Occupy the Globe

[Mr. Perfect]

The "broke" banks had the same sort of influence a hostage taker has over his victims. The vast majority of TARP supporters were afraid, not corrupt, even if the actual design and administration of TARP (conducted by former Wall Street execs) was.

Then you are ruling out the corruption option.

[Carbizene]

1)) im not against occupy, im not particularly against anything
2)) it came to me from my occupy friends in melbourne and unfortunately they where very happy with it
3)) i was just mentioning how it plays out in australia and things that are counter productive.. in my way i was being helpful

That is unfortunate, smug, holier-than-thou, smart-arsery, never helped anybody, pass those words on in your most helpful manner. : )

If they bitch tell'em I protested the CCEMIC when they were eggs.

[Mr. Perfect]

Berzer, I was considering a line by line thing but do not think the in the end it would have been the effective way to go. Instead I will try to outline a counterargument.

TARP was about the following;

There are three players involved in TARP, that being a) GWB, b) Paulson, and c) the Democrats. Pick any of the Democrats you like.

Bush phoned it in. He is not involved really in any way other than signing the paper at the end.

The interesting players are Paulson and the Democrats. So let's take a look at them.

1) Paulson was driven by one thing, and one thing only. Saving Citgroup. One of the things that unfortunately nobody really knows is the culture inside these places. To the WS/DC axis Citigroup was a Shangri La, August National, Vail Colorado, the Monterey Peninsula, the exclusive yacht club of your choosing, and so forth. It is the nexus where Arab oil princes, Indian math nerds, former DC politicians and assorted bigshots, and yes Harvard Democrats all rubbed elbows and felt all upper crusty, smart and important. Citigroup, was important. All those smart people were doing good, they were doing the Lord's work, and it was the kind of group your ASB President would think was cool. And of course the power. The very height of exclusivity, Citigroup. More than Golden Slacks in many ways. Power and Money, hard to find a greater concentration of that anywhere else in the world. And the proles largely don't even know it.

Even Buffett says that only 4 banks "needed" TARP and I would imagine that that may be an overstatement. From Paulson's perspective casting a wide net helped save Citi from embarrassment, spreading the blame far and wide, diluting it. And it worked. His precious Citi was saved. Henry Paulson didn't need one dime in campaign donations, not a single dime, he was on the Lord's errand. A treasury secretary concerned about the campaign of a lame duck President? Not even wrong, a non-starter. Zero argument for corruption, less than zero. These were his friends. They didn't need to pay him.

2) The Democrats. As everyone knows by now, Citi was loaded with Harvard Democrats. So the stuff that applied to Paulson applied to them.

But there was another component, purely ideological.

You see, ideologues dream political dreams when they are falling into sleep, fevered dreams sometimes. A leftist dreams mainly of two things, socializing medicine and nationalizing banks. Ever since Marx started scribbling the leftist fall asleep counting sheep and nationalizing banks. To the Democrats/leftists in this instance it was falling into their laps. You can go back to the Spengler forum and all the leftists at the time were openly talking about nationalizing the banks, not angrily but with expectation. They were very calm about it, the expectation was there. TARP was going to lead to nationalization.

Go back to the transcripts, the Democrats were drooling over TARP, slamming the GOP who put the breaks on it, defeating it on it's first pass. There was no indication of caution, thoughtfulness or scrutiny for the Democrats, it was all in all at once. This was their dream, they sunk all their teeth into. And little did they know it was going to blow up into their faces. But it did. Anti-intellectual lot, these Democrats. They truly didn't understand what they were getting into. Private enterprise beats gov't most of the time. Politicians get distracted. But anyway.

And all the fleabaggers, the Obama voters, the ones in the street now? The "Wanderers", as Matt Damon calls them? They were cheering for all of it at the time.

Zack has graciously provided the most conclusive evidence that "corruption" has no part here, the card that was played was "too big to fail", although the pols didn't even need to hear that, it was for the public. There was no money in the banks.

None of this was about "money in politics", none of it whatsoever.

I could go much further but hopefully this shapes it well enough.

