Occupy Movement right about global recession (see MOD WARNING Post #14)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well that's the way it currently is central banks set interest rates. Since there is very little chance of that changing or the west moving to a gold standard its what we have to work with.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Bernie Madoff situation is very different some of his money was recovered.
Banks depositors don't usually lose out because they are insured by Governments. Too big to fail institutions are connected to many others so people with nothing to do with them suffer when they crash. There would be a string of bank failures. Then you'd have the insurance companies go bust followed by stock market freefall.
This doesn't mean I advocate the bailouts it means that these institutions should not be allowed get themselves into this position in the first place. At the very least break up the different parts so that they don't have a knock on affect.

Permabear wrote: »

But I'm amused to hear that the Occupy movement wants to protect pensions and insurance policies now. I thought they wanted to burn the bondholders? (Maybe you don't realize that pension and insurance companies invest in bonds to generate the income that they use to pay insurance policies and annuities — so you may as well be shouting "burn the policies and pensions.")

But the Occupy movement opposes banking bailouts as well, right? So what's their solution to these so-called "too big to fail" banks?

Don't know what the Occupy solution is but I've proposed one above, don't allow them to be too big to fail. (Also do you really have to use the patronising tone all the time? Its not conducive to debate)

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Depends what you consider to be fraud. Selling bonds as triple A when they are known to be total sh1t isn't fraud apparently. Anglo's bed and breakfast arrangement should be fraud imo. A lot of the things large financial institutions do would be considered fraud by the man on the street but aren't.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

What regulations exactly are you talking about here? What specific policies are causing job losses? This is just another narrowly-framed anti-regulation argument really, simply hyperbole as 20Cent says.

The lions share of the entire economic crisis has been caused by getting rid of previous regulations, so it is the most narrowly-framed and absurd argument, that regulations should be removed to help the financial industry, when doing that has already caused enormous job losses everywhere.

It's an argument not far removed from "everything we do will cause more job losses, so therefore we should do nothing"; completely self-interested and ridiculous.


Again also, absolutely no mention of what regulations are, they are laws covering specific issues, and if we had no regulation, fraud would be rampant because you would be removing any legal definition of it.

Not even a pretence of acknowledging that, and you're advocating even more deregulation in the place that spawned the LIBOR scandal, one of the most massive frauds in history that likely affected everyone.

The money being siphoned off through rigged LIBOR deals was 'profit' too, and you do not distinguish in any way from legitimate profit, and that kind of rent seeking which costs everyone money; no, if it reduces 'profit', ill-gained or not, it's bad; so it's de-facto support of any kind of profits, and legitimizing fraud (though you would try to get around this semantically by trying to remove any definition of fraud).

It's ridiculous in the extreme, that you promote conditions that would enormously increase income inequality, would give finance unchecked rent-seeking abilities through the markets, and expect others to actually believe there is a good reason for that outside of pure greed and self interest; that rent seeking is a tax imposed on the economy, that to you is legitimate only because it is not going to government.


The hyperbole is ridiculous, "slashing and burning one of its biggest industries", how about "bringing it under ****ing control, so it doesn't destroy more of the economy or society"; there's not even the slightest concept of the potential for societal harm in your posts, it's just "profit at all costs", even if that means finance taxing unearned dividends from society through fraud (I'm sure that'd be really beneficial to the poor).


Regulation is about clamping down on fraud, and the greshams dynamic created in a market by fraud is demonstrably harmful, because fraudulent business practices push out legitimate business; if financial companies start moving to Asia because of deregulation, that is because they want to engage in business practices that are illegal here; great, they can piss off.
Any scaremongering about this, that it will result in apocalyptic job losses etc. is ridiculous; Wall Street did not move to London, because they were more deregulated, and they're sure as **** not going to move off to Asia in entirety, and abandon their previous markets behind.

Permabear wrote: »

The LIBOR "scandal" amuses me endlessly. People became apoplectic with rage at the idea of banks such as Barclays trying to manipulate a key rate — while somehow overlooking the fact that central banks (including the Bank of England, Mr Haldane's employer) routinely manipulate rates, create credit bubbles, and bring currencies to the brink of collapse. This recession was caused not by Barclays but by the Fed and the ECB holding interest rates too low for too long.

Companies would not be "too big to fail" if not for government.

Fraud can be prosecuted through the courts.

Oh that's great a "they do it too" argument, so in other words, yes you think the LIBOR scandal should be left be, because "government do it too" (with the most specious of comparisons).

Okey so we should let these massive frauds happen, and wait decades for it to come out, and not have any regulators investigating these companies, so even when it does come out the courts are completely incapable of doing anything because they can't investigate the companies, they can't even find out which companies might be involved, because they have no information, information they depend upon regulators discovering.

There wouldn't even be a definition for fraud to make LIBOR manipulation illegal in the first place, but you pass over all that to pretend there'd still be some rule of law, some checks and balances, when there would be none.

LIBOR is the perfect example of the kind of taxation finance wants to impose on society, as this one cost everyone money (in every country LIBOR affected), through rates being manipulated on such a fundamental level. You're pretty much against government tax, and for finance imposing their own tax upon society, through fraud.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Occupy aren't claiming anything, its the bank of England saying it.

