Anonymous to Occupy Wall Street and Create Megathread

[Terra Agora]

So is this the Occupy group's equivalent to horrible country songs?

Your comparing anti-establishment poetry to country music?

Depends on the country song.

[Greed and Death]

Don't know where I, nor any one of my compatriots, implied that was something we supported, though.

Law of excluded middle. I don't know how it's possible to not imply being pro full reserve banking when claiming to be anti fractional reserve.

There is an alternative to both, Islamic banking. Thank you now I can tie the protesters to Al quda and have them sent to gitmo.

[Terra Agora]

Law of excluded middle. I don't know how it's possible to not imply being pro full reserve banking when claiming to be anti fractional reserve.

There is an alternative to both, Islamic banking. Thank you now I can tie the protesters to Al quda and have them sent to gitmo.

Islamic banking is basically full banking (in theory) but not so much in practice.

[Andaluciae]

(Image)

He really thinks that the other people haven't tried to do what he does? Fucking pathetic.

It's fucking pathetic that they haven't. They've over-indulged, slurping up consumerist gluttony left and right. They've lived beyond their means. They've planned poorly. It's their own damn fault, and they're trying to play the victim to shift responsibility from themselves, if for no other reason than ego-defense.

[Genivaria]

Your comparing anti-establishment poetry to country music?

Depends on the country song.

True. Also, fuck Toby Kieth.

[Greed and Death]

I may just be slow today, but it seems to me that you said that the only way to have a functioning banking economy is to have banking under government control.
If that's not the case my apologies.

No I'm saying the only way it would be possible to enforce 'full reserve banking' (which is essentially equivalent to outlawing banks) in a market economy would be through intervention.

Couldn't there be a system where banks were allowed to lend out CD's ??
Not full reserve banking but since the banks would know when the money would be wanted they could always have enough on hand to meet that.

[Terra Agora]

Depends on the country song.

True. Also, fuck Toby Kieth.

Damn straight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgI4Gl2fS9c

[Genivaria]

True. Also, fuck Toby Kieth.

Damn straight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgI4Gl2fS9c

Well now I know where Jr got the crazy from.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

So is this the Occupy group's equivalent to horrible country songs?

Your comparing anti-establishment poetry to country music?

The thing they have in common is the adjective, not the medium.

[Tubbsalot]

Another personal attack. Lovely.

I recommend that you review basic math. I learned this in grade school. Is Russian education that superior to wherever you go? Cause we learned this shit in first grade.

[Virabia]

In the least self-promoting way possible, I just want to call attention to the recently started movement to have a National School Walkout in support of Occupy Wall St. For those interested, information can be found here http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=243582649024545. Those who aren't interested can move along, or discuss why you think this is/isn't a good idea.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/if-banks-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-banks/

Figure I'd throw that in. And before you go "I'm not gonna listen to anything a Keynesian says!", Stephen Williamson also agrees.

Very interesting! Who knew Keynes' stooge had any sense --- owait. He doesn't. That anti-fractional reserve issue is the ONE thing I can actually agree with the Protesters about beyond the sheer anger they feel. Krugman is a louse. Really, I'd get more use from his comments were they printed on toilet paper.

That kind of bullshit is exactly why I backed it up with Stephen Williamson's post. He hates Keynes too, and he's actually justified in it because he understands what he's criticising.

So how about instead of feeble ad hominems, which don't make sense anyway because this is not something there's disagreement on between schools, actually produce an argument?

[Distruzio]

That kind of bullshit is exactly why I backed it up with Stephen Williamson's post. He hates Keynes too, and he's actually justified in it because he understands what he's criticising.

So how about instead of feeble ad hominems, which don't make sense anyway because this is not something there's disagreement on between schools, actually produce an argument?

Well, sorry to disappoint you, Mr. B. But Williamson's posts were less an explanation of an alternative to 100% reserve banking and more of a, "Ron Paul is an interesting guy with cooky ideas about stuff. He should get real." Hence I ignored him in my response. Honestly, my expression of utilization and respect for Krugman's work is pretty spot on. The man might have impressed me in my high school days, but I'm more than a decade older, no longer "employed" on the gov't teat, and not so suddenly find myself on the side of the coin that would seem to be devalued were his policy suggestions followed. In other words, my time preference has slowed. I'm no longer interested in immediate gratification but I would rather save for a brighter day. Krugman and his hack keynesian followers advocate policies that undermine the value of that shift in time preference. I have nothing but a sneer for him.

