EPTOccupy Wall Street - Page 186
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
below66
United States1761 Posts
| ||
|
Cytokinesis
Canada330 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
inamorato
United States263 Posts
There is no doubt that Wallstreet is suspect for investigation, they have been for since the genesis of the market. Jobs are available but most of these people aren't willing to work. How about we stop bailing out all of the reliefers, and welfare jockeys. Or we could just keep shelling out money to people who abuse the system, or shut the system down. Why don't we stop building large corporations like Walmart in every town city or suburb. Walmart and corporations like it may be able to employ 1-200 people but they also undercut and railroad other 100's businesses that employ 10-15 people because they're able to buy in large quantities allowing them to receive their goods at a lower price ergo selling them at a cheaper price that the smaller companies can't compete with. Soon hospitals will go under and big corporations will rise to deliver your child, and they will keep the sick alive long enough to purchase from their shelves. Soon there will be no reason to be outside we can just live in one big corporation that covers the US and can provide us with everything we need! | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On November 25 2011 09:24 inamorato wrote: 99% of the protesters are sheep following the new trend. There is no doubt that Wallstreet is suspect for investigation, they have been for since the genesis of the market. Jobs are available but most of these people aren't willing to work. How about we stop bailing out all of the reliefers, and welfare jockeys. Or we could just keep shelling out money to people who abuse the system, or shut the system down. Why don't we stop building large corporations like Walmart in every town city or suburb. Walmart and corporations like it may be able to employ 1-200 people but they also undercut and railroad other 100's businesses that employ 10-15 people because they're able to buy in large quantities allowing them to receive their goods at a lower price ergo selling them at a cheaper price that the smaller companies can't compete with. Soon hospitals will go under and big corporations will rise to deliver your child, and they will keep the sick alive long enough to purchase from their shelves. Soon there will be no reason to be outside we can just live in one big corporation that covers the US and can provide us with everything we need! Ah, come on! You probably don't know the protesters well enough personally to make that ultimate a judgement on them. The large corporations cannot per se undercut prices without manufacturors giving discounts and severe at that since a large corporation will have a larger chain of command to feed. The big corporation has an advantage if they can make very profitable prices from their product. That should in theory bring competition. However, x months of high profit of x% is more money for large corporations than small ones. When the small competitior lower the prices, the large company will lower the price further to force a netto loss and since the large corporation has more money to use, it is a question of who can keep starving for the longest and there the large corporations can make the most of it, hands down. As for corporations owning a society, you are probably not far off, that they could end up doing that. However, if they have any kind of competition - and with that size they will - they have to keep costs down. The easiest way to keep costs down is by not having to care for the people who cannot work. At the beginning by cutting their benifits, but later, well (like letting the old war veterans rot in their own wommit)... As soon as one corporation does that, the rest are forced to cut costs to the same extend and at some point this exact group has to pay. Without this group, it is about controlling the number of children: Children are expensive for society untill a certain age, when they can get benificial for society. Having to raise too many will put you at a huge disadvantage competitively for years. Having too few will kill the corporation... Honestly I cannot see how a 100 % corporation-owned governing organ can make anything but a cut-throat society. | ||
|
Pertinacious
United States82 Posts
On November 25 2011 08:18 Biff The Understudy wrote: My cousin is a trader is Société Générale; he makes millions by speculating for his fucking bank on raw materials. Every time I see him and his Colgate smile, his big boobs stupid wife and her Vuitton bag and his spoiled kids and their cashmere scarf, I feel like throwing a hammer to his face. 99% of finance today is pure speculation. It doesn't produce anything, and it basically siphons world's wealth into the hand of irresponsible bankers, investment funds and corporations owned by a financial elite that basically represent some kind of super ruling class. How does speculation "siphon" the world's wealth? What do you think about future's contracts? They are a very common and (IMO) beneficial type of speculation. | ||
|
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
