Save Wall Street.

1. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   Big finance benefits the few instead of the many, but its not supposed to.
   Government has and does step in in many ways contributing to the problem.
   In so doing it has and does restrict free market capitalism.
   Wall Street is not the villain. The drug, POWER, is.
   And many individuals in Wall Street and in Washington have been and are involved in quests for power and control through/of Money.
   
   Yawn. So boring.
   Carry on.
   Its a big problem and somebody has to solve it.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Kathryn ~
      
      Not only is Wall Street indeed the "Villain" it's a bastian of "Swindlers", "Unbridled"Greed", "Corporate Criminals", "General Fraud", "Investment Fraud", "The Un-Patriotic" etc ~
      
      Wall Street needs to either be phased out or "Severely Regulated" ~

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         The Fed/elected representatives need to be regulated.
         Not Wall Street. Take away Wall Street, take away free market/people's power.
         The banks must not be catered to by the Fed.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Free market can exist quite well without Wall Street. I'm afraid I agree with the leftist here. Wall Street needs to be regulated heavily or done away with. I say done away with because our government has proven time and again it can't regulate it.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               How?  Will you forbid multiple people from owning a company?  Or for selling their portion of it?  How do you prevent private investment in companies without destroying the economy?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I do not see how any of that would be prohibited from happening if Wall Street disappeared so I think you have misunderstood my intent with that statement. The term Wall Street, to me, is representative of what is wrong with the free market system; not an indictment of the system itself. I doubt that all of Wall Street is representative of that statement. For those that are, it's like free market is nothing more than grubbing for  money and power, unfettered by any concern other than the ability to grub. We are all grubbing, in our own little ways. So, standing up against what one perceives as inequities is not an indictment against the process of grubbing; it is simply a statement against a group who has created an environment to do it with an unfair advantage to the detriment of a much larger percentage than is acceptable.
                  
                  In any organized system there will be those who seek to gain an advantage. Once that advantage has been obtained they will seek more power and more control. It is human nature. Proponents of free enterprise cannot ignore this simple fact. At any level, at any time, there will be those who work at a disadvantage created because someone on their level or above their level has begun that journey to obtain power and control. If we believe the system is a good one, we have to be fair and honest in our evaluation of it and work diligently to ensure that it remains free for the majority and that it does not negatively effect the majority as we use it to drive our global society.
                  
                  The problem I perceive is that there are those who have obtained so much power and influence that they are negatively affecting the lives of too many people across the world and that a fair and honest assessment of the free market system does not end with a positive enough assessment of these forces to allow the status quo to continue unchanged. I think these forces wield too much influence within not only our own government, but others as well, to believe any type of attempts at regulation will be effective.
                  
                  We have two options, but I don't see one as viable. We all know big corporations pretty much own our government. We can't regulate those who own themselves. The answer to the problem is tricky because economies worldwide are so tied into each other that we are afraid any drastic move will negatively affect our own economy but, on the other hand, we are considered a beacon of freedom. To resolve this problem would be a step toward worldwide freedom from excessive control by these forces. I kind of see it as our duty to resolve the problem since we participated in the exportation of the whole free market idea to the world.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     You wish to define the term "wall street" as anything you feel is wrong with our economic system instead of the more traditional buying and selling of company stock.
                     
                     OK, but then to "fix" wall street, the details must be specified and you fail to do so, simply saying "whatever is wrong" in your opinion.  Then go on and indicate that the concept of corporations (multiple owners of companies) is wrong and must be stopped.  I'm left with total confusion, not knowing what "wall street" is and not knowing what you think is wrong outside of more than one person owning a company.  You're going to have to be much more specific on the hows and whys of removing "wall street".

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I agree that the problems that Wall Street has had or created needs to have specific solutions and not a witch hunt to dismantle something so viable and institutionally ingrained in our economic system. We had regulations developed from learned history with regards to the many recessions over the years and Great Depression we had in the last century. The regulations put in place to guard against more of the same have either been eliminated or rewritten to favor the greater risk and transfer of risk responsibility to us, the taxpayer, via bailouts while assuring the same activity can resume unabated. Glass/Steagall  (1933) which restricted the affiliations between commercial banking and securities firms were repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999. This in essence allowed the bankers to gamble with equity on highly risky bets on stock and market trends. It left them vulnerable to fail with colossal ramifications. Glass/Steagall had protected us since 1933 until 1999 and we got rid of it why? So Wall Street could have incredible success without any responsible risk.
                        
