Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will be passing through Dewey Square at 2 pm and 5:30 pm today on his way to and from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s annual conference. Occupy Boston is putting out a call volunteers to hold signs, picket, and make sure that Chairman Bernanke gets our (respectful, nonviolent) message!
110 Responses to “Ben Bernanke in Dewey Square”
Maybe you should come up with something more intelligent than “end the Fed.” Or, at least have people who can articulate WHY you think the Fed should be ended. So far, no one has provided a coherent answer to that question. “Because it’s bad” is not adequate.
I agree. Seems to me that Bernanke (as opposed to Greenspan) has been trying to do the right thing – stimulate the economy so there will be more jobs – while it’s Congress that is really screwing everything up. I understand that there are bigger issues than the current state of monetary policy, but I think we should focus on Congress.
well, Ben was left with Greenspans leftovers. He’s actively managing it as best he can, which includes pumping it- ultimately he’s got a different view of utopia- but for now he must work with the tools and mess he was left with.
Errr… I’m sorry but quantitative easing is not “doing the right thing”. It’s only making things worse.
Here, watch this, it might help you to understand why it makes no sense.
http://youtu.be/PTUY16CkS-k
It might be okay to have the Federal Reserve, but we need economists who agree to leave things alone, rather than oversteer the economy by adjusting the interest rates up and down in a fishtail to control what cannot be controlled.
Like much of the ‘arguement’ and knowledge base in the Occupy camps- this ‘xtranormal’ is a mile wide and an inch deep in terms of actual content.
The ‘blame generation’ continues to amaze me with the deep analysis of the financial markets. Good thing Wikipedia isn’t public……
Recessions don’t work like light switches. The system is a managed one- it is what it is.
That is silly, Bernake has lots of responsibility in our recession> The jobs bill is nothing more then a union money laundering scheme. Pure evidence this movement of occupying is just an Obama campaign trick to match the tea party
I’m sorry “Catherine” but the xtranormal tries to cover a lot of information in a small amount of time. If it were to actually get into details and depth of every detail regarding quatitative easing and the adjustment of interest rates and it’s effect on inflation, deflation and stagflation, as well as how analysts figure the economy is improving despite the stagnant labor market.
Furthermore, If the video actually tried to cover it in depth, it would go on to explain how and why a majority of economists feel that adjusting the interest rates is exactly like oversteering a car on ice. It would go on to explain why and how quantitative easing reduces the value of the American dollar and puts us further in the debts of the Chinese government, whom we owe greatly already, and reduces their confidence in the American economy. It would also go on to explain, in depth how and why it is destructive to the world banks and global economy, as opposed to being just a domestic problem.
So you’re right. There’s a lot more than what the video glosses over. But as I said, it is a video to help you understand what Quantitative easing is. I never said it explains all in great depth. You are meant to have questions and dig deeper. I can’t provide every damn link for you. I only meant to start your curiosity. Look up the rest for yourself, instead of being angry that one link can’t provide every possible answer to a complex issue.
its not me that needs a greater understanding of what quantitative easing is. But that video leaves much to be desired.
No one on the comments page of the occupy Boston site is going to have the firepower to dismantle the financial world line item by line item- I just wish those that do understand it (like yourself) wouldn’t try to simplify arguably the most complex system out there. The economy of the us isn’t isolated, it part of a global economy- its just so beyond vast.
To dismantle it, or suggest so, or even to say ‘we should have let banks fail’, is to open the door to a world of wonder and questioning. That is just one big witch hunt. I wish the movement would gather its resources (intellectual capital as it were) and attempt to work WITH the existing framework- because there is literally a 0% chance of complete overhaul at this point. Zero.
Like much of the crisis discussions at this point it’s those in charge- making very difficult decisions- being picked apart by a million arm chair quarterbacks well after Monday morning.
Let’s get constructive within the framework- and go after those that. An effect change- politicians and the whitehouse.
The system is the problem. Not congress. We can no longer go on believing that the tweaks proposed by either the GOP or the Dems will get us any closer to a just society.
We are involved in a process that is meant to come up with solutions. We have not had the language or the space for a truly intelligent conversation before. If you want intelligence, support the space that facilitates this conversation, and participate with your own ideas.
If Ben, who is going to arrive in his armored limo with next-to-presidential security, decides to take a stroll through Dewey Square instead of using a private entrance, I’d be quite surprised.
Stop making sense here please.
Its posts like the OP that make me scratch my head. I’m actively trying to understand the message beyond ‘theres a recession, we need jobs and we dont like the way it is’
Potential VIABLE solutions would help the protesters immensely.
If you want change- formulate a concise plan and deliver it. The ‘occupy’ groups will only fail due to their own unorganized nature. Sad but true.
Downsizing corporate influence over the political process would be my best suggestion for a starting point- it covers a lot of ground while being fairly focused at the same time. Fix the political process and you solve a lot of the issues with Wall Street.
I’m sorry that doesnt fit on one sign.
Amen.
That’s a good point. It’s really difficult to create a message that appeals to all of OB, as I’ve seen at the GAs. But maybe ending corporate/financial influence in politics would be a good starting point, as part of our overall protest against the broken system that has gotten us to this point.
“Catherine Hepburn” you and those that think like you are exactly what is wrong with the current social, political and economic situation in this country. You’ve bought the line that it is NOT the role of government to provide for it’s citizens. You so neutralized in your way of thinking that it is frightening. The message from the occupiers is exactly that- demanding the government to actively change and provide the citizens with viable solutions to the growing instability in the economy. That is what government officials are voted into office to do- work for the people. Somewhere along the history of this country people like you- lost sight of this. Perhaps it began with Kennedy’s erroneous but profoundly reverberated “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” rhetoric that only foolish and non-critical thinking individuals such as yourself have bought into. Well Kennedy was wrong- dead wrong.
The occupy movement is actually doing something that isn’t oft done or has not been done in a long time and that is breaking out of the compliant spirit of complacency that consumes most Americans. Already they are far more successful than that failed spirit under which you content yourself with existing.