Hang on, I have only realised that this banker guy was speaking at an Occupy event.

http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17783


I followed the link to the speech and I discover the following disclaimer


"The views are not necessarily those of the Bank of England or the Financial Policy Committee"

So that makes is clear that it was not the Bank of England saying it, just one banker wined and dined by Occupy giving a speech. If you are speaking somewhere, you are always going to say something nice about your hosts, "influencing the debate", "putting inequality on the table" are the sort of platitudes you would expect. When you can deny the words the following day in work as being a personal view, even better.

Maybe you should correct the above post to note that it was "one banker from the Bank of England, speaking in a personal capacity at an Occupy function acknowledged some influence of the Occupy Movement".

The Bishop! wrote: »

This thread brings me back i must say. Some of the vitriol on this board towards the movement when it started was truly something to behold.

The uncomfortable fact that the Occupy movement has actually helped to create real change is undoubtedly hard to stomach for its most vociferous detractors.


:

What real change?

I see no change to direct democracy, only some cosmetic changes to banking regulation and some nice words thrown in Occupy's direction.

We in Ireland have yet to reclaim our gas and oil (if they exist).

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

Hang on, I have only realised that this banker guy was speaking at an Occupy event.

http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17783


I followed the link to the speech and I discover the following disclaimer


"The views are not necessarily those of the Bank of England or the Financial Policy Committee"

So that makes is clear that it was not the Bank of England saying it, just one banker wined and dined by Occupy giving a speech. If you are speaking somewhere, you are always going to say something nice about your hosts, "influencing the debate", "putting inequality on the table" are the sort of platitudes you would expect. When you can deny the words the following day in work as being a personal view, even better.

Maybe you should correct the above post to note that it was "one banker from the Bank of England, speaking in a personal capacity at an Occupy function acknowledged some influence of the Occupy Movement".

Being pedantic again, its clear for the OP who made the comment and where. The fact is that the Bank of England have acknowledged that the regulatory framework was unsuitable prior to the 2008 crash and that new regulations are needed, Too big to fail is an issue which must be addressed. Some of these are addressed in the Financial Services Bill http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/financialservices.html

Why these changes are coming about is due to many issues.
The director for financial stability in the Bank of England says that Occupy helped stir the BOE to bring about these changes. You seem to be implying he is either lying or just placating the crowd. I'll take him at his word if you have evidence of otherwise please post it up.

The Bishop!

Godge wrote: »

Hang on, I have only realised that this banker guy was speaking at an Occupy event.

http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17783


I followed the link to the speech and I discover the following disclaimer


"The views are not necessarily those of the Bank of England or the Financial Policy Committee"

So that makes is clear that it was not the Bank of England saying it, just one banker wined and dined by Occupy giving a speech. If you are speaking somewhere, you are always going to say something nice about your hosts, "influencing the debate", "putting inequality on the table" are the sort of platitudes you would expect. When you can deny the words the following day in work as being a personal view, even better.

Maybe you should correct the above post to note that it was "one banker from the Bank of England, speaking in a personal capacity at an Occupy function acknowledged some influence of the Occupy Movement".

The fact that he was saying what he said at an "Occupy function" as you put it beautifully contradicts the main thrust of your argument. Amusingly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Being pedantic again, its clear for the OP who made the comment and where. The fact is that the Bank of England have acknowledged that the regulatory framework was unsuitable prior to the 2008 crash and that new regulations are needed, Too big to fail is an issue which must be addressed. Some of these are addressed in the Financial Services Bill http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/financialservices.html

Why these changes are coming about is due to many issues.
The director for financial stability in the Bank of England says that Occupy helped stir the BOE to bring about these changes. You seem to be implying he is either lying or just placating the crowd. I'll take him at his word if you have evidence of otherwise please post it up.

Just checked the OP again (see below) and nowhere does it mention that he is speaking at an Occupy function.

I have already posted a link showing it was his own views and not those of the Bank of England.

If you are taking him at his word, do you accept his disclaimer that his views are not those of the Bank of England?
Do you accept his call for better pensions for bankers?
Do you accept everything else in his speech?

20Cent wrote: »

Seems it was worth it Occupy has resulted in stricter and more ethical regulation of the financial industry.

According to the British Central Banker responsible for overseeing the City.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/29/bank-of-england-occupy-movement
The Occupy Movement has found an unlikely ally in a senior Bank of England official, Andrew Haldane, who has praised protesters for their role in triggering an overhaul of the financial services sector.

Haldane, who oversees the City for the central bank, said Occupy acted as a lever on policymakers despite criticism that its aims were too vague. He said the protest movement was right to focus on inequality as the chief reason for the 2008 crash, following studies that showed the accumulation of huge wealth funded by debt was directly responsible for the domino-like collapse of the banking sector in 2008.

also

Haldane said Occupy's voice had been "loud and persuasive" and that "policymakers have listened and are acting in ways which will close those fault-lines" with a "reformation of finance that Occupy has helped stir". He said inequality was fuelled by bank lending for speculation on property and other assets that enriched some in society at the expense of others.