                        Dodd-Frank was enacted in response to the 2007-2008 meltdown and has been responsible for shoring up and uniting regulatory agencies to stop the meltdown from happening again. There are however loopholes that current Wall Street banks use to continue the speculative and blurred lines to gamble on derivative's and market trends. Much has been done but Wall Street and the Banks continue to lobby Congress to eliminate these restrictions knowing what happens when the unthinkable looms over us again. Reenacting Glass/Steagall would go a long way in putting things back in order.
                        
                        Eliminating Wall Street would be a catastrophic blunder but fair regulatory controls are far more prudent.

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           rhamson ~
                           
                           Wall Street is a CONVENIENCE not a NECESSITY ~ We don't need an "After Market to Trade or GAMBLE" on equities ~
                           
                           It is essential that Glass-Steagall be re-instated ASAP to rebuke and clean out the Wall Street element which has infiltrated our Traditional FDIC Institutions ~
                           
                           FAIR REGULATION? We've already tried that route and look what happened ~ SEVERE REGULATION & TAXATION is essential or a LIQUIDATION of Wall Street should ensue ~

                           replyreport
                           1. 70

                              rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Wall Street is both, a convenience and a necessity. Without the financial clearinghouse for both good and bad business the economy and flow of business would be as clunky as it could get.
                              
                              I agree regulation is in order but not to the point where money is difficult to get and invest. Glass/Steagall is definitely in order to keep the government out of insuring and assuring risk resolving when the Wall Street banks want to gamble with their own uninsured assets.

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yes, Rhamson.
                                 I am copying word for word something interesting in It Takes a Pillage:
                                 
                                 On Dec. 23,1913, Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, which had been formulated by Congressman Carter Glass (D-VA) and Senator Robert L. Owen (D-OK). Among other things, the act "provided for the establishment of the Federal Reserve Banks ... to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States."
                                 
                                 Wilson regretted the act soon after he signed it, realizing that the nation's wealth concentration would only increase under this central body of power. Despite some concurrent political opposition, the New York Federal Reserve Bank became and has remained the most influential bank in the Federal Reserve system, much to the joy of Wall Street-- which could focus its attention more easily with the richest Fed Bank in its home town.
                                 
                                 Under Geithner's leadership it would become an equally chummy friend to that Wall Street community a century later."

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 70

                                    rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    I agree that the Fed and Wall Street have become way too chummy for my taste. The Fed is a private bank that determines what your money is worth and receives a fee for doing so. To get a good grasp of the corruption and slimy way it came about you should read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. It details its inception and the actors involved in the very shady deal we have with the Fed. Another great book on the Fed is "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins. It goes into even deeper depth of this travesty uncalled Central Bank. 
                                    
                                    We are into this system too deep to make any major changes but we have to reign it in because what we now have is a similar system such as professional sports where a "commissioner" decides autonomously what gets done and who gets punished.

                                    replyreport
                     2. 59

                        Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Well, as in anything, there is the good and the bad and the ugly. I am simply saying that the bad needs to be ferreted out and the ugly done away with. But, it's very hard when they spend millions upon millions each year to buy our politicians and change the laws in order to ensure they can function in whatever manner makes them money hand over fist, while knowing full well that we, the taxpayers, will have to foot the bill when their decisions put their companies on the brink of collapse.
                        
                        I can't specify anything. It's a big problem. Too big for me to fix. However, they own our elected officials and as long as our government is owned by major corporations it can't be fixed. The American taxpayer lost their seat at the table a long time ago. So, other than some very drastic measures I don't see finding a starting point to fix the problems.

