# Facebook IPO to create thousands of new millionaires - OWS remains focused on banks



## rgames (Dec 9, 2011)

Fitting follow-up to recent discussions:

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... -adventure

Meanwhile, protests continue against banks. Sheesh...

What happened to the days when protests made sense?

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 9, 2011)

Troll.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 9, 2011)

^ because this has been explained to you several times, yet you refuse to grasp the point.


----------



## madbulk (Dec 9, 2011)

You guys are awesome.


----------



## rgames (Dec 9, 2011)

Interesting - apparently Nick thinks "Troll" means "someone who proves a point with which I disagreed but must now admit is correct."

It's OK Nick. We're all wrong sometimes. Some of us more than others


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 9, 2011)

Excellent entertainment indeed....

And the 1,000 Millionaires it will create are already millionaires. They are the elites in Congress who support OWS while investing in evil Capitalistic insider tips and IPO's.

One thing is for sure, they are there to gain personal wealth. This is where these 2 parties are in total agreement, it's the sideshow that is suppose to keep the worshippers distracted by the dog and pony shows, and endless speeches of death and mayhem, race wars, class warfare, Yellow Cake Uranium,.....you name it, they spew and lie, for their real bosses.

So here's another thread where the fake right, fake left, and REAL middle class attitude are revealed.... :mrgreen: 

I can only worship the folks who go to work and play by the rules, not these wealthy thieves, criminals, liars and disgusting sex freaks.
But we all have differeing tastes, since I am a boring working man, you don't hear about us. 
Just the poor starving children, abused animals, and the Warren Buffet hypocrits who wish to pay more taxes, but never do....... o=? 

Peace Out.....


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 9, 2011)

Nobody is protesting the banks because banks are making millionaires (?). Facebook didn't get a multi-hundred-billion dollar bailout from the government, socializing its losses while privatizing its gains. No idea what point you possibly could be trying to make.

Re: Warren Buffett, he, along with a number of other extremely wealthy folks (eg. Bill Gates) pledged to give away large chunks of their fortune and have already begun doing so.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 9, 2011)

Richard, I'm calling you a troll because you are a troll. You repeat the same inane things over and over and over, people respond to them, then you post them again and again and again in another thread in the hopes of getting people to respond again.

That to me is the exact definition of a troll.


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Dec 9, 2011)

zircon_st @ Fri Dec 09 said:


> Nobody is protesting the banks because banks are making millionaires (?). Facebook didn't get a multi-hundred-billion dollar bailout from the government, socializing its losses while privatizing its gains. No idea what point you possibly could be trying to make.



QFT. The point isn't the money. The point is the small number of extremely wealthy individuals who have used their money to corrupt and undermine the whole system of representative government in the US, and who are now allowed to commit massively destructive fraud with impunity.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 9, 2011)

That's odd you think he's so kind. He sits in on Cabinet mettings , then buys BOA stock for 5 Billion from insider tips due to the legislation passed by the handlers of the bailouts.
And I love charitable corporations and private charities, they are better run than the Feds as they seem to lose money, unless it's their own of course.
And Warren Buffet has made a fortune for giving advice to the bail outs while then investing at the proper time.
If you you think that is fair, it must benefit you, I don't seem to see any of it and don't rely on it, but Buffet according to the information I have read hasn't done anything but continue to prosper and invest with the great help of legislators he's purchased.

When you own Banks and Insuracne companies, it must be amusing to hear the puppet you hand scripts to talk about how evil such activities are.
FWIW his insurance company GEICO is what I use as their rates are the cheapest, due to his enormous profits from Banking investments and other Government " aided " programs.

I pay as much taxes as Warren Buffet, and here's some facts that prove that.
My wife and I both pay between our 1090's and PPTaxes 24k a year, then 750 more apiece for our quarterly CPA fees.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... yh3OLVxwEw

But I don't blame the guy, I just despise the Liberal translations and other wealthy " representatives " twisting words and fleecing us, while naturally making sure the scraps are still available for peasnants and the commoners.

THis process is what I want ended. It is exactly what causes the inequality of income that we are so discouraged by. We need to work 2 jobs and work harder to get ahead, but the penalities of being married and taxes only increase, which actually discourages some people. I often want to take time off but then something else comes along to make me go back into slave mode again.'
In my next life, I wish to be gay and single with a Law degree.
Then I'll know all of the tricks, have no kids needing cars insurance, college money, no wives wanting a new Jacuzzi or garden with staues , etc.
The shit never ends for a guy trying to get ahead honestly....

But don't stop with the PPTaxes, check out his Capital Gains scam, it's legal since our " represnetatives " pass such laws in return for campaign donations. THis is the reality, it should bother you, especially if are working and having to decide what not to eat or how far to drive, or even take a bus..... We have lived like this for years now and are use to it, so when they lower our taxes I will be much happier. For now they're needed, but after watching Obamas failed social experiemnts and greeen bancupted idealog businesses, where Nanacy Pelosis Brother n law gets paid before the American Tax payer, it infuriates me, and surely makes me angry that more taxes seem to be needed,
THese guys are poor at venture capitalism and dont seem to think our money is worth using wisely, it sure makes me want to stop sending it until somebody who actually knows economics handles it...


----------



## rgames (Dec 9, 2011)

I have no intention of restarting the previous discussion on the OWS protests. But for those who missed it, I'll summarize:

The OWS movement is about the unfair distribution of wealth. I support the principle: the country will get nowhere if the rich continue to hoard a ridiculous amount of the country's wealth.

