Occupy movement- remember them??

booom

I know, I know, it's not Dublin. But to all the naysayers and hedgefund hitlers who were only too happy to deride the occupy movement when it was in full swing, here's a snippet from the Wall St. crowd. A joy to read.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/occupy-wall-street-activists-15m-personal-debt

Godge

booom wrote: »

I know, I know, it's not Dublin. But to all the naysayers and hedgefund hitlers who were only too happy to deride the occupy movement when it was in full swing, here's a snippet from the Wall St. crowd. A joy to read.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/occupy-wall-street-activists-15m-personal-debt

They openly admit in that article that they don't know whose medical bills they have paid off.

Given that it is America, and that it is private medical bills they have paid off, what are the odds that they have paid for the cosmetic surgery bills of former bankers and their spouses?

Seriously, they just bought some debt on the secondary markets and wrote it off without a second thought as to whether it was deserved. Just like a government guaranteeing a bondholder without a second thought as to whether it was deserved.

renegademaster

booom wrote: »

I know, I know, it's not Dublin. But to all the naysayers and hedgefund hitlers who were only too happy to deride the occupy movement when it was in full swing, here's a snippet from the Wall St. crowd. A joy to read.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/occupy-wall-street-activists-15m-personal-debt

great article but why only mention Occupy Dublin? Occupy Galway was the 3rd longest running occupy camp in the world with 260+ days of Occupation of public space.

with so little support people cracked up in the end. it was such a wasted opportunity for all those effected by the 1%* to gather and force real change, instead we were physically assaulted, berated by so many passers by, media, "politicians"** both local and national. Thankfully enough sane people dropped by to give us advice, have a chat, stay for a cuppa, bring all sorts of food, cakes and general supplies to keep us all warm enough to be able to brave the bad bad conditions we were faced with on so many long days and nights. all this from a group of people who've never done anything remotely like that before and may never do again without a huge upswell in support from those who we all know are suffering in silence hoping against hope they can just get through the day and tomorrow maybe different.

tomorrow will be different alright, just wait til you see how much more can be taken away from you and I and what will happen in the not to distant future to all those who try to stand up for themselves.

* we now know for sure it's less than 1% who inflict all the pain on the 99.9% of over 7,000,000,000 men women and children on the planet.

** not politicians as such but more those who've "fix the road"!!

booom

Godge wrote: »

They openly admit in that article that they don't know whose medical bills they have paid off.

Given that it is America, and that it is private medical bills they have paid off, what are the odds that they have paid for the cosmetic surgery bills of former bankers and their spouses?

Seriously, they just bought some debt on the secondary markets and wrote it off without a second thought as to whether it was deserved. Just like a government guaranteeing a bondholder without a second thought as to whether it was deserved.

Ahhh, the naysayers.......http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/occupy-wall-st-debt-buying-heart-capitalism?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

this article explains that letters were actually sent out to 2693 people, so they must know whose bill they're settling. Something tells me, and of course neither of us know for sure, that bankers spouses do not appear in the list of personal bankruptcies.
Question: why are you so quick to deride, pick holes in and rubbish something which, admittedly, is a drop in the ocean but has real world consequences for people who are in dire financial straits? Sure, some bad eggs may be included in the let-off, but why are you so sceptical- surely if only 50% of those people are genuine cases- the exercise has been worthwhile.

Godge

booom wrote: »

Ahhh, the naysayers.......http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/occupy-wall-st-debt-buying-heart-capitalism?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

this article explains that letters were actually sent out to 2693 people, so they must know whose bill they're settling. Something tells me, and of course neither of us know for sure, that bankers spouses do not appear in the list of personal bankruptcies.
Question: why are you so quick to deride, pick holes in and rubbish something which, admittedly, is a drop in the ocean but has real world consequences for people who are in dire financial straits? Sure, some bad eggs may be included in the let-off, but why are you so sceptical- surely if only 50% of those people are genuine cases- the exercise has been worthwhile.

