If Wall Street is excited about your candidate, perhaps you're backing the wrong candidate.

[Magoo48]

At this moment in time, what does Wall Street have to offer any Democrat?

[The Mouth]

1. My retirement is in a 401K which is in the stock market

Any suggestion whatsoever that any downturn of the market is in any way good or anyone rooting for any policies that would cause same is an asshole in my book.

I view capitalism as I do nuclear power. It is a Good Thing, it unleashes much energy that makes everyone's lives better. If unregulated, if not watched carefully by experts it turns into a living hell in the blink of an eye, but overall, the health of the market is the financial health of most of the people I know and care about.

[OKNancy]

4. I have a retirement account too. Not lucky to have a 401K

It's a traditional IRA that I contributed to 100%. It's not a lot but has helped after my husband died.
I get real annoyed when a few hint that they would like the market to fail.

Also agree with your analogy.

[Magoo48]

13. Nope

I would argue that the market and Capitalism are failing a solid majority of Americans.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

52. Warren has said she's a capitalist and she favors a system of regulated capitalism.

Do you disagree with her?

[Magoo48]

64. I'm hoping we can move past the ism discussion. All the "isms" mixed together failed the world.

We are in the downward spiral of a Climate Catastrophe and a mass extinction. Fuck the “isms” of our past, they’ve failed. Without something new and daring none of this shit will matter. I believe Liz will be more open to that something new than any of the others with a realistic chance.

[KPN]

16. My wife and I rely on our retirement investments in IRAs as well. I agree with the OP.

I personally don't buy the notion that Wall Street reform and my financial future are mutually exclusive. I do agree that accepting campaign contributions from Wall Street firms, executives and lobbyists is counterproductive to progressive economic and labor goals.

I view capitalism as a good thing as well. I also agree with your statement re: "If unregulated, if not watched carefully ...". However, I don't believe the current set of regulations or regulatory infrastructure are sufficient to ensure the safe-being of your or my retirement investments let alone ensure a financially healthy future for most Americans. I also don't believe that being dependent on retirement investments in the market (whether it's equities, bonds, or commodities) is necessarily the best means of providing Americans with a fair opportunity for a financially healthy retirement. So ... changing this starts with changing the intrinsic quid pro quo that goes with unfettered campaign contributions.

[The Mouth]

24. Well, I'm not against intelligent regulation AT ALL

I am, however utterly disgusted with any jerks and assholes who seem to treat any bad news about the market as a Good thing because it supposedly lessens the chances of Trump getting reelected.

Those who regard capitalism, in its entirety, as bad and wish to see it crash and burn as much the enemy of actual middle-class working folks (and those that wish to be) as any rethuglican.

Marxism and Communism are fine for what they are, which is philosophical constructs, sometimes containing or leading to pertinent analysis of economic situations, but anyone who actually wants them implemented is no Democrat and should go and join the CPUSA instead of infesting the genuine debate amongst adults of how to properly regulate this capitalist economic system so that it is more equitable.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

33. in the 90's, when corporations like IBM downsized, forced 401k's on employees,

the writing was on the wall. The system was completely rigged by forcing employees to depend on factors like layoffs to see your "pension" be available to you when you need it.

Getting rid of CEO's is possibly an excellent solution. Like the Oscars without a host. Just follow the rules. Or put a bot in charge, free of charge.

[Bettie]

76. You must hang with a lot of really well-off people then

because most of the people I know weren't able to put much in their 401k due to low wages, company matches tend to be pretty much nonexistent and they will have to work until the day they die because there is no great sum of cash waiting at the magical age of 65.

OK, to be fair, the mid-range boomers I know all still have defined benefit pensions waiting for them, they have already or will retire into pretty good situations.

Us? Yeah, the pittance we have in the stock market stays pretty static as the fees are generally higher than the returns.

[brooklynite]

2. Perhaps take up that question with the managers of any Union Pension Fund...

[treestar]

5. What evidence is there that "Wall Street" is "excited" about any candidate?

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Three Words: Follow The Money

But here's a clue - ask yourself if you recognize your candidate here:

+Working with Republican allies to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which put traditional “clean slate” Chapter 7 bankruptcy out of reach for millions of ordinary Americans and thousands of small businesses (2005).

+Voting against a bill that would have compelled credit card companies to warn customers of the costs of only making minimum payments.

+Honoring campaign donations from Coca-Cola by cosponsoring a bill that permitted soft-drink producers to skirt antitrust laws (1979).

+ Joining just one other Congressional Democrat to vote against a Judiciary Committee measure to increase consumers’ rights to sue corporations for price-fixing (1979).

