Occupy Wall Street... Screw That! Lets Occupy The Net!

[heckofajobbrownie]

Because you made it up.

 

 

I did? I believe it's right here, my man: But as to jobs I'd rather (if we're going to add to the deficit) create 3 12 dollar anhour jobs than one 35 an hour job. Yup, that's a false choice.

 

And thanks for teaching me how technology can eliminate certain jobs. I had no idea! Here I was going on and on about how we need to preserve all the jobs technology has eliminated.

 

...Except that I wasn't. I was making the opposite point.

 

Thanks for reminding me what a waste of time this is. Good to hear you're doing well.

[Westside Steve]

Heck. Try to read just a little bit more carefully please? Look again it says 3 jobs at 12 dollars an hour not 3 dollars and 50 cents an hour. So yes, old buddy, you did make that up. And yes, old buddy, it is a pain in the ass trying to talk with you. Not because you're so bright but because you make things up and you're so angry all the time.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Did Heck and Shep get separated?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Heck. Try to read just a little bit more carefully please? Look again it says 3 jobs at 12 dollars an hour not 3 dollars and 50 cents an hour. So yes, old buddy, you did make that up. And yes, old buddy, it is a pain in the ass trying to talk with you. Not because you're so bright but because you make things up and you're so angry all the time.

WSS

 

Oh. Okay. My bad, sort of. I took that as 3 1/2. You need a dollar sign in there.

 

And it's still a false choice.

[Westside Steve]

Oh. Okay. My bad, sort of. I took that as 3 1/2. You need a dollar sign in there.

 

And it's still a false choice.

Well I certainly coulda been more clear.

Anyway, I don't see it as a false choice at all. Like I said, a lot of the jobs we've lost over the past 30 years have gone to right to work states like georgia & tennessee.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yeah, it's a false choice. It's also not how firms hire. If they only need one employee, they'll hire one employee. They don't hire three to do the job of one if you make the costs the same. Also, hourly wages aren't the only cost an employee incurs.

 

But I understand your point, however wrong it is. It's much better than when I thought you were saying "Let's pay people $3.50 an hour." I couldn't get out of this conversation fast enough then.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here you go, Steve. Here's a smart sign at the OWS protest.

 

[Mr. T]

Here you go, Steve. Here's a smart sign at the OWS protest.

 

 

 

I see you stole Monica's beret and wore it to the protest.

 

[Westside Steve]

Yeah, it's a false choice. It's also not how firms hire. If they only need one employee, they'll hire one employee. They don't hire three to do the job of one if you make the costs the same.

 

So if say, the school system says it's forced to lay off teachers and eliminate programs they're basically lying? Or do you think at perhaps 30% lower cost they could hire more teachers?

 

 

 

 

Also, hourly wages aren't the only cost an employee incurs.

 

Yet another reason I try to avoid "every" or "all" but sure.

Lifetime pensions are business killers too.

 

But I understand your point, however wrong it is. It's much better than when I thought you were saying "Let's pay people $3.50 an hour." I couldn't get out of this conversation fast enough then.

 

Not a problem. Sorry I snapped at ya BTW.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Sure, Steve, all of what your saying makes sense if you entirely discount the part where people need income to live and eat and enjoy their lives. You only seem to see any of this through the eyes of some CEO or governor, and not the vast majority of the population, which is made up of workers. This is a problem.

 

So sure, if we race to the bottom on wages and benefits and pensions, maybe we could hire more teachers. But that's not the only question we ask. That's just the only question you ask.

 

I'd also not confuse how state budgets operate with how private businesses do. When faced with tightening state budgets, like every state is facing, the teacher's union (generally) needs to do more to avoid laying off good teachers. That usually means kicking in more for their health benefits. Or they could reform "first hired, first fired" policies to ensure that the best teachers stay, not simply the longest tenured. There are lots of things to negotiate. And unions do negotiate these things, and do pare back benefits in tough times. (You seem to be completely unaware of this.)

 

But this hardly makes me think that unions in and of themselves are the problem. I'd be very wary of someone who immediately goes to cutting people's pay and benefits on the lower end of the spectrum first. And that's always your instinct. You seem to have a real aversion to people having pay and benefit levels that they've won through negotiation - and that the other side has agreed to.

 

Do these need to be tweaked in tough times? Of course. But you seem to be against the fact that these agreements exist at all.

 

I'm certainly not.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Why don't you tell me what you'd do about rising inequality, or about 30 years of stagnant or declining middle class wages. The top 1% have take a larger and larger share of national income over the past 30 years, and other than the top 5%, everyone else's share has declined. Is that a problem?

[Westside Steve]

Why don't you tell me what you'd do about rising inequality, or about 30 years of stagnant or declining middle class wages. The top 1% have take a larger and larger share of national income over the past 30 years, and other than the top 5%, everyone else's share has declined. Is that a problem?

 

 

Actually first we need to determine that it’s a real problem with a solutuin.

If it is can I, you or or any politician change it?

If so how much difference will I need to make? 5%? Will it be OK then?

(Will the next president brag if the gap is cut by 5%?)

