Small business? Guess what he licks off the bottom of those boots!
It’s not envy of the “corporate overclass” and the inability of most people to join it. It’s the fact that they wrecked the economy and faced no consequences for it. Do you really not understand that?
Congratulations on your success. It’s a real testament to your argument that your company had done so well without any help from the financial sector.
So, how do you run a successful small enterprise without any treasury management, equipment leasing, loans of any kind, venture capital, or any other financial services?
Or, do they let IT drones in on those conversations?
[QUOTE=MOIDALIZE]
It’s not envy of the “corporate overclass” and the inability of most people to join it. It’s the fact that they wrecked the economy and faced no consequences for it. Do you really not understand that?
[/QUOTE]
What consequences did the government (hell, the various governments throughout the world) have for setting up the environment that allowed the crash to happen? The only people who had a large stake in the blame part of what happened and faced consequences seem to be ordinary people, which always seems to be the case. And even there in a lot of cases people who made bad decisions are still skating out of some level of responsibility.
Do you really not understand that the economy was ‘wrecked’ because of myriad factors and that at least as much blame should have fallen on the government and ourselves as on Wall Street™?
-XT
Ha ha ha, I said the opposite of what you said, I’m so clever ha ha ha!
So, I’ll take that as a ‘no’.
-XT
No, take that as a “shut up xtisme, you boring dipshit.”
Take it and place it firmly where the monkey put the peanut for all I care. I’ll take it as a ‘no, I don’t get it and just want to be a dick’. That does seem to be your modus operandi after all. 
-XT
American politicians are certainly to blame for dumping Glass/Steagal and removing oversight of banks. I suppose Greenspan should shoulder a lot of the blame for his stupid Libertarian policies.
But the cold hard fact is, the bankers did it. The pols made it possible, but all banks did not play. The ones that did grabbed zillions of dollars. They broke the banks and national economies. But in no way are the pols equal to the bankers in blame.
Many pols were actually convinced the "modernization act ’ and the gutting of Glass, were good ideas. They were under great pressure from bankers and financial pros who courted their votes with promises of all the good that would follow. Since they were not "economic experts’ they believed the pros. Treasury secretaries were convinced too.
The Rating Agencies should have been taken over. They had a regulatory function and were bought off. They failed miserably .
We don’t spend what we don’t have, and we’re happy to ride a 5% annual growth rate.
The entire business was funded off of the two owners putting up their paid-for houses as collateral on the startup loan from a local credit union, after they already secured contract income based on their reputation in the academic sector of the field. That was paid back in less than two years well over a decade ago.
Accounting is in-house. No fancy tricks, just GAAP.
The only time we’ve ever taken out a loan as a business since then? 2008-2009, to weather the market crash. That loan didn’t even reach seven figures. We took 10% paycuts for worker bees and up to 90% for anyone making over six figures (to a $99,000 floor) for four months, and paid them all back as bonuses when the market picked up again a bit.
We’ve entertained buyout offers, but at the moment 100% of the stock is held by employees or former employees, because that’s how we roll.
So yeah, basically, fuck the financial sector. What’s it ever done for me but hurt my prospective customers?
I note you have a hard time spelling “director”, for some reason. I’m sure it’s just a nervous tic.
Hmm.
Government? Not trusted. Huge shakeups in the last two national elections.
People? Higher unemployment. Underwater on their mortgages. Stagnant income growth.
Wall Street? Bailout, bonuses, no change in profit trajectory post-2008.
Yeah, I know who I’m staying mad at.
So, like I said, your business wouldn’t exist without the financial sector to fund it. You’ve used it twice, at start-up and to get you through a tough patch.
You didn’t mention anything about treasury management, and, I’m sure you probably have a checking account or two, maybe dome merchant card services, probably a lne of credit.
Hopefully there’s a retirement plan of some sort, and maybe down the road you might want venture capital or need to go public or somesuch.
Anyway, as you’ve described it you’re company has received valuable services from the financial sector.
Oh, and since you are all about attacking the merits of other businesses, it’s only fair to ask exactly what your company makes.
Hmmm. It appears I’m the only one interested. Okay then, just for the hell of it:
Let’s parse this down, because we’re actually looking at events that are very complex, very difficult to measure accurately at the macro level. Starting with the last point, that people are likely to move up or down one level, and assuming that by “level” you mean quintile, the answer seems to be, “Not quite.” The table on page 7 shows relative mobility over a ten year period. The second and middle quintiles show the greatest mobility, with nearly 70% moving up or down the economic scale during the period in question. And in fact, most moved upward.
If we look at the bottom quintile we find over the same 10 year period that about 57% moved upward. Most moved from the lowest to the second lowest quintile, but one out of twenty (5.3%) made it to the top.
Interestingly, the highest quintile turns out to be the absolutely least mobile. Of those who inhabited the top 20% of the income spread in 1996, only about 30% had moved downward 10 years later, and more than half of the movers (17%) shifted down one level. Only 2.6% to fall the lowest quintile over this period. I make this point because there’s a slight contradiction in your claims above, Scylla: your second group is “the rich who become poor,” but very few rich people actually become poor. A bit further down you argue people are likely to move up or down “one level”, and anything else is “unusual,” and that’s closer to the results of this study, although truth to tell, not as unusual as one might think.
After this, things get a bit tricky. I can’t really make heads or tails of the graph for the top 1%, other than the fact that after a 10 year period, 54% are still there. With regard to the top .01%, the study claims:
So the division is hardly 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3. It’s more like 80% who stay rich, 2.6% who get poor, and 17.4% who are just visiting. Feel free to correct my math. I’m also going to hazard a guess that part of the volatility of this group reflects sample size: the bottom quintile is a much much larger group that the top .01 percent, and so small changes in the latter group register as much more statistically significant.
Of course, the study is looking at a ten year period, not over the lifetime of a person. And I’m not sure how comprehensive the study actually is, since it only includes “taxpayers.” I’ve been given to believe that around 50% of the US population doesn’t pay income tax, and so they might not even been included in the sample. We might be looking at the income mobility of the top 50% of wage earners in the States, and in that case we need to be careful about drawing conclusions regarding a larger population. In addition, people who move up and down in claimed income on tax returns might do so because they find other ways to avoid claiming extra income/paying taxes, especially in that particular division.
At any rate, most studies in this field find income mobility is much greater in other industrially developed countries – liked socialist Sweden, for example. Strange, that, ain’t it?
Ok, the explanation of the data seems to indicate that there isn’t as much movement from bracket to bracket as we would like (upwards, of course).
Does it support the Occupy Wallstreet’s conclusion that it’s the top 1% that are at fault for this?
The top 1 percent have been profiting from a lot of rules that have been changed to enrich and empower them. The top 1 percent have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. Our concentration of wealth rivals the Gilded Age.
The top 1 percent have an enormous impact in our political policies and they finance elections and political campaigns. They are not noncontributing citizens who just happen to be on the receiving end of our wealth creation. It is not serendipity.
Yeah, we used a local credit union.
That’s because we don’t have it as a separate thing. It’s under the financial person. We have one. She does accounting too.
Yes, from a local credit union, not a large financial services provider.
Failing badly, that no one likes. We’ve had three or four separate ones in my tenure here, none of which have succeeded even so well as a naive S&P Index fund. We’re looking into in-housing our 401ks for that reason.
Expressly not in the cards–the current owners have no desire to cede the least bit of control to someone who doesn’t know the engineering we’re working with.
Minimal services, and at that typical banking services that can (and are!) easily served by credit unions.
Actual products, that work. To be as specific as I care to be, high-end engineering design and simulation software.
Look, I think you misunderstand me deeply. There are “local banks and credit unions”, which are decent entities, and then there’s “the financial sector”, which are a pile of dumbshits who think up things like CDSs. I have nothing against basic, everyday banking. I have everything against companies who think “financial services” means “make shit up and sell it, then get bailed out.”
mlees:
I don’t think you can draw any conclusions about the causes of our current economic woes from this study; that’s not its purpose. But like gonzo said, protestors are reacting to a system that empowers this top 1% (give or take) at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Regarding the actual topic of the thread:
But at the same time,
Topline Results of Oct. 9-10, 2011, TIME Poll | TIME.com, all bolding is mine.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/14/dramatic-enforcement-actions-coming-to-wall-street-soon-geithner/
Perhaps Geithner is receiving the message. Obama will get a lot of votes if he goes after a bunch of bankers. I have been hoping for this for a long time. But don’t forget the ratings agencies. Their part in the banking debacle is clear.
Its true a financial sector is necessary, in one form or another. Like saying we need a police department. Is it too much to ask that it function in our best interests, if you are going to claim it is essential for those interests? Or are you offering a “necessary evil” justification?
Unleash Elizabeth Warren!