The Bishop! wrote: »

The fact that he was saying what he said at an "Occupy function" as you put it beautifully contradicts the main thrust of your argument. Amusingly.

???

The Bishop!

You seem to be inventing a narrative purely to suit your argument. That Haldene is being disingenuous about his sentiments in that speech and is apparently now subversively plotting to go against his mandate and his previous actions and statements about regulation etc.
You're claiming he is misleading you and i as to the influence of Occupy and to his real intentions. Claiming he is just paying lip service to the general public as to the nature of the crisis and it's solution.

So who is grasping at straws exactly? The OP?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

yore wrote: »

Are you a private sector worker with a pension? Have a share account in your local Credit Union? (standard CU accounts are share accounts)


If so, you are probably a "bondholder". Better regulations protect bondholders :rolleyes: . The EU effectively retroactively tried to make up for bad holes in regulation by forcing the Governments to pay out senior bondholders. bondholder only decide who to, or who not to, invest their money in. They don't make any business decisions. If you want to get technical, yeah there can be negative/positive bond covenants, but these are built into the bond and again the investor can only decide whether or not to buy the bond. they can't change it.

"Bondholder" has just become a bogeyman word. People use it without knowing what it means.

No actually I don't have any of the aforementioned accounts.
Bondholders decide who to, and who not to, invest their money in. "Investments may fall as well as rise in value" goes the disclaimer on every single financial advertisement on our radios and televisions.
Why should I have to pay for a screwup I had absolutely no stake in whatsoever? I neither forced a bondholder to invest in Anglo, brought down Anglo, or stand to lose based on those bonds collapsing in value.

To take such debts and force them on the general population is obscene, and where it gets even more obscene is the return we get - no control whatsoever over those banks, as they hike up charges, fees, interest rates, and continue refusing to lend to small businesses.

What's happening across the entire Western world with regard to private speculative debt of the few being forcefully repaid by everyone is one of the greatest shames of so-called "capitalism". Even more shameful when you consider that the money to pay back these clowns could have built enough hospital units to house every citizen in this country, and could have paid for every Irish student's college fees for years to come.

That's what Occupy is ultimately about. The 1% being looked after at the expense of everybody else.

To get back on topic, this is hopefully the first of many results from Occupy. Acknowledgement is a first step. A small one, but a step nonetheless.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Who are you replying to?

No one said that "everybody was just sitting around scratching themselves until the Occupy movement arrived "

No one said that the Financial Regulation bill due to Occupy.


What has been said by the director for financial stability in the Bank of England says that Occupy helped stir the BOE to bring about these changes.
Quote
"I wish to argue tonight that both are wrong – that Occupy’s voice has been both loud and persuasive and that policymakers have listened and are acting in ways which will close those fault-lines. In fact, I want to argue that we are in the early stages of a reformation of finance, a reformation which Occupy has helped stir."

So is he lying or just placating the crowd? I'll take him at his word if you have evidence of otherwise please post it up.

Full speech is here, he is saying this is just the start of a long overdue overhall:
He also mentions ring fencing too big to fail institutions.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2012/speech616.pdf

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Speaking of 'perverse incentives', what kind of incentives do you think decriminalizing fraud (sorry, 'deregulation') is going to cause?

Any fraudulent actions that are allowed to pass in a market that create 'bad money' (through fraud), push out 'good money' (legitimate business) from the market, because legitimate business cannot complete with profits from fraud; that's the greshams dynamic deregulation imposes on a market.

It's completely specious to suggest that government is the only possible way to trigger such negative incentives, and the entire argument rests upon treating 'regulation' as some broad, undefined bogeyman (refusing to address specific policies/regulations), that gets railed upon with emotionally-tinged hyperbole/scaremongering/rhetoric, rather than actual arguments.

Totally insane to suggest there will be "more rational risk assessment" in a market that becomes completely opaque due to removing regulations, where nobody has the information to perform adequate risk assessments; working in finance, you know all of this perfectly well, which makes it all the more disingenuous that you expect anyone to believe that.

Permabear wrote:

20Cent wrote:

Depends what you consider to be fraud. Selling bonds as triple A when they are known to be total sh1t isn't fraud apparently.

Were they known to be fraudulent? By whom? When?

And here we go on cue: Edging closer to making direct apologist arguments, for specific instances of fraud.

Godge

The Bishop! wrote: »

You seem to be inventing a narrative purely to suit your argument. That Haldene is being disingenuous about his sentiments in that speech and is apparently now subversively plotting to go against his mandate and his previous actions and statements about regulation etc.
You're claiming he is misleading you and i as to the influence of Occupy and to his real intentions. Claiming he is just paying lip service to the general public as to the nature of the crisis and it's solution.

So who is grasping at straws exactly? The OP?

No, I don't think you understand my point.

Haldane was speaking in a personal capacity and not representing the views of the Bank of England, his speech which I provided a link to, clearly states this. Why would he do this? Flying a kite is one possibility, losing the argument around the board table at the Bank of England and letting off steam is another, testing a policy option before an audience a third, I am sure there are many more.

One thing we can be clear on is that he was not stating current Bank of England policy or perspective on the issue.

