Does Wall Street produce ANYTHING? Why not have a 'War on Wall Street'?

[AnArmyVeteran]

Just what does Wall Street produce that allows them to have assets equivalent to 63% of our gross national product?

What tangible products do they produce to sustain life?

Could we do without Wall Street?

Should we declare 'War on Wall Street'?


What is produced when a Wall Street executive shorts a stock or derivative, or whatever? Nothing! They produce nothing. Just like everyone else on Wall Street. The entire Wall Street of executives produce absolutely nothing of substance that society needs to survive. Nothing!

A migrant farm worker picking fruits and vegetables produces more for others in one hour than ALL of Wall Street does in their lifetimes. That farm worker is helping to bring the food to you so you can survive. You need food and water. Try eating a 'credit default swap' or a 'derivative'? Wall Street produces neither food, water or anything else that sustains life. Nothing! All they do is manipulate and deceive using exotic shell games skimming off money out of your retirements, your savings plans and your banks using a myriad of fees, schemes and other dishonest tactics. They sit behind a computer generating nothing for society, but are clever enough to devise financial scams to steal at will. And it's all 'legal' because they use their fortunes to buy as many political prostitutes in Washington as they want, or need to write loopholes into laws, or to gut regulations.

Who would you count on when times got rough and you and your family needed to eat? Would you count on a Wall Street executive who hasn't a clue how food and water are even produced? Or would you depend on a farm worker who toils 12-14 hours a day for minimum wage?

What is sickening is that "those who produce the most get paid the least, while those who produce the least get paid the most". I was sixteen when I realized that paradox and wrote that line in the school newspaper. But now the gap between production and salary are at an all time high in the history of the world. There are no links between actual productivity and compensation. None.

Conservatives, or anyone against financial regulation, want to keep the status quo of rampant corruption. They are in favor of continuing to allow people to steal at will. Conservatives love to tout they are for personal responsibility, but the exact opposite is true. They want personal responsibility for the poor and middle class, but they want to completely insulate the rich and powerful from any liability. Why do they fight so fiercely for the most corrupt segment of our population? Somehow regular conservatives have allowed themselves to be duped by right wing radio, Fox News and republican leaders, all of which support corporate domination and control over our government and our country. When will regular conservatives wake up and realize they are being duped, swindled, and robbed?

In addition to the physical destruction and loss of almost 3,000 human beings, the 9/11 terrorists caused great harm to our country's economy. Stocks plummeted. Businesses went bankrupt. Nineteen terrorists wrecked havoc on that fateful day and it caused millions of Americans to lose a great portion of their retirements, 401ks and stock portfolios. The United States declared 'war on terrorism' and we spent hundreds of billions on unnecessary wars and hundreds of billions more for Homeland Security, etc...

Because of the actions of the financial wizards on Wall Street our country's economy collapsed again. But this time it wasn't because of an attack from a foreign enemy. The enemy was in our country doing 'business' on Wall Street. Why don't we have a 'War on Wall Street' as aggressively as we have been conducting a war on terrorism. Is there any difference? At least Al Qaeda was motivated by principle. They were deviant & evil principles, but 'principles' nevertheless. Wall Street is motivated purely by greed. They have no principles to guide their actions, unless you consider 'greed' to be a principle.

Which is worse? Foreign terrorists who are trying to destroy our country? Or white collared criminals right here in the United States attacking us every day without any regard for Americans or our country? Anyone who is against strict financial reforms is for continuation of financial terrorism. I wish the leaders of the democratic party would frame the debate in that way. If they did they would gain congressional and senate seats next November, instead of possibly losing them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. The last time Wall Street took a hit, unemployment on "main street' shot up to ten percent.

What does that say to you?

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. LOL! That's hilarious. If we base the economy only on tangible assets, it's done for.

Good luck with that.

We could very well ask what tangible product does a waiter produce.

Or a violinist.

Or a teacher.

Or a doctor.

I'm sure you don't want to do away with them.

[KansDem]

5. Yeah, but I've never heard of a violinist conspiring to make money on a bad performance

A violinist attempts to perform to the best of their abilities each time they play.

