The 99% Declaration

[jtb1127]

Investment banks!

When I said "banks" in that post, I meant investment banks. Just shorthand. You don't need to explain the difference to me.
I thought that was a list. And investment banks were only part of the list. And most of the stuff applied to all companies.

 

[Cutlass]

Some of it does apply to all companies. But it a discussion that has both banks and investment banks, the distinction is an important one. Critical, even. They serve very different functions in the financial service sector. Glass-Steagall prevented commercial banks from owning or operating as investment banks. Repealing that seriously increased the risks of damage to the economy that investment banks can cause. That was far from the only, or even the most important, issue that led to the financial crisis. But it was certainly a major one. Before that, when investment banks operated as only partnerships, then all the capital they put at risk was the capital of the partners, who were the managers. Firms like Bear Stearns were known for their strong controls of the risks the firm took. But once they became publicly traded, and the capital at risk was not the capital of the managers, then very, very, quickly lost all semblance of understanding what risks they were running.

And the risks were not just to that company. The risks were to everyone. To the economy as a whole.

The risk to the economy of publicly traded investment banks is simply too high to be acceptable. No one should be allowed to have that kind of power to endanger others out of simple recklessness.

 

[jtb1127]

Some of it does apply to all companies. But it a discussion that has both banks and investment banks, the distinction is an important one. Critical, even. They serve very different functions in the financial service sector. Glass-Steagall prevented commercial banks from owning or operating as investment banks. Repealing that seriously increased the risks of damage to the economy that investment banks can cause. That was far from the only, or even the most important, issue that led to the financial crisis. But it was certainly a major one. Before that, when investment banks operated as only partnerships, then all the capital they put at risk was the capital of the partners, who were the managers. Firms like Bear Stearns were known for their strong controls of the risks the firm took. But once they became publicly traded, and the capital at risk was not the capital of the managers, then very, very, quickly lost all semblance of understanding what risks they were running.

And the risks were not just to that company. The risks were to everyone. To the economy as a whole.

The risk to the economy of publicly traded investment banks is simply too high to be acceptable. No one should be allowed to have that kind of power to endanger others out of simple recklessness.

I agree. Investment banks should not be owned by normal banks. Like I said, I thought what you said applied to all companies and I was thinking that you were out of your freaking mind.

 

[Lay_Lay]

It is laughable that this guy has the stones to claim that this manifesto represents anywhere near 99%. Not even on any one single point would he garner 99%.
What a very pompous movement this is. I am neither "wall street" nor some sniveling hopeless dreadlocked whiner. I am one of the folks carrying the burden. The 56%

 

[Lay_Lay]

It is rude to demand change and hypocritical to criticize others, for not pitching in their fair share towards the country, when you yourself don't contribute enough value to the country annually.
If I contribute 20,000 cash towards America annually, and you contribute nothing (no money and no good works) - then you are not being honest about wanting each citizen to contribute his fair share towards America.

 

[Cutlass]

It is rude to demand change and hypocritical to criticize others, for not pitching in their fair share towards the country, when you yourself don't contribute enough value to the country annually.
If I contribute 20,000 cash towards America annually, and you contribute nothing (no money and no good works) - then you are not being honest about wanting each citizen to contribute his fair share towards America.

That makes no sense. "Fair share" is not a fixed or equal amount per person. Some people contribute very little because they have very little to contribute, and they get very little for what they do contribute. Others contribute a lot because they have a lot and get a lot of benefit.

 

[Archbob]

That makes no sense. "Fair share" is not a fixed or equal amount per person. Some people contribute very little because they have very little to contribute, and they get very little for what they do contribute. Others contribute a lot because they have a lot and get a lot of benefit.

That all depends on an individuals point of few. You could claim a very progressive system is "fair" but someone would be just as right as you in claiming that a system where everyone pays 20% of what they earn in fair.

If someone really feels like they don't get paid well for their contribution, they are free to do their own start-up as many people, including myself, have done with very little start-up cash.

 

[Cutlass]

That all depends on an individuals point of few. You could claim a very progressive system is "fair" but someone would be just as right as you in claiming that a system where everyone pays 20% of what they earn in fair.

If someone really feels like they don't get paid well for their contribution, they are free to do their own start-up as many people, including myself, have done with very little start-up cash.

Except, of course, that that would be a crippling burden on some and no particular problem for others.

 

[Whomp]

So, here's the thing...I have stuff to say, I have people who believe in me, I can contribute to the debate and want to be a delegate. Why not, right? Heck, I'm part of the 99% and disagree with most everything in this proposal and would like to be part of the discussion in Philadelphia July 4, 2012. How can I accomplish this? Will my voice be heard? Oh, and I want the public to fund this process, btw. I don't want to use any of my own capital through this delegation process since that would be unfair to utilize my resources. I have the necessary skills to make it happen so why not me?

One other thing, if women control 51% of wealth and that figure will increase significantly over the next decade. Should women have more or less of the delegation process? 1:1 seems out of line. Help me...should it be less 1:1 since they'll become our economic overlords over the next decade (60% of wealth over the next 10 years) or maybe more delegates because they'll be more reasonable than men? I had a woman tell me today no chance she wants women making these kind of 99% decisions. I'm not sure...thoughts?

