Wall Street Occupation

[mrcash2009 0]

Its unfortunate that you will get some bandwaggon jumpers in for the "moment" .. I think most were picked in that video and most def "information Man" ... that was hilarious :)

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Lmfao

3QZlp3eGMNI

[rangerpl 13]

LOL, the Tea Party'ers where crying non-stop not to judge them by the few freaks with outrageous demands like "Go back to Kenya you Muslim terrorist"

The "you muslim terrorist" people represent a small fraction of the Tea Party.

At its core, the Tea Party is centered around respectable people who support libertarianism and the free market.

[Tonci87 163]

The "you muslim terrorist" people represent a small fraction of the Tea Party.

At its core, the Tea Party is centered around respectable people who support libertarianism and the free market.

I think this description would perfectly fit on the FDP in Germany, they are in coalition with the CDU and basically run the country. But the only thing they provved to be good in was to make totally stupid decisions and to support the industry more than the citizens. Chances are very high that they won´t make it into the Bundestag again.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Tonci87

[Minutemen 10]

Micheal hypocrite

showed up and now tries to occupy the movement terms with socialist leftwing garbage as the neocons highjacked the Tea Party movement.

Hey you f*ck-ups, the Wallstreet financed the socialists worldwide!! Social this, social that. Can't hear it anymore.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The problem is that America is not a Democracy. The USA is the owned slave of corrupt banks and markets.

qI_P3pxze5w

Until America deals with corruption of the welfare queens of Wall street Americans will remain Wall Streets slaves.

Kind regards walker

[oyman 0]

I still don't know what this is about.

[rangerpl 13]

I think this description would perfectly fit on the FDP in Germany, they are in coalition with the CDU and basically run the country. But the only thing they provved to be good in was to make totally stupid decisions and to support the industry more than the citizens. Chances are very high that they won´t make it into the Bundestag again.

Well no, not quite, since massive corporations and monopolistic practices like we have now aren't indicative of a free market.

Regulation is necessary to preserve the free market and keep it fair for everyone. Libertarians are in favor of that, especially people like Ron Paul (whose views I mostly agree with).

Massive banks are responsible for starting this economic crisis and stimulus packages/bailouts only make them bigger. In order to bring back a true free market, these banks must be broken up and regulated.

Edited October 9, 2011 by RangerPL

[nettrucker 142]

Hi all

The problem is that America is not a Democracy. The USA is the owned slave of corrupt banks and markets.

Until America deals with corruption of the welfare queens of Wall street Americans will remain Wall Streets slaves.

Kind regards walker

Well that guy's quite p*ssed and I understand his anger. But this not only an American problem here in Europe we're dealing more or less with the same problems.

[Baff1 0]

Massive banks are responsible for starting this economic crisis and stimulus packages/bailouts only make them bigger. In order to bring back a true free market, these banks must be broken up and regulated.

Do you really really want to regulate yet another industry out of your country?

Who will be your next target once you have outsourced the banks?

Oil companies? Electricity companies? Apple? Microsoft? Colt? EA games!

[instagoat 133]

I´m just gonna put this out there.

Wall Street is not a cause. It is a symptom.

[Pyronick 21]

Time for deprivatization and nationalization of banks, former state companies, public service companies, infrastructure holdings, etc.

I think that a Keynesian approach wouldn't be bad. But in order to do that both the US and the EU need to step out of the WTO.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Regulation is necessary to preserve the free market and keep it fair for everyone. Libertarians are in favor of that, especially people like Ron Paul (whose views I mostly agree with).

Austro-Liberatians, Liberatians, and Anarcho-Capitalist have never supported regulations. Why? Government intervention make it hard for new firms to enter the market place, helps create monopolies, picks winners and losers and creates inflation - the price of goods and services. To say that they do shows you clearly know zero about Libertarians and the Austrian School of Economics.

Government Intervention and Market Volatility

http://mises.org/daily/3239

I think that a Keynesian approach wouldn't be bad. But in order to do that both the US and the EU need to step out of the WTO.

You do realize that the WTO is full of Keynesians, right? I mean, that is basically their creation. Keynesians don't much care for a countrys' sovereignty. Why? It's too hard to centrally plan an economy when you have all these other countries doing things in their own self interest.

