Forum Post: OWS and Wall St. reform: Opinion from an "insider"
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 18, 2011, 10:04 p.m. EST by z0mbeeLawy3r
(5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Full disclosure: I'm a corporate lawyer at one of New York's "elite" corporate law firms. I generally disagree with the position of OWS on most issues. But I have tremendous respect for anyone who exercises their freedom of expression to fight for the ideas they think are best, so I applaud you for that - I'm happy to see it.
Here's some advice I have for you, OWS, from an "insider". Many people on Wall Street, the 1%, etc., are looking for change too. And there is a lot of debate among us about what changes to make. Because we are the experts on the area, ultimately we are probably going to determine what those changes are, this time around.
Your problem is that you currently have no seat at the table, as far as we're concerned. We don't take your ideas seriously because you have no experts; you don't speak our language; you offer little more than ideals. You don't like "derivatives" but you don't know what they are like we do. You don't like the Fed but you don't really understand what it does like we do. You don't like "debt" but you don't really understand how it can be used for healthy purposes like we do. Your movement needs more experts - your best and brightest should be studying and PRACTICING economics, business, finance and law, at a high level. Some in your movement can formulate a superficial argument in support of say, re-enacting the Glass-Steagall Act. But to "us" those arguments fall flat; a law firm like mine might write a 100 page memo analyzing impacts of the law that is so complex that most university law professors who haven't practiced on Wall Street would not be able to fully understand it. You do have experts and academics, but usually not in the right fields. I read academic journals written by political science academics for example, and they tend to be great until they start discussing economics/business/finance/law, where to someone like me it's painfully obvious that they don't get it on the same level we do.
My overall point then is that, from where I stand, your best shot at effecting meaningful change won't be in the short-term, it will be in the long-term. Wall St./the 1% is full of reasonable people who are open minded about changing the system, so there is a huge opportunity there, and you WILL need some of "us" on your side. So you need to get yourselves a seat at that table. Doing so will take a long time.
I'll add that my intent is not in any way to be condescending; I think your movement is excellent for democracy. I'll understand if you think my advice is ridiculous, but at a minimum at least you'll know what one of your greatest weaknesses is, from "our" (or at least my) standpoint.
Hey insider. Tell us that Albert Einstein was wrong too. And Mariner Eccles. And allen Greenspan.You lying 1% club pig. Your tricks won't work on me.
"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself.". Allen Greenspan testifying before congress in the spring of '05'. That's right pig. SPRING OF '05'!
So take your cheap 'insider' psychological tricks and shove them up your 1% club ass.
They won't work on me.
Vote this one down in 10 seconds like the last one I posted. It won't change anything. I have a lot to say and you pigs can't intimidate me.
Don't fall for this guy's crap. He is not using his knowledge to enlighten you. He is using his knowledge to dumb you down.
DON'T FALL FOR IT!
Thanks for your post, because it highlights my point. I don't see people in the movement who are able to do much more than that formulate idealistic arguments. That's just not how the real world works. PS: Yes I downvoted your first post, because you copied and pasted it a wall of text that didn't directly respond to my post.
I read most of your posts and understand what you are saying, the thing is that OWS does need to understand you but it doesn't need to sit at your table or utilize your concerns, nor attempt to play on your playing field, not if it means making compromises that are both unsustainable and undesired, this movement is about attempting to build a different society based on different rules, so what it needs to do is galvanize support from the large majority referred to as the 99%. In short its not your specific support that is needed, sure some of you will join in and that's fine but the weight and force of the movement will come from the masses below, the hard working men and women who actually allow this society to run. I mean even you would agree that you may have experts but you don't run the machine. If the majority of americans shut you down, you're shut down for sure.
Look at what were are up against, the 1% introduces economic theory by and for the elite, and the entire country adopts it! We have almost 50% of the country voting against their own interests right now. Give Koch Brothers half a peace sign for me.
Yeah. It's idealistic. That's because I want what's best for the majority. But it's also logical. Damn right I pasted it. I also wrote it. I've given every point a lot of thought. So bring it on insider.
I want to say thanks for dropping by. I'm not sure we'll agree on anything. But I do thank you for the time you took to stop by and post.
I think I tend to be a bit of a moderate around here - and I think the energy, finance, and telecommunications industries all need to be public institutions.
These are things we all depend on, we need clarity, transparency, and an end of profiteering. Where banks are small, and their clientele happens to be their neighbors, you don't get predatory lending or pricing strategies.
