OCCUPY WALL STREET

[ruffryder]

December 6 - OWS calls for Occupy Homes. Occupy Homes, an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street, will protest in foreclosed and vacant properties in around 25 U.S. cities on Tuesday's "Day of Action," promoting what organizers call the "basic human right of housing."

This targets the banks and institutions offering incredible and outrageous loans to homebuyers and no help with foreclosure. It encourages Americans to transform their relationship with land and owning homes. People will be protesting foreclosures and auctions that will go on. In the coming months there are plans of more of this kind of protesting on foreclosures. Full story here > http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2618...ures-dec-6.htm

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by ruffryder

December 6 - OWS calls for Occupy Homes. Occupy Homes, an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street, will protest in foreclosed and vacant properties in around 25 U.S. cities on Tuesday's "Day of Action," promoting what organizers call the "basic human right of housing."

This targets the banks and institutions offering incredible and outrageous loans to homebuyers and no help with foreclosure. It encourages Americans to transform their relationship with land and owning homes. People will be protesting foreclosures and auctions that will go on. In the coming months there are plans of more of this kind of protesting on foreclosures. Full story here > http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2618...ures-dec-6.htm

These Occupy efforts really are important. I am elated to see these actions begin and spread throughout Occupy demonstrations all over. Wouldn't it be something if somehow an independent "mortgage" company sprung from this? Something that could just pay-off the loans and re-sell the home to people at low interest rates and the principal amount of the market today. And no FICO scores required! So many of these people could pay a sane mortgage- some have become re-employed, but at lower take-home pay. Maybe even a "grace period" of a few months until payments began (with no accrued interest) if they are not yet back to work.

I had a fantasy today about winning the super-duper lottery and setting up a non-profit re-finance that is totally different than traditional profit motivated banks and mortgage companies that could intervene and partner with the Occupy movement to save these homes. LOL- I don't even buy lottery tickets- but it was the only thing I could think of to do something like this.

I know, I'm not a good candidate for running a business. Anyway- any focus on the housing situation and those losing their homes due to the Wall Street greed that brought our economy to where it did, excites me. There was predatory lending going on with junk securities bundled and sold at insane profits. Relaxing mortgage qualifying documentation and requirements made it very easy to rope all of these people in- and that was exactly what they wanted to do.

[GeorgiaMa'am]

Originally Posted by AtLast

I had a fantasy today about winning the super-duper lottery and setting up a non-profit re-finance that is totally different than traditional profit motivated banks and mortgage companies that could intervene and partner with the Occupy movement to save these homes. LOL- I don't even buy lottery tickets- but it was the only thing I could think of to do something like this.

I know, I'm not a good candidate for running a business.

You go, George Bailey! You go! (Just watched _It's A Wonderful Life_ this past weekend for the I-won't-say-how-many-Christmases-in-a-row. Down with Potterville! Honestly, if you need a temporary escape from the crisis, it's a good movie - unless you can't stand sugary-sweet escapism.)

[atomiczombie]

[ruffryder]

GeorgiaMa'am with all due respect I appreciate the discussion and Corkey and Toughy and anyone else that responds to My questions.

Yes these are matters that deserve further discussion and not everyone has the same beliefs but nonetheless I respect everyones opinion and try to see their point. It doesn't mean I won't debate it or question it. I've been known to change My mind on some things. Just to be clear I am not here to fight. I am here to have an opinion also and feel free to understand others. I'm sorry if people get upset by that or see me as trying to cause problems cause that is not me. I respect everybody and their opinions.
I do give people the benefit of the doubt. I never said anyones points were not valid and I was just trying to understand some ones view. I was not tearing anyone down. I don't appreciate name calling and i do appreciate others here and the discussion. I have seen people torn down although and I don't understand where that comes from. A bad day? It's a shame some won't make discussion or voice their opinion because others are hateful towards them. I will voice my opinion and I have always been respectful doing so and appreciating others thoughts. So I do thank you for those that do appreciate that also.