+Strongly supporting the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which permitted the re-merging of investment and commercial banking by repealing the Depression-era Glass–Steagall Act. (This helped create the 2007-8 financial crisis and subsequent recession.)

+ Voting to rollback bankruptcy protections for college graduates (1978) and vocational school graduates (1984) with federal student loans.

[KPN]

19. + 11111

[guillaumeb]

28. Very well said. eom

[treestar]

31. Well that's certainly putting the worst spin

on each item. Obviously, that candidate wants the rich to get richer and the rest of us to get poorer. Oh, wait. That's Trump.

Chapter 7s are not "out of reach" for anybody.

You shouldn't have a credit card if you can't figure out that the minimum payment will let interest add up. It shouldn't take but one missed payment to figure that out.

The rest look complex enough for me to say some research will show those to be exaggerated or at least arguable.

We can't let everyone go bankrupt on student loans as the government loaned the money out. There's no collateral like with houses. I see there is a question to be argued about at least, and there is still a hardship provision. It's not anti-consumer to expect loans to be paid back, especially when we all owe them if they aren't paid. The reasonableness of those limits could be argued.

[crazytown]

37. Chapter 7s are not "out of reach" for anybody.

anybody? Care to elaborate on that?

[treestar]

39. At most there is a filing fee and if you have trouble with that

you can pay that in installments or even have it waived if your income is low enough. Then you list your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. You take a couple of courses - there is a charge for them but not enough to be prohibitive for anybody.

If your income is high enough, you might be required to use Chapter 13, where you make payments. But your income has to be more than average for state and household size. There have been people who abused the process in the past (high enough income to make some type of payment - Chapter 13); used bankruptcy to discharge alimony or property division to a spouse in a divorce, run up consumer debt just before the bankruptcy knowing they would be able to discharge it, or in some states, keep an expensive residence while discharging debt to other creditors.

[crazytown]

40. Your "high income" is last years IRS declaration

so if've you've lost your job, or struck down by illness, you can't file Chapter 7. When the Great Recession hit, the Bankruptcy Act cost millions their homes.

[treestar]

59. Your current income is counted

Not last year's income. People file Chapter 7 all the time when they were struck down by illness and uninsured. People who lose jobs don't always have so much debt that they want to file, but they can. A Great Recession will always cause that problem and when it happened in the last recession, federal and state laws were passed to deal with that. Foreclosure cases now have to file more forms and conduct mediation to see if there was a way to solve the problem. The Bankruptcy Act did not cause any such thing; the recession did. In a Chapter 7 you liquidate, and each state has different laws, but generally, people can exempt their residence. Every Chapter 7 allows exemptions - property you don't have to liquidate.

[crazytown]

61. Better Bankruptcy Laws Could Make Recessions Less Painful

https://www.barrons.com/articles/better-bankruptcy-laws-could-make-recessions-less-painful-51561742595

Pennsylvania, require(s) debtors to forfeit almost everything they own, including the entire value of their homes, in exchange for protection from creditors.

[TwilightZone]

35. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican more recently than when many of those events occurred.

If you're going to base your decisions on where the candidates stood 40 years ago, Warren isn't your candidate.

Of course, that would be ridiculous.

[Magoo48]

18. Why else Wall Street mavens host fundraisers?

[LincolnRossiter]

6. Wall Street will survive. There's nothing to celebrate if they "love" your candidate.

There’s also nothing to celebrate if they hate your candidate. That’s probably a bad sign for the economy. Good thing most of our candidates are pragmatists who can both rein-in and work with Wall Street. Biden chief among them.

Like Barack.

[DrFunkenstein]

10. During 2008, companies that received $295 billion in bailout money spent $114 million on lobbying

Now that's what I call value for your money.

[LincolnRossiter]

11. If they all went down, we would have been in a 1930s Great Depression--worldwide.

And with no New Deal or Great War to bail us out.

[crazytown]

38. 'bailouts'are loans, not a donation

come to think of it bundled donations are loans as well

[Magoo48]

20. I would suggest One either reigns in Wall Street or works with them, not both.

[George II]

7. What is "Wall Street"?

[crazytown]

84. A wolf!

My favorite movie!

[ehrnst]

8. Which candidate are you referring to? (nt)

[Magoo48]

22. Not yours. It's a sliding scale with Joe at the top.

[wasupaloopa]

12. That was a Bernie attack on Hillary which was bull shit.

[BlueMississippi]

14. Wall Street is not just tycoons

Average moms, pops, small businesses, unions and workers all have money invested in wall street.

Some ultra left people make it look like wall street is full of rotund rich people sitting on a yacht, smoking cigars and sipping cognac. In reality, when wall street invests it has to do it to make sure average people make money. It is a succeed or perish jungle and a stressful task made especially difficult by an ignorant and petulant president who is completely unpredictable.

Wall Street would kill to have a reasonable Democrat win just to get out of the misery.

[Magoo48]

15. Wall Street is the figurehead for American greed. From that disgusting golden bull,

to captains of finance and industry who power extraction capitalism, it is corrupt and bloodstained.

[BlueMississippi]

23. If you got an idea for a new product

and want to bring it to market .... who will provide the capital?

Wall street is simply a capital formation and disbursement vehicle that ordinary people use to vet new technologies, do due diligence on existing technologies, invest for growth and profitability, help manage the capital resources and then return the gains to the same average people who have invested for retirement, children's college education or are saving for down payment.

"Greed" is a charged yet meaningless word. It is also relative. To a hungry person, someone eating a taco at Taco Bell appears greedy. To someone who owns a Mercedes, someone owning a Rolls Royce appears greedy.

Wall street should be strictly regulated so that monopolistic excesses and gouging are thwarted. The answer is "regulation" and not demonizing wall street with charged proletariat terms like "greed."

[Blue_true]

34. This is where I disagree with you some, although you made excellent points.

A person that has a novel idea or product basically gets ignored by Wall Street today.

When it was initially set up, early Wall Street did just what you said. Goldman-Sachs was at one time two seperate companies that issued bonds to raise money for new ideas, say a new idea like burlap flour sacks that allowed milling companies to mass market flour to stores and homes, or an ice plant that allowed people to keep perishable food cold in ice-boxes. The effort built the country and the firms held the bonds themselves until they were paid off.

Then at some point, along came securitization, where firms like Goldman or Sachs could make secondary securities from packages of bonds, or companies could issue stock that mostly initially enriched the companies' principals, so different classes of stock was conjured up to allow principals to maintain an iron grip on companies. Then along came men like JP Morgan, who were not immune to using their wealth to steal other people's ideas (or at least take as much of them as legally possible).

Risk investment in new companies or new ideas today is done by the individuals themselves, or by venture capital firms (and those firms want "sure" winners, not brilliant but blue-sky ideas (though occasionally firms take a flyers on an Apple or an online book seller that has the nerve to call itself Amazon).

What I would like to see more of is Wall Street getting back to it's founding ideas.

[BlueMississippi]

36. Now they spread the risk via several Venture Capital companies

Many successful tech companies started this way -- including google, ebay, paypal and others

The money in VC funds mainly comes from wall street

[Blue_true]

82. I won't debate you on where the money comes from, you are most likely solid on that.

The issue that I have is the search for "sure winners" to back, so VC firms and Wall Street back "known" people that do startups and they never back fundamental research that may never yield a product, but has a history of leading to companies like Google, eBay, PayPal, Amazon, ect, ALL who depend on that seed idea called the "Worldwide Web" that was funded by government when it's utility was questionable.

If we are going to get a true full-cycle clean energy invention, or inventions that help turn back the danger of climate change, we are going to need ideas that seem wild and unrealistic, but whose thinkers see that hidden kernel that others can conceptualize - Wall Street does not fund that type of stuff today, but at it's incarnation, did. Neither do the VC firms that Wall Street send some money into fund those types of distant ideas, but ideas that historically have lead to massive breakthrus and enormous benefit to societies.

[BlueMississippi]

87. There are many biotech firms started with VC money as well

Genentech and Chiron to name a couple

[Blue_true]

88. Both were started up by "known" researchers, who got their cred on a government funded payroll.

They won't back the small group of unknowns that are self-funding their research out of their own pockets, and my point is that is a major problem that has vastly limited the pace of innovation. It used to not be that way when Wall Street originated, the possibilities of a new idea could and often did draw Wall Strert funding.

[BlueMississippi]

89. There are massive due diligence departments in various VC firms

They want to make money like any other investor. They will back anyone if it is a good, solid, marketable and credible idea which will make money. It helps to be connected and have credentials, sure -- but it is not always necessary.

[Blue_true]

91. Some of the dominant things today were not considered to be "marketable" ideas that could make

"money". Among that list, the Internet, and Alternating Current electricity. The Internet started as a government funded thing used mostly by the US military early on (along with a few government researchers).