[Simple Minded]

the tea party was easily ignorable because of the christian fundies ranting about gays (queue redneck durian stereotype) and occupy australia is pretty much doing the same thing to itself with stunts like this. (queue whiny arts student stereotype)

What do these tarded zombie walks have to do with Occupy? nowhere have you provided any substantive link between them and Occupy?

1)) im not against occupy, im not particularly against anything
2)) it came to me from my occupy friends in melbourne and unfortunately they where very happy with it
3)) i was just mentioning how it plays out in australia and things that are counter productive.. in my way i was being helpful

amen brother noddy! I consider your observations very valid and helpful.

A mob is a mob is a mob........

Looks the same in the US as Europe as Australia, and the same at OWS or the DNC or RNC or TP or a Green Peace convention. The influence of peer pressure, and the popular desire to herd, the internal, emotional need to belong to something greater than oneself should never be underestimated. For many, the object is irrelevant.

The bottom 30%? are usually oblivious of the who prime movers are, and often look like cannon fodder or useful idiots for the top 5%? who are pulling the strings. Same holds true for the "99%." Still gonna be a top 5% in that crowd.

Eric Hoffer was right, ("Nothing is easier than to convince people they are poorly governed!") it is easier to gather and oppose anything about the status quo (emotion), than to stay organized and administrate (reason). After the herd is gathered, the trick is to keep them from stampeding or devolving into factions.

Zombie fascination which seems ubiquitous, is an indicator of current zeitgeist. Elliottwave.com has published some interesting comentary on the phenomena.

Politics is loaded with binary thinking, the cult of personality, and the need to stereotype. "Us vs. Them" seems to be a mental default of the human condition.

Long live freedom of expression..... no matter what it exposes or displays about us

[Simple Minded]

an another thang.....

The current zombie fascination reminds of the great line by the Joker in The Dark Knight:

"When the chips are down.... these civilized people will eat each other..."

art imimitating life? or vice versa?

[Enki]

Holy lavender, they removed the barricades from Zuccotti and there were hundreds of people there within an hour or so after, a pretty big General Assembly when I was there at 9PM last night.

And this! More mana from the Gods! Well, from Forbes anyway.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzn ... tt-romney/

Bain invested just $30 million to take over a company. It then arranged for this company to pay Bain and its investors a special dividend of $180 million– or six times the amount of equity capital Bain invested to take control. This technique of forcing your prey to pay back your original investment or more, as in this case, is to ensure that the Private Equity Firm is assured of a profit. It is an exploitative way to strip the company of its spare cash and is indefensible corporate rape.

I was thinking if Mitt Romney beats Obama on jobs it would be further evidence that Satan really is in charge. Then my friend pointed out that Bush beat Kerry on military service. So I thought it was possible.

But now...

This guy is unelectable. A vote for Romney in the primary is a vote for Obama in the general.

First Newt, now Forbes being mouthpieces for OWS!!! It's pretty amazing!

[Parodite]

Would this in time write off Romney for R. Paul to be the Rep contender against Obama? Somehow RP seems to be a possible real challenge to Obama.. but that's a gut feeling.

[Enki]

Would this in time write off Romney for R. Paul to be the Rep contender against Obama? Somehow RP seems to be a possible real challenge to Obama.. but that's a gut feeling.

I don't know. We will find out in South Carolina.

[Mr. Perfect]

Obama got more money from Bain Capital than Romney did, in terms of donations.

Obama destroyed more jobs "saving" GM (in plant and dealership closings) than Bain capital could ever dream of.

Obama's new chief of staff was a subprime shorter for Citi who made nearly a million in bonuses while being a ward of TARP.

And we won't even go into stimulus/sedative, cash for clunkers, Solyndra etc adnauseum. We won't even get into that.

Romney beats Obama on jobs 10 times out of 10.

Bain is just another bomb in a long list of bombs about to go off in the face of Democrats everywhere.

I couldn't be more pleased.

[monster_gardener]

Proof that Occupy Wall Street has been the most successful political movement of our time in the shortest amount of time.

http://www.kingofbain.com/

This is NEWT GINGRICH and his message.

We've won folks, we have genuflecting won!

Thank you Very Much for your post and the link, Tinker Enki.

Could be a Newtron Bomb for Romney................