Until I can be convinced of the merits of veritable hedonism, I'll have to continue to disappoint you. I don't want free shit. Krugman has no audience here. Even on the rare occasion that he has something of merit to say. B/c it's all tainted by his voice.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/if-banks-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-banks/

Figure I'd throw that in. And before you go "I'm not gonna listen to anything a Keynesian says!", Stephen Williamson also agrees.

God, I love reading Krugman when he puts on his economics professor cap. He's such a understated, yet simultaneously overwhelmingly forceful arguer that its like looking at a piece of artwork. That's when he's at his best, and his best is pretty much better than anybody's.

*Googles Keynesian Economics*
HOLY SHIT, I'M ONE.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

That kind of bullshit is exactly why I backed it up with Stephen Williamson's post. He hates Keynes too, and he's actually justified in it because he understands what he's criticising.

So how about instead of feeble ad hominems, which don't make sense anyway because this is not something there's disagreement on between schools, actually produce an argument?

Well, sorry to disappoint you, Mr. B. But Williamson's posts were less an explanation of an alternative to 100% reserve banking and more of a, "Ron Paul is an interesting guy with cooky ideas about stuff. He should get real." Hence I ignored him in my response. Honestly, my expression of utilization and respect for Krugman's work is pretty spot on. The man might have impressed me in my high school days, but I'm more than a decade older, no longer "employed" on the gov't teat, and not so suddenly find myself on the side of the coin that would seem to be devalued were his policy suggestions followed. In other words, my time preference has slowed. I'm no longer interested in immediate gratification but I would rather save for a brighter day. Krugman and his hack keynesian followers advocate policies that undermine the value of that shift in time preference. I have nothing but a sneer for him.

Until I can be convinced of the merits of veritable hedonism, I'll have to continue to disappoint you. I don't want free shit.

I'm going to ignore the blatant ignorance of keynesian economics coming from that post and ask again: please leave out the ad hominems and actually produce a counter-argument.

But Williamson's posts were less an explanation of an alternative to 100% reserve banking and more of a, "Ron Paul is an interesting guy with cooky ideas about stuff. He should get real." Hence I ignored him in my response.

Not only is this incredibly dumb, "I don't like his conclusions so I'm not going to listen to his reasoning", it also misses the point. He agrees with krugman on this issue despite being extremely anti-keynesian (if you look at some of his previous posts he's constantly having a go a krugman). Your opinion on the function of banks as financial intermediaries isn't related at all to your view of the causes of business cycles. This isn't a matter of Keynesian vs other. So again, cut the shit and produce a real argument.

Krugman has no audience here. Even on the rare occasion that he has something of merit to say. B/c it's all tainted by his voice.

This as also super dumb.

[Shofercia]

Once again, my main argument is this: money was lent to people who couldn't pay back the money, i.e. if you make $20,000 a year, you can't pay back a $200,000 loan, and the housing bubble, which as you pointed out, was about to burst, was used as collateral. It doesn't take Einstein to predict that the system will fail if this is done. Duh! You've done a masterful dance around it yet again.

How many times do I have to explain this, we're talking about wall street and the shadow banking sector here, not the retail banking sector, the protesters are not protesting retail banking on the whole. The only thing that really mattered for wall street in terms of the securities being exchanged was the value of housing, the default rate didn't actually suddenly massively increase until after the crisis, that was never the problem, and did not cause the bubble. Wall Street was already aware that the default rate was higher for sub-prime, so you're just simply missing the point, the main problem was identifying if housing was overvalued. I'm going to ignore your nice story about Johnny for now on, since it's not relevant, I'm not discussing the practice of retail banks.

Wow, since when did you become such an expert on what the protesters are protesting? The rest of us think that the protesters are protesting many things, including gross negligence in the retail sector, but clearly you seem to pretend to know protesters better than the rest of us. Tell me, have you at least been to a protest? If not, how do you know that they're not protesting? Cause I went to one, and there was a group protesting *gasp* the exact situation I described, which includes retail banking. Why don't you actually get your facts right, eh?

What I described above leads to predatory lending. Giving out people houses and loans, that the banks know that people can't afford to pay for, is predatory lending. Let's take a look at the number one demand:

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/first-off ... ll-street/

But clearly Hydesland says that's not what the protest are protesting. In a battle of Hydesland v Facts, the facts now lead 2-0. Let me summarize: my point was that banks shouldn't have given out mortgage loans to people who can't afford to pay them. As a result, the people didn't pay, and the banks forcefully took some of their "collateral" back. The protesters are protesting against this, as it's their number one demand that the banks don't pull this crap.