 

Anyway we agree on at least one reason (I hope) and that’s the fact that decent paying jobs aren’t as plentiful as they were 30 or 40 years ago. The new high tech jobs are fine but don’t require the manpower.

So what could I (or you or politician) do to bring back a lot of man hour intensive labor that just about anyone can do? I don’t think it can be done.

I heard a speaker at OWS demand a 100,000,ooo.00 cap on wealth. Think that makes sense? If so how about ten million? That oughta be enough right?

I’d guess that’d mean more billionaires in whatever banana republic they move to.

 

Still I think the better question (and just as hard to answer) is why can’t you be happy without cable TV a cell phone internet cigarettes and a nice car?

But I don’t suppose that envy ever changes. It just seems to get worse.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Why don't you tell me what you'd do about rising inequality, or about 30 years of stagnant or declining middle class wages. The top 1% have take a larger and larger share of national income over the past 30 years, and other than the top 5%, everyone else's share has declined. Is that a problem?

 

 

Actually first we need to determine that it’s a real problem with a solutuin.

If it is can I, you or or any politician change it?

If so how much difference will I need to make? 5%? Will it be OK then?

(Will the next president brag if the gap is cut by 5%?)

 

Anyway we agree on at least one reason (I hope) and that’s the fact that decent paying jobs aren’t as plentiful as they were 30 or 40 years ago. The new high tech jobs are fine but don’t require the manpower.

So what could I (or you or politician) do to bring back a lot of man hour intensive labor that just about anyone can do? I don’t think it can be done.

I heard a speaker at OWS demand a 100,000,ooo.00 cap on wealth. Think that makes sense? If so how about ten million? That oughta be enough right?

I’d guess that’d mean more billionaires in whatever banana republic they move to.

 

Still I think the better question (and just as hard to answer) is why can’t you be happy without cable TV a cell phone internet cigarettes and a nice car?

But I don’t suppose that envy ever changes. It just seems to get worse.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Why don't you tell me what you'd do about rising inequality, or about 30 years of stagnant or declining middle class wages. The top 1% have take a larger and larger share of national income over the past 30 years, and other than the top 5%, everyone else's share has declined. Is that a problem?

 

 

Actually first we need to determine that its a real problem with a solutuin.

If it is can I, you or or any politician change it?

If so how much difference will I need to make? 5%? Will it be OK then?

(Will the next president brag if the gap is cut by 5%?)

Or do we need to be equal?

 

Anyway we agree on at least one reason (I hope) and thats the fact that decent paying jobs arent as plentiful as they were 30 or 40 years ago. The new high tech jobs are fine but dont require the manpower.

So what could I (or you or politician) do to bring back a lot of man hour intensive labor that just about anyone can do? I dont think it can be done.

I heard a speaker at OWS demand a 100,000,ooo.00 cap on wealth. Think that makes sense? If so how about ten million? That oughta be enough right?

Id guess thatd mean more billionaires in whatever banana republic they move to.

 

Still I think the better question (and just as hard to answer) is why cant you be happy without cable TV a cell phone internet cigarettes and a nice car?

But I dont suppose that envy ever changes. It just seems to get worse.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

So to no one's surprise, you wouldn't do anything to address any of this. You think the problem is envy.

[Westside Steve]

so, that's your entire response? So why ask me? Yes, indeed. Envy does play a part in this and you know it. Apparently you think that it is a big problem and you ask me what I would do to solve it. Sorry. I think I'm being honest in saying I have no idea how to solve it and number 2 I don't know that it can be solved. Of course, I'm not the president. I am not a god and I'm not king. Unfortunately, there is no 1 simple answer any question you have. What would you do? Remember that there will always be haves and have nots. How about it old buddy? What would you do to make the have nots happy with their a lot in life?

Or, better yet, what could we do to make you happy? Are you for or against the cap on wealth?

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Sorry. Another thing I don't know is why that posted 3 times. Oh well.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, you started out somewhat sensibly with questions about what the problems are and what about those problems government can solve, or as I would put it "address." Government doesn't solve too many problems. It addresses them. It takes the edges off problems. But then you came to the ridiculous conclusion that our only real problem is envy. And then you dared me to deny that envy exists. I mean, come on.

 

And then there's more of your monochromatic "haves vs. have nots" framework, which is useless here. And just about everywhere else. And then you'd like me to comment on what some idiot on the street said.

 

I just want you to realize that none of these topics is either relevant to the discussion. Or interesting.

 

But you are being honest in that you have no idea what the problems are, or how to solve them. My question is: then why do you then pretend to know what the problems are, and declare that they can't be addressed?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Let's take one: did you ever get passed the notion that the financial crisis was caused by undeserving home owners getting loans through the Community Reinvestment Act? That'd be a good place to start. Because you probably can't have any sort of discussion about Wall Street reform if you think that's what caused the financial crisis. You'd just be wasting time in a fantasyland.

[calfoxwc]

That was a huge part of the housing crisis. HOUSING CRISIS.

 

Pitiful as usual try, Heck, to change the subject just a little so you can try to win an argument with Steve.

[Westside Steve]

That was a huge part of the housing crisis. HOUSING CRISIS.

 

Pitiful as usual try, Heck, to change the subject just a little so you can try to win an argument with Steve.