Has got Sean Hannity worried that Newt going negative could help Obama. Wants Newt to be positive....... but had to admit that Romney started it first in Iowa.......

Update: Sarah Palin defending Newt & Perry dissing Romney..........

Hannity seems to think that criticizing Bain is wrong, evil, socialist even ...............

Oh the shame of it, that to get elected, Republican leaders would tell the truth for all the wrong reasons

[monster_gardener]

Obama got more money from Bain Capital than Romney did, in terms of donations.

Obama destroyed more jobs "saving" GM (in plant and dealership closings) than Bain capital could ever dream of.

Obama's new chief of staff was a subprime shorter for Citi who made nearly a million in bonuses while being a ward of TARP.

And we won't even go into stimulus/sedative, cash for clunkers, Solyndra etc adnauseum. We won't even get into that.

Romney beats Obama on jobs 10 times out of 10.

Bain is just another bomb in a long list of bombs about to go off in the face of Democrats everywhere.

I couldn't be more pleased.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Mr. Perfect.

What I remember best about the Bain bane saga is that medical company that Bain loaded with debt before sending it out to fail..........

Reminded me a bit of a kid dirty trick from a Monopoly game: mortgaging the property before selling it to your brother....... HE has to pay the bank.........

And ESPECIALLY the part when Bain moved the Puerto Rican division to the mainland, persuaded workers to move with the plant which was then shut down shortly and then INSISTED THAT THE LAID OFF WORKERS PAY BACK THE MOVING EXPENSE MONEY............. IMHO a very Cheap DIRTY TRICK ............. *

As O'Reilly was worrying on Fox, Romney is going to be painted as a Gordon Gekko clone............ IMHO correctly...........

Makes me just want to vote Gary Johnson as a protest vote if Paul doesn't the Republican nomination ..........

Reminds me IN REVERSE of something someone maybe on the Spengler board??? was complaining about the Greek economic crisis: that Greeks need to get with it, need to be willing to move where the jobs are even it it means that they don't get to see their families every Sunday.............

[Enki]

The difference here is that Bain didn't have to destroy those companies. They didn't have to extract money from those companies. Bain was predatory and it wasn't capitalism. It wasn't creative destruction, it was just destruction.

Hard to justify TO AN HONEST PERSON that getting a loan for a company for $ 30m and then immediately extracting $ 160m from that company is in the best interests of that company.

To partisans who don't actually give a lavender about real people and the real effects that choices have and just want to beat the other team at all costs, of course...they'll keep shilling for Mitt Romney. We know this.

But Moderates and Liberals, they will care about the Vulture capitalism. It WILL matter to them. Romney is going to be slaughtered by Obama. Unless Newt stops the Romney freight train in South Carolina.

[Azrael]

Occupy Nigeria

Famed author Chinua Achebe on the Occupy Nigeria strikes.

[Mr. Perfect]

The difference here is that Bain didn't have to destroy those companies. They didn't have to extract money from those companies. Bain was predatory and it wasn't capitalism. It wasn't creative destruction, it was just destruction.

Hard to justify TO AN HONEST PERSON that getting a loan for a company for $ 30m and then immediately extracting $ 160m from that company is in the best interests of that company.

To partisans who don't actually give a lavender about real people and the real effects that choices have and just want to beat the other team at all costs, of course...they'll keep shilling for Mitt Romney. We know this.

But Moderates and Liberals, they will care about the Vulture capitalism. It WILL matter to them. Romney is going to be slaughtered by Obama. Unless Newt stops the Romney freight train in South Carolina.

Very interesting. I can say in honesty that I am beginning to smell the whiff of fear over this Romney since he won IA. Very interesting.

Maybe someone can tell me how honest liberals and moderates are going to respond to the fact the Barack Obama raised more money from Bain than Mitt Romney did. I wonder about how honest people are going to respond to that.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... tal-romney

[Mr. Perfect]

Obama letting loose the dogs of war on the fleabaggers, and the fleabaggers will take it and ask for more.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/repor ... occupiers/

President Barack Obama’s administration has ordered the United States Coast Guard to protect grain ships at the Port of Longview from violent “Occupy” protesters and dockworker union members, according to a local news report.