Further, I made the point that the tech sector (including Facebook, Google, Apple, etc.) concentrates wealth at rates FAR in excess of what the banks do. Yet the OWS movement clearly has the banks in their focus. Therefore, I made the point that the focus on the banks is, for lack of a nicer term, stupid.

The fact that Facebook, a SINGLE company issuing a SINGLE IPO, is going to generate thousands of millionaires clearly drives that point home: _Wall Street can't even come close to that kind of wealth concentration_. So if you're pissed off about wealth concentration, don't protest Wall Street, protest Facebook and Google and Apple.

So there ya go. Point proven 

rgames


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 9, 2011)

I hate to say it, Richard, but Nick has a point. It has been explained many times that the issue is the destabalisation of the entire system where TRILLIONS of dollars of public money (globally) is required to keep those well off people afloat, not the focus on some individuals made rich by private companies. And with that, I shan't be returning to this thread and suggest others do the same - it'll only encourage you! We already have one overblown thread for this... mods?


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 10, 2011)

Well lets discuss a wealthy elite Senator, Governor, evil CEO who just lost 1.2 Billion dollars of money he scammed from investors to visit thie thread , and maybe he can tell us how the regulations recently added by Dodd/ Frank, who both gave a blind eye while taking gifts, watch the peoples money so well.
He's another wealthy Liberal legislator that believes the OWS movement and supports wealth re distribution, maybe they're just rying to get a few more billion together before thay redistribute it to the peasants and commoners.......

The Honorable John Corzine is what the desk title says, that's a laugh.
Yeah we shouldn't discuss that. OWS can go to DC and find the real scoundrels that kept Wall Street in business. THeir testifying right now, and doing their Sargeant Shultz from Hogans Heroes immatations......

Call the Mods now, please before the thieves get more attention....


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 10, 2011)

It's odd to me that Richard never seems to get a hate-on for companies like Cisco, Intel, Exxon, Microsoft etc etc. Only the Apples, Googles, Facebooks et al seem to arouse his ire. All of the former companies are hoarding cash as well.I guess they're...what? Republican companies? Whereas the Apples and Facebooks are...Democrats?? How does that work? I thought that money in the bank was generally apolitical.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 10, 2011)

I have always hated Intel, especially in '99 when I had to pay 1000 USD for 1 GHz Coppermine.
Then came the old Alpha company renamed AMD. I guess I should hate them too, but since then my Intel prices went way down, their evil corporate schemes were countered by other evil elite CEO's, so when they fight, the peasants win.....But jeez the profits don't go to clean somebody else mess up, what a shame....


----------



## midphase (Dec 10, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Dec 09 said:


> The OWS movement is about the unfair distribution of wealth. I support the principle: the country will get nowhere if the rich continue to hoard a ridiculous amount of the country's wealth.



Nope...it's not. Or at the very least it's an overly simplistic way to look at it which leads to incorrect conclusions.

It's a bit like saying that all that Libertarians are about is no taxes, or that all that the Tea Party is about is no government spending.

Those are all overly simplistic and incorrect conclusions that miss the big picture.

OWS is about implementing more regulation and imposing a fair tax system on those in the top financial bracket, while limiting or eliminating their political influence and bringing justice to those who have plainly broken the law. 

Nobody is their right mind opposes the right of an individual to be financially successful, but if said individual's success is at the cost of everyone else's...then we have a problem. What has happened on Wall Street has been an unprecedented abuse of the system by the hands of a few which has resulted in millions of jobs lost and negatively impacted the growth of the middle class for the past two decades.

If one of those days Mark Zuckerberg begins behaving in such manner...rest assured that the protests will turn towards him. However, by all accounts Facebook happens to be a great company to work for which treats its employees quite well (to the point of making thousands of them millionaires) so why should the OWS protests turn to him?


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 10, 2011)

Yep, as midphase said. OWS is NOT about "they're rich and I'm poor." It's about "they're rich, and they're using their wealth to lobby for more money for them while simultaneously hurting me. Their actions are causing me to lose money and employment opportunities. My taxes went to their bailouts." And so on.

I mean, do you really not see a difference?


----------



## robh (Dec 10, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Dec 10 said:


> It's odd to me that Richard never seems to get a hate-on for companies like Cisco, Intel, Exxon, Microsoft etc etc. Only the Apples, Googles, Facebooks et al seem to arouse his ire. All of the former companies are hoarding cash as well.I guess they're...what? Republican companies? Whereas the Apples and Facebooks are...Democrats?? How does that work? I thought that money in the bank was generally apolitical.


Do you really want him to type out an exhaustive list?

Rob


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 10, 2011)

robh @ Sat Dec 10 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Dec 10 said:
> 
> 
> > It's odd to me that Richard never seems to get a hate-on for companies like Cisco, Intel, Exxon, Microsoft etc etc. Only the Apples, Googles, Facebooks et al seem to arouse his ire. All of the former companies are hoarding cash as well.I guess they're...what? Republican companies? Whereas the Apples and Facebooks are...Democrats?? How does that work? I thought that money in the bank was generally apolitical.
> ...



No-I just wonder why he focuses on the same companies time and time again, since some of the companies I mentioned have more free cash flow than the ones he always mentions. He seems to politicize companies, whereas to my eyes, they're all pretty rapacious. Apple wants to take over the world?-agreed. So does Exxon.


