Jamil gets it now, but first he had to get over the "clearly defined set of goals" fetish -- because that is what it is; a fetish -- in the Anthorpological, not sexual, sense.

To demand, OWS (or a similar movement), to produce upon demand, a "clearly defined set of goals" is nonsense, and a cheap way for lazy (and a great, great many are) and (being brutally honest here) not-too-dang-bright members of the media to concoct a "story" which provides little information and even less illumunation. But which does make a pretty little package, ya know?

Besides, "a clearly defined set of goals" would probabaly come from National OWS Headquarterts which should have a President, a Board, An Executive Director, etc., etc., etc. and an office on K Street and a nationally known front person, etc., etc., etc..

I guess I am on my soapbox here because I have not yet come down from reading Chris Hayes' 10/17 column. He got it exactly right. So right I have promised myself I shall stop (at least for now) referring to him as "Squeak."

I'm sooooo right there with you, loving him.....

Referring to the "Ringers" as "lazy" and "not too bright" is doing the same thing that you are accusing them of doing. Namely, taking every chance to discredit them and their opinions so that you can protect that protest game that you are so invested in, paraphrasing the end of the article.

People who doubt the protest because it lacks a clearly defined set of goals looks at history and sees that very, very, very few protests have every accomplished anything without those goals. You think the fight for minimum wage was won by shouting "This sucks! Do something about it!" Or the legalization of workers unions was won because people yelled "I don't feel like you care about me!" No, they were aiming at minimum wage, and they were aiming at unions.

I like all the demands, but #12 basically would mean free college for everyone. I don't think that will work. Virtually every academically qualified high school student would probably go to college if it was "free" (no student debt) which means the government would have to pay the tuition/books/room and board. So by default it would add a pretty hefty new tax layer, just like it is now for public schools (K - 12). And it would probably cost more since college faculty and facilities are much more pricey. If you write all of the current student debt, I garauntee that the future students will want the same "level" playing field.

Other than that, the other demands seem reasonable.

There's actually a petition in circulation to forgive student loan debt by MoveOn.org, I believe, and included in H. Res 365 introduced by Rep. Clarke (MI).

http //www gpo gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hres365ih/pdf/BILLS-112hres365ih pdf

Skeptical at first, but now I believe would be a superb way to stimulate the economy and help enormous numbers of people at the same time. I mean, look what they did for the banks, and look where everyone else is. Gimme a break.

I would add that OWS should demand that Geitner be fired as well as anyone in the Obama administration that has worked for the big banks. That would be a concrete step toward stopping their influence. Obama needs to find someone not associated with the banks. I can't imagine that would be a difficult problem. Another step would be a special investigations unit within the Justice Dept headed by Elliot Spitzer as an independent prosecutor. He has an excellent grasp of how Wall Street works.

Amamamadu, I fear that if it is passed, it will become permanent for all future students too (see my post above). If you fogive all of the current debt you obviously END any future student loans. No bank or other institution would be willing to give a loan to a student if there is a very good chance that that loan would be forgiven just like the ones proposed. And if there no more loans.....then grants (and scholarships) would have to be GREATLY increased. And those grants would be paid for by the government almost entirely which means the taxpayers would end up subsidizing college for everyone.

I don't think I am very far off base on this, and if I am correct this would not stimulate the economy. It would a pretty big "new" tax - I mean it would cost trillions to pay for everyone's college right?

You don't think it could be applied only under certain economic circumstances/crises? I don't believe it has to be a permanent thing... Economic crisis & economic prosperity are two different playing fields with different rulebooks. Yeah, students may feel jilted, but if there's a decent job waiting for them when they graduate ... (unlike now).

I'm coming from a strong sense of injustice at what it cost taxpayers to bail out banks under economic crises. They are grossly profiting & bonus-ing & celebrating—laughing, literally—'all the way to the bank.' It's quite sick and wrong. Does this benefit 'most' people the most efficiently? The $$ is there. They need to look a little harder, i.e., go recover a couple of missing pallets of cash in Afghanistan, or something. Now I'm being sarcastic. But here's an Ezra Klein blip:

"Wall Street caused this mess, and the government paid off their debts and helped them rake in record profits in recent years. The top 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation's income and 40 percent of its wealth."

It's actually very normal for young people to be relatively poor. It's also fairly standard for lots of people to be unemployed during economic recessions. The more serious, and abnormal, problem here is that a lot of these people are heavily in debt, and not credit card debt. They're faced with what was supposed to be the "good" kind of debt, student loans.

The average student debt in America is now $24,000. If one owns $24,000 and has no job, or even a rather low-paying job, making those payments is impossible. And these are people who, as Klein puts it, played by the rules, who did everything they were suppose to do.

Occupy Wall Street protests are deliberately modeled on the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt back in February. The goals of the Occupy Wall Street protests are less distinct but in Egypt, remember, the protestors were angry because they'd graduated from college and couldn't find jobs. In the United States the protestors have graduated from college, can't find jobs, and owe money for those educations. They owe money to banks.

Sourced from:
http //www washingtonmonthly com/college_guide/blog/occupy_wall_street_is_really_a php

I'd be happy if they'd just cut my student debt in half. Maybe I could get it paid off in this lifetime.

amamamadu,

I just don't think it could be a "one- time" thing. Can you imagine a student in high school now that see's their older brother or sister get their debt wiped out? You think that kid and his classmates would just dutifully go and take out a loan? And what IF the economy stays in the dumps for a couple more years. Do you let the current high school juniors and seniors get the same deal. As I said these what if type scenarios would probably drive most lenders out of the student loan business. So even if it is a one-time debt forgiveness I really think there would be no one to loan students money in the future. I also wonder what the criteria will be. How far back do you go? There are some people that are paying off student loans from 3,4 or even more years. Do you just forgive loans made in the last year or so?

I just think it would nearly eliminate all private sources of student loans AND set a precedent for future students to ask for it if another downturn comes in a decade. It would be great to help those millions in dire straits right now, but I would imagine it would open it up to people wanting it in place all the time. Just saying...

The federal government guarantees those student loans so any write off would come back to the government. How many Republicans are going to vote for a bill that pays some of those loans off from government funds? How many voters do you think are going to support such a program? That is how the write offs would have to be handled. I think the government could devise a program with some sort of national service to ease the student loan burden and a program that can stretch payments out over a longer period with a low interest rate.

Mike,

That is pretty much what I said in one of my posts (4.4). Someone has to pay off the loan, and if it isn't the student, it is the taxpayer in the end. We are already in deficit mode and I can't see any way to get "revenues" in to pay off the loans except for new taxes. So it will be the taxpayers subsidizing college now? If that's the case, every parent will get in line for that.

I do like the idea of public service. That's how I got my degree. I spent 5 years in the Navy, then stayed in the Naval Reserves during college and worked about 30 hrs a week on campus Back in the 80's the GI bill would just send me a check and it wasn't enough to cover everything but it paid for most of it. I'm not sure how that works now. Anyway, I graduated oweing only around $800 on a credit card. I know this isn't the way to go for everybody but there are ways to get in school without loans for the most part. Maybe a civilian type GI bill for people to work in the Peace Corps or something could help.

Yeah, I can definitely see your arguments, Skip, but as Congress has proven they can devise bills over 2000 pgs. long (healthcare!), I can't help but they can create something that is fair, if not even complete forgiveness. The greater likelihood is that no one will support this (Mike)(healthcare). It's just so foreign to America's way of doing things. But then again, most all constituents are dissatisfied if not outraged at our current state of things and want "change"--which looks like complete privatization at one extreme (which I don't support) and free university at the other (which I don't support, but I haven't examined other models, either). There are already conditions/alternatives in place for students who cannot pay 6 mos. out of school... maybe those can be enhanced.

Hmm... maybe TRMS can do a "What Would Ezra Klein Do?" proposition/segment.

The idea that people should have to pay to attend public universities is in and of itself fundamentally flawed. Additionally more people attending college (and especially graduating from college) would actually be better for the economy, not worse. It is because of this logic that the government provides grants and loans for school in the first place.

There is nothing about student loans that can be done because of the Republicans who opposed taking students loans away from the banks. If a more reasonable Congress is elected in 2012, it may be possible to restructure the student loan program. But don't hold your breath waiting for anything to come out of this Congress. The next important milestone is the super-committee report to reduce the deficit which is due on November 23. If there is no agreement then cuts in domestic and military will take effect.