[Sachita]

Build the New Economy - Generate Alternatives
Across the world millions of people are actively resisting the process of corporate globalization while simultaneously creating viable local alternatives in the here and now. This powerful emerging movement represents a radical departure from ‘business as usual’. In place of the imposition of a single, global world economy, the new paradigm seeks ‘a world that embraces many worlds’ – an adapting biocultural mosaic rather than a global monoculture. Proponents of this approach call for ‘small scale on a large scale’ rather than one-size-fits-all, ‘too big to fail’ blueprints. In turn, the kind of solutions that are being generated flow from diversity, are attentive to the ecological particularities of place, are more responsive to social needs, and are often far more equitable, participatory and democratic.



Help create the new economy from the ground up!




http://www.theeconomicsofhappiness.o...ck-the-economy

[SoNotHer]

The video is worth watching, folks, especially if you are just coming into the dialogue here and haven't read about the act yet. The Senate just passed this bill last week. The bill allows for indefinite detention in secret prisons, secret interrogations and trial-free domestic terror proceedings and processes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...mericans-face/

http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes...orization-act/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...on-Act-of-2012

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Yeah we're fucked. Most people are still not awake either.

[Sachita]

As if we didnt know, here it is

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...the-world.html


Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world


AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."

Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."

"It's disconcerting to see how connected things really are," agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.

Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, which is not always true. Most company shares are held by fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system's behaviour, he says, requires more analysis.

Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Sugihara says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.

One thing won't chime with some of the protesters' claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. "Such structures are common in nature," says Sugihara.

Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, "is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups". Or as Braha puts it: "The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy."

So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest.

When this article was first posted, the comment in the final sentence of the paragraph beginning "Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power…" was misattributed.

The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies
1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
27. Invesco plc
28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
31. Aviva plc
32. Schroders plc
33. Dodge & Cox
34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
35. Sun Life Financial Inc
36. Standard Life plc
37. CNCE
38. Nomura Holdings Inc
39. The Depository Trust Company
40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
41. ING Groep NV
42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
45. Vereniging Aegon
46. BNP Paribas
47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
48. Resona Holdings Inc
49. Capital Group International Inc
50. China Petrochemical Group Company

* Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used

[GeorgiaMa'am]

Originally Posted by Sachita

As if we didnt know, here it is

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...the-world.html


Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world


AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."

Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."

"It's disconcerting to see how connected things really are," agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.

Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, which is not always true. Most company shares are held by fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system's behaviour, he says, requires more analysis.

Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Sugihara says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.

One thing won't chime with some of the protesters' claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. "Such structures are common in nature," says Sugihara.

Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, "is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups". Or as Braha puts it: "The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy."

So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest.

When this article was first posted, the comment in the final sentence of the paragraph beginning "Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power…" was misattributed.

The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies
1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
27. Invesco plc
28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
31. Aviva plc
32. Schroders plc
33. Dodge & Cox
34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
35. Sun Life Financial Inc
36. Standard Life plc
37. CNCE
38. Nomura Holdings Inc
39. The Depository Trust Company
40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
41. ING Groep NV
42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
45. Vereniging Aegon
46. BNP Paribas
47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
48. Resona Holdings Inc
49. Capital Group International Inc
50. China Petrochemical Group Company

* Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used

It's interesting to me that I do business directly with 2 of the companies in the top 10. I can't imagine that it would make an iota worth of difference to them if I pull my business away from them - they are controlling millions (billions) of other people's money, and they would probably still have indirect influence over my money anyway.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaMa'am

You go, George Bailey! You go! (Just watched _It's A Wonderful Life_ this past weekend for the I-won't-say-how-many-Christmases-in-a-row. Down with Potterville! Honestly, if you need a temporary escape from the crisis, it's a good movie - unless you can't stand sugary-sweet escapism.)