Because it is just another group of people being let off their debts with no regard as to whether they deserve it.

Compared to social welfare or foreign aid which have some sort of rationale and democratic support for the aid they give, just paying some randomer's debts doesn't seem logical, fair or accountable.

booom

Godge wrote: »

Because it is just another group of people being let off their debts with no regard as to whether they deserve it.

Compared to social welfare or foreign aid which have some sort of rationale and democratic support for the aid they give, just paying some randomer's debts doesn't seem logical, fair or accountable.

To be honest, I can't figure out your thought process- are you saying some people deserve to be let off their debts? or do you envisage a world in which personal debt is something which has an inalienable right over a person until a)it is somehow paid off by them, or b) they die?

I do accept your point about social welfare and foreign aid having some rational but they both originate with the state. This movement have accomplished something without that benefactor (even if they do operate within a system operated by the state).

Lastly, I don't believe you've answered my question: why are you so negative when someone actually gets up off their arse and does something to help someone else? I suggest you take into account Rawls's law of peoples and imagine the shoe on the other foot. If someone like yourself or a family member was in a predicament, through no fault of your own and someone offered to help out- would you stick your hand up and say you're undeserving? Come to think of it, and this is, admittedly, taking this a bit further, would you be so scathing of other forms of charity or goodwill?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

booom

Unless I'm mistaken, having your debt forgiven is not the same as defaulting- hence no credit history issue.

Whats the alternative?- suffer in poverty but keep your credit rating? that sounds very similar to the architects of austerity who insist on sharing bad personal debts by a few on the many.

Jonny7

booom wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, having your debt forgiven is not the same as defaulting- hence no credit history issue.

Whats the alternative?- suffer in poverty but keep your credit rating? that sounds very similar to the architects of austerity who insist on sharing bad personal debts by a few on the many.

Don't consume goods/services you have no intention of paying for

Realt Dearg Sec

Jonny7 wrote: »

Don't consume goods/services you have no intention of paying for

Don't "consume" medical care? Great idea.

Jonny7

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Don't "consume" medical care? Great idea.

Medical care is exempt from payment?

Next time you get a scan in the hospital, don't pay for it, ignore all the letters, and when the baliffs are at the door, call "Occupy" and ask for a bail-out.

Because if there's some sort of moral lesson in there, I'll be damned if I know what it is.

Realt Dearg Sec

Jonny7 wrote: »

Medical care is exempt from payment?

Next time you get a scan in the hospital, don't pay for it, ignore all the letters, and when the baliffs are at the door, call "Occupy" and ask for a bail-out.

Because if there's some sort of moral lesson in there, I'll be damned if I know what it is.

So, if you're sick and poor, you should just die?

Jonny7

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

So, if you're sick and poor, you should just die?

Who said these people were sick and poor, how do you know it isn't just a bunch of drug-dealers and criminals who have dodged their bills?

booom

Jonny7 wrote: »

Don't consume goods/services you have no intention of paying for

Must remember that one next time i need a (god forbid) ct scan (regardless of whether my medical plan-which in Ireland is miniscule compared to the US, covers me)- oh no, wait, if it were up to you, i'd be better off getting a brain haemorrhage and croking it (works out cheaper for you that way huh?). I'M NOT PAYING FOR THAT VILLAIN, HE ABUSES THE SYSTEM. Christ almighty, why can't you just see that helping out (even if a token gesture) deserves applause? I pity humanity when the gombeens among us fail to see an act of kindness, goodwill, charity (even if self-congratulatory?) does not even merit a neutral response. But to immediately lambaste it and sneer at it (whatever its motive) is beyond me.
Incidentally, if someone makes a donation to the Occupy movement- what does that make them in your book (obviously not just you but all the big hearts out there who think what this crowd did was stupid, counter productive, irrelevant or even detrimental to their search for a new beemer on the never never) ? An idiot for looking to help others? Naive, because some bankers wifes boobjob is being subsidized by me?

