• Sharebar

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.

Quote:
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 (60)

  • derivstrading's picture

    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

  • nghks1's picture

    Sigh, if mainstreet learn to work harder and stop pulling stupid stunts like this, income inequality wont exist

  • In reply to nghks1
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    nghks1 wrote:
    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

  • Frieds's picture

    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.

  • 1man2nv's picture

    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.

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    derivstrading's picture

    happypantsmcgee wrote:

    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.

  • In reply to derivstrading
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    derivstrading wrote:
    happypantsmcgee wrote:

    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

  • 1man2nv's picture

    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.

  • In reply to derivstrading
    alexpasch's picture

    derivstrading wrote:
    happypantsmcgee wrote:

    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.

    Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

  • In reply to alexpasch
    derivstrading's picture

    alexpasch wrote:

    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.

  • In reply to derivstrading
    1man2nv's picture

    derivstrading wrote:
    alexpasch wrote:

    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.

  • In reply to derivstrading
    El_Mono's picture

    derivstrading wrote:
    alexpasch wrote:

    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!

  • In reply to derivstrading
    BetTheFarm's picture

    derivstrading wrote:
    alexpasch wrote:

    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.

  • monkeysama's picture

    I'm always in favor of a good riot.

  • UFOinsider's picture

    Edmundo Braverman wrote:
    this shit is pure theater, engineered by the labor unions who are suffering from waning membership numbers and their growing irrelevance

    I totally agree. Personally, I work at a firm that didn't take a penny of bailout money, so I pitch us as "helping to fix Wall Street from the inside out"....and it fucking works. Thank you to all the firms that fucked up and made my life easier.

    nghks1 wrote:
    Sigh, if mainstreet learn to work harder and stop pulling stupid stunts like this, income inequality wont exist

    Wow, you are an ingorant little punk. Even if this were true [and I assure you it's not] you don't make it a point to openly distain people farther down the totem pole. This attitude fuels the anger towards us.

    Get busy living

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    Class warfare bitches...load your guns and lock your doors, they're taxin' errbody out here

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to 1man2nv
    TheKing's picture

    1man2nv wrote:
    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.

    I am not pro union and think the union heads are mostly idiots, but the bailouts went far beyond TARP. TARP was just a small piece of the puzzle. If you think otherwise than you need to do some homework.

  • In reply to nghks1
    TheKing's picture

    nghks1 wrote:
    Sigh, if mainstreet learn to work harder and stop pulling stupid stunts like this, income inequality wont exist

    Are you retarded?

  • GoodBread's picture

    It's too late to "Make Wall Street Pay." The taxpayer will have to wait for the next crisis and see his efforts thwarted again as banks still pose systemic risks.

  • In reply to 1man2nv
    Aggravate's picture

    I think it can be distilled further to a simple issue of people being enraged about an insane system of risk and reward. The public perception, and not entirely an unfair one, is that a lot of folks got incredibly rich in a system that was "heads I win, tails your lose." Nobody really went to jail and more importantly you don't see many of the decision makers bankrupted, I mean truly destitute. Dick Fuld isn't going to be missing any meals and his kids aren't going to be deprived of any opportunities. There's plenty of blame to go around at all economic levels for lenders (losers - lots of financial institutions), middlemen (winners -some financial institutions) and borrowers (on a whole probably losers - mainstreet) in this whole mess. But the thing that really pisses people off, even highly educated folks who work in a different field, is the notion that people who made out like bandits 2002-2007 didn't get truly gutted and in same cases were able to reverse position fast enough that they won on both sides.

    That said, I don't give a rats ass what any of mainstreeters calling for my incarceration want until they vote unanimously to raise taxes on the wealthy. Luckily they all think they'll win the lottery and will be rich one day. Got to love folks who consistently vote against their own economic interest.

    nghks1 wrote:
    Sigh, if mainstreet learn to work harder and stop pulling stupid stunts like this, income inequality wont exist

    I've done a couple different things in my life. I've spent 14 hours a day in meetings flipping through power point slides and I've played exciting games of hide and seek with people trying to kill me in sand filled shit holes for months at a time. The worst job I ever had was in high school as a package delivery runner for UPS. The guy who drove the truck was 45 years-old, looked and moved like he was 65 and spent 60 hours a week moving heavy shit in freezing cold weather so some Yuppy asshole could complain about not wanting to come down from his fourth floor walk-up to get a package. Son on behalf of the infantrymen, teamsters and other people too lazy and stupid to have a "real" job everywhere: die in a fire.

