Comments on: Senate vote exposes Wall Street impotence

By: shastakath

shastakath — Mon, 24 May 2010 21:53:00 +0000

“adverse” struck me,too. populist = equalitarian, not stupid masses. so many terms get rendered toxic in the “spin,” what’s needed is a reassertion of the “all [persons] are created equal . . . endowed with . . . rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” understanding of what it means to be a citizen. it isn’t “adverse” to reduce the size and impact of an exploitive paracitic oligarcy, is it?

By: jstaf

jstaf — Sun, 23 May 2010 02:27:32 +0000

There is no pitchfork mob like mentality here, just a desire of the American people to have the financial services industry benefit society instead of limiting and damaging the economy with their wild and hair brains scheme to make billions.

It is like Wall Street is being run by DR. Evil clones, coming up with one phony deal after another to generate fees and then risk free profits.

Ever since it became clear that the Republican party wanted to steal the wealth created by a half century of cooperation the middle class has stagnated, wealth distribution has become skewed towards the elites and social mobility is as low as it has been in a century.

By: chuck2

chuck2 — Fri, 21 May 2010 17:19:01 +0000

If it can’t do that quickly, this bill is likely to be only the start, and further adverse changes will follow

“Adverse” to whom, the citizens or the robber barons you once associated with.. “Adverse” as the latter seems to have had to bail out the former!

For now the money is committing same crimes as in Great Depression, holding on to money and not lending to benefit the common folks, rather shuffling funds back and forth and doing quite well leeching off fees.

By: HBC

HBC — Fri, 21 May 2010 17:17:02 +0000

I notice on the list of things the industry badly needs to do you put connecting with the public in last place, almost as an afterthought.

This might be the reason, with the chips down and after all the massive doses of publicly funded bailout viagra, Wall Street as a whole really is impotent.

By: Bob9999

Bob9999 — Fri, 21 May 2010 14:35:07 +0000

This is part of the larger phenomenon of modern American political life — what might be called the “death of politics.” Remembering that politics is “the art of the possible,” public discourse in American today has increasingly less politics in it. What we have today is ideology. Wall Street was closely involved in writing the financial legislation of the 1930s, because it was obvious that something was going to happen and Wall Streeters knew that it was in their political interest to be on the inside rather than the outside of the process. Fast forward to 2010, and Wall Streeters stand on the sidelines saying “no,” while financial legislation passes without their active participation. This may be more a fault of Wall Street’s proxy in the legislature, the Republican Party, rather than Wall Street itself. The Republican Party has become so addicted to ideological fantasy over practical solution that it has effectively lost the ability to be an actor in politics. If the mid-term primaries are any indicator, it looks like we may be looking at even more ideologically motivated gridlock-for-the-sake-of-gridlock in the future than we have seen over the past two years.

By: mckibbinusa

mckibbinusa — Fri, 21 May 2010 14:10:58 +0000

Everyone knows that Amercia’s financial services industry is run by gangsters…

By: axiom321

axiom321 — Fri, 21 May 2010 13:56:09 +0000

Profits must come from productive activities. “Profits” from especulation are just money pumped out of the productive system to an industry that does not contribute to our capacity to generate products and services. Traders “working” looking all day to their screens and finding ways to pump more money out is a despicable, boring and unhealthy thing. People working on this are dumbs that made their way into something that seems smart and important. At the end the only thing they gain is an economic disaster and big fat asses.