"Make Wall Street Pay" Takes Off
Watch out for those torches and pitchforks on your way to work for the next couple weeks, guys. The natives are restless.
The National People's Action group has launched a new campaign called Make Wall Street Pay under the tagline, "Because we're done picking up their tab." The rumpus kicked off on Monday with protesters and foreclosed families descending on the National Association of Attorneys General spring conference in DC to demand the jailing of Wall Street bankers.
Trumka, head of the nation’s largest union organization, is hoping to tap into that kind of anger at Wall Street with two weeks of protests aimed at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the most profitable securities firm in U.S. history, and the country’s five other largest banks. The AFL-CIO says it plans 200 events covering all 50 states, starting March 15.
Now, you guys know I'm generally sympathetic to the less fortunate and I'm more than willing to blame Wall Street when it's appropriate. But this shit is pure theater, engineered by the labor unions who are suffering from waning membership numbers and their growing irrelevance.
They say they're doing it to get a Wall Street transaction tax enacted, ostensibly to pay for job growth on Main Street. What they're really doing is what they alway do: trotting out the poor for the TV cameras and doing everything they can to stoke class warfare. Nevermind that the union heads are all millionaires in their own right - pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
It's a pretty despicable way to cash in on the misery of others. I'm all for homeowners who've been screwed by the banks banding together in massive class action lawsuits, and I'd frankly like to see the worst offenders on Wall Street bankrupted. But this kind of populist Kabuki theater accomplishes nothing.
And that's a shame, because millions of people really do need help out there.
What will you guys say to the Make Wall Street Pay mobs when they show up at your bank?
Comments
Phase 1: high
Phase 1: high inequality
Phase 2: worse off people 'rise up' because inequality is 'unfair'
Phase 3: measures such as specific taxes or higher min wages spread a bit of wealth to worse off people
Phase 4: worse off people spend money, a fraction of which leaks into the pockets of business owners
Phase 5: this continues until the supposedly 'high inequality' is restored
Phase 6: repeat
S&T Careers - The only trading interview guide you will ever need
If you have any questions email them to me at [email protected]
Sigh, if mainstreet learn to
Sigh, if mainstreet learn to work harder and stop pulling stupid stunts like this, income inequality wont exist
nghks1 wrote: Sigh, if
Sigh, if mainstreet learn to work harder and stop pulling stupid stunts like this, income inequality wont exist
So, I tend to kind of agreed with a lot of the arguments made about how Wall Street isn't completely to blame for some aspects of the crisis but I don't think you can say 'Main Street' doesn't work hard. Its not like you pounding on excel is slave labor. There are certainly cases where lazy people just like to bitch and moan but hard working is 90% of the job description for a lot of the blue collar jobs that hate the shit out of Wall Street (see: construction worker, ditch digger, etc.) I would say that working smarter might be a better way to phrase it.
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
Wall Street is a small
Wall Street is a small community but it's a very big place. Just because you work at a Financial Institution does not mean you are part of the problem. Me and the people I work with had nothing to do with any of the bullshit that caused the crash, yet we take the heat as much as everyone else does for the crisis. That's what these dumbass union folk think.
To put it comparatively and using Big Evil here... The Public Union Leadership are responsible for political contributions and significant lobbying for the improvement of their situation to the point where the leadership believes that they are entitled to everything instead of agreeing to make a few concessions in order to help keep things moving swimmingly. Their members might not agree (and I can think of a few Teachers in New Jersey who hate having to walk the party line) and their members are not responsible for the bullshit of forced servitude to their masters, yet those members are still clumped in with the unions.
Unfortunately, the Unions don't think rationally when their sacred cow status is challenged. They never will... and that's the sad truth.
That's why sacred cows make
That's why sacred cows make the best burgers.
A bill for what? TARP? the
A bill for what? TARP? the money thats pretty much been paid with a ton of interest? Shxt like this really gets under my skin. Wasn't the economic recovery act basically money to the states to create jobs through projects ect....That last one was a serious question thought, I mean if Obama's plan to create jobs has left you out in the cold, maybe you should be protesting the white house.
You give me a gift? *BAM* Thank you note! You invite me somewhere? *POW* RSVP! You do me a favor? *WHAM* Favor returned! Do not test my politeness.
happypantsmcgee wrote: So, I
So, I tend to kind of agreed with a lot of the arguments made about how Wall Street isn't completely to blame for some aspects of the crisis but I don't think you can say 'Main Street' doesn't work hard. Its not like you pounding on excel is slave labor. There are certainly cases where lazy people just like to bitch and moan but hard working is 90% of the job description for a lot of the blue collar jobs that hate the shit out of Wall Street (see: construction worker, ditch digger, etc.) I would say that working smarter might be a better way to phrase it.