A thought just occured to me- are you lot pissed off at the occupy movement cos you weren't one of the 2693?

Realt Dearg Sec

Jonny7 wrote: »

Who said these people were sick and poor, how do you know it isn't just a bunch of drug-dealers and criminals who have dodged their bills?

Yeah but you said, flat out, don't use services you won't pay for. But that obviously begs the question, what if you can't pay for it? You seem to work frontage basic assumption that they must be drug dealers and criminals dodging bills. And from it you made a generalisation that you should only get medical Cate if you can afford it. If you can satisfactorily explain how your statements don't suggest the conclusion I drew, then great, but I don't see how youcan.

To put it another way, what if they're NOT drug dealers looking to dodge medical bills?what if they're just normal people unfortunate enough to get very sick as well as not having money? Should they simply not use medical care on the grounds that they can't (or won't, in your phrasing) pay the extortionate bills?

booom

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Yeah but you said, flat out, don't use services you won't pay for. But that obviously begs the question, what if you can't pay for it? You seem to work frontage basic assumption that they must be drug dealers and criminals dodging bills. And from it you made a generalisation that you should only get medical Cate if you can afford it. If you can satisfactorily explain how your statements don't suggest the conclusion I drew, then great, but I don't see how youcan.

To put it another way, what if they're NOT drug dealers looking to dodge medical bills?what if they're just normal people unfortunate enough to get very sick as well as not having money? Should they simply not use medical care on the grounds that they can't (or won't, in your phrasing) pay the extortionate bills?

I'll go one more- how do you know they're NOT criminals and drug dealers? Of Course; All drug dealers and criminals leave their address behind (Just incase they get a letter from the Occupy movement) when they do a legger from hospital- didn't you know that?

Jonny7

booom wrote: »

Must remember that one next time i need a (god forbid) ct scan (regardless of whether my medical plan-which in Ireland is miniscule compared to the US, covers me)- oh no, wait, if it were up to you, i'd be better off getting a brain haemorrhage and croking it (works out cheaper for you that way huh?). I'M NOT PAYING FOR THAT VILLAIN, HE ABUSES THE SYSTEM. Christ almighty, why can't you just see that helping out (even if a token gesture) deserves applause? I pity humanity when the gombeens among us fail to see an act of kindness, goodwill, charity (even if self-congratulatory?) does not even merit a neutral response. But to immediately lambaste it and sneer at it (whatever its motive) is beyond me.
Incidentally, if someone makes a donation to the Occupy movement- what does that make them in your book (obviously not just you but all the big hearts out there who think what this crowd did was stupid, counter productive, irrelevant or even detrimental to their search for a new beemer on the never never) ? An idiot for looking to help others? Naive, because some bankers wifes boobjob is being subsidized by me?

A thought just occured to me- are you lot pissed off at the occupy movement cos you weren't one of the 2693?

Feel free to embellish my comments thanks

Banks write off bad debt all the time, if Occupy want to help them out, that's grand, it's good for both.

Jonny7

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Yeah but you said, flat out, don't use services you won't pay for. But that obviously begs the question, what if you can't pay for it? You seem to work frontage basic assumption that they must be drug dealers and criminals dodging bills. And from it you made a generalisation that you should only get medical Cate if you can afford it. If you can satisfactorily explain how your statements don't suggest the conclusion I drew, then great, but I don't see how youcan.

To put it another way, what if they're NOT drug dealers looking to dodge medical bills?what if they're just normal people unfortunate enough to get very sick as well as not having money? Should they simply not use medical care on the grounds that they can't (or won't, in your phrasing) pay the extortionate bills?

No I didn't say anything flat out, but if you want to take what I said out of context, and then have a debate with yourself in the meanwhile - knock yourself out

I am very glad for Occupy, they can repay medical debt to their heart's content and as long I don't have to step over them in tents on my way to work it's all good.