I don't expect you will agree with my position. You can probably articulate ten thousand reasons to oppose it.
I suspect most people around here won't even want a seat at the table. They want to change the setting and the language. They don't want to have to have an interpreter.
And we don't want to be robbed anymore.
Hi ZenDog. You and I might not agree on this but I'm not buying it. I see this as another cheap psychological trick. I don't care how forthcoming this guy makes himself out to be. It's a trick. 1% clubers want change? Not unless its lower taxes, more subsidies, and less regulation. I just don't buy it.
I dunno - what about Warren Buffett?
What I mean is, I would tend to doubt any of them would want the kinds of changes I want - but I'm sure there are a few of them who realize the shit is broken, and they are in the middle of it, and feel funny about that.
Maybe not. I dunno.
Warren Buffet is a certified expert in the market. A true genius. That being said, he is still a pig.
Buffet gave away several hundred thousand shares of BH stock a few years back. Sounds real nice doesn't it? Check this out. Keep in mind what I just said about Buffet's expertise. He gave the stock away just weeks before it tanked. He gave it away to the Gates Foundation. Shortly after, the Gates Foundation lost assets. The Gates Foundation has never spent more than 4% of it's liquid assets on any sort of humanitarian work a 12 month period. Never. In fact, most years, its more like 2%. The Gates Foundation is not what it appears to be. It is primarily an investment firm. It helps to capitalize Fortune 500 companies. Many of which drive up the cost of living worldwide and wreak havoc on the environment. Gates has a long history of shady business tactics. Buffet is a true genius in his field. They are both extreme wealth concentrating fake humanitarian hypocrite pigs. Buffet and Gates have both pledged to give away most of their personal fortunes. However, they both intend to sit on their combined 100 billion+ fortunes until they die. How generous is that? How courageous? Buffet has been running his mouth about paying higher taxes for years. But he still pays an effective rate of under 15%. He could voluntarily pay more. But he doesn't. It's all PR crap. I have more but it's getting late and I have work tomorrow.
Believe me. I would like to see a true exception. It doesn't feel good to be so mad at so many people. But I just don't see one. Not even Obama. It sucks. But that's how I feel about it.
Just for the record. I know they have both given away hundreds of millions. But it takes absolutely no courage to give money away if you STILL hold tens of billions when it's all said and done. Generosity isn't just about how much you 'give'. That's way too easy. It's also about how much YOU KEEP.
Where would we be if another 500 people became multibillionaires and decided to 'give back' a few hundred million? Worse off in fucked up land. That's where. We don't need anymore billionaire 'humanitarians'. We need FEWER BILLIONAIRES.
Mother Teresa was never able to match the pocket change of people like Gates and Buffet. But she gave everything and kept nothing.
SHE GAVE EVERYTHING AND KEPT NOTHING. NOW THATS GENEROSITY.
I stated outright that I disagree with OWS on most issues. I am not trying to imply that I want the kind of change you want. But I do see how laws change over time, and your movement is absent from much of that process, because people with your values are a minority of those who have expertise in these matters. If you think being a part of the process to advocate your position is pointless, fine, but one thing it can't do is hurt.
You've tried breaking our will. You failed. You've tried discrediting the movement. You failed. Now, you're trying to tone it down. You're feeding us bogus PR crap in an attempt to 'soften' our resolve just enough so that you will be seen as less of a bad guy. You want OWS to tone down it's protest and spin it's wheels indefinitely on some futile attempt to compromise with you for reform that will ultimately never come. It won't work.
You are absolutely correct.
And thank you for hearing me out without antagonism. I agree that my values most certainly will clash with those of most everyone here.
I also agree that many/most people here simply would not want a "seat at the table" and that they reject the setting. But I just can't fathom that something so radical would ever happen; complicated things need to be managed/governed by people with expertise relating to them.
To expand on my original point, I think OWS faces two primary challenges when it comes to policy - OWS has values that differ from those of people like me (e.g. I might prefer having more money over having a cleaner environment - that's a value judgment that simply amounts to a preference). I don't think values can be reconciled. You can't convince someone to like a blue car when they prefer the red car. But the second challenge OWS faces is one where something can be done. It's the challenge I raised in my original post, which is that by not having a seat at the table to discuss the technical implications of policy, they don't have a chance to even be able to influence any compromises or middle ground. I realize the movement may be content with going for all or nothing instead of even working on compromise or finding "win-wins", but I think that's a mistake.
