Wall Street Protests

[DanaC]

A recent study showed that 98% of FTSE 100 companies have off-shore subsidiaries based in tax havens.

Perfectly legal of course, but it kind of sticks in the craw when many of the banks that the public bailed out (and indeed in at least one case currently have part ownership of) are included in that list.

So, they broke the economy and were too big to fail, so we gave them barrel loads of cash and they take their profits and run, paying as little as possible back into the country who allowed them to make that profit, and even helped pay for it.

[ZenGum]

Here is an expert explaining it much better than me:

The US Banking Act of 1933, commonly called Glass-Steagall, enforced the separation of investment banking (the issuing of securities) and commercial banking (accepting deposits and making loans).

It was repealed after Citibank, in flagrant contravention of the act, announced the acquisition of the investment banking giant, Salomon Smith Barney, in 1998.

Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, colluded with the president of Citibank, Sandy Weill, by using an obscure provision of the Bank Holding Company Act that allowed the merger to go through temporarily - with two years grace to divest the investment bank operations.

Greenspan then pressured Congress throughout 1999 to repeal the Glass-Steagall provisions, which it eventually did in November that year with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - a law that led directly to the global financial crisis of 2008.

Banks were able to use the privilege given to them to "issue currency", as Jefferson put it, by leveraging their capital far more than any other company - 92 cents of every dollar deposited with a bank can be lent out as fresh money to someone else, thus creating money out of thin air.

After November 1999 the newly-freed banks went berserk, leveraging their capital far more the normal 12.5 to one by using financial engineering and by trading derivatives to increase profits and create huge bonuses for the executives, who rapidly became a kind of plutocracy, controlling vast wealth and running the country.

As we know, they got into trouble and had to be bailed out by US taxpayers.

And now the politicians in Europe at least are trying, feebly, to get back some of the control that was lost. In the US they're not really even trying: cheque after cheque has simply been written to the banks; first TARP, then QEs 1 and 2. The money went straight to executive bonuses - they didn't even bother hiding it.

Now the people themselves are rising up against the plutocracy, with protestors filling Wall Street.

SNIP

Alan Kohler is the Editor in Chief of Business Spectator and Eureka Report, as well as host of Inside Business and finance presenter on ABC News.

The whole article is worth a read. It also discusses Europe and mentions Australia.

[Trilby]

Wasn't Alan Greenspan an original member of the Collective?

[Lamplighter]

Thanks Zen, that is a great link
Can't say I understood all first part about Europe, but the part on the US made sense.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Thanks Zen, that is a great link
Can't say I understood all first part about Europe, but the part on the US made sense.

Understand the underlying concept. Some industries can prosper with less regulation. Finance is not one of them. We created all these problems by deregulating the finance industry. That industry can never have enough regulations. In part, because the industry believes profits - not the product - are the only purpose of a business. Because the finance industry and the mafia share a common belief.

I routinely ask bankers about Glass-Stegall. Not one knew what it was. What it did was address a fundamental problem when commercial banking and investment banking is in one house. They learned that the hard way in the 1920s. Due to so much education only from soundbytes, we must now learn that all over again.

BTW, I do not see why what applies to Europe is any different then what applies to America. Had you been following what was posted before George Jr administration all but created this recession, then you knew about Basil I. And why George Jr, et al were doing everything possible to keep it out of America. Basil I and II would have sharply blunted a financial crisis and that absolute resulting need for TARP.

Also not mentioned is what should be standard in all financial industries. All contracts should be traded on open markets. No most secret SIVs and CDOs. Transparency is critical to a responsible economic system. All those secret back room deals are whey Greece could pile on debt without anyone knowing how bad it was going back to the 2000 Olympics. Bankers don't like transparency. Then they cannot skirt the law.

Long Term Capital Management was another example of secret money games to enrich the rich. That also cost many Cellar Dwellers their jobs. Anyone concerned about their decreasing standard of living would know why LTCM simply warned of what was coming. And what happens when the elitists, using a propaganda machine, keep us all ignorant of what almost happened. Propaganda machines including those from Berlusconi of Italy and Murdoch.