    1man2nv wrote:
    Instead of the gov't getting it so they can provide foreign aid, and in that case nobody wins.....

    You mean the money that allows C-17 to fly out of Turkey to drop Rangers instead of approaching over a much more dangerous southern route from Saudia Arabia in 2003? Or the money that allows us to hand over highly time sensitive interrogations to our friends in Eqypt because we aren't allowed to do what's necessary to save American lives? That money? You call it foreign aid and I call it payment for services rendered. Think of it as picking up the tab for a big client at a restaurant, it’s the cost of doing business.

    As a side note, if you really want to cut spending you should consider death panels. Old people suck. They drive slow, believe crazy things and most of them at this point had nothing to do with WWII. All we have to do is get the medical community behind it a little and most of the ones I know are money and status whores (who does that sound like?) so I figure we can just give them $200 and a high five for every old person with no ability to pay they help "triage" down the line. Who's with me?

  • In reply to El_Mono
    shorttheworld's picture

    El_Mono wrote:
    derivstrading wrote:
    alexpasch wrote:

    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.

    and businesses should instantly be dissolved because their private owner/father of the family company died? yea, youre on crack

  • In reply to TheKing
    1man2nv's picture

    TheKing wrote:
    1man2nv wrote:
    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.

    I am not pro union and think the union heads are mostly idiots, but the bailouts went far beyond TARP. TARP was just a small piece of the puzzle. If you think otherwise than you need to do some homework.

    I believe you, but I don't believe "main street" knows that, I think all they saw was the TARP, and thats what they are fighting.

    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.

  • In reply to Aggravate
    monkeysama's picture

    Aggravate wrote:
    I think it can be distilled further to a simple issue of people being enraged about an insane system of risk and reward. The public perception, and not entirely an unfair one, is that a lot of folks got incredibly rich in a system that was "heads I win, tails your lose." Nobody really went to jail and more importantly you don't see many of the decision makers bankrupted, I mean truly destitute. Dick Fuld isn't going to be missing any meals and his kids aren't going to be deprived of any opportunities. There's plenty of blame to go around at all economic levels for lenders (losers - lots of financial institutions), middlemen (winners -some financial institutions) and borrowers (on a whole probably losers - mainstreet) in this whole mess. But the thing that really pisses people off, even highly educated folks who work in a different field, is the notion that people who made out like bandits 2002-2007 didn't get truly gutted and in same cases were able to reverse position fast enough that they won on both sides.

    That said, I don't give a rats ass what any of mainstreeters calling for my incarceration want until they vote unanimously to raise taxes on the wealthy. Luckily they all think they'll win the lottery and will be rich one day. Got to love folks who consistently vote against their own economic interest.

    nghks1 wrote:
    Sigh, if mainstreet learn to work harder and stop pulling stupid stunts like this, income inequality wont exist

    I've done a couple different things in my life. I've spent 14 hours a day in meetings flipping through power point slides and I've played exciting games of hide and seek with people trying to kill me in sand filled shit holes for months at a time. The worst job I ever had was in high school as a package delivery runner for UPS. The guy who drove the truck was 45 years-old, looked and moved like he was 65 and spent 60 hours a week moving heavy shit in freezing cold weather so some Yuppy asshole could complain about not wanting to come down from his fourth floor walk-up to get a package. Son on behalf of the infantrymen, teamsters and other people too lazy and stupid to have a "real" job everywhere: die in a fire.

    1man2nv wrote:
    Instead of the gov't getting it so they can provide foreign aid, and in that case nobody wins.....

    You mean the money that allows C-17 to fly out of Turkey to drop Rangers instead of approaching over a much more dangerous southern route from Saudia Arabia in 2003? Or the money that allows us to hand over highly time sensitive interrogations to our friends in Eqypt because we aren't allowed to do what's necessary to save American lives? That money? You call it foreign aid and I call it payment for services rendered. Think of it as picking up the tab for a big client at a restaurant, it’s the cost of doing business.

