Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

kanelli · Oct 06, 2011

Thousands of protesters have marched on New York's financial district, with rallies also held in other US cities.

Powerful unions gave a high-profile boost to the long-running demonstrations, as their members joined the rally in lower Manhattan.

Students at several US colleges walked out of classes in solidarity.

The activists have vented grievances over the 2008 corporate bailouts, high US unemployment and home repossessions, among other things.

Hundreds of demonstrators were arrested last weekend on the Brooklyn Bridge.
'Country upside down'

On Wednesday, smaller protests were held from Boston and Chicago to Los Angeles and San Francisco.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15187257

I think this is great! More people should be joining them!

"Herman Cain called the activists "jealous" and "un-American" on Wednesday at a book signing in Florida.

On Tuesday, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was quoted as called the protest "class warfare" while campaigning in Florida."

Oh yes, no one should be jealous that 1% of the population holds the majority of the country's wealth! How un-American to protest about that!

Can Americans be American without believing in capitalism? Of course, but the republicans likely don't think so...

Class warfare indeed! Middle and low-income households all over the world have suffered because of bad economic policies supported by the rich, in the US and elsewhere!

shafique · Oct 06, 2011

Well, with George Soros expressing sympathy for the protestors - and with them making many fundamentally sound points.. it causes a problem for those who like Cain think these Americans are 'un-American'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15155046

Sometimes the emperor is naked, despite how much one wants to believe otherwise.

Over in Europe - the protests in Greece are interesting too. There is a lack of clarity in the media and political classes over what the 'bail outs' represent. It is presented as a bail out of the country ('we need to bail out Greece'). Look beyond the headline, and the bail outs are actually to help banks and others with capital who lent money WILLINGLY to Greece - who now want European (non-Greek) taxpayers to pay them back.

Should taxpayers be forced to pay back loans that were given voluntarily?

Cheers,
Shafique

kanelli · Oct 06, 2011

I don't think they should. It is another example of big banks doing stupid things with other people's money, screwing people over again.

I'm really tempted to buy a safe and dig a hole in my basement one day - keep all my cash there and avoid using banks as much as possible.

event horizon · Oct 06, 2011

Oh yes, no one should be jealous that 1% of the population holds the majority of the country's wealth! How un-American to protest about that!

People are free to become wealthy. It does seem un-American to actually protest that, especially since the top 1% bring in the largest source of revenue for the federal government - after tax rebates, the bottom 20% or something of the population are a deficit source for the federal government. It's the wealthy and middle class who are the engines of this economy.

Class warfare indeed! Middle and low-income households all over the world have suffered because of bad economic policies supported by the rich, in the US and elsewhere!

Uhm, the bank loans crisis started after home "owners" defaulted on loans to their banks. You can't blame the general rich person for that (apart from the banks who were handing out loans like candy in the name of equity - you have the Democrats to blame for that, not Republicans).

I think this is great! More people should be joining them!

I think their demands would only hurt more people in the name of 'equity'. Once again, we have people with little understanding of economics but quite a lot of rage trying to tell others how to run things.

How is raising minimum wage going to help unemployment rates? How do you pay workers if you're not producing anything? Money must grow on trees in your world.

shafique · Oct 06, 2011

eh - isn't a main gripe that the bailouts are going to banks and corporations that made bad loans?

I thought you were against big government, but it appears that many on the right are in favour of socialising losses and privatising profits.

(Can you confirm the stat you gave that the top 1% contributes the most tax revenue than other groups.. what do you mean. I saw a stat that said that the top 1% contribute about 40% of the personal income tax revenue - so the bottom 99% contribute 60%. I think that's too low - in a progressive system, those most able to affort it should pay more - but that's a different issue - please clarify what you meant).

If you believed in Capitalism, these banks should be allowed to go under if they can't exist without tax-payer bailouts.

What happened to no taxation without representation - isn't an extension of that the concept that those paying the money should have a say in how it is used?

IIRC a large amount of the bailout of AIG actually flowed straight through to Goldman Sachs (so it was really a bailout of GS) - who then went on to make billions in profits for their shareholders... but not to the government who bailed them out (taxes they paid are minimal compared to the bailout, I'm guessing).

Happy to talk about the macroeconomics of it all if you wish. I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to finance and economics.

Cheers,
Shafique

desertdudeshj · Oct 06, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yrT-0Xb ... r_embedded

Red Chief · Oct 06, 2011

shafique wrote:Should taxpayers be forced to pay back loans that were given voluntarily?