----------



## rgames (Dec 10, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Dec 10 said:


> No-I just wonder why he focuses on the same companies time and time again, since some of the companies I mentioned have more free cash flow than the ones he always mentions. He seems to politicize companies, whereas to my eyes, they're all pretty rapacious. Apple wants to take over the world?-agreed. So does Exxon.



Like I said, I have no intention of revisiting the previous discussion, but if you read through it, you'll see that I agree. I just pick a few of the most egregious examples and use them to make the point that the focus on the banks is silly. Assuming, of course, you're pissed off about wealth concentration.

If you're pissed off about financial regulation, well, OK. Go get your financial regulations. Fine with me. Meanwhile, the absurdly rich will keep on getting absurdly richer because most of them are doing it through means that are unaffected by those regulations. Seems like a waste of energy to me because you'll be doing nothing to close the wealth gap. But you'll have your regulations, though I'm not sure how people will use them to pay the rent or put food on the table as the wealth gap gets even wider. We'll have a well-regulated country where the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer. Not sure I see the point in that...

There's nothing more I can add that we didn't already go over. The point of this thread was simply to highlight a recent event that's relevant to the previous discussion.

Just keep an eye on it, guys. I strongly believe we're missing the big picture on this one. I'm not disagreeing with many of the points above, I'm simply saying that they might not be the best use of time and political capital.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Dec 10, 2011)

I think that in some cases, corporate regulation can benefit the middle class by limiting the influence of corporations in efforts like weakening unions, lowering working conditions and standards, lowering wages, and of course impacting the environment adversely which can have negative repercussions on the health of the population and devalue property prices.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 10, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Dec 10 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Dec 10 said:
> 
> 
> > No-I just wonder why he focuses on the same companies time and time again, since some of the companies I mentioned have more free cash flow than the ones he always mentions. He seems to politicize companies, whereas to my eyes, they're all pretty rapacious. Apple wants to take over the world?-agreed. So does Exxon.
> ...



The egregious examples you pick are always the same, and somehow always feel politicized. The rise of Apple, Google and Facebook all occurred within the past few years. The rise of Exxon, Cisco, Intel and Microsoft have been continuous through a few decades. This isn't a Johnny-come-lately issue. You continually refuse to address this, of course.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 10, 2011)

When's the last time the financial institutions that ruined our economy were puinished..............?
Does anyone think the great new Dodd / Frank regulations were helpful with MF Global....?

THe problem is that once you are a wealthy Liberal or Conservative, you can steal anytime without fear of punishment, as long as you have contributed to someones campaign. Those new regulations didn't stop Senator Corzine from stealing 1.2 Billion dollars from the Middle Class farmers.

And what about the big Deutsch Bank / Ameriquest fleecing of trillions in home equity, and once caught, we can't go after the Deutsch Bank unless it's in an International Court, even the owner of Ameriquest who was partnered up with the Bank was allowed diplomatic immunity as the Ambassador to the Nederlands, and never in his life had political experience.

I can't believe that people still believe these fake parties somehow represent them, or we have some sort of power in how our Government operates.

The recent Corzine episode MUST surely hurt any Liberal unless they are just so entrenched in their fake representaives, they too agree with criminals as long as they say " I support OWS, or I am for the little people, yadda, yadda, yadda.

The wealthy Conservatives and wealthy Liberals are on the same team, always have been and always will be. In DC it;s the haves and the have nots.

Time for the haves to be prosecuted and run out of town, before people really start getting angry.
How many millions like me lost our ass and still obey the rules, and pay our taxes.........and still see guys like Corzine steal, and most likely got a great bonus for this excellent manipulation of middle class wealth.

Wealthy Liberals are great with their money scams and IPO offerings, it's just too bad they can't spend our money with just half of the success they have with their own.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 11, 2011)

Chim-do you really think Corzine stole this money and put it in his pocket? I'm not defending him at all, I'm just curious what your take it. Looks to me they made a crappy bet and illegally used customer accounts to try to cover the bet, then it all went south, but I doubt he pocketed it.

If they crossed over and used customer accounts, I think they/he should definitely be prosecuted in either case.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 11, 2011)

No of course not....Wealthy Liberals want to redistribute the wealth, not steal it.
These are really smart guys, so they know where every penny is going.
My guess, some offshore accounts or hedge funds like Vice President Joe Bidens Brother runs, but Joe himself, would never be involved in these evil CEO wealthy elite Wall Street games......... :mrgreen: 

We do know that Corzine recieved the best fiscal advice though, but obviously he didn't listen to his advisrors.
Nick will love this shot of the super wealthy elites and economic geniuses we choose to " protect " us....... :mrgreen: 

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/3733/2008101311442b04d7b55f5.jpg (http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/3733 ... 7b55f5.jpg)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 11, 2011)

Richard, your basic premise is completely ludicrous on more than one level. 

Are you aware that Wall St. crashed the whole world and then got bailed out to the tune of $800 billion in actual money and then several TRILLION in liquidity - reserves that don't go into the real economy - with practically no strings attached? And that they take something like 9% of all the business profits in the country? And that they - who are a big part of the .1% - dump billions of dollars into lobbying and campaigns to buy politicians who will do their bidding?

