From:   shaista husain <shaistahusain@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:18:16 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: OccupyWallStreet Economic Statement Draft 1
 

Doug Singsen, Thank you, I couldn't have said it better--"The way to

make this the strongest possible fight is to link all these

issues--the entire 99% in a united struggle. That's whats possible

here and that's the example we have to set."

 

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Doug Singsen <dougsingsen@gmail.com> wrote:

> I actually think that right now almost no one is going to be scared away by

> us being "too radical." This is a moment when large numbers of people are

> fed up with multiple aspects of US politics and economy: corporate power,

> union-busting, layoffs, war, and more. This is the time to be uniting all

> these issues. And they are indeed all connected by finance. Finance is about

> control of wealth and resources, which when you come down to it is what

> every social struggle is about. Everything on this planet has been

> commodified, from labor to the environment to education and on and on, so

> all these areas are connected by finance. One way or another, Wall Street

> has its hand in literally every form of oppression and exploitation on the

> globe. The way to make this the strongest possible fight is to link all

> these issues - the entire 99% - in a united struggle. That's what's possible

> here and that's the example we have to set.

>

> Doug

>

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Gabriel Johnson <gabjoh2@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> I just want to second Barry's point on keeping it focused on finance;

>> everything is interrelated, of course, but this is *Occupy Wall Street* and

>> a lot of the side ones are going to have a lot of our natural allies dismiss

>> us. I just also might add some sort of taxing the rich plank; it's something

>> enormously popular, all across the (even American) political spectrum.

>> --glj

>>

>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Winter Siroco <wintersiroco@gmail.com>

>> wrote:

>>>

>>> I hope that people are for major and enduring transformations, not for

>>> minor reforms.

>>> Cesar

>>>

>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Barry Ritholtz <ritholtz@optonline.net>

>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Folks:

>>>> In terms of goals and desires, the simpler and more fundamental a list,

>>>> the more like that actual change can be effected.

>>>> I would keep it focused on finance (ie. Wall Street) and on issues that

>>>> actually matter and can be a rallying cry for the nation.

>>>> We don't want a top 10 list -- at least not as the main goals -- it

>>>> becomes too unfocused.

>>>> I suggest 3 goals, with specific political action to follow

>>>> 1. Get dirty Wall St Money out of politics/legislative process

>>>> 2. No more bailouts

>>>> 3. End TBTF banks

>>>> The legislative goals of each could be as follows:

>>>> 1. CAMPAIGN FINANCE:  Constitutional amendment changing the rules of

>>>> campaign finance, providing public finance, removing the massive inflow of

>>>> cash -- I believe Dylan called auctioning our Congress to the highest

>>>> bidder.

>>>> A national campaign to get that amendment on every ballot in every state

>>>> is a very doable goal.

>>>> (Marketing: "Take Congress back from Wall St!")

>>>> 2. BAILOUTS: No more bailouts is obvious -- time to end private gains

>>>> and socialized losses of crony capitalism

>>>> (Marketing: "Bring Back Real Capitalism!" )

>>>> 3. TBTF:  As George Shultz famously said, "If they're too big to fail,

>>>> make them smaller."

>>>> The bailouts have made the TBTF banks an even bigger, less competitive

>>>> oligarchy. Bring back competition by limiting the size of these, either in

>>>> terms of % of deposits or dollar amounts. Many ways to accomplish this,

>>>> including an FDIC caps on insurance would be effective.

>>>> (Bring now private citizen Sheila Bair into the discussion)

>>>> These are all doable measurable goals, that can have a real impact on

>>>> legislation, the economy and taxes.

>>>> But do understand this: Whatever is accomplished will be temporary

>>>> without campaign finance reform . . .

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Barry L. Ritholtz

>>>> CEO, Director of Equity Research

>>>> Fusion IQ

>>>> 535 Fifth Avenue, 25th floor

>>>> New York, NY 10017

>>>> 212-661-2022  x7104

>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>> The Big Picture: Macro perspectives on the Capital Markets, Economy, and

>>>> Geopolitics

>>>> http://www.ritholtz.com/

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 6:52 PM, George Washington wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Since so many people think there is already an official list of demands,

>>>> I wrote this to clear the air:

>>>>

>>>> No, There Is NOT a List of Official Demands from the Protesters

>>>>

>>>> As a side note, this guy has an interesting list:

>>>>

>>>> 1) End the Collusion Between Government and Large Corporations/Banks, So

>>>> That Our Elected Leaders Are Actually Representing the Interests of the

>>>> People (the 99%) and Not Just Their Rich Donors (the 1%).

>>>>

>>>> 2) Investigate Wall Street and Hold Senior Executives Accountable for

>>>> the Destruction in Wealth that has Devastated Millions of People.