@Lucia Villanueva
You’re talking about communism – you do know that right?
‘Somewhere along the history of this country people like you- lost sight of this.’ people like me? Who are people like me? Non critical thinkers?? Thanks!
Attack on JFK for his speech- in an ‘occupy boston’ blog comments section- classsssic. Seriously- definitely going to build support there- Where in the declaration of independence is the section on what the government will provide? Just curious to footnote that for reading later.
” breaking out of the compliant spirit of complacency that consumes most Americans” I’m all for breaking out of complacency- but to say one group is more ‘successful’ (your word, not mine) is judgemental – and completely anti any “spirited movement’ – what is success? For me, this ‘non critical’ thinker- its being able to provide for my family, support those truly in need and smile each day- thats ‘winning’ in my book
There are problems with the ‘system’ – but it sounds like you want a complete overhaul- welcome to your first round of disappointment unless you plan on leaving the country.
I have to add that while I don’t care if you take a swipe at me for what you perceive to be politically or economically skewed views – WTF is up with me being a problem ‘socially’-
you have no idea who i am, what I do for fun, who I support, how I think- you’ve read a blog post- get a hold of yourself.
Did Lucia Villanueva really go after JFK? These Occupy Boston folks really know how to get in touch with the 99%…
As a member of the 99% and a lifelong resident of Boston who fully sympathizes with the fundamental concepts of Occupy Boston it hurts me to say this but I must- 99% of the city is tired of you all. Please go home.
BTW,
I’m sorry, but a great government is a mixture of a variety of governmental ideologies: communism, capitalism, marxism… it combines the best theories and tried practices of each and applies them in a logical manner.
The fear-inducing media feeds off of the paranoia of the people and each political party is quick to shout out “socialist!” or any other buzzword intended to make people shy away from the opponent, (Death panels!) however you would do wise to remember that every version of governmental structure was developed with the best intentions to be successful – not a failure.
Funny, but laissez-faire capitalism should be a new fear-inducing buzzword.
Just because communism and socialism (marxism) didn’t work the first time, doesn’t mean they’re bad or won’t work. It just means we need to learn from the mistakes made.
The Fed is part of the world banking community. Ultimately, the world banks control the power in every country. It was the american banks that got bailed out using our tax dollars. In effect, we gave the fed money for a situation THEY caused!! In other words, they got paid twice!!
The fed needs to be ended in th USA and replaced with a non-central money printing agency. This would be the US Treasury which should have been doing it all along rightfully! In this way, we would not have a private company setting monetary policy for our economy.
Who still owes money to the TARP program?
General Motors and Chrystler owe more than the balance of the banks left to repay TARP.
How much did the TARP program cost the government? or did the gov’t make money?
Have any of you noticed that almost every big bank CEO has been fired in the last three years? Has anyone noticed that almost every bank’s stock more or less lost all of it’s value?
Have you not noticed that all they did was cut off the head of the hydra?
How much did the TARP program cost the government? or did the gov’t make money?
As far as I know, a major problem with TARP was the interest-free loans to financial institutions. Even if the loans were repaid in full, the government lost out on hundreds of billions of dollars in interest that they could’ve collected if these financiers hadn’t gotten sweetheart deals from the state.
US Gov’t made a $12.3 Billion profit on a $45 Billion investment in Citi.
“As far as I know, a major problem with TARP was the interest-free loans to financial institutions. Even if the loans were repaid in full, the government lost out on hundreds of billions of dollars in interest that they could’ve collected if these financiers hadn’t gotten sweetheart deals from the state.”
this is just a complete failure of a post. Go hack into the internet and see for yourself. ‘Interest free’ – please do yourself a favor and realize how uninformed this response is.
http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/A-Wide-Angle-Lens-on-the-Government%E2%80%99s-Financial-Stability-Programs.aspx
3/30/2011
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of the Treasury announced that the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s (TARP) investment in
banks has now turned a profit after three financial institutions repaid a total of $7.4 billion in TARP funds today to taxpayers.
“While our overriding objective with TARP was to break the back of the financial crisis and save American jobs, the fact that our
investment in banks has also delivered a significant profit for taxpayers is a welcome development,” said Treasury Secretary Tim
Geithner. “We still have more work to do repairing the damage caused by the crisis and strengthening the recovery, but today is an
important milestone in our efforts to recover taxpayer dollars as we continue winding down TARP.”
I agree, a private company organizing federal funds is a backwards sort of thinking. If anything, the treasury should be responsible for not just the printing of money, but the proposed interest rates, federal budget and federal spending.
With this sort of organization, the treasury should have a head that is an elected official. This way, they have to appeal to the general public, as a reminder of their position as a public servant. Re elections should take place every 6 years, so that it overlaps presidential elections.
As the responsible entity for the federal budget and spending, the treasury would work with the IRS to create and set a fairly simple sliding scale of federal tax rates that would in essence, create a set income for the Federal government. This would then be the baseline for federal spending. Should congress want to increase taxes for a particular group of people, they would have to draft proposals indicating a need for increased income, showing accurate projections on how much money is needed, (beyond the existing income) and how much money the increased taxes would create. If the proposal is ineffectual, incomplete or otherwise incorrect, the treasury would have the authority to veto or deny any changes in the tax rate or spending.
Simply put, the treasury would act like treasurer of any other organization. Responsible for the flow of money.
The Fed is not a private company. It’s part of the government. It is independent of the White House and the Congress, although members are nominated by the former and approved by the latter. This is a good thing because it makes it harder to politicize monetary policy. The Fed can be criticized for caring too much about inflation (which hurts business) and too little about unemployment (which hurts people), but since the recession began in 2008, Bernanke has focused on reducing unemployment. Obviously, it’s not working well, but he could have made it much worse. The real culprit has been Congress, with all this mis-spent attention on the future deficit at the expense of the mess we’re in today. I apologize for the boringness of this post, but at least I didn’t use the word ‘whore even once.