That aside, the Occupy movement has nothing to do with hating millionaires or whatever it is you're using to frame this thread. It's the Koch suckers of this world who we despise.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 11, 2011)

chimuelo @ Sun Dec 11 said:


> No of course not....Wealthy Liberals want to redistribute the wealth, not steal it.
> These are really smart guys, so they know where every penny is going.
> My guess, some offshore accounts or hedge funds like Vice President Joe Bidens Brother runs, but Joe himself, would never be involved in these evil CEO wealthy elite Wall Street games......... :mrgreen:
> 
> ...



Could you answer my question straight please, instead of ironically- so I can know what you actually think?


----------



## rgames (Dec 11, 2011)

Guys - the wealth gap has almost nothing to do with the financial mess. There's a simple proof: the wealth gap existed LONG before the financial mess ever started.

Think of it this way: go back to 2005. The wealth gap was as bad as ever. The banking crisis exacerbated the problem, but the wealth gap problem is separate and apart from the banking crisis.

Don't confuse the issues. Like I said, if you think financial regulation is higher on your list of priorities, OK. I support it. However, it has little to do with the wealth gap.

Things like the Facebook IPO, however, have everything to do with the wealth gap.

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 11, 2011)

NYComposer.......

I truly believe that he did this knowing the risks, but has a back up plan.
You don;t make mistakes like this after being an evil CEO for Goldman Sachs, MF Global, and being a seasoned liar........ooops.......I meant politician, he also has the wealthy Liberals to keep him from doing jailtime.
Even if he does jailtime and is a fall guy for fellow wealthy Liberals, a pardon will surely come his way, just like Bush, and Clinton did for their wealthy protectors of the little people.

Scooter Libby was unlucky as Bush had used his pardons early by having Roland Arnall escape prosecution and making him the Ambassador to the Netherlands. Only to die shortly after arrival, and then have his son takeover. What an act of criminality and fleecing of middle class equity.

Clinton had the right choice though.

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://en ... CC0QygQwAA

Eric Holder, our current " Attorney General " was the guy who ended up being the errand boy to bring Rich back home fully pardonned.

Isn't it great though being wealthy and having the Attorney General and President covering your ass.
Same goes for John Edwards. He has already gone through numerous continuances, way more than any law abiding citizen would be offered.
Eventually it will land in a wealthy Liberal judges courtroom, and voila.......Justice....American style.

Just to proove AGAIN there's no difference amongst these elites in DC, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy had to sign off on the Ambassador to the Netherlands fiasco where it's owner basically bancrupted the housing market with re financing massive amounts of cash for equity........

That's why when I see these fools struggling with their scripts, I know they are all on the same team.
Bigger Government, more power, more wealth for the few, and surely more favors for elites.

I got over it a long time ago, and have no problem with these elites as long as I can still raise my family and get by comfortably.
But to think they are there to serve and represent me, is just dillusional.

But I don't expect others to agree with me, headlines and actual research are 2 different methods of finding the truth.
I choose the latter...


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 11, 2011)

Boy, it sure is hard to get a straight answer from you.

Yes or no-do you think Jon Corzine literally stole money from investors accounts and pocketed the money?


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 11, 2011)

Yes I do. Eventually after laundering or whatever tactic they used. They were tipped off by " regulators " that they were being looked into so they took a risky chance with investors money since all other 38 Billion of assets would soon be frozen.
He isn't lying about where the money is, but he wasn't asked who he gave it to. 
You know how questions and answers in DC are. It depends on what the definition of is ..is.
As far as he knows the money went to the Zepatas' Cartel ( Calderones wifes brother group ) and funds were doubled, maybe tripled, and might miraculously re appear, in time for the static funds of 38 Billion to be unfrozen.

When you're a Billionaire sometimes a favor is worth more than the amount of money on the ROI.

Right now I can imagine Corzine, being a wealthy Liberal elite protector of the little people, could probably have Geitner give him a loan interest free from the Fed like all of their other buddies get, until the forensic accounts find the investments, and by that time the profits from those investments could be rolled over into something else.

In this world of hedge funds, and Quantum Funds keeping 100's of Billions offshore and paying a small, barely taxable salary to the Billionaires, like Soros, and Buffet. ( liberal protectors of the people )
I am not well enough informed to comment on exact amounts and tricks, but I am reading the Dodd Frank, Inc. bill which has employed thousands and cost 100's of millions in legal fees and lobbying, so I understand why the elites love new regulations. 
Throw up some fake agency with one lady named Elizabeth Warren and call it the Consumer Asvisory Board and even have stricter regs and nothing changes. Like the Police, they show up after you're raped or killed and then clean up the mess.

You want a good laugh...?
Look at the various applications and questionaires for applying for a federal job, and it will show you that unnaccountability is the main goal in DC, and with everyone in politics.
While I don't like or approve of CIA tactics at least they have excellent training and usually obey the oathe they take.

These wealthy elites will always break the laws and profit from others hard work until we as voters are smart enough to organize, and make politicians sign affidavits stating that their main objective is to prosecute those who break their oathe, and the laws, and make money and lobbyists illegal.
Otherwise this whole broken thing, the status quo will continue to make wealthy Liberals richer, and Conservatives will agree with them on the very same issues of self power and rasing their pay every year while failing the people over, and over.

SO Yes, Corzine will benefit, but I am not well enough informed to speculate on which from of payment or favorable legislation he will be rewarded with.