    As a side note, if you really want to cut spending you should consider death panels. Old people suck. They drive slow, believe crazy things and most of them at this point had nothing to do with WWII. All we have to do is get the medical community behind it a little and most of the ones I know are money and status whores (who does that sound like?) so I figure we can just give them $200 and a high five for every old person with no ability to pay they help "triage" down the line. Who's with me?

    Shit son, I think I'm in bromance.

  • Midas Mulligan Magoo's picture

    Trumka?!

    T ragic

    R ectal

    U nionisation

    M asturbation

    K illing

    A merica

    Sounds like a fucking Estonian supercar,
    I'll take mine kasha powered comrade.

  • In reply to Aggravate
    Edmundo Braverman's picture

    Aggravate wrote:
    As a side note, if you really want to cut spending you should consider death panels. Old people suck. They drive slow, believe crazy things and most of them at this point had nothing to do with WWII. All we have to do is get the medical community behind it a little and most of the ones I know are money and status whores (who does that sound like?) so I figure we can just give them $200 and a high five for every old person with no ability to pay they help "triage" down the line. Who's with me?

    Epic. Should start at age 45. I've had a good run.

  • In reply to Edmundo Braverman
    coach.captain's picture

    Edmundo Braverman wrote:
    Aggravate wrote:
    As a side note, if you really want to cut spending you should consider death panels. Old people suck. They drive slow, believe crazy things and most of them at this point had nothing to do with WWII. All we have to do is get the medical community behind it a little and most of the ones I know are money and status whores (who does that sound like?) so I figure we can just give them $200 and a high five for every old person with no ability to pay they help "triage" down the line. Who's with me?

    Epic. Should start at age 45. I've had a good run.

    ^LMAO

  • blastoise's picture

    investment bankers should make a union called young money the theme song can be I made it.

  • 1man2nv's picture

    Also every company tries to minimize their tax exposure.......why come after banks only. Why not just go after anybody who is making financially stable.

    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.

  • Frieds's picture

    I just find the Irony here to be great... The Unions (and Main Street, the Politicians, and pretty much everyone not employed in Finance) are angry at Wall Street, yet before the crash, they didn't give a damn what Wall Street did because everyone was under the impression that things would continue to rise for a long time and as long as their investments and pensions were beating the markets and making returns, they didn't see or care for the risks that lied ahead. And now they are bitching.... go figure.

  • 1man2nv's picture

    lol exactly, they all thought extra homes and "flipping" them for profit was so great! People are such hypcrites. I don't think politicians are ignorant to this either, I think they believe as long as they side with the "unfortunate" they will continue to get elected.

    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.

  • In reply to monkeysama
    blastoise's picture

    monkeysama wrote:
    Aggravate wrote:
    I think it can be distilled further to a simple issue of people being enraged about an insane system of risk and reward. The public perception, and not entirely an unfair one, is that a lot of folks got incredibly rich in a system that was "heads I win, tails your lose." Nobody really went to jail and more importantly you don't see many of the decision makers bankrupted, I mean truly destitute. Dick Fuld isn't going to be missing any meals and his kids aren't going to be deprived of any opportunities. There's plenty of blame to go around at all economic levels for lenders (losers - lots of financial institutions), middlemen (winners -some financial institutions) and borrowers (on a whole probably losers - mainstreet) in this whole mess. But the thing that really pisses people off, even highly educated folks who work in a different field, is the notion that people who made out like bandits 2002-2007 didn't get truly gutted and in same cases were able to reverse position fast enough that they won on both sides.