>>>>

>>>> 3) Return the Power of Coining Money to the U.S. Treasury and Return to

>>>> Sound Money

>>>>

>>>> 4) Limit the Size, Scope and Power of Banks so that None are Ever Again

>>>> “Too Big to Fail” and in Need to Taxpayer Bailouts

>>>>

>>>> 5) Eliminate “Personhood” Legal Status for Corporations

>>>>

>>>> 6) Repeal the Patriot Act, End the War on Drugs and Protect Civil

>>>> Liberties

>>>>

>>>> 7) End All Imperial Wars of Aggression, Bring the Troops Home from All

>>>> Countries, Cut the Military Budget and Limit The Military Role to Protection

>>>> of the Homeland

>>>>

>>>> Curious if both liberals and conservatives on this list informally (and

>>>> confidentially) agree.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Yves Smith <yves@nakedcapitalism.com>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> Right now, more people show up for work every day at Goldman than have

>>>>> shown up for these protests.

>>>>> We know that the grievances of the protestors are widely shared. But

>>>>> the risk is that demands lead to some sort of Potemkin negotations or

>>>>> dismissals in the press as to how unrealistic the demands are ("Throw Wall

>>>>> Street execs in jail! We tried that, they succeeded in getting the laws

>>>>> gutted so there is no way to do that. So you want us to become a nation of

>>>>> vigilantes?")

>>>>> The more people show up, continue to look like a good cross section of

>>>>> America, and make statements individually (via sites like We are the 99%,

>>>>> via their placards or when interviewed with the press) that resonate with

>>>>> people, the more the space of what is possible gets bigger.

>>>>> This is starting to change what it is acceptable to say in the media.

>>>>> That's very good initial progress.

>>>>>

>>>>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Michael Hudson wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>            I should have added that it is easiest to agree on what the

>>>>> SYMPTOMS are. The economy is dying. It’s being killed by financial

>>>>> mismanagers. It’s polarizing.

>>>>>             Neither party is addressing the root causes – that’s really

>>>>> why these guys are out there.

>>>>> Michael

>>>>>

>>>>> On 10/4/11 3:56 PM, "Yves Smith" <yves@nakedcapitalism.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> My concern re stating formal and explicit demands is that the

>>>>> officialdom will start an effort to pretend to address the demands or

>>>>> negotiate with "leaders" as a way to keep more people from turning out. A

>>>>> sustained effort that keeps growing, even it it grows slowly (and the growth

>>>>> may not be slow) is really disconcerting to the officialdom. It's something

>>>>> they cant contain and don't know how to deal with.

>>>>>

>>>>> My reader tell me the movement in Spain developed along precisely these

>>>>> lines, there were no formal overarching goals/demand articulated, but there

>>>>> was a lot of discussion among various groups at the local level as to what

>>>>> their grievances were.

>>>>>

>>>>> They also said the protests were transformational on a broader social

>>>>> level.  Letting it percolate slowly seems to have been very powerful. It

>>>>> helps for people to find their voice.

>>>>>

>>>>> It's pretty obvious what the protestors want. That's why the call for

>>>>> demands is awfully disingenuous.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Matthew Taibbi wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> Let me ask you a question. If this were the Iraq war you were

>>>>> protesting instead of Wall Street corruption, would it be "naive" to demand

>>>>> a withdrawal from Iraq?

>>>>>

>>>>> Are you saying it's "naive" because it's unreasonable to expect

>>>>> results? I don't understand the use of that word in this context.

>>>>>

>>>>> --- On Tue, 10/4/11, Cesar <wintersiroco@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> From: Cesar <wintersiroco@gmail.com>

>>>>> Subject: Re: OccupyWallStreet Economic Statement Draft 1

>>>>> To: "Matthew Taibbi" <m_taibbi@yahoo.com>

>>>>> Cc: "Yves Smith" <yves@nakedcapitalism.com>, "Dylan Ratigan"

>>>>> <dylanratigan@gmail.com>, "Michael Hudson" <michael.hudson@earthlink.net>,

>>>>> "WilliamBlack" <blackw@umkc.edu>, "David DeGraw"

>>>>> <AmpedStatus@ampedstatus.com>, "september17@googlegroups.com"

>>>>> <september17@googlegroups.com>, "yotam.marom@gmail.com"

>>>>> <yotam.marom@gmail.com>, "vlad@glassbeadcollective.com"

>>>>> <vlad@glassbeadcollective.com>, "dissector@mediachannel.org"

>>>>> <dissector@mediachannel.org>, "Nomi" <nomi@nomiprins.com>, "Michael"

>>>>> <mh@michael-hudson.com>, "Mike Papantonio" <MPapantonio@levinlaw.com>,

>>>>> "MichaelKrieger" <michael@kamlp.com>, "George Washington"

>>>>> <georgewashington.911blogger@gmail.com>, "Tyler Durden"

>>>>> <tyler@zerohedge.org>, "ellenhbrown@gmail.com" <ellenhbrown@gmail.com>,

>>>>> "Karl" <karl@denninger.net>, "Barry" <thebigpicture@optonline.net>, "Kevin

>>>>> Zeese" <kbzeese@gmail.com>, "max" <maxkeiser@gmail.com>, "Matt"

