Everyone knows the story of George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” George represents the average, family-oriented, kind-hearted American. He runs a small community bank geared toward helping the average family own their own home and achieve the American dream. Life is wonderful for George until a villainous large bank owner, Mr. Potter, nearly ruins his life and the lives of the residents of Bedford Falls by attempting to monopolize the small town and absorb George’s bank in the process.
As an American consumer, I feel betrayed by our large financial institutions — much like George in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I grimace at the similarities between the attitudes of our bank executives and Mr. Potter. A New York Times report Tuesday revealed that “Bank executives are grappling with a question that exasperates, even infuriates, many recession-weary Americans: Just how big should their paydays be?”
The sickening report continues, “Goldman Sachs is expected to pay employees an average of about $595,000 each for 2009, one of the most profitable years in its 141-year history. Workers in the investment bank of JPMorgan Chase stand to collect about $463,000 on average.”
I understand that because our economy was in such disarray as a result of the Bush administration‘s economic policies of deregulation and free market capitalism, it became necessary to bail out the banks so that credit would be more readily available to consumers.
The thing is, credit isn’t really more available to consumers, and after being in such dire need of taxpayers’ help, these banks clearly rebounded rather quickly — especially when their most pressing moral dilemma revolves around garnering the highest salary possible without raising eyebrows or inciting a social movement.
And it’s not just Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase who are receiving profits disproportionate to the reality of this recession. The Times reports, “During the first nine months of 2009, five of the largest banks that received federal aid — Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley — together set aside about $90 billion for compensation. That figure includes salaries, benefits and bonuses, but at several companies, bonuses make up more than half of compensation.”
It seems that the entire financial system of America is built to penalize the consumer. I was reading about the calculation of credit scores, and I had the impression that simply thinking about my credit score would lower it. Maybe the rationale to bail out the banks was logical according to economics and business, but it seems today that nearly everyone in America has felt the effects of the recession, except for these large financial institutions. I think it’s time that we, as Americans, do something about that.
A simple movement has begun through a Web site called MoveYourMoney.info, which seeks to send a message to banks that were deemed “too big to fail.” The general idea is for people who belong to Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America to move their money and credit cards out of these large financial institutions and into small community banks.
This idea transcends political ideology, empowers the consumer, and supports local communities — and it’s not just an unknown grassroots organization. In the past week, the founders of the site have been on MSNBC and even The Colbert Report.
We can’t rely on our government officials to affect change in our financial institutions because politicians are generally crooked. Instead, we must make the first move to show these licentious financial organizations that if they want our business, they must change their practices. I can assure you that as soon as I decide where I’m going to graduate school, I’m pulling my money out of my current gluttonous, morally decrepit bank, and changing over to the credit union in that city.
I find your fourth paragraph quite disturbing. Free market capitalism didn’t fail because we haven’t had free market capitalism for quite some time: the Fed sets interest rates (not the free market), Fannie and Freddie are both government sponsored enterprises, and the Congress has been encouraging home ownership for quite some time now. The government has been instrumental in creating the housing crisis.
I find it very hypocritical that you say “it became necessary to bail out the banks” and yet you are suggesting that people stop supporting them. How does it make sense to have the government give these large instiutions taxpayer money, when you simulatenously suggest customers withdraw their money from the very same institutions? You think it’s necessary for the government to force us to give them our money and yet the money we have control over we shouldn’t give to these institutions?
We must return to free market capitalism. No more artificial interest rates, no more tax distortions, and no more government backed mortgages. If businesses make bad decisions, they will fail – plain and simple. Our money shouldn’t be forced from us and used to reward failure.
Stephanie,
Your poor writing capabilities are only surpassed by your lack of facts and context.
In regards to:
“I understand that because our economy was in such disarray as a result of the Bush administration‘s economic policies of deregulation and free market capitalism”
Tell me Stephanie, what did the Bush Administration deregulate? You can look all you want but you will find NOTHING. The most recent deregulation took place under Clinton when he repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. Also, we havent had free market capitalism since this nation’s inception and unfortunately Obama is trying to further stifle the greatest economic engine the world has even known, its called freedom.
In regards to your assertion that BofA needed to be bailed out, you are once again unequivocally wrong. The Fed/Gov came to BofA exec Ken Lewis and asked him to buy Merill Lynch without disclosing the amount of bad debt Merrill had on its books. Once Lewis found this out he decided not to purchase Merill and was greeted by the threat of his bank being nationalized. Bottom line is Ken Lewis had no choice.
My advice to you Stephanie is not to speak about that which you know nothing about. You do not know what our founders intended this country to be, you have never read the US Constitution, and you will never know what it takes to produce a good or service. If you want to be a columnist try movie reviews, relationship advice, or maybe recipe of the week. For you to think you have a career writing intelligent and insightful political columns is like Obama thinking that raising the capital gains tax will actually result in more capital investment….it wont happen.
“If you want to be a columnist try movie reviews, relationship advice, or recipe of the week.”
Way to be sexist, bud.
Also note that this is an opinion column titled “The Liberal Lens.” Clearly, this piece is directed toward people of like-minded political views, and assumes the reader to be working from the same base perceptions as its author. The function of this column, then, is to interpret current events from within the liberal mindset. Not to provide objective reporting.
I agree, it is irresponsible to make assertions which can’t be backed up. But the focus of this article is not to argue, nor to expound the author’s political philosophy. From the headline of the piece, the author makes her intent clear: she is trying to motivate the reader to action based on a shared ideology. You’re the one choosing to read a column titled “The Liberal Lens.” Your agreement is assumed. She is trying to provide a specific method of interpretation – a “lens,” if you will – for the objective news by suggesting a specific course of action for readers who share her viewpoint.
I understand that you vehemently disagree. But I don’t see how her words are worthy of such vitriolic invective as “For you to think you have a career writing intelligent and insightful political columns is like Obama thinking that raising the capital gains tax will actually result in more capital investment….it wont[sic] happen.” Here you abandoned respectful and reasonable debate and have strayed into the realm of ad hominem attacks. No one deserves words as harsh as that, despite what you think of his or her political perspective. No, those words are pure insult and only make you appear crude and arrogant.
P.S.: For someone so concerned with the author’s writing ability, it might help your case to learn to use punctuation properly.
P.P.S.: I also thought that all of the recent corporate bailouts were absurd.
Justin,
I fear your assertion of my perceived “sexism” only demonstrates your own. My comment encouraging the writer to consider movie reviews, relationship advice, and or recipe of the week had nothing to do with her gender, and everything to do with her lack of facts coupled with a very limited grasp of what actually occurred/ led to the recession. I would have encouraged a male to pursue the same columns because they do not require a deep level of understanding and/or facts to back up statements.
I recognize that this is an opinion piece, however, wouldn’t you expect the Mustang Daily to demand their writers at least be able to support their assertions? Even the most unabashedly liberal/ conservative can point to some concrete evidence to support their claims….Stephanie should at least be willing to do the leg work and know the facts.
Finally, I am not a columnist and do not pretend to be one so I am not particularly concerned with my punctuation. But at your request I will certainly try.
PS. I do not find your encouragement of proper punctuation to be sexist (or racist) in the least…so don’t worry
Sometimes, with a column like this, any feedback, even negative feedback, can be interpreted as a positive because it furnishes evidence of readership interest. In the case of college students who are traditionally a rather sullen and hard-to-impress audience, it might be a particularly tempting recourse to recover from criticisms like those above by embracing this line of reasoning.
But truthfully, Stephanie, your best recourse is to heed Slick’s advice and find another column. In those rare instances where your writing is even intelligible, you habitually present such shoddy and unsupported arguments as to hurt and shame the very cause and those very ideals you presumably purport to further.
You mentally poor koolaid drinking history re-writing mommy and daddy is buying my degree evacuant, in the sense that every time you respond to a column only lies and drool come out Republican/liebertarians.
