EPTOccupy Wall Street - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Klipsys
United States1533 Posts
| ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On September 25 2011 23:40 hummingbird23 wrote: Hmm, put it this way, if I trade the fruits of someone else's labour, and I get rewarded far more richly than that person, don't you think something is fundamentally broken about that system? yes if the other person is starving meanwhile you bath in gold | ||
|
yandere991
Australia394 Posts
On September 25 2011 23:40 hummingbird23 wrote: Hmm, put it this way, if I trade the fruits of someone else's labour, and I get rewarded far more richly than that person, don't you think something is fundamentally broken about that system? Except that they don't. If I traded in commodities I would probably trade in volumes much more than say what 1 farmer produced. No way would I realistically make more money than said farmer if the volume that I traded was about the same that he produced. Also speculating is a zero sum game, for every winner that makes it big there is much more losers that end up poorer. Theres a reason why some speculators are successful and that is because of the insane hours they put into researching the current trends and directions the economy and individual firms undertake so their portfolios move in a consistently upwards manner. Sure they don't produce anything material...but neither do professional poker players. | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On September 25 2011 23:51 yandere991 wrote: Except that they don't. If I traded in commodities I would probably trade in volumes much more than say what 1 farmer produced. No way would I realistically make more money than said farmer if the volume that I traded was about the same that he produced. Also speculating is a zero sum game, for every winner that makes it big there is much more losers that end up poorer. Theres a reason why some speculators are successful and that is because of the insane hours they put into researching the current trends and directions the economy and individual firms undertake so their portfolios move in a consistently upwards manner. Sure they don't produce anything material...but neither do professional poker players. well no, actually they are just gambling on a big scale. or manipulating markets through the great money they put into it to turn it into their direction. yes there are loser and it's a zero sum game. and the farmers do make WAY less money then the investment bankers gambling with their products. now guess who the losers are especially if you keep in mind that the investment banks will get bailed out with tax payers money. | ||
|
yandere991
Australia394 Posts
On September 26 2011 00:09 fleeze wrote: well no, actually they are just gambling on a big scale. or manipulating markets through the great money they put into it to turn it into their direction. yes there are loser and it's a zero sum game. and the farmers do make WAY less money then the investment bankers gambling with their products. now guess who the losers are especially if you keep in mind that the investment banks will get bailed out with tax payers money. Banks getting bailed out is necessary and there is no other possible way around it. But bank failures shouldn't happen when prudential steps such as Basel accords are followed and high discrimination thresholds are set, that means no lending to people who can't finance it no matter how hard they cry banks should act as a utility to satisfy public borrowing. | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
On September 25 2011 23:51 yandere991 wrote: Except that they don't. If I traded in commodities I would probably trade in volumes much more than say what 1 farmer produced. No way would I realistically make more money than said farmer if the volume that I traded was about the same that he produced. Also speculating is a zero sum game, for every winner that makes it big there is much more losers that end up poorer. Theres a reason why some speculators are successful and that is because of the insane hours they put into researching the current trends and directions the economy and individual firms undertake so their portfolios move in a consistently upwards manner. Sure they don't produce anything material...but neither do professional poker players. Ah, but no one is trying to defend the professional poker players. Professional poker players win money off people who put money into prize pools. Obviously there are quite a number of people that are pissed about Wall Street turning the US economy into a giant prize pool for zero sum games. Edited to remove inaccurate information. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
|
purgerinho
Croatia919 Posts
And it is so funny to read about why Wall Street is good etc. Come on, wall street is just a point, nothing else. Money is there and money is spread from there. Wall Street doesn't care about people and now people came to Wall Street just to prove a point. They don't want to be involved in bail out crap anymore and they want changes because money is spread at wrong places. I mean, look at economy of USA, it is broken, only the richest can survive. System must be changed. You bankars and financial wise guys from this thread should involve human factor in your "money-tales" because you are missing the point. This protests will continue and this protest will go to DC, so all the culprits will be included. You know, if a criminal comes to you (and you know that person is a criminal) and aks you to do some job for him you will be involved in a crime. So, government/companies can't be apology for Wall Street. | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On September 26 2011 00:16 yandere991 wrote: Banks getting bailed out is necessary and there is no other possible way around it. But bank failures shouldn't happen when prudential steps such as Basel accords are followed and high discrimination thresholds are set, that means no lending to people who can't finance it no matter how hard they cry banks should act as a utility to satisfy public borrowing. why would it be necessary? wouldn't the banks be public anyway IF it was necessary? why don't they even pay any taxes on financial transactions then? why is the income of investment bankers so absurdly high if there is no risk involved? to be honest it is absolutely NOT necessary to bail them out. we could just directly pay the pensions, rents or insurances via tax money (the main reasons why banks get bailed out) instead of giving the money to the banks so they can gamble even more at no risk. | ||