----------



## midphase (Dec 12, 2011)

You can definitely tell who's busy writing music or not from these threads!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2011)

> Guys - the wealth gap has almost nothing to do with the financial mess. There's a simple proof: the wealth gap existed LONG before the financial mess ever started.



By that logic the housing bubble had almost nothing to do with the financial mess. There's a simple proof: go back to 2005; the bubble existed long before the financial mess ever started.

Oh, and I made a mistake above - the financial industry accounts for almost a third of business profits. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/3 ... 41716.html


----------



## rgames (Dec 12, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Dec 12 said:


> By that logic the housing bubble had almost nothing to do with the financial mess. There's a simple proof: go back to 2005; the bubble existed long before the financial mess ever started.


I don't follow.

The financial mess and housing bubble are related. Neither is (significantly) related to the wealth gap.

Not sure what you're saying...

rgames

EDIT: regarding the profits: that's not a very good metric to look at for wealth concentration (a mistake that is not surprising given the source  ). A better metric is revenues per employee. That tells you how much money the company takes in relative to how many jobs it supports. Facebook's revenues are only a few billion dollars but they employ only 3000 or so people. Bank of America's revenues are a lot more - about 100 billion - but it employs about 300,000 people. Hence, BoA has 50x the revenues but employs 100x the people, so Facebook concentrates wealth at a rate about twice what BoA does. And they haven't even done their IPO yet...


----------



## Diffusor (Dec 12, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Dec 11 said:


> Richard, your basic premise is completely ludicrous on more than one level.
> 
> Are you aware that Wall St. crashed the whole world and then got bailed out to the tune of $800 billion in actual money and then several TRILLION in liquidity - reserves that don't go into the real economy - with practically no strings attached? And that they take something like 9% of all the business profits in the country? And that they - who are a big part of the .1% - dump billions of dollars into lobbying and campaigns to buy politicians who will do their bidding?
> 
> That aside, the Occupy movement has nothing to do with hating millionaires or whatever it is you're using to frame this thread. It's the Koch suckers of this world who we despise.



Probably shouldn't be voting for Obama then. He's taken the most money from Wallstreet and has the most Wallstreet cronies working for him (Goldman Sachs anyone?). Don't believe me? Well listen to Michael Moore .. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... obama.html


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 12, 2011)

Obama has his problems. The Republican candidates are all far worse. Furthermore, Obama doesn't write laws. That's the job of our legislative branch (Senate + Congress) and they have been by far the biggest obstacles to getting any progressive legislation through.



> EDIT: regarding the profits: that's not a very good metric to look at for wealth concentration (a mistake that is not surprising given the source Wink ). A better metric is revenues per employee. That tells you how much money the company takes in relative to how many jobs it supports. Facebook's revenues are only a few billion dollars but they employ only 3000 or so people. Bank of America's revenues are a lot more - about 100 billion - but it employs about 300,000 people. Hence, BoA has 50x the revenues but employs 100x the people, so Facebook concentrates wealth at a rate about twice what BoA does. And they haven't even done their IPO yet...



But again, nobody is mad at BoA for being a big company. They're mad because BoA (and similar financial companies) are actively screwing over countless people in this country through their political influence/lobbying efforts, took tons of bailout money from the public, gambled with our money, refuse to lend money out to small businesses, etc etc etc. Come on.


----------



## rgames (Dec 12, 2011)

zircon_st @ Mon Dec 12 said:


> But again, nobody is mad at BoA for being a big company. They're mad because BoA (and similar financial companies) are actively screwing over countless people in this country through their political influence/lobbying efforts, took tons of bailout money from the public, gambled with our money, refuse to lend money out to small businesses, etc etc etc. Come on.



Can't say I follow you, so do me a favor and finish this sentence:

When we get new financial regulations, the wealth gap will shrink because ________

(Hint: make sure you account for the fact that the companies concentrating the most wealth will be unaffected by those regulations).

And of course they gamble with your money - that's also known as "banking." So I don't follow you there, either - are you angry that the banks are involved in banking?

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2011)

> The financial mess and housing bubble are related. Neither is (significantly) related to the wealth gap



Your president put it very well in the speech that regained him my support last week:

"Today, we’re still home to the world’s most productive workers. We’re still home to the world’s most innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t -- and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

Now, for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or even sometimes understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets -- and huge bonuses -- made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we’re still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people -- innocent, hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities but were still left holding the bag."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... mie-kansas


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2011)

> Obama has his problems. The Republican candidates are all far worse.



And that's putting it much more calmly than I usually do.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2011)

John Huntsman was on Fareed Zacharia yesterday. He sounds like he'd be an excellent ambassador to China.

But even he - the most "moderate" of all these clowns...well, he can suck Bill Maher's...

http://www.allvoices.com/news/10856934-bill-maher-jon-huntsman-can-suck-my-ck (http://www.allvoices.com/news/10856934- ... suck-my-ck)


----------



## rgames (Dec 12, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Dec 12 said:


> Now, for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or even sometimes understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets -- and huge bonuses -- made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.



You can summarize that entire paragraph with one statement: people make bad choices.

People make bad choices when they pile on debt they can't afford. And people make bad choices when they take risky bets. They're one in the same: bad choices.