Realt Dearg Sec

Jonny7 wrote: »

No I didn't say anything flat out, but if you want to take what I said out of context, and then have a debate with yourself in the meanwhile - knock yourself out

I am very glad for Occupy, they can repay medical debt to their heart's content and as long I don't have to step over them in tents on my way to work it's all good.

Could you explain the context for me so, because I've missed it, to be honest.

Jonny7

Some poster asked what the alternative was to defaulting/bad credit history

I provided the obscure option of not getting into debt in the first place

Some just seem to be angry at the very notion of debt, in which case I just phase out entirely

Realt Dearg Sec

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some poster asked what the alternative was to defaulting/bad credit history

I provided the obscure option of not getting into debt in the first place

Some just seem to be angry at the very notion of debt, in which case I just phase out entirely

I really don't see how that context changes anything in terms of how to interpret what you said. What should a poor person who can't afford their medical bills do if they get catastrophically sick?

booom

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some poster asked what the alternative was to defaulting/bad credit history

I provided the obscure option of not getting into debt in the first place

Some just seem to be angry at the very notion of debt, in which case I just phase out entirely

I take it you don't have any debt in any form then- credit card (even if paid off monthly)? mortgage? car loan? student loan? And if you do, you just assume your financial status will always meet the requirements of your obligations, thereby following your own example of not getting into debt in the first place?

The pithy remark concerning stepping over people in tents on your way to work shows either a complete disregard for people who are more interested in the economic predicament of some (only as I mentioned Dublin earlier- were you on your way to work in the central bank perhaps?) than you are or displays empathy akin to a sociopath who has no regard for or is completely detached from the individuals and general populace who make up their environment, concerned only with their own existence. By the way- I'm not saying you're a sociopath- that itself is disproved by your participation in the debate.

nesf

booom wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, having your debt forgiven is not the same as defaulting- hence no credit history issue.

Sure, I'll just pay a Euro a month on my 5,000 Euro credit card debt, I've not defaulted since I'm still paying it back so no credit history issues!

booom

nesf wrote: »

Sure, I'll just pay a Euro a month on my 5,000 Euro credit card debt, I've not defaulted since I'm still paying it back so no credit history issues!

Not sure I see your point- are you telling me the credit card company decided to forgive your loan and you're paying them a euro a month nonetheless because you believe you'll get a bad credit rating? Or do you believe that repaying an outstanding loan on your terms is the same thing as having a debt wiped?- I'm a bit confused and, yes, we've gotten a bit off the original topic, but I'll run with it.

nesf

booom wrote: »

Not sure I see your point- are you telling me the credit card company decided to forgive your loan and you're paying them a euro a month nonetheless because you believe you'll get a bad credit rating? Or do you believe that repaying an outstanding loan on your terms is the same thing as having a debt wiped?- I'm a bit confused and, yes, we've gotten a bit off the original topic, but I'll run with it.

I'm more confused by your idea that your debt being written off as a bad debt wouldn't affect your credit history.

The debt they bought was sold on the secondary market. This only happens if the original holder has given up on it being repaid and is trying to recoup some value from it. This isn't the kind of thing that they ignore when doing your credit score.

Realt Dearg Sec

nesf wrote: »

I'm more confused by your idea that your debt being written off as a bad debt wouldn't affect your credit history.

The debt they bought was sold on the secondary market. This only happens if the original holder has given up on it being repaid and is trying to recoup some value from it. This isn't the kind of thing that they ignore when doing your credit score.

Debt forgiveness is different to a debt write-off. The Occupy folk did the former, not the latter.

nesf

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Debt forgiveness is different to a debt write-off. The Occupy folk did the former, not the latter.

That would be it if the Occupy folk owned the debt in the first place but they didn't.

booom

nesf wrote: »

That would be it if the Occupy folk owned the debt in the first place but they didn't.

