On drums...

For drummers to exchange knowledge, ideas, opinions & equipment...
It is currently Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:52 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: WALL STREET
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:59 am
Posts: 3591
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Perhaps this sums it up: :? :lol:

    But ultimately, the protesters ask us to ponder the very nature of compensation: Why does a municipal worker make $30,000 a year when Matt Damon and Johnny Depp manage to extort $20 million for a month’s work — money that we pay for in higher ticket and download prices? Why are their unionized camera and sound crews left to split up the crumbs? Did John Kerry really need a multimillion-dollar custom-made sailboat, docked out of state to avoid the people’s taxes? Did Al Gore need a yacht, a fourth home, a private jet trip? Did Michael Moore really have to sue for an extra million or two to add to his multimillion-dollar horde? Did John “Two Americas” Edwards really need a 4,000 sq. ft. “John’s Room” when millions do not have a 400 sq. ft. living space? These are the sorts of questions that are finally airing at these protests.

              Victor Davis Hanson

_________________
Gregory


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WALL STREET
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:27 pm
Posts: 170
Location: El Paso, TX
Along the same lines...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

I firmly believe that the cushy retirement plan for members of Congress should be eliminated altogether. How can that elite population dare to make decisions based upon the needs of the general populace.

Roland


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WALL STREET
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:59 am
Posts: 3591
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Good point, Roland. My father was fairly well placed in Kennedy's and subsequently Johnson's Labor Dept, back in the '60's. At that time, the wage was not shabby but nothing compared to what he could have earned in the private sector. I'm not defending it or making a case for my dad, but at least the purpose of the benefits was to make low wage jobs attractive to capable people, without their having to worry about the nest egg after retirement. These days, when public employees earn more that private sector guys, it is much harder to justify.

_________________
Gregory


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WALL STREET
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:59 am
Posts: 3591
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Another beaut: :shock:

    Paul Krugman has come out in favor of Occupy Wall Street. I believe he is the first former Enron adviser to do so. He writes:


      I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.

    To recap: Today Paul Krugman excoriates the high-toned and celebrates the denunciation of “consumerism” in the New York Times. Here are the first ten advertisements in today’s issue of the paper, in order with no exclusions: Chanel (a $6,500 purse), Tourneau/Rolex (a $23,000 watch), Cartier (the ring is a bargain at $525!), Salvatore Ferragamo (an $860 pair of boots), Tod’s (a $745 pair of boots), Johnny Walker Double Black ($70 a bottle), Leviev diamonds (prices on request; a necklace is reported to have sold for nearly $2 million), Tiffany & Co. (a $9,500 enamel ring), MaxMara (a $775 pair of boots), and Ermenegildo Zegna (I wasn’t able to find a price for the waffle cashco coat advertised, which looks quite nice, but the firm would be happy to sell you a $20,000 briefcase or a $4,500 jacket, no doubt exquisitely tailored).

        Kevin D. Williamson

_________________
Gregory


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WALL STREET
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:36 pm
Posts: 133
I think that Roland sums up things fairly well and I'd add that many times people want to be a part of something, anything with meaning. Most of us express this in our employment "choice". Most people today feel they have no choice or worse no job at all. I bet a lot of protesters in Cairo, for example, were generally unhappy with the status quo and wanted to go where all the tv cameras were...where something was happening. The moment the local police/military start beating and arresting people, well that's the moment the movement catalyzes. I wish people would defend this part of the Constitution as vehemently as other parts (see guns, property, etc.):

"...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No doubt the gray area of why the protesters are at Wall Street instead of D.C. has to do with the realization by many that Wall Street has more to do with our politics than we are comfortable with. I liken our problems to slaying a dragon: someone will say "cut off his head"--the obvious way to kill something, by excising the governing member. The wiser will say "strike at its underbelly--at the heart of the beast." I believe the heart of many of our problems is the cozy relationship between finance and our government. We are simply too invested in the make believe assets of huge companies which owe everything to the privilege our government gives them and yet give so little in return to the people who pay for that privilege, we the people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WALL STREET
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:57 am
Posts: 1607
storsav wrote:
...We are simply too invested in the make believe assets of huge companies which owe everything to the privilege our government gives them and yet give so little in return to the people who pay for that privilege, we the people.

Hey Hale,

For me, the last section of your comment is a little fuzzy. Can you expand and explain a bit?

Thanks,

_________________
Cliff

River City Trio

What if we did all have the same opinions?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WALL STREET
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:36 pm
Posts: 133
Sure thing, stocks and stock markets are nothing new, see Dutch East India Company and the settlement of Rhode Island and Connecticut. Prospectors sell shares in a company, and those share values are tied to a potential future profit once items, goods, products, etc. are sold. No different than investing in, say Apple Inc.