I never said he was paying lip service to the public, I just said he was doing what all good guests do and throwing some polite compliments (meaningless ones in this case) towards his host.

Nothing anyone has said here contradicts that.

Still waiting for direct democracy and the reclamation of our oil and gas.

The Bishop!

Godge wrote: »

One thing we can be clear on is that he was not stating current Bank of England policy or perspective on the issue.

Well, i'm not sure we can be clear on that at all.

Am i missing something? Surely he was speaking in his capacity as director for financial stability.
It was a recorded speech with media present.

I never said he was paying lip service to the public, I just said he was doing what all good guests do and throwing some polite compliments (meaningless ones in this case) towards his host.

Perhaps you're right. The fact that he was was there though and saying that, rather than being down at the LSE or somewhere saying exactly the opposite speaks for the movements sway imo.

Jonny7

The Bishop! wrote: »

Sorry, but i don't have time to reference every individual thing achieved by every branch of Occupy worldwide. For starters one could go here to read about Occupy the SEC. Or here for Occupy Nigeria. That's real change right there.
Certainly that can't yet be classed as 'success' on the big issues; for some, nothing the movement does will ever be seen by them as a success.
But a big achievement so far imv is that they've helped to put inequality and it's pernicious effects firmly on the agenda. For that alone they should be applauded.

Yes they certainly showed up inequality, tweeting about evil corporations on their iphones.

This is the first I've even heard of them in 6 months, and that's only because a UK banker stood up and mentioned them.

Am firmly behind the protesters in Madrid, the austerity protests in Greece, the protests against Putin in Moscow, I've been in a fair few protests myself.

Occupy is the worst protest movement I've ever encountered. How are people with jobs, kids, responsibilities supposed to occupy government and corporate premises for more than a few days? What bright spark thought that up.

I've read through countless minutes of their meetings, it's nothing but camping arrangements.

Anarchists, anti-capitalists, anti-globalists diluting any semblance of a message with their "tear-it-all-down" solution to world problems.

Not even the tea-party has managed to piss off a larger cross-section of society than the occupy movement - that's their only achievement.

The Bishop!

Jonny7 wrote: »

Anarchists, anti-capitalists, anti-globalists diluting any semblance of a message with their "tear-it-all-down" solution to world problems.

If the above is correct, then i'm really confused.

Why did Anthony Haldene, the director of financial stability from the Bank of England decide to waste his time and destroy his reputation attending a gathering of such "tear-it-all-down" anarchists?

Either Haldene was totally misinformed about his target audience or you're talking out of your hole to suit your poor argument. My money is on the latter...

Sand

The Bishop! wrote: »

If the above is correct, then i'm really confused.

Why did Anthony Haldene, the director of financial stability from the Bank of England decide to waste his time and destroy his reputation attending a gathering of such "tear-it-all-down" anarchists?

Either Haldene was totally misinformed about his target audience or you're talking out of your hole to suit your poor argument. My money is on the latter...

My money is on the former tbh.

Though you might be overstating the importance of the Occupy movement by thinking that a banker destroys his reputation by attending a gathering of the Occupy lads. Most bankers would see it as either a hilarious story, or have such short term memory that they cant even remember who Occupy are supposed to be.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fairness, this is pretty much the definition of libertarianism.

Jonny7

The Bishop! wrote: »

Why did Anthony Haldene, the director of financial stability from the Bank of England decide to waste his time and destroy his reputation attending a gathering of such "tear-it-all-down" anarchists?

I'm the one who is confused, why do you suddenly believe this man?

I'm in finance, call me cynical but I'll wait to see if there is any evidence of this so called banking "reformation".

Either Haldene was totally misinformed about his target audience or you're talking out of your hole to suit your poor argument. My money is on the latter...

I would strongly suggest the banker is as misinformed about the Occupy movement as they are about banking.

The Bishop!

You know what they say say about protest movements don't you?


Have you studied their history?

The Bishop!

Smugness aside sand you're seriously going to explain to me how this guy is totally wrong aren't you??...

This i look forward to..

Sand

The Bishop! wrote: »

Smugness aside sand you're seriously going to explain to me how this guy is totally wrong aren't you??...

This i look forward to..

I'm not being smug - I happily predicted that Occupy Dame Street were basically some eejits desperately imitating the Americans they decry so much and that it would all end in them declaring victory and going home.

Ah right - smug.

The guy threw the Occupy guys a few bones - the desperate siezing upon praise from the master shows the true nature of the Occupy movement. Vindicated by praise from the unreformed entity that they sought to reform.

Permabear has already highlighted how it arrived far too late. Apparently, 3-4 years after global financial amargeddon it dawned on these "prophets" that unregulated banksters might be a problem.

Ah right - smug.

Sand

The Bishop! wrote: »

Cat got your tongue Sand? So what's your plan then liver lips?

Ah man, you accuse me of being smug. Then you post stuff like this. How can I not be smug?

The Bishop!

The smugness was in reference to me mate. I was very smug earlier.:)

thebman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If it is the same liberal policy wealth the west had, good luck to them. They'll be bankrupt in 10 years too.