I'm laughing here about the student loans. The first thing these kids want is a free education.

Next, they're going to want to get paid to go to school. Then it'll be their right to get paid a "fair living wage" to go to school.

Talk about the gimme my free stuff generation.

That's not at all it—though other countries' models of free education, which I have not studied, may have their virtues, no doubt. But you're missing the entire point of offering solutions in the context of the current contrived disastrous economic climate with past efforts to ameliorate it and the consequent unsavory outcomes.

Because Rachel has said she doesn't understand OWS? What?

Well, it does sound good on paper and I am not totally a bottom-line type person (I am however an accountant :) ). But the economy also involves the "business" of education. I wonder what the college scene would look like if it was free or very low cost. Some colleges have pretty large expensive campuses, labs, and faculty which would still need $$ to operate. You can see the differences at the high school level - schools in well off communites have much more and better assets than those in poorer areas. Why? Because of money. A school like Harvard or MIT or Stanford has the status of being the best schools because of their faculty (which are I would think paid better than a teacher at a junior college) and their fine facilities. They aren't cheap just because of their name. I just don't see how we as a country can make it work without some private money (parents yes, but also loans) helping out. If you have many many more students going to school if it is free or very cheap, you will still have a problem, because now instead of say 2 million new accountants graduating each year, you now have 10 million (since most people would probably go to school if it costs them nothing). And since there aren't that many more new positions in that field they end up unemployed anyway or working for peanuts or outside their field. AND someone is still on the hook for the cost of their education (taxpayers?). Of course I guess you could make college a non-profit enterprise, but I think you may have less people - especially the best - not going into college teaching since it would pay a lot closer to community college levels than say Harvard levels. I know this is an abstract example, but I think you get what I am trying to say.

Oh, God, that reminds me of cashing my employee check at B of A, being nicely invited every two weeks to open an account and me nicely rejecting them every time while paying them $5 to cash my check, until "the representative who can do that is on lunch/isn't here/you'll have to wait, etc. etc." : )

Ha, well yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about...cashing my paycheck at B of A because that's the bank my employer uses. It used to be that if you cashed a check at the bank the check is from, it was free since it's an internal transaction.

And then I'd go get a pre-paid debit card which included a fee to put money on it, and use it to pay my car loan online in which the car loan biller would tack on an extra $5 to my bill for paying via electronic transaction.

Ugh. **Aren't they charging $5/mo. now, too, just for the privilege of using a debit card?! I'm not sure what merchants pay for debit card transactions ... I wonder if that is being transferred to the consumer now. Or perhaps B of A is double dipping?

I work at a Mom and Pop hardware store and can confirm that merchants do pay transaction fees on both debit and credit cards and it is now just part of the cost.

Crackhead, add yourself to the "0%" that know nothing about stocks. A stock is not a loan, it's a share of the equity of a business. A bond is a loan.

You're also woefully ignorant of the role of venture capitalists in a start-up as well as investment banking.

Who cares about the cost of a stock? How about everyone who has an IRA or a 401k?

It's no wonder I can't talk economic sense to some people here when you don't even have the most basic sense of understanding about something so simple as a stock certificate.

I'm waiting crackhead. Dazzle me with some more of that knowledge of economics.

Henceforth nothing you say about the economy has any validity.

eap -

I'll let you wade through the federal securities code on your own.

Securities are non-banking agreements between a company that would like a loan and an investor that would like to loan money to the company. The initial product offering (IPO) is made under those circumstances according to US law.

This link is for private placement - which is a "loan" that is prohibited from trade on a public exchange.

• 17 CFR 230.501 Definition and Terms used in Regulation D

Regulation D covers private investment outside the scope of the stock market, which is how most movies and wild-cat oil rigs get funded. The vast majority of all stock is not publicly traded.

eap - you could draw up your own private placement, register your company with the state, and start selling stock tomorrow. Some states don't even charge a fee to register. The difficulty is that it sounds like you would make the kinds of mistakes that would get you thrown in jail if you tried to do that, but this is perfectly legal if done correctly.