The problem begins when a company sells shares of a company which, for example, doesn't sell a product so much as a service. How can any average american investor making say $46k a year (the median income in U.S.) begin to analyze the risks and costs of a company like AIG? or Goldman Sachs? How can anyone? If the valuation of a company's stock is based on public opinion and the opinion of "experts" then all that is necessary to inflate the shares is to convince people that it's really worth something. Who stands to benefit the most? Those who own shares as part of a bonus or salary package, because many times they essentially paid nothing for them. If the stock tanks, or company folds who's on the hook for the fallout? We, the taxpayer are.

Enron is pretty classic example. They were an energy company, so yes they did "produce" electricity (for a further digression see Tesla's ideas on electricity production). Eventually they lobbied congress and the states to deregulate the electricity market. California was one of many states to do so. Enron's stock went through the roof as their profits also soared. Employees were told to place their 401k saving into company stock, which looked like a good idea for a couple of years. In fact, completely healthy retirement plans were rolled into Enron's own heavily self-invested as Enron bought out smaller electricity and power companies. Well, I'm going on too long now...Enron folded and brought down many average people with it. The experts were shocked. But enron was hiding losses and inflating their stock share prices, or rather people were inflating it, because it's all supply and demand with stocks. The perception of value is what is most important and what leads to a valuation because people want to buy a hot stock, which drives up the price.

Finally, my point is that the protections afforded corporations often outweigh the protections afforded us the lowly taxpaying citizen. When Mary's Corner Bakery or Fred's Tire Center closes on Main street, Bernanke will not be there with a bailout package. In fact, Fred and Mary may well be on the hook for all their losses, outstanding balances, etc. If they were unlucky enough to invest heavily in companies like Bear Stearns, then who can help them? Social Security is some help...children...friends...family?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WALL STREET
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:57 am
Posts: 1607
Hale,

Thanks for the lead to VOC. I was essentially unaware of them and their history .Interesting read.

I am not sure that it matters much whether an entity sells hard goods or a service. There are always a number of different risks inherent to any type of business, and each is likely to be difficult for anyone not well familiar with that particular business and its respective risks to make a conclusive analysis of its prospects, hence its value. Therein lies the difference between investing and gambling.

Anyone that takes a risk in hopes of increased value, based on anything but their own due diligence, analysis and understanding of the investment’s prospects is not a victim. It is someone whose greed exceeds their common sense. Neither government nor corporation is accountable for this situation.

We know that Enron was run dishonestly and unethically, and that is not at issue. Enron is probably a classic example of investors not doing due diligence, and not wanting to know the truth. Investors wanted to believe the ‘too good to be true’ results, and take advantage of the opportunity to make the same ‘easy money’ that they despise others for making. No investor was ever handed a stock certificate in exchange for money taken from them against their will.

If anyone is protesting today because they either (i) made investments that they did not understand, or, (ii) made risky investments with capital they could not afford to lose, that protest is without merit, and made by individuals that need to take responsibility for themselves.

With perhaps one exception that I can think of, I don’t believe that any corporation was saved while small businesses failed out of preferential treatment for corporate managers or shareholders. I believe that there were a number of entities saved based on the belief that the financial system would otherwise collapse and cause hardship of a higher order of magnitude, and in the process, as an inevitable but unintended consequence, perpetrators were held harmless from the risks they themselves had created and/or accepted, at the expense of all taxpaying citizens; not just the 'lowly' ones.

Two questions:

1. Would anyone have preferred to have risked probable collapse of the banking system and financial market in order to punish a few that nearly perpetrated it?

2. Would anyone prefer a system of laws that would enable us to declare past acts illegal, on a retroactive basis, and then to prosecute on that basis?

No political or government system is perfect; the same is true for any form of economic system. Despite great room for improvement, some form of democracy is the only system that gives to the majority an opportunity to learn and adapt, and to anyone, the right to express and opinion. As for economic systems, capitalism is exposed to all the risks inherent in unchecked human nature, but it at least, candid. It is based on self-interest. We all know it when we play.

Combining the two:

• No-one has ever made an investment or performed any other act of capitalism in hopes of doing just as well as everyone else.
• No-one has ever protested succeeding with capitalism
• Someone has to come out 'least well'; but anyone can protest.

Thanks to everyone for keeping this an interesting and civil exchange of ideas.

_________________
Cliff

River City Trio

What if we did all have the same opinions?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WALL STREET
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:59 am
Posts: 3591
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Hale, I get what you say about supporting the right of people to protest their government: I agree with you and wouldn't condemn anyone petitioning their government –although as yet I haven't seen any evidence that that right has been abused.


My concern is that underlying whatever reasons the protestors claim, the core impulse is toward utopianism.

_________________
Gregory


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WALL STREET
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:36 pm
Posts: 133
My buddy and his girlfriend went to an L.A. version of this Wall Street thing. He and I are both Thomas Paine type liberals--bitch and moan and try to do the right thing by the common man and all that. He told me that the group totally unfocused and for the most part was a motley assemblage of people who needed a shower as much as they needed anything. He said the forecast read: "High chance of hackysack later in the day." LOL.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group