The Daily News in Longview, Wash., reported that the Coast Guard will protect a grain shipment from an onslaught of “Occupy” protesters and members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). The ship will be transporting grain to Asia. A date for the shipment has not yet been set.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/repor ... z1jHbvtaw3

[Enki]

Very interesting. I can say in honesty that I am beginning to smell the whiff of fear over this Romney since he won IA. Very interesting.

Yes, you're right, I do fear evil men getting their hands on power. Bain Capital is evil. What they did to those companies is evil.

That's my main problem with you, you seem to have this idea that businessman = saint. It's probably the thing that most makes me distrust you.

Maybe someone can tell me how honest liberals and moderates are going to respond to the fact the Barack Obama raised more money from Bain than Mitt Romney did. I wonder about how honest people are going to respond to that.

Mitt Romney raised several hundred million dollars from Bain. Obama hasn't touched that amount.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... tal-romney

I'm rooting for Ron Paul. I am hoping that 'When Mitt Romney Came to Town', kills it for Romney so that Paul is the nominee. If not, I still probably won't vote for Obama. The only way I am likely to vote for Obama is if I get a delegate seat at the DNC in which case I will be voting as a representative and just for the DNC primary which he's going to win anyway.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well that may be true, but Obama seems to like the evilness more than even Romney. His chief financial advisors are Warren Buffett and George Soros, who Mitt Romney could never even dream of being as predatory. Buffett buys positions in healthy companies only, and refuses to take risks on troubled companies and is not willing to try to save the potential jobs lost by companies at risk. He refuses to do it. leaving it to companies like Bain while he charges management fees and then pays lower than average taxes and refuses to pay more.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/11/wa ... r-shut-up/

We won't even touch George Soros and your causes have been using him as a sugar daddy without complaint for many years, including Obama.

And of course Obama just made his chief of staff, the most powerful position in the administration a Citigroup banker who made millions shorting mortgages and took huge in bonuses while Citi was still subsisting on TARP/taxpayer money funds. Obama made him his highest advisor. The very type of person all your friends are getting beaten by policemen to protect, that person, the evil Wall Street short selling banker, Obama pissed all over your people by making one of them, the worst of the worst his most influential advisor. And the fleabaggers are all getting wild about Bain, a bit player in this world. Morally and intellectually bankrupt anti-intellectuals, these fleabaggers.

So some of the most predatory capitalists in the world are Obama's closest advisors and moneymen. By choice. He has lots and lots of options but this is who he chooses.

Obviously if you want to strike a blow against predatory capitalism you have to vote for anybody but Obama. Anybody.

[Typhoon]

Well that may be true, but Obama seems to like the evilness more than even Romney. His chief financial advisors are Warren Buffett and George Soros, who Mitt Romney could never even dream of being as predatory. Buffett buys positions in healthy companies only, and refuses to take risks on troubled companies and is not willing to try to save the potential jobs lost by companies at risk. He refuses to do it. leaving it to companies like Bain while he charges management fees and then pays lower than average taxes and refuses to pay more.

I thought that in a free market businessmen are free to choose at to where and how they invest.

Am I mistaken?

We won't even touch George Soros and your causes have been using him as a sugar daddy without complaint for many years, including Obama.

What are George Soros' trangressions besides being successful?

[monster_gardener]

Berzer, I was considering a line by line thing but do not think the in the end it would have been the effective way to go. Instead I will try to outline a counterargument.

TARP was about the following;

There are three players involved in TARP, that being a) GWB, b) Paulson, and c) the Democrats. Pick any of the Democrats you like.

Bush phoned it in. He is not involved really in any way other than signing the paper at the end.

The interesting players are Paulson and the Democrats. So let's take a look at them.

1) Paulson was driven by one thing, and one thing only. Saving Citgroup. One of the things that unfortunately nobody really knows is the culture inside these places. To the WS/DC axis Citigroup was a Shangri La, August National, Vail Colorado, the Monterey Peninsula, the exclusive yacht club of your choosing, and so forth. It is the nexus where Arab oil princes, Indian math nerds, former DC politicians and assorted bigshots, and yes Harvard Democrats all rubbed elbows and felt all upper crusty, smart and important. Citigroup, was important. All those smart people were doing good, they were doing the Lord's work, and it was the kind of group your ASB President would think was cool. And of course the power. The very height of exclusivity, Citigroup. More than Golden Slacks in many ways. Power and Money, hard to find a greater concentration of that anywhere else in the world. And the proles largely don't even know it.