I’m sorry, but I slightly disagree.
The federal reserve is set up as a part of the government, but has far too many dealings with publicly traded companies in dealings where it should have made investments internally.
Andrea – I’m not sure what dealings you mean. I do agree that the Fed played a role in bailing out the banks. On balance, I’m glad it did because the alternative would have been much worse. But it is disgusting that the individuals who put us all in such jeopardy profited obscenely from this rather than joining the unemployed (if not going to jail) and are now managing to sabotage efforts to make sure this never happens again. I blame this on the influence of money on the political process and it’s the main reason I support the occupation. – Andy
The Fed is totally private. It is not a government entity. The term ‘Federal’ is misleading. The only connection to the government is that its board of governors and its chair has to be approved by congress. But they are not part of the government.
I’m sorry but this is incorrect. The Fed is the central bank of the US. It was created by Congress. It is not private. It’s important to get our facts straight.
NONE OF THESE PEOPLE LISTEN TO ANYONE BUT THE ONE PERCENT. THE ONLY THING THAT INTERESTS THEM ARE THEIR LACKEYS IN THE MOVEMENT WHO ARE WORKING TO DESTROY IT FROM WITHIN BY BRINGING ON THE KIND OF FIASCO THAT HAPPENED WITH THE MASS ARRRESTS SUNDAY NIGHT/MONDAY MORNING. THE LIARS WHO TOLD YOU THE GREENWAY COMMISSION SAID IT WAS OK TO SET UP TENTS ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE LIARS WHO REPRESENT ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE ONE PERCENT.
OUR JOB IS TO TAKE BACK THE GOVERNMENT AND CURB THE PREDATORY BEHAVIOR OF IN ONE PERCENT’S WALL STREET, BIG BANKS, AND ALL THEIR OTHER CRIMINALLY SOCIOPATHIC MEGACORPORATIONS. JUST AS BOOTLEGGING GANGSTERS HAD A BONANZA WHEN AUTOMOBILES MADE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OBSOLETE IN THE 1920′S AND 1930′S, THE INTERNET AND CYBERSPACE ARE MAKING STATE REGULATION OF BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES OBSOLETE TODAY. WE NEED TO GET THIS THROUGH THE THICK SKULLS OF TEAPARTY PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL LIVING IN THE 18TH CENTURY WORLD OF ADAM SMITH, THANKS TO BIG MONEY OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF EVERYTHING THEY SEE AND HEAR
“THE ONLY THING THAT INTERESTS THEM ARE THEIR LACKEYS IN THE MOVEMENT WHO ARE WORKING TO DESTROY IT FROM WITHIN BY BRINGING ON THE KIND OF FIASCO THAT HAPPENED WITH THE MASS ARRRESTS SUNDAY NIGHT/MONDAY MORNING. THE LIARS WHO TOLD YOU THE GREENWAY COMMISSION SAID IT WAS OK TO SET UP TENTS ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE LIARS WHO REPRESENT ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE ONE PERCENT.”
And you know thins how?
I only ask, because I KNOW people who were there and basically KNEW there was a conflict going in and arrest was likely… Sometimes you take on the rough parts of change. Cause you sure as hell know the wusses won’t. Long and short of it? Not all change through non-violent civil disobedience and dissent is fun.
Agreed. If you’re willing to engage in civil disobedience, you should be willing to accept the jail time, fines, and punishment that goes along with it.
Hooray for caps lock and talk radio!
on October 18th, 2011 at 10:21 am #
[…] It would be best to increase the amount of peaceful Occupiers, at the time of his arival. Ben Bernanke in Dewey Square Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will be passing through Dewey Square at 2 pm and 5:30 […]
Hey… I Know… Let’s get Ben some flowers
Jesus, yeah, he’s been trying to “do the right things” for BIG INVESTORS AND LARGE INSTITUTIONS. Look around you how many on the edge, or who already have lost their homes or their retirements are wiping their foreheads saying “Boy, that was close. I sure am glad the Chairman is thinking of me”. Oh, you didn’t hear something like that, EVER?
Please just keep it peaceful folks. Since the man doesn’t care, it isn’t worth looking awful.
Regarding the reply that banks have replaced all their CEO’s during the last three years is to rebuild investor confidence. Many large corporations use the same tactics. As far as banks stock loosing value, Wells Fargo and Citibank released third quarter earnings yesterday and I thought you should know that Wells Fargo reported record net income of $4.05 billion, an increase of 21% compared to last year’s earnings. The reason Wells Fargo stock is down is because it did not meet investors expectations. I wonder how much more they were expecting. I think they did exceptionally well. Citibank reported net income of $3.8 billion compared to $2.2 billion last year. Shares are up from .72 in 2010 to 1.23 reported for third quarter earnings in 2011.
I suggest you do your homework before you side with the banks and the poor CEO’s. I’m sure they are doing just fine as well.
I do homework on this stuff for a living. You chose Citi for example.
Shares were $551 / share (split adjusted) pre-crisis. They are $29 / share today. Owners of Citigroup lost 95% of their money.
Plus they paid back every penny the government gave them.
You cite their current earnings. What is the relevance of that? Are they not allowed to make money going forward?
So do you work for a bank or Wall Street since you do this for a living? Just curious….
I do not feel sorry for the “Owners” of Citigroup. The shares went down because Citigroup knowingly sold risky mortgage backed securities that lost tens of billions of dollars in the end. They were aware of this before the bubble was about to burst. I know this because eight months before it did, I tried to refinance my house and I was told that my home most likely lost equity but was probably under-water as well. The gentleman also confided in me that things may get much worse. I didn’t understand what was going on at the time. In the end, he was right.
Had they not received 3 bailouts totaling $45 billion dollars from the government they surely would have went under, as would any business by engaging in such a manner. In regards to paying back the “loans”, they should pay back the money given and were able to do so because of record profits. Furthermore, the relevance to cite their current earnings is to show that they are doing just fine. And since this is your expertise, you surely know this as well.