Eventually they'll run out of places to bankrupt with plans that only play for a year or two ahead to the CEO's next bonus.

jank

Occupy Dame Street? These are the same guys who supported a landlord who owned 17 or so properties when he refused to pay back a loan he got for the sum of a few million, all because he was a little old?
This occupy movement?

If it came down to supporting either Hitler or a bank, these guys would support Hitler.

KyussBishop

Yes it's amusing the level posters go trying to 'pooh pooh' Occupy I mean it clearly offends, as much as posters try to disclaim that, as the level of sneering against the whole movement (and it's not just against ODS) usually revolves around arguments over petty issues, that deliberately ignore the primary generalized goals of the group, and instead focuses on specific issues from fractious parts of Occupy, which are specifically what the movement overall has avoided taking on as core policy.

The arguments always rely upon treating Occupy as a group with homogeneous policies, and fallaciously generalizing one parts policies onto the entire group, when their policies are not homogeneous but deliberately generalized and non-specific.

Again, it's really an attack on protesting itself, or on the very idea of trying to tackle income inequality, as that is one of the only base defining goals of the protest movement (and that is its power, as that goal will stay standing, where individual policies may not, giving the movement longevity to resurge later, even when support wanes now).

Came across this article on the topic earlier (some good and very relevant discussion in comments)
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/bank-of-englands-anthony-haldane-deems-occupy-a-success.html

The Bishop!

jank wrote: »

Occupy Dame Street? These are the same guys who supported a landlord who owned 17 or so properties when he refused to pay back a loan he got for the sum of a few million, all because he was a little old?
This occupy movement?

If it came down to supporting either Hitler or a bank, these guys would support Hitler.

Bit of a false dichotomy there jank in fairness. Hitler or a bank?:o

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes it's amusing the level posters go trying to 'pooh pooh' Occupy I mean it clearly offends, as much as posters try to disclaim that, as the level of sneering against the whole movement (and it's not just against ODS) usually revolves around arguments over petty issues, that deliberately ignore the primary generalized goals of the group, and instead focuses on specific issues from fractious parts of Occupy, which are specifically what the movement overall has avoided taking on as core policy.

The arguments always rely upon treating Occupy as a group with homogeneous policies, and fallaciously generalizing one parts policies onto the entire group, when their policies are not homogeneous but deliberately generalized and non-specific.

No, the problem is that they resemble incoherent rabble. "Generalized and non-specific policies" = "no policies". How can they claim credit for something as a movement when they didn't call for something as a movement. It'd be a bit like the GAA claiming they were right about the recession because Paddy from Ballybog expressed an opinion down the pub after a match that there wasn't enough regulation.

Or here's another example. I (Yore) think that Ireland needs a new childrens hospital. I await my medal in a few years when (if) there's one built. Perhaps boards.ie can now claim the credit for causing it to happen and making the government realise it was needed.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again, it's really an attack on protesting itself, or on the very idea of trying to tackle income inequality, as that is one of the only base defining goals of the protest movement (and that is its power, as that goal will stay standing, where individual policies may not, giving the movement longevity to resurge later, even when support wanes now).

No. See earlier posts. They don't give a shite about real income inequality. They're just very rich people who want more of what the very very rich people have.

It's not a "movement" for Christ's sake. It's just rabble. If they can't agree on a policy, how would they ever implement a change? Because they wouldn't be able to agree how to do it. If one gets his way, sure all the others will start attacking him then.

It's just protest for the sake of protest. Or another word for it - tantrum

KyussBishop wrote: »

Came across this article on the topic earlier (some good and very relevant discussion in comments)
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/bank-of-englands-anthony-haldane-deems-occupy-a-success.html

Sorry, I didn't bother clicking on the link. If you are relying on a website called "nakedcapitalism" and referencing discussions in the comments, then I'm not expecting a balanced discussion. You might as well be directing me to stormfront website to read some "interesting discussions" on people from Africa.

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

No. See earlier posts. They don't give a shite about real income inequality. They're just very rich people who want more of what the very very rich people have.

Heh, ya you're right I guess, anyone who has a problem with anything in the western world should just shut up; it's not as bad as Somalia after all so what have they got to complain about anyway, the rabble rousing rousers.

Jonny7

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes it's amusing the level posters go trying to 'pooh pooh' Occupy I mean it clearly offends, as much as posters try to disclaim that, as the level of sneering against the whole movement (and it's not just against ODS) usually revolves around arguments over petty issues, that deliberately ignore the primary generalized goals of the group, and instead focuses on specific issues from fractious parts of Occupy, which are specifically what the movement overall has avoided taking on as core policy.

You have claimed you aren't familiar with Occupy so why are you commenting?

Their "primary generalized" (whatever that is) goals have changed and fluctuated depending on what stage they were at, where they were located and which direction the wind was blowing.

A random group of protesters united by grievances with everything under the sun.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*

20Cent

Just a note on a few points that have come up in the discussion.