>>>>> <M_TAIBBI@yahoo.com>, "Simon" <baselinescenario@gmail.com>, "Zach"

>>>>> <carter.zach@gmail.com>, "David CayJohnston" <dcjohn01@law.syr.edu>, "Bill

>>>>> Laggner" <laggner@bearingasset.com>, "Paul" <paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com>,

>>>>> "Noam Chomsky" <chomsky@mit.edu>, "BillMoyers" <moyersb@moyersmedia.com>,

>>>>> "ggreenwald@salon.com" <ggreenwald@salon.com>,

>>>>> "glen.ford@blackagendareport.com" <glen.ford@blackagendareport.com>,

>>>>> "oftwomindz@comcast.net" <oftwomindz@comcast.net>

>>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2011, 3:05 PM

>>>>>

>>>>> I am for elaborating collective discourse, but perhaps better in terms

>>>>> of general GOALS rather than demands. Demads are naive at this point, to put

>>>>> it shoftly.

>>>>> This is not incompatible with strategic actions that may achieve short

>>>>> term victories. Due to our location I think we should provide our view of

>>>>> the economic facts, and prioritize our actions toward short term and long

>>>>> term solutions.

>>>>> Regarding the elaboration of collective discourse, perhaps we should

>>>>> try some form of open source or similar wiki-process that would facilitate

>>>>> multiple contributions from diverse viewpoints.

>>>>> Cesar

>>>>>

>>>>> Sent from phone

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Matthew Taibbi <m_taibbi@yahoo.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=m_taibbi@yahoo.com> > wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> I disagree with the notion that there shouldn't be demands. I think

>>>>> there should be a few simple ones. It's not a MSM conspiracy when the press

>>>>> wonders what the movement wants or who is leading it. I think there are a

>>>>> lot of people in the press and even on Wall Street who are ready to support

>>>>> the movement wholeheartedly, if it could articulate some specifics.

>>>>>

>>>>> If OWS could identify a few basic problems -- over-concentration of

>>>>> capital, regulatory capture, overweening influence of money on politics,

>>>>> excess financialization of the economy, tax unfairness, etc -- and propose

>>>>> some first-step solutions to all of those things (break up the banks, force

>>>>> bailout recipients to give up lobbying, end the carried interest and capital

>>>>> gains exemptions as Michael points out, etc), you'd have more allies, you'd

>>>>> be educating the public about a subject that it has a tough time getting

>>>>> real information about through normal media, and it would prevent the other

>>>>> side of the debate from being able to define the movement in their own

>>>>> (inevitably unflattering) terms.

>>>>>

>>>>> The only thing preventing millions of people from going out onto the

>>>>> streets on their own is that they don't understand how Wall Street works or

>>>>> what it does. That to me is why the movement needs to be specific. It has a

>>>>> responsibility to explain these problems to the general public and to show

>>>>> that solutions do exist and that they're attainable. People I think need

>>>>> more than just the knowledge that they can protest -- they need to believe

>>>>> that they can fix things and that someone out there has the answers. And a

>>>>> lot of the people on this email list do have the answers and could provide

>>>>> that leadership that is so desperately needed.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> --- On Tue, 10/4/11, Dylan Ratigan <dylanratigan@gmail.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=dylanratigan@gmail.com> > wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> From: Dylan Ratigan <dylanratigan@gmail.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=dylanratigan@gmail.com> >

>>>>> Subject: Re: OccupyWallStreet Economic Statement Draft 1

>>>>> To: "Yves Smith" <yves@nakedcapitalism.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=yves@nakedcapitalism.com> >

>>>>> Cc: "Michael Hudson" <michael.hudson@earthlink.net

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=michael.hudson@earthlink.net> >, "Black, William"

>>>>> <blackw@umkc.edu <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=blackw@umkc.edu> >, "David

>>>>> DeGraw" <AmpedStatus@ampedstatus.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=AmpedStatus@ampedstatus.com> >,

>>>>> "september17@googlegroups.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=september17@googlegroups.com> "

>>>>> <september17@googlegroups.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=september17@googlegroups.com> >,

>>>>> "yotam.marom@gmail.com <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=yotam.marom@gmail.com> "

>>>>> <yotam.marom@gmail.com <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=yotam.marom@gmail.com> >,

>>>>> "Winter Siroco" <wintersiroco@gmail.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=wintersiroco@gmail.com> >,

>>>>> "vlad@glassbeadcollective.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=vlad@glassbeadcollective.com> "

>>>>> <vlad@glassbeadcollective.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=vlad@glassbeadcollective.com> >,

>>>>> "dissector@mediachannel.org

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=dissector@mediachannel.org> "

>>>>> <dissector@mediachannel.org

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=dissector@mediachannel.org> >, "Nomi"

>>>>> <nomi@nomiprins.com <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=nomi@nomiprins.com> >,

>>>>> "Michael" <mh@michael-hudson.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=mh@michael-hudson.com> >, "Mike Papantonio"