I’m all for business making a profit but not when they need taxpayer money to stay afloat after such reckless behavior.
I
It’s time for the non-violence modus operandi to be abandoned!
IMO
Good lord, no! Non-violent resistance is the only way to have a successful populist protest movement.
“There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.”
….But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out……
….But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you’ll have to wait………..
….You better free your mind instead………
You’re probably too young to remember that song, though.
And the radical he rant and rage, Singing “someone got to turn the page”
And the rich man in his summer home,
Singing “Just leave well enough alone”
But his pants are down, his cover’s blown
And the politicians are throwing stones
So the kids they dance they shake their bones
Cause its all too clear we’re on our own
Picture a bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free
It’s dizzying, the possibilities. Ashes, Ashes all fall down
I don’t know whether you’re a police provocateur or simply an incredibly misguided individual, but I do know that you are helplessly wrong.
I’m just sorry John Perry Barlow and Lennon’s words are being used to shunt something as ignorant as that. Don’t know how you wade through some of thsi crap every day Joshua… Any update on what happened with the Fed Chairman. Did he come through as expected?
Please follow up if you have the info.
@dchavez06
Not sure how old you are DC… I’m 52… Ever heard of the Clamshell Alliance…. I got dragged away and charged with a lot more than civil fine back in the days Seabnrook was going up. It was a battle we knew up front we were destined to lose. But it had to be done for symbolic reasons. Heard of MassCann? I was at their first meeting and followed around by the MSPD and the Department of Transportation for a few months and harassed… So if you were asking me, I hope that suffices.
Peace,
T.
Bernanke is smarter than the cubed sum of all OWS intelligence.
Articulate why you don’t like him.
“Man it’s just like all this money printing is terrible and stuff.” Ok, why?
“Like the price of oil man bro.” Ok, would we have been better off if the Fed did not intervene? Why?
ETC
Way to ask your question in a respectful manner, why can you not initiate a discussion like this in a civil way?
Because a smelly band of jokers is camping out on public space that I regularly use.
If you have a purpose I would love to know what it is. Otherwise GTFO.
You all cry about the injustices of the 1%. I’ve got news for you: you are less than 1% of the population of Boston and you are restricting access to that space for the other 99%.
Please refrain from abusive language, name calling, and ad hominem attacks on this forum.
@ Josh Eaton
I walked through OB yesterday. It does smell. It’s a horrible stench actually. So, I assume you’re taking offense at my use of the word “jokers.”
Sorry for calling you guys jokers.
Having such strong, though vague, opinions and no clear message does sort of seem like a joke though. I didn’t mean it in spite. It really does seem like a joke. Hence why I asked for clarification that I still have not received.
@ Josh Eaton
As long as we’re taking requests here…
Please refrain from restricting public access to public parks.
Not to mention you’re destroying it as a result of your “occupation.”
@ Josh Eaton
really? Please go find any post by ‘Ger’ and get back to me. Thanks
Hello. Sorry If I offended you but I take exception to the things your friends say and sometimes I respond a tad harshly. Forgive me.
You find me offensive yet you feel whorefinder is acceptable? I’m chuffed you singled me out. Somethings going right. Your friend whorefinder thinks I’m a waste of carbon, I kid you not. Perhaps you agree.
not my friend fwiw
Both are inflamitory- It was wrong to single you out.
My point was more to the mod who chose to point out that posters use of ‘jokers’ when much worse has been said
Go red sox? 🙂
Why would I want to spend my energy writing some long winded dissertation explaining my position for disagreeing with the decisions of the Federal reserve (which coincidentally also seem to be against the better judgement of a number of economists, as well) when you write such a short, rude bit of prose insulting me and everyone else by association before asking anything remotely intelligent?
It would be a waste of time and I would get better results from casting wishes in a well.
If I, and everyone here, is so stupid, then look it up for yourself.
I’m already aware of both sides of that debate.
My point, clearly, is that the occupiers are not.
Looking for proof of intelligence. Not looking for an education from this crowd.
JOAHUA EATON SUCK DONKEY DICK
joshua ? really ?
knock it off
positive people taking inerest in our life long movement is great.
he will help in the long run i assure you.
we forgive you for your comment and hope you choose better attitude and wording in the future
Tune in to UNregularRadio.com this Thursday at 8PM EST on your mobile phones, laptops, iPads etc for The Big Sauce Radio Show tribute to ‘Occupy Boston’. Let’s light this bitch up and rock Dewey Square and the world. We want 5,000 cell phones on max volume for a one of a kind cell phone flash mob! For the FB event click here: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=302481029767811
He’s not “passing through Dewey Square” by any means.. He’ll go in/out through a secure entrance to the building (and black car) and back roads to Logan airport. Won’t even lay eyes on you.
As much as I think the federal reserve is bad for this country, I would still like to shake this man’s hand.
I’m sorry but the Federal Bank is straight evil. All those dudes are evil and it was designed to not function properly pretty much as a future opportunity to fuck with us into a state of national emergency where they can uphold martial law. When this crashes, as we all know it will, it will be devastating and the perfect desperate opportunity for full-fledged fascism.
scary part is you actually believe that.
Here’s the thing about Q.E.: the Fed is printing money and injecting into the economy through the banks, in order to “recapitalize” them. Through the “discount window” they lend our money to these banks at essentially 0% interest. Then the banks lend that same money back to us via the purchase of Treasury Bonds at 3%. My Golden Retriever could make money under these terms. Now furthermore, the discount window is only available to Bank Holding Companies, and surprise, surprise, Goldman’s, Morgan Stanley, AmEx et al. were miraculously allowed to become BHCs in the immediate wake of the Lehman crisis.
Sure, as Cate mentioned, the TARP money has largely been repaid, but why have we propped up these institutions that have proven themselves to be not only TBTF, but Too Dumb To Live? We have used in excess of 16 trillion dollars propping these incompetents up and we have left ourselves with a banking system that is MORE concentrated and MORE systemically dangerous than we had before.