    That said, I don't give a rats ass what any of mainstreeters calling for my incarceration want until they vote unanimously to raise taxes on the wealthy. Luckily they all think they'll win the lottery and will be rich one day. Got to love folks who consistently vote against their own economic interest.

    nghks1 wrote:
    Sigh, if mainstreet learn to work harder and stop pulling stupid stunts like this, income inequality wont exist

    I've done a couple different things in my life. I've spent 14 hours a day in meetings flipping through power point slides and I've played exciting games of hide and seek with people trying to kill me in sand filled shit holes for months at a time. The worst job I ever had was in high school as a package delivery runner for UPS. The guy who drove the truck was 45 years-old, looked and moved like he was 65 and spent 60 hours a week moving heavy shit in freezing cold weather so some Yuppy asshole could complain about not wanting to come down from his fourth floor walk-up to get a package. Son on behalf of the infantrymen, teamsters and other people too lazy and stupid to have a "real" job everywhere: die in a fire.

    1man2nv wrote:
    Instead of the gov't getting it so they can provide foreign aid, and in that case nobody wins.....

    You mean the money that allows C-17 to fly out of Turkey to drop Rangers instead of approaching over a much more dangerous southern route from Saudia Arabia in 2003? Or the money that allows us to hand over highly time sensitive interrogations to our friends in Eqypt because we aren't allowed to do what's necessary to save American lives? That money? You call it foreign aid and I call it payment for services rendered. Think of it as picking up the tab for a big client at a restaurant, it’s the cost of doing business.

    As a side note, if you really want to cut spending you should consider death panels. Old people suck. They drive slow, believe crazy things and most of them at this point had nothing to do with WWII. All we have to do is get the medical community behind it a little and most of the ones I know are money and status whores (who does that sound like?) so I figure we can just give them $200 and a high five for every old person with no ability to pay they help "triage" down the line. Who's with me?

    Shit son, I think I'm in bromance.

    lol agree

  • 1man2nv's picture

    Quote my office just recieved from the fed:

    "protesters want state and federal bank regulators to force mortgage lenders to reduce principal and lower interest rates for homeowners who owe more than their house is worth."

    So you tell me what risk do borrowers share when it comes to buying their home? Their happy just as long as its appreciating, but as soon as depreciation kicks in banks need to lower the principal to match.

    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.

  • heister's picture

    Why not tax the unions? All of those union fees should be taxed a the corporate tax rate of 40%. You want to kill the unions quick do this. Union members will get pissed when 50% more has to be taken out of their checks to keep the "status quo" of the union bosses.

    Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

    Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

  • In reply to heister
    UFOinsider's picture

    heister wrote:
    Why not tax the unions? All of those union fees should be taxed a the corporate tax rate of 40%. You want to kill the unions quick do this. Union members will get pissed when 50% more has to be taken out of their checks to keep the "status quo" of the union bosses.

    That's actually pretty fucking brilliant. This is the first time I've seen this suggestion.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to derivstrading
    Mike321's picture

    derivstrading][quote=happypantsmcgee wrote:

    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.

    You're analogy would be flawless if the world consisted of the same 100 people generation after generation, but it doesn't.

    Social services are created to redistribute wealth so that equal opportunity exists. The kid whose daddy runs a hedge fund and the child living off his mother's welfare were dealt a very different set of cards. In that case I believe that redistribution is justified. Of course, a lot of these services get abused and people frequently overly depend on them.

    I can partly understand the unrest... When the middle class man gets laid off, the government does little - he simply can't afford to be unemployed. Meanwhile, the government took extreme measures to ensure that bankers didn't lose their jobs, and those people could have easily afforded unemployment.

    Of course you can argue that the US economy would have collapsed without those bailouts, and I hate unions just as much as the rest of you. However, redistribution is necessary to a certain extent.

  • In reply to Mike321
    1man2nv's picture

    Mike321][quote=derivstrading wrote:
    happypantsmcgee wrote:

    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.

    You're analogy would be flawless if the world consisted of the same 100 people generation after generation, but it doesn't.

    Social services are created to redistribute wealth so that equal opportunity exists. The kid whose daddy runs a hedge fund and the child living off his mother's welfare were dealt a very different set of cards. In that case I believe that redistribution is justified. Of course, a lot of these services get abused and people frequently overly depend on them.

    I can partly understand the unrest... When the middle class man gets laid off, the government does little - he simply can't afford to be unemployed. Meanwhile, the government took extreme measures to ensure that bankers didn't lose their jobs, and those people could have easily afforded unemployment.