It looks like German taxpayers are not very happy with paying for the stupidity of French bankers. The thing that thrilled me much more is who is going to pay for stupidity of British banks. Last news from HSBC about cutting 30 000 jobs make me nervous a bit. :cry:

event horizon · Oct 06, 2011

(Can you confirm the stat you gave that the top 1% contributes the most tax revenue than other groups.. what do you mean. I saw a stat that said that the top 1% contribute about 40% of the personal income tax revenue

As a group, the 1% pay about equal to middle class households where each account for 40% of federal revenue. As a plurality, the top 1% have typically payed more than any single group. Last year I read the middle class payed slightly more than the 1% but that's an exception to the recent trend.

in a progressive system, those most able to affort it should pay more

In your system, those most able to afford to pay more will eventually have no incentive to make more.

If you believed in Capitalism, these banks should be allowed to go under if they can't exist without tax-payer bailouts.

And it was the Democrats who largely supported the bailouts. So the protesters' anger is misdirected. It should be with the Democrats more than Republicans.

I'm personally undecided if bailouts are actually good for the economy. Japan did not bail out their companies in the 90's (?) and their economy is still suffering.

shafique · Oct 06, 2011

Red Chief wrote:
shafique wrote:Should taxpayers be forced to pay back loans that were given voluntarily?

It looks like German taxpayers are not very happy with paying for the stupidity of French bankers. The thing that thrilled me much more is who is going to pay for stupidity of British banks. Last news from HSBC about cutting 30 000 jobs make me nervous a bit.

I don't blame the German taxpayers. Do you?

As I stated before - the bailout of 'Greece' is actually a bailout of banks that lent money to Greece.

Eh - ok, I can see where you're coming from - the top 1% pay about 40% of the Federal income tax, and that is roughly equal to what the take is from the middle classes. But the point is eh - 60% of the tax revenue does not come from the top 1% - so the top 1% shouldn't have the system skewed for their benefit, should they?

In a progressive system, the more you earn the more you get - you always have an incentive to earn more. You're not speaking sense - you never get to a situation where you get a tax rate above 100%, so you always get more - but you just may higher marginal tax rates - which is fair.

Now, you are familiar with the poverty trap - that is where earning a bit more can make you worse off if your benefits are cut by more than the extra earnings. But that is at the bottom of the pile, not the top.

As for my question about the bailouts - I didn't mention Republicans or Democrats. The crisis hit before Obama took office and IIRC the first bailouts were agreed before he came to power - AIG for example.

AIG's bailout was the one I highlighted where the money flowed through to Goldman Sachs - to their clients and to the bank itself. Didn't this take place under Bush? (Correct me if I'm recalling wrongly - can't be arsed to look it up)

As for Japan - yes, it is still suffering. US isn't out of the woods yet - it could get worse than Japan.. we'll see.

However the question was on the principle of bailouts - why should the tax payers be forced to bail out banks for dodgy lending etc? As a right-wing capitalist, shouldn't you advocate companies going bust?

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Oct 06, 2011

shafique wrote: you never get to a situation where you get a tax rate above 100%

If we are talking not only tax, but also benefits, yes at least in the Netherlands there are cases that when you earn more brutto, net you will have less than before when earning bruto less. I can imagine this applies also to other (European) socialist welfare states.

Red Chief · Oct 06, 2011

shafique wrote:
Red Chief wrote:
shafique wrote:Should taxpayers be forced to pay back loans that were given voluntarily?

It looks like German taxpayers are not very happy with paying for the stupidity of French bankers. The thing that thrilled me much more is who is going to pay for stupidity of British banks. Last news from HSBC about cutting 30 000 jobs make me nervous a bit.

I don't blame the German taxpayers. Do you?

As I stated before - the bailout of 'Greece' is actually a bailout of banks that lent money to Greece.

Partly agree but modern capitalism generated and encouraged those huge monsters like those stupid French banks, Citi bank, GM etc. that "imposible" to bankrupt, the situation, that more close to Marx-Lenin prediction than what thought about it von Hayek.

The situation quite contradicts to the most important feature of Capitalism - competition. According to Hayek with his pure capitalism those zombies should have died.

event horizon · Oct 07, 2011

In a progressive system, the more you earn the more you get - you always have an incentive to earn more. You're not speaking sense - you never get to a situation where you get a tax rate above 100%, so you always get more - but you just may higher marginal tax rates - which is fair.

No, that isn't fair. I don't even understand your comments that taxing people more is fair. What's fair to me is that people should be able to spend what they work for.

Please explain how the following story is "fair" or sensible economic policy:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What happens to the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, ‘But he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

shafique · Oct 07, 2011

event horizon wrote:In your system, those most able to afford to pay more will eventually have no incentive to make more.

shafique wrote:In a progressive system, the more you earn the more you get - you always have an incentive to earn more. You're not speaking sense - you never get to a situation where you get a tax rate above 100%, so you always get more - but you just may higher marginal tax rates - which is fair.

So, I'm challenging your assertion that there won't be an incentive to make more.

We can agree to disagree over whether a progressive tax system is fair or not, but on the factual point on whether there is no incentive to make more under a progressive tax - I would suggest the evidence is against you. If you make more, you still end up with more.

I think it is fair that people at the lower rungs get what they work for too - and that's a big point of the protests. Think about it.

shafique wrote:If you believed in Capitalism, these banks should be allowed to go under if they can't exist without tax-payer bailouts.

Which is basically what RC is saying Captitalism (in its pure form) advocates.

Eh - don't you agree that socialising the losses and privatising gains is inherently wrong and anti-capitalism?

Cheers,
Shafique

muddyleopard · Oct 07, 2011

now we have american spring, why isn't nato bombing the oppressive us government to support the rebels?

Bethsmum · Oct 07, 2011

muddyleopard wrote:now we have american spring, why isn't nato bombing the oppressive us government to support the rebels?

We've already used this months allocation of bombs in Libya.

event horizon · Oct 07, 2011

Eh - don't you agree that socialising the losses and privatising gains is inherently wrong and anti-capitalism?

I believe punishing the rich with higher taxes is unfair and socialistic.

We see in the story I posted what's unfair and unreasonable with progressive taxes.

Bora Bora · Oct 07, 2011

EH, are you a Republican?? It's people like you that will get Obama re-elected, which at this stage could be the best thing for the US. Sarah Palin is helping in that department as well.

DearJohn · Oct 08, 2011

muddyleopard wrote:now we have american spring, why isn't nato bombing the oppressive us government to support the rebels?

Excellent

kanelli · Oct 09, 2011

EH, in a progressive tax system the rich are still surviving well on their earnings, despite paying higher taxes than everyone else. The other factor involved is how this small percentage of the population is getting rich. There are plenty of people below them, and squeezing the money and cutting costs in the lower rungs maximizes the money available to the small few in the higher rungs. Rich and poor people deserve the same rights in life, like adequate housing, excellent sanitation and transportation infrastructure, top-notch education and health care, and a social system to provide a pension to the elderly, and helps people when things go wrong e.g. if they lose their job or become disabled etc. Why? Because it brings up the level of the society as a whole. The Nordic countries have such policies and they have healthy, well-educated, and well-functioning societies. There all kinds of jobs at various salary-levels that need to be done for societies to function well, and the vast majority of the population who are working the lower-paid jobs should not be punished when the wealthy are reckless with money and manipulate the government to favour policies for the rich. Finally, people will always want more, but there is something deeply disturbing about a society that supports reckless consumption, which is what capitalist countries like the US do. To turn around and call people wanting a more fair economy un-American is really quite unfair and shows this bias.

event horizon · Oct 09, 2011

Giving out houses in the name of equity is what caused the collapse in the first place.

Maybe you should read the story I posted on the first page and come back to me why the wealthy should be taxed (squeezed) for the sake of everyone else?

shafique · Oct 09, 2011

Be fair eh (fat chance) - the crisis was not down to those taking out mortgages, but those private bankers who gave out the loans, collaterised them and sold them off to people who should have known better that the CDOs etc aren't really AAA+.

Those that made money out of the whole affair are the mortgage originators, the salesmen, the ones selling them off etc etc. The ones who lost out are those losing their homes and the taxpayers who have had to bail out the banks etc.

Socialising the losses, privatising the gains.

Why a capitalist or right winger supports this is a curious question, don't you think? Surely you should oppose bail outs and allow the banks go bust?

Under the Republicans - the AIG bailout channelled a lot of money to Goldman Sachs - did you approve of that?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Oct 09, 2011

Do the reasons for giving houses away like candy change the fact that giving houses away like candy led to the financial crisis?

That's what the protesters want. That's what kanelli just advocated - even after she presumably read the thread to learn that this policy of the protesters is short-sighted, just as raising taxes hurts employment rates, economic growth and long term revenue to the federal government.

Bora Bora · Oct 09, 2011

EH get the book "Too Big to Fail" or watch the movie. It examines how the BANKS and GOVERNMENT caused the collapse. Very enlightening.

Taken from Amazon:

A brilliantly reported true-life thriller that goes behind the scenes of the financial crisis on Wall Street and in Washington.

In one of the most gripping financial narratives in decades, Andrew Ross Sorkin-a New York Times columnist and one of the country's most respected financial reporters-delivers the first definitive blow- by-blow account of the epochal economic crisis that brought the world to the brink. Through unprecedented access to the players involved, he re-creates all the drama and turmoil of these turbulent days, revealing never-before-disclosed details and recounting how, motivated as often by ego and greed as by fear and self-preservation, the most powerful men and women in finance and politics decided the fate of the world's economy.

shafique · Oct 09, 2011

event horizon wrote:Do the reasons for giving houses away like candy change the fact that giving houses away like candy led to the financial crisis?

Young one, you're missing the point.

The problem wasn't giving out houses. The problem was giving out mortgages - those mortgages were given out by institutions voluntarily, and the ones giving out the mortgages made loads of money on these - especially as they were mostly sold on to other suckers(oops investors).

The protestors seem to have grasped this fact.

Houses were handed out. Mortgages were.

Those selling the houses got money, those getting mortgages got a debt that was secured on a house. The house didn't belong to them.. until they paid it off.

Why socialise the losses, when the profits were privatised?

Cheers,
Shafique

Bora Bora · Oct 09, 2011

I think both of you should read the book or watch the movie, you will both have the same information and then you would be on the same page as to what happened to cause that financial crisis.

Misery Called Life · Oct 10, 2011

shafique wrote:Be fair eh (fat chance) - the crisis was not down to those taking out mortgages, but those private bankers who gave out the loans, collaterised them and sold them off to people who should have known better that the CDOs etc aren't really AAA+.

Agreed. The question I always ask is, why haven't they gone after the rating agencies?

shafique wrote:Those that made money out of the whole affair are the mortgage originators, the salesmen, the ones selling them off etc etc. The ones who lost out are those losing their homes and the taxpayers who have had to bail out the banks etc.

Be fair Shafique (fat chance),
So why would you loose out on your home? So long as you can pay your loans nobody's evicting you right?
How sensationalist indeed!!! Evil bankers kicking you out of your home...BooHooo

shafique wrote:Why a capitalist or right winger supports this is a curious question, don't you think? Surely you should oppose bail outs and allow the banks go bust?

Why is his stand relevant to the argument? He may be right or left, you need not bother about it. Focus on the argument at hand.

shafique wrote:Under the Republicans - the AIG bailout channelled a lot of money to Goldman Sachs - did you approve of that?

Be fair Shafique (fat chance),
You seem to have conveniently forgotten the bit where the Republicans did indeed let Lehman Brothers fail. In doing so, lobbyists (can't deny that Soros was not involved, if anything I'm willing to bet he made a neat killing shorting Lehman before they declared bankruptcy) united all over to destroy the Republicans, most of this would have happened behind the scenes no doubt.
Once the Lehman crisis spiraled out of control reviving AIG was imperative. AIG was then committed to terms and conditions promising Goldman Sachs collateral to the tune of 13 or so billion dollars. So what then are you advocating Shafique? AIG gets bailed out but then through selective profiling, commitments with certain banks should have been written-down? Or that AIG shouldn't have been bailed out?

http://www.examiner.com/government-in-c ... -obama-win

http://www.economist.com/node/12931660

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5e2b43ba ... z1aGSNitOi

The Democrats were infact all along pushing for bailout money.

So who's to blame banks, people or politicians? All three, primarily starting with politicians
If I'm not too mistaken it all began with the Clinton presidency.
An unholy alliance between Wall Street, the Democratic establishment, community organizing groups like ACORN and La Raza, and politicians like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Cisneros.

While Fannie and Freddie are ostensibly private corporations traded on the stock market, they have been subject to a huge degree of government meddling, particularly by the former Clinton Administration which, along with Democratic Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, pressured them to encourage banks to provide loans to people who simply could not afford to pay them.
The stage for today's financial disaster was set back in the 1990's by the Clinton administration.

I'm not saying Bush was without fault. He had his faults on many many many counts. BUT the onus of this particular financial crisis plaguing USA today is actually the workings of the Democrats. Bush proposed tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the now-nationalised mortagage agencies. Congress stymied him on both points.
Where Bush really screwed up was with Tax cuts. When you are a nation facing a deficit you don't have the luxury of choice. People pay higher taxes and the country pays off their deficit.Period! Here neither Republicans nor Democrats can hold the high ground on this issue. They both had a role to play in increasing spending. And so the last man standing is indeed Ron Paul!

kanelli · Oct 10, 2011

Bora Bora wrote:EH get the book "Too Big to Fail" or watch the movie. It examines how the BANKS and GOVERNMENT caused the collapse. Very enlightening.

Taken from Amazon:

A brilliantly reported true-life thriller that goes behind the scenes of the financial crisis on Wall Street and in Washington.

In one of the most gripping financial narratives in decades, Andrew Ross Sorkin-a New York Times columnist and one of the country's most respected financial reporters-delivers the first definitive blow- by-blow account of the epochal economic crisis that brought the world to the brink. Through unprecedented access to the players involved, he re-creates all the drama and turmoil of these turbulent days, revealing never-before-disclosed details and recounting how, motivated as often by ego and greed as by fear and self-preservation, the most powerful men and women in finance and politics decided the fate of the world's economy.

I want to read this book!

Shaf, I completely agree.

EH, the banks in the US are constantly trying to get people to take loans and purchase on credit so that they can make a large profit from the interest rates. With capitalistic and consumerist cultures, everyone is encouraged to stretch themselves to have bigger, better and more! Everyone wants to buy a really nice home with very little money down, but is it responsible for a bank to lend a large amount of money to people who don't have the income to support the payments? No. Banks were not all about giving every citizen a "free" home in the spirit of equity, they were about giving lots of loans to make themselves money.

Bora Bora · Oct 10, 2011

Kanelli, see if you can download the movie. If the movie was good, which in my opinion it was,the book has to be really good.

kanelli · Oct 10, 2011

event horizon wrote:Giving out houses in the name of equity is what caused the collapse in the first place.

Maybe you should read the story I posted on the first page and come back to me why the wealthy should be taxed (squeezed) for the sake of everyone else?

Like I said, the banks did not give out houses in the name of equity. I'm laughing at that statement! :lol:

I did read the story, and it isn't a valid example because it is only relevant in the context of guys drinking at a bar, not in the wider social context.

What kind of life are a garbage collector or school teacher entitled to? Because they have a lower income and pay less taxes, I guess they are entitled to poor quality schools, poor roads, poor or non-existent medical care etc. Only the rich should have the best - they are more valuable and have the money to afford it. Sounds like the old days of European Monarchy where the rich lived well by squeezing off the poor who lived in very basic conditions. But hey, the royalty are worth it, right? By divine right some people are just more worthy than others! :roll:

event horizon · Oct 10, 2011

Why is his stand relevant to the argument? He may be right or left, you need not bother about it. Focus on the argument at hand.

In all fairness, that's not an option for trolls like shafique.

He did that with Herve by going on some rant where Herve supported the invasion of Iraq:

shafique wrote:
herve wrote:The Europol report is subject to interpretation. Fact is that Islamic terrorism is a far more dangerous threat than separatist terrorism. Why?

I just hope that we're not being silly and believing the hype. Look what happened when you guys believed there were WMD in Iraq.

dubai-politics-talk/silly-single-out-muslims-t44374-180.html#p357659

Shafique's a poor debater so he needs to create caricatures of his opponents's arguments/beliefs.

Shafique isn't debating herve who's made points shafique can't refute. He's debating a caricature of herve who believes Iraq had WMD (where did that come from?) and so everything herve says is automatically dismissed because shafique can now transform everything herve writes as being connected to the label shafique attached to herve.

It's such a basic fallacy in debate most grow out of using it after second grade. It's similar to changing an opponent's arguments and responding to the distorted arguments that your opponent never made. Ie., the strawman fallacy.

Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Wall Street Protesters

Go To

Dubai Discussions

Dubai Expat Forums

Dubai Business

Dubai Tech Discussions

Dubai Classifieds