If the banks were aware of the housing bubble, why the fuck were they using houses as collateral on high risk loans?

Again, by then it was already too late, this is something you need to know about before you make huge investments into that particular asset, the banks already had significant long positions on MB securities. Which leads to:

No, they were still using housing assets as collateral after they knew about the bubble. Facts 3, Hydesland still 0.

As for "not much could be done about it" - umm yeah there was. How about not using overvalued housing as collateral on high risk loans?

As I just said, too late, they were already hugely invested with leverage into the assets, there is no easy way out of that situation when your assets are worthless, a sudden huge sell off could cause a panic in the financial markets and make investors suspect your bank is insolvent and shedding its shit as fast as possible, causing your share price to plummet and you to go bankrupt, not good. This is where it gets very difficult.

There is a very easy way out: STOP SELLING SUBPRIME MORTGAGE AFTER YOU KNOW ABOUT THE HOUSING BUBBLE!

I am expecting Hydesland to quote me out of context, and express faux outrage, as well as a good "talking down" and using fancy terms in his next response.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/20/real_es ... /index.htm

For instance, in both 2006 and 2007, well over 40 percent of subprime borrowers were awarded mortgages with either little or no documentation of their ability to pay. With these so-called "liar loans," borrowers did not have to show proof of either earnings or assets.

And even when borrowers did go on the record about their earning power, it didn't bode well. Both 2006 and 2007 saw a large proportion of loans with high debt-to-income ratios (DTI), which indicates the percentage of gross income required to pay debt. In 2007 subprime originations, the DTI hit 42.1 percent, up from 41.1 percent in 2006. Borrowers were simply taking on more debt that they could afford.

What's more, many borrowers started out with low- or no-down payment loans, which left them with almost no equity in their home.

Prospective customer: "Hi, I'd like a loan, let's pretend I make $250k a year, ok?"
Banker: "Sure, let's get this done, I need my commission"
Hydesland: "There's nothing they could've done!"
Me: "They could've not given out the loan - duh!"

Can you understand this? If something called a "liar loan" is given out, odds are, that it's not a good thing. Let's see that quote from Hydesland again:

But actually, this was in 2006, by then a number of banks were actually already aware that housing was overvalued and some people were panicking and there was not much they could have done about it, leading to a crisis in 2007. For you to have a point, the bubble should have been predicted a lot earlier, in fact right after the dot com bubble, and only a very small handful of people got it right then.

So in 2006, according to Hydesland, banks were already aware that housing was overvalued. Despite this, in 2007, the banks continued to make "liar loans". CNN's quote, not mine. Once the bankers knew what was going on, they should've stopped immediately, in 2006. They didn't. That was my point.

Hydesland is trying to pretend that this is somehow difficult to comprehend. Maybe he shouldn't be ignored my "Johnny Example" where I simplified it.

Now he's out with a new point, that the lending isn't what the protests are about. And yet the abolition of a practice that resulted from the "liar loans" - is their first demand. In a battle of facts v poster, the facts have yet to lose.

[Shofercia]

I'm going to ignore your nice story about Johnny for now on, since it's not relevant, I'm not discussing the practice of retail banks.

It doesn't even make sense in the context of retail banks. The trouble was with subprime loans, not people with low incomes borrowing large amounts.

If you lend someone an amount that you know he or she cannot pay back, and you're doing this many, many times - you are making a mistake. If that's a hard concept to understand, then I'm sorry about your education. A person with low income borrowing large amounts is already problematic, as humans aren't born to be debt slaves for the banks.

(Image)

"My people love me!" -Muammar Gaddafi

"Our people love us!" -Corporations and their cocksuckers in the government and mainstream media

Ok, you and I may disagree a lot, but I have to admit - that was hilarious

I was unaware "barely above minimum wage" translated to "at least $380,000 per year".

I think the point is "Fuck off, you don't speak for me. I never gave you license to speak for me. I want nothing to do with you. Stop claiming to speak for me. I speak for me."

It's a sentiment I strongly agree with.

Don't recall you protesting Johnny McCain when he said "we are all Georgians".

He really thinks that the other people haven't tried to do what he does? Fucking pathetic.

It's fucking pathetic that they haven't. They've over-indulged, slurping up consumerist gluttony left and right. They've lived beyond their means. They've planned poorly. It's their own damn fault, and they're trying to play the victim to shift responsibility from themselves, if for no other reason than ego-defense.

Hey Anda, I graduated college debt free too. So you guys aren't special. I worked in Investing. This was before the banks had the "brilliant" idea to lend money to people who couldn't pay back en masse. So I had a job, I was taking 5/6 classes, and still had time for fun. But I probably wouldn't have graduated debt free, had my parents not paid for my travel-abroad studies. And I probably would've done better, if I wasn't working.

During school - you're suppose to focus on education, not on bills. And even though I paid for my education, and went debt-free, I support the students having all of their loans canceled. I also regret living it a shitty apartment, whose walls were so thin, that I had to use a motel during finals week. So no, it's not their own damn fault. Not everyone is as smart as you think you are.

[Cosmopoles]

What I described above leads to predatory lending. Giving out people houses and loans, that the banks know that people can't afford to pay for, is predatory lending.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/cre-ative-destruction/

it gives the lie both to those who blame Fannie/Freddie/Community Reinvestment for the housing bubble, and those who blame predatory lending. This was a broad-based bubble.

[/quote]

[Cosmopoles]

If you lend someone an amount that you know he or she cannot pay back, and you're doing this many, many times - you are making a mistake. If that's a hard concept to understand, then I'm sorry about your education. A person with low income borrowing large amounts is already problematic, as humans aren't born to be debt slaves for the banks.

Where's the evidence that these loans accounted for so much of the mortgage market that they crippled the entire banking system?

[Shofercia]

What I described above leads to predatory lending. Giving out people houses and loans, that the banks know that people can't afford to pay for, is predatory lending.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/cre-ative-destruction/

it gives the lie both to those who blame Fannie/Freddie/Community Reinvestment for the housing bubble, and those who blame predatory lending. This was a broad-based bubble.

Just because Krugman said something, doesn't mean it's true. Hate to break it to ya, but some of us don't worship him. Also, here's the full quote:

From my perspective, the CRE bubble is highly significant; it gives the lie both to those who blame Fannie/Freddie/Community Reinvestment for the housing bubble, and those who blame predatory lending. This was a broad-based bubble.

I naturally bolded the part you chose to ignore. First, he's saying "from my perspective"; second, he's talking about the Commercial Real Estate or CRE bubble, that is consumption dependent. To claim that a consumption dependent bubble won't be affected when people won't be able to repay their loans - well that's a bit silly.

If you lend someone an amount that you know he or she cannot pay back, and you're doing this many, many times - you are making a mistake. If that's a hard concept to understand, then I'm sorry about your education. A person with low income borrowing large amounts is already problematic, as humans aren't born to be debt slaves for the banks.

Where's the evidence that these loans accounted for so much of the mortgage market that they crippled the entire banking system?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/20/real_es ... /index.htm

Defaults for subprime loans issued in 2007 - none of which have reset yet - hit 11.2 percent in November. That represents perhaps 300,000 households, and is twice the default rate that 2006 loans had 10 months after being issued, according to Friedman, Billings Ramsey analyst Michael Youngblood...For instance, in both 2006 and 2007, well over 40 percent of subprime borrowers were awarded mortgages with either little or no documentation of their ability to pay. With these so-called "liar loans," borrowers did not have to show proof of either earnings or assets.

40% of subprime borrowers, form a very significant section. Also, do you have evidence that the entire banking section was crippled? Can you show me where I argued that the entire banking system was crippled? Because my point, that the bankers were grossly negligent when 40% of their loans with colloquially called "Liar Loans" - stand on rather solid ground, and I don't know why you expect to argue about the entire banking system being crippled.

[GeneralHaNor]

My one gripe with the monetary system is my wealth can be robbed from me without anyone physically stealing my wallet or going into my bank account, because each printed dollar without value devalues each of my dollars. Back in the days of the 13 colonies, counterfeiting money was punishable by death.

I think people need to be even more outraged. I'm sure all of you would be pissed off if someone stole your wallet and ran off, but we don't see anything actually happening. This is how they get us, by gradually doing things, so we don't notice them.

So buy inflation-protected bonds. Under normal circumstances people don't just allow their savings to be eroded by inflation. Obviously they're going to demand a premium to be compensated for their decreased buying power, and borrowers will give it to them because inflation makes the real burden of their debt decrease.

Under normal circumstances, most people don't even have savings beyond what it takes to the pay the bills for the next month., so buying bonds to protect that savings against inflation is begging the question "With what worthless money and I'm buying these worthless bonds with"

It's like theres an assumption that absolutely everyone is sitting on a secret stash of 100k in their mattress, and all their problems would be solved if only they invested it properly.