The vast majority of the people caught in the mess weren't piling on debt or making risky investments to put food on the table, they were doing so to live beyond their means. Do they have a right to a bigger share of the income pot so they can keep up with the Joneses? Sure - they have a right to equal opportunity to the pot, anyway. But that fact in no way absolves them of the responsibility for their choices.

Again, the wealth gap didn't create the financial crisis. Sure, they're weakly related, but the financial crisis was a result of bad choices, not unfair distribution of wealth.

Here's a proof: let's do two thought experiments.

1. Let's say those people just accepted their misfortune and never piled on that debt or never took those risky bets. Do you think the wealth gap would be gone? No way, it would just keep on growing. And now that we've weathered the storm, that's exactly what we're seeing.

2. Let's say the wealth gap never existed. Do you think that will prevent people from making bad investment choices that lead to a financial crisis? Of course not - people can do that regardless of how wealth is distributed.

So there ya go: two equally plausible scenarios that show that wealth gaps and financial crises are essentially independent.

The wealth gap is related to inequity.

The banking crisis is related to stupidity.

Two separate issues.

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 13, 2011)

Unions are great for raising people up to the middle class and out of poverty, but their leadership is similar to politics and both are heavily dependant on each other.
I think the people who live in a right to work state that then is also Unionized are the best places, and practical way to get ahead.
Here in Las Vegas you can easily get a contractors licesnce and start your own small business. Eventually as you hire more folks and grow you will be faced with contracts that now cost in the miliions when the bidding process takes place.
But trying to start a contracting business in a Union State where you have to pay for the priveledge to bid on Union contract is way out of the reach of any small bnusiness. And what Banks are loaning money these days to anyone unless they are 750-800 in their CRR.

We hear nothing about how to fix the inequalities, it's 2 x extremes each wanting their way w/o any sign of bi partisan agreements.

The whole problem is that middle class folks who dont need their hand held or divine guidance cant get a voice as the Wall Street boys and global corporations, and even Governments like Israsel get the politicians attention with their deep pockets.

Not some hard working folks who are expected to stand on their own 2 feet and get ahead.

It can still be done, but in big Union States it's damn near impossible.
Nevada and Florida are 2 examples of states hit really hard in the housing and jobs sectors. But thanks to being able to start their own business w/o being a Union contractor until they decide to, people making a comeback.

In downtown Vegas, which we refuse to perform at unless it's the Plaza, the profits are up 10% and 58 million in gambling profits were up, not revenue, but profits. The Strip netted 89 million. They are hiring again, and even Wynn and his rich Asian connections might re build and kick start 100,000 jobs, but the uncertainly of the legislative branch and talk of new regulations makes investors pause.

If I were a Governor like the chaps in Wisconsinm Ohio and New Jersey, I would not go after the Unions as they have done, but get the people to vote on the right to work laws.
Otherwise you appear anti Union, and are surely on the Koch Brothers payroll, and other anti left groups.

This whole left right shell game has created 2 minoriteis which are causing difficulties for the majority middle class.
tThey should be forced out and let new freshmen with ideas of comprimise to re boot this economy even further.
As far as Presidential winners go pick your favorite liar and dream at night of holding hands and skipping throuigh fileds of Lillies, because these guys will act just like Bush and Obama did, We have seen this since 911 and the orders come from the top Globalists, and Pentagon.
Face the facts , they can talk all of the puppet shit they want, the real rulers will either help them through lobbying efforts, and stop them with their vast amounts of cash they print at will.
My guess is Obama will win, but the House and Senate will be packed with new folks, and we can only pray they represent the ,middle class, or its 8 more years of the wealthiest globalists running the show.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 13, 2011)

Richard, I don't have the energy. You're hopelessly out of touch.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 13, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Dec 13 said:


> Richard, I don't have the energy. You're hopelessly out of touch.



+1. If after all the evidence of ratings agencies colluding with financial institutions and horrible bets made by AIG, Deutsche Bank, etc etc etc haven't convinced you that this was a gigantic CDO/CDS boondoggle of mortgage tranche overvaluation that American taxpayers eventually paid for, you simply can't or don't read. The fact that there's individual culpability? Sure. The fact that it was these individual home buyers who almost took down the entire global financial system? Risible and entirely dismissible dogma.There's no logic to your position, just some sort of blind belief in some Puritan ethic that has little to do with the demonstrable and rapacious collusion and greed that caused all of this.

I can direct you to multliple credible sources who will say the same. What are your credible reference points for putting the overall burden of the housing collapse and subsequent need for bailouts on the consumer? Do you actually read anything? Even more to the point, do you ever read anything that doesn't support your position, to get some perspective?


----------



## rgames (Dec 13, 2011)

I guess I'm not sure what the discussions is about any more. You guys keep talking about how badly the banks behaved and how they brought down the world financial markets. OK. I'm not talking about the banking crisis. It happened. Banks were naughty. Yep. People were stupid. What does that have to do with the wealth gap? Or the Facebook IPO? Or all the money that's going to the top income earners?

Since you're responding to my points on the wealth gap, you seem to be implying that naughty banks somehow created the wealth gap. There's no way that can be true - see my previous posts. So why do you keep going on about it? I don't think I'm disagreeing with anything you're saying.

Banks were naughty. I agree.
Banks should be punished. I agree.
Banks hold too much influence in DC. I agree.

Let's say you fix those problems. Are you saying the wealth gap will disappear? No way. They have almost nothing to do with the problems that cause the wealth gap, as I explained above.