>>>>> <MPapantonio@levinlaw.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=MPapantonio@levinlaw.com> >, "Michael Krieger"

>>>>> <michael@kamlp.com <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=michael@kamlp.com> >, "George

>>>>> Washington" <georgewashington.911blogger@gmail.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=georgewashington.911blogger@gmail.com> >, "Tyler

>>>>> Durden" <tyler@zerohedge.org <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=tyler@zerohedge.org>

>>>>> >, "ellenhbrown@gmail.com <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=ellenhbrown@gmail.com>

>>>>> " <ellenhbrown@gmail.com <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=ellenhbrown@gmail.com>

>>>>> >, "Karl" <karl@denninger.net <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=karl@denninger.net>

>>>>> >, "Barry" <thebigpicture@optonline.net

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=thebigpicture@optonline.net> >, "Kevin Zeese"

>>>>> <kbzeese@gmail.com <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=kbzeese@gmail.com> >, "max"

>>>>> <maxkeiser@gmail.com <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=maxkeiser@gmail.com> >,

>>>>> "Matt" <M_TAIBBI@yahoo.com <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=M_TAIBBI@yahoo.com> >,

>>>>> "Simon" <baselinescenario@gmail.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=baselinescenario@gmail.com> >, "Zach"

>>>>> <carter.zach@gmail.com <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=carter.zach@gmail.com> >,

>>>>> "David Cay Johnston" <dcjohn01@law.syr.edu

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=dcjohn01@law.syr.edu> >, "Bill Laggner"

>>>>> <laggner@bearingasset.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=laggner@bearingasset.com> >, "Paul"

>>>>> <paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com> >, "Noam Chomsky"

>>>>> <chomsky@mit.edu <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=chomsky@mit.edu> >, "Moyers,

>>>>> Bill" <moyersb@moyersmedia.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=moyersb@moyersmedia.com> >, "ggreenwald@salon.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=ggreenwald@salon.com> " <ggreenwald@salon.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=ggreenwald@salon.com> >,

>>>>> "glen.ford@blackagendareport.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=glen.ford@blackagendareport.com> "

>>>>> <glen.ford@blackagendareport.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=glen.ford@blackagendareport.com> >,

>>>>> "oftwomindz@comcast.net <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=oftwomindz@comcast.net> "

>>>>> <oftwomindz@comcast.net <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=oftwomindz@comcast.net> >

>>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2011, 9:17 AM

>>>>>

>>>>> I agree with Yves entirely. The focus on simple shared principle and

>>>>> intent to align with all who agree with that principle is a unique strength.

>>>>> Learning, teaching and growing.

>>>>>

>>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Yves Smith <yves@nakedcapitalism.com

>>>>> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=yves@nakedcapitalism.com> > wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> I disagree strongly with the idea of any demands now. The number

>>>>> participating are far too small for the effort to have any bargaining

>>>>> leverage or to be perceived to represent anyone.

>>>>>

>>>>> What is hugely disconcerting to the MSM and the officialdom is the lack

>>>>> of demands and the lack of easy to identify leadership These need to be

>>>>> understood as strengths, not weaknesses. The labor union movement was over

>>>>> time completely discredited because the leadership was quickly corrupted and

>>>>> sold out the membership.

>>>>>

>>>>> The "We are the 99%" is a VERY powerful message. It basically says "We

>>>>> don't need to negotiate. This is our country and we want it back from the

>>>>> top 1% which has been selling us out." The     1% know damned well what the

>>>>> 99% want. If you forced any 10 in the top 1% of them to make a list of 10

>>>>> things they thought the other 99% wanted, I guarantee you'd have no more

>>>>> than 16 real issues (at most) among the 100 answers you'd get in total. And

>>>>> I strongly suspect the 99% would agree or at most restate them.

>>>>>

>>>>> They are MUCH better off making a general statement along the "We Are

>>>>> 99%" that holds their ground, and makes clear that their first priority is

>>>>> establishing their presence, building a critical mass and representation

>>>>> around the US. There should be a clever way of throwing the demand for

>>>>> demands back on the media: "It has taken years to create this mess, the

>>>>> public has been sold on the idea that it is powerless. Our first aim is to

>>>>> convey that the bottom 99% doesn't merely have the right to a seat at the

>>>>> table, it should not have to negotiate with the top 1% because the elites

>>>>> depend on our acquiescence and support for their very survival."

>>>>>

>>>>> There has to be a nice way to say that, but I would brush off the

>>>>> demand and make it clear that organization/membership building and (I hate

>>>>> to use that tired 60s term, but it fits) consciousness raising are the first

>>>>> priorities. The more the numbers swell, the more power this effort has.

>>>>>  Issuing demands is not on the critical path right now and has the potential

>>>>> to deter people from joining. The broader public understands damned well

>>>>> what the aims are even if the elites and their media lapdogs are playing

>>>>> stupid.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> On Oct 3, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Michael Hudson wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> > I suggest putting a specific POLICY DEMAND.