Your bang on there. They didn't own it originally. It was sold to them. So the debt is theirs to do with as they wish. The debt was written off by the original lender but it still exists- hence its value (for whatever nominal sum) in the marketplace for which they received a payment. Oh, and explain what you meant about paying off a credit card debt with a euro a month, not being funny, but I'm still trying to figure it out.

nesf

booom wrote: »

Your bang on there. They didn't own it originally. It was sold to them. So the debt is theirs to do with as they wish. The debt was written off by the original lender but it still exists- hence its value (for whatever nominal sum) in the marketplace for which they received a payment. Oh, and explain what you meant about paying off a credit card debt with a euro a month, not being funny, but I'm still trying to figure it out.

Ok, sorry if I was unclear. Occupy can do whatever they want with the debt and it affects these people's credit ratings not at all. This is true, the issue is a misunderstanding about how credit score works. If your debt has been restructured (credit card example) or sold on at a discount (Occupy example) this is flagged and noted on credit histories since both indicate that you couldn't pay back your debt in full and on time.

The idea that your credit score wouldn't have been affected if it was part of this Occupy debt forgiveness is wrong, that your debt had been sold on at a discount in the first place would affect your credit rating. Occupy forgiving your debt doesn't affect anything, you're neither punished for it nor do they forget about your earlier inability to pay because of the debt forgiveness.


This is why things like a single unpaid ESB bill from five or six years ago start being raised as issues when you go in looking for a mortgage. Your prompt payment of ESB bills since then stands in your favour but the system won't forget that time you skipped payment.

booom

Ok, that's all taken in, and relevant. I do understand your point that future credit ratings may possibly be affected. However, and without getting into the whole first page of this thread, I believe that if someone who is a genuine case, both medically and financially, has their debt wiped out by the occupy movement (and even the natural skeptic in me believes there are many in the people in question), there is no need to show contempt for the people who do so. Nor is there any need to critique the recipients of such goodwill simply on the basis that they 'could' be anything other than genuine cases. The negativity and persistence displayed by some contributors in seeking to downplay an attempt to help others was disheartening. The level of flippant cynicism amongst some is, to my mind, nothing short of disgraceful. Having said all that, I thank you all for your input- nothing like a good jaw jaw.

Godge

booom wrote: »

Ok, that's all taken in, and relevant. I do understand your point that future credit ratings may possibly be affected. However, and without getting into the whole first page of this thread, I believe that if someone who is a genuine case, both medically and financially, has their debt wiped out by the occupy movement (and even the natural skeptic in me believes there are many in the people in question), there is no need to show contempt for the people who do so. Nor is there any need to critique the recipients of such goodwill simply on the basis that they 'could' be anything other than genuine cases. The negativity and persistence displayed by some contributors in seeking to downplay an attempt to help others was disheartening. The level of flippant cynicism amongst some is, to my mind, nothing short of disgraceful. Having said all that, I thank you all for your input- nothing like a good jaw jaw.

You miss the point.

The Irish government rescued a load of banks in 2008 without checking whether any deserved it. Anglo should never have been rescued.

Occupy rescued a load of people's medical bills without checking whether any of them deserved it. The plastic surgery and Botox bills of bankers' wives should not be forgiven.

If Occupy are trying to change the world, explain how doing the same thing but just to different people is a change. Occupy seem to have done less checking than the Irish government. How is that an improvement?

Realt Dearg Sec

Godge wrote: »

You miss the point.

The Irish government rescued a load of banks in 2008 without checking whether any deserved it. Anglo should never have been rescued.

Occupy rescued a load of people's medical bills without checking whether any of them deserved it. The plastic surgery and Botox bills of bankers' wives should not be forgiven.

If Occupy are trying to change the world, explain how doing the same thing but just to different people is a change. Occupy seem to have done less checking than the Irish government. How is that an improvement?