Whatever happened to creative destruction? Without gov’t aid, B of A, Citi, Goldman’s etc. etc. would have gone belly up. They should have been put into receivership and broken up. The Fed, in cahoots with Treasury are responsible for this crap (and several books worth more, but this is a start) and this should serve as enough of a primer as to why at the very least, Bernanke should be traded to Bulgaria for a third-rate bouzouki player.
Ooooh you used enough finance words to almost sound like you know what you are talking about.
how would going belly up have effected Main street?
If they had simply been allowed to fail, it would have been ugly all around.
However, if they had been taken into receivership, the damage would have been confined to stockholders. You take a behemoth like B of A, and split up its component parts (commercial banking, investment banking, mortgage brokering, financial services) into individual companies. You appoint temporary directors and then issue stock on these companies. The new stockholders appoint a Board of Directors who in turn appoint a CEO.
Meantime, you take all the crappy, toxic assets and mark them down to whatever they’ll sell for. The investors in these funds will lose a lot of money. Oh well, with investment comes risk. And they invested in crap.
What you’re left with are several healthy well-capitalized companies unburdened from the toxic debt that is crushing the totality of B of A as we speak. Plus, you get the added benefit that these new companies are not systemically risky.
At the time, this course was not taken because guys like Geithner, Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin all have a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is. Their cause was aided by the cries of “Socialism” from the peanut gallery at the thought of putting the banks into receivership; which is nonsense because the FDIC does this all the time with smaller banks that fail for one reason or another.
So, for Main Street: the initial shock would likely have been just as severe. The financial meltdown was, after all, quite catastrophic. However, three years removed from the crisis our banking system would be much healthier, credit would be flowing more freely, and smaller nimbler companies might be more adept at re-working mortgages that could potentially be saved. Oh, and I seriously doubt that B of A would be laying off 30,000 people this year.
remaining banks would buy up assets and mainstreet would see no change at all. any contrary claim is just illogical propaganda.
think about it.
if i loan you $10k and then you don’t pay me back so i can’t pay my bills, someone else can come along and buy that loan from me. then you owe that person $10k and the world keeps moving forward.
wallstreet said to the government “but we all acted like idiots so bail us out!”
and because the government set those interest rates in the first place. and in fact it is illegal to deny someone who ‘qualifies’ for a loan so the government was somewhat required by law to bail them out.
i guess.
am i wrong?
I don’t know if you’re wrong, I just think its whimsical to think the fed/govt did the wrong thing.
We have no way to prove it.
For everyone that wants to listen to idiots like Taleb etc- go for it- question the unknown. Open Pandoras box.
Im going to live in the reality that the system is what it is- and if you want change, it must be done on a policy level with changes to legislature and law- not by barking at who you perceive to be the ‘1%’
It was risky for govt to enter the private sector- but its not one groups fault- it was a climax of a bunch of problems. Pointing blame just makes more noise- I just wish the ‘movement’ would realize this and try to be SOMEWHAT constructive before the cold weather comes- and they go home.
jrduff,
<3
Problem with your theory is that the FDIC is nowhere near capitalized enough to handle the insolvency of every major bank in America at the same time. The government would have been on the hook for half of the checkable deposits in the country. That is a much bigger number than TARP, and that’s why they did what they did.
Pick your poison as they say.
Sorry Patrick, that probably did come off sounding a bit like the whole process would have been nothing but rainbows and unicorns. You are correct in that it would have cost us money, a lot of money. But c’mon, the economy blew up. It was going to cost us all something one way or another. My view is that it would have been an investment in a retooled, healthier, less dangerous banking system that would now, as we speak, be contributing to our economic recovery instead of dragging us down.
Remember, TARP was only a small fraction of the entire bailout, and what frustrates me is that we got bupkis for it. There are now fewer, bigger banks that are still poorly capitalized and neck deep in highly leveraged derivatives. We’ve extracted almost nothing in the way of financial, accounting, ratings, or regulatory reform. And due to the wonders of Moral Hazard, the Lloyd Blankfeins of the world can collect their fat bonuses safe in the knowledge that the next time they screw up, the good ole American suckers, I mean taxpayers, will bail them out again.
I don’t see these poisons as being at all equal.
fwiw, I only mentioned TARP because the focus is on banks- most of whom have paid that back. Bolstering GM and Chrysler is another whole ball of yarn
I hear you, but the problem with your solution would have been the ramifications outside of the banking system as well.
If that much bank debt defaulted, you would have crushed every pension fund in the country. Verizon, AT&T, and others would be forced to contribute billions to those funds, which they would be required to do under PPA. They would have to do massive layoffs to come up with the cash.
Additionally, the general accounts of all insurance companies would have been flattened, so they are all out of business (sorry about that life insurance you used to have).
Every bank deposit over FDIC limit would have been withdrawn (logically).
The commercial paper markets were already frozen, so most major corporations would miss payroll. They would have to liquidate assets to come up with cash.
Also, remember that this was all happening VERY quickly.
The resulting deflationary death spiral would likely have left a quarter or more of the population unemployed (financial services ~ 25% of economy).
Granted, TARP isn’t that appealing, but neither is the above.
That sounds to me like disorderly bankruptcy, rather than structured receivership. It would have taken months to do, but in the meantime, assets would be backed by the credit of the U.S.
There were plenty of assets out there that were completely healthy. Look at AIG: they were prepared to liquidate their perfectly sound regional insurance agencies (and god knows what else) just to meet the collateral calls on those moronic CDSes their financial products division was writing. So you just split off FS, put the gov’t behind the CDSes and hang Joe Cassano in a dungeon by his ankles. What, is Goldman going to demand collateral from the Treasury?
The gov’t is already backing a ton of bad debt from the TBTF, and a lot of investors (including pension funds) have already lost their shirts as certain securities collapsed. Bad products failed either way. And there are more to come. I don’t see how hiding it on your balance sheet is going to miraculously turn crap into gold. Take the haircut and move on.