>>>>> >    How about "Bankruptcy legislation to free people without jobs from

>>>>> > student loan debt."

>>>>> >    Or more accurately: "Tax capital gains as high as wages."

>>>>> > "Remove the tax deductibility of debt."

>>>>> > "A Public Option for Credit Cards -- lower the rates and penalties."

>>>>> >    Michael Hudson

>>>>> >

>>>>> >

>>>>> > On 10/3/11 3:37 PM, "Black, William" <blackw@umkc.edu

>>>>> > <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=blackw@umkc.edu> > wrote:

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> I would recommend adding/substituting something along these lines.

>>>>> >>  If we're

>>>>> >> going to raise the subject of "fraud" we need to give some of the

>>>>> >> supporting

>>>>> >> facts.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> The systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs) are inaccurately

>>>>> >> called "too

>>>>> >> big to fail" banks.  The administration calls them "systemically

>>>>> >> important,"

>>>>> >> and acts as if they deserve a gold star.  The ugly truth, however,

>>>>> >> is what

>>>>> >> Wall Street and each administration screams when the SDIs get in

>>>>> >> trouble.

>>>>> >> They warn us that if a single SDI fails it will cause a global

>>>>> >> financial

>>>>> >> crisis.  There are roughly 20 U.S. SDIs and about the same number

>>>>> >> abroad.

>>>>> >> That means that we roll the dice 40 times a day to see which SDI

>>>>> >> will blow up

>>>>> >> next and drag the world economy into crisis.  Economists agree that

>>>>> >> the SDIs

>>>>> >> are so large that they are grotesquely inefficient.  In "good

>>>>> >> times,"

>>>>> >> therefore, they harm our economy.  It is insane not to shrink the

>>>>> >> SDIs to the

>>>>> >> point that they no longer hold the global economy hostage.  The

>>>>> >> ability -- and

>>>>> >> willingness -- of the CEOs that control SDIs to hold our economy

>>>>> >> hostage makes

>>>>> >> the SDIs too big to regulate and prosecute.  It also allows them to

>>>>> >> extort,

>>>>> >> dominate, and degrade our democracies.  The SDIs pose a clear and

>>>>> >> present

>>>>> >> danger to the U.S. and the world.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> It takes a global effort against the SDIs because they constantly

>>>>> >> put nations

>>>>> >> in competition with each other in order to generate a "race to the

>>>>> >> bottom."

>>>>> >> We are always being warned that if the U.S. adopts even minimal

>>>>> >> regulation of

>>>>> >> its SDIs they will flee to the City of London or be unable to

>>>>> >> compete with

>>>>> >> Germany's "universal" banks.  The result of the race to the bottom,

>>>>> >> however,

>>>>> >> as Ireland, Iceland, the UK, and U.S. all experienced is that we

>>>>> >> create

>>>>> >> intensely criminogenic environment that creates epidemics of

>>>>> >> "control fraud."

>>>>> >> Control fraud -- frauds led by CEOs who use seemingly legitimate

>>>>> >> entities as

>>>>> >> "weapons" to defraud -- cause greater financial losses than all

>>>>> >> other forms of

>>>>> >> property crime -- combined.  Because of the political power of the

>>>>> >> SDIs and

>>>>> >> the destruction of effective regulation these fraudulent SDIs now

>>>>> >> commit

>>>>> >> endemic fraud with impunity.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> Effective financial regulation is essential if markets are to work.

>>>>> >> Regulators have to serve as the "cops on the beat" to keep the

>>>>> >> fraudsters from

>>>>> >> gaining a competitive advantage over honest firms.  George Akerlof,

>>>>> >> the

>>>>> >> economist who identified and labeled this perverse ("Gresham's")

>>>>> >> dynamic was

>>>>> >> awarded the Nobel Prize in 2001 for his insight about how control

>>>>> >> fraud makes

>>>>> >> market forces perverse.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> “[D]ishonest dealings tend to drive honest dealings out of the

>>>>> >> market. The

>>>>> >> cost of dishonesty, therefore, lies not only in the amount by which

>>>>> >> the

>>>>> >> purchaser is cheated; the cost also must include the loss incurred

>>>>> >> from

>>>>> >> driving legitimate business out of existence.”  George Akerlof

>>>>> >> (1970).

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> One of the most perceptive observers of humanity recognized this

>>>>> >> same dynamic

>>>>> >> two centuries before Akerlof.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> "The Lilliputians look upon fraud as a greater crime than theft.

>>>>> >>  For, they

>>>>> >> allege, care and vigilance, with a very common understanding, can

>>>>> >> protect a

>>>>> >> man’s goods from thieves, but honesty hath no fence against superior

>>>>> >> cunning.

>>>>> >> . . where fraud is permitted or connived at, or hath no law to

>>>>> >> punish it, the

>>>>> >> honest dealer is always undone, and the knave gets the advantage."

>>>>> >>  Swift, J.