A disgusting pedophile might prefer the ass of a 12 year old girl over the ass of a consenting adult. You can't convince him otherwise. You can't reconcile his value. So what do you do? Take a seat at his table and find some compromise or middle ground? Perhaps look the other way as he rapes a 14 year old girl? Get my drift?
YOU 1% CLUB PIGS ARE RAPING THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES. YOU ALREADY OWN 43% OF ALL FINANCIAL WEALTH IN AMERICA. STILL, YOU WANT MORE. IT CAN'T WORK THIS WAY. YOU ARE GOING TO CAUSE ANOTHER GREAT DEPRESSION. STOP CONCENTRATING SO MUCH GOD DAMN WEALTH.
No? THATS WHAT I THOUGHT.
I don't want a seat at your table. I want you away from it.
when it comes to the issue of deregulation of the economy I don't think compromise is possible. Look where we are.
Most folks around here won't believe a win-win is possible. Most people will believe it is ultimately a loose - loose - even if your side won't or can't see it that way.
the economic collapse has created social instability - it has costs. It is possible, and has happened in history, that resistance to change may cost those who resist, everything.
And I would point out that while a clean environment may not be a value you hold in high esteem - it has economic benefits, and some of them have been quantified by various researchers.
OWS is a horizontal movement, which is to say that there are no identifiable permanent leaders and every OWS activist speaks only for themselves and no one else, That said, I think there are distinct and identifiable objective tendencies in OWS, Of course I appreciate any genial conversation, but I do think you have a basic misunderstanding of what OWS is and exactly how radical it is,
Right at the top of the page here it says that the revolution continues world wide, That is not hyperbole for many of us, We really believe it. We are not interested in a seat at the table because we are not especially interested in the table, It is not so much that we want to overturn it like Jesus in the temple as it is that we are searching for an entirely new metaphor which is not about tables at all, We would agree that this process will take a long time, possibly decades or perhaps even several life times, We are entirely cognizant of the fact that most Americans are not revolutionary or even especially simpathetic to notions that they would consider revolutionarym but patience is a revolutionary virtue.
OWS has made no demands much to the chagrin of main stream reporters and even to many liberal supporters of OWS. There are many reasons given for this lack of demands, My own take on it is that basically demands are raised for two reasons, Either you accept the legitimacy of your adversary as a worthy and legitimate opponent or you are too weak to displace your adversary and as such are forced to raise demands and negotiate, In the case of OWS neither is true, It does not accept the legitimacy of its corporate adversaries. On the other hand at this point OWS is so small and weak that there is no reason for anyone to take its demands seriously, The best home made sign I read at Zuccotti Park said that demands put somebody else in charge of your happiness, We don't trust either the corporate state or the two big parties of the 1%, Our aim is to reorganize society democratically from below, One of the greatest things about the occupation was that especially in terms of the social relations that developed there it gave us a small sample of what a genuinely democratic peaceful and loving society would look like and how it would operate,
"So you need to get yourselves a seat at that table."
Sorry the double entendre in 'OWS' escaped you.
Sorry, this isn't identical to pre-independence times. The colonists repeatedly asked for a seat at the King's table to no avail. The founding fathers gave us the tools we needed to ensure their Sons and Daughters NEVER had to go begging and groveling as they had to. You are sadly mistaken if you think the 99% would stoop so low as to fight to sit at that plastic walmart table.
They will be sitting down to their table in 199 days, July 4th, in Philadelphia. You are welcome to try to occupy a seat if you wish.
Time is short
http://www.the99declaration.org/
What you say makes sense. And it probably will take a while. I think the majority of people will begin to have a seat at the table, or at least an equal voice in government, when there is an end to the corruption by the 1%.
For the sake of discussion, ASSUMING the 1% is corrupt, the problem for OWS is that the 1% is also the group that has the expertise and knows how to run things. For example, you can't have an average joe writing financial regulations and running financial institutions, at least not in a system that looks remotely like ours. Maybe you want a revolution and completely different system though, which I think is both highly unlikely to occur and highly undesirable (so we'd have to agree to disagree on that).
I don't want a revolution. Some people maybe. There are some real nutters around here. I'd say most don't. Most just want to end government corruption. There is too much money in the political system. The political system needs to be changed thats all.
Probably go to something along the lines of publicly financed campaigns, or something with small individual contributions, with matching public funds as individual support rises. Something like that. The point is, to get all of the special interest money out of politics, PAC's, Super PAC's, lobbyists.
