Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktWell, it looks like “Occupy Wall Street” is finally getting some media attention. I’ve been following the story a little and I’ve read commentary that they need both a defined message and a goal to get anywhere with their protest, and I’ve also read others stating their lack of those is part of the message itself. I do know it’s spreading to other cities and the number of protesters seems to be growing. Yesterday more than 700 were arrested after a confrontation with police on the Brooklyn Bridge. Protesters are using social media to attract people to the ill defined cause. That sounds familiar.
NEW YORK (AP) — More than 700 protesters demonstrating against corporate greed, global warming and social inequality, among other grievances, were arrested Saturday after they swarmed the Brooklyn Bridge and shut down a lane of traffic for several hours in a tense confrontation with police.
“I don’t think we’re asking for much, just to wake up every morning not worrying whether we can pay the rent, or whether our next meal will be rice and beans again,” Larkins wrote in an email to The Associated Press. “No one is expecting immediate change. I think everyone is just hopeful that people will wake up a bit and realize that the more we speak up, the more the people that do have the authority to make changes in this world listen.”
Nicholas Kristof had a few suggestions for them in the way of demands. It’s doubtful any of this will ever come to fruition or if it does, I’m sure the financial wizards will figure out a way around it. These ideas, while reasonable in my view, seem a little naive coming from someone like Kristof.
*Impose a financial transactions tax. This would be a modest tax on financial trades, modeled on the suggestions of James Tobin, an American economist who won a Nobel Prize. The aim is in part to dampen speculative trading that creates dangerous volatility. Europe is moving toward a financial transactions tax, but the Obama administration is resisting — a reflection of its deference to Wall Street.
*Close the “carried interest” and “founders’ stock” loopholes, which may be the most unconscionable tax breaks in America. They allow our wealthiest citizens to pay very low tax rates by pretending that their labor compensation is a capital gain.
*Protect big banks from themselves. This means moving ahead with Basel III capital requirements and adopting the Volcker Rule to limit banks’ ability to engage in risky and speculative investments. Another sensible proposal, embraced by President Obama and a number of international experts, is the bank tax. This could be based on an institution’s size and leverage, so that bankers could pay for their cleanups — the finance equivalent of a pollution tax.
Much of the sloganeering at “Occupy Wall Street” is pretty silly — but so is the self-righteous sloganeering of Wall Street itself. And if a ragtag band of youthful protesters can help bring a dose of accountability and equity to our financial system, more power to them.
And then there’s this, two of my favorite lefties, David Dayen and Kevin Drum think BofA’s announcement to charge a $5 fee on debit cards is actually a good move for consumers. At least now we see the fees up front, they’re no longer just added into other banking fees or services, and we can choose to not pay it by taking our business elsewhere.
All along, banks have had the option of reforming overdraft fees to make them fairer and more transparent. They had the option of allowing merchants to charge customers for swipe fees or not as they preferred. But they didn’t. That’s because hidden fees, on average, are more lucrative. But hidden or not, we’re all still paying them.
The new fees are annoying, but that’s a feature, not a bug: they’re right up front in black and white, which means that consumers will see them and can be properly outraged (or not) by them. This in turn means that the free market has a chance to actually work: consumers will abandon Bank of America if their fees are too high and force them to charge less. Likewise, other banks will compete openly on the size of their fees. In the end, this competition will force fees down to the lowest possible profitable level, which is exactly what competition is supposed to.
Filed under: Occupy Wall Street | Tagged: BofA, debit card fees, Kristof |
All Things in Moderation 
Good morning, lms!Interesting take on the banking fees. . . although it's a point well taken. One of the things I've been doing the last few months while reconfiguring finances and such is I've pulled all of my accounts out of the Big Bank that I was using (Chase) and have moved them to (1) a local credit union for day-to-day bill paying and such and (2) USAA for credit cards and investing as well as opening up checking and savings accounts to use when I'm out of the state/country traveling. I got tired of paying Chase for the privilege of holding on to my money for me (as well as some of their banking practices such as holding a cashier's check for 10 business days before allowing me access to the funds).And I agree with your comment about the apparent naivete of Kristof's ideas; they seem to me to be the type of thing that I would propose and then immediately get shot down by Scott, John Marshall et. al. :-)Speaking of John, it was shrink (unfortunately, from our point of view) who had his e-mail and contacted him. Maybe we'll have to have Scott or qb approach him this time. . .