>>>>> >> Gulliver’s Travels

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> We are the allies of honest banks and bankers.  We are their

>>>>> >> essential allies,

>>>>> >> for only effective regulation permits them to exist and prosper.

>>>>> >>  Think of

>>>>> >> what would happen to banks if we took the regular cops off the beat

>>>>> >> and

>>>>> >> stopped prosecuting bank robbers.  That's what happens when we take

>>>>> >> the

>>>>> >> regulatory cops off the beat.  The only difference is that it is the

>>>>> >> controlling officers who loot the bank in the absence of the

>>>>> >> regulatory cops

>>>>> >> on the beat.  It is the anti-regulators who are the enemy of honest

>>>>> >> banks and

>>>>> >> bankers.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> Top criminologists, effective financial regulators, and Nobel

>>>>> >> Laureates in

>>>>> >> economics have confirmed that epidemics of control fraud, such as

>>>>> >> the FBI

>>>>> >> warned of in September 2004, can cause financial bubbles to

>>>>> >> hyper-inflate and

>>>>> >> drive catastrophic financial crises.  Indeed, the FBI predicted in

>>>>> >> September

>>>>> >> 2004 that the developing "epidemic" of mortgage fraud would cause a

>>>>> >> financial

>>>>> >> "crisis" if it were not stopped.  It grew massively after 2004.  The

>>>>> >> fraudulent SDIs (who were far broader than Fannie and Freddie,

>>>>> >> indeed, they

>>>>> >> only began to dominate the secondary market in sales of fraudulent

>>>>> >> loans after

>>>>> >> 2005) ignored the FBI and industry fraud warnings for the most

>>>>> >> obvious of

>>>>> >> reasons -- they were leaders the frauds.  The ongoing U.S. crisis

>>>>> >> was driven

>>>>> >> overwhelmingly by fraudulent "liar's" loans.  Studies have shown

>>>>> >> that the

>>>>> >> incidence of fraud in liar's loans is 90% (MBA/MARI 2006) and that

>>>>> >> by 2006

>>>>> >> roughly one-third of all mortgage loans were liar's loans (Credit

>>>>> >> Suisse

>>>>> >> 2007).  Rajdeep Sengupta, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank

>>>>> >> of St.

>>>>> >> Louis, reported in 2010 in an article entitled “Alt-A: The Forgotten

>>>>> >> Segment

>>>>> >> of the Mortgage Market” that:

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> "[B]etween 2003 and 2006 … subprime and Alt-A [loans grew] 94 and

>>>>> >> 340 percent,

>>>>> >> respectively.  The higher levels of originations after 2003 were

>>>>> >> largely

>>>>> >> sustained by the growth of the nonprime (both the subprime and

>>>>> >> Alt-A) segment

>>>>> >> of the mortgage market."

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> Sengupta's data greatly understate the role of “Alt-A” loans (the

>>>>> >> euphemism

>>>>> >> for “liar’s loans”) for they ignore the fact that by 2006 half of

>>>>> >> the loans

>>>>> >> called “subprime” were also liar’s loans (Credit Suisse: 2007).  It

>>>>> >> was the

>>>>> >> massive growth in fraudulent liar’s loans that hyper-inflated and

>>>>> >> greatly

>>>>> >> extended the life of the bubble, producing the Great Recession.  The

>>>>> >> growth of

>>>>> >> fraudulent loans rapidly increased, rather than decreased, after

>>>>> >> government

>>>>> >> and industry anti-fraud specialists warned that liar's loans were

>>>>> >> endemically

>>>>> >> fraudulent.  No one in the government ever told a bank that it had

>>>>> >> to make or

>>>>> >> purchase a "liar's" loan.  No honest mortgage lender would make

>>>>> >> liar's loans

>>>>> >> because doing so must cause severe losses.  Criminologists,

>>>>> >> economists aware

>>>>> >> of the relevant criminological and economics literature on control

>>>>> >> fraud, and

>>>>> >> a host of investigations have confirmed the endemic nature of

>>>>> >> control fraud in

>>>>> >> the ongoing U.S. crisis.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> But the banking elites that led these frauds have been able to do so

>>>>> >> with

>>>>> >> impunity from prosecution.  Take on federal agency, the Office of

>>>>> >> Thrift

>>>>> >> Supervision (OTS).  During the S&L debacle, the OTS made well over

>>>>> >> 10,000

>>>>> >> criminal referrals and made the removal of control frauds from the

>>>>> >> industry

>>>>> >> and their prosecution its top two priorities.  The agency's support

>>>>> >> and the

>>>>> >> provision of 1000 FBI agents to investigate the cases led to the

>>>>> >> felony

>>>>> >> conviction of over 1,000 S&L frauds.  The bulk of those convictions

>>>>> >> came from

>>>>> >> the "Top 100" list that OTS and the FBI created to prioritize the

>>>>> >> investigation of the worst failed S&Ls.  In the ongoing crisis --

>>>>> >> which caused

>>>>> >> losses 40 times larger than the S&L debacle, the OTS made zero

>>>>> >> criminal

>>>>> >> referrals, the FBI (as recently as FY 2007) assigned only 120 agents

>>>>> >> nationally to respond to the well over one million cases of mortgage

>>>>> >> fraud

>>>>> >> that occurred annually, and the OTS' non-effort produced no

>>>>> >> convictions of any

>>>>> >> S&L control frauds.  OTS' sister agencies, the Fed and the OCC, have

>>>>> >> the same

>>>>> >> record of not even attempting to identify and prosecute the frauds.