    Of course you can argue that the US economy would have collapsed without those bailouts, and I hate unions just as much as the rest of you. However, redistribution is necessary to a certain extent.

    Don't you mean took extreme measures to make sure banks didn't fail and our financial system go into chaos? because I believe alot of bankers lost their job, many of whom are still unemployed.

    Also you make a great point about the two kids being dealt two different hands, but again were going to take it back to the parents. Because there are a good amount of kids who came from the low class who's parents instilled the value of education and morals into who made something of themselves.

    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.

  • In reply to Mike321
    derivstrading's picture

    Mike321 wrote:

    You're analogy would be flawless if the world consisted of the same 100 people generation after generation, but it doesn't.

    Social services are created to redistribute wealth so that equal opportunity exists. The kid whose daddy runs a hedge fund and the child living off his mother's welfare were dealt a very different set of cards. In that case I believe that redistribution is justified. Of course, a lot of these services get abused and people frequently overly depend on them.

    I can partly understand the unrest... When the middle class man gets laid off, the government does little - he simply can't afford to be unemployed. Meanwhile, the government took extreme measures to ensure that bankers didn't lose their jobs, and those people could have easily afforded unemployment.

    Of course you can argue that the US economy would have collapsed without those bailouts, and I hate unions just as much as the rest of you. However, redistribution is necessary to a certain extent.

    If you think that bailouts were done so that bankers dont lose their jobs you are delusional.

    And when the middle class man gets laid off nothing is done? Unemployment benefits are already in place.

    And I dont understand how you can justify a larger than normal in inheritance tax rate. The person who earned that wealth can do what he wants with it. If that means he gives it all to his children who waste it all then so be it. He can just as easily give it all to charity.

  • In reply to derivstrading
    Mike321's picture

    derivstrading wrote:
    Mike321 wrote:

    You're analogy would be flawless if the world consisted of the same 100 people generation after generation, but it doesn't.

    Social services are created to redistribute wealth so that equal opportunity exists. The kid whose daddy runs a hedge fund and the child living off his mother's welfare were dealt a very different set of cards. In that case I believe that redistribution is justified. Of course, a lot of these services get abused and people frequently overly depend on them.

    I can partly understand the unrest... When the middle class man gets laid off, the government does little - he simply can't afford to be unemployed. Meanwhile, the government took extreme measures to ensure that bankers didn't lose their jobs, and those people could have easily afforded unemployment.

    Of course you can argue that the US economy would have collapsed without those bailouts, and I hate unions just as much as the rest of you. However, redistribution is necessary to a certain extent.

    If you think that bailouts were done so that bankers dont lose their jobs you are delusional.

    And when the middle class man gets laid off nothing is done? Unemployment benefits are already in place.

    And I dont understand how you can justify a larger than normal in inheritance tax rate. The person who earned that wealth can do what he wants with it. If that means he gives it all to his children who waste it all then so be it. He can just as easily give it all to charity.

    I threw in the line "of course you can argue that the US economy would have collapsed without those bailouts" in order to imply that the bailout was a necessary preventative measure. After rereading my comment, I can understand the confusion. I meant to demonstrate the middle class perspective; the affluent bankers' jobs were saved (regardless the reason and its necessity), while theirs were not.

    I said "the government does little," not nothing.

    REALLY though, you want to mention unemployment benefits? The maximum an individual can gather in most states is less than $300 a week (before taxes). Furthermore, unemployment doesn't cover the self-employed and part time workers, but that's an entirely separate discussion.

    I never even mentioned the inheritance tax. Although if you spent time with children living below the poverty line (and saw how they're often destined to live a similar fate), I bet you'd be a little more open minded.

    This is getting way too off topic. I was simply defending the redistribution of wealth. Look around at your fellow BB employees; the majority of them came from wealthy families, a number of them from upper middle class, and a handful came from middle class families. Less than 1% have ever lived in poverty, although 14% of the US does. Class boundaries are difficult to overcome, and are often predetermined. I'm not promoting socialism, but some redistribution is necessary.

