Rethinking Occupy Wall Street
I thought of Alexis Goldstein as just another disgruntled employee from the world of finance, but she’s not. She had worked for Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, and elsewhere, and is now a member of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Ms Goldstein shares her distaste for Wall Street and her devotion to the OWS movement in an article she recently wrote for n+1 Magazine:
It is hard to contrast the joy of community I feel at Occupy Wall Street with the isolation I felt on Wall Street. It’s hard because I cannot think of two more disparate cultures. Wall Street believes in, and practices, a culture of scarcity. This breeds hoarding, distrust, and competition. As near as I can tell, Occupy Wall Street believes in plenty. This breeds sharing, trust, and cooperation. On Wall Street, everyone was my competitor. They’d help me only if it helped them. At Occupy Wall Street, I am offered food, warmth, and support, because it’s the right thing to do, and because joy breeds joy.
I was privileged enough to make it in the door on Wall Street, and to get bonuses during my time there. But I never felt as fortunate, or joyful, as I did the night after the eviction of Occupy Wall Street from Liberty Square, when we had our first post-raid General Assembly. When the thousands of supporters who filled the park necessitated three waves of the people’s mic. When our voices together echoed not just down the park, but up into the sky as the buildings caused the sound to ricochet off their glass walls.
One glaring question is not addressed in Ms. Goldstein’s article: What does the Occupy Wall Street movement believe in? What are its core principles?
Ms. Goldstein writes with passion about the “joy of community,” which is wonderful and worth knowing about, but what does it mean in the context of a working environment? If Ms. Goldstein and her OWS compadres were designated to replace Jamie Dimon and the rest of the upper-echelon of J.P. Morgan Chase, what changes would she implement? The dissolution of the company? A less competitive working environment?
Ms. Goldstein “is a member of the Occupy the SEC working group and the Break Up B of A campaign in New York.” Because of this, I did further research and happened upon the www.occupythe sec.org website. According to this website:
Occupy the SEC has submitted a 325 page letter to the SEC, FDIC, the Federal Reserve and the OCC, to comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking for the Volcker Rule. In our comment letter, we answered 244 out of 395 questions asked by the Agencies.
The Volcker Rule is Section (619) of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.
Here is an excerpt from this 325 page letter:
Market making is an indispensable component of liquid, efficient markets. This service, however, simply does not belong in banks…
The bank lobbying effort is certainly understandable: market making is a profitable business and one that banking entities certainly do not want to lose. It is well-known that the major dealers have always fiercely guarded their dominance of market making, particularly in the less regulated OTC markets.
Firms that attempt to enter this business are regularly strong-armed through anti-competitive arrangements with inter-broker dealers… Despite the banks’ desire to continue reaping such profits, their contention— that banking entities alone are able and willing to provide this valuable service to the market, and that regulation will cause irreparable damage to the financial system at large—is unfounded and nonsensical.
According to Felix Salmon, the finance blogger at Reuters, the people, along with Ms. Goldstein, who wrote this letter “are whip-smart and extremely talented.” They go over the Volcker Rule with a fine-tooth comb. Here’s another example from Mr. Salmon’s 2/14/12 column:
The letter also picks up on the Volcker Rule’s proposed treatment of carried interest. As we all know from following the Romney campaign, carried interest is treated as capital gains for income tax purposes. But in the Volcker Rule, it’s treated as fee earnings. As the letter says, “carried interest should not provide loopholes to banking entities and to covered funds in both the realm of taxation and the realm of regulation”. Carried interest is income, yes, but it’s also an ownership stake — but under the proposed rule, it’s exempt from the definition of “ownership interest”. Which seems silly.
I am amazed at how a little bit of research, research that would not have been available to me twenty years ago, can lead me to rethink my perspective on so many issues of the day. Occupy Wall Street is the latest example. I’m going to peruse their website and their 325 page comment letter in an attempt to learn more.
Comments
hdavid57: I’m going to peruse
I’m going to peruse their website and their 325 page comment letter in an attempt to learn more.
gotta be a troll
whatwhatwhat: hdavid57: I’m
I’m going to peruse their website and their 325 page comment letter in an attempt to learn more.
gotta be a troll
not a troll :)
WSO's COO (Chief Operating Orangutan) | My story | Connect with me on Linkedin.
2013 WSO Conference
Great post. People like to
Great post. People like to paint OWS with a broad brush and are too quick to assume that it's a bunch of communist hippies because that's easier than dealing in nuance. Really good stuff.