On November 25 2011 15:38 Pertinacious wrote: How does speculation "siphon" the world's wealth? What do you think about future's contracts? They are a very common and (IMO) beneficial type of speculation. nevermind the fact that he is pulling figures out of his arse. I guess 99 is a very popular number to claim these days. Who cares that without banking there wouldn't be small businesses, which provide the majority of the employment and thereby are the driver of the economy in any country, and provide a means of social mobility for those that start a successful business. | ||
|
Hikko
United States1126 Posts
On November 24 2011 00:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Not really sure what to think of this... Any Medical TL'ers? Source http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016829484_occupybaby23m.html Unfortunately, according to more recent articles, there isn't really any evidence of her being pregnant, and what evidence she claims to have she isn't showing anyone, including reporters and her own family  for a second there it was a very compelling story, though | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On November 25 2011 09:24 inamorato wrote: 99% of the protesters are sheep following the new trend. There is no doubt that Wallstreet is suspect for investigation, they have been for since the genesis of the market. Jobs are available but most of these people aren't willing to work. How about we stop bailing out all of the reliefers, and welfare jockeys. Or we could just keep shelling out money to people who abuse the system, or shut the system down. Why don't we stop building large corporations like Walmart in every town city or suburb. Walmart and corporations like it may be able to employ 1-200 people but they also undercut and railroad other 100's businesses that employ 10-15 people because they're able to buy in large quantities allowing them to receive their goods at a lower price ergo selling them at a cheaper price that the smaller companies can't compete with. Soon hospitals will go under and big corporations will rise to deliver your child, and they will keep the sick alive long enough to purchase from their shelves. Soon there will be no reason to be outside we can just live in one big corporation that covers the US and can provide us with everything we need! Why do you think anybody is interested by hearing Fox News propaganda here? Have you been talking with the protesters? I have. In Geneva, and in London. Most of them had a job, they knew perfectly why they were here, and what they wanted. So please. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On November 25 2011 15:38 Pertinacious wrote: How does speculation "siphon" the world's wealth? What do you think about future's contracts? They are a very common and (IMO) beneficial type of speculation. Ok. I'll explain you. My cousin buy, for example, sugar. He waits that the rate goes up, and sells. Right? So by buying this sugar, he has artificially created a demand that didn't exist. He exploits AND creates artificially the rise of prices, that won't benefit the producer. Moving money doesn't create value. Speculation is just a clever way to steal money from the real economy: the money he does for his bank comes from the consumer pocket, and doesn't have any positive impact for the producer. Now, the money earned that way is reinvested into speculation. That means that it's a vicious circle of speculation having more and more weight on the economy. Today 99% of finance is speculation. 99% of finance doesn't produce anything, doesn't help anybody. It's trillions of dollars circulating, that inflate rates in order of getting more capital to be re-injected into inflating rates. The whole idea with Tobin tax, which America and England always refused for obvious reasons is to tax a very very small percentage on every transaction. Something like 0,01%. That means speculation that has gone completely wild since the introduction of computers into stock markets and the complete deregulation of finance operated under Reagan / Tatcher would be drastically diminished. The idea is obviously that capital is used to invest rather than speculate. Which is the way the capitalist system is supposed to work. Right now, the capitalist system is completely perverted, mainly because it needs to be regulated and it isn't anymore. On November 25 2011 16:39 Flyingdutchman wrote: nevermind the fact that he is pulling figures out of his arse. I guess 99 is a very popular number to claim these days. Who cares that without banking there wouldn't be small businesses, which provide the majority of the employment and thereby are the driver of the economy in any country, and provide a means of social mobility for those that start a successful business. I'll be very interested into your explanation of how speculating on raw materials helps little businesses. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On November 25 2011 18:47 BottleAbuser wrote: Biff, I have little understanding of economics, but isn't having cash instead of holding onto your goods until a "real" buyer comes along a plus? I seem to recall a businessman expounding the value of "financing"... Yes, that's one of the purpose of financial activities: it makes everything much faster. Speculation does have a real function into the capitalist system: the speculator takes a risk (that the market will go down) that is a guarantee for the producer, and allows him to sell immediately and to reinvest much faster. That's fine, when speculation is and remains marginal compared to the real economy. That was the case 30 years ago, and speculation wasn't a problem for anybody. Problem is when speculation becomes the main activity, not only does it lose its function but it also siphon wealth from basically everybody who isn't playing into the big casino. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 25 2011 18:40 Biff The Understudy wrote: My cousin is a trader is Société Générale; he makes millions by speculating for his fucking bank on raw materials. Every time I see him and his Colgate smile, his big boobs stupid wife and her Vuitton bag and his spoiled kids and their cashmere scarf, I feel like throwing a hammer to his face. 99% of finance today is pure speculation. It doesn't produce anything, and it basically siphons world's wealth into the hand of irresponsible bankers, investment funds and corporations owned by a financial elite that basically represent some kind of super ruling class. You are jealous. And you justify your jealousy with your ignorance and false logic. While there is some question that your cousin deserves all of his wealth, there is no question he's better than you. On November 25 2011 08:18 Biff The Understudy wrote: Ok. I'll explain you. My cousin buy, for example, sugar. He waits that the rate goes up, and sells. Right? So by buying this sugar, he has artificially created a demand that didn't exist. He exploits AND creates artificially the rise of prices, that won't benefit the producer. Moving money doesn't create value. Speculation is just a clever way to steal money from the real economy: the money he does for his bank comes from the consumer pocket, and doesn't have any positive impact for the producer. Now, the money earned that way is reinvested into speculation. That means that it's a vicious circle of speculation having more and more weight on the economy. Today 99% of finance is speculation. 99% of finance doesn't produce anything, doesn't help anybody. It's trillions of dollars circulating, that inflate rates in order of getting more capital to be re-injected into inflating rates. The whole idea with Tobin tax, which America and England always refused for obvious reasons is to tax a very very small percentage on every transaction. Something like 0,01%. That means speculation that has gone completely wild since the introduction of computers into stock markets and the complete deregulation of finance operated under Reagan / Tatcher would be drastically diminished. The idea is obviously that capital is used to invest rather than speculate. Which is the way the capitalist system is supposed to work. Right now, the capitalist system is completely perverted, mainly because it needs to be regulated and it isn't anymore. A categorical condemnation of speculation that is the perfect specimen of ignorance for all to see. Speculation is price arbitrage over time, in contrast to price arbitrage over location where a merchant will buy/produce in one location and ship it to another location. Price arbitrage over time is driven by projections of supply impulses or demand impulses that are not built into the market. It is sometimes based on government manipulation of supply and demand, as is the case for sovereign bonds of the PIIGS in the Eurozone. (In other words, frontrunning the ECB.) Arbitrage over time is the communication of demand and supply from the future. Your cousin buys now when supply relatively outstrips demand and holds it until a future point when demand relatively outstrips supply. Doing so smooths out demand spikes and collapses and supply interruptions and gluts. Pricing is a signal full of information in the marketplace and speculation is integral to its proper function. Everyone in the market speculates to a degree. Suppliers can either horde a little instead of selling their entire supply and the consumers can deplete their inventory instead of buying. Speculation requires the accurate projection of supply and demand and a risk assessment the upside and downside. It is data and research intensive and out of the realm of small-time producer or a small-time consumer. These people/organizations are at the mercy of market fluctuations and are exposed to all of the risk. When financiers step into the speculative market, their activity frees the consumers and the suppliers from having to engage in the speculation and just focus on their own businesses. The financiers communicate current demand and future demand in the form of current pricing and several other financial interests and assume nearly all of the risk. (they are (usually) big enough to.) That speculation has grown into such a large industry is the confluence of three possible developments. The financial industry may have gotten better at it job of of forecasting future supply and demand. This is a positive. More people choose speculations as a way to get rich quickly or lose all their wealth. This makes Wall Street out to be a glorified casino for the rest of society, and the financiers get fat because they are the house and hold the best information. This is a negative, but society has to stop being enamored with get rich quick schemes. The financial industry has oversold their financial instruments and falsely advertised their expertise in the marketplace. In theory, this should already be addressed via the justice system, but US justice system is terrible and didn't do that. There is also the sense that the large financial houses would have lost big in the market when they grossly overplayed their hands, but the bailouts prevented that, too. Regulatory schemes that don't address this point don't fix anything (hint hint Tobin Tax). | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On