As far as your retarded comment goes about nationalizing banks go, how did that work for the Fascist and the USSR? Not to well, huh? Plus, it will never happen because I live in a city that is headquarters to one the largest banks called USAA. People love working there because it has the corporate culture of Google and other IT and younger employee type firms. They make more than government employees do. And they serve their clients well: active, retired military and their co-dependents.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[dysta 10]

OMG! Where's that UAV from?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38503190/dc57f698-97d1-415d-8ce1-0439d4806039.jpg

[gammadust 12]

"Well... we shouldn't let Governments regulate markets should we? Specially if when they do, what it turns out to is the inverse they are mandated to[1]."

[1]A large chunk of Dexia’s troubled assets are on the balance sheet of Dexia Credit Local, a French unit. Dexia Credit Local carries most of the bank’s 95 billion-euro bond portfolio, which includes 21 billion euros of Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Irish sovereign debt. Dexia’s municipal lending units in Italy and Spain, which it agreed to dispose of to win European Commission approval for its 2008 bailout, are also on the French unit’s balance sheet.

"But, by all means, God, let there be a Government to come and bailout failing banks when the sh*t hits the fan[2], just wait until the main orgy beneficiaries (banks shareholders) leave with their pockets full[3] and only then let the Government and the Taxpayer come in and pay for the debts[4][5]."

[2] The Belgian federal government will pay 4 billion euros ($5.4 billion) for the division and guarantee 60 percent of a so-called bad bank to be set up for Dexia’s troubled assets, Finance Minister Didier Reynders said at a press conference in Brussels today after a weekend of talks. Dexia will sell assets, including its Luxembourg unit and its French municipal lending arm, to give the bad bank capital to absorb future losses.

[3]Dexia fell as much as 36 percent in Brussels trading and closed down 4 cents, or 4.7 percent, to 80.5 cents, on concern the restructuring will leave shareholders with little of value. The stock resumed trading this afternoon after being suspended since Oct. 6.

[4]The governments will guarantee as much as 90 billion euros of interbank and bond funding for 10 years for Dexia and its Dexia Credit Local unit. Belgium will provide about 61 percent, France about 37 percent and Luxembourg 3 percent of the backing. For Belgium, the guarantee equals about 15 percent of gross domestic product,

[5]In 2008, after injecting 6 billion euros, France and Belgium gave Dexia guarantees of as much as 150 billion euros. Belgium covered 60.5 percent of the guarantees, France 36.5 percent and Luxembourg 3 percent.

Privatizing Profits, Socializing Debt (courtesy of DEXIA).

Like Dexia there are never ending examples all over western countries. All this is intimately related with speculative practices of Wall Street which drove many banks through the red line in their balance sheets. Now that those become public, let the public pay. This is, simply put, outrageous and criminal.

The point being, a Government which regulates, or by other means, assures economic sustainability is not the problem. De facto Governments in current Capitalist system do its inverse, assure economic break down. There is no base to complain when they function according to the legitimate objective.

And the other side of the question, should or should not a market let it handle itself? If nothing else lattest 2007 bust proves that regulation was ever more necessary. Not only regulation, but prosecution of the beneficiaries of the criminal activity which led to it.

Current Capitalist System is a Austrian School of Economics wet dream, and everyone else pratical bloody nightmare.

EDIT: I was forgeting the rest of the story, but as usual, as soon as the now nationalized division of the bank becomes lucrative again, no worries... it gets to be privatized again, in some instances by the very shareholders which had bankrupt the bank in the first place. Nahhh... there is no future in this System!

Edited October 10, 2011 by gammadust

[rangerpl 13]

Austro-Liberatians, Liberatians, and Anarcho-Capitalist have never supported regulations. Why? Government intervention make it hard for new firms to enter the market place, helps create monopolies, picks winners and losers and creates inflation - the price of goods and services. To say that they do shows you clearly know zero about Libertarians and the Austrian School of Economics.

Please excuse my ignorance as I'm rather new to the Libertarian school of thought and have not done as much research on it as you have. I was under the impression that regulation is good when it helps prevent monopolization and maintains the free market. After all, sometimes the government does need to step in and break up a monopoly, otherwise we'd be still buying all our oil from the Rockefellers, right? Monopolies can't be healthy for the free market because they allow corporations to shit all over their customers.

Please enlighten me.

(no sarcasm intended)

Do you really really want to regulate yet another industry out of your country?

Who will be your next target once you have outsourced the banks?

Oil companies? Electricity companies? Apple? Microsoft? Colt? EA games!