Like I said, you can help me understand by completing this sentence:

When we get increased regulation on the banks, the wealth gap will disappear because ______.

And Larry:

My sources are mainstream - mostly NPR, NBC, government data (shocking! who does that?!?), and a big dose of personal experience. But I rely on one very special source to make sense of it all: my own brain. You seem to imply that I'm parroting things I hear elsewhere without checking the facts. On what basis do you make that claim? Please provide the link to the discussion where I've done that. Seriously, I want to see where you got your information on that one. Since you threw in the fact-checking card, let's do some fact-checking!

Taking someone else's thoughts is like taking someone else's music: it ain't yours! Use it to provoke new thoughts; don't cut and paste.

I don't judge credibility on the basis of the source - I judge credibility on the merits of the information presented. Is it a good idea? Does it make sense? If so, who cares where it came from? If your favorite "credible" source told you the earth is flat, would you start believing that the earth is flat?

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 13, 2011)

"You can summarize that entire paragraph with one statement: people make bad choices.

People make bad choices when they pile on debt they can't afford. And people make bad choices when they take risky bets. They're one in the same: bad choices."

Mm hmm. I guess that's why the world economy faltered-all those greedy middle income people taking on debt they couldn't afford. Mm hmm.


----------



## rgames (Dec 13, 2011)

OK. I'm totally lost. And I haven't even been drinking tonight...

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 13, 2011)

Richard:

"Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t -- and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up."


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 13, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Dec 13 said:


> OK. I'm totally lost. And I haven't even been drinking tonight...
> 
> rgames



Sorry Richard, I was quoting you. No wonder you're confused.


----------



## rgames (Dec 13, 2011)

When we get increased regulation on the banks, the wealth gap will disappear because ______.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 13, 2011)

Of course it's not that simple, but had Glass-Steagall still been on the books, maybe the participation of hybrid commercial banks/investment banks wouldn't have been allowed to make these unsecured bets , millions of people wouldn't have lost their homes, a world financial crisis in which many of the wealthy actually PROFITED might have been averted.

Also, if you think Goldman Sachs, for example, should be selling and recommending investment vehicles to their customers that they themselves think are crap and are actively betting against, we live on different planets.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 14, 2011)

> When we get increased regulation on the banks, the wealth gap will disappear because ______.



It won't disappear - that's impossible - and financial regulation alone is not enough. Campaign finance reform is also required. Combine those two things and the following major things will happen:

* Tax laws will be progressive as opposed to regressive as they are now. The rich and large corporations often (and on average) get away with paying an effectively low % of taxes. This is due to rich & corrupt lawmakers refusing to close loopholes and the continued Republican propaganda that the rich/big businesses are being taxed to death (they aren't, objectively speaking. They're doing better than ever.) Proper finance reforms will ensure these loopholes and injustices are properly eliminated, somewhat shrinking the gap as the rich will have to actually pay their fair share.

* Similar to the above point, reduction in corruption and lobbying will allow for more consumer-oriented legislation and viable political candidates willing to pass progressive policy. For example, we need infrastructure projects badly in the U.S. These projects are too big and not profitable enough for private industry to undertake, and they need federal funding. Such funding would create countless jobs (great for the economy, reducing wealth gap) and also improve the overall productivity of the average worker (again, good for economy, reduces wealth gap.) But such infrastructure improvements are blocked by conservative legislators for BS political reasons.

* Banks would be forced to actually act like banks and lend their money, as opposed to sitting on it or investing it into securities as they do now, which does nothing to benefit the vast majority of Americans and even the banks' customers. Small businesses, particularly startups, are the true job creators of America and they rely on credit to be able to function. Increase credit + lending to small businesses (either via bank regulation or federal programs funded by improved tax revenue) and you have more jobs and increased wealth to more Americans that wouldn't have otherwise had it.

* Stricter legislation for executes, particularly in the finance industry, would discourage moral hazard behavior. Right now, executives and CEOs of major companies can often make risky decisions and, even if those decisions fail, emerge with a multi-million dollar golden parachute. This is not good, but it is downright abysmal in the financial sector, since financial services companies have a massive impact on the rest of the economy. They need to be held to a higher standard of accountability. If people at the very highest level of decision making are shielded from their actions, even when those actions are explicitly criminal in nature (as opposed to just horrifically risky), then they will of course regularly make bad/risky decisions for their own self-benefit (eg. trying to make a quick buck in the short term at the expense of long-term profit/stability).

How's that for an answer to your question? I'd be happy to discuss any of these points in depth. You're an intelligent person, and I want you to understand why this is so important.


----------



## rgames (Dec 14, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Wed Dec 14 said:


> wouldn't have been allowed to make these unsecured bets , millions of people wouldn't have lost their homes, a world financial crisis in which many of the wealthy actually PROFITED might have been averted.


Again, not related to the wealth gap. People lost their homes because they made bad choices. Banks offered investors the opportunity to bet on those bad choices. The two parties got together and made a bet. Both lost. Tough luck. That has nothing to do with the wealth gap.

The number of mortgages in default was never more than about 10%. Right now, it's about 8%. Furthermore, 1/3 to 1/2 of those defaults are from people with plenty of income, so they're on the other side of the wealth gap. Given that the wealth gap affects probably 30% to 50% of Americans, you really want me to believe that mortgage defaults - which account for maybe 2% - 4% of people adversely affected by the wealth gap - are to blame? No way - the numbers don't add up. Not even close.

