Financial professionals continue to be targeted

[Ehud]

Bankers 'whacked' in arcade game

Players have to hit pop-up bankers with a mallet
An arcade game that allows people to vent their anger at bankers has proved so popular the owner keeps having to replace worn out mallets.

Inventor Tim Hunkin introduced "Whack a Banker", which is based on the older "Whack a Mole" game, at his arcade on Southwold pier in Suffolk.

Instead of players hitting pop-up moles with a mallet, within a set time, the target is pop-up bald figures.

Mr Hunkin said the game was "proving very popular".

"I keep having to replace worn-out mallets," he said.

"The bankers are bald and all look the same because that's how I think people see bankers, as faceless."

Players, who are promised a "truly rewarding banking experience", pay 40p to hit as many bankers as they can in 30 seconds.

When a customer wins a voice says: "You win. We retire. Thank you very much to the taxpayer for paying our pensions."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 410453.stm

[cargo33]

Cargo33,

I must agree with you. I have very little trust in the mutual fund industry. I do my own research on trends and then find a stock broker who does his own research and as long as his trends are matching up with mine I'll let him choose the individual shares with my oversight. Currently, I'm with someone who is more international and resource focused. When I feel the trends have changed my strategy will change, if he isn't on board as well I won't stick with him.

There is a great fear when it comes to finance. Money brings up so many emotional issues that aren't dealt with so they sublet that part of their life to someone else. Oddly enough they figure someone else would be better at managing the fruit of their life's work rather than themselves. If that isn't a parallel for the welfare state mentality I don't know what is. With the government giving people tax deferred accounts, it actually makes them think that they feel smart for doing it.

I work for a big bank. My main concern with the entire financial adviser system is that it is sales nor service focused. Very few financial advisers are really financial advisers, but are rather sales people of financial products. Unless you have a lot of money, and can hire someone really smart to manage your money (or just manage your own), things are not going to work out well for you. I once saw a student, having very little income so little or not tax write off for a registered investment, who was borrowing at (not short term) 4.5 percent so they could buy a GIC and get 0.75 percent interest back. Why not just keep your money under the mattress and write us a check every month!


Ehud, I think it is a frustration born of ignorance, they do not yet realize that at least for your status in the life, the only one who watches your back is yourself. So they blame their enablers. People keep talking about people losing their homes, well I work a lot and spend very little, and that is why I can afford a home of modest size and value. I have little feelings of compassion for those losing the houses they never earned. So you have two options in your financial life, 1. be very conservative with spending and financial decisions unless you have a great deal of faith in your own abilities; 2. risk and hopefully your luck and abilities will see you to a better position or come to ruin. We should stop socializing the financial system, it is the only way to bring back this normal discipline.

By the way--I hate white collar work, any other jobs which pay okay that anyone might recommend?

I agree, you have to take responsibility yourself. But I do think Goldman recent blog about the the ratings system does spell a role for some form of expert opinion. http://blog.atimes.net/?p=1337 On the other hand I am no expert, but simple logic spelled out that housing prices could not go up forever. But other people are interested in otherthings: I am writing on this forum!

[total issues]

I am surprised how little violence there has been against the bankers. Here in the UK "Fred the Shred" Goodwin's house has been the exception. That is because two events made him a useful scapegoat:
- total lack of contrition on his part when his leadership wrecked RBS
- the fact that Lord Myers, the government minister responsible for the ensuing taxpayers bailout, obviously saw nothing wrong with Sir Fred retiring on a pension of a million a year. But then he was a banker himself.

Further to the bailouts and the ensuing market recoveries, the arrogance and sense of entitlement of the financiers seems quite undimmed - and politicians still seem in awe of them. This is at a time when inequality in the UK seems to be at its highest level since WW2, and the poor have helped to transfer more of their little wealth to the rich through bailouts. Essentially, the only ones who are perceived to have benefited from the crash are those who caused it in the first place.

Now that is untrue - a long lasting liquidity trap would have taken down the bankers, but everyone else as well. Moreover even the general public is aware that the UK has been living quite comfortably on immoral earnings, on the croupier's cut of the global casino that is the City. Tax their bonuses? Fine, they simply plan to move to Switzerland: now the devil has many mansions, but as well as his Fallujah residence he seems to have one in Zug, as Ibrahim pointed out on another thread. Handy for Davos as well.

A big difference between Americans and Europeans is that the former regard socialism as immoral - while Europeans regard it as more moral than capitalism, but that unfortunately it does not work. Left wing sentiment has not revived in this downturn in the way one expected. If capitalism does not benefit the masses either, and there are no mainstream alternatives, then it's either fascism or cynicism. As the former seems (fortunately) unlikely, then in the week of J.D. Salinger's death, we shall simply be nurturing a generation of grown up Holden Caulfields. Violence might seem preferable.

[Simple Minded]

From a previous email discussion with friends:

The power struggle may have just begun. Does Obama pull a Clinton and triangulate towards the center, or does he double down and push harder? Should get even more interesting. It won't surprise me a bit to see the masks and the kid gloves come off soon.

Previously we talked about generational change, if we are seeing a repeat of the 1930s zeitgeist, Ken's take is the Bankers/Wall Streeters will be the new persecuted class and my take is the unions will be the new brown shirts.

Obama himself said that "people see me as a Rorschach Test, they project whatever they want onto me." A very good thing when times are good, a very bad thing when times are bad!

I'm sticking with my earlier assertion, candidates/presidents are merely indicators, zeitgeist is the engine of change.

Obama won MA by 26 points, Brown won by 5 on the eve of Obama's first anniversary. The late night comedy shows are now mocking Obama (Elliott Wave indicator). He has fallen from grace and the MSM that created him is starting to taste blood in the water.

As Eric Hoffer predicted in the The True Believer, the more rabid/evangelical the supporters, the more viciously they will turn on their Annointed One when proves to be only human, and they perceive him to be selling out to the old guard.

Interestingly enough, Obama himself said he "chose his friends carefully in college" to avoid being perceived as a "sell out." He understands the mindset. Obama has allied himself with some very intense people over the last two decades. People who play hardball. He has thrown more than a few of them under the bus in the last 18 months.

I know more than a few intelligent, otherwise rational people who were swept away by the zeitgeist and convinced that all that was wrong in the world was Bush's fault and the Obama would be a panacea. As the campaign hit evangelical fervor, and his supporters/MSM declared him to be a deity (another EW indicator), I observed that when "Obama gets hamstrung by the political establishment/institutional checks and balances, he will be perceived as a "sellout" by his former supporters. Voter backlash and his political opponents will be then be the least of his problems."

The MA election and his one year anniversary may have indicated that Obama's honeymoon is now over. If the less enthusiastic in the Dem party decide he doesn't have the horsepower to get the job done, they will abandon him. His more rabid. long term supporters have a lot more invested in Obama. They may decide that since "we created his presidency, we can destroy his presidency."

Politcal relationships are fragile, emotional, and ephemeral. Simple observation of history and human nature.

[Simple Minded]

Cargo33,

I must agree with you. I have very little trust in the mutual fund industry. I do my own research on trends and then find a stock broker who does his own research and as long as his trends are matching up with mine I'll let him choose the individual shares with my oversight. Currently, I'm with someone who is more international and resource focused. When I feel the trends have changed my strategy will change, if he isn't on board as well I won't stick with him.

There is a great fear when it comes to finance. Money brings up so many emotional issues that aren't dealt with so they sublet that part of their life to someone else. Oddly enough they figure someone else would be better at managing the fruit of their life's work rather than themselves. If that isn't a parallel for the welfare state mentality I don't know what is. With the government giving people tax deferred accounts, it actually makes them think that they feel smart for doing it.

I work for a big bank. My main concern with the entire financial adviser system is that it is sales nor service focused. Very few financial advisers are really financial advisers, but are rather sales people of financial products. Unless you have a lot of money, and can hire someone really smart to manage your money (or just manage your own), things are not going to work out well for you. I once saw a student, having very little income so little or not tax write off for a registered investment, who was borrowing at (not short term) 4.5 percent so they could buy a GIC and get 0.75 percent interest back. Why not just keep your money under the mattress and write us a check every month!


Ehud, I think it is a frustration born of ignorance, they do not yet realize that at least for your status in the life, the only one who watches your back is yourself. So they blame their enablers. People keep talking about people losing their homes, well I work a lot and spend very little, and that is why I can afford a home of modest size and value. I have little feelings of compassion for those losing the houses they never earned. So you have two options in your financial life, 1. be very conservative with spending and financial decisions unless you have a great deal of faith in your own abilities; 2. risk and hopefully your luck and abilities will see you to a better position or come to ruin. We should stop socializing the financial system, it is the only way to bring back this normal discipline.

Amen, the biggest problem with capitalism is that it requires a sense of personal responsibility. If you bet wrong, or if you don't play by the rules, you lose, you take your lumps like a man and hopefully learn not to be so foolish next time.

Going broke or going to prison is the hangover that prevents future drinking binges.

The recent game of privatizing profits and socializing losses is not capitalism.

As CD ( and other parents) have noted, instilling a sense of personal responsibility in a human is not a easy task.

Unfortunately, the concept of personal responsibility is at a pretty low level in the Western Hemisphere.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of their folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer

[Simple Minded]

I am surprised how little violence there has been against the bankers.

A big difference between Americans and Europeans is that the former regard socialism as immoral - while Europeans regard it as more moral than capitalism, but that unfortunately it does not work. Left wing sentiment has not revived in this downturn in the way one expected. .

Be patient TI, I don't think we have hit bottom yet. Note who in the US has recently been inciting the masses against the wealthy. Once that brush fire is set, it may get out of control fairly quickly.

As some one noted, the desire for Socialism is a bear market indicator (pessimistic social mood), it is the desire for power over other men. The desire for Capitalism is a bull market indicator (optimistic social mood), it is the desire for power over nature.

The increasing desire for Socialism in the Western Hemisphere that Ambrose Evans Pritchard and others have noted is still a leading indicator, IMO. There are many pitchforks that have yet to be unsheathed.

[DodgerUSA]

The problem is that the President of the United States is targeting bankers as the cause of the financial crisis. The President is trying to marginalize bankers and at the same time deflect public anger away from himself. He doesn't care if bankers become persona non grata -- as long as he can potentially get re-elected. If things get worse, bankers are going to feel the repercussions because of irresponsible and dangerous President.

[Simple Minded]

The problem is that the President of the United States is targeting bankers as the cause of the financial crisis. The President is trying to marginalize bankers and at the same time deflect public anger away from himself. He doesn't care if bankers become persona non grata -- as long as he can potentially get re-elected. If things get worse, bankers are going to feel the repercussions because of irresponsible and dangerous President.

It is easier to whip a mob up into a state of frenzy, directing and controlling the angry mob is more difficult. I'm sure more than one rabble rouser has fallen prey to his own zealous supporters.

[Ehud]

Simple Mind,

I think you underestimate the true breadth of the power struggle involved. Now that municipalities and state are going bankrupt (California is Greece X 4) the lack of resources going to nurture and sustain public employees (ie, the Democratic Party base) will force political parties into mutually exclusive camps. Democrats will want to protect their base by shielding them from economic realities through increasing taxes on the productive sector. Republicans will grow more and more as the party of the private sector whose purpose is to protect business and individuals from Government predations. I conclude that this situation will foster only gridlock and the path of least resistance will be the same conclusion as what has existed until now. Pile up more debt while the Fed continues to devalue.

This suits the banks just fine. The broker-dealers get to broker US Treasuries while their debts are inflated away and the middle class sees their standard of living fall steadily throughout the next decade.

So in all actuality, except for a few instances, it will be the bankers at the top of the food chain and ironically the public employees unions will be their brownshirts.

From a previous email discussion with friends:

The power struggle may have just begun. Does Obama pull a Clinton and triangulate towards the center, or does he double down and push harder? Should get even more interesting. It won't surprise me a bit to see the masks and the kid gloves come off soon.

Previously we talked about generational change, if we are seeing a repeat of the 1930s zeitgeist, Ken's take is the Bankers/Wall Streeters will be the new persecuted class and my take is the unions will be the new brown shirts.

Obama himself said that "people see me as a Rorschach Test, they project whatever they want onto me." A very good thing when times are good, a very bad thing when times are bad!

I'm sticking with my earlier assertion, candidates/presidents are merely indicators, zeitgeist is the engine of change.

Obama won MA by 26 points, Brown won by 5 on the eve of Obama's first anniversary. The late night comedy shows are now mocking Obama (Elliott Wave indicator). He has fallen from grace and the MSM that created him is starting to taste blood in the water.

As Eric Hoffer predicted in the The True Believer, the more rabid/evangelical the supporters, the more viciously they will turn on their Annointed One when proves to be only human, and they perceive him to be selling out to the old guard.

Interestingly enough, Obama himself said he "chose his friends carefully in college" to avoid being perceived as a "sell out." He understands the mindset. Obama has allied himself with some very intense people over the last two decades. People who play hardball. He has thrown more than a few of them under the bus in the last 18 months.

I know more than a few intelligent, otherwise rational people who were swept away by the zeitgeist and convinced that all that was wrong in the world was Bush's fault and the Obama would be a panacea. As the campaign hit evangelical fervor, and his supporters/MSM declared him to be a deity (another EW indicator), I observed that when "Obama gets hamstrung by the political establishment/institutional checks and balances, he will be perceived as a "sellout" by his former supporters. Voter backlash and his political opponents will be then be the least of his problems."

The MA election and his one year anniversary may have indicated that Obama's honeymoon is now over. If the less enthusiastic in the Dem party decide he doesn't have the horsepower to get the job done, they will abandon him. His more rabid. long term supporters have a lot more invested in Obama. They may decide that since "we created his presidency, we can destroy his presidency."

Politcal relationships are fragile, emotional, and ephemeral. Simple observation of history and human nature.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

Simple Mind,

I think you underestimate the true breadth of the power struggle involved. Now that municipalities and state are going bankrupt (California is Greece X 4) the lack of resources going to nurture and sustain public employees (ie, the Democratic Party base) will force political parties into mutually exclusive camps. Democrats will want to protect their base by shielding them from economic realities through increasing taxes on the productive sector. Republicans will grow more and more as the party of the private sector whose purpose is to protect business and individuals from Government predations. I conclude that this situation will foster only gridlock and the path of least resistance will be the same conclusion as what has existed until now. Pile up more debt while the Fed continues to devalue.

This suits the banks just fine. The broker-dealers get to broker US Treasuries while their debts are inflated away and the middle class sees their standard of living fall steadily throughout the next decade.

So in all actuality, except for a few instances, it will be the bankers at the top of the food chain and ironically the public employees unions will be their brownshirts.

I follow all that, and it's wonderfully cynical. But what you describe above (especially the emphasized) is building a crescendo. What do you posit as its resolution?

[Ehud]

CD,

People outside and maybe even inside the US lose faith in the dollar as a means of storing wealth causing the system itself to fall apart. Keep in mind that when there is death in nature, life and hope will spring anew. It's just that the death throws are painful to watch.

I follow all that, and it's wonderfully cynical. But what you describe above (especially the emphasized) is building a crescendo. What do you posit as its resolution?

[Simple Minded]

Simple Mind,

I think you underestimate the true breadth of the power struggle involved......

So in all actuality, except for a few instances, it will be the bankers at the top of the food chain and ironically the public employees unions will be their brownshirts.

Ehud,

I appreciate your reply. First off, it is Simple Minded, not Simple Mind. Close but no cigar!

I have tried to only state a small part of what I think is the upcoming power/wealth struggle. since I don't want to scare the sane who visit this site, I restricted myself to what I perceive as the upcoming insurrection in the Democratic party.

Case in point, after one year with a super majority in Congress and the Presidente both screaming for health care and ignoring the will of the people, the impediments to pasing health care reform is...... members of the Democratic party itself.

Actually, I think it is a multi-generational shift in zeitgiest. Many more organizations will also splinter. Check with the Elliott Wave Theorists, you may agree with a lot of their opinions. Whose name did Goldman choose as his alias?

I think you have a very astute assessment of what may be headed our way, hopefully we are both wrong.

Keep your powder dry and if you know Wellington's address, please forward.

[Simple Minded]

........ wonderfully cynical.

CD,

You, my friend, are the master of deathless prose.

I humbly bow at your feet and appreciate the opportunity of studying with the Master!

"Every time I do something "they" set the bar a little higher." Michelle Obama

[Ehud]

Simple Minded,

I'm not much of a Prechter fan, but I don't need to be in order to understand what is going on. We will stick with the solutions of the Great Depression until we are forced to shake them off and begin anew with solutions that will solve this crisis.

My guess is that it will have to be a wholesale shedding of responsibility and guarantees of government as social insurer and its corresponding manipulations in the market.

Adding federal, state, local, and
GSEs, the total public debt is now at 141% of GDP.
That puts the United States in some elite company—
only Japan, Lebanon, and Zimbabwe are higher.
Add in household debt (highest in the world at 99%
of GDP) and corporate debt (highest in the world
at 317% of GDP, not even counting off-balancesheet
swaps and derivatives), and our total debt is
557% of GDP.
Add in the unfunded portion
of entitlement programs and we’re at 840% of GDP


http://www.rallc.com/ideas/pdf/Fundamentals_200911.pdf

Simple Mind,

I think you underestimate the true breadth of the power struggle involved......

So in all actuality, except for a few instances, it will be the bankers at the top of the food chain and ironically the public employees unions will be their brownshirts.

Ehud,

I appreciate your reply. First off, it is Simple Minded, not Simple Mind. Close but no cigar!

I have tried to only state a small part of what I think is the upcoming power/wealth struggle. since I don't want to scare the sane who visit this site, I restricted myself to what I perceive as the upcoming insurrection in the Democratic party.

Case in point, after one year with a super majority in Congress and the Presidente both screaming for health care and ignoring the will of the people, the impediments to pasing health care reform is...... members of the Democratic party itself.

Actually, I think it is a multi-generational shift in zeitgiest. Many more organizations will also splinter. Check with the Elliott Wave Theorists, you may agree with a lot of their opinions. Whose name did Goldman choose as his alias?

I think you have a very astute assessment of what may be headed our way, hopefully we are both wrong.

Keep your powder dry and if you know Wellington's address, please forward.

[Simple Minded]

Ehud,

I think Prechter is a good observer of social trends/zeitgeist, but what is the cause, and what is the effect is always arguable. I also think the Neil Howe's description of a four generational cycle, and the collective personalities of each generation area also interesting. The other multi-generational theme that comes to mind is the concept of the jubilee, of which I have only sparse knowledge.

But being the Simple Minded person that I am, I think it is easily explained by the death of personal responsibility, and the prevalence of the entitlement mentality. Two side of the same coin really. Again which is cause and which is effect? IMO, it is occurring thru out the Western Hemisphere, is it just "spoiled bratness" for lack of a better term. What is harder for wealthy parents than to instill a work ethic in their children?

When a large percentage of the population has been trained to believe in "square circles" and "free lunches," sustainability of anything is in doubt. Bank balances, credit, etc are only symptoms of the larger delusion.

Diana West's book The Death of the Adult comes to mind.

I work for AREVA, positioning yourself next to a nuclear plant is a good idea. The rural areas will remain civilized much longer than the urban areas. Zeitgeist will determine the value of a Mercedes or a Rolex more than anything else.