Even Buffett says that only 4 banks "needed" TARP and I would imagine that that may be an overstatement. From Paulson's perspective casting a wide net helped save Citi from embarrassment, spreading the blame far and wide, diluting it. And it worked. His precious Citi was saved. Henry Paulson didn't need one dime in campaign donations, not a single dime, he was on the Lord's errand. A treasury secretary concerned about the campaign of a lame duck President? Not even wrong, a non-starter. Zero argument for corruption, less than zero. These were his friends. They didn't need to pay him.

2) The Democrats. As everyone knows by now, Citi was loaded with Harvard Democrats. So the stuff that applied to Paulson applied to them.

But there was another component, purely ideological.

You see, ideologues dream political dreams when they are falling into sleep, fevered dreams sometimes. A leftist dreams mainly of two things, socializing medicine and nationalizing banks. Ever since Marx started scribbling the leftist fall asleep counting sheep and nationalizing banks. To the Democrats/leftists in this instance it was falling into their laps. You can go back to the Spengler forum and all the leftists at the time were openly talking about nationalizing the banks, not angrily but with expectation. They were very calm about it, the expectation was there. TARP was going to lead to nationalization.

Go back to the transcripts, the Democrats were drooling over TARP, slamming the GOP who put the breaks on it, defeating it on it's first pass. There was no indication of caution, thoughtfulness or scrutiny for the Democrats, it was all in all at once. This was their dream, they sunk all their teeth into. And little did they know it was going to blow up into their faces. But it did. Anti-intellectual lot, these Democrats. They truly didn't understand what they were getting into. Private enterprise beats gov't most of the time. Politicians get distracted. But anyway.

And all the fleabaggers, the Obama voters, the ones in the street now? The "Wanderers", as Matt Damon calls them? They were cheering for all of it at the time.

Zack has graciously provided the most conclusive evidence that "corruption" has no part here, the card that was played was "too big to fail", although the pols didn't even need to hear that, it was for the public. There was no money in the banks.

None of this was about "money in politics", none of it whatsoever.

I could go much further but hopefully this shapes it well enough.

Thank you VERY Much for your post, Mr. Perfect.

1) Paulson was driven by one thing, and one thing only. Saving Citgroup. One of the things that unfortunately nobody really knows is the culture inside these places. To the WS/DC axis Citigroup was a Shangri La, August National, Vail Colorado, the Monterey Peninsula, the exclusive yacht club of your choosing, and so forth. It is the nexus where Arab oil princes, Indian math nerds, former DC politicians and assorted bigshots, and yes Harvard Democrats all rubbed elbows and felt all upper crusty, smart and important. Citigroup, was important. All those smart people were doing good, they were doing the Lord's work, and it was the kind of group your ASB President would think was cool. And of course the power. The very height of exclusivity, Citigroup. More than Golden Slacks in many ways. Power and Money, hard to find a greater concentration of that anywhere else in the world. And the proles largely don't even know it.

If/since as I understand you, Paulson is the Boss Bankster/Killer Klown from Financial Space................

Rather than Goldman Suck's Fabrice Touree or Blankfein........................

When can we/US expect a Rolling Stone or similar article to roll over this POSewer oops I mean POSeur as Secy of the Treasury.........

Expect legal action against Paulson/Shiti Bank...........

Or at least steps take to prevent this from happening again...............

I know............. When Ron Paul wins or NEVER most likely.......................

[Mr. Perfect]

I thought that in a free market businessmen are free to choose at to where and how they invest.

Am I mistaken?

No you are not.

According to Tinker's value system though this should disqualify them from politics in many instances.

What are George Soros' trangressions besides being successful?

Mr. Soros' record is rather long in doing things the fleabaggers now consider predatory, immoral, etc. Oddly they have been very happy taking money from him in many cases, he is a prominent left wing donor.

[Zack Morris]

There are three players involved in TARP, that being a) GWB, b) Paulson, and c) the Democrats. Pick any of the Democrats you like.

