To all of this protesting, I say,
"Two arms! Two arms!!"
To all of this protesting, I say,
"Two arms! Two arms!!"
Their job is to maintain order.Originally Posted by whysoserious
"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."
I believe what you're trying to say is the Wall Street protesters don't seem to have a unified message behind their anger, whereas Tea Partiers and those citizens protesting in countries like Syria know what they're fighting for. I just learned of these protests yesterday and was quite surprised to discovered that they had been going on for a few days now but the media had been keeping quite about it. Moreover, it really surprised me to learn that social media such as Twitter and YouTuge haven't played as large a role in getting the word out about these domestic protests as both apparently played significant roles in telling the world about the Arab Spring. But if we have Gastopo tactics shaping up in the NYC where local police are confiscating cells phones and other camera equipment and maseing unarmed protesters, I suppose it kinda puts us in that same "police state" category as we tend to affix to foreign governments.
People have a right to be thoroughly pissed off at Wall Street, specifically those giant investment banks such as BofA, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and even AIG for using underhanding banking practises where mortgages are concerned and acting so wrecklessly with investor capital. But we should also be very pissed off at government for allowing these practises to go on for so long. THIS is the primary reason why I support Dodd-Frank; the law protects consumers while restricting commercial/investment banks from coming back to the Treasury seeking bailouts at taxpayer expense. However, it does leave in place the derivatives market which was the major cause of the wreckless. That said, I can support this measure. After all, I'm not against "creative/innovative financing". I'm just against "wreckless, unethical financing". For example, a bank can charge a bank fee for a specific financial service. Just don't try to hide it under "Miscellaneous Fee" and not be able to explain what the fee is. A credit card company can raise the interest rate on the credit limit it extends to customers. Just don't raise the rate in the middle of a billing cycle or immediately after receiving my credit card payment without providing ample notification (30-days minimum/1 billing cycle). These are only two examples of out consumers where dupped by the financial services sector within Corporate America.
But the biggest reason people are starting to rise up against Wall Street is because these large investment banks received taxpayer bailouts and are today sitting on trillions in capital but they are neither making loans (to small businesses) nor are they investing in jobs growth and development. When you think of the GOP mantra that "government can't create jobs" then look towards the private sector and wonder what's the problem as to why jobs aren't being created, one need look no further than local/commercial banks - the sole entity that's suppose to be doing what politicans claim spur job growth if these such capitalist in partnership with corporate entities are allowed to 'keep more of what they earn" if taxes remain low which they have AND the heavy hand of government doesn't over-regulate which IMO it hasn't.
Now, it's true there is some uncertainty out there among investors and businessowners alike, but when consumption is tied so closely with "supply and demand", it's very difficult to get "consumers" to buy things when they lack disposable income AND those who still have income are feeling such an enormous squeeze to their pocket books. This squeeze (or contractions) places an overwhelming burden on the middle-class to get out and shop in high enough volumes to spur consumer demand. There just aren't enough shoppers out there. And the reason for that is two-fold: 1) there just aren't enough jobs to be had; and 2) those who do still have an income coming in are being very frugle with how they spend their money. Of course, there is a third component and that is businesses won't hire because consumer demand is weak. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, a terrible cycle.
There's a saying that goes, "if you build it, they will come". I think business owners have the optics of our nation's "consumption problem" wrong. It's not that consumers are disatisfied with the products on store shelves. Nor do I believe it's a matter of retailers worrying about store shelves suddenly going empty. Throughout the recession, not once have I heard of their being shortages of goods getting to market except where it comes to shopping at Christmas time or shortages in gas supplies during natural disasters. The problem has always been demand - consumption...how to get people to buy more in overall quantities. The answer is simple: banks need to lend money so businesses can start hiring. Get people back to work and this consumption machine will start eating again.
People want to restock their pantries. They want to do yardwork. They want to go out to dinner and a movie. They want to change-out their wardrobes. But those who still have jobs are holding back and for good reason; they don't know when the next shoe will drop. Consumer confidence is low, but that's because there's nervousness abound caused by both the public and private sectors, i.e., public (and private sector) employees being laid off, State raising the cost of employee benefits yet keeping wages stagnant. Few job sectors appear to be safe these days. But the one entity that can change the mood of the entire nation is sitting on piles of cash - banks, the financial sector.
The Wall Street protestors are perfectly justified in their anger because it was here where all this mess began.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-27-11 at 12:25 PM.
Now, stop derailing the thread with worthless dribble.
So you acknowledge that people are not spending but investors are wrong for still not expanding where there is no demand?
1) advertise its wears; and,
2) create "consumers" by hiring workers.
Give more people a paycheck and they will spend their money accordingly.
Of course, there is a 3) option - create or expand our national manufacturing base. To that, I'll try to answer your question.
Large investment entities, such as investment banks, and corporate CEOs work in tandum. Investors help generate capital through the purchase of corporate stocks and bonds that business owners then use to do items 1, 2 and 3 above. As such, while I do by and large blame CEOs of investment banks for causing our nation's economic mess, I don't look to them as "job creators". They're merely the money men (and women). Thus, the focus of your question is wrong in that it only looks at one side of this free market equation.
Investors don't expand business. They merely provide a source of revenue (i.e., the purchase of corporate stocks and bonds) that allow corporate CEOs to grow and/or expand their business. So, in that regard the typical investor (i.e., hedge fund managers) are just doing what they do - putting their money where it stands a chance to increase their earnings.
So, to answer your question, I blame company CEOs and CEO's of large investment firms/commercial banks for the stagnation in our national economy. The hope is that with new patent rules in place individuals, banks and venture capitalist latch onto some good ideas and make "Made in America" means something again.