Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And it certainly does when you have 10's of millions of excess population compared to the number of jobs. And with the number of college graduates now days this even effects the white collar work force which is probably what this banker was feeling. The thing is there are plenty of Finance and Accounting majors around not to mention all the Business and Marketing. The market certainly doesn't determine anything when the company went under. Then it was socialized losses and now it's back to private profit. The market meme is thrown in when it's convenient to those in charge. When it's not convenient you can forget said market.
2.) Buy stock and you can share in the profits.
That's completely true and good advice but in reality outside of retirement plans not many people can afford to buy stock in any quantities of consequence. Basically when someone throws out the "buy stock" meme it's the equivalent of saying make more money or get in the top 10-20%. Not very helpful to most of the people.
Bottom line is it's about exploiting the workers. Not the "market" which there's no free market anyway that's one of the "big lies". This "market" is very much controlled not to mention the currency is fraudulent as are much of the reported earnings as you can see here:
Getting harder and harder to produce enough debt-slaves. Can only load them up so much and for so long. May bring death derivatives to a whole new level. WF is one of 8 big bank holding companies, this can't really be a surprise.
quote:
Municipal bonds, long considered safe liquid investments, have been eliminated from the list of high-quality liquid collateral. assets (HQLA). That means banks that are the largest holders of munis are liable to start dumping them in favor of the Treasuries and corporate bonds that do satisfy the requirement.
....
the biggest banks are likely to trim back their holdings in munis which could raise the cost or limit the ability for states, counties, cities and school districts to issue muni bonds to build schools, roads, bridges and other infrastructure needs.
....
The result will be to further shift power and financial resources from the public sector to the private sector.
This raises an interesting point about corporate wealth and the principle of redistribution. I think it's a natural human tendency to see the enormous profits that some companies generate, or to look at a CEO's salary (plus bonuses!) and think, "Geez, that amount of wealth is obscene! They should spread it around a little bit." I used to get upset just thinking about the piles of money "these arrogant rich jerks" must have laying around their enormous houses.
But recently I've been looking at such questions a bit differently. Is income inequality really as important as it's made out to be ? Some CEOs make more in a few hours than I'll ever see in my lifetime, but does that mean they're ethically obligated to give some of their wealth to me, or to share it with their employees?
I'm happy that I'm at a point in my life where I can afford to drive a car, pay a mortgage, and eat healthy food. I work hard, but I'm also blessed with some free time to be with my family and friends, and I no longer live paycheck to paycheck. Yet, although I am only barely middle class, a destitute person could consider me "rich".
You could say it would be "nice" of me to give a dollar to everyone who asks me (after all, what's a dollar to a rich guy like me?), but is there a limit? Is it an ethical imperative for me to give as much as I can to impoverished strangers --- or for employers to pay as much as they possibly can to their employees?
Isn't it possible that at least some of the criticism of the wealthy is fed by envy and frustration (or ideologies that feed on these natural tendencies)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but is there a limit? Is it an ethical imperative for me to give as much as I can to impoverished strangers --- or for employers to pay as much as they possibly can to their employees? 
