of students by local police:


  9. Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    I saw this on the news and was absolutely horrified. I remember the Kent State Univ. Vietnam War protest where 4 students were shot and killed by National Guardsmen. Again, totally non-violent protest met with unnecessary force.

    I think the chancellor of UC Davis should resign.

    Also, read an interesting article about how much it costs big banks to handle small depositor accounts (i.e., the average American). They claim it costs them $350 to $450 a year to handle these small accounts. My take on this is the average depositor is not really welcome at a large bank. So, another incentive to switch to a credit union.

    Just my 2 cents worth, which is all the big banks think I'm worth, anyways.

    The article was on Yahoo finance page a few days ago.
  10. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    In addition to wanting our chancellor to resign, the rally we had today wants to remove all police forces from our campus and all other UC campuses as well.

    I'm not sure I like that idea. It's very reactionary, and reactionary politics never work.
  11. Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    Well, in certain instances, you need campus police. But, since the chancellor is in charge of the campus police and in charge of campus police policies, I can see asking the chancellor to resign when she didn't do a good job of 'policing' the police.
  12. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    Additionally, darth boba, explain to me a scenario in which it's all right for a police officer to pepper spray unarmed students who are sitting down and hugging each other? Do explain why we need cops in riot gear and assault rifles to confront peaceful students who are sitting down and linking arms. Explain why it's all right for police to intimidate, harass, and harm unarmed protesters. Give me a scenario for this "context" you find missing.
  13. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    The problem, especially in Europe, is that the populace want a cradle-to-grave social net with everyone else except themselves to pay for it.

    And on a country-wide basis, that's Greece.
  14. Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    No, nevermind, that is not what the populace wants. In America, the populace (the 99%) wants a level playing field, not one that is controlled by special interest groups.

    The American government subsidizes the oil companies, pays farmers not to grow certain crops to keep supply low and prices high. That is corporate welfare, which needs to be cut, as long as other so-called 'welfare' programs are. And those are only two examples of 'corporate' welfare.

    My roommate used to work for the county welfare dept. Her hourly pay was very high, compared with other hourly pay for the same or similar type of job. 65% of the money spent on 'welfare' goes to pay the salaries/wages of the people who administer the programs. Some of those wages can and should be cut.

  15. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I'm sorry, but that's what a lot of people say in theory, but in practice they tend to advocate policies that don't do that.

    First of all, cut the "99%" claims. Occupy Wall Street doesn't speak for 99% of the country. They speak for themselves, and no one else. Their approval ratings are only around 33% and they have a 45% disapproval rating. 43% of voters have a higher opinion of the Tea Party than OWS. The whole "we are the 99%" is nothing more than propaganda, and I'd hope that anyone smart enough to post regularly in the Senate would be able to see that.

    There is a big difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. If you look at the policies advocated by many those who claim to just want a "level playing field", it would create anything but a level playing field. Many of them complain about unequal outcomes, rather than unequal opportunities.

    For example, there are the numerous pictures of people holding up their story of how they are "the 99%". Many of those stories talk of people who went to college and got liberal arts degrees (such as in literature, or art history, or something like that). A good number involve getting graduate-level degrees in those subjects. And then, those same people are complaining that they can't find a job to pay back the thousands of dollars in debt that they accumulated.

    That isn't because they had a lack of opportunity. That had every opportunity to choose a different major that would help them find a well-paying job when they graduated. In many cases, they chose majors that simply aren't in demand for positions that would pay enough to cover the tuition that they would spend.

    That's not a failure of opportunity, but a failure of planning on their part. To then talk about how they just want a level playing field is disingenuous at best. They had an equal opportunity to anyone else at their school, and they are now facing the consequences of their choices.

    On a level playing field, some people are able to run faster or farther than others. Some people will fall behind on a level playing field. Those are just facts of life, because we are each different and unique. But just because one person can run faster than another doesn't mean that you need to weigh them down to make things more "equal".

    Kimball Kinnison
  16. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    What kind of nonsense is all this. Are we debating what "the populace wants"?

    I should think there'd be no other common denominator than fornication, which is wholly outside the premise of this thread.

  17. Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    Kimball,

    Not all of us can be computer programmers, software/hardware engineers or astrophycists, no matter how hard we study.

    The term "level playing field" obviously means something different to you. Thanks to the manipulation of the housing market and stock market, millions of dollars, if not billions, were lost, along with lots and lots of jobs.

    And the companies were bailed out, and used bailout money to pay their top executives millions in bonuses!

    Many, many corporations and banks have taken their jobs to countries where they can pay workers well below the minimun wage paid in America.

    This was a subject that came up in my college economics class in the '80's, when American corporations were sending their jobs to South American countries, so it's not really new. It's just more people are becoming aware of it and are complaining.

    The fact remains that if this trend continues, Americans will be unable to pay for the goods that are produced overseas. And our quality of life will drop.