No, we should instead allow banks to become monopolies and grow so large that they control our economic system! :rolleyes:

Oh wait, that's already happened.

Edited October 10, 2011 by RangerPL

[st_dux 26]

Please excuse my ignorance as I'm rather new to the Libertarian school of thought and have not done as much research on it as you have. I was under the impression that regulation is good when it helps prevent monopolization and maintains the free market. After all, sometimes the government does need to step in and break up a monopoly, otherwise we'd be still buying all our oil from the Rockefellers, right? Monopolies can't be healthy for the free market because they allow corporations to shit all over their customers.

Actually, most libertarians (especially Austrian School economists) are opposed to anti-monopoly laws. The feeling is that natural monopolies (i.e., no government assistance) only arise out of extreme efficiency and are generally good for consumers. Potential competition keeps the monopolist in check even if there are no notable competitors at that particular time, so the only way that a monopolist can maintain his position is by offering consistently low prices and high quality products. Neoclassical economics argues in favor of competition laws, but Austrian economists would say that this is because the Neoclassical view erroneously looks at economies as a series of static snapshots rather than a dynamic system that is constantly in flux.

[Baff1 0]

No, we should instead allow banks to become monopolies and grow so large that they control our economic system! :rolleyes:

Oh wait, that's already happened.

Banks aren't monopolies.

One bank is a monopoly.

The one bank that controls your economic system is your state bank. I guess you could call that a monopoly.

Our national banking systems and the world banking systems are anything but a monopoly. They are comprised of a multitude of banks operating in a highly competative market.

There is a lot more banks than say, car manufacturers, steel manufacturers, electricity companies, oil companies, PC operating system manufacturers.

Your country has one of the worlds most successful banking sectors. Other countries would cut off their arms and legs to have those companies based on their shores.

If you hate your banks, no worries. Legislate the crap out of them so that they move to my country instead please.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Baff1

[gammadust 12]

Actually, most libertarians (especially Austrian School economists) are opposed to anti-monopoly laws. The feeling is that natural monopolies (i.e., no government assistance) only arise out of extreme efficiency and are generally good for consumers.

Of course they are! They favour monopolistic practices because their in a position to benefit from it at the expense of everyone else. Some areas of the economy should simply be barred from private control. Hold this tought for a sec even if you do not agree with it...

Potential competition keeps the monopolist in check even if there are no notable competitors at that particular time, so the only way that a monopolist can maintain his position is by offering consistently low prices and high quality products.

What alternate reality have you been observing? Wherever you find a monopoly as such, by definition that monopoly surfaces because of lack of competition, hence no minor competition serves as a consumer escape route, and by that means, threatning the monopoly in question with the ultimate consequence of allowing the monopoly to set not only prices, but quality standards, and even trending development of whichever product.

Now connecting with the previous point... Two examples:

Microsoft Monopoly on operating systems and British Regional Water Authorities (RWAs) on water supply. By all definitions, these are/were monopoly positions in respective markets. Do note though that RWA was a state/public monopoly, in 89 was privatized under Tatcher (with Austrian Economicists clapping their hands), MS by contrast was private since the begining.

The significant diference between these two monopolies (from a social standing) is that water is an ESSENTIAL product to human life, while on the other hand no one dies for the lack of a trendy operating system. It is interesting to note that, despite the privatization water supply prices jumped almost 50% in the first decade (call it competition - 16 companies total), while the now private companies profits doubled (call it efficiency), and supply would be cut for the lack of payment (I call it sociopathy).

Neoclassical economics argues in favor of competition laws, but Austrian economists would say that this is because the Neoclassical view erroneously looks at economies as a series of static snapshots rather than a dynamic system that is constantly in flux.

That is the exact problem of both views, either one look at economy as if it was a "dynamic", "fluid" River. One, assuming good will, implements economic practices to "regulate the river" which are latter falsified over and over again never learning, the other one assumes that the River will inevitably flow out to safe waters, just "let it flow" that it will naturaly fulfil society's best interests.

The first at least gives the example of trying to comprehend its underlying laws, even if it fails. The other quits comprehending the phenomenon altogether and becomes religious about how inevitably the "good ending" will be.

But they fail most fundamentaly because economy is not a nature phenomenon. Economy is product of human behaviour. Not something totally out of control despite its complexity. It benefits from a solid objective base (statistics, math, verified causes and effects), equating it with something merely entropic is the wrong approach.