 

He knows. He's just hard wired against admitting it. Like I keep trying to say, there is more than 1 piece to every puzzle.

Unless, of course, it's that damn Bush!

WSS

[Westside Steve]

 

 

 

I just want you to realize that none of these topics is either relevant to the discussion. Or interesting.

 

But you are being honest in that you have no idea what the problems are, or how to solve them. My question is: then why do you then pretend to know what the problems are, and declare that they can't be addressed?

[/quot]

 

Actually you are the guy that claimed that the gap between the top and the bottom is a big problem.

Would it make you happy if I said well the first thing I would do is address it?

Because both of us know that means nothing at all.

But anyway it seems that all you guys can do to give me a reason for this protest, Is to say that well people are just mad at wall street they have too much power too much control!

Now you say is that the problem is that big gap. Great.

From what I gather, theyre also angry about the bailout.

Those damn rich people are getting away with murder!

 

At any rate it looks like these people are mad about something they can't do anything about.

That is not my fault and I don't see why you're upset with me about it.

wss

[heckofajobbrownie]

He knows. He's just hard wired against admitting it. Like I keep trying to say, there is more than 1 piece to every puzzle.

Unless, of course, it's that damn Bush!

WSS

 

Please. I'd be happy to admit this was a large part of the financial collapse. The problem with that thinking is that it was a minor part of the financial collapse, so it'd be stupid to parade it around like it was a major factor. So I don't. And if you're someone who thinks it was a major part of the financial collapse you're completely lost as to the real causes of the financial collapse.

 

If you wanted to explain why the Browns suck, and your only answer was that Chris Cocong can't rush the passer well enough, that wouldn't be a very good explanation. But an equally insufficient answer in this case is good enough for people who always look to blame things on poor people first.

 

CRA loans are an extremely minor player in the financial collapse. It's barely worth mentioning.

 

Trust me, I'm not shying away from your arguments because they're so true and I can't admit it. Trust me.

[heckofajobbrownie]

The committee on the financial crisis came up with ten explanations for why the crisis came about. It's all complicated stuff.

 

Find me where they mention CRA loans.

 

In 2009, Jamie Dimon, CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase, sent out a long letter to his stockholders addressing the causes of the financial collapse. You can read it online. See if you can find where he mentions CRA loans.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I mean, you're not surprising me, if that's what you mean. You're a proudly complacent man.

[calfoxwc]

First thing I came up with:

 

Sounds like the bad housing loan (per Fannie and Freddie and Dems in Congress.....) had something to do with it.

***************************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis

 

The late-2000s financial crisis (often called the Global Recession, Global Financial Crisis or the Credit Crunch) is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market had also suffered, resulting in numerous evictions, foreclosures and prolonged vacancies. It contributed to the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars, and a significant decline in economic activity, leading to a severe global economic recession in 2008.[2]

 

The financial crisis was triggered by a liquidity shortfall in the United States banking system in 2008.[3] The collapse of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[4] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[5] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.[6][7][8]

 

While many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts,[9] the United States Senate issuing the [Levin–Coburn Report [3] [4] found “that the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products;[10] undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself[11] to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.”[12]

 

Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[13] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks.[14] In response to the financial crisis, both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration.[15]

 

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

 

If you wanted to explain why the Browns suck, and your only answer was that Chris Cocong can't rush the passer well enough, that wouldn't be a very good explanation.

But that isn't similar to what I said.

If I said the Browns suck because the defense isn't doing it's job that's a big reason.

You, then, would counter "What??? You blame it ALL on Chris Cocong???? Howe dare you!!!!"

And that's what's dishonest.

So even though the CRA was a bad idea in the end (though I'd had more hope for it) it was part and parcel of the whole sub prime debacle and the free money.

Not just to your pet poor people but to any investor who could get a barely secured loan hoping the prices would continue to skyrocket. And the guy who writes it up gets a commission anyway. And the investor gets a loan on his word. Or as my mortgage lady calls it "unverifiable income."

Oops.

But the housing market tanked for all that.

Yes the saintly poor are part of it, as is Chris Cocong.

But nobody said it was ALL his fault.

 

 

And don't think we didn't notiuce that you tried to change the subject to this false claim.

 

 

 

 

 

Trust me, I'm not shying away from your arguments because they're so true and I can't admit it. Trust me.

 

Trust. Heh.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

I mean, you're not surprising me, if that's what you mean. You're a proudly complacent man.

 

Look, there are times I see or hear an actor or artist making millions that I don't think is anywhere near as good as I am.

My choice is to remind myself that this is the way it goes and I'm happy with my life or I can sit around and seethe.

I know plenty of guys who choose the latter.

 

 

Being pissed off at that guy doesn't make me better or happier.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, brother. The barroom prophet is back.

 

I can't argue with someone who thinks the pertinent issues here are the CRA and envy. I really can't.

[Westside Steve]

Oh, brother. The barroom prophet is back.

 

I can't argue with someone who thinks the pertinent issues here are the CRA and envy. I really can't.

 

Well that was a witless response.

Congratulations.

You must have your sights set on Axelrod's gig.

WSS