There will always be a transfer of wealth from dumb money to smart money.
If you have a society of 100 people, 5 of which are smart and 95 of which are equally dumb, and each person is endowed with the same amount of initial wealth. Now as time goes on, the 5 people who are smart will come up with ideas on how to produce goods and services which the rest of the population will want to buy (these are the owners), and they might hire the other 95 to help them do the labor (these are the workers). Therefore as time goes on inequality will inevatibly grow. Inequality is just a natural occurence in the case of a heterogenous population where some people value immediate consumption while others value capital accumulation.
The ideas by people trying to redistribute wealth is the same as the wealth getting reset every once in a while. Not only will this reduce the owners incentive to come up with goods and services but also not do anything for inequality as it is a static measure trying to solve a dynamic process.
S&T Careers - The only trading interview guide you will ever need
If you have any questions email them to me at [email protected]
nghks1 wrote: Sigh, if
Sigh, if mainstreet learn to work harder and stop pulling stupid stunts like this, income inequality wont exist
W.T.F!! I can't tell if you're serious or just high on some Charlie Sheen...
derivstrading
So, I tend to kind of agreed with a lot of the arguments made about how Wall Street isn't completely to blame for some aspects of the crisis but I don't think you can say 'Main Street' doesn't work hard. Its not like you pounding on excel is slave labor. There are certainly cases where lazy people just like to bitch and moan but hard working is 90% of the job description for a lot of the blue collar jobs that hate the shit out of Wall Street (see: construction worker, ditch digger, etc.) I would say that working smarter might be a better way to phrase it.
There will always be a transfer of wealth from dumb money to smart money.
If you have a society of 100 people, 5 of which are smart and 95 of which are equally dumb, and each person is endowed with the same amount of initial wealth. Now as time goes on, the 5 people who are smart will come up with ideas on how to produce goods and services which the rest of the population will want to buy (these are the owners), and they might hire the other 95 to help them do the labor (these are the workers). Therefore as time goes on inequality will inevatibly grow. Inequality is just a natural occurence in the case of a heterogenous population where some people value immediate consumption while others value capital accumulation.
The ideas by people trying to redistribute wealth is the same as the wealth getting reset every once in a while. Not only will this reduce the owners incentive to come up with goods and services but also not do anything for inequality as it is a static measure trying to solve a dynamic process.
Dervis, I agree I was just saying that I don't think Main Street's problem is there inability or unwillingness to work hard.
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
right happypantsmcgee, it
right happypantsmcgee, it definetly not the willingness to work, wealth is just not distributed evenly. Its the way things are unless you want a socialist society. I see it as main street upset they are seeing how much money is being made by those on wall street and want a piece of the pie, I don't know if I would call it jeolousy but very close.......And good reference to the 5 smart people analogy, I agree.
You give me a gift? *BAM* Thank you note! You invite me somewhere? *POW* RSVP! You do me a favor? *WHAM* Favor returned! Do not test my politeness.
derivstrading
So, I tend to kind of agreed with a lot of the arguments made about how Wall Street isn't completely to blame for some aspects of the crisis but I don't think you can say 'Main Street' doesn't work hard. Its not like you pounding on excel is slave labor. There are certainly cases where lazy people just like to bitch and moan but hard working is 90% of the job description for a lot of the blue collar jobs that hate the shit out of Wall Street (see: construction worker, ditch digger, etc.) I would say that working smarter might be a better way to phrase it.
There will always be a transfer of wealth from dumb money to smart money.
If you have a society of 100 people, 5 of which are smart and 95 of which are equally dumb, and each person is endowed with the same amount of initial wealth. Now as time goes on, the 5 people who are smart will come up with ideas on how to produce goods and services which the rest of the population will want to buy (these are the owners), and they might hire the other 95 to help them do the labor (these are the workers). Therefore as time goes on inequality will inevatibly grow. Inequality is just a natural occurence in the case of a heterogenous population where some people value immediate consumption while others value capital accumulation.
The ideas by people trying to redistribute wealth is the same as the wealth getting reset every once in a while. Not only will this reduce the owners incentive to come up with goods and services but also not do anything for inequality as it is a static measure trying to solve a dynamic process.