The whole leaderless concept seems to be causing confusion. It is usually desirable for a movement to have a spokesperson or figurehead, the advantage is one port of call for questions, statements etc. The media like it because they know who to call and it defines something in a nice package for easy reporting. The problem is that a leader requires to get their authority from somewhere. Often they are the founders of the movement or someone elected to the position by its members. Occupy grew organically as a grass roots movement there was no one person behind it. A lot of people from all walks of life came together in protest at what they see happening in the financial industry. Watch the Oscar winning documentary "Inside job" its the best summary of the issues involved imo.

Even if there was a leader it would take from the message. Say there was someone then the attention would turn on them, if they were a socialist, libertarian or a guy with long hair that would become the issue and define the movement instead of the out of control financial sector. Yes it is a bit anarchic but thats also a strength, the message still got through even the Bank of England are acknowledging that.

The movement was ignored by the media at the start but as the numbers grew and thanks to being promoted online it couldn't be ignored anymore. If it was just a traditional march it would have disappeared but the Occupy idea took legs and spread worldwide. The authorities saw this was gaining momentum and tried to stamp it out with violence, video of peaceful protesters being pepper sprayed and the largest mass arrest of US history 700 people. Even if one disagrees with the aims of the movement this should be a shocking thing. The authorities eventually managed to evict the camp after much legal battling and old fashioned intimidation. The movement has changed now and is going in different direction, debates, workshops, film screenings etc etc etc.

Occupy London are holding a program of events called the Putney debates. This is where Andrew Haldane the Executive Director for Financial Stability in the Bank of England made the comments in the op. Haldane has responsibility for developing Bank policy on financial stability. Despite several unsubstantiated claims in this thread Occupy did not start high fiving each other and declaring victory it just stared more debate. Haldanes point that inequality is directly linked to the debt crisis was an important fact imo. If the Bank of England acknowledge this we might be getting somewhere.
Occupy Damestreet are still going, there was a series of events last month ,Occupy Wall Street have set up a relief effort distributing resources and volunteers to help individuals and communities devastated by Hurricane Sandy, you won't read about either of these in the media though.

We are used to having someone tell us solutions but in this case we all know it is a wide ranging problem with no single solution. The best protesters and citizens can do is increase awareness and try to make sure that reform will come about in order to stop the same thing happening again.
This is what Occupy are doing imo and are doing a pretty good job of it. Its still being talked about, income inequality has gone from something never mentioned to one of the most discussed topics. People are seeing the links between politics and high finance. The changes aren't revolutionary they are far more subtle but its undeniable that its there. Asking which legislation or changes come directly because of it is a waste of time and just a method to pour scorn and mock what has been a very successful movement. The vitriol reflects more on those doing it than the movement itself. My own theory is that people blame the messenger more often than the message.What comes of this is yet to be seen its small steps along the way. Haldanes comments are only a small part of it.

Jonny7

20Cent wrote: »

Just a note on a few points that have come up in the discussion.

The whole leaderless concept seems to be causing confusion. It is usually desirable for a movement to have a spokesperson or figurehead, the advantage is one port of call for questions, statements etc. The media like it because they know who to call and it defines something in a nice package for easy reporting. The problem is that a leader requires to get their authority from somewhere. Often they are the founders of the movement or someone elected to the position by its members. Occupy grew organically as a grass roots movement there was no one person behind it. A lot of people from all walks of life came together in protest at what they see happening in the financial industry. Watch the Oscar winning documentary "Inside job" its the best summary of the issues involved imo.

That's not what happened. People who saw 'Food inc' started turning up, people who saw 'Fog of War' and 'No end in sight' turned up. So everyone with a greivance to do with anything, right or wrong, was turning up, and making it into a rudderless mess - no one, not even Occupy could figure out exactly what they were protesting, what their aims where and how they would effectively solve it.

Like any rational person I agree with many individual points on their own merit, but the movement itself is atrocious.

20Cent

Even RTE are reporting it now.
Interesting article by their Economics Correspondent Seán Whelan.

http://www.rte.ie/blogs/business/2012/10/30/inequality-caused-banking-collapse-says-bank-of-england-director/

This might just be the speech of the year. Andrew Haldane, the Executive Director of the Bank of England in charge of Financial Stability, and a top policy making official at the bank, went to a meeting organised by Occupy Economics last night, and said “Occupy has been successful in its efforts to popularise the problems of global finance for one very simple reason: they are right”.

Furthermore he told them Occupy’s voice had been both loud and persuasive, and that policymakers have listened and are acting in ways that will amount to what he described as a “reformation of finance”.

he sees the financial crisis as primarily one of a system with built in incentives for self-harm. Avoiding those self- destructive tendencies – too much borrowing, poor governance, sky high pay and bonuses, lack of competition – means changing root and branch the incentives and culture of finance.

Will be great for real capitalism if this comes about.
The current crony, insider trading, fixed system locks out real innovators and development.

Jonny7

20Cent wrote: »

Will be great for real capitalism if this comes about.
The current crony, insider trading, fixed system locks out real innovators and development.

The naivity of this is absolutely mindblowing.

karma_

Jonny7 wrote: »

The naivity of this is absolutely mindblowing.

Could you please explain why you think this is naivety?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Link to his speech here:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2012/616.aspx

He's very unequivocal about the contribution Occupy made. The bit you consider ludicrous is just the start of what he said.