 

[JollyRoger]

If I contribute 20,000 cash towards America annually, and you contribute nothing (no money and no good works) - then you are not being honest about wanting each citizen to contribute his fair share towards America.

Are you talking about GE or Exxon?

Heck, I'm part of the 99% and disagree with most everything in this proposal and would like to be part of the discussion in Philadelphia July 4, 2012. How can I accomplish this?

Run for the spot in your district. Surely you can get more votes than the dirty hippies you will be running against.

 

[BasketCase]

I repudiate the 99% Declaration.

Despite their claim to do so, the self-declared 99% do not represent ordinary people or the interests of same.

 

[amadeus]

Two other problems I noticed: first, they issue a manifesto with specific policy demands, but want to elect some kind of body? Other than trying to mask their despotic desires through a sham election, what do they hope to accomplish?

Second, this election wouldn't be a real legislative body, so there would be no restrictions on campaign financing or transparency or really anything. It might not even be illegal to stuff the ballot boxes. So, what else could they accomplish?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Two other problems I noticed: first, they issue a manifesto with specific policy demands, but want to elect some kind of body? Other than trying to mask their despotic desires through a sham election, what do they hope to accomplish?

The ability to continue their work in the face of a actively changing political environment.

Second, this election wouldn't be a real legislative body, so there would be no restrictions on campaign financing or transparency or really anything. It might not even be illegal to stuff the ballot boxes. So, what else could they accomplish?

This might surprise you but lots of social organizations, from Unions, to fraternal organizations are organized by election. It's a fairly proven model.

 

[amadeus]

This might surprise you but lots of social organizations, from Unions, to fraternal organizations are organized by election. It's a fairly proven model.

That's not what I said at all. My point was that there would be no restrictions on financing for candidates; those evil democracy-destroying corporations could donate millions directly to each candidate!

 

[Patroklos]

Some of it does apply to all companies. But it a discussion that has both banks and investment banks, the distinction is an important one. Critical, even. They serve very different functions in the financial service sector. Glass-Steagall prevented commercial banks from owning or operating as investment banks. Repealing that seriously increased the risks of damage to the economy that investment banks can cause. That was far from the only, or even the most important, issue that led to the financial crisis. But it was certainly a major one. Before that, when investment banks operated as only partnerships, then all the capital they put at risk was the capital of the partners, who were the managers. Firms like Bear Stearns were known for their strong controls of the risks the firm took. But once they became publicly traded, and the capital at risk was not the capital of the managers, then very, very, quickly lost all semblance of understanding what risks they were running.

This is in no way, shape or form how investment banks work. If this is what you really think, then I understand why you have such a hard time with this topic. ]

 

[kochman]

Some of it does apply to all companies. But it a discussion that has both banks and investment banks, the distinction is an important one. Critical, even. They serve very different functions in the financial service sector. Glass-Steagall prevented commercial banks from owning or operating as investment banks. Repealing that seriously increased the risks of damage to the economy that investment banks can cause. That was far from the only, or even the most important, issue that led to the financial crisis. But it was certainly a major one. Before that, when investment banks operated as only partnerships, then all the capital they put at risk was the capital of the partners, who were the managers. Firms like Bear Stearns were known for their strong controls of the risks the firm took. But once they became publicly traded, and the capital at risk was not the capital of the managers, then very, very, quickly lost all semblance of understanding what risks they were running.

And the risks were not just to that company. The risks were to everyone. To the economy as a whole.

The risk to the economy of publicly traded investment banks is simply too high to be acceptable. No one should be allowed to have that kind of power to endanger others out of simple recklessness.

WOW! Starting to sink in, is it!
Now, tell me, who signed the Glass-Steagall? Who voted for it?
Clinton... and almost the entire Senate...
BOTH SIDES.

 

[JollyRoger]

That's not what I said at all. My point was that there would be no restrictions on financing for candidates; those evil democracy-destroying corporations could donate millions directly to each candidate!

Yep, you might end up with 870 Koch brother goons convening in Philadelphia or a house packed full of tri-cornered hats and little tea baggies if the anti-OWS crowd wants to play this game.

Still, it's a more open process than the birthers used when they did their little-noticed Constitutional convention.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's not what I said at all. My point was that there would be no restrictions on financing for candidates; those evil democracy-destroying corporations could donate millions directly to each candidate!

So what your saying is, is that you trust financial power even less then these people, and want to circumvent all potential abuses of power, rather then limit action to addressing actual ones?

 

[Cutlass]

WOW! Starting to sink in, is it!
Now, tell me, who signed the Glass-Steagall? Who voted for it?
Clinton... and almost the entire Senate...
BOTH SIDES.

How many times are you going to ignore the fact that Glass-Stegal was only one of many insanely stupid pieces of deregulation that screwed over the country?

 

[JollyRoger]

Glass-Steagal was signed into law by FDR. The primary deregulating repeal happened in 1999. On the day the deregulation was signed into law, the Dow closed at 10,769.32. Today, the Dow closed at 11,808.79. That's a pretty impressive 12 years of performance, surely much better than the typical gains while Glass-Steagal was in place.