BUSH DEREGULATED THE MARKET BY NOT REGULATION IT AT ALL YOU SILLY BOYS. REPUBLICANS AND LIEBERTARIANS HAVE THIS STUPID MORONIC NOTION THAT IF YOU DO NOT TOUCH THE MARKET WITH ANY REGULATION IT WILL POLICE ITSELF AND THE DISASTERS THAT HAPPENED DURING THE BUSH YEARS WOULD CORRECT ITSELF INSPITE OF THE HORRENDOUS DAMAGE IT WOULD CAUSE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. SO THIS IS THE CONCLUSION TO REPUBLICAN LIEBERTARIAN BUSH REPUBLICAN CONGRESS IDEOLOGY: YOU HATE AMERICANS. YOU LOVE THE LAND BUT YOU HATE AMERICA. YOU LOVE MONEY AND THE PLEASURE IT BRINGS BUT YOU HATE HUMAN BEINGS. YOU PATHETIC ANNOYING MINIATURE DONKEYS!
If Bush is responsible bc he didnt do anything “at all” then do you blame Obama for not submitting regulation legislation while he was in the Senate? Or HRC? Or Bill?…Oh wait, Bill signed legislation deregulating the market. So if Bush is guilty bc he did nothing, is Bill Clinton even MORE guilty b/c he actually did something?
I love people, I love freedom, and I believe people should be allowed to decide what to do with the money they earn and live their lives as they desire, not how some bureaucrat or yourself thinks they should.
Stephanie, you are absolutely right on every point.
And incapable of supporting every point
I’ll answer you this way LD a.k.a. Slick, You will never hear me defend Bill Clinton. But LD a.k.a. Slick ,if a robber is robbing a bank and the police sit outside and watch, doing nothing to stop the bank robbers, what do you do? Oh wait, we know what Republicans will do because they continue to do it which is ignore the roll the police had while promising, if they are put in charge of the police, to make sure the robbers are dealt with. But they weren’t dealt with during the Bush/Cheney/Republican congress years, in fact Bush/Cheney/Republican congress HELPED the robbers! LD a.k.a. Slick no matter how many times you repeat the same thing it will never be right.
Your analogy is a poor one and I dont follow the LD a.k.a Slick reference but I’ll play along anyways.
Im assuming in your analogy that the robbers are the banks, but I’m not sure who the police are? And it seems to me that we know what both Republicans and Democrats did, give the robbers more money.
Let me throw this analogy at you and let me know what you think: Your girlfriend (or boyfriend) cheats on you with another dude (or dudet). Who are you most upset with, your girl or the guy she cheated on you with?
Without government shoveling our money to the banks the banks would never have gotten our money. So in your analogy I see the banks as robbers but I see the government (both Rep and Dem) as accomplices.
Government cheated on us with the banks but instead of being upset with the government, you’re angry at the banks. The banks never could have done what they did without the government’s help.
Once again, please do not blindly cheer on one side over the other, its not about left and right, its about right and wrong.
Your hero Bush and the Republican congress and Senate was the police that let the banks go unregulated or in other words rob the American people leading to the collapse of the world economy. And it looks like another fact has escaped your notice. Obama is doing nothing more than continuing Bush economic policies. And unless he changes he will be a one term abberation.
Free market economics has clearly failed. Looks what happens when you deregulate the market…. monopolies, oligarchies and trusts all form. Look at the early 19th and 20th centuries. AT&T, Standard oil, et cetra directly led to the progressive movement and to strong regulation of the markets. Look at what happened with deregulation of television, 3 or 4 major television corporation bought up almost all of their competitors, now all of the US media is controlled by very few corporations, such as Disney, CBS, FOX/ News Corp, et cetra. Look at what happened when the US deregulated the financial industry, subprime mortgage lending occurred, extremely deceptive lending practices particularity in the home mortgage and credit card sectors. Banks started trading toxic assets which is what led to the whole financial collapse. Look at how many companies have absolutely control of the financial markets, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America (Which owns Merrill Lynch now), JP Morgan Chase(Which owns WaMu), Barclays, Citi Group and Morgan Stanley. This handful of companies has almost complete control of the money in the world. Yeah, free deregulated markets works great! Look at the health insurance industry, free markets haven’t brought down costs, the insurance companies have essentially formed a trust to keep price high in the name of profits!
Lets face it, freshwater economics is a failed economic model and is dead. But be prepared for a whole new push for this failed economic model because of the SCOTUS ruling on campaign financing, these huge corporations will be able to buy elections and candidates! Don’t believe me? Obama raised somewhere around $650 million for his campaign. Exxon Mobile (One of the world largest corporations) had a net income of $45.22 billion in 2008 and their total assets in 2008 are about $228 billion. If they were to donate just 1.5% of their net income (for 1 year) they would surpass all of Obama’s funds. And that’s from ONE company. Now think about how much money the previously listed companies make per year….