>>>>> >>  The FDIC

>>>>> >> was better, but still only a shadow of what it was in fighting fraud

>>>>> >> in the

>>>>> >> early 1990s.  If control frauds can operate with impunity from

>>>>> >> criminal

>>>>> >> prosecutions, then the perverse Gresham's dynamic is maximized and

>>>>> >> market

>>>>> >> forces will increasingly drive honest banks and firms from the

>>>>> >> marketplace.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported on the results of

>>>>> >> the Great

>>>>> >> Recession that was driven by this fraud epidemic:

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> "As this report goes to print, there are more than 26 million

>>>>> >> Americans who

>>>>> >> are out of work, cannot find full-time work, or have given up

>>>>> >> looking for

>>>>> >> work. About

>>>>> >> four million families have lost their homes to foreclosure and

>>>>> >> another four

>>>>> >> and a half million have slipped into the foreclosure process or are

>>>>> >> seriously

>>>>> >> behind on their

>>>>> >> mortgage payments. Nearly $11 trillion in household wealth has

>>>>> >> vanished, with

>>>>> >> retirement accounts and life savings swept away. Businesses, large

>>>>> >> and small,

>>>>> >> have felt the sting of a deep recession."

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> It is the fraudulent SDIs that are the massive job killers and

>>>>> >> wealth

>>>>> >> destroyers.  It is the Great Recession that the fraudulent SDIs

>>>>> >> produced that

>>>>> >> caused most of the growth in the federal deficits and made the

>>>>> >> fiscal crises

>>>>> >> in our states and localities acute.  The senior officers that led

>>>>> >> the control

>>>>> >> frauds are the opposite of the "productive class."  No one, without

>>>>> >> the aid of

>>>>> >> an army, has ever destroyed more wealth and dreams than the control

>>>>> >> frauds.

>>>>> >> It is past to hold them accountable, to help their victims recover,

>>>>> >> and to end

>>>>> >> their ongoing frauds and corruption that have crippled our economy,

>>>>> >> our

>>>>> >> democracy, and our nation.  jj

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> Best,

>>>>> >> Bill Black

>>>>> >> ________________________________________

>>>>> >> From: David DeGraw [AmpedStatus@AmpedStatus.com

>>>>> >> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=AmpedStatus@AmpedStatus.com> ]

>>>>> >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:33 PM

>>>>> >> To: september17@googlegroups.com

>>>>> >> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=september17@googlegroups.com> ;

>>>>> >> yotam.marom@gmail.com <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=yotam.marom@gmail.com> ;

>>>>> >> Winter Siroco;

>>>>> >> vlad@glassbeadcollective.com

>>>>> >> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=vlad@glassbeadcollective.com> ;

>>>>> >> dissector@mediachannel.org

>>>>> >> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=dissector@mediachannel.org> ;

>>>>> >> dylanratigan@gmail.com

>>>>> >> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=dylanratigan@gmail.com> ; Nomi; Black, William;

>>>>> >> yves@nakedcapitalism.com

>>>>> >> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=yves@nakedcapitalism.com> ;

>>>>> >> Michael; Mike Papantonio; Michael Krieger; George Washington; Tyler

>>>>> >> Durden;

>>>>> >> ellenhbrown@gmail.com

>>>>> >> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=ellenhbrown@gmail.com> ; Karl; Barry; Kevin

>>>>> >> Zeese; max; Matt; Simon; Zach; David

>>>>> >> Cay Johnston; Bill Laggner; Paul; Noam Chomsky; Moyers, Bill;

>>>>> >> ggreenwald@salon.com

>>>>> >> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=ggreenwald@salon.com> ;

>>>>> >> glen.ford@blackagendareport.com

>>>>> >> <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=glen.ford@blackagendareport.com> ;

>>>>> >> oftwomindz@comcast.net <x-msg://128/mc/compose?to=oftwomindz@comcast.net>

>>>>> >> Subject: Re: OccupyWallStreet Economic Statement Draft 1

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> here it is w/ Dylan's suggested revisions, the ending needs

>>>>> >> smoothing out,

>>>>> >> let's see if we can finalize something tonight in GA - flooded w/

>>>>> >> calls rght

>>>>> >> now, will be on NBC w/ Brian William tonight

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> STATEMENT:

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> we are publishing this statement in response to misinformation being

>>>>> >> spread

>>>>> >> throughout some media outlets, we would like to issue the statement

>>>>> >> below to

>>>>> >> give some clarification as to why we are currently occupying Wall

>>>>> >> Street:

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> Now let us make something clear to our fellow American citizens.  We

>>>>> >> - old,

>>>>> >> young, rich, poor, middle class, black, white, blue, red, hippies,

>>>>> >> conservatives, liberals, soldiers, teachers, lawyers, doctors,

>>>>> >> firefighters,

>>>>> >> and yes, police officers - the people occupying Wall Street, are not

>>>>> >> against

>>>>> >> rich people for being rich, as various corporate media outlets are

>>>>> >> attempting

>>>>> >> to make you think we are.   We believe wealth should be a byproduct

>>>>> >> of working

>>>>> >> together to solve our problems with aligned interests. To clarify,

>>>>> >> what we are

>>>>> >> fighting against are the people, politicians and corporations who

>>>>> >> are

>>>>> >> responsible for trillions of dollars in fraud.  We are fighting a

>>>>> >> political

>>>>> >> system that has been hijacked and rigged against hardworking

>>>>> >> Americans by the

>>>>> >> global financial elite. We are rebelling against economic tyranny.

>>>>> >>  We are

>>>>> >> defending the United States against an occupying global financial

>>>>> >> oligarchy.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> Our families have endured financial oppression for long enough.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> We are here to defend the people of the United Sates.  America has

>>>>> >> been

>>>>> >> invaded and is currently occupied by global banks that have

>>>>> >> systematically

>>>>> >> looted our economy and destroyed our economic future. Through a

>>>>> >> system of

>>>>> >> political bribery - campaign finance, lobbying and the revolving

>>>>> >> door between

>>>>> >> Washington and Wall Street – the global financial elite have bought

>>>>> >> off our

>>>>> >> politicians and now dominate our political process.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> So-called “too big to fail” financial companies, such as Goldman

>>>>> >> Sachs, JP

>>>>> >> Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup are responsible for

>>>>> >> trillions of

>>>>> >> dollars in fraudulent activity.  As their global derivative Ponzi

>>>>> >> scheme began

>>>>> >> to crash, these global corporations got paid off politicians and the

>>>>> >> Federal

>>>>> >> Reserve to give them over $20 trillion dollars in taxpayer money and

>>>>> >> subsidies.  After these global banks crashed our economy and took

>>>>> >> trillions of

>>>>> >> dollars of our national wealth, which saved their insolvent

>>>>> >> companies from

>>>>> >> going out of business, they turned around and had the audacity to

>>>>> >> give

>>>>> >> themselves all-time record-breaking bonuses.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> They used our tax dollars to give themselves all-time

>>>>> >> recording-breaking

>>>>> >> bonuses.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> At a time of national crisis, with calls for shared sacrifice, they

>>>>> >> used our

>>>>> >> tax dollars to give themselves all-time record-breaking bonuses.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> As a result of their actions, our country has been economically

>>>>> >> attacked. The

>>>>> >> statistics speak for themselves.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> According to the National Academy of Sciences, we have over 50

>>>>> >> million

>>>>> >> Americans living in poverty.  This shocking number of American

>>>>> >> families

>>>>> >> currently living in poverty is at an all-time high. Over 50 million

>>>>> >> Americans

>>>>> >> are also without health care. 46 million Americans are relying on

>>>>> >> food stamps

>>>>> >> to feed their families. Over 64 million Americans have zero or

>>>>> >> negative net

>>>>> >> worth. Over 200 million Americans are living paycheck to paycheck

>>>>> >> desperately

>>>>> >> struggling to make ends meet as they are buried in debt.   As this

>>>>> >> dire

>>>>> >> situation grows even more severe, the global financial elite are

>>>>> >> richer than

>>>>> >> ever.  Over the course of the past generation, they have

>>>>> >> consolidated wealth

>>>>> >> in unprecedented fashion. We currently have the highest inequality

>>>>> >> of wealth

>>>>> >> in American history.  Not even the Robber Barons were as bad as the

>>>>> >> modern day

>>>>> >> economic elite.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> In the US, millionaire households currently have over $46 trillion

>>>>> >> in wealth.

>>>>> >> On an annual basis, only one-tenth of one percent of the US

>>>>> >> population makes

>>>>> >> over $1 million per year.  Breaking it down even further, 400

>>>>> >> American

>>>>> >> billionaires currently have as much wealth as 154 million Americans.

>>>>> >>  These

>>>>> >> 400 people have as much wealth as half of the entire US population.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> As we said before, we are not against rich people for being rich.

>>>>> >>   We believe

>>>>> >> wealth should be a byproduct of working together to solve our

>>>>> >> problems with

>>>>> >> aligned interests.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> Our families and our country have endured financial oppression for

>>>>> >> long

>>>>> >> enough.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> Please join us or organize an action of your own.  Anything you are

>>>>> >> willing to

>>>>> >> do to rebel against economic tyranny in a non-violent manner is

>>>>> >> welcome.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >

>>>>> >

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>

>

>

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >