OWS's Beef: Wall Street Isn't Winning -- It's Cheating • Hacker News Board

Re: OWS's Beef: Wall Street Isn't Winning -- It's Cheating

#21

Post by jbooth » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 5:49 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #12

georgemcbay wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That is the fault of our legislature and our presidents (former and current) for supporting them, not Wall Street." Are you willfully ignoring the massive role that lobbying (and other forms of corporate money in politics) plays in all of this, or are you just that naive?

We live in a democracy with free speech. This means that people are permitted to go to elected officials and ask for whatever they want. It's the job of the politicians to say no. Incidentally, I don't know if you realize this, but the biggest lobbyists are primarily labor unions (e.g., the NEA, who donate more money than Goldman Sachs) and professional groups (realtors, trial lawyers), not corporations. http://www.o…

Biggest lobbyists with records. Hard to track all that money going into PACs these days what with the recent court decisions.

Re: OWS's Beef: Wall Street Isn't Winning -- It's Cheating

#22

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 5:50 PM UTC

khill wrote: post #10

georgemcbay wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That is the fault of our legislature and our presidents (former and current) for supporting them, not Wall Street." Are you willfully ignoring the massive role that lobbying (and other forms of corporate money in politics) plays in all of this, or are you just that naive?

Why is everyone blaming the lobbyists? If someone offers you a lot of money to do something unethical and you accept it, how is it the fault of the other person? You're the one doing something unethical. Lobbyists are just doing their job. If people don't like politicians who are swayed by lobbyists, vote them out of office and elect someone who won't accept lobbyist money. That's one of the benefits of a democratic…

It takes two to tango.

Re: OWS's Beef: Wall Street Isn't Winning -- It's Cheating

#23

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 5:54 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #19

I wonder how many other people on HN have grown deeply suspicious of Taibbi's reporting on Wall Street. Presumably he's more in his element in a story like this that doesn't require him to understand the concept of, say, a market maker. I enjoy reading him... when he's not setting off my BS detector. As fun as Taibbi is to read, though, this isn't hacker news; it's a good submission to /r/politics. I flagged it, and…

Agreed. Political discussions rarely go well on HN, and anything written by Matt Taibbi is not a good basis for a political discussion anyway. He's a deeply dishonest writer, and even on topics where I agree with him I can't stand to have his axe-grinding in the discussion.

Re: OWS's Beef: Wall Street Isn't Winning -- It's Cheating

#24

Post by tzs » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 6:00 PM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #8

They're not winning, they're cheating! So instead of stopping them from cheating, the government should ask for a percentage of the take, and raise their taxes! Wait a minute.

Nearly every OWS gathering I've seen pictures of, and nearly every proposed OWS list of things they want changed, has included strengthening or reinstating regulations aimed at stopping them from cheating.

Re: OWS's Beef: Wall Street Isn't Winning -- It's Cheating

#25

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 6:00 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #23

tptacek wrote: post #19

I wonder how many other people on HN have grown deeply suspicious of Taibbi's reporting on Wall Street. Presumably he's more in his element in a story like this that doesn't require him to understand the concept of, say, a market maker. I enjoy reading him... when he's not setting off my BS detector. As fun as Taibbi is to read, though, this isn't hacker news; it's a good submission to /r/politics. I flagged it, and…

Agreed. Political discussions rarely go well on HN, and anything written by Matt Taibbi is not a good basis for a political discussion anyway. He's a deeply dishonest writer, and even on topics where I agree with him I can't stand to have his axe-grinding in the discussion.

I like his candor and think his "axes" add something to his coverage of horse-race politics. He's a valuable perspective to have following random Presidential candidates.

But for material like this, if you want a market skeptic, you probably want to be reading 5 Felix Salmon posts for every 1 Taibbi piece you consume.

My politics are probably very similar to Taibbi's (it's hard to tell, given Taibbi's gonzo Russian period). But bullshit is bullshit even when you want to agree with it.

Re: OWS's Beef: Wall Street Isn't Winning -- It's Cheating

#26

Post by msg » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 6:01 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #12

georgemcbay wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That is the fault of our legislature and our presidents (former and current) for supporting them, not Wall Street." Are you willfully ignoring the massive role that lobbying (and other forms of corporate money in politics) plays in all of this, or are you just that naive?

We live in a democracy with free speech. This means that people are permitted to go to elected officials and ask for whatever they want. It's the job of the politicians to say no. Incidentally, I don't know if you realize this, but the biggest lobbyists are primarily labor unions (e.g., the NEA, who donate more money than Goldman Sachs) and professional groups (realtors, trial lawyers), not corporations. http://www.o…

For reference, All time #6 is the NEA with $37M, #7 is Goldman with $36M.

If you look at people counts, the NEA has about 3.2 million people. Goldman has about 36,000 employees. Two orders of magnitude more contribution per person.

As a smaller business, their interests in the law are more targeted. And their lobbying is also very effective.

You can speak freely to politicians, but getting them to listen is not free. You buy their ear with campaign contributions and you hold the hammer of future contributions as you make polite suggestions about how the law should be changed in your favor.

I don't think it's fair to put politicians under that pressure. There's clear evidence that our system has failed in that way and we need to change it to move forward.

Re: OWS's Beef: Wall Street Isn't Winning -- It's Cheating

#27

Post by jbooth » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 6:05 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #23

tptacek wrote: post #19

I wonder how many other people on HN have grown deeply suspicious of Taibbi's reporting on Wall Street. Presumably he's more in his element in a story like this that doesn't require him to understand the concept of, say, a market maker. I enjoy reading him... when he's not setting off my BS detector. As fun as Taibbi is to read, though, this isn't hacker news; it's a good submission to /r/politics. I flagged it, and…

Agreed. Political discussions rarely go well on HN, and anything written by Matt Taibbi is not a good basis for a political discussion anyway. He's a deeply dishonest writer, and even on topics where I agree with him I can't stand to have his axe-grinding in the discussion.

He was the only one beating this drum until the Occupy movement showed up. Being the only political writer to recognize something while the rest are covering inside-the-beltway gossip girl is, well, you could call it axe-grinding but you could also call it being perceptive.