Rob, there are many places in your comment that warrant a finger poking a hole through, however, I will leave you with three holes.
first:
“Look at the health insurance industry, free markets haven’t brought down costs”
The health insurance industry is not free. Companies are not allowed to offer insurance across state lines. If you want to buy cheaper insurance from a company in Nevada you are not allowed to. This creates a situation where there is usually one maybe two competing insurance companies in one state. So no, the health insurance market is not free.
Second:
“the insurance companies have essentially formed a trust to keep price high in the name of profits.”
Do you know what the insurance companies profits are? Compared to other industries, health insurance providers make nearly nothing, mostly between 3-4% of revenue is profit. This ranks very low when looking at all industries. Their profit margins haven’t increased in thirty years.
Third:
You say Exxon should “donate” its earnings. But why? By what right does their earnings belong to you or anyone else? That is the problem, people feel that they have a right to the work, product, and profit of others…these people are sorely mistaken.
You said, “Once again, please do not blindly cheer on one side over the other, its not about left and right, its about right and wrong.” That from a right-wing-conservative-anti-anything-liberal-nothing-is the right wing conservative’s fault card carrying memeber of the pedantocracy called the Republican/Libertarian Party! Stop it Slick or whoever you are! Stop it! You comedian you! Who do you think you are being so funny! I’m going to start calling you SlapStickSlick you little jokester! I mean it.
You can call me whatever you wish, Jason. It wouldn’t bother me.
I’m not anti-liberal, I’m anti government management of our lives. I’m not going to tell you how to live your life or what to do with your money so please return the favor.
The only candidates I support are ones that campaign on limited-government.
Here are some liberal nuggets for you…I believe homosexuals such as yourself should be able have a lawfully recognized relationship if they choose to. I believe people should be able to partake in drug usage if they choose to so long as no one is endangered.
There are two “liberal” positions I support, can you name any “conservative” positions that you support.
Thanks for not refuting my analogy and changing the subject while you were at it. I will consider this as acknowledgment that my analogy was more appropriate.
The stronger argument is to stop government from subsidizing heterosexual marriage and allow people to voluntarily associate however they wish, providing no favorable incentives to one group over others. Key word being “voluntarily”.
With regard to hospital visitation rights, which I’ve heard so many people concerned about, people should set up a white list (or black list) of visitors with their insurance company (before they get injured) so the hospital can easily determine (from a trusted source) who to allow and restrict visitation.
white list = only allow these people
black list = only block these people
Lonely are you SlapStickSlick? Projecting just a little LOL.
I side with Slick. Frankly, our representatives stopped representing “the people’s” interest long ago. Today, government continues to burden “the people” with more and more taxes and less and less freedoms. Sadly, the ones benefiting most are those who are able to contribute the big-bucks to “our representatives.” And, who’s that? The super-rich, large corporations, unions, conglomerates, and even other countries. We’ve become a free market government … one rife with corruption on both sides of our lock-stepped, two-party system.
Nice job Jason, once again you managed to avoid addressing any of the questions I put before you.
JE The kind of gov’t you dream of is no longer possible. Republicans are making sure that that. It will take America decades to dig out of the Bush/Republican congress economic debacle of the 000’s.
SlapStickSlick, projecting your sexual secrets onto me compels me to stop taking you seriously. Good day.
I don’t see how anything I’ve said “project[s] sexual secrets” of mine..and who says “sexual secrets” anyways?
But if you wish to not respond to any of the questions I’ve put before you then that is your choice. You come out looking pretty weak in this case as I have addressed the issues you brought up.
These are your words childish one: “I believe homosexuals such as yourself” here: http://mustangdaily.net/show-wall-street-you-mean-business/comment-page-1/#comment-28491 so since you are an unrepentent sinner I cannot take you seriously and I suspect your seriousness. As far as your question there isn’t one thing conservatives stand for I can agree with. Its 7th century drivel.
JE I re-read your post…you poor baby.