Finally, much more than a mere suspicion, economy is obviously being operated objectively (markets ARE manipulated, confidence levels ARE induced, information IS concealed). Not to the benefit of society in general (the Social Collective Concern) but to a handfull of Sociopathic Parasites.

Just ask Cui Bono (who benefits)?

Edited October 10, 2011 by gammadust

[walker 0]

Hi all

America's current position was feared by its founding fathers.

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Taylor in 28 May 1816 wrote,

"And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

Kind Regards walker

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Please excuse my ignorance as I'm rather new to the Libertarian school of thought and have not done as much research on it as you have. I was under the impression that regulation is good when it helps prevent monopolization and maintains the free market. After all, sometimes the government does need to step in and break up a monopoly, otherwise we'd be still buying all our oil from the Rockefellers, right? Monopolies can't be healthy for the free market because they allow corporations to shit all over their customers.

Regulation happens through the market place. If a consumer or consumers don't like the quality or price and/or experience from a company or product, they move on.

Look what happened to Codemasters.

---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 PM ----------

Hi all

America's current position was feared by its founding fathers.

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Taylor in 28 May 1816 wrote,

Kind Regards walker

Thomas Jefferson wasn't against private banks. He was against a CENTRAL BANK that was given monetary authority by the Congress. Read his papers on his thoughts on Alexander Hamilton.

notJuFGXQ9w

[rangerpl 13]

Banks aren't monopolies.

One bank is a monopoly.

The one bank that controls your economic system is your state bank. I guess you could call that a monopoly.

Our national banking systems and the world banking systems are anything but a monopoly. They are comprised of a multitude of banks operating in a highly competative market.

There is a lot more banks than say, car manufacturers, steel manufacturers, electricity companies, oil companies, PC operating system manufacturers.

Your country has one of the worlds most successful banking sectors. Other countries would cut off their arms and legs to have those companies based on their shores.

If you hate your banks, no worries. Legislate the crap out of them so that they move to my country instead please.

There is a very small group of very large banks that controls the majority of transactions. While it's true that there are a lot of small, local banks, these banks are generally backed up by the huge financial institutions such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. The failure of just one of these banks has the potential for major economic damage, as the subprime mortgage crisis has showed us.

[gammadust 12]

Regulation happens through the market place. If a consumer or consumers don't like the quality or price and/or experience from a company or product, they move on.

Look what happened to Codemasters.

Consumers act the exact same when the products in question are life or death related...

- Water

- Pharmaceuticals

- Health Care

- Home

- etc...

They simply move on, of course!

Thomas Jefferson wasn't against private banks. He was against a CENTRAL BANK that was given monetary authority by the Congress. Read his papers on his thoughts on Alexander Hamilton.

Walker was pointing exacly that! No?

There is a very small group of very large banks that controls the majority of transactions. While it's true that there are a lot of small, local banks, these banks are generally backed up by the huge financial institutions such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. The failure of just one of these banks has the potential for major economic damage, as the subprime mortgage crisis has showed us.

BIS (Bank for International Settlements - NOT to be confused with Bohemia Interactive Studios...)

[jblackrupert 14]

I still don't know what this is about.

A bunch of people who graduated with Art Degrees who are upset that they weren't handed the keys to a Mercedes and a $100,000 year job when they got out of school.

The sense of entitlement me generation.

Hey hey, ho ho, near the soap we won't go!

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Walker was pointing exacly that! No?

Anyone can - like Walker - Google and find some nugget of information to make whatever point it is that they are trying to make. The only reason no one calls Walker out is because everyone views him as the crazy uncle at your birthday party that is rambling on about an alien invasion he knows is coming because his friends on on his ham radio said so. You don't dare say anything because you fill sorry for him, while laughing inside.

That quote that Walker took is often, if not most of the time, misunderstood to mean private banks. Private banks is not what Thomas Jefferson despised. He despised a central bank, that which is ran by the government or is private organization (Federal Reserve) that is given powers to regulate or create monetary policy. Why? If you have a bank that can print money on whim then it will devalue your money, give money to prop up failed companies/governments, fund wars that are unnecessary and create rampant inflation while saying that a stimulus is needed to fix the economy and a etc... etc...

Consumers act the exact same when the products in question are life or death related...

- Water

- Pharmaceuticals

- Health Care

- Home

- etc...

That's why the consumer is rational.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Hans Ludwig