I'm pretty sure most of these people are the same ones who *are* going to farmers markets, avoiding big chains, and are supporting local businesses. The problem is that's not enough if only a minority of the population gets involved.

On that end, I think that OWS is more than just asking for change (which they certainly are doing in clear statements), it's about waking people up. Making people see the injustices that are taking place right under our very noses. In fact, many signs say that exact thing: "WAKE UP!" People should realize that they *should* be utilizing credit unions instead of banks, that they should be supporting local businesses as opposed to large chains, and that they should be buying products that are produced locally (your example of farmers markets is a good one for food).

As David Korten said, it's about dismantling large corporate power, especially those that produce nothing (read as wall street investment firms), and supporting local, more homegrown groups.

Now, granted, small homegrown companies grow into large powerful companies, and the cynic would say that it's a waste of time because it will happen all over again once these small companies increase in size. True, if things continue unchecked. But that's where the change part comes in - increasing oversight and regulation has the power to prevent this "too big to fail" bullshit.

>> ^lantern53:

O'Rourke used to be quite a hipster, the editor of the National Lampoon so many of you young people probably don't know his formerly anarchist self. He just grew up.
Grayson is certifiably insane, however.
Now Wall St. may have fouled up but it was the US gov't which was holding the gun to it's head. Only a gov't could foul things up this badly. The economy goes up and down in cycles, but when the gov't gets involved, serious interference takes place and since the gov't is so powerful (more powerful than Wall St, I guarantee you), the bankers have to do what gov't wants.
This depression is exactly what happens when a powerful gov't interferes in free markets. So if you want to Occupy anything, Occupy the Capitol building.


this is so assbackward its stunning
the government forced them to create CDO's? to bundle up non-AAA holdings and sell them as AAA? to extend themselves beyond their ability to cover their loses?

the problem was the government wasn't protecting it's citizen's interest; they removed regulation after regulation, allowed banks to get involved in too risky endeavours (seperate function of different types of banks), increased the amount of leverage allowed, etc etc

the government should have been the protection to the greed and stupidity capable in FREE MARKETS... and make no mistake, it was SOLELY GREED and STUPIDITY that led to this...

FREE MARKETS as the solution is such incredible SH_T, because all that means, is that it's unregulated... and then the whole lie of supply/demand being the saviour and great equalizer is revealed, the concept of competition comes to an end... as then the amount of money you have determines the flow of the market, have competition? buy them out... lobby to have rules and regulations put into place that prevent you from ever having competition, etc... FREE MARKETS work in the big boy's best interest, not the consumer or the little guy...

btw... because the US government is SO much in the pocket of big money interests... all this is happening (and has been) for the past 30yrs...

repeat: the 30yrs leading up to this recession, government protection/involvement in free markets has been continually lessened.... through removal of regulation meant to protect consumers/main street and through institution (thanks lobbies) of laws/regulations that allowed wall street/banks to literally destroy 20% of the wealth accumulated over the past 200yrs... only to be bailed out by the government in their pockets (and then most of these banks used the bailout money to consolidate power, buyout other banks, and grow even more TOO BIG TO FAIL)

ignorance/culpability... I'm not sure which you more reek of

fairly certain the interviewer is Andrew Ross Sorkin, journalist, columnist, and author of the book, Too Big To Fail.

>> ^shponglefan:

Ugh, horrible interviewer. Just fishing for soundbites, good for Buffett not to bite.

This guy spends the whole video telling us what the symptoms are but ignores what got us here and how to fix it. No surprise the anti-free market (anti-freedom) people are oblivious to it.

Government and bankers have been running a ponzi scheme for most of the last century: Economic central planning and fractional reserve banking. Bankers have been stealing more and more from us every year through money manipulation and taxes.

Inflation is not some magical or natural occurrence. It is baked into the system. It is direct theft. A gallon of milk has pretty much the same value as it did 50 years ago, yet the price has changed, why? And for those that say, well prices have gone up but so have wages so it evens out. Not true. In the arbitrage between the two, you're always going to be on the losing side. And that ignores the theft of savings, and ignores how bankers exploit that arbitrage. That is why we have booms and busts. Bubbles are purposely induced through collusion and fraud to financially rape the people.

Without the fraud and collusion, there wouldn't be trillions of debt. And tax rates would probably be at the highest 10%. Income tax needs to eventually be abolished. In a free world, you trade your labor for wages. The government has no claim to your labor, so why does it have a claim to the wages you traded it for? Taxing consumption above the poverty level makes the most sense. But that can never be implemented without first eliminating the tax on income. You tax things you want less of, you bailout things you more of. The government taxes productivity (income), and rewards fraud (bank bailouts).