I never heard of a violinist accepting a contract to perform Tchaikovsky's violin concerto then placing bets on how poorly it can be performed.

Each performance is to the best of their abilities. Same with teachers and doctors.

Can't say the same with Wall Street brokers...

[naaman fletcher]

9. Your analogy is flawed,

The proper analogy would be if everyone was praising a crappy violinist, calling her the greatest violinist in the world when in fact she stinks. The short seller is the guy who points out that she stink i.e. that the emperor has no clothes.

The short seller is the hero of the group (to the extent that there is one).

[KansDem]

14. Not really...

Take the case of Goldman Sachs:

Goldman Sachs defrauded investors by failing to disclose a conflict of interest on mortgage investments it sold as the housing market went sour, according to the civil complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday.

Goldman allegedly failed to disclose to investors that it was betting against subprime mortgage investments it pushed on clients. Essentially, according to the complaint, Goldman pushed a product designed to fail.

Huffington Post

GS was playing both ends against the middle. Hardly in the best interests of America...

Your explanation is antiquated. Sure, growing up, we all learned about how wonderful capitalism was and how we should fear communism. We learned how if we weren't vigilant, the commies would soon be marching down Main Street, USA. Now, we buy their products and services on Main Street, USA. Why? It's in the best interests of the "capitalists." Almost 58,000 Americans dead in Vietnam, yet when Clinton normalized relations with that country, US corporations, the very entities that warned us against "communism," fell all over themselves to get in there and set up factories and fast-food outlets. Yep, communism's great if it benefits "capitalists." Talk about a belief system void of any semblance of human dignity...

But I gotta disagree with you. I was indoctrinated into all that "capitalism is good/everything else is bad" bullshit. Not anymore. We finally found out "capitalists" are nothing but a gang of thugs that would make Al Capone blush.

Leeches in three-piece suits...

[naaman fletcher]

22. Your example here is one of fraud...

And fraud should be punished.

[Rabrrrrrr]

13. Ah, so you have an idealized notion of everyone on Wall Street as evil and selfish,

and an idealized notion of all performers, teachers, doctors, and others as being utterly altruistic.

What an odd view of the world.

:crazy: :silly:

The bankruptcy in your logic is to assume that "Wall Street" is a monolithic One Thing that is, inherently of itself, hellbent solely on destruction.

And ignorant at best.

[KansDem]

16. You're delusional

Wall Street exists to enrich the few: the ones who want to get rich off other people's labor. And I've never heard or seen performers, teachers, and doctors conspire to steal from their audiences, students, and patients.

Did you oppose the bank bailout? If not, then you are complicit in the most anti-capitalist exercise in human history.

Grow up: we're not fighting the commies anymore...

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. Wow - I'm unwilling to broadbrush the entire modern (as of about 4000 years ago) economy

as inherently evil, and every participant in it as a selfish piece of shit who's out to screw everyone she/he possibly can, so your response to me is to accuse me of being a McCarthyite?

:rofl:

Goddamn, that's fucking brilliant!

[KansDem]

20. If you think the economy today is like it was 4,000 years ago, you're delusional...

The capitalistic "fairy tales" that we used to indoctrinate our children into submission are no longer to be believed.

[Chulanowa]

27. 4,000 years ago?

Jiggasaywhut?

[Rabrrrrrr]

39. Yes, it seems to have been about 4000 years ago (maybe earlier?) that we left the barter system

in favor of a monetary system that symbolizes value of work by money.

Not all cultures, of course, but only a damn small percentage of very small communities ever managed to stick to a communal barter system.

[Chulanowa]

51. Okay so I just want to be sure I understand

In your universe, the invention of a monetary system was 4,000 years ago, and that wall street execs... make money by creating money?

So in your universe, history is totally different from ours, and fraud is okay.

[Rabrrrrrr]

52. LOL

Too funny.

[sabrina 1]

34. So, what does Wall St. produce that benefits

the American people? We sure pay out a lot to keep them in business so it would be nice to know what we get in return.

A violinist provides pleasure for those who pay to go to a concert.