Occupy weren't foisting those debts onto the general public, for a start.

nesf

booom wrote: »

Ok, that's all taken in, and relevant. I do understand your point that future credit ratings may possibly be affected. However, and without getting into the whole first page of this thread, I believe that if someone who is a genuine case, both medically and financially, has their debt wiped out by the occupy movement (and even the natural skeptic in me believes there are many in the people in question), there is no need to show contempt for the people who do so. Nor is there any need to critique the recipients of such goodwill simply on the basis that they 'could' be anything other than genuine cases. The negativity and persistence displayed by some contributors in seeking to downplay an attempt to help others was disheartening. The level of flippant cynicism amongst some is, to my mind, nothing short of disgraceful. Having said all that, I thank you all for your input- nothing like a good jaw jaw.

But it doesn't downplay what Occupy did at all! The point is that regardless of whether Occupy helped these people or not their credit records would have been screwed by their debt being resold like it was.

The issue was that they are now "freed" from the consequences of this debt. The unfortunately reality is that they won't be, they won't have any more repayments to make but whenever they go for another loan it'll be more difficult and more expensive because of what happened before Occupy came along.


None of this diminishes the help Occupy have given individuals by removing the debt hanging over them! It's just a step too far when people say the slate has been wiped for these people, it hasn't and there isn't anything Occupy could do to wipe it.

booom

Godge wrote: »

You miss the point.

The Irish government rescued a load of banks in 2008 without checking whether any deserved it. Anglo should never have been rescued.

Occupy rescued a load of people's medical bills without checking whether any of them deserved it. The plastic surgery and Botox bills of bankers' wives should not be forgiven.

If Occupy are trying to change the world, explain how doing the same thing but just to different people is a change. Occupy seem to have done less checking than the Irish government. How is that an improvement?

This is the point where I ask you how you know this. You're stating as fact and basing your whole argument on the assumption what you've written here to be absolute, indisputable truth. Now, if you happen to be some disaffected Occupy insider who was in on the whole process, I'll have to take your word for it. If not, and to be honest I think this to be the case- I suggest you provide proof of these allegations - at this stage, I doubt I'll be (can't speak for others here) responding to any more of your remarks. I agree with you over the Anglo issue but fail to see how you classify that bunch alongside individuals who (as already pointed out) had around 5 grand in medical bills.

booom

nesf wrote: »

The issue was that they are now "freed" from the consequences of this debt. The unfortunately reality is that they won't be, they won't have any more repayments to make but whenever they go for another loan it'll be more difficult and more expensive because of what happened before Occupy came along.


.

Occupy are not liable for these peoples future credit rating status. They arrived on scene after the debt had made its wayy to the secondary market and could just as easily have fallen into the hands of Payusoryourbuggered Inc. To claim they are worse off because of what Occupy did is to ignore that A) the debt had already made its way to the market and b)the debt was forgiven.

Feck it, you know what- I'm going to call a halt here. I don't seem to be making my point clearly enough for some to see. I can only hope that some day, some of the individuals here find themselves in a tight corner and have to rely on the goodwill of others to ease their plight. To insist it is detrimental to a future stasis to accept aid is utter nonsense. Maybe some of you will find this out the hard way some day. Until then, I wish you all well, with your excellent credit ratings (which only implies you are lined up for more debt).

nesf

booom wrote: »

Occupy are not liable for these peoples future credit rating status. They arrived on scene after the debt had made its wayy to the secondary market and could just as easily have fallen into the hands of Payusoryourbuggered Inc. To claim they are worse off because of what Occupy did is to ignore that A) the debt had already made its way to the market and b)the debt was forgiven.

Feck it, you know what- I'm going to call a halt here. I don't seem to be making my point clearly enough for some to see. I can only hope that some day, some of the individuals here find themselves in a tight corner and have to rely on the goodwill of others to ease their plight. To insist it is detrimental to a future stasis to accept aid is utter nonsense. Maybe some of you will find this out the hard way some day. Until then, I wish you all well, with your excellent credit ratings (which only implies you are lined up for more debt).