Check out my WSO Blog
TheKing: Great post. People
Great post. People like to paint OWS with a broad brush and are too quick to assume that it's a bunch of communist hippies because that's easier than dealing in nuance. Really good stuff.
I get the feeling that for every Alexis Goldstein, there are 20 communist hippies who want government handouts, reparations for slavery, the abolition of property rights, or some other crazy nonsense. Heck, at UC Berkeley there's an "occupy the farm" movement where a bunch of kids have commandeered an outdoor research facility, demanding that it be used as a communual farm... i honestly try to listen to the Occupiers with an open mind, but have come to the conclusion that most of them are either extremely ignorant or completely insane.
If OWS were better organized and focused of reforming the financial system, then I'd be more supportive. But this is really not the case... these people have no core values and most of them seem to be out there asking for handouts from the American taxpayer ("free education!" etc...). there's absolutely no way i could allign myself with something like that.
Money Never Sleeps? More like Money Never SUCKS amirite?!?!?!?
She worked in IT so who
She worked in IT so who cares, why name drop those firms when you were a nobody there?
They had outside help drafting that letter so they're not that smart.
Felix is a journalist before anything so who gives a fuck about what he thinks?
You're getting worked up over nothing.
Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into SWANSONS.
sayandarula: TheKing: Great
Great post. People like to paint OWS with a broad brush and are too quick to assume that it's a bunch of communist hippies because that's easier than dealing in nuance. Really good stuff.
I get the feeling that for every Alexis Goldstein, there are 20 communist hippies who want government handouts, reparations for slavery, the abolition of property rights, or some other crazy nonsense. Heck, at UC Berkeley there's an "occupy the farm" movement where a bunch of kids have commandeered an outdoor research facility, demanding that it be used as a communual farm... i honestly try to listen to the Occupiers with an open mind, but have come to the conclusion that most of them are either extremely ignorant or completely insane.
If OWS were better organized and focused of reforming the financial system, then I'd be more supportive. But this is really not the case... these people have no core values and most of them seem to be out there asking for handouts from the American taxpayer ("free education!" etc...). there's absolutely no way i could allign myself with something like that.
There's the Occupy Wall St. Alternative Banking Working Group that has a woman from DE Shaw: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/ows-al...
They seem a bit more reasonable than the others. Have they actually done anything lately?
If you actually have the means to get some effective reform through, don't associate with Occupy Wall Street, even if some of your views align. It's like joining the Tea Party because you support personal liberty.
sayandarula: TheKing: Great
Great post. People like to paint OWS with a broad brush and are too quick to assume that it's a bunch of communist hippies because that's easier than dealing in nuance. Really good stuff.
I get the feeling that for every Alexis Goldstein, there are 20 communist hippies who want government handouts, reparations for slavery, the abolition of property rights, or some other crazy nonsense. Heck, at UC Berkeley there's an "occupy the farm" movement where a bunch of kids have commandeered an outdoor research facility, demanding that it be used as a communual farm... i honestly try to listen to the Occupiers with an open mind, but have come to the conclusion that most of them are either extremely ignorant or completely insane.
If OWS were better organized and focused of reforming the financial system, then I'd be more supportive. But this is really not the case... these people have no core values and most of them seem to be out there asking for handouts from the American taxpayer ("free education!" etc...). there's absolutely no way i could allign myself with something like that.
If they cared so much, why
If they cared so much, why aren't they all in front of the white house and Capitol? Why aren't they asking "their president" why he's taking millions from mega-bank lobbyists, ya know, the exact banks they're fighting against...?
Extremely ignorant movement, and ironically, i'd estimate 95% of them voted for Obama. Maybe more. Irony is great.
TheKing: Great post. People
Great post. People like to paint OWS with a broad brush and are too quick to assume that it's a bunch of communist hippies because that's easier than dealing in nuance. Really good stuff.
Occupy SEC is a separate movement from the smelly folks who sit in parks playing drums all day. While fallen under the banner of the greater Occupy Movement, the people that comprise of Occupy SEC, like Ms. Goldstein are not "professional drifters/protestors", but rather people who have genuine insights into the system.
Their 300+ draft is a rather remarkable document that contains many useful insights. For example, they rightly point out that under Dodd Frank many banks simply moved their prop trading desks down the hall into their asset management divisions. It is the same pig wearing a different colored lipstick.
Although I am skeptical of their proposal of a non-profit financial sector. Their version of the financial institutions sound a lot like the British building societies/credit unions, which have not stood the test of time.
I can tell you how I made each of my millions - but not where I got the very first
Genetic: If they cared so
If they cared so much, why aren't they all in front of the white house and Capitol? Why aren't they asking "their president" why he's taking millions from mega-bank lobbyists, ya know, the exact banks they're fighting against...?
Extremely ignorant movement, and ironically, i'd estimate 95% of them voted for Obama. Maybe more. Irony is great.
Well first off, there's lobbyists from the banks that contaminate Washington. Wall Street is symbolic since it represents their antagonist. And as a politically active left-ish person who more or less supports OWS and didn't vote for Obama, I can say that's definitely not the case. Nobody has taken more donations from the big banks than Obama. There's a lot of dissent amongst liberals in his case. Coming out for gay marriage is a nice little political maneuver, but I still think a lot of voters are going to look at how conservative Obama is compared to how moderate Romney is and not bother to vote because of his soft stance on Wall Street.
There's definitely a ton of people in OWS with piss poor views. Occupy Oakland for example, became a cess pool of anarchists calling for an end to capitalism. Tons got arrested for drugs and violent crime, and their message was vaguely attached to the OWS message as a whole. I'm not on board for drum circles and chants of "Fight the Man," but there's definitely some legitimate concerns being brought up, and we should still take those seriously even if the protestors tend to reek. Good post OP.
Romneybot: Genetic: If they
If they cared so much, why aren't they all in front of the white house and Capitol? Why aren't they asking "their president" why he's taking millions from mega-bank lobbyists, ya know, the exact banks they're fighting against...?
Extremely ignorant movement, and ironically, i'd estimate 95% of them voted for Obama. Maybe more. Irony is great.
Well first off, there's lobbyists from the banks that contaminate Washington. Wall Street is symbolic since it represents their antagonist. And as a politically active left-ish person who more or less supports OWS and didn't vote for Obama, I can say that's definitely not the case. Nobody has taken more donations from the big banks than Obama. There's a lot of dissent amongst liberals in his case. Coming out for gay marriage is a nice little political maneuver, but I still think a lot of voters are going to look at how conservative Obama is compared to how moderate Romney is and not bother to vote because of his soft stance on Wall Street.
There's definitely a ton of people in OWS with piss poor views. Occupy Oakland for example, became a cess pool of anarchists calling for an end to capitalism. Tons got arrested for drugs and violent crime, and their message was vaguely attached to the OWS message as a whole. I'm not on board for drum circles and chants of "Fight the Man," but there's definitely some legitimate concerns being brought up, and we should still take those seriously even if the protestors tend to reek. Good post OP.
Obviously the street represents the antagonist, but that alone does not give validity to their "movement." Not at all actually. Just b/c there's lobbyists doesn't mean the occupiers still can't put pressure on the elected representatives that actually create and amend policies. But they're much too ignorant for that. They'd rather misdirect their stupidity/anger towards "the man" which is the banks.
And just b/c you didn't vote for Obama doesn't mean they also have an informed view of politics. From what i've seen, 9 out of 10 are typical Obama bots. That estimate may be generous, too.
Genetic: Obviously the street
Obviously the street represents the antagonist, but that alone does not give validity to their "movement." Not at all actually. Just b/c there's lobbyists doesn't mean the occupiers still can't put pressure on the elected representatives that actually create and amend policies. But they're much too ignorant for that. They'd rather misdirect their stupidity/anger towards "the man" which is the banks.
And just b/c you didn't vote for Obama doesn't mean they also have an informed view of politics. From what i've seen, 9 out of 10 are typical Obama bots. That estimate may be generous, too.
No, that in itself doesn't give the movement validity. Where they decided to stand at doesn't have any influence on whether or not their claims are legitimate though. Obviously it's going to take a stance by Washington to get traction for their ideas, but how they go about achieving that is irrelevant.
Also, there's many liberal news sources that are critical of Obama for reasons I mentioned that attract a large number of people. There's no shortage of people who agree with the just of OWS' message that won't have anything to do with it for a number of reasons as well. While you might be portraying your local OWS movement well, that's no indicator of whether or not all OWS sympathizers, or left-leaners in general, are just Obama fan boys.
Romneybot: Genetic: If they
If they cared so much, why aren't they all in front of the white house and Capitol? Why aren't they asking "their president" why he's taking millions from mega-bank lobbyists, ya know, the exact banks they're fighting against...?
Extremely ignorant movement, and ironically, i'd estimate 95% of them voted for Obama. Maybe more. Irony is great.