If people like to gamble they can go to Las Vegas. So, what service does Wall St. provide at this point in time?

[Rabrrrrrr]

44. You ever buy anything with money? Ever get paid for a job?

Ever get a mortgage? Student loan? Go to a college with an endowment? Work any place that uses money to pay its employees and buy its raw materials?

I think the problem so many people have is that they think "Wall Street" means "Fat well-tailored men who wheel and deal stocks all day to the detriment of everyone else".

Wall Street includes the houses that sell and trade stocks, yes, but it also includes the investment banks, the hedge funds, the bond traders (those guys manage a lot of the financing for all public works projects like schools, roads, and etc., in which the government entity sells bonds), the regular banks like you and I use for our safe deposits and checking accounts and for borrowing for cars and homes, the credit unions, and so on.

Is there corruption on Wall Street, and soulless, heartless shitbags? Absolutely. Is "Wall Street" itself to blame? No. Without a "Wall Street" (even when so many people use it to mean something that it isn't) in America, or similar entities in other countries for the past couple thousand years, there'd be United States, because there would never have been exploration beyond Europe. Hell, there wouldn't even be a Europe as it is now, because there never would have been a Rome, nor a Roman Empire.

Sorry, but except for small tribal units that live of the land, life revolves around economics.

The problem isn't "Wall Street", whatever you people mean by that, the problem is a banking and monetary system that isn't regulated enough, doesn't have enough oversight, and is too prone to and susceptible to human abuse and sin.

[arikara]

8. They provide a useful service

wall street doesn't do that.

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. No useful service? really? You seriously believe that?

After thousands of years human civilization, you actually believe that there is no role for banks, money, capital, business, or the people who help make it happen?

:rofl:

That's precious.

[izzybeans]

23. Do you think money circulated through Wall Street banks 4000

years ago?

Sure we need institutional lenders and a mechanism to invest in publicly held companies, are we so lacking in imagination that this is the only way there is or ever was?

I'd prefer to be able to invest in an openly traded system directly. Wall St. has functioned as a middle man siphon on capital. They don't sell products, they sell balance sheets that obscure production. Surely there are reforms in our financial system that will reduce the risk created by these middle-man investors. You know one based on the actual trade of goods between principals through direct transactions, sorta like this mythical system of trade from 4000 years ago. Wall St. steps in and robs real capital from actual producers and when they don't, all they do is slosh capital around until that particular funding stream runs dry, chopping up what used to be a profitable firm, selling it off for pennies, and ending jobs that were productive before finance capitalists got a hold of them. This is the tragedy of the past 30 years and it has to end.

[Rabrrrrrr]

48. Obviously, there was no Wall Street until Wall Street itself became a street in Manhattan.

But there have been Wall Street equivalents in whatever communities they were in for the past few thousand years.

And I fully agree with you that reform is needed, more regulation, and more oversight. Absolutely.

But too condemn some nebulous "Wall Street", which is not any kind of real entity at all, is ignorant.

I'm glad that you agree that we do a Wall Street for institutional lending, capital rising, and so forth.

Mostly what's pissing me off in this thread is the OP's, and a few other people's proposition that there is some actual real entity called "Wall Street", which seems to them to mean "the voodoo priests who do all the economic shit that I don't understand, but instead of trying to understand it, I'm just gonna jump on the 'bash Wall Street' meme because it's easy".

And then they say "Wall Street" has to go, which, in reality, would mean the entire world's economy would have to go. Not only impossible, it's irresponsible.

There's a place and a need for a "Wall Street", but, by God, it as sure hell needs more oversight and regulation because it's an attrctive place for psychopaths and people of weak morals because they can make shitloads of money quickly before anyone realizes how much of a screwing they are getting.

[Chulanowa]

26. Allow me to explain for you

Waiter: Provides physical labor, delivering food, so that customers are not going between the dining area and kitchen - and saving the cook from doing the same as well. This increases restaurant efficiency, and keeps the kitchen from getting contaminated by the teeming mobs of customers.

Violinist: Like any entertainer, he produces pleasure for his audience. His performance causes the brain to release endorphins, relaxes his audience, and in many instances, preserves music from centuries ago.