Um, I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I'm not saying Occupy made things worse at all. I don't think that it's you're not making your point clear enough it's that you're misreading what's being said.

booom

nesf wrote: »

Um, I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I'm not saying Occupy made things worse at all. I don't think that it's you're not making your point clear enough it's that you're misreading what's being said.

You're right there, I did mis-read your last.

Good loser

booom wrote: »

You're right there, I did mis-read your last.

It would probably have been 'better' for all concerned if Occupy had sought out these people and given each of them a cheque for, say, $1,000.

I'm sure the beneficiaries concerned would have taken this option if offered it.

This way of course the credits the Occupy people feel should be reflected on themselves (through their actions) will not arise.

Jonny7

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I really don't see how that context changes anything in terms of how to interpret what you said. What should a poor person who can't afford their medical bills do if they get catastrophically sick?

Well, historically they've either died or become incapacitated, but thanks to recent advancements in universal healthcare, social welfare, refund systems, and so on they can actually receive help.

Unfortunately, it's still on a country by country basis and some countries seem to have more difficulty reforming their system to a fairer one (hint hint USA)

Jonny7

booom wrote: »

I take it you don't have any debt in any form then- credit card (even if paid off monthly)? mortgage? car loan? student loan? And if you do, you just assume your financial status will always meet the requirements of your obligations, thereby following your own example of not getting into debt in the first place?

Well your first mistake is assuming anything.

You don't know whether these were all poor people, or just **** who didn't bother to pay back, or drug dealers, or as someone said, a banker's wife and so on.

I "didn't bother" paying a hospital fee once of about 20 euros. Ended up being 30 times that. Where was Occupy when I needed them then? oh that's right charging their iphones on Dame Street and making substantial contributions to Time Warner.. just kidding (but not really)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

booom wrote: »

This is the point where I ask you how you know this. You're stating as fact and basing your whole argument on the assumption what you've written here to be absolute, indisputable truth. Now, if you happen to be some disaffected Occupy insider who was in on the whole process, I'll have to take your word for it. If not, and to be honest I think this to be the case- I suggest you provide proof of these allegations - at this stage, I doubt I'll be (can't speak for others here) responding to any more of your remarks. I agree with you over the Anglo issue but fail to see how you classify that bunch alongside individuals who (as already pointed out) had around 5 grand in medical bills.

I am saying that Occupy paid off debts without knowing whose debts they were and whether they deserved to be paid off and that this lack of thought was similar to the way the Irish government acted. So let us go back to your original OP and the article you linked to:

booom wrote: »

I know, I know, it's not Dublin. But to all the naysayers and hedgefund hitlers who were only too happy to deride the occupy movement when it was in full swing, here's a snippet from the Wall St. crowd. A joy to read.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/occupy-wall-street-activists-15m-personal-debt

"Due to the nature of the debt market, the group is unable to specify whose debt it purchases, taking on the amounts before it discovers individuals’ identities. When Rolling Jubilee has bought the debt they send notes to their debtors “telling them they’re off the hook”, Ross said"


So they take on the debt before they discover individuals' identities. So if cosmetic surgery X in New York sells its bad debt on the secondary market, Occupy may well have bought this without knowing what they were buying.


Permabear has already quoted from a Reuters report on the issue: "The group receives almost no information about the people whose debt they buy - only an address, Ross said."

Another strong possibility is that the bad debt relates to people who died and had no estate to pay the bill. In that case, all Occupy are doing is handing money over to private hospitals owned by large corporations.

So to answer your question, Occupy have themselves admitted that they don't know whose debt they are buying and therefore my point about the comparison between the Irish government that didn't know what it was doing is valid. Another valid point is that both the Irish government in September 2008 and Occupy in this case both thought that they were doing the right thing but their decision-making was so ill-informed that they had no way of knowing whether they were doing the right thing.

antoobrien

nesf wrote: »

The issue was that they are now "freed" from the consequences of this debt. The unfortunately reality is that they won't be, they won't have any more repayments to make but whenever they go for another loan it'll be more difficult and more expensive because of what happened before Occupy came along

Indeed, the article mentions how the debt ends up on the secondary markets:

If individuals consistently fail to pay bills from credit cards, loans, or medical insurance the bank or lender that issued the funds will eventually cut its losses by selling that debt to a third party. These sales occur for a fraction of the debt’s true values – typically for five cents on the dollar – and debt-buying companies then attempt to recoup the debt from the individual debtor and thus make a profit.