How do we fix this:
1. Eliminate the cancer: The Federal Reserve. Eliminate the whole concept of a central bank deciding monetary policy in general. Allow free choice and freedom of currency. Force banks to disclose their reserve ratio to issue loans. The free market will probably force banks to hold close to 100% of reserves. And banking would also become more of a co-op system like credit unions.
2. Cram down all the toxic loans on the Fed's balance sheet to the fair market value of the home and renegotiate the terms for the home owner.
3. Close down the Military Industrial Complex. End all wars. Close down all foreign military bases. Focus Department of Defense on actually defending threats instead of creating them. Abolish the CIA.
4. Break the global oil cartel.
5. Probably have to break up the big banks and pass regulations similar to Glass-Steagall to keep them from getting "too big to fail". Separate banks from investment firms, insurance firms etc. Enforce real regulations that protect consumers, not the parasitic speculators. If a hedge fund makes bad bets and loses, then they lose. No bailouts.
6. Eliminate the false free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT. Stop incentivising global companies to outsource production oversees.
7. Eliminate tax on production. (Income tax)
8. Ban health insurance. (The middle man) We would probably have to fully nationalize health care. (It is anyway really) And then work towards a system of free choice and volunteerism.

Probably more solutions, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. And yes, I'm a free market idealist.

documentaries always have a certain bias.
we all do when trying to make an argument or point.this should not come as a surprise.
people have a right to their own opinions and ideologies,they just dont have a right to their own facts and to impose disinformation in order to manipulate using a contrived argument.

@heropsycho
your comment was well thought out but i do find a few statements you made a tad...disconcerting.
you question the stay at home mother as to her reasons for staying home.
they may be many but the main reason most stay-at-home moms..well..stay at home is for the children.which has been statistically proven to be beneficial for the well-being of not only the home but the children as well.
you wonder why she is not at work.
should everybody get on the hampster wheel and sacrifice the welfare of their family?
has the american dream so devolved as to be almost non-existent?
should every family become debt slaves?
and those who do not should be criticized and derided for not being one?

another part of your comment mentioned outsourcing and the possible reason was lack of education and training.
i agree with that comment but i feel it is missing some vital contextual references:
1.america was a manufacturing giant during the 50's 60's and 70's mainly due to WWII and the decimation of europes manufacturing (bombs tend to do that).
2.while the IT business is booming and i agree that we do need more training,you failed to mention that these "imported" workers tend to make far less than their american counterparts.
3."outsourcing" is a media manufactured word to fit the narrative but fails to identify what it really is:slave labor in third world countries.
4.you also failed to mention the REASON why so many american manufacturing companies "outsource" which is basically sweetheart deals and tax havens,nevermind the total lack of labor safety practices,humane working conditions,child labor laws.these companies dont go to third world countries due to lack of labor or training but rather so they can pay an 8 yr old girl 37 cents a day to make your nike sneakers.

so i disagree with your conclusion that the biggest problem facing the US economy is training and education (a factor but not the biggest problem).
the biggest problem the US economy faces is:two full scale wars and a "police action" all funded on borrowed money.
public elections funded by private entities (corporations and financial institutions)which leads to a corrupt legislature who works for their financial backers and no longer for the people.
a bail out of financial institutions due to their being "too big to fail" and are now ironically bigger than ever.
the absolute and utter failure of the fourth estate to watchdog the powerful in order to inform the public for fear of losing access to the very power they were charged to watchdog.because if they had done their job iraq would have never happened nor would the housing and consequent financial crisis.

these are just a few of the things from a very long list but i feel they are substantial in where we are now.

>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:

what a pinhead, I'm frankly sick of this business is suffering though too much regulation & taxes propaganda pieces. They would like everyone to believe the multinational corporations are the hard done by 'David's' of the economic world, rather than the colossal 'Goliath' they truly are, and all the while getting the very people who are pawns in the system to support the en-slavers as the enslaved.



I'm confused by your post. Taxes and regulation help big business and only serve to stifle competition from small business. In fact, most tax laws and regulations are there because big business put them there. Who do you think employs all those lobbyists living in DC? Big business is always getting special credits and exemptions while the small entrepreneur is getting fucked.

Big business is immune to taxes and regulation. There's always tax shelters, rebates, bailouts, and other corporate welfare. A business too big to fail means other ones too small to succeed.

Taxes and regulation help the Goliaths stay Goliaths. And if it wasn't for the government interfering in the first place, there would've never been any Goliaths.

http://videosift.com/video/Anonymous-Announces-Siege-on-the-Banks-Communique-1

http://ampedstatus.org/acts-of-resistance-what-are-you-going-to-do-on-june-14th-to-rebel-against-economic-tyranny/

http://ampedstatus.org/june-14th-economic-rebellion-update-%E2%80%93-this-is-what-decentralized-resistance-looks-like/

This Flag Day, Tuesday June 14th, we will launch a non-violent movement with this list of demands:

* End the campaign finance and lobbying racket
* Break up the Fed & Too Big to Fail banks
* Enforce RICO laws against organized criminal class
* Order Ben Bernanke to step down

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

He'll never be president. He may have some populist ideas, but putting him in charge of the country would be about as bad as putting Sarah Palin in charge (only she has a better chance of winning).


You sound like a Fox News propagandist. No, really, you do. To compare Sara-lie-cheat-crazy Palin and Ron Paul... I think that is right in Beck's play book (Like when Beck compares people to Hitler that don't deserve it...)

Populist? McCain was populist. Obama? Populist. Ron Paul. Well, if that's populist, then I guess I don't know the word.

He wants to stop the drug war. To me and you, that may be a great idea; to the average person? That is unelectable. Pull the troops back? Great for Democrats, but not for his own party's supporters who vote him in. Cut regulation so that "too big to fail" businesses drown if they actually fail? Banks hate it, and the people don't care because they think this propped-up "capitalism" is actually a free market. And Gitmo? Closing it also makes his base, and most democrats, cringe too...

The best part, his most un-populist ideas (Monetary gold system for one) would never flesh out in Congress. So all that would happen is: Gitmo would close, the wars would end, social programs would be paired down, aid to other nations would fall, etc... In other words, all that would happen are the things Democrats and Republicans like...

Now if you would have said, "Ron Paul is a nice guy, more honest than most, and because of this he won't get elected," I would completely agree. To me, he is boring, he is nice, he is the lesser scandal. And so--he won't win. In fact, in a certain morbid way, I hope he does not. He deserves more than this rotten country gives.

I fail to see where his views are popular when his motto basically is, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but get off your ass and do for your country and self." There are no handouts to corporations, people or other nations... It's why he lost last time.

All respect my friend, but Democrats are not trying to damage the relationship between big business and Republicans and quite to the contrary. It was President Bill Clinton (Democrat) who signed the financial modernization act which allowed three previously discrete financial industries (banking, securities, and insurance) to consolidate. It may not sound like much but this act, authored by three Republicans, was more than an olive branch to Wall Street. It was the birth of "too big to fail" and the precursor to our current financial meltdown. Maddow is simply asking if Democrats understand that by serving corporate interests, they've empowered their political enemies and disenfranchised much of their base?

Unions are all but dead in this country so I'd hardly call them anyone's backbone at this point. That's not good enough for some, unfortunately. Wisconsin proves that Republicans and Big Business want to completely eradicate organized labor, effectively "salting the earth" so unions, once destroyed, can never grow again. Organized labor needs a "Hail Mary" pass at this point if it hopes to come back. I really don't think that will come from Democrats and I fear it won't come from the people, either. Despite it being against their own interests, most Americans have swallowed whole the idea that organized labor is an obstacle to prosperity. Unions are getting it from all sides and I'm afraid no amount of free pizza will change that. However, if things turn out well for labor in Wisconsin I might sing a different tune.



In reply to this comment by My_design:
Maddow makes a lot of sense here, but seems to forget that it is a 2 way street. She pointedly admits that Unions are the backbone of the Democratic machine and that Republicans are trying to do away with that. Kind of like how Businesses are the backbone of the Republican machine and Democrats are trying to damage that relationship. Each gives bonuses to their backers. In either case the public loses. Seems to me that the money goes to private security firms, or money goes to Union bosses, over inflated pensions and employees that can not be fired. But that doesn't make what is happening in Wisconsin right.

There's nothing stopping them from being hypocritical and still capitalising on it. The Republicans railed against bank bailouts but then generally did nothing to stop too big to fail through financial reform. They got what they wanted both times.>> ^ghark:

>> ^RedSky:
The Democrats are absolutely terrible at politics. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible.

It's on purpose, they know who gets them elected.

>> ^Fjnbk:
Keynesian economics works. The stimulus helped save jobs, but it was too small, not too big. Stifling regulation didn't cause this crisis. Deregulating the financial sector was the real cause.


Oh boy. Ridiculous. "Too big to fail" should've truly been "too big to succeed." But that doesn't drum up fear does it?

I saw a bird once that looked like it had a broken wing, but in reality it was just flying weird because of an updraft a few meters above my head. I guess it makes sense to question whether or not I understand what's really going on in the world. Also, plums are best when they're soft, but not too soft.
>> ^BoneyD:

Surprising to see him back this, honestly, given his track record on issues the Republicans like to strong-arm. But, it all makes a lick of difference to the country really: He won't appoint Elizabeth Warren to head Consumer Financial Protection, he hasn't changed the Medical Insurance Industry, the Banks are still 'too big to fail' and he's not going to shrink the Defence Budget.
Oh and I shouldn't also forget: the climate will continue to warm with his lack of action, Oil companies will continue to drill where they shouldn't and Corporations won't be stopped spending as much as they like buying Senators.
But hey, maybe at least with this news, Church and State might actually stay apart! (Right?)
America won't withstand much more of its corporate sponsored political system and weak/corrupt Presidents... and it's gonna take a lot of the world down with it.

Surprising to see him back this, honestly, given his track record on issues the Republicans like to strong-arm. But, it all makes a lick of difference to the country really: He won't appoint Elizabeth Warren to head Consumer Financial Protection, he hasn't changed the Medical Insurance Industry, the Banks are still 'too big to fail' and he's not going to shrink the Defence Budget.

Oh and I shouldn't also forget: the climate will continue to warm with his lack of action, Oil companies will continue to drill where they shouldn't and Corporations won't be stopped spending as much as they like buying Senators.

But hey, maybe at least with this news, Church and State might actually stay apart! (Right?)

America won't withstand much more of its corporate sponsored political system and weak/corrupt Presidents... and it's gonna take a lot of the world down with it.

@blankfist, since you seem to want my thoughts on this (but for some reason, wanted to edit the comment to look like you were just clearing your throat), I'll give you my rebuttal.

I'll take his three points in reverse order.

#3 about regulatory uncertainty is one of these universal conservative economic fantasies. There's no evidence that this really has any kind of macroeconomic effect. Certainly the usual conservative and business advocacy groups always get a laundry list of businessmen to all line up and say how they won't be able to function if they have to pay compensation to workers injured on the job, have to check to see if the products they produce are poisonous or otherwise unsafe, can't dump toxic chemicals into lakes and rivers, can't use slave labor, etc, etc. They always fight against efforts to stop them from being able to leverage negative market externalities for extra profit.

#2 The Yahoo Finance link itself debunks this, because what Schiff says is a flat-out lie. Here's what that link says:

In contrast to Schiff's warning, the law does the following, according to Reuters:

“The bill would set up an "orderly liquidation" process that the government could use in emergencies, instead of bankruptcy or bailouts, to dismantle firms on the verge of collapse.

“The goal is to end the idea that some firms are 'too big to fail' and avoid a repeat of 2008, when the Bush administration bailed out AIG and other firms but not Lehman Brothers. Lehman's subsequent bankruptcy froze capital markets.

“Under the new rule, firms would have to have 'funeral plans' that describe how they could be shut down quickly.”

Liberal critics also question whether the bill addresses "Too Big to Fail", but they're talking about limits on the overall size of banks.

#1 I've covered this fantasy of Schiff's about the nature of the crisis before. Here are two quick points I always make, which you never respond to: low interest rates don't create moral hazard, and Fannie and Freddie weren't even remotely the biggest players in the subprime mortgage-backed security space, much less the chief source of moral hazard.

All the moral hazard was created by the financial industry thinking it had found a way to insulate itself from the risks involved in bad mortgages using CDO's and CDS's -- without relying on government backing of any kind.

I'm happy to go into much more depth on #1 if you like, but you've never really demonstrated that you have any interest in listening to what I have to say on the topic with anything like an open mind.

Oh, and liberals agree that this bill doesn't really do enough in addressing the underlying problems that led to the crisis (the real ones). Basically, they say there's not enough rating agency reform, no leverage caps on investment banks, no Glass-Steagall separation of traditional and investment banks, no commitment to break up banks that grow beyond a certain size, etc.

In fact, from what I've read, the strongest part of this bill is exactly the part Schiff lied about -- it should prevent future Congresses from being forced to do taxpayer-funded bailouts. Instead, it'll be like the standard FDIC process for failed banks, only scaled up to deal with corporations of this size and complexity. Under that process, the bank shareholders, owners, and management get wiped out and fired, but the bank's creditors and depositors are made whole. The bank fails, but it doesn't take a huge chunk of the economy with it when it goes.

The bank was too big to fail, so we didn't do anything about that. Oops.