Teacher: You're really saying a teacher produces nothing tangible?

Doctor: See "teacher"

A wall street wizard, however, actually does not produce anything, unless you count chicanery to make money appear out of thin air to actually be production; any other occupation, and it would be called fraud.

[Rabrrrrrr]

38. Since "tangible" means "touchable", it therefore means something physically real.

Therefore, none of your examples are of tangible production.

The OP believes that any labor that doesn't produce something tangible is worthless; even worse than worthless, it's immoral.

All I did was point out the utter falsity of that premise.

Many professions (as you so rigthtfully showed in your post) produce stuff that is utterly non-tangible, but still of great benefit, and at times, essential.

[Chulanowa]

56. That's one definition

tan·gi·ble
   /ˈtændʒəbəl/ Show Spelled
–adjective
1.
capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.
2.
real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine.
3.
definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion.
4.
(of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.


See definitions 2 through 4? Those apply to your examples... but oddly they don't apply to the Sleight of Invisible Hand tricks performed by Wall Street.

[zipplewrath]

3. Does the alphabet say anything?

Careful, that's bit like asking if the alphabet says anything, or if numbers every really "count". They are tools. Wall Street is a tool. Yes, there are aspects that need reforming, BADLY. And the casino aspects need to be tightly controlled. But if you're trying to start or expand a business that will create and provide jobs, ESPECIALLY heavy manufacturing, you want and need the tools that Wall Street provides.

That said, I do wonder if there is any particular reason to consider short selling anything but gambling. It ain't an investment that's for sure, and is a common tool of speculation, something that probably really out to be regulated down to a minimum.

[KansDem]

4. But...but...Wall Street is capitalism and capitalism gives us freedom!

Without...Wall Street...we wouldn't have...freedom(?)


Who are you who is so knowledgeable in the ways of economics?

[pnwmom]

6. We need a regulated, open, system where people can buy and sell shares of stock.

What are you proposing instead of Wall Street?

One of the big problems with derivatives is that they are carried off the books and are NOT publicly traded -- so no one really knows who holds them or how much money is tied up in them.

[naaman fletcher]

7. Wall street provides capital formation.

Without wall street you would have a hell of a time borrowing money to buy a car or house. Without capital formation the car company probably wouldn't even exist in the first place.

Wall Street is serious broken, but people who claim it is useless and serves no purpose are economically ignorant.

And by the way, the guys shorting stuff didn't cause the crash, what they did was make it less bad by exposing the lack of fundation behind the bubbles, keeping them from being even bigger.

[KansDem]

17. I should be able to borrow from the government

Just like the bankers and Wall Street did. There's no need for a blood-sucking middleman...

[naaman fletcher]

24. Well I agree..

that you and I should have the same right to borrow from the government that wall street does, but I don't really think anyone should. A local banker is, theoretically, much better and judging if you are a good credit risk than a guy at a desk in Washington is.

One of the main causes of the mortgage bubble, imho, is that securitisastion of mortgages meant the local banks weren't holding the credit risk any more, so that function of the local banker knowing his customer disappeared, and the result is every jackass could get a loan on a flip house.

[KansDem]

25. "Local banker?"

You still deal with a local banker? Congrats!

But when I look at my credit cards and mortgage statements, both first and second, I see a huge bank somewhere. Citibank and some bank in Hong Kong.

If I could borrow from the US government, my interest payments wouldn't go to a bank that took my money to stay afloat or a bank in a foreign country...

(In all fairness, my wife's auto loan is through her credit union).

[naaman fletcher]

28. That was my point..

that securitization has removed the local banker from the process, and that was part of the problem. In my case I actually do see a local banker, but that is unique to my situation and business.

[Rabrrrrrr]

50. LOL! That's funny.

You completely missed the point - as the person said, the problem with the bubble was that the local banks were selling all their debt to someone else, and getting paid to do so, so they didn't give a shit about the actual creditworthiness of the people they were loaning to.

That's why your statements are coming from huge banks.

Precisely the argument the other poster was making.