  18. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    [face_tired]

    I'm sorry, you seem to think I somehow favor actions like this. I don't. HOWEVER, the clip literally begins and ends with just the cop spraying them. It's clearly designed to elicit an emotional response (albeit a wholly appropriate one, given that zilch else has come to light about this) and therefore I didn't feel that it was appropriate to include it.
  19. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    And not everyone should go to college. Not everyone who goes to college should go on to a Master's or PhD.

    It's a simple economic evaluation. If you can't get a job in English Literature that will be able to pay off $100000 in debt, then you shouldn't go into debt to get a degree.

    If you can't handle a major that will actually increase your earning potential enough to offset the cost of your loans, then you shouldn't spend the money on the degree.

    That has nothing to do with a level playing field. A level playing field means that everyone has an equal opportunity, and everything from there is up to them.

    Quite simply, the fix for the housing market should have been to let companies go bankrupt, and let houses be foreclosed upon. If someone can't afford to pay their mortgage, then the remedy is already there in the loan agreement: the mortgage holder gets the property, which they can then sell to someone else to recover what they can. If they made a bad financial decision in issuing the mortgage in the first place (or buying it from someone else), then they shouldn't be shielded from the results of that decision.

    That then makes the housing prices drop, as the property is sold for closer to what it is actually worth.

    For example, I bought my house as a short sale from someone who was about to be foreclosed upon (literally - we closed only days before the foreclosure would have been final). While they lost their house, it allowed me to be able to afford a house. The current housing price correction is going to make some people lose their houses, but it will also make it possible for other people to afford their own homes. It's neither all good or all bad.

    And that has almost nothing to do with people have a level playing field!

    Moreover, who were the people pushing for a massive bailout of the financial industry? Many of them are the same people still running financial policy today.

    If it is cheaper to produce something overseas, even when looking at shipping the product to the US, then that also makes the goods cheaper for people in the US.

    It's no different than when a WalMart enters a neighborhood. Yes, it can drive some people out of business, but it also has a downward pressure on prices that help the poor afford things that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to.

    The US still has an amazing reserve of natural resources. If it becomes too expensive to produce goods overseas, it will encourage a return to US-based production of goods. Like everything else in an ecosystem (and the economy is a type of ecosystem), it isn't static.

    It's no different than predator/prey populations. When the prey population increases, the predator population also increases, until the prey is being overhunted. At that point, the predator population decreases due to starvation, until it reaches a new equilibrium point.

    The same thing happens in the economy. Whe
  20. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    You said the clip didn't show context. That implies there is some form of context in which what Lt. Pike did was okay. Now I'm asking you to explain that context.
  21. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Well, the context would come into play based on the larger, and/or official goals of his action. Where those "arm locked" protestors breaking the law and trespassing, even if they were only using passive resistance? Where they given warnings prior to the incident? Was this a spontaneous pocket of protestors where negotiation had not been attempted yet, or was this the end result of a failed dialog? On the other side, how is the UC Davis police trained on the use of pepper spray? In most jurisdictions, pepper spray is the lowest level of authorized force-just above verbal commands.

    There seems to be some backpeddling from the school chancellor on this, but it seems like the Chancellor, Linda Katehi, issued an order to have the protest dispersed and moved to more lawful areas. (The backpeddling comes into play because there are conflicting stories that indicate that the chancellor now says she only wanted tents, camping gear, etc..removed, not people) But the logical question is how does the campus police "disperse the protest" without addressing the protestors? I don't know. We, the public would have to see the official order given to the campus police from the chancellor. Because even passive resistance that's violating the law would be subject to having action taken against it. But you can't have the lawful authority of the university direct the campus department to remove the violators, but then try and deflect blame because the incident was filmed and put on Youtube. I think the context would have to come after the actual spraying. If spray was used so police could move in and avoid injury to both sides, that would be a justifiable action. If the guy just walked by and sprayed the protestors who were in a legal spot to protest, there wouldn't be any justification. But the clip doesn't show either way.

    This is another incident that looks horrible for the authorities, but it is lacking any sort of other context. Did this campus police Lt just act on his own and walk by spraying peaceful protestors? That's going to be a huge lawsuit, one which he could be held personally responsible for. However, what if the protestors were blocking an official access to the university, and ignored orders to move to other areas? If the spraying was the final step in removing these protestors because they ignored previous orders to disperse, it could most certainly be legal, even if it looks harsh. There are only so many tools that agencies like this campus department have at their disposal. Would it have looked any better, or any worse had campus officers physically moved in and broke up the human chain by using batons or pressure points?

    This seems to be an example were you are driven by pure emotion, so this post probably doesn't matter, or it's going to seem absurdly unemotional to you. But there is all sorts of other information that would provide the "why" this incident ended up like it did.
  22. GrandAdmiralPelleaon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 6
    I enjoy it when people make random comments like this, with no knowledge of the situation. Do you really think in Europe there's some sort of funny 100% consensus rate? Please. It's like those people calling the EU 'socialist' without apparently realising that Barroso II is a commission dominated by the ELDR & the PP.
  23. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Garfunkel & Oates (warning: language) put this issue very succinctly in their song 'Save The Rich'.
  24. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Creepy! Real people with manga eyes.
  25. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    Their vocal synchronization is.....disturbing.