Why are people like Bernie against Wall Street? Did they cause the financial crisis like he's stating?
>Why are people like Bernie against Wall Street?
Because he a jew central banker who hates goyim
>Did they cause the financial crisis like he's stating?
No, not at all. The reason for every financial crisis since 1913 has been the federal reserve.
He's against them on the principle that financial and banking sectors are making a shitload of money while the actual doers and shakers are getting the scraps.
whether he is right, we will see.
They were certainly overly greedy, but, I can't say that I blame them. People were taking out mortgages even without jobs, how the fuck did they expect to pay the banks back. They were just riding off the average persons stupidity for as long as they could, which meant that they did end up committing fraud when they lied about the ratings of the different packaged mortgage securities (I forgot what they called them)
>why is bernie against wall street
because the public is largely against wall street so it's easy votes to say you're going to "do something" about it. he's just a populist vote panderer like we've seen countless times in the short history of american politics.
Possibly he believes unchecked greed will destroy the greatness of the U.S.
Personally most of the business folks I know (younger) are willing the scorch the earth to land a payday.
I am not sure how other folks will feel if wall street becomes asian in 50 yrs (multi gen reinvesting in offspring to assist them with gaining jobs).
Most bank loans are made against real estate, financial securities or other assets already in place instead of creating new means of production. The main source of gain for borrowers comes from seeing the real estate, stocks or bonds they have bought on credit rise as a result of asset-price inflation which creates a debt-leveraged Bubble Economy. Most of this revenue generated isn't spent back into the real economy of production or consumption instead it goes towards the acquisition of even more property, financial securities or new loans.
Wall Street cannibalizes the real economy to make a hand few of rentiers massively wealthy, in the process they destroy the industrial foundations of America in the process. Usury has been destroying industry since 1978:
>muh emotional arguments
No, it's because time and again they've demonstrated that they don't know how to run our economy without fucking everything up and asking for handouts when they break everything. Financialization is the reason why our economy is in the shitter.
> I'm automatically smarter because I make more money
Even without being able to point out the good guys, I know it's reckless and irresponsible to tar everyone with the same brush.
Your average citizen has no idea what defines "Wall Street", they're just told to hate any one who has anything to do with "it".
The person who works at a "bank".
The person who "trades stocks".
The person who lives or works in a "financial district".
They're also encouraged to blame all of these "Wall Streeters" for our financial problems, even though the vast majority of them had nothing to do with them.
This behavior is idiocy, but it does serve a political agenda.
"Wall Street" created to framework for the crisis, it essentially designed it. Are the idiots who took out mortgages they obviously couldn't afford responsible? Helllll yeeeeeah. Does that exonerate "wall street". fuuuuuuck no. I guess you could make a (bad) drug analogy. Are drug users responsible for taking drugs? Obviously. Are drug dealers responsible for bringing something to market that they know is not sustainable, that they know will eventually result in some sort of catastrophe but they don't give a fuck because holy shit look at all this money? Yeah. Shitty analogy, I know. BUT- if you carefully and deliberately create the conditions for this kind of thing to happen simply for profit, without any consideration for the long term stability and health of everything from the global economy to your own family, you're an asshole. And a really bad banker. I don't really care about morals or ethics or anything like that, CDFs and the massive over-leveraging of banks is just *stupid*.
And in both cases, it's the responsibility of the government regulate and enforce. "But what they did wasn't technically illegal, anon!!". How do we determine if something should be illegal? Why are some things illegal and others aren't? Generally speaking, actions become illegal when they unduly deprive others of their basic rights. Life, liberty, property, etc. If one constructs a system or a framework explicitly designed to target those who are at some sort of disadvantage (economically, educationally, etc.), and there are no safeguards put in place, that shit should be illegal. I can't start making shitty, dangerous cars that I sell for really cheap and am not held accountable for. These sorts of financial instruments should go through the same "safety checks" as anything else sold to consumers in the US. And to be clear, this isn't about "bawwwww you're mean" or "DOWN WITH THE 1%!!". If you actually care about a booming, innovative economy and make mad $$ long term, regulate that shit. You have someone with a shit loan and a foreclosed house, they ain't sending their kids to a good college, they ain't getting the health care they need when they need it. That shit's a huge drag on the economy and the country for the long term. It ain't simply about losing money. It's about raw-dog fucking the future of this country.
You're missing the point.
Ham handed legislation that punishes everyone remotely connected with financial activities is a terrible strategy.
I'll turn your argument around: You're unable to prosecute "the bad guys", so you're willing to screw lots of blameless people in pursuit of them.
Just lazy. But popular with the masses.
>These sorts of financial instruments
I can cite for you tons of futures contracts, options, derivatives, even stocks that are "dangerous". But they're mostly dangerous to people who don't know what the fuck they're doing. I use them myself to great effect.