                        replyreport
            2. 65

               Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Well Thank You "Live to Learn" ~ "Reluctant Support" for the "Leftist" on this critically important issue is better than none I guess ~
               
               What Republican Corporate Puppets refuse to acknowledge, primarily for fear of losing their jobs, is the fact that the "Free Market System" along with "Capitalism", a "For Profit Frenzy" has FAILED AMERICA ~
               
               The first step on the "Clean Up or Dispose of Wall Street" agenda is to eliminate Stock Price based upon the "Earnings Metric" ~ This is ESSENTIAL ~
               
               Once this is achieved, half the battle to flush out the EVIL will be accomplished ~

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Again, how?  Will you legislate stock prices based on...what?  The number of employees?  How much charity it gives out?  What would you base it on and who gets to set the price?

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     It dosen't matter wilderness, use just about any other metric or no metric at all to peg Stock Prices, but this is a certainty, if you do not remove the "Earnings" component every other reform would be futile ~
                     
                     The foundation of SIN , GREED & Criminality on Wall Street is "Earnings" and the anticipation thereof ~
                     
                     Watch CNBC for a few weeks and you'll understand how unrelentingly disreputable and seedy Wall Street truly is ~ It's uncomfortably bad period ~

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Some say its more about power, than money.
                        Is there something wrong with attaining power?   What we need are boundaries in this game.
                        One must not do as one likes …
                        when it hurts others.
                        
                        The pillage is against the tax payers (others).
                        Who facilitates the pillage?
                        the Fed.

                        replyreport
                     2. 77

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Now that's a great idea!  I hereby declare that one share of any stock will be priced at one cent.  Now, where do I buy it?

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Nice try wilderness but I hereby declare your declaration Invalid, Null & Void, and Nonsensical ~
                           
                           First of all, you're assuming an issuance of Stock and thereafter and After-Market is needed which they are not ~ But if you insist on watching Scam Artists Buy & Sell Securities on Wall Street all day while taking the general public for the proverbial ride, how about placing price at "Book Value" which is a much closer estimate of what the company and or stock is actually worth ~
                           
                           Speculators would be Flushed Out and Volatility would be Mitigated ~
                           
                           You would be amazed at the divergence between "Book" and "Market" Value ~ Why do you think "Book Value" is rarely if ever discussed on the "Business Channels"? If investors suddenly realized their $100 stock was actually in reality worth about $5, what do you think would happen?
                           
                           In many cases "Market Value" is extremely  INFLATED ~ Just one more example of fraud and unsavvory activity on your Wall Street ~

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Oh my.  I but took your suggestion that anyone could set prices at anything they liked.  Guess the suggestion was nonsensical, wasn't it?
                              
                              But can you define exactly what this "Book value", that you now think should be used, is?  Total assets minus debt?  What about customer good will, brand, employee base, etc?  Seems to me that stock price should be pegged directly to earnings, or maybe the higher of that or book value.  Or would you jump at the chance to buy a company with 10 million in assets that is going in the hole every year?

                              replyreport
                              1. 65

                                 Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Um, wilderness ~
                                 
                                 My entire point was and still is the same ~ An "Earnings" based Wall Street Breeds the Worst Elements ~ Corruption, Greed, Illegal Activity etc.
                                 
                                 My other point is to abolish the New York Stock Exchange and all other peripheral trading sources completely ~

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 77

                                    wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    And MY point is still the same as well - what else do you propose?  And now, as you wish to eliminate any partial sales of a company will you also eliminate any partial ownership as well?
                                    
                                    So far you've only proposed a "nonsensical" scenario (your word) that was silly in the extreme.  Can you do any better or is it all just rant with no substance?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 65

                                       Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       wilderness ~
                                       
                                       I'm not so sure others would agree with you that Buying or Selling a Stock at Book Price, which is Actual Intrinsic Value and Deeply Discounted Verses an astronomically INFLATED Market Price which trades at nose bleed levels strictly due to Speculation is Nonsensical ~
                                       
                                       If we were to spare Wall Street, this would be just one of a PLETHORA of Changes, Modifications, Amendments, and or Regulatory Actions that would be needed to even begin a massive Clean-Up Operation  ~
                                       
                                       Even Donald Trump understands the fact that Wall Street Criminals are just that, with Hedge Fund Managers Pillaging the Public to the tune of BILLIONS while contributing very little if anything with regard to Taxes ~ It's time to FLUSH these Greed Driven Shady Individuals out of the proverbial WEEDS ~