Just doesn't make sense guys...

Andrew:

Progressive/regressive tax issues affect all corporations, not just banks, and the gains to be had from changes to those laws will generate much more tax revenue outside the financial sector. That's the point: the banks really have little to do with it. If you want to pass legislation specific to banks, you're not going to do much of anything for the average American.

Corruption and lobbying - same thing. Not limited to banks and the gains to be had by going after them are tiny compared to what you could get elsewhere.

Bank lending - sure, it'll help a bit, but the bank loans that could be made available have a tiny fraction of the cash available in the country's corporate coffers. If you can tap those coffers and get them re-invested in the country instead of sitting on the books, there's a huge gain to be had there. Again, potential contribution from the banks is tiny compared to what you can achieve with a focus elsewhere.

Legislation for executives: again, no effect on the wealth gap. The people adversely affected by the wealth gap aren't making those bets. This is a problem, sure, but the guy worrying about putting food on the table isn't the one buying credit default swaps. So go ahead and get the legislation passed - as I already said, I support it. But don't think that you're doing anything to close the wealth gap. It will have (almost) no effect.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2011)

To be clear, nobody wants the wealth gap to disappear, just to shrink to a sustainable size. It's the power/influence gap that has to disappear, and Andrew is absolutely right about taking the money out of campaigns. That's ultimately the key to all our problems, regardless of the issue.

I've posted this before, but I volunteer in the office here a couple of hours a week:

http://www.caclean.org (www.caclean.org)


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 14, 2011)

> Progressive/regressive tax issues affect all corporations, not just banks, and the gains to be had from changes to those laws will generate much more tax revenue outside the financial sector. That's the point: the banks really have little to do with it. If you want to pass legislation specific to banks, you're not going to do much of anything for the average American.
> 
> Corruption and lobbying - same thing. Not limited to banks and the gains to be had by going after them are tiny compared to what you could get elsewhere.



I didn't say or suggest that these would (or should) be bank-specific. You're right, they do affect all corporations and wealthy individuals. For this to happen, we need campaign finance reform, as I did mention at the top of my post.



> Bank lending - sure, it'll help a bit, but the bank loans that could be made available have a tiny fraction of the cash available in the country's corporate coffers. If you can tap those coffers and get them re-invested in the country instead of sitting on the books, there's a huge gain to be had there. Again, potential contribution from the banks is tiny compared to what you can achieve with a focus elsewhere.



This is where I don't agree with your assessment. Banks are the lifeblood of our small business engine. Businesses need capital, particularly startups. Even with federal help (eg. SBA) we can't do too much socialization of private lending to businesses, otherwise we're back to privatizing gain and socializing risk. So, banks are (and need to be) the primary tools for getting money to businesses, who in turn create jobs, which circulates money, etc. This is where we need more regulation. Over the last 20-30 years, banks have transformed from primarily lending institutions to investors with an unhealthy focus on securities/derivatives. 



> Legislation for executives: again, no effect on the wealth gap. The people adversely affected by the wealth gap aren't making those bets. This is a problem, sure, but the guy worrying about putting food on the table isn't the one buying credit default swaps. So go ahead and get the legislation passed - as I already said, I support it. But don't think that you're doing anything to close the wealth gap. It will have (almost) no effect.



The latest financial crisis had a drastically negative effect on the wealth gap. It is without question that a major factor in the crisis was the extreme risk taking behavior (at a top corporate level in financial institutions) in purchasing and trading toxic mortgages. The executives involved with these activities, like Angelo Mozilo, got off with (effectively) a slap on the wrist. No significant fines or jail time, nothing to discourage future executives from making the same mistakes. Make risky investments? Sure, why not! Even if my company doesn't get bailed out, I'll still get my multi-million dollar golden parachute and valuable stock. If we had much tighter regulation and harsher punishments for such executives, there is no question that we could have avoided the crisis (and not widened the gap further.)


----------



## rgames (Dec 14, 2011)

zircon_st @ Wed Dec 14 said:


> I didn't say or suggest that these would (or should) be bank-specific. You're right, they do affect all corporations and wealthy individuals.


This is the crux of the issue: I keep saying that the focus on banks is silly and everyone keeps coming back to the banks. They're not the biggest problem if your concern is the wealth gap.

Sure, include them in a broader agenda to reduce the wealth gap, but don't make them the focus. It's a waste of time.

Yes, they're naughty. And yes, they've done bad things. But righting those wrongs isn't going to do much for the average American.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2011)

The problem is both a wealth and a power gap. They own our government, and if they keep this up we will have another crash.

The banks are exactly the right target.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 14, 2011)

I wouldn't mind seeing the OWS shift its focus( no one can argue the fact that its focus has been pretty, well, unfocused) to political pressure on the legal system to prosecute the "naughty" miscreants involved in this huge financial boondoggle. As Richard said, it would do little to shrink the wealth gap, but it would do a lot for the American public's desire for social justice. The man stealing a $10,000 car gets two years in jail, while those who steal millions walk away with no jail time and their fortunes intact? Hmmm.

As long as the OWS people are being portrayed as wild-eyed radicals, I sort of like this "Occupy Foreclosures" angle as well-find a person who's a victim of predatory lending and go occupy his/her home and fix it up, prevent the banks from foreclosing. It's amazing how effective local publicity is at shaming financial institutions.


----------