Have been looking up a few of his other speeches he's been saying the same things about the need for reform and the dangers of the current setup for a while now in front of many different audiences. That he's "going rogue" lying or something doesn't stand up to the evidence. Will post more about it later.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Another speech by Haldane this time to the hippy lefties in the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Full Speech
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2012/100.aspx


Andrew Haldane explains that the size of banks has increased dramatically over recent decades, accompanied by an equally-dramatic rise in banking concentration. That has created expectations of state support: “These expectations generate lower funding costs, in particular for the largest banks, which in turn encourages further expansion and concentration, worsening the too-big-to-fail dilemma.” Estimates of the size of the resulting implicit subsidy for the world’s banks – up to $700bn per year in 2009 – imply that “...Too-big-to-fail had become hard-wired into the structure and pricing of the financial system.”

also

Re-sizing the capital surcharge to a level several times higher than the current upper limit would “...reduce materially expected system-wide losses”. Limits could be placed on bank size. A full separation of investment and commercial banking – “a modern-day Glass-Steagall Act” – would lessen the risk of basic banking activities being starved of human or financial capital. Finally, enhanced banking competition through reduced barriers to entry would reduce the degree of banking concentration, and with it too-big-to-fail.

From another article he wrote
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2012/595.aspx

First, a thorough cleansing of the banking stables so that errors of the past — from bad loans to bad advice — are no longer a drag on investor and customer confidence. Second, a reconfiguration of the structure of banking so that in future basic services are no longer contaminated by investment banking activities. Key to that is faithful implementation of the proposals of the Independent Commission on Banking. Indeed, we may need “Vickers plus”.

Vickers refers to Sir John Vickers. Another communist I suspect, he is proposing more financial reforms including proposals to force banks to ringfence their retail operations. His ideas have been championed by a dope smoking slacker called George Osbourne the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64286760-b577-11e1-ab92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AtO6wb87

This Haldane fella seems to have lost the plot. The Bank of England keep publishing his speeches and papers though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interesting idea there. Do you have any links to back that up?
Is this a serious proposition with any likely hood of happening?

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Another speech by Haldane this time to the hippy lefties in the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Full Speech
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2012/100.aspx


Andrew Haldane explains that the size of banks has increased dramatically over recent decades, accompanied by an equally-dramatic rise in banking concentration. That has created expectations of state support: “These expectations generate lower funding costs, in particular for the largest banks, which in turn encourages further expansion and concentration, worsening the too-big-to-fail dilemma.” Estimates of the size of the resulting implicit subsidy for the world’s banks – up to $700bn per year in 2009 – imply that “...Too-big-to-fail had become hard-wired into the structure and pricing of the financial system.”

also

Re-sizing the capital surcharge to a level several times higher than the current upper limit would “...reduce materially expected system-wide losses”. Limits could be placed on bank size. A full separation of investment and commercial banking – “a modern-day Glass-Steagall Act” – would lessen the risk of basic banking activities being starved of human or financial capital. Finally, enhanced banking competition through reduced barriers to entry would reduce the degree of banking concentration, and with it too-big-to-fail.

From another article he wrote
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2012/595.aspx

First, a thorough cleansing of the banking stables so that errors of the past — from bad loans to bad advice — are no longer a drag on investor and customer confidence. Second, a reconfiguration of the structure of banking so that in future basic services are no longer contaminated by investment banking activities. Key to that is faithful implementation of the proposals of the Independent Commission on Banking. Indeed, we may need “Vickers plus”.

Vickers refers to Sir John Vickers. Another communist I suspect, he is proposing more financial reforms including proposals to force banks to ringfence their retail operations. His ideas have been championed by a dope smoking slacker called George Osbourne the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64286760-b577-11e1-ab92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AtO6wb87

This Haldane fella seems to have lost the plot. The Bank of England keep publishing his speeches and papers though.

Thank you for that. I note through all of the links (except the last one that didn't work) as well as some others that I looked up myself that the only place he gave credit to Occupy was when speaking to the Occupy Movement.

Two possibilities:

(1) He was being nice (condescendingly so?) to his hosts as I suggested pages ago

(2) The contribution of Occupy was so miniscule that it wasn't worth mentioning on another occasion.

I have said all along that if the only evidence of Occupy's success in getting its message heard is one banker speaking in a personal capacity at an Occupy function, then it really hasn't had much success.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

Thank you for that. I note through all of the links (except the last one that didn't work) as well as some others that I looked up myself that the only place he gave credit to Occupy was when speaking to the Occupy Movement.

Two possibilities:

(1) He was being nice (condescendingly so?) to his hosts as I suggested pages ago

(2) The contribution of Occupy was so miniscule that it wasn't worth mentioning on another occasion.

I have said all along that if the only evidence of Occupy's success in getting its message heard is one banker speaking in a personal capacity at an Occupy function, then it really hasn't had much success.

Maybe you are right we can only speculate. I'd imagine executives from the Bank of England would be quite serious people, who speak carefully and don't write speeches for the laugh then post them on their website. But then again maybe they do I don't follow them very closely.