  • UFOinsider's picture

    ^ philosophical abstractions aside, if the system gets too top heavy, people will tear it down. It's just that simple. Think of it in terms of the GI Bill: after WWII millions of heavily armed and unemployed young men were returning home, and the gov't knew that if not properly directed, they would rapidly become a problem.

    While not all people taking advantage of social programs earned them, there is no reason why anyone should go hungry in a nation such as ours where there is so much wealth. After a person's basic survival needs are met though, I believe the rest is on YOU: if you want the 'good life' you have to work for it.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    Mike321's picture

    UFOinsider wrote:
    After a person's basic survival needs are met though, I believe the rest is on YOU: if you want the 'good life' you have to work for it.

    As long as you include a quality public education in that equation, then I am in agreement.

  • In reply to Mike321
    UFOinsider's picture

    Mike321 wrote:
    UFOinsider wrote:
    After a person's basic survival needs are met though, I believe the rest is on YOU: if you want the 'good life' you have to work for it.

    As long as you include a quality public education in that equation, then I am in agreement.


    Yes. After high school, you're on your own. Give or take.....college is a big thing now

    Get busy living

  • In reply to shorttheworld
    El_Mono's picture

    shorttheworld wrote:
    El_Mono wrote:
    derivstrading wrote:
    alexpasch wrote:

    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.

    and businesses should instantly be dissolved because their private owner/father of the family company died? yea, youre on crack

    Every kid gets some 20m. The rest is auctioned. It is also to be mentioned that the taxes during the owner's life will be far lower to compensate. Why would it need to be dissolved? Had the kids made their own money they could buy the shares too. Of course the overseeing would be though, but the willing to do it even more. Nah, im not on crack and understand its not feasible, but that is the optimal solution.

    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!

  • In reply to Aggravate
    nghks1's picture

    Aggravate wrote:

    nghks1 wrote:
    Sigh, if mainstreet learn to work harder and stop pulling stupid stunts like this, income inequality wont exist

    I've done a couple different things in my life. I've spent 14 hours a day in meetings flipping through power point slides and I've played exciting games of hide and seek with people trying to kill me in sand filled shit holes for months at a time. The worst job I ever had was in high school as a package delivery runner for UPS. The guy who drove the truck was 45 years-old, looked and moved like he was 65 and spent 60 hours a week moving heavy shit in freezing cold weather so some Yuppy asshole could complain about not wanting to come down from his fourth floor walk-up to get a package. Son on behalf of the infantrymen, teamsters and other people too lazy and stupid to have a "real" job everywhere: die in a fire.

    Seems like I have been drawing a lot of flake for my comments and I do concede that it was an immature statement. Just to clarify, I do not hold a disdain for the guys on main street. If teaching is your passion in life, thats cool, I respect that. However, what I cant stand are people who would rather complain and protest than take matters into their own hands. Life isnt fair, we all know that already. If you are that concern about money, go out and do something about it. Taking the streets in protest and forcing your demands on others isnt going to accomplish much. Upgrade your skills, pursue a new career, start a business, those are much more productive and efficient use of your time.

  • 1man2nv's picture

    nhks1 I see where your coming from thought. I know some people who were just lazy as shxt in school, didn't give a damn about grade, and thought success was measured by how many pair of sneakers they owned. Now work at home depot, and prob won't amount to crap. But there are a lot of hard working people out there that just caught an unfortunate break.

    Nowadays there are way too many opportunities for people to get higher education whether it be a trade school, or community college, and many of those people your referring to just don't give a fxck.

    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.

  • CaptK's picture

    I'm not wading into this one because I'll just inevitably get pissed off at "Main Street" and their blind ignorance, but I just came by to throw Eddie a banana for skillfully using the word "rumpus". Carry on.

    - 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

  • In reply to CaptK
    Edmundo Braverman's picture

    CaptK wrote:
    I'm not wading into this one because I'll just inevitably get pissed off at "Main Street" and their blind ignorance, but I just came by to throw Eddie a banana for skillfully using the word "rumpus". Carry on.

    LMAO. Thanks bro.

  • DedicatedApathist's picture

    To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

    Sign In with Facebook Sign In with Google

    Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
  • BuysideGirl's picture

    Lunch is for wimps.

Pages