That aside Patrick, whether we agree with each other or not, the larger issue is that a bunch of knuckleheads blew up the economy – I think we can agree on that. What pisses me off is that I had no say in it and am stuck with the bill while waiting for the other shoe to drop. That’s a big reason I support the Occupy movement. We could always use another smart guy such as yourself on our side.
Take care,
John Duff
There is an argument for taking your haircut. Like you say, the losses must be taken eventually anyway.
Either road is bad. Demonizing the choices Bernanke made is not useful, however. The rants against him here are, to borrow a phrase, a mile wide and an inch deep.
People that are so angry without having taken the time to fully understand the situation scare me. I see a lit of that here.
Oh – one more thing. The knuckleheads would have been a small problem if it wasn’t for the fact that the government had been encouraging the agencies to offer loans to people with no money. Thanks Barny.
One simple reason for cutting out the Federal Reserve… I lend you a dollar and expect you to pay me $1.05 for the privilege. Every time I lend you a dollar, you’re deeper in debt to me, and because I create the money there’s no way in hell you can ever pay back money owed plus interest. This is a recipe for disaster. Also, Congress–according to the Constitution– is to coin money, not a private bank (and an international one, at that)…
For a more complicated view go here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/fedres/petition.html
Your post makes no sense. Literally zero.
May I respectfully offer a suggestion. I speak for myself when I say that I am in the street because those institutions and politicians who have been given the power see that society functions for us all have failed. They must be made to see that they have failed in their duty. I’m 71 Y/O and in less than stellar health. I don’t need this shit of disrupting my comfortable life to suffer in the streets in increasingly cold weather for shits and giggles and it’s not my responsibility to articulate a plan to solve the problems of this society. That is the responsibility of the people collecting a salary to do just that. My presence in the street, your presence in the street is all the proof needed that they have failed. It is now their responsibility to admit that failure and step aside or get to work. Demands are not needed or desirable. Everyone in power already knows what needs to be done. Make them do it.
It is your fucking responsibility. This is a democracy and governance is the responsibility of the people. You are not an employee complaining to your boss. If you want things to change, fucking do something.
God, you are frustrating.
I know you’re not a troll, but do you have to use this kind of language, especially in responding to someone who supports this movement?
Lame Patrick. Very disrespectful, especially to a post that starts with “May I respectfully offer a suggestion.” James IS doing something – he is 71 and out there in the cold for what he believes, which is that the status quo is no longer acceptable. It is obvious that you don’t think that things are perfect in America otherwise you would not be here posting a zillion posts. So what are you doing? Anything? Take that frustration and use it constructively. Or, if you simply need anger management and don’t wish to contribute in any constructive way then go see someone, please don’t use this forum for that.
I think we all agree that a Statement of Purpose, a Vision and Strategy needs to be finalized soon. It seems that it is in the works. We don’t need to ‘DEMAND’ more that WHAT we want not HOW to do it. Our job is to “End the influence of corporations/money on politics”…and when it comes down to a PLAN, no, that is not our job. There may come a day where we can influence the politicians towards specific goals, but OWS/OccupyBoston can jump straight to “Planning” or coming up with “Solutions” aka How To Fix This Mess.
The conversation on the Wiki (both OWS and OB >go look) has been started and is in process if you want to voice your opinions – it’s only a start and I am sure needs to be refined. Go outside the blogs and make your specific contributions. Thanks.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home
your statement ‘make them do it’ is horribly immoral.
Why is the suggestion by James to “make them do it” (aka for OWS to demand that Washington finds some solutions for the mess we are in) — why exactly is that so “horribly immoral”. Can you please expand on this? Hopefully no one will “censor”. I have seen the most horrible comments about the movement, and bad language and all left alone including in this stream – strange how they they censored you…I don’t buy it.
Oh, and I do agree very much with Catherine’s point at the top on the topic of OWS/OB making some general statement of purpose “Downsizing corporate influence over the political process would be my best suggestion for a starting point- it covers a lot of ground while being fairly focused at the same time. Fix the political process and you solve a lot of the issues with Wall Street. ” A lot of us have been saying this for a while but no one seems to listen and they are still taking their sweet time.
what?
For those who ask WHY would OW or OB be at odds with Bernanke and the job he has done as Chairman of the Federal Reserve (since 2/1/2006!)?
It has to do with his choice to NOT enforce or regulate the mortgage industry. Bernanke (the Federal Reserve Board, and Greenspan) had the power to exercise authority via the Home ownership and Equity Protection Act, you know the legislation signed by Clinton to protect people from predatory lending, and subprime mortgages “man.”
This creates problems on many levels -investment banks (Goldman, Morgan S, ect)combined subprime mortgages with other forms of debt (credit, student loans, ect)to make complex derivatives called collateralized debt obligations or CDOs. Summers, Rubin and Greenspan among others pushed against regulating derivatives and CDOs with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999)while repealing Glass Steagall’s conflict of interest act. CDOs were often given AAA ratings by the rating agencies, making them appealing to retirement funds who as investors bought the CDOs. If the people couldn’t pay their mortgage they were out of a home, retirees were out of a retirement fund, but the investment banks which would use credit default swaps to bet against their own CDOs, ie profit from their failure via AIG were handing out huge bonuses and are now being sued by some for fraud.
So where does this all fit with Bernanke? He should have been regulating this since 2006! But he would not acknowledge there may be an issue with the housing market or subprime mortgages until 2009, when the bubble had burst.
We need a government that appoints people who will protect the general population by enforcing these pieces of legislation, especially in a time when the IMF, and consumer protection groups, academics, economist are all giving warning of an impending crisis.
A bit about me – yes, I have a job that I love, I also volunteer with people who have faced serious challenges in their lives, I pay taxes, have a college degree (with no student loans) and I support Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Boston. I am not a lawyer, economist, or politician. I can simply call it like I see it, stay informed and stand up and say “this is wrong, and this is why…” I am not paid to enact or enforce legislation or regulations – our government must do that, and that is why I support OWS/OB.