But again, we cannot ever over regulate the finance industry. Due to an embedded concept routinely taught in business schools. That a business only exists for its profit. Also called corruption. Basil x (which every adult should have known about) requires transparency and reserves greater reserves behind questionable transactions. Everyone should have known why the Basil regulations are so important to the economic welfare of common Americans (at the expense of the uber-rich).

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Wasn't Alan Greenspan an original member of the Collective?

That Rand's little group of acolytes? Yes, he was.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by DanaC

That Rand's little group of acolytes? Yes, he was.

thought so.

Ayn Rand - no God other than She!

Fucked philosophy. Totally fucked. I hope she's burning in hell. Well, at least a little part of her, anyway.

[classicman]

They've even spread as far out as ...

[Trilby]

Looks like a three-dog night on the tundra.

[Lamplighter]

[Lamplighter]

Sorry, hit the wrong button while composing another post

[Lamplighter]

How is this for an attention-grabbing headline and lead paragraph from a reputable news service ?

REUTERS
By Mark Egan and Michelle Nichols
NEW YORK | Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:50am EDT

Who's behind the Wall St. protests?

Lead paragraph:
There has been much speculation over who is financing the disparate protest
which has spread to cities across America and lasted nearly four weeks.
One name that keeps coming up is investor George Soros,
who in September debuted in the top 10 list of wealthiest Americans.
Conservative critics contend the movement is a Trojan horse for a secret Soros agenda.

There follows a description of the non-OWS history of Soros.
Then it turns to what Reuters has found out:

12th paragraph:

According to disclosure documents from 2007-2009,
Soros' Open Society gave grants of $3.5 million to the Tides Center,
a San Francisco-based group that acts almost like a clearing house for other donors,
directing their contributions to liberal non-profit groups.
Among others the Tides Center has partnered with are the Ford Foundation and the Gates Foundation.

Disclosure documents also show Tides, which declined comment,
gave Adbusters grants of $185,000 from 2001-2010,
including nearly $26,000 between 2007-2009.

Aides to Soros say any connection is tenuous and that Soros has never heard of Adbusters.
Soros himself declined comment.

No matter, the small $ or the time-frames, let's get to the red meat...

[b]20th paragraph:

Lasn [Adbusters co-founder] said Adbusters is 95 percent funded by subscribers paying for the magazine.

"George Soros's ideas are quite good, many of them.
I wish he would give Adbusters some money, we sorely need it,
she said. "He's never given us a penny."

But Reuters won't take no for an answer, and so they bring in another attention-grabbing name.
If the Soros name doesn't stir your blood, then this one certainly will.

22nd paragraph:

Other support for Occupy Wall Street has come from online funding website Kickstarter,
where more than $75,000 has been pledged,
deliveries of food and from cash dropped in a bucket at the park.

Liberal film maker Michael Moore has also pledged to donate money.

The article ends at paragraph 32


My congratulations to Mark Egan and Michelle Nichols of Reuters
for their excellent penetrating investigative reporting,
and placing such definitive incriminating facts in the middle of the article.

Great reporting, guys - NOT

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Great reporting, guys - NOT

CSNBC wrote a pretty good piece about George Soros and his supposed clandestine support of Occupy Wall Street:

Perhaps the most surprising thing about Occupy Wall Street is that it is a financial success. In just four weeks since the protest began, it has raised well over $200,000 and collected far more than that in donated food and clothing.

There has been a lot of speculation who might be financing the protests. One person sometimes signaled out is George Soros, the well-known hedge fund manager who has used his bank-account to fund progressive causes quite a few times.

Soros no doubt supports many of the sentiments of the Occupy Wall Streeters. But there doesn’t seem to be much of direct connection. A Reuters investigation found only the most tenuous connection.

It may have been tenuous, but Reuters certainly made the most of it.

[Happy Monkey]

Wow, "keeps coming up" in "much speculation". I didn't ever expect them to come up with something more worthless than "some say" to base "reporting" on.

[Pete Zicato]