The important bit is "If individuals consistently fail to pay bills" - meaning that the people who have had their debt "abolished" still have tarnished credit histories.

All occupy have done is remove the immediate problem of owing money (which is some cases will be enough), not the long consequences of failure to pay the original bill/debt - which will be more damaging in the long term.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

So to answer your question, Occupy have themselves admitted that they don't know whose debt they are buying and therefore my point about the comparison between the Irish government that didn't know what it was doing is valid. Another valid point is that both the Irish government in September 2008 and Occupy in this case both thought that they were doing the right thing but their decision-making was so ill-informed that they had no way of knowing whether they were doing the right thing.

The big difference though is the Irish government used taxpayers money. Occupy are using money they raised themselves. The Irish gov bailout banks Occupy are bailing out people.

antoobrien

20Cent wrote: »

The big difference though is the Irish government used taxpayers money. Occupy are using money they raised themselves.

Presumably off taxpayers.

20Cent wrote: »

The Irish gov bailout banks Occupy are bailing out people.

I still shake my head that people believe that if the banks weren't bailed out we'd have been okay.

20Cent

antoobrien wrote: »

Presumably off taxpayers.

Donations, voluntarily.

antoobrien wrote: »

I still shake my head that people believe that if the banks weren't bailed out we'd have been okay.

Different issue this case was not voluntary.

Looks like every effort was made to make it as deserving as possible. Using people who couldn't pay medical bills instead of just writing off any debt.

oscarBravo

20Cent wrote: »

Donations, voluntarily.

An Occupy supporter is decrying the government taxing and spending, and advocating voluntary charity in its place.



We're through the looking glass.

20Cent

oscarBravo wrote: »

An Occupy supporter is decrying the government taxing and spending, and advocating voluntary charity in its place.



We're through the looking glass.

Not really considering Occupy was a reaction against the taxpayer having to bail out the financial industry for a crash they caused. Totally consistent.

20Cent

New Yorks mayoral race is a another example of the success of Occupy. Bill de Blasio campaigned against the corporatist legacy promising to raise taxes on the wealthy and use the revenues for pre-school and after-school programs. He beat the Bloomberg the Wall Street candidate despite all the money they poured into his campaign. America's income inequality with its economic and democratic consequences are a major talking point. Campaigning against the 1% is a vote winner.

Larry Summers the Wall Street candidate for head of the fed dropped out because he said his selection would be too acrimonious, the new head is Janet Yellen the only candidate not in wall streets pocket.

There has been the court cases taken against big financial institutions like HSBC and JP Morgan for illegal and fraudulent behavior. Some of the largest fines ever paid.

Lastly is the rise of Senator Elizabeth Warren who is big into regulating and stopping the excesses of Wall street. She could even be a potential presidential candidate.

Occupy didn't run candidates or go the same route as the tea party but have had a much more subtle influence. Having this money written off is another success and considering its the first such action expect a lot more to come.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You might be reading too much into my post. The point is that the hawkish, deregulation style of Summers was rejected and a more dovish candidate Yellen was picked. Yellen has said she would pop bubbles when they appear and use regulation to police the banks to avert another crisis like 2008. It is an indication of the rejection of the wild casino style 90's and early to mid 2000's.
Yellen isn't going to pierce her nose and join a drum circle anytime soon but as far as heads of the fed go she is a more progressive pair of hands.
My contention is that the Occupy movement protests and actions are a part of this rejection of deregulation type management of the economy. Summers himself said his nomination would be acrimonious.