For those of you who have commented “we should go volunteer in Vermont instead of occupying Boston,” I am actually organizing a group of colleagues, friends, and family to go volunteer in Vermont (since before the Occupies began). I am extending an invitation to all of those who think this is a good way to do service within a community and fulfill their social responsibility. I believe we can do this on more than one level so I support OWS, OB, work in a rewarding career, volunteer and pay taxes.
I do agree that the Fed made serious mistakes leading up to the financial collapse in 2008. I don’t think of it as personal (with the possible exception of Larry Summers, whose behavior was arrogant to the point of criminality), just a massive failure of the system. But I also believe that, since the collapse, the Fed has done more or less the right thing – better than the White House which seems to have lost its nerve and way better than Congress which is selling us down the river in the hope of getting re-elected. Anyhow, I’d rather have Bernanke leading the Fed than Noam Chomsky.
“We need a government that appoints people who will protect the general population by enforcing these pieces of legislation, especially in a time when the IMF, and consumer protection groups, academics, economist are all giving warning of an impending crisis.”
Well, nice post- sounds like we agree that it’s a policy issue in DC, and not a Wall Street issue then huh?
It’s not so easy to separate Wall Street and DC. I take this to be the main point of this movement. What we are calling the 1% essentially buys the government which then serves them rather than the remaining 99%. I’m not so cynical to believe that the government does NOTHING for us or that EVERYONE in government has been bought off in this way, but it has gone too far. We need to take back our democracy by getting money out of politics.
Good for you, there are serious issues with how debates are run in America it seems. Why can people just have discussions in a polite way? Just yelling, screaming, and insulting people shows how ignorant you are.
We got a nice little bit of coverage from NECN:
http://www.necn.com/10/18/11/Fed-chair-in-Boston/landing_newengland.html?blockID=579498&feedID=4206
A story posted on the Wiki by one of the OccupyBoston supporters:
But didn’t the government make $ off the bailouts?
“In a little town of 100 homes, there is one humongous mansion worth almost as much as all the other homes combined. One day the owner of the mansion, Walter Street, asks the town government for a massive loan. Reason, he has been gambling, lost his money and is in danger of losing the mansion. This spreads rumors that the town is dying. Home prices crash. People get scared, stop spending money. With sales off, businesses lay workers off. With fewer sales, many small businesses fail. The laid off workers and struggling small business owners are unable to pay their mortgages – with many losing their homes. Many of those who are still able to pay their mortgage (because home prices fell) now owe more than their home is worth. But the mayor, who used to work for Walter Street, goes to the town council declaring that Walter Street is To big To Fail. So Walter Street, the riches man in town, gets a low interest loan courtesy of the town’s taxpayers.
As soon as Mr. Street receives the money he begins gambling again, is again rich and lickity split, he has repaid the loan with interest. Meanwhile, 9% of the town is collecting unemployment and another 15% has either exhausted their unemployment benefits or they are now working only part time. Many of those who never lost their jobs are working harder and longer hours just to make the same money. Everyone’s home is worth less. So did the townspeople make money on Walter Street’s bailout?”
So I suppose we should be happy the government made the money back so that things would not be even worse than they are now, BUT – does that mean considering the great setbacks in our lives that have been sustained by so many of us that we should be complacent and content with the status quo?
Really oversimplified analogies are just that. Oversimplified.
Now if everyone in the town had an investment that Mr. STreet was overlooking for them, and he had a complex web of financial ties to not only the townspeople but the other local towns, and heck even other states- then the analogy might make a little more sense.
No one claims this is 100% accurate LOL — the bailout didn’t go to Mr. Street’s mansion (aka Wall Stree), but a minuscule corner of that mansion (aka a few corporations). Financial stability should be protected as that IS “too BIG to FAIL”; but let those useless corners rot, those are not too big to fail.
Am I to understand Catherine that you are a fan of the “too big to fail concept” for a few corporations? Not allowing them to fail is now bringing down MR. Street’s entire Mansion because he continues to gamble. Those bailed out did not learn, they are not creating jobs, they are still paying their CEOs exhorbitant amounts of $.
So no need to be anal on oversimplified analogies, conceptually the message is that the few rotting corners of the mansion should have been allowed to fail then rebuilt later THE RIGHT WAY. Not allowing those few corporations to fail caused them to learn NOTHING and still mooch off our backs. Look at Trump, he declared bankruptcy then came out stronger than ever. Now don’t go and accuse me that I am a fan of Trump or anything (picky, picky…). The devil’s in the details, but it would only benefit OWS and OB to just pick a simple message and stick to it like no more bailouts or no more financial influence on Washington.
Except the fact the banks aren’t lending – they are using 0% interest money to buy OUR assets (homes) for pennies on the dollar and investing in the stock market.
We aren’t seeing any of this money… hedge funds and the rich are.
Jobs aren’t being created. The derivatives bubble (i.e. gambling) is just getting bigger.
Will the govenment make money on TARP? Maybe, if the bets win. But that isn’t the point. the point is gambling with the public coffers.
The USA is one big hedge fund that’s going to implode one day soon, whether you like it or not, whether you’re Katie Hepburn and preach baby steps.
I know that was a long post so maybe Catherine didn’t read it all before responding… and hasn’t become aware of OWS grievance #4 “The End of the Revolving Door” between Washington’s policy makers and enforcers coming and going to cash in on their “public service” by working for invesment banks (Goldman) and other areas of financial industry.