                                       report
                                       1. 77

                                          wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          But buying at a price that is "deeply discounted" from reality does make sense.  I don't quite follow the reasoning here, I'm afraid.  I DO think that stock prices are grossly inflated, but that is because the return from the company isn't what is important; what the stock price does in the future takes priority.  I don't know how to fix that, but setting arbitrary prices based on a discounted value of holdings isn't it.
                                          
                                          I thought you wanted to END the stock market, not just regulate it?  That WAS your statement, was it not?  But in any case I don't see your desire as anything but to prevent people from becoming wealthy, and the stock market is simply a huge embarrassment to the socialist that thinks everyone should have equality regardless of effort, skill, training or anything else.
                                          
                                          Back to the loaded words, I see ("criminals", "greed", "shady", etc.).  How about some solid facts to back them up - names of criminals not caught, individuals with greed beyond that of someone wanting other's money to give away, high income individuals paying no taxes, etc.? Always helpful, don't you know?

                                          report
   2. 70

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "Its a big problem and somebody has to solve it."
      
      I really am not picking on you when I respond to this but there is a salient issue when I hear this. I used to be president of a community band for a number of years. Part of my responsibility was to run the monthly board meetings. I took the job because prior to becoming president I attended these board meetings and found nothing was done from month to month because of the lack of structure or assignment of tasks being followed through with any finality. As president I applied Robert's Rules of Order in running the meeting. This was totally foreign to the rest who where school teachers, government workers and business people. Up until that point is was "somebody should look into this" or "somebody should find out about this or that". When this was proposed under the meeting rules it was introduced, seconded, argued, amended and assigned" Incredible speed was achieved and responsibility was taken and followed through. We accomplished much because of the logical and methodical dynamics it employed.
      
      "Its a big problem and somebody has to solve it." will never happen until someone takes the initiative to take ownership and make it happen. We are the ones to do that and not the slimebags who have developed it into the well oiled greed fest it has become. We are really in charge. We just don't exercise our own intelligence and make it happen.

      replyreport
2. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   Naomi Prins explains on Page 127 in her book, It takes a Pillage:
   "The Fed is not a Swiss bank account. It may not be a fully public agency, but it does have a responsibility to the public."

   replyreport
3. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   "The full scope of the subsidization of the banking industry encompassed more than13 trillion, and more than half of that came directly from the Fed … what was the Fed thinking? Shouldn't it have had less, rather than more, unilateral power? How does the Fed relate to the taxpayers?" pg.130.

   replyreport
4. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   How would it be without big finance?
   Are we men or mice?
   Are we sheep or very intelligent human beings?
   I say we can figure this out. We can and we will.
   Power to the aliens on this planet:
   US!

   replyreport
5. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   Also, a central bank (Federal Reserve) was never advocated by the founders.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Well Yeah Kathryn, why would they?? Considering the Stock Market wasn't created until at least years if not decades after the constitution was written and there was a miniscule economy if any at all when our founders were drafting the papers ~
      
      I understand conservatives are in perpetual denial with regard to "Change" and Progress" but despite their vehement opposition, things do ultimately evolve ~
      
      What else would you expect? Our founders were human beings running around chasing maids in between kamakazi shots and meetings about the NEW WORLD they had inherited ~ I don't think they were Master Prognosticators ~ As a matter of fact they failed to foresee many important developments, they were merely human ~

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         No, I have to get out the Federalist papers on this. Madison had politically sound reasons.

         replyreport
6. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   "eliminate Stock Price based upon the 'Earnings Metric' "
   Could you elucidate?

   replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Got to be careful when you people say , "Go Get wall street ",  I agree in some ways it must be regulated , however  , the reason  that it's so controversial is that  there is a lot of money being made on YOUR  investments . Your 401's , retirement funds , energy futures  ,  All lot of "normal" folk's financial security is dependent on trading  anyone living ON  their  retirements .       I for one would love to see some federal  regulation in Wall Street ,  Take energy out of the picture for one .   Let Americans  not have to worry about heating ,  about  gasoline for travel and work   !

   replyreport