Alternating current electricity took years to be seen as the most efficient was to distribute electricity from power generating locations like waterfalls, Westinghouse backed Tesla and almost went broke doing so. AC power took off when JP Morgan saw opportunity and largely pushed Westinghouse back (by buying up loans that Westinghouse had outstanding, including on his home) and created General Electric to produce and distribute AC power, as well as develop things like equipment that ran off of it. Had it not been for Tesla and Westinghouse basically self funding the idea, we may not have AC power today (Thomas Edison famously electrocuted a large animal to "show" that AC power was very dangerous and that people should stay with DC power, the "money" backed Edison because he was better known and respected than Tesla).

[The Mouth]

25. Wall Street has done just fine under previous Democratic administrations

[Magoo48]

29. And, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[The Mouth]

30. A very Good thing

Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2019, 09:12 PM - Edit history (1)

in my opinion, and that of a whole lot of people.

Pretty much every Union member with a pension has a good chunk of that pension based on the perormance of the market.

[Blue_true]

32. Great points.

If a person has wealth, where is that person supposed to put it, dig a hole and bury it in the back yard?

The issue with Wall Street isn't Wall Street, the issue is that too many there have lost their way. Originally Wall Street and stocks were a way for getting money into the economy via investment in businesses and government infrastructure projects. Wall Street progressively became a place where stocks and bonds trade with little connection to getting money into the hands of companies and governments (in theory that happened initially, but instead of being held, stocks and bonds are securitized and traded around like bacon.

[betsuni]

17. It's a street in New York City. Streets don't get excited.

[Magoo48]

21. Sorry, it was a metaphor,

a metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another.

[betsuni]

41. Ah, so it's not a real enemy.

[Magoo48]

46. no more than Mrs. O'Leary's cow

Avoidance tactics can be entertaining but lead nowhere.

[melman]

69. Sen. Warren seems to understand

Link to tweet

[Bradical79]

73. Correct. The actual pavement is probably not out to get you.

[ehrnst]

44. For investments? For retirement accounts? For 529 accounts? Life insurance?

Because you're not simply talking about a few guys with cigars and brandy when you talk about "]Wall Street" as a metaphor.

Perhaps you weren't affected by the recession of 2008, but anyone who did will tell you that it's more than just that.

It doesn't mean that one should be in their pocket, or gear all benefits to the wealthy, but Wall Street is an industry with tendrils in just about every major financial transaction or saving account, which are the source of political donations for many.

You sit at the table and negotiate with the financial industry, you don't 'declare war' on it, because of the civilian casualties.

And before you go there, sitting at the table and negotiating does not = being in bed with them.

[melman]

26. Are you pretending not to know what Wall Street means?

That's delightful.

[ehrnst]

45. Perhaps the person that was being responded to was being

uneccessarily vague, and the question illustrated that for them.

Does that clear things up for you?

[melman]

66. No

That doesn't clear up anything at all.

[ehrnst]

67. Well, I tried.

[melman]

68. Did you?

I didn't really get a helpful vibe from that post there. Not to mention the fact that it didn't even make sense.

[tonedevil]

72. If you really did...

you needn't have bothered.

[guillaumeb]

27. Wall Street represents the interests of the 1%.

Any benefit that accrues to anyone else is merely subsidiary to that main objective.

[ehrnst]

43. Which Democratic candidate are you talking about? (nt)

[guillaumeb]

48. I am talking about Wall Street. eom

[ehrnst]

49. OK, so it doesn't have anything to do with the OP, which talks about candidates?

[guillaumeb]

50. It speaks to the fact that Wall Street has no interest in working for

Americans. In a money centered political system, which the US certainly is, money places a huge role in who is seen as a serious candidate, and what issue are seen as worthy of discussion.

For the record, I am a fan of Elizabeth Warren and her stands on the issues in general. She would make an excellent President.

[ehrnst]

51. Do you think that the OP is referring to any candidate in particular? (nt)

[guillaumeb]

79. I cannot, or will not, speculate on any motives of the poster.

[treestar]

60. Too oversimplified.

Wall Street has no conscience in itself - it would not be dedicated to the one percent any more than to anyone else. It reflects big business' success, which many people depend on who are not part of the 1%. This is likely a subject economists could write whole books about. To boil it down that way is to ignore a lot of facts and nuances.

[Magoo48]

65. I disagree.

It’s quite simple, really. There’s a massive class war raging worldwide. The 1% are pillaging and hoarding every resource their ever more corrupt political systems will allow them to access (they’re winning) while everyone else is left in a scramble on our exhausted 🌎. (99% are losing)

[treestar]

78. Taking that as true, it isn't the stock exchange itself

doing that all by itself. You could say capitalism caused the top 1% to get most of the wealth, so it needs regulation and it certainly needs regulation against fraud. The values