Just a recap
“Investment banks (Goldman, Morgan S, ect) combined subprime mortgages with other forms of debt (credit, student loans, ect)to make complex derivatives called collateralized debt obligations or CDOs. Summers, Rubin and Greenspan among others pushed against regulating derivatives and CDOs with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999)while repealing Glass Steagall’s conflict of interest act. CDOs were often given AAA ratings by the rating agencies (adding: they were paid by the investment banks to give high ratings to the CDOs the investment banks were selling) making them appealing to retirement funds who as investors bought the CDOs. If the people couldn’t pay their mortgage they were out of a home, retirees were out of a retirement fund, but the investment banks which would use credit default swaps to bet against their own CDOs, ie profit from their failure via AIG..” Goldman also saw this risk and spent $150 million to insure themselves against the collapse of AIG since the legislation Paulson worked for deregulated leverage, increasing the risks the banks could take leading to an unavoidable, catastrophic failure ( while making Billions using them for CDS).
And now a history lesson on the growing connection between Wall Street and Washington:
Henry Paulson- former CEO of Goldman who lobbied Securities & Exchange Commission to decrease regulations on investment banks and allow them to borrow more (increasing leverage) is appointed to Secretary of US Treasury. Paulson (& Bernanke) manufactured the bailout for AIG, which insured Goldman (and other investors/banks) in case the CDOs failed. When AIG couldn’t meet its obligations to the investment banks (Goldman) Paulson asked for Congress to go ahead with the bailout. The next day Goldman received $61 billion the NEXT DAY!
Others who took advantage of the “Revolving Door”
Martin Feldstein-served as Reagan’s Chief Economic Advisor, had a major role in deregulation. He then went on AIG’s Board of Directors & AIG Financial Industries (98-09)making millions. Also professor of economics at our Harvard.
Laura Tyson- Chair of the Economic Council of Advisors & National Economic Council for Clinton-then went to work for Morgan Stan
Glen Hubbard- Dean of Columbia Business School, Cheif Economics Advisor to Bush-Also worked as a board member for Metlife, and CAPMark Financial Corporations-a major commercial mortgage lender.
Garry Gensler- appointed by Obama as head of the Commodity, Futures Trading Commission- a former Goldman executive, helped fight regulation of derivative (CDO, CDSs).
Geitner- Chief of Staff & Treasury for Obama- former Goldman lobbyist…..
Anyway, Catherine I speak for myself and those who support OWS grievances, as well as those I have spoken with- this isn’t an Wall Street or government issue, it is an issue with the government supporting these investment banks, agencies ie Wall Street by writing and deciding how to carry out policies that they then cash in on later when they join the financial industry they were supposed to regulate – all at the expense of the general public. In a nut shell it is a systemic issue that has hurt moslty “middle income” Americans, as we have to say now that we have destroyed the middle class.
Ah Ms. Hepburn, I finally see what you’re asking : why not go after Washington instead of Wall St? As others have mentioned, they are connected. Here’s a story that broke yesterday which is the sort of run of the mill shenanigans that Wall St. pulls on a regular basis, and that regulators (who are supposed to, you know, regulate this sort of thing) turn a blind eye to.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bank-america-forces-depositors-backstop-its-53-trillion-derivative-book-prevent-few-clients-dep
Also, check out yesterday’s Mass Court decision that declares that properties that were foreclosed on without proper documentation and were subsequently bought by third parties, don’t actually belong to the party that bought them.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/fraudclosure-errors-destroying-americans-property-rights/
The hits just keep coming!
Yes, they are tied indeed…and none of us want to see Wall St. come crashing down and our 401k’s completely tank, but some changes in the Wall St / Washington relationship should come about as a result of this movement.
Here is an article “How Washington’s Bailout Will Boost Wall Street Bonuses” from 2008 that will bring back some bad memories and shows why this movement is gaining some legs due to the awakening of the 99%. The article ends with: “…will likely leave a sour taste with taxpayers for some time to come”. Such an accurate prediction.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1853846,00.html#ixzz1ZgCSAOVZ
Also, maybe the right choices were not made in Washington, but here is a good choice here in Mass – we, as individuals should follow suit.
Mass. to move money out of the 3 biggest banks to protest credit card rates (2010)
“Massachusetts law caps interest rates at 18 percent. In the fall, the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization began urging officials from the state Treasury department to tackle the usury issue. Last week, state officials met with officials from Bank of America, where Massachusetts has $231 million in investments, to request that it meet that cap for state residents. When the bank declined, Cahill said, his office decided it would shift the funds into other accounts. Massachusetts also has $9 million invested with Citi and $3 million with Wells Fargo. ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404863.html
I see my comments are all gone. Curious. What happened?
you were censored?
I noticed they were gone after you agreed with my post!
i think they were ‘lost’ when they updated the website
CENSORSHIP!
The ‘jrduff’ comment which agrees with your post is still above. And I also agree with a post you made at the top that calls for a general statement of purpose like you said “…Downsizing corporate influence over the political process would be my best suggestion for a starting point- it covers a lot of ground while being fairly focused at the same time…. ”
So many of us are asking for this and it makes so much sense. I would also preceed that with a statement like “This is a non-partisan movement. Downsizing corporate …etc”
Not sure what the holdup is here with broadcasting a GENERAL paragraph by OWS to ALL Occupy Movement sites, then every site in turn posting that.
NICE JOB OCCUPY BOSTON !!
We are starting to communicate in such a constructive way what the movement is about. This is a non-partisan movement. It is not run and supported by ‘hippies’ and this very young movement is now shaping the vision and strategy, which I am very excited about. Kudos to all who are making this happen!
THE MESSAGE – see FAQs (https://www.occupyboston.org/faq/general-faq/)
“Are you related to Occupy Wall Street?
Yes, we were directly inspired by our brothers and sisters in New York, and we stand in solidarity with them. The spirit of Occupy Wall Street has spread nationwide, and has an unofficial hub at Occupy Together. There is also a list of occupations and Facebook pages at Daily Kos. While these different occupations share many goals and attitudes, they each operate independently, and there is no national organization that can speak for all occupations.
What are you protesting?
Most people who support Occupy Boston call for reforming Wall Street and removing special interest from government, but there no one single issue or demand that summarizes our movement. People are dissatisfied with how our country is being run and want fundamental, lasting change of many kinds.”
VERY NICE !!