Too sad that you didn't understand that.

[KansDem]

57. I understood completely

LOL! That's funny

I glad you're so easily amused. Must make life much easier for you...

[dem mba]

31. you can to an extent

there are federally backed student loans, small business loans, tax credits, etc etc.

[KansDem]

58. Aren't these loans made by private interests...

...and the government pays them off if you can't?

I believe that stills leaves a middleman (and his cut of the deal).

[Odin2005]

36. I'm not ignorant, I just reject Capitalkism.

Wall Street is the mechanism by which the Investor Class divides what they stole from the Working Class among themselves.

[scarletwoman]

42. Bravo! +1

Perfectly said.

[raccoon]

10. Yes, we should! nt

[taught_me_patience]

11. I could not disagree more with your post

What is produced when a Wall Street executive shorts a stock or derivative, or whatever? Nothing! They produce nothing. Just like everyone else on Wall Street. The entire Wall Street of executives produce absolutely nothing of substance that society needs to survive. Nothing!

****************************
Wrong - they provide a valuable service. They facilitate the flow of money from those who want to invest to those that need money to invest. Many businesses provide services and technically "produce nothing".
*****************************

A migrant farm worker picking fruits and vegetables produces more for others in one hour than ALL of Wall Street does in their lifetimes. That farm worker is helping to bring the food to you so you can survive. You need food and water. Try eating a 'credit default swap' or a 'derivative'? Wall Street produces neither food, water or anything else that sustains life. Nothing! All they do is manipulate and deceive using exotic shell games skimming off money out of your retirements, your savings plans and your banks using a myriad of fees, schemes and other dishonest tactics. They sit behind a computer generating nothing for society, but are clever enough to devise financial scams to steal at will. And it's all 'legal' because they use their fortunes to buy as many political prostitutes in Washington as they want, or need to write loopholes into laws, or to gut regulations.

*****************************
Wrong again. See point #1.
*****************************

Who would you count on when times got rough and you and your family needed to eat? Would you count on a Wall Street executive who hasn't a clue how food and water are even produced? Or would you depend on a farm worker who toils 12-14 hours a day for minimum wage?

******************************
Strawman arguement. Wages are based on supply and demand for labor not by your definition of "productivity".
*******************************

What is sickening is that "those who produce the most get paid the least, while those who produce the least get paid the most". I was sixteen when I realized that paradox and wrote that line in the school newspaper. But now the gap between production and salary are at an all time high in the history of the world. There are no links between actual productivity and compensation. None.

**********************************
Wrong again. Workers on wallstreet often generate hundreds of millions of dollars in profit for their companies. That's why they get paid the big bucks... seems pretty fair.
***********************************


Conservatives, or anyone against financial regulation, want to keep the status quo of rampant corruption. They are in favor of continuing to allow people to steal at will. Conservatives love to tout they are for personal responsibility, but the exact opposite is true. They want personal responsibility for the poor and middle class, but they want to completely insulate the rich and powerful from any liability. Why do they fight so fiercely for the most corrupt segment of our population? Somehow regular conservatives have allowed themselves to be duped by right wing radio, Fox News and republican leaders, all of which support corporate domination and control over our government and our country. When will regular conservatives wake up and realize they are being duped, swindled, and robbed?

********************************
I agree with this. Anyone who is against financial reform is ignorant of the issue. HOWEVER... some people want reform, but not this version of reform... your argument fails to seperate the two.
*********************************

In addition to the physical destruction and loss of almost 3,000 human beings, the 9/11 terrorists caused great harm to our country's economy. Stocks plummeted. Businesses went bankrupt. Nineteen terrorists wrecked havoc on that fateful day and it caused millions of Americans to lose a great portion of their retirements, 401ks and stock portfolios. The United States declared 'war on terrorism' and we spent hundreds of billions on unnecessary wars and hundreds of billions more for Homeland Security, etc...

****************
I fail to see how this is wall street's problem.
******************


Because of the actions of the financial wizards on Wall Street our country's economy collapsed again. But this time it wasn't because of an attack from a foreign enemy. The enemy was in our country doing 'business' on Wall Street. Why don't we have a 'War on Wall Street' as aggressively as we have been conducting a war on terrorism. Is there any difference? At least Al Qaeda was motivated by principle. They were deviant & evil principles, but 'principles' nevertheless. Wall Street is motivated purely by greed. They have no principles to guide their actions, unless you consider 'greed' to be a principle.

***************************
Our economy collapsed because we were living beyond our means for many years. Wall Street is the scapegoat. The REAL problem is the destruction of the middle class that has been happening over the last 30 years.
****************************

Which is worse? Foreign terrorists who are trying to destroy our country? Or white collared criminals right here in the United States attacking us every day without any regard for Americans or our country? Anyone who is against strict financial reforms is for continuation of financial terrorism. I wish the leaders of the democratic party would frame the debate in that way. If they did they would gain congressional and senate seats next November, instead of possibly losing them.

*****************
foreign terrorists are much worse. I fail to see how white collared criminals are "attacking us every day".
*****************

[KansDem]

19. "They facilitate the flow of money from those who want to invest to those that need money to invest"

Then why did they "borrow" from the US taxpayer? When they found themselves in trouble, why didn't Wall Street and the bankers go to "investors?"

[AnArmyVeteran]

33. Ok, it's a given you either 'work on Wall Street' or someone in your family does...

I would go through line by line as you did, but I have to go back to work, to produce a product others need. But from the jest of your post you believe that if someone just is somewhere in the middle where lots of money flows they are entitled to grab (or steal creatively) as much as they want. And my reference to 9/11 wasn't blaming Wall Street, I was comparing the damage done to the economy in both situations. It was very clear how I stated it. And if don't see how white collared workers are taking from people every day while doing nothing to earn it I suggest you look closely at your 401k or other investments. It's been estimated that because of countless fees on your accounts a person would accumulate at least 50% more if their money was handled honestly. Any damned white collared dope can add a fee to millions of accounts and get rich. It doesn't mean they are geniuses or godlike. They are opportunistic thieves (imo).

Do you really believe someone who makes 5 billion in a year produces more than a migrant farm worker who actually produces something for society? A person shorting something they know will go down (because they perhaps even caused it to go down) isn't 'productive'. It's just another way to steal. And do you believe that a handful of people should be able to cripple our economy and country just because they work around lots of money? Wall Street is no scapegoat. They are the problem. Conservatives are fiercely trying to stop all regulation so Wall Street can continue its attacks on people's wallets. I guess we just have different value systems. I believe people should have to work for a living and produce something for society in some way. Just being in a big barrel of money and grabbing as much as you can, while producing nothing, is not being a productive member of society.

[laughingliberal]

37. +1000 nt

[taught_me_patience]

46. Ok, it's a given you either 'work on Wall Street' or someone in your family does...

***************************
no... I just have an understanding of economics and finance, being that I'm an economics undergrad and a finance MBA
***************************


I would go through line by line as you did, but I have to go back to work, to produce a product others need.

***************************
We all do, or we wouldn't be getting paid. You're not special.
***************************

But from the jest of your post you believe that if someone just is somewhere in the middle where lots of money flows they are entitled to grab (or steal creatively) as much as they want.

***************************
They can grab what their clients are willing to pay them
***************************

And my reference to 9/11 wasn't blaming Wall Street, I was comparing the damage done to the economy in both situations. It was very clear how I stated it. And if don't see how white collared workers are taking from people every day while doing nothing to earn it I suggest you look closely at your 401k or other investments. It's been estimated that because of countless fees on your accounts a person would accumulate at least 50% more if their money was handled honestly. Any damned white collared dope can add a fee to millions of accounts and get rich. It doesn't mean they are geniuses or godlike. They are opportunistic thieves (imo).

*********************
There are no load mutual funds... I suggest you check them out. You can create your own portfolio by choosing your own stocks... But can you balance a portfolio properly? Do you have the time to do the research yourself? Should somebody run a fund for free?
***********************

Do you really believe someone who makes 5 billion in a year produces more than a migrant farm worker who actually produces something for society? A person shorting something they know will go down (because they perhaps even caused it to go down) isn't 'productive'. It's just another way to steal.