|
sekritzzz
1515 Posts
On September 26 2011 00:16 yandere991 wrote: Banks getting bailed out is necessary and there is no other possible way around it. But bank failures shouldn't happen when prudential steps such as Basel accords are followed and high discrimination thresholds are set, that means no lending to people who can't finance it no matter how hard they cry banks should act as a utility to satisfy public borrowing. Banks/companies getting bailed out is the single worst idea the white house came up with. Banks/companies operate on a risk/reward relationship in terms of their investments. The government basically removed the risk factor and told them go ahead and take the riskiest investment possible, if it fails don't worry, we are here to pay! | ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 26 2011 00:17 hummingbird23 wrote: Ah, but no one is trying to defend the professional poker players. Professional poker players win money off people who put money into prize pools. Obviously there are quite a number of people that are pissed about Wall Street turning the US economy into a giant prize pool for zero sum games. To use another metaphor, people can scream at the top of their lungs about SC2 being balanced and that non-terran pro players are all just noobs, but the gross disparity in Code S demands a better explanation. Similarly, one might look at the US economy and note that when almost a full quarter of GDP generated by American private industry comes from people shoveling buckets of money into each others faces back and forth, a better explanation than financial noob-ness might be warranted. Source: http://www.bea.gov/industry/gdpbyind_data.htm No, finance and insurance is only 8% of GDP, not 25%. It's in the link you posted... | ||
|
yandere991
Australia394 Posts
On September 26 2011 00:32 fleeze wrote: why would it be necessary? wouldn't the banks be public anyway IF it was necessary? why don't they even pay any taxes on financial transactions then? why is the income of investment bankers so absurdly high if there is no risk involved? to be honest it is absolutely NOT necessary to bail them out. we could just directly pay the pensions, rents or insurances via tax money (the main reasons why banks get bailed out) instead of giving the money to the banks so they can gamble even more at no risk. Bailing banks out is necessary because of two reasons. The first one is that when one bank fails all the deposits in that bank is wiped out. Not only does that mean thousands of families lose their savings but more importantly all the debts that they owe other banks are also wiped out which leads to the high possibility of banks that have done business with the failing bank to also run insolvent. The second reason is much more important. When a bank falls the most dangerous factor is psychological. One bank run becomes a panic when the faith in the banking system fails and instead of one bank failing the system goes down. Remember the core of banking is that it is a system that promises to deliver something that cannot be fulfilled (ex ante and ex post demand) so that what ultimately keeps the banking system afloat is the public's perception that the banking system is stable. One bank fail is what exactly is needed to shock the public perception that the system is anything but stable. Despite the costs of the bailouts for the banks being enormous it would of been dwarfed by the costs if a panic actually occurred. Ultimately bailouts are not intended to save a bank. It's intended to prevent a panic. | ||
|
bOne7
Romania85 Posts
Don't lie to yourselves , this system is built on the suffering of the majority of the human beings on this planet ... You can see how good banks are by investigating the case of Greece .. | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
On September 26 2011 00:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No, finance and insurance is only 8% of GDP, not 25%. It's in the link you posted... Oops, skipped a row, you're right, retracted in my post. | ||
|
muse5187
1125 Posts
On September 26 2011 01:00 bOne7 wrote: yanderen .... really ? really ? The banking system is corrupt , come on , every economyc system that is based on interest is fake and destructive ... You should talk about a perfectly mathematic economy .... Not about this fake economy who , well any sane man can see that is inevitably set to fall ... And even so while it's on .... When you gain money and buy a big screen TV , it only means 2 more people will die of starvation in a 3rd world country ... nothing more ... Because the system is vicious , mostly because the economic system ( well of course because of the people ) .... With time , with a new economic system and a very very very well improved infrastructure .... Every1 on this planet will be able to afford food and clothes , and still have rich people .... well not people with 5 mansions and 20 cars , that's just waste of resources and space ... But people who can afford to buy a holiday in a really expensive place .. And have a big flat tv screen without killing 2 innocent kids .... Don't lie to yourselves , this system is built on the suffering of the majority of the human beings on this planet ... You can see how good banks are by investigating the case of Greece .. I really want to read your posts but why are there so many ...'s. I'm confuse. Can you type like a normal human being? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 26 2011 00:32 fleeze wrote: why would it be necessary? wouldn't the banks be public anyway IF it was necessary? why don't they even pay any taxes on financial transactions then? why is the income of investment bankers so absurdly high if there is no risk involved? to be honest it is absolutely NOT necessary to bail them out. we could just directly pay the pensions, rents or insurances via tax money (the main reasons why banks get bailed out) instead of giving the money to the banks so they can gamble even more at no risk. Why WOULD they pay taxes on financial transactions? They are already taxed if they profit off the transaction, so, why would they need to be taxed a second time just for providing a service? Paying out directly would have cost the government far more than the bank bailouts which cost the taxpayers very little money. It's not just making good on deposits, it's keeping the credit markets alive. Without functioning credit markets many businesses, small and large, would have been hurt - the financial crisis would have spilled out into main st businesses. And how would the government do this? The government does not have the lending infrastructure to keep the credit markets alive without banks functioning. When the banks were bailed out they were NOT given the money for free. The government was given assets in exchange for the bailout funds... which were then repaid with interest. Currently the cost of the bank bailouts is estimated at $19 Billion ... with the losses coming primarilly NOT from banks but from AIG, GM, and HAMP. | ||
|
Trowa127
United Kingdom1230 Posts
To clarify, the financial services sector plays a vital, vital role in not only obtaining investment, but traversing the legal mine field that is m+a, debt issuance and other financial activies. They are vital to our economy, especially in the World we live in today, but I think they need a little perspective. | ||
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
On September 26 2011 00:27 purgerinho wrote: It is funny how everywhere in the world sheeps (advocats of the system) have same approach to protesters (people that aren't sheeps). All of them will say things like "hipsters", "lazy hippies", "people that need a hobby", "people that don't know why for they protests"... All of that is just showing how weak you are as a person or human being. System destroyed you and you think like it (some kind of a Borg, LOL) and you are scared when there is someone who can think by himself. And it is so funny to read about why Wall Street is good etc. Come on, wall street is just a point, nothing else. Money is there and money is spread from there. Wall Street doesn't care about people and now people came to Wall Street just to prove a point. They don't want to be involved in bail out crap anymore and they want changes because money is spread at wrong places. I mean, look at economy of USA, it is broken, only the richest can survive. System must be changed. You bankars and financial wise guys from this thread should involve human factor in your "money-tales" because you are missing the point. This protests will continue and this protest will go to DC, so all the culprits will be included. You know, if a criminal comes to you (and you know that person is a criminal) and aks you to do some job for him you will be involved in a crime. So, government/companies can't be apology for Wall Street. It's embarrassing when the vanguard of this leftist protest does it on a WEEKEND and they have no demands because they have no idea what the fuck they are doing besides protesting that their degree in mongolian history isn't landing them a job. No, this "System" provided you the computer that allowed you to post what you just did. It isn't perfect. Get over it. The people that will change the system aren't the idiots that were protesting on wall street, it will be the middle to upper middle class that actually sustain the system in a demonstrable way. It won't be hipsters that think everyone is equal and that wishful thinking can change the world. | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On September 26 2011 01:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Why WOULD they pay taxes on financial transactions? They are already taxed if they profit off the transaction, so, why would they need to be taxed a second time just for providing a service? Paying out directly would have cost the government far more than the bank bailouts which cost the taxpayers very little money. It's not just making good on deposits, it's keeping the credit markets alive. Without functioning credit markets many businesses, small and large, would have been hurt - the financial crisis would have spilled out into main st businesses. And how would the government do this? The government does not have the lending infrastructure to keep the credit markets alive without banks functioning. When the banks were bailed out they were NOT given the money for free. The government was given assets in exchange for the bailout funds... which were then repaid with interest. Currently the cost of the bank bailouts is estimated at $19 Billion ... with the losses coming primarilly NOT from banks but from AIG, GM, and HAMP. i won't list the reasons for a financial transaction tax (or tobin tax). you can find many reasons on various sources on this topic on your own. but wait, what? only 19 billions in bailouts in TOTAL? and you believe this bullshit? germany paid over 150 billions alone for the Hypo Real Estate (HRE) which is ONE fucking bank. and guess who we paid this money for. other banks obviously... and those losses of AIG, GM, and HAMP are actually the profits of other banks. the banks are still subsidized heavily especially by the terrible american central banks (and the european one following after) leaning credits at 0 to 0.5 percent. still, most of this money is not invested into companys but to manipulate prices on oil, wheat, rice, houses and other vital products for consumers to make even more profit and getting bailed out by the same consumers if the "investment" fails. | ||
| ||