LikeLike
Good for consumers would be charging them an extra 22 cents when they used their cards. Each time. I use my credit card all the time, but I'm not a big fan of credit cards and debit cards costing more per transaction than cash for businesses, and then hiding that from the folks making the decision as to what medium to pay with.
LikeLike
Or, all businesses should offer cash discounts.
LikeLike
Hi all, I'm taking a break. I figure I have another couple of hours working on taxes then I can relax. What a procrastinator. Luckily, I'm actually organized and I get a pretty good deal from our tax guy as I do about half the work for him. Anyone else have tax returns due this month?Also, apparently we had a water pipe break somewhere in the city last night. My husband worked really hard on the pool yesterday, cleaning, checking the water balance etc. Then last night as he was adding water back in, unbeknownst to us as it was dark out, the pool was filling up with mud or something worse. We didn't notice until I went to do the dishes. Today we have a swamp. It looks like it will take at least a week or longer to get it cleaned up…….so he's as miserable as I am today……..and we can't go swimming either.
LikeLike
Woe is me.
LikeLike
Also, mark hasn't been able to post comments for three days he said, both chrome and google are giving him fits I guess. Ideas anyone? I haven't had any problems but I don't use chrome.
LikeLike
No problems here with Chrome. . . yikes! Shades of the PL!!
LikeLike
Maybe it's just local to him. I know okie was having trouble with both power and internet the last couple of weeks I think. I haven't really had any trouble with the blog since we started. Okay, break time over, back to work, I see daylight.
LikeLike
Suggest mark go back to the ok'd interface and try that. That's what I di when blogger starts being a pain.
LikeLike
*old interface
LikeLike
Herman Cain says Chris Christie is too liberal to win over conservatives. I guess it's a good thing he's not running. He's not overly fond of Perry either.Channeling his role as a tea party favorite, Cain hit Christie on the topics many pundits have suggested will be problems for him in the national Republican electorate should he run for the White House. Among them: Christie has said climate change is caused by humans, that “being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime,” and he attacked right wing fears of creeping sharia law as “crazy.”So, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked — is Christie “too liberal” to win the GOP nomination?“Yes,” Cain said. “I believe that a lot of conservatives once they know his position on those things that you delineated, they’re going to not be able to support him.”More: "Most of the conservatives believe that we should enforce our borders. They do not believe people should be here without documentation. They do not believe global warming is a “crisis” or a “threat” — yes it might be a little bit out there but they don’t see it as a “crisis” or a “threat” and as you go right down the line, he’s going to turn off a lot of conservatives with those positions."
LikeLike
Chris Christie is insufficiently anti-Muslim. IIRC, he was for the 'ground-zero mosque,' (which opened last week to no attention whatsoever), and nominated that Muslim judge just a couple months ago. He is also on record as being fine with the NJ handgun restrictions, explaining it as necessary for police safety.
LikeLike
Hi Sue, how did the kiln unloading go? Was it just like Christmas? And just as important are you feeling better?I agree re Christie. Maybe in 2016 the Tea Party will have faded a bit, but right now I think they have too much influence for someone like Christie to run. I just don't see how anyone beats Romney anyway and so I guess the big question will be who he picks for VP.
LikeLike
Hi Ims,The unloading was great! Lots of nice stuff, some junk, some failed experiments, but overall, we were very happy. I'm trying to get photos off my camera, but I'm doing something wrong. Probably just tired…. Your quilt is lovely, btw. My mother is a quilter, too. She's made each of us (3 daughters) a bedspread. I don't see Christie running now, either. He'd have to overcome the several times he's stated he isn't ready to be POTUS. That would take some real explaining…
LikeLike
Hey, sue! Welcome back, and glad to hear that you're pleased with the unloading. Looking forward to seeing the new works of art!I think Christie and Huntsman are both more about positioning themselves for 2016 than seriously looking at 2012, but that's just my opinion.I'm having fun decorating the new home. As of today the living room and my bedroom are done (lms: I was putting the dresser drawer runners on upside down, a thing I would have thought was impossible, but evidently. . . ) and I'm really pleased with how they've come out. Kitchen and extra bedroom are just about done. Yippee!!
LikeLike
And I got my taxes all ready to go for our CPA. Yay. Sue, once you figure out the camera, I hope you'll put some pictures up. It took me awhile to figure out how to get them in where I wanted them but it was fun. I used to teach quilting when the kids were little so we have enough quilts to last a lifetime around here.Michi, glad the furniture worked out. Pretty soon you'll be all settled in. How's the doggie situation with the yard working out?
LikeLike
Hi Michi!Rule of thumb for assembly-required furniture: if you get done, and there are no parts left over, you did good! LOL
LikeLike
I don't think Christie will run. I'm fascinated by the Republican Elites desire to have somebody other than Romney though.
LikeLike
I think Romney has two problems with the R-establishment:-They aren't sure they trust him since he's been on both sides of nearly every issue.-That his religion is a big turn-off for the soc-con/evangelicals which could have a negative effect on turn-out.
LikeLike
I see Mark put up a "test" comment in the hobby thread, wonder if he's fixed his problem yet.I just don't see that much enthusiasm from the base for Romney but he may appeal to disenchanted Independents, not this one though.
LikeLike
How old is Romney anyway?
LikeLike
Per wikipedia: Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) …so that makes him 64.
LikeLike
I guess that's not too old to be President, but don't tell my husband he'll want to run. I actually thought he was older than that.
LikeLike
I think that Romney's one of them, a "Big Government" Republican like the Bush's, Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower before him, they're completely copacetic. Ultimately, for the Republican establishment, it's all about handing out the Executive Branch spending goodies. There's no interest in changing the system. No one thinks Romney will do anything differently when it comes to profligate Federal spending. That's what I can't figure out. They know there is zero chance of winning, regardless of who the nominee, so why all the pretend hand wringing?
LikeLike
McWing, don't most of the polls say Romney has the best shot against Obama of the current contenders? Who do you like, any of them? I don't think anyone else will enter unless they do it within the next few days and even then they'd be at a disadvantage money-wise. I think Christie could have given it a shot but it's probably too late now.
LikeLike
Well, right now Romney seems like the leading sacrificial lamb. I think Perry will mount a fairly robust return though, and he may end up being the sacrificial lamb. I'll vote for the nominee as long as it's not Romney. As for the rest, meh. I'm more focusednon capturing the Senate and primarying some incumbent Senators.
LikeLike
What Senators are you interested in, Troll? There's a big TP movement here in UT to oust Orrin Hatch. If he's not conservative enough. . .
LikeLike
Michi, I think Hatch and Lugar should definitely be primaried. I almost forgot Snowe as well.
LikeLike
While it would not be impossible for a Republican to beat Obama in this particular climate, I just don't see anyone in the current camp doing it. Christie would have a decent chance of preserving the base and picking up independents, even though he would alienate some, because he's a pretty confrontational guy, and folks respond to that. But I doubt he'll be running, even though he's gotta be thinking: damn, I could do better than these guys. Vaccines cause retardation? Ricky Perry decides he doesn't need to prepare for obvious questions in the debate, and mumbles through them, at times becoming incoherent? And that guy was the front-runner in a bunch of polls just a few weeks ago? Dang . . .I tend to see a Romney presidency as being a continuance of the Obama presidency, aside from perhaps money thrown at a superfence along the border, in order the shore up his conservative bonafides. Which just isn't going to ignite the base. If he wins the presidency (and it still seems unlikely to me, assuming he gets the nomination), I think it will be a case of reverse coat tails–the base, pleased by the hard line of the Republicans they elected in 2012, go ahead and vote for Romney just to not-vote for Obama. Which is a stretch.
LikeLike
* elected in 2010, planning to re-elect in 2012 . . .
LikeLike
I was out most of the weekend and am completely jammed this morning, but I just wanted to say that this from Michi is my favorite comment of the weekend:"Nebraska should be thanking their lucky stars that they were invited to join The Finest Conference of Them All and play real football! Those folks in Texas think that they know the game, but the Big Ten is the cradle of collegiate football."The Midwest is the cradle and home of all football, now and forevermore, amen. (Even if the Buckeyes are disgracing themselves and an entire state this year. THAT was NOT football. That was pattycake or a junior high dance or something.)
LikeLike
Kevin,I have as many problems with Romney as anyone, I would guess, but there's no way I see him as a continuation of Obama. Romney presents an interesting political questionon at this point in history because of his background and especially his religion, but I continue to say it is the the Rs' to lose, and Romney beats Obama unless the economy turns around, of which there is no sign. If the election were held today, Obama would lose big, and in a year it will be bigger, not smaller, if things haven't improved.
LikeLike
Again, the last time an un-primaried, no-3rd party incumbent got beat was 1932. And he was running against frickin' FDR. With the inspiring promise of putting a chicken in every pot, on the heels of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and the Revenue Act of 1932 (not to mention the stock market crash). Even if Obama loses, I'd be very surprised if he loses big.
LikeLike
Kevin, I'm just not that impressed with that metric. For example, I think Carter would have lost regardless of the primary, and Johnson would have had he not collapsed and pulled out. Reagan and Clinton were reelected in good times. I think it's just one data point.
LikeLike
But I would see Romney not having much contrast from Obama for many folks–certainly independents and maybe hard-line conservatives . . . the sort of folks for whom (on the left) Obama is not nearly the deviation from the Bush/Cheney doctrine as they had hoped.
LikeLike
"For example, I think Carter would have lost regardless of the primary, and Johnson would have had he not collapsed and pulled out."Well, presidential elections only happen every 4 years, and trends are always true . . . until they aren't. And dissatisfaction with government is at an all time high. There are lots of things that threaten Obama's presidency (unhappiness amongst the base as much as the economy), but the metrics tend to indicate that there are relevant other factors that we may not pay a lot of attention to. The power of incumbency is very powerful, and it often takes a lot to overcome it. I do agree that, despite being primaried (and a 3rd party running–John Anderson) Carter would have lost–against Ronald Mutha-Funkin' Reagan. Or John Wayne. Either of those guys would have beat him. Obama would also lose against Ronald Reagan. Indeed, polls had Carter beating Reagan–until the Reagan campaign was in high gear, and America got a good look at Ronaldus Magnus in his full majesty (and small and petty Democrats telling the always huge block of senior citizens that Ronald Reagan was too old and doddering to be president, because old people aren't capable to doing stuff once they're *that* old). Would Carter have been defeated by any Republican? I don't think so. Obama is clearly unusually vulnerable for an incumbent who took the Whitehouse from the opposing party (another metric, you have to go back 100 years to find another president, before Carter, that lost the Whitehouse after the party had only been in the Whitehouse for one term). While these metrics assess correlative and not causative factors, they point to the power of incumbency and the bully pulpit.
LikeLike
And despite a number of conservative pundits equating Obama with Carter, or saying Obama is worse than Carter, I just don't see it. Obama is no Carter. He's not Ronald Reagan, either (but recent mush-mouthed performances by Perry and muddled-thinking performances by Bachmann suggest neither of them are, either). But he's a better politician than Carter, and even though foreign policy victories only go so far (George H.W. Bush's victory in the Gulf War didn't do him much good against the double-onslaught of Clinton and Perot), Obama's by-and-large continuation of Bush's muscular foreign policy (he speaks softer, but the stick is clearly just as big), only with more drones, and recent successful attacks on various Al Qaeda's leaders . . . Obama is no Jimmy Carter.
LikeLike
But can we agree, Quarterback, in the spirit of give-and-take collegiality, that Perot cost H.W. Bush the election in 1992, and without the double-whammy of a primary challenge by Pat Buchanan and Perot's billion dollars spent trashing him, H.W. Bush beats Clinton. I also argue Gore wins in 2000 without Nader. 3rd party spoilers are a very real phenomenon.
LikeLike
I don't disagree that third-party candidates are important factors. Nor do I think Obama is exactly like Carter. They are all different, but Obama is a shell of what he was. It was always a mirage. He has the bully pulpit, but he merely sounds like a spoiled, whiny, blaming demogogue at this point. Yeah, not to the hard core 35%, but to most of the rest. A huge blowhard. I just heard him bellowing to the gay rights group about how, "If you want to be commander in chief" you have to stand up for gay marriage. What a crock. If he thinks that garbage is going to sail through this time, he's dreaming.
LikeLike
qbI don't think the polling reflects your claims. According to the most recent ones, Obama/Romney are neck and neck, pretty typical. It's a year out still, and Romney's not the GOP candidate yet, so things will change, but I believe you're extrapolating too much from your own feelings about Obama. I don't see Romney generating that much enthusiasm either.
LikeLike
"but I believe you're extrapolating too much from your own feelings about Obama"Well, it's hard not to do this, sometimes. I often make the argument that when we already don't like somebody or disagree strongly with their positions on certain issues, it dramatically effects how we interpret everything else they say and do. And we tend to feel that it's obvious how petulant or un-presidential or immature or incompetent this person is. I think Obama comes across about as good, if not better, than most presidents in his position: with a hostile (on both the Republican and Democratic sides) congress and a rotten economy possibly could. He could throw more red meat to his base, I suppose, but apparently he's doing that as much as he can. Although, when we've gotten to the point where many on the left are queasy about his argument for raising taxes on the wealthy by arguing they need to pay "their fair share", then, yeah . . . he's got trouble. But is an incumbent president Obama still a strong candidate against anyone currently in the Republican field? Absolutely. Can Romney beat him? I think he could, but I disagree that it's guaranteed. Although some on the left is likely to make such a big deal about his Mormonism ("hey, you backwoods, inbred conservatives–he's a Mormon, and you guys don't like Mormons, right, bigots? So don't vote for him!") that it might work in his favor. Certainly, hard to tell this far out, but history augers more for an Obama victory than anyone who challenges him. I wouldn't bet against him, if I had any money to bet, which I don't, because of these damned Obamanomics! ; )
LikeLike
lms, I have a well-established record of being a poll skeptic. Obama's negatives are high. I don't believe tales that the conservative base is going to stay home for Romney, assuming it is him; the prospect of a 2d Obama term is going to be too horrifying to stay home. People in the middle are not going to break for an Obama if things continue to be this bad and they have doing nothing more than promising more of the same, plus pushing gay marriage and other hot button left-wing positions. And most importantly, his supposed personal appeal isn't going to get it done this time with this climate. He's an emporer with no clothes.Kevin, I never said Romney is guaranteed to win. But Obama has gotten this far in life and his political career by acting a part. Just acting isn't going to cut it at this point.
LikeLike
I think it's time to start taking bets, for charity of course. qb, did you think Obama was just acting a part when he took a big chance sending the seals in to get OBL? I don't think he's acting so much as wrong on some issues, especially regarding the economy. Now, the economy may do him in, I'm open to that possibility, but I'm not sure many people trust the GOP any more than Obama on that front.
LikeLike