Bush phoned it in. He is not involved really in any way other than signing the paper at the end.

Yeah, Bush wasn't responsible. He just signed the law, after pressuring Congress to enact it, after he and his staff listened to and agreed with what Paulson (a man they hired) told them.

1) Paulson was driven by one thing, and one thing only. Saving Citgroup.

A Goldman Sachs exec did everything in his power to save Citigroup. Yup, that makes sense.

One of the things that unfortunately nobody really knows is the culture inside these places. To the WS/DC axis Citigroup was a Shangri La, August National, Vail Colorado, the Monterey Peninsula, the exclusive yacht club of your choosing, and so forth. It is the nexus where Arab oil princes, Indian math nerds, former DC politicians and assorted bigshots, and yes Harvard Democrats all rubbed elbows and felt all upper crusty, smart and important. Citigroup, was important. All those smart people were doing good, they were doing the Lord's work, and it was the kind of group your ASB President would think was cool. And of course the power. The very height of exclusivity, Citigroup. More than Golden Slacks in many ways. Power and Money, hard to find a greater concentration of that anywhere else in the world. And the proles largely don't even know it.

Goldman has always been the more exclusive club.

[Mr. Perfect]

If/since as I understand you, Paulson is the Boss Bankster/Killer Klown from Financial Space................

Rather than Goldman Suck's Fabrice Touree or Blankfein........................

When can we/US expect a Rolling Stone or similar article to roll over this POSewer oops I mean POSeur as Secy of the Treasury.........

Never. Matt Taibi is a dramatically ingnorant person whose only ability seems to be leading his readers astray.

Expect legal action against Paulson/Shiti Bank...........

Or at least steps take to prevent this from happening again...............

I know............. When Ron Paul wins or NEVER most likely.......................

No legal action will ever come mg.

One needs to make the government less powerful, read eliminate Freddie/Fannie and consider ways to get rid of the Fed, and eliminate a lot of regulations. But I doubt certain population segments will ever get on board those ideas.

[Mr. Perfect]

Yeah, Bush wasn't responsible. He just signed the law, after pressuring Congress to enact it, after he and his staff listened to and agreed with what Paulson (a man they hired) told them.

Correct, Bush's role was passive. Note that I did not say it exonerates him.

A Goldman Sachs exec did everything in his power to save Citigroup. Yup, that makes sense.

It sure does.

Goldman has always been the more exclusive club.

Depends on your crowd. For the DC/NY/internationalists it's always been Citi.

[Enki]

Yeah, Bush wasn't responsible. He just signed the law, after pressuring Congress to enact it, after he and his staff listened to and agreed with what Paulson (a man they hired) told them.

Correct, Bush's role was passive. Note that I did not say it exonerates him.

A Goldman Sachs exec did everything in his power to save Citigroup. Yup, that makes sense.

It sure does.

Goldman has always been the more exclusive club.

Depends on your crowd. For the DC/NY/internationalists it's always been Citi.

Gotta say, I found Mr. Perfect's post about Citigroup to be somewhat condescending. I'm surprised someone sees it as being so difficult to comprehend.

Hint: Bankers are diversified.

[Enki]

No you are not.

According to Tinker's value system though this should disqualify them from politics in many instances.

Buffett is ok, though I prefer to keep billionaires away from political positions because they are already incredibly powerful from within the private sector. I'm not saying it should be illegal for them to run for office, only that it's against my personal interests for them to be in power because they are likely to exert a lot of influence like Bloomberg does.

I don't think that saddling an ailing company with a mountain of debt the moment you purchase them can credibly claimed as an attempt to resuscitate a company and make it successful. Rebuilding failing companies is a noble purpose, and yes firing people can be a part of that function, but when you pile a mountain of debt on them in order to pay yourself back for purchasing them so that you have no risk in the venture whatsoever, then you're just destroying people's livelihoods for the sake of expanding your home and that's wicked.

Mr. Soros' record is rather long in doing things the fleabaggers now consider predatory, immoral, etc. Oddly they have been very happy taking money from him in many cases, he is a prominent left wing donor.

Agreed on Soros. But he can't run for President so the point is moot.