Well thank you! One of my favorite Christmas movies! I just can't help but think there is a way to tackle this problem via OWS. I really am happy to see the Occupy people in many places on the lawns of foreclosure situations. A couple of these actions have helped get some more time for some folks. We need to get these properties completely out of the hands of banks and re-structure loans based upon actual market values today. Just that would enable many to stay in their homes and pay it off. Some of the bogus loan products people were sold were just nuts! Some of these loans can't even be traced to wherever they ended up!

Oh, I can deal with sugary-sweet escapism!

[atomiczombie]

This past Sunday 60 minutes did a segment on all the fraud that went on at banks such as Countrywide and how no one in the SEC or FBI is willing to do a serious investigation or prosecute them. This link has a transcript and video of the show:

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars....t-we-prosecuti

Here's a snippet of the interview:

Steve Kroft: Do you believe that there are people at Countrywide who belong behind bars?

Eileen Foster: Yes.

Kroft: Do you want to give me their names?

Foster: No.

Kroft: Would you give their names to a grand jury if you were asked?

Foster: Yes.

But Eileen Foster has never been asked - and never spoken to the Justice Department - even though she was Countrywide's executive vice president in charge of fraud investigations. At the height of the housing bubble, Countrywide Financial was the largest mortgage lender in the country and the loans it made were among the worst, a third ending up in foreclosure or default, many because of mortgage fraud.

It was Foster's job to monitor and investigate allegations of fraud against Countrywide employees and make sure they were reported to the Board of Directors and the Treasury Department.

Kroft: How much fraud was there at Countrywide?

Foster: From what I saw, the types of things I saw, it was-- it appeared systemic. It, it wasn't just one individual or two or three individuals, it was branches of individuals, it was regions of individuals.

Kroft: What you seem to be saying was it was just a way of doing business?

Foster: Yes.

In 2007, Foster sent a team to the Boston area to search several branch offices of Countrywide's subprime division - the division that lent to borrowers with poor credit. The investigators rummaged through the office's recycling bins and found evidence that Countrywide loan officers were forging and manipulating borrowers' income and asset statements to help them get loans they weren't qualified for and couldn't afford.

Foster: All of the-- the recycle bins, whenever we looked through those they were full of, you know, signatures that had been cut off of one document and put onto another and then photocopied, you know, or faxed and then the-- you know, the creation thrown-- thrown in the recycle bin.

[atomiczombie]

The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment that would assert that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, and that money is not the same as free speech.

The resolution was backed by Move to Amend, a national coalition working to abolish corporate personhood and overturn U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United ruling. The decision gave corporations and unions the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, so long as their actions are not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

“Move to Amend’s proposed amendment would provide the basis for overturning the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” stated Mary Beth Fielder, Co-Coordinator of LA Move to Amend. “The Supreme Court has no legitimate right to grant people’s rights to corporations. We must clearly establish that it is we, The People, who are meant to rule.”

City Council President Eric Garcetti sponsored the resolution, according to the Los Angeles Times. He said the largely-symbolic legislation was necessary because “big special interest money” was causing gridlock in Washington.

Move to Amend hopes that to get similar resolutions approved across the nation through city councils and direct vote by ballot initiative.

“Our plan is build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress from the grassroots,” stated Mary Beth Fielder, Co-Coordinator of LA Move to Amend. “The American people are behind us on this and these campaigns help our federal representatives see that we mean business. Our very democracy is at stake. Our goal is for 50 towns and cities to put Move to Amend’s resolution on the ballot for the Presidential election in November, 2012.”

Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Michael Bennet of Colorado have introduced a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United by granting Congress and the states the authority to regulate the campaign finance system. The amendment would not dictate any specific policies or regulations, Udall said, so that it could garner some support from Republicans, who have blocked attempts to overturn the ruling in the past.

LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/0...te-personhood/

[Corkey]

From Dylan Rattan show Mass. Attorney General has joined several States Attorney Generals to investigate mortgage corporations. Doing Holters job for him.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/0...te-personhood/

Yes! This is exactly what needs to be done! No easy task, but must happen. This would be such a great OWS focus nationwide. The Citizens United decision is so very much at the core of why there has been such wage disparity in the US for so long.