******************
Please educate yourself on shorting and hedging. It's not stealing.
******************


And do you believe that a handful of people should be able to cripple our economy and country just because they work around lots of money? Wall Street is no scapegoat. They are the problem. Conservatives are fiercely trying to stop all regulation so Wall Street can continue its attacks on people's wallets. I guess we just have different value systems.

***************
No firm should become too big to fail. Regulation is necessary. We agree here.
***************


I believe people should have to work for a living and produce something for society in some way. Just being in a big barrel of money and grabbing as much as you can, while producing nothing, is not being a productive member of society.

*************
Please... I urge you to educate yourself on the role of finance in this economy. After you do, you'll stop the insane argument that wall street "produces nothing".

[Alcibiades]

15. externalities

And cash for insiders. That's pretty much it.

[cbdo2007]

21. This may be the most uninformed economic post I've ever seen on here.

Really, please go take an economics class or something. There isn't even a rational way to explain it to you or discuss it because you're just so far off from reality in understanding "Wall Street" and how it fits into the economy.

[MadHound]

29. What, you expect government officials to bite the hands that feed them?

That's never, ever going to happen. At best all the government is going to do is set up some "regulations" that have so many loopholes in them that the Wall St. Masters of the Universe can slide through them faster than a teenager slides through a firewall set up by a Commodore 64.

[Greyhound]

30. K&R, no. n/t

[dem mba]

32. read this first, then let's talk

http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/financial-planning/stock.htm

If you don't know the importance of raising capital, then you can't really engage in this debate.

[Odin2005]

35. They create misery and poverty via the investor class stealing wealth from workers.

They are parasites that do no useful work

[Greyhound]

40. Every minute of every day they go to work, they make the world worse.

The casino is about how much they can take, period. What the financial sector does today is simply plunder and run.

[gravity]

41. Wall Street gives the means for companies to purchase tangible goods and services

by linking investors to businesses. Even derivatives have value for people like farmers who can ensure a fair price for their crops. There is a legitimate purpose for Wall Street.

The problem is those doing too much speculation and creating complex financial instruments which do have little purpose other than making a buck.

[Greyhound]

47. The only "investors" left on Wall Street are institutional and required by law

to participate, the rest are gamblers betting on nothing more than short-term fluctuations in a rigged game.

Futures contracts are another gamble, as opposed to an investment, and while they do serve a purpose for the producers, there are so many less risky, more efficient means of addressing the vagaries of nature, that the overall result is still negative. And don't even try to conflate futures contracts with derivatives, the derivatives are nothing but side bets and are of no benefit to the producers.

The so-called financial industry is simply a gigantic thug raking 30% off the top of everybody's work.

[gravity]

49. Futures decrease risks for farmers

They pay a little extra for a guarantee price for their goods. It is no different than paying for insurance.

These only become problems when investment banks were creating too many derivatives for things they did not know how to value and too many speculators got into the mix. It was the lack of regulations that caused this mess to get out of control.

[Canuckistanian]

43. It's perfectly plausible to have a life without Wall St.

But as the system is set up now, it's damn near impossible.

If you have investments, a pension, pay taxes or even buy consumer goods, Wall St. is taking their cut.

It's either live in the backwoods or pay your tributes to the Kingdom of Wall St. You don't really have a choice.

[Ardent15]

45. The economy should be based on tangible assets, and tertiary services....

, but don't base your economy on a stack of cards courtesy Wall Street.

[RagAss]

53. Didn't you hear? We did....

We Lost....

[conspirator]

54. Wall Street is a Casino for the rich. And you have to accept it as that

People are entitled to entertainment. Those who are suckered to play in that Casino without having inside information it's their problem. Those who are gambling addicts is also their problem.
The war should be on the rich People directly not on their form of entertainment.

[SoCalDem]

55. Wall Street DOES produce

cocky, arrogant millionaires who like to play with other people's money, and who win even when they lose:grr:

[The Damned]

59. K&R

Fuckin' R!