In fact, you might even be part of the 99%. Corruption is everywhere. Drug companies, oil, gas and energy, pretty much you name it. If you feel that your best interests or our country's best interests are not being served because some big special interests is pushing their own agenda for their own gain, then you are the 99% too.
It's a pretty simple dream and concept. Not so simple to implement.
Once we achieve campaign reform, then we have the opportunity to be heard in government and can fix everything else. General consensus, financial reform would be first on the list.
So I guess y'all fancy lawyers on Wall Street could write up your briefs about why Glass-Steagall should not be re-instated. Your voice would be heard in government. But y'alls Wall Street banks could not be throwing millions of dollars at our politicians in an attempt to enhance your argument. You might have to work a little harder on those legal briefs.
As good as your legal arguments might be about financial regulation, however geniusly convulated you can possilbly make it, I'd say the deregulation was simply bought and paid for.
It's very nice to say you want change, but quite another to do something about it. I hope you and some of your colleagues will join us one day.
As someone who is well educated and does speak your language, I agree with the assessment to a point; but even for someone who thinks a GAAP is a space between someone's teeth... its fairly obvious that there are serious problems, and also fairly obvious where the source of the problems is.
The solution may not be as obvious as the problem, but if the movement gets large enough you will have solutions imposed on you. Perhaps consider the golden opportunity to get your house in order while you still have the time, and the freedom to do it.
If you have an understanding of finance and economics you must understand the obvious truth that this system can not sustain itself, and these protests are symptoms of larger systemic issues which can only get worse until the status quo changes.
The whole banking system is constantly on the precipice of malfunction. The system itself will force change - the malfunction of capitalism will demand it. OWS is just ahead of the curve.
History is cluttered with failed social-cultural-econo-political systems. We are no exception. This time it will collapse faster due to the speed of information transfer.
Capitalism is dead and that is going to be a bitter pill to swallow for those with so much vested interest in this ongoing game
What I'm learning from your post and those of most others is that most people posting here do seem to expect/desire some sort of radical revolution, in which case my advice really isn't relevant. Point taken.
All systems are historical – that’s true for physical and chemical systems, biological systems, and social systems. They all have lives: they come into existence at a certain point, they survive according to certain rules, and then they move far from equilibrium and reach a structural crisis until they can’t survive anymore. This is basic systems theory. Our system has moved far from equilibrium and we have been in a crisis for decades.
Social (r)evolutions have consisted of transformational events taking place quite independently of man's consciously attempting to bring them about. Man is very vain; he likes to feel that he is responsible for all the favorable things that happen, and he is innocent of all the unfavorable happenings. But all the larger social evolutionary patterns seemingly transpire independently to any of man's conscious planning or contriving.
We live at a very interesting point in human history. We get to witness epochal change manifest in our lifetimes. The collapse of an old system and birth of a new. A spontaneous macro-socio-evolution, if you will. Spontaneous for historical time is a few decades. Putting dates on these things is a futile task but for the sake of time-frames, I would say it will be played out in less than 20 years. Possibly much sooner, with consistent disarray from here on out.
Now the world is in a structural/systemic crises once more akin to what spawned the agricultural and industrial/capitalist revolutions. Eventually a new system will arise. A new world order. This time around things will happen much much faster. It took the neolithic revolution several thousand years to take over the globe, the industrial/capitalist revolution took just a few hundred and this next one will take just a few decades. History actually seems to move faster in a kind of telescoping nature for epochal change. The speed of information transfer is the key to rates of change.
We'll have to agree to disagree about that.
lol
No experts? Bullshit. A dozen or more economists have recently (finally) gone on record acknowledging the ugly truth. This obscene concentration of wealth is the primary underlying cause of economic instability. It's not brain surgery. It's simple math. No experts my ass. And I'm not falling for any PR crap from any 1% club pig. Say, that reminds me.
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. And rightfully so. It was the best year ever for the middle and lower classes. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. If there is no redistribution, there will be no recovery.
Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that effective rates for the rich probably never exceeded 39% and certainly never exceeded 45%. My belief is that if true, those effective rates for the rich were still considerably higher than previous lows of '29'. Also that such policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through mass job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word.
One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are heavily subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. Our Federal, State, and local leaders are sold out. Most of whom, are rich and trying to get even richer at our expense. They won't do anything about the obscene concentration of wealth. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, use any portion, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
And this is the guy coordinating internet stuff for ows ny general council http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/04/theodore-shulman-arrested-indictment-death-threats