Private security offerings are prohibited from advertising and cannot be sold without board approval. Investors must be "qualified" to take part in a private placement with a few exceptions. As a general rule, investors for private placement (Reg D) must have over $1,000,000 in liquid assets not needed for living expenses, but there are some exceptions.

Reg D is one of the ways that junk mortgages managed to find their way to retirement fund investors.

Board of directors for Reg D investments answer to nobody.

Public offerings are very different from Reg D. These are advertised and traded on public exchanges.

What I presume you mean by mentioning the difference between stocks and bond is actually defined in the articles of incorporation for the company and not public law. For example, Southern California Edison has public stocks that pay a dividend and authorize a vote, while bonds pay a slightly higher rate but do not authorize a vote. The stocks are traded publicly on NYSE. Bonds are held privately and are not traded on any stock exchange, but may be traded through a broker. Employees are offered stocks and bonds at half the market rate. Stocks pay the owner something every 3 months. Only the employees or their relatives have any bonds. Employees bonds pay nothing until retirement and are "bought back" by the company through dividend payments once the employee retires. SCE bonds are traded through human resources. One of my managers that got cancer sold most of his bonds to other employees to pay for medical treatment with outside doctors after he had most of his intestines removed because of a screw up made by the company doctors.

The dividends payed by stocks and bonds are principle and interest, the same as a car loan or home mortgage. The basis for the dividend rate is the "face value" of the stock established at the IPO. The trade value works a little bit like pari-mutuel betting at a race track after the IPO and has nothing to do with dividends, principle or interest, but companies may "buy back" stock at a lower value to reduce future dividend payments.

Stocks pay dividends, which is the "quarterly earnings report" thing you often hear on the news when people are trying to discuss the economy. This is not a "piece of the company" unless the stock authorizes a voting share (covered in the articles of incorporation for each company).

Dividend payments and voting privileges are two separate things.

All stocks pay dividends. Only some stocks authorize voting privileges.

Most companies have a board of directors, and any voting privileges that are authorized by stocks normally authorize stock holders to vote for member of the board (not company operation).

The bulk of all securities rules are grouped in Chapter II of CFR Title 17, which matches my description of the securities industry in my original post.

• 17 CFR Chapter II: Securities and Exchange Commission

This regulation was created during the 1930s after FDR was elected to eliminate the abuses that allowed banking failures to collapse the stock market in 1929.

You are welcome to post anything you would like from a reputable law firm, university, or government web site to support any type of dispute, but that does not appear to be the nature of your disagreement with me.

It would have been nice if you had contributed something intellectual to the discussion instead of starting a pointless "yes you are - no you're not" dispute.

I hope this finds everyone well.

eap - I presume you are a stock trader registered with NYSE or another exchange?

Hello?

How can I make this simple enough for you to understand. A stock is a share of equity in a company. Not all securites are loans. You actually own part of the company when you own a share of stock.

I don't know how I can argue with you when your second sentence is factually wrong. Private placement is not a loan. I don't even know where you came up with that. If the company defaults lenders get paid first then investors. Which includes anyone that priovided funding in the private placement round.

Dividends are a share of the profits the company makes, not interest. And not all stocks pay them. Research in Motion maker of the Blackberry for example does not pay dividends. You're also displaying your lack of understanding by confusing common and preferred stock. Either of which may or may not have voting rights and dividends associated with them. But both of which are actual ownership of the company.

Seriously, you haven't posted anything of value so I'm left wondering if you're lying or delusional. Since you failed to provide anything that backs up what you're saying here goes mine.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p550.pdf

Notice how dividends and interest are different. There's even a handy little section that covers "dividends" as interest, you know, from your savings account. All other dividends are derived from stocks otherwise it's known as interest.

Finally, what I did contribute that you failed to is the truth. And now I have an even further rock solid argument that you don't know what you're talking about.

At least I know one thing. You've never taken a business class or read a business book. But in the research you did today (apparently in a mad rush to make it look like you know what you're talking about) you actually answered one of the questions that you asked in your first post.

"It costs well over $100K to get a lawyer to draft a public offering suitable to obtain SEC approval to sell stocks on NYSE or equivalent. What business startup can afford that?"

Venture capital.