No, that in itself doesn't give the movement validity. Where they decided to stand at doesn't have any influence on whether or not their claims are legitimate though. Obviously it's going to take a stance by Washington to get traction for their ideas, but how they go about achieving that is irrelevant.
Also, there's many liberal news sources that are critical of Obama for reasons I mentioned that attract a large number of people. There's no shortage of people who agree with the just of OWS' message that won't have anything to do with it for a number of reasons as well. While you might be portraying your local OWS movement well, that's no indicator of whether or not all OWS sympathizers, or left-leaners in general, are just Obama fan boys.
Well I think they're mostly left-leaners that will vote for Obama by default. Wasn't trying to generalize them as Obama fan boys. But by directing all of their aggression toward the banks (who could not care less), it gives the movement less validity imo. If they could somehow use that energy to draw attention toward the scummy politicians in DC that accept donations from bank lobbyists, then we might see some positive change. Til then, the banks are gonna keep on laughing and the politicians are gonna turn a blind eye.
Where they stand at makes a huge difference and Washington is the biggest problem. Of course the banks are going to be unethical and continue to circumvent regulation til the end of time but isn't that expected? When have they not done this? I don't know about you but I hold the politicians, our elected reps and leaders by example, to a higher standard b/c they are serving the public. The banks are in it for the money...they acted unethically....big surprise! Oh wait, they also acted without regard to risk?? Another big surprise considering the gov't is willing to socialize their major losses. Yes the banks are an issue, but they're just a symptom. The virus originated in gov't corruption, regulation and spending. Now please inform the remainder of hippy fools on the NYC street corner
Genetic: Romneybot: Genet
If they cared so much, why aren't they all in front of the white house and Capitol? Why aren't they asking "their president" why he's taking millions from mega-bank lobbyists, ya know, the exact banks they're fighting against...?
Extremely ignorant movement, and ironically, i'd estimate 95% of them voted for Obama. Maybe more. Irony is great.
No, that in itself doesn't give the movement validity. Where they decided to stand at doesn't have any influence on whether or not their claims are legitimate though. Obviously it's going to take a stance by Washington to get traction for their ideas, but how they go about achieving that is irrelevant.
Also, there's many liberal news sources that are critical of Obama for reasons I mentioned that attract a large number of people. There's no shortage of people who agree with the just of OWS' message that won't have anything to do with it for a number of reasons as well. While you might be portraying your local OWS movement well, that's no indicator of whether or not all OWS sympathizers, or left-leaners in general, are just Obama fan boys.
Well I think they're mostly left-leaners that will vote for Obama by default. Wasn't trying to generalize them as Obama fan boys. But by directing all of their aggression toward the banks (who could not care less), it gives the movement less validity imo. If they could somehow use that energy to draw attention toward the scummy politicians in DC that accept donations from bank lobbyists, then we might see some positive change. Til then, the banks are gonna keep on laughing and the politicians are gonna turn a blind eye.
Where they stand at makes a huge difference and Washington is the biggest problem. Of course the banks are going to be unethical and continue to circumvent regulation til the end of time but isn't that expected? When have they not done this? I don't know about you but I hold the politicians, our elected reps and leaders by example, to a higher standard b/c they are serving the public. The banks are in it for the money...they acted unethically....big surprise! Oh wait, they also acted without regard to risk?? Another big surprise considering the gov't is willing to socialize their major losses. Yes the banks are an issue, but they're just a symptom. The virus originated in gov't corruption, regulation and spending. Now please inform the remainder of hippy fools on the NYC street corner
I'd agree with all those points. That's one reason you won't catch me at an OWS event. Those that end up voting for Obama will likely do so because he's the "lesser of two evils." I'm not saying the movement hasn't done some retarded things. It's just that when you look at how the the banks do business, and how government and the every man play into that, there's definitely some factors that I see and think are not nearly ideal, and need to be fixed. In that sense, there's substance to a lot of what OWS is trying to say. That's all I've taken away from them.
Publicity stunt of a lonely
Publicity stunt of a lonely liberal woman desperately seeking attention. I suggest therapy.
"A man generally has two reasons for doing anything. One that sounds good, and the real one." - J.P. Morgan
OWS is frustrated with the
YOU JUST GOT TROLLED
http://www.troll.me/images/red-foreman322/dont-you...
The following has been, and
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
Peasants.
The HBS guys have MAD SWAGGER. They frequently wear their class jackets to boston bars, strutting and acting like they own the joint. They just ooze success, confidence, swagger, basically attributes of alpha males.
Im going to speak on behalf