November 25 2011 23:22 TanGeng wrote: You are jealous. And you justify your jealousy with your ignorance and false logic. While there is some question that your cousin deserves all of his wealth, there is no question he's better than you. A categorical condemnation of speculation that is the perfect specimen of ignorance for all to see. Speculation is price arbitrage over time, in contrast to price arbitrage over location where a merchant will buy/produce in one location and ship it to another location. Price arbitrage over time is driven by projections of supply impulses or demand impulses that are not built into the market. It is sometimes based on government manipulation of supply and demand, as is the case for sovereign bonds of the PIIGS in the Eurozone. (In other words, frontrunning the ECB.) Arbitrage over time is the communication of demand and supply from the future. Your cousin buys now when supply relatively outstrips demand and holds it until a future point when demand relatively outstrips supply. Doing so smooths out demand spikes and collapses and supply interruptions and gluts. Pricing is a signal full of information in the marketplace and speculation is integral to its proper function. Everyone in the market speculates to a degree. Suppliers can either horde a little instead of selling their entire supply and the consumers can deplete their inventory instead of buying. Speculation requires the accurate projection of supply and demand and a risk assessment the upside and downside. It is data and research intensive and out of the realm of small-time producer or a small-time consumer. These people/organizations are at the mercy of market fluctuations and are exposed to all of the risk. When financiers step into the speculative market, their activity frees the consumers and the suppliers from having to engage in the speculation and just focus on their own businesses. The financiers communicate current demand and future demand in the form of current pricing and several other financial interests and assume nearly all of the risk. (they are (usually) big enough to.) That speculation has grown into such a large industry is the confluence of three possible developments. The financial industry may have gotten better at it job of of forecasting future supply and demand. This is a positive. More people choose speculations as a way to get rich quickly or lose all their wealth. This makes Wall Street out to be a glorified casino for the rest of society, and the financiers get fat because they are the house and hold the best information. This is a negative, but society has to stop being enamored with get rich quick schemes. The financial industry has oversold their financial instruments and falsely advertised their expertise in the marketplace. In theory, this should already be addressed via the justice system, but US justice system is terrible and didn't do that. There is also the sense that the large financial houses would have lost big in the market when they grossly overplayed their hands, but the bailouts prevented that, too. Regulatory schemes that don't address this point don't fix anything (hint hint Tobin Tax). If you bothered to read what I wrote, you would realize that I don't condemn speculation altogether, since it has a function into liquefying the market. I condemned speculation when it takes over investments and the real economy. When the main financial activity becomes speculation, you end up with an extreme volatility of the market, and an activity that should be peripheral that becomes more important than the real economy. Today, the total of financial transaction every year is 4292 trillion dollars. The world gross product is 58 trillion dollars. That's a 1 to 74 ratio. Now, you know nothing about me. I don't consider that being a millionaire for moving fantasy money around while having not a single book in your house and being completely ignorant is success. I'm much happier being an artist and making a decent living among people who see a little further than the number of digit on their bank account. I'm sure you can't understand that. I told you I didn't want to discuss with you anymore. "He is better than yourself". What does that even mean? Can't you at least try to restrain yourself from arguing like a total douche bag? | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
Points of gross ignorance in the premise: On November 25 2011 18:40 Biff The Understudy wrote: My cousin buy, for example, sugar. He waits that the rate goes up, and sells. Right? So by buying this sugar, he has artificially created a demand that didn't exist (what happens when he sells - a creation of supply? then where is a profit?). He exploits AND creates artificially the rise of prices, that won't benefit the producer. Moving money doesn't create value. Speculation is just a clever way to steal money from the real economy: the money he does for his bank comes from the consumer pocket, and doesn't have any positive impact for the producer. (what happens when he outbid everyone else to buy?) These are simple, simple logic inconsistencies that are not thought out. In Biff's own words, if you had a brain, you'd see them. On November 25 2011 18:40 Biff The Understudy wrote: I'll be very interested into your explanation of how speculating on raw materials helps little businesses. I discussed the risk mitigating dimension of speculation and its benefit to little businesses and for the market as a whole. You, (I repeat), are talking out your arse. On November 25 2011 23:52 Biff The Understudy wrote: I told you I didn't want to discuss with you anymore. "He is better than yourself". What does that even mean? Can't you at least try to restrain yourself from arguing like a total douche bag? lol, You want to throw a hammer into his face. a total douche bag? Your words are all there for people to see. | ||