[GeneralHaNor]

I was unaware "barely above minimum wage" translated to "at least $380,000 per year".

I think the point is "Fuck off, you don't speak for me. I never gave you license to speak for me. I want nothing to do with you. Stop claiming to speak for me. I speak for me."

It's a sentiment I strongly agree with.

a sentiment adhered to by class traitors
if he thinks scraping by on the scraps of his superiors is just fine, that's his problem. the rest of us are not docile sheep.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

So buy inflation-protected bonds. Under normal circumstances people don't just allow their savings to be eroded by inflation. Obviously they're going to demand a premium to be compensated for their decreased buying power, and borrowers will give it to them because inflation makes the real burden of their debt decrease.

Under normal circumstances, most people don't even have savings beyond what it takes to the pay the bills for the next month., so buying bonds to protect that savings against inflation is begging the question "With what worthless money and I'm buying these worthless bonds with"

If they don't have significant long term savings then, ipso facto, they don't need to worry about inflation eroding their savings. In fact, if those people are net borrowers then they'll welcome inflation, which reduces the real burden of their debt.

It's like theres an assumption that absolutely everyone is sitting on a secret stash of 100k in their mattress, and all their problems would be solved if only they invested it properly.

Well presumably we're talking about retirement savings and the like. Large, very long term savings which significant unexpected inflation could take a large chunk out of. If you're concerned about such inflation then buy inflation-protected bonds.

[GeneralHaNor]

He really thinks that the other people haven't tried to do what he does? Fucking pathetic.

It's fucking pathetic that they haven't. They've over-indulged, slurping up consumerist gluttony left and right. They've lived beyond their means. They've planned poorly. It's their own damn fault, and they're trying to play the victim to shift responsibility from themselves, if for no other reason than ego-defense.

Up until this point, you had been almost a reasonable centrist, right now, your just making excuses for the robber barons.

No reasonable person said "fuck my credit and savings, I want to live now"
The vast majority are people who borrowed yesterday in hopes that tommorrow wouldn't suck
They gambled incorrectly appearantly

[Cosmopoles]

Just because Krugman said something, doesn't mean it's true. Hate to break it to ya, but some of us don't worship him.

When he says something and has the facts to prove it, you might want to listen.

I naturally bolded the part you chose to ignore. First, he's saying "from my perspective"

He's unlikely to argue from someone else's perspective, unless he's channeling spuritis.

second, he's talking about the Commercial Real Estate or CRE bubble, that is consumption dependent. To claim that a consumption dependent bubble won't be affected when people won't be able to repay their loans - well that's a bit silly.

The fact that a CRE bubble existed in the first place is evidence that the crisis was not caused by predatory lending. If loans to people who couldn't afford them had caused the bubble then only houses would be overvalued. It doesn't really matter what popped the bubble, the fact that the ubbuble existed is the cause of the crisis and it had nothing to do with predatory lending.

If you lend someone an amount that you know he or she cannot pay back, and you're doing this many, many times - you are making a mistake. If that's a hard concept to understand, then I'm sorry about your education. A person with low income borrowing large amounts is already problematic, as humans aren't born to be debt slaves for the banks.

Where's the evidence that these loans accounted for so much of the mortgage market that they crippled the entire banking system?

40% of subprime borrowers, form a very significant section.

Approximately 8% of new mortgages when the bubble collapsed. When you consider the mortgage market as a whole, not just new mortgages, its a very small amount. It doesn't even come close to explaining the problem.

The thing is, these 'liar loans' weren't new. They had existed for years before the financial crisis. They were never able to form a particularly significant segment of the mortgage market because unsurprisingly they tend to default after a couple of years which limits their ability to form a signficant proportion.

Also, do you have evidence that the entire banking section was crippled?

What, you mean besides the bank failures, hundreds of billion of dollars spent on bailouts, record losses, liquidity crisis and inavailability of credit?

Can you show me where I argued that the entire banking system was crippled? Because my point, that the bankers were grossly negligent when 40% of their loans with colloquially called "Liar Loans" - stand on rather solid ground, and I don't know why you expect to argue about the entire banking system being crippled.

If you give loans to people that you know can't pay them back, you will fuck the economy if you do it on a massive scale.

You argued that people not paying back loans fucked the economy. The economy was fucked by the banking system becoming crippled.