Looking at the OccupyLondon website their reaction is quite similar to that of a lot of posters here. Scepticism and wanting to see real results before believing it. The post about the speech is headlined "Occupy's analysis praised but this is only the beginning". Not exactly jumping for joy and claiming a "win". A few posters here critisise them for claiming it a win when they clearly do not. Ironically they are just as sceptical and want to see real reform. Personally I think its significant and after reading a bit more on the Bank of England website they seem committed to reform and stopping the out of control financial sector before they suck us all into another crash like 2008. A good thing imo.
Its just a another small step but thats how you get places isn't it!
http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17783

KyussBishop

Johnny7 wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Have you even read my posts, or is this a rhetorical method of trying to claim authority on the subject?
If I have been commenting on the generalized nature of Occupy's goals, I clearly know enough about the movement (more than those sneering at it apparently) to comment, despite not being familiar with the detailed makeup of the group.

The "primary generalized" goal, I've already pointed out as a general opposition to income inequality (it's the most simple of generalized goals, which you have to go far out of your way, to pretend to not understand), and you're doing your best to show you either haven't read or are purposely ignoring my posts, by generalizing specific policies onto Occupy, in exactly the way I described.

20Cent does a good (much better) job explaining the generalized nature of the movement, in the successive post.

Permabear wrote:

It's not exactly news that the expectation of state support (a side-effect of big activist government) encourages reckless behavior, which only precipitates the need for state support. This is otherwise called moral hazard.

The problem is not that banks are too large — it's that government is too large.

Ah okey, we should decriminalize fraud (i.e. deregulate) and let banks grow enormously large, such that they have an ever greater share of the market? That's great, so that when the systemic risk created by fraud, causes cyclic failures of massive banks, it's really not the banks fault in the end, but the fault of the depositors because they should know the risks (that's not the banks job at all), despite a completely opaque market with no information? (due to deregulation)

I see no potential for massive economic damage to come from that, or the potential for depositors being left with the **** end of the stick; isn't it a wonder that almost every person you find online promoting these policies, is either working in finance or aspiring to? They really expect people to believe finance can self-regulate, with everyone holding themselves to the utmost moral standard, and avoiding engaging in fraud (with the most stupidly thin semantic arguments backing that up, that tries to hide completely removing any definition of fraud).

How is anyone supposed to take that seriously, with such a ginormous conflict of interest; it's like the fox guarding the henhouse, trying to convince people that they'll do the best most-efficient job guarding it when nobody is watching, and that when things inevitably go wrong it's the hens fault, because "they should have known the risks".

Jonny7

KyussBishop wrote: »

Have you even read my posts, or is this a rhetorical method of trying to claim authority on the subject?
If I have been commenting on the generalized nature of Occupy's goals, I clearly know enough about the movement (more than those sneering at it apparently) to comment, despite not being familiar with the detailed makeup of the group.

The "primary generalized" goal, I've already pointed out as a general opposition to income inequality (it's the most simple of generalized goals, which you have to go far out of your way, to pretend to not understand), and you're doing your best to show you either haven't read or are purposely ignoring my posts, by generalizing specific policies onto Occupy, in exactly the way I described.

Income inequality is bad.. I'm not really aware of anyone who thinks it's exactly good, I guess we can thank Occupy for pointing this out to us? What a goal. I bet the 99% in the world who can spend weeks squatting and living off Burger King are glad they pointed that out.

Then again, Occupy were amazing at coming up with issues, (first world) problems, grievances, you name it - this is where they excelled, hats off, everything, I mean everything was in there.

Yeah .. not so much with workable proposed solutions.

Most idiotic protest movement... ever. Then again I love to bash them.

karma_

Jonny7 wrote: »

Income inequality is bad.. I'm not really aware of anyone who thinks it's exactly good, I guess we can thank Occupy for pointing this out to us? What a goal. I bet the 99% in the world who can spend weeks squatting and living off Burger King are glad they pointed that out.

Then again, Occupy were amazing at coming up with issues, (first world) problems, grievances, you name it - this is where they excelled, hats off, everything, I mean everything was in there.

Yeah .. not so much with workable proposed solutions.

Most idiotic protest movement... ever. Then again I love to bash them.

This post is like a puddle, a whole lot of surface area and very little depth.

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote:

...

So you even acknowledge the legitimacy of their base goal, therefore your support of that base goal, and then denigrate their success in promoting discussion of that because...why exactly?

The entire point is that they don't commit to specific solutions, even if individual supporters are free to, because the movement is supposed to tackle that wider problem without the divisiveness of putting it's name behind individual policies.

So, seeing as the whole principle of the movement is actually something you're in agreement with, that makes the denigration especially silly, and seem a lot like denigration of the very idea of protesting in general.

Occupy do not have to provide solutions, they can provide a valuable benefit just through promoting discussion of the problems (as they have done, quite successfully); it's members are free to suggest their own solutions for promoting debate, but taking members proposed solutions and generalizing them to the whole group (as if a homogeneous entity) is fallacious, often knowingly so, and most especially when used as a stick to beat the entire protest movement.


I mean really, it seems awfully petty to denigrate their very visible success in promoting discussion of income inequality, using arguments people know to be fallacious, and when you have no principled disagreement with that.