It sounds like, in order to protect people, you would need to put in place some sort of competency test regarding financial instruments. The problem has been that many find such tests to be "barriers" and "classist", you know, because they're keeping poor/ignorant people from the markets.
Nah let the places that do this risky stuff fail and don't have the government bail them out. I don't care if the economy as a whole would have been fucked for longer. Those people putting their money into those idiots' hands are to a degree at fault too.
Yeah I agree there should be some sort of existential consequence for people who do this. If a normal business makes fucked up decisions, they bomb. Such is life. But the threat of some sort of systemic collapse is real, so there's got to be a middle ground of some sort. Punish the idiots while preventing collapse. Put in place genuine consequences for outright recklessness while shielding everyone else from those stupid decisions. Not sayin' it's that easy, of course.
Yeah, true man, very true. There are some things though, like using MBSs as collateral on loans and having a debt-to-equity ratio of 40-1 (!!!) that should be no-brainers. I'm not saying ban them or something stupid. I'm not even saying if you want to go fuckin' gonzo with your cash you can't- I'm saying if you go gonzo, you gotta some safeguards or something in place to minimize the shitstorm if/when things go south. It ain't all about you at that point. It's not about making taking huge risks illegal, that needs to happen. Can't have growth without risk. It's about protecting ya neck, and the neck of the country.
>the threat of some sort of systemic collapse
Well that's what needs to be addressed. These institutions should be able to bomb as well. Why (and I'm sure someone has knowledge) the FTC thought it was ok for these businesses to grow to their current size/amount of influence is the real issue.
Why was "too big to fail" allowed to exist at all?
Was it all Glass-Stegall?
because they are robbing Americans. Americans are too stupid to know whats happening to them. since less then 5% of americans have travelled outside of their country and if the do go to third world places to stretch their dollars most do not see the increase in the standard of living in other top tier countries. they only see what is projected to them thru the media. and they believe the lie that Americans are exceptional.
I would consider them wall street, and even if they arent, the investment banks let it happen anyway. It was criminal, but, people should be smart enough to not take out loans when they don't have a fucking income.
> i didn't sell CDOs for about a year and witness it all first hand
you may consider them wall street, no one in the business does -- they're lumped with like DTCC and the consulting/accounting firms
the investment banks and employees (including myself) were too dumb to realize what was happening until it was far too late. they thought they had the golden goose
Well, I'm going to take your word for it.
In hindsight it seems silly to just hand out loans to everybody, did nobody catch on to that or have any issues with it when it was being introduced?
What financial crisis? Housing bubble 2008?
If that's what you are talking about then the answer is a huge no. Wall Street does not lend money to people to buy houses. Wall Street did not convince people to buy houses.
Banks had very loose lending terms and we're offering a fuck ton of sub prime loans. This made it where a fuck ton of people who couldn't afford mortgages, had mortgages.
At the same time, since loans were being given out so easily, house prices experienced all time highs.
Those are the reasons that caused the crash.
wl street doesn't cause crashes, Wall Street gets fucked by crashes.
Stock prices don't affect the economy, the economy affects stock prices. Such a simple concept.
Yep. It's really just left-wing populism. Take any Sanders speech about financial markets and replace "bankers" with "Muslims and Mexicans", and you have a great template for a Trump speech.
Can someone tell me how to reply to a stupid comment like:
...In fact anyone trading on an exchange doesn't have a honest day's work. What did he contribute and produce in his career? Absolutely nothing. He deals with virtual money and virtual falls and the growth of something that does not exist. He lives in a virtual world..."
A couple of you said his rhetoric is against "wall street" and it doesn't mean anything to anyone. I guess he's trying to hang Hillary right now. We'll see what he does. Although people know it's the bankers' fault for being greedy and taking advantage of loopholes they created, with no repercussions for the economical damage they created. It's too complicated for most people to understand who does it.
The person doing that trading is most probably not trading for himself, probably hes trading for a firm or fund that will most likely go to his whore mothers bank or superfund if she is smart and placed the micro amount of money in a investment fund.
Honest days work is a meme, rhetoric to appeal to emotion. Because working all day in a factory to make shit no one needs that will end up in a garbage heap is an acceptable honest days work...
I'm way more entertaining when I hang out with all the millionaires who are my best friends, despite the fact that I despise them.
They live in my neighborhood (in high concentrations!), just so you know.
Neo-Keynesian pls go... kill finance parasites and redistribute their ill-gotten gains
The way you would fight them is to just push for increased regulation on the finance sector and potentially outright nationalization of banking. Then you get ready for more push back than you could ever imagine
>Why do you hate job creators?
>Don't you know that industry needs credit to grow?
>Increasing stock prices are the only indicator that the economy is growing
>We're moving into a service based economy instead of an industrial one
>Public utilities need to be privatized in order to more efficiently
>Small businesses and homeowners are the ones really hurt by these regulations
>Property rights are the only rights that the government needs to protect
Look up event driven investment strategies if you want to know the really awful ways that they go about doing things