True, but life is not some simulation where everyone has the same starting point. I know some idiots who will inherit hundreds of millions. If we started at the same point I'd easily turn those hundreds of millions into billions, whereas I doubt they'll be able to do much with it besides buy yachts, ferraris, and hookers (and throw money at shitty businesses). They will just feed off the interest/income from the existing wealth/business. I'm a libertarian, but I believe we should make the playing field level so that the argument that your net worth represents your real worth to society can hold true. That's why I'm for really high estate taxes, for example.
www.jetcigs.com - Use coupon code WSO30 for 30% off
alexpasch wrote: True, but
True, but life is not some simulation where everyone has the same starting point. I know some idiots who will inherit hundreds of millions. If we started at the same point I'd easily turn those hundreds of millions into billions, whereas I doubt they'll be able to do much with it besides buy yachts, ferraris, and hookers (and throw money at shitty businesses). They will just feed off the interest/income from the existing wealth/business. I'm a libertarian, but I believe we should make the playing field level so that the argument that your net worth represents your real worth to society can hold true. That's why I'm for really high estate taxes, for example.
I dont understand inheritance taxes at all, the person who earned that wealth has the right to do what he wants with that money. If it means giving it to his kids that will piss it all away then so be it, why should there be a tax on passing wealth through generations?
Either way, when these idiots inherit money and all they do is spend it, where do you think this money goes? The guy working at the ferrari dealership makes money, the guy building the ferrari makes money, the hooker makes money, the guy who owns the yacht business makes money. Its all just a transfer of wealth. People should want people who have a lot of money to spend as much of the money as possible, instead of accumulating it.
S&T Careers - The only trading interview guide you will ever need
If you have any questions email them to me at [email protected]
derivstrading
True, but life is not some simulation where everyone has the same starting point. I know some idiots who will inherit hundreds of millions. If we started at the same point I'd easily turn those hundreds of millions into billions, whereas I doubt they'll be able to do much with it besides buy yachts, ferraris, and hookers (and throw money at shitty businesses). They will just feed off the interest/income from the existing wealth/business. I'm a libertarian, but I believe we should make the playing field level so that the argument that your net worth represents your real worth to society can hold true. That's why I'm for really high estate taxes, for example.
I dont understand inheritance taxes at all, the person who earned that wealth has the right to do what he wants with that money. If it means giving it to his kids that will piss it all away then so be it, why should there be a tax on passing wealth through generations?
Either way, when these idiots inherit money and all they do is spend it, where do you think this money goes? The guy working at the ferrari dealership makes money, the guy building the ferrari makes money, the hooker makes money, the guy who owns the yacht business makes money. Its all just a transfer of wealth. People should want people who have a lot of money to spend as much of the money as possible, instead of accumulating it.
Instead of the gov't getting it so they can provide foreign aid, and in that case nobody wins.....
You give me a gift? *BAM* Thank you note! You invite me somewhere? *POW* RSVP! You do me a favor? *WHAM* Favor returned! Do not test my politeness.
derivstrading
True, but life is not some simulation where everyone has the same starting point. I know some idiots who will inherit hundreds of millions. If we started at the same point I'd easily turn those hundreds of millions into billions, whereas I doubt they'll be able to do much with it besides buy yachts, ferraris, and hookers (and throw money at shitty businesses). They will just feed off the interest/income from the existing wealth/business. I'm a libertarian, but I believe we should make the playing field level so that the argument that your net worth represents your real worth to society can hold true. That's why I'm for really high estate taxes, for example.
I dont understand inheritance taxes at all, the person who earned that wealth has the right to do what he wants with that money. If it means giving it to his kids that will piss it all away then so be it, why should there be a tax on passing wealth through generations?
Either way, when these idiots inherit money and all they do is spend it, where do you think this money goes? The guy working at the ferrari dealership makes money, the guy building the ferrari makes money, the hooker makes money, the guy who owns the yacht business makes money. Its all just a transfer of wealth. People should want people who have a lot of money to spend as much of the money as possible, instead of accumulating it.
I disagree, in my view inheritance tax ought to be 100% over some amount. Yes, the money goes to the economy, but the fact that it does not goes instantly is a capital mis-allocation. I am not so much for equality, as for mobility, inheritance reduces this, along with markets proper capital allocation. Inheritance tax fix a market failure.
Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus
Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
derivstrading
True, but life is not some simulation where everyone has the same starting point. I know some idiots who will inherit hundreds of millions. If we started at the same point I'd easily turn those hundreds of millions into billions, whereas I doubt they'll be able to do much with it besides buy yachts, ferraris, and hookers (and throw money at shitty businesses). They will just feed off the interest/income from the existing wealth/business. I'm a libertarian, but I believe we should make the playing field level so that the argument that your net worth represents your real worth to society can hold true. That's why I'm for really high estate taxes, for example.
I dont understand inheritance taxes at all, the person who earned that wealth has the right to do what he wants with that money. If it means giving it to his kids that will piss it all away then so be it, why should there be a tax on passing wealth through generations?
Either way, when these idiots inherit money and all they do is spend it, where do you think this money goes? The guy working at the ferrari dealership makes money, the guy building the ferrari makes money, the hooker makes money, the guy who owns the yacht business makes money. Its all just a transfer of wealth. People should want people who have a lot of money to spend as much of the money as possible, instead of accumulating it.
Personally I don't think that there should be an inheritance tax either, but actually getting people to agree on that.....good luck. However, if the side that wants the tax is stubborn, at least compromise to where there is no tax on say, businesses that get passed on to the kids. How many times do you see where the owner dies and they have to sell the business just to pay the tax? When most of the value of the inheritance is wrapped up into the business, it should be exempt. If it's cold hard cash, pay the tax and the kids can go buy one Ferrari instead of two. If it's a business at least they can create more wealth for themselves and more jobs if they can grow it.
I'm always in favor of a good
Edmundo Braverman wrote: this
I just had my first UFO experience.
I called my wife fat while we were making dinner.
Flying saucers everywhere XD
Class warfare bitches...load
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
1man2nv wrote: A bill for
Check out my WSO Blog
nghks1 wrote: Sigh, if
Check out my WSO Blog
It's too late to "Make Wall
Financial Modeling Training
Guide to Finance Interviews
I think it can be distilled
El_Mono wrote: derivstrading
I need a crib, a big estate, I need a boat and that need a lake, I need some salmon that need a plate, that need a chef so I feed my safe
From trading equities to slanging wine in Latin America
A ship is safe in harbor, but that is not what a ship i
TheKing wrote: 1man2nv
You give me a gift? *BAM* Thank you note! You invite me somewhere? *POW* RSVP! You do me a favor? *WHAM* Favor returned! Do not test my politeness.
Aggravate wrote: I think it
Trumka?! T ragic R ectal U
Where I unload on Twits and take verbal S***s
Aggravate wrote: As a side
Edmundo Braverman
investment bankers should
Also every company tries to
You give me a gift? *BAM* Thank you note! You invite me somewhere? *POW* RSVP! You do me a favor? *WHAM* Favor returned! Do not test my politeness.
I just find the Irony here to
lol exactly, they all thought
You give me a gift? *BAM* Thank you note! You invite me somewhere? *POW* RSVP! You do me a favor? *WHAM* Favor returned! Do not test my politeness.
monkeysama wrote: Aggravate
Quote my office just recieved
You give me a gift? *BAM* Thank you note! You invite me somewhere? *POW* RSVP! You do me a favor? *WHAM* Favor returned! Do not test my politeness.
Why not tax the unions? All
Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays
heister wrote: Why not tax
I just had my first UFO experience.
I called my wife fat while we were making dinner.
Flying saucers everywhere XD
derivstrading][quote=happypan
Mike321][quote=derivstrading
You give me a gift? *BAM* Thank you note! You invite me somewhere? *POW* RSVP! You do me a favor? *WHAM* Favor returned! Do not test my politeness.
Mike321 wrote: You're analogy
S&T Careers - The only trading interview guide you will ever need
If you have any questions email them to me at [email protected]
derivstrading wrote: Mike321
^ philosophical abstractions
I just had my first UFO experience.
I called my wife fat while we were making dinner.
Flying saucers everywhere XD
UFOinsider wrote: After a
Mike321 wrote: UFOinsider
I just had my first UFO experience.
I called my wife fat while we were making dinner.
Flying saucers everywhere XD
shorttheworld wrote: El_Mono
Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus
Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
Aggravate wrote: nghks1
nhks1 I see where your coming
You give me a gift? *BAM* Thank you note! You invite me somewhere? *POW* RSVP! You do me a favor? *WHAM* Favor returned! Do not test my politeness.
I'm not wading into this one
- Capt K -
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham
CaptK wrote: I'm not wading
Did anyone else read "Make
Henry Paulson should be the
Lunch is for wimps.