|
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
99% of the protesters are sheep following the new trend. You're saying that because everybody says that. You don't ACTUALLY know. You're the sheep =/ | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On November 26 2011 00:05 TanGeng wrote: Biff, it has never been a conversation. blablabblablablablablaba Well, just f... off, then  User was warned for this post | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
Yes. Please. After you User was warned for this post | ||
|
harlock78
United States94 Posts
On November 25 2011 23:22 TanGeng wrote: A categorical condemnation of speculation that is the perfect specimen of ignorance for all to see. Speculation is price arbitrage over time, in contrast to price arbitrage over location where a merchant will buy/produce in one location and ship it to another location. Price arbitrage over time is driven by projections of supply impulses or demand impulses that are not built into the market. It is sometimes based on government manipulation of supply and demand, as is the case for sovereign bonds of the PIIGS in the Eurozone. (In other words, frontrunning the ECB.) Arbitrage over time is the communication of demand and supply from the future. Your cousin buys now when supply relatively outstrips demand and holds it until a future point when demand relatively outstrips supply. Doing so smooths out demand spikes and collapses and supply interruptions and gluts. Pricing is a signal full of information in the marketplace and speculation is integral to its proper function. Everyone in the market speculates to a degree. Suppliers can either horde a little instead of selling their entire supply and the consumers can deplete their inventory instead of buying. Speculation requires the accurate projection of supply and demand and a risk assessment the upside and downside. It is data and research intensive and out of the realm of small-time producer or a small-time consumer. These people/organizations are at the mercy of market fluctuations and are exposed to all of the risk. When financiers step into the speculative market, their activity frees the consumers and the suppliers from having to engage in the speculation and just focus on their own businesses. The financiers communicate current demand and future demand in the form of current pricing and several other financial interests and assume nearly all of the risk. (they are (usually) big enough to.) That speculation has grown into such a large industry is the confluence of three possible developments. The financial industry may have gotten better at it job of of forecasting future supply and demand. This is a positive. More people choose speculations as a way to get rich quickly or lose all their wealth. This makes Wall Street out to be a glorified casino for the rest of society, and the financiers get fat because they are the house and hold the best information. This is a negative, but society has to stop being enamored with get rich quick schemes. The financial industry has oversold their financial instruments and falsely advertised their expertise in the marketplace. In theory, this should already be addressed via the justice system, but US justice system is terrible and didn't do that. There is also the sense that the large financial houses would have lost big in the market when they grossly overplayed their hands, but the bailouts prevented that, too. Regulatory schemes that don't address this point don't fix anything (hint hint Tobin Tax). Well, you can pontificate like some professors in economy 101, it does not give you more credibility to discuss in this arena, especially when you are wrong (or at least, some people easily as smart as you disagree with you, which is common in economy) http://www.momagri.org/UK/personal-accounts/The-first-economic-model-on-agricultural-volatility_619.html Now you can explain to me how professor emeritus of economy at Harvard and 30 others don't understand crap about how the economy and speculation works. Quoting the last paragraph of the article: "Peter Timmer: I think there were three points of general agreement. First, everyone agreed that relative stability for staple grain prices, especially the avoidance of sharp price spikes, is extremely important to economic welfare. Second, there is no market mechanism that “supplies” this stability, so government intervention is necessary into formation of market prices. Third, this intervention must work through the market to be successful, not by displacing the market. The challenge remains for governments to find an effective and efficient way to do this" | ||
|
NtroP
United States174 Posts
I've felt for a while that big agriculture hurts the average person quite a bit as it promotes speculation and price manipulation that only drives prices up while the consumer is further and further separated from what should be the simplest transaction on earth. Also, you can easily see the trend of marginalizing insider trading by the media and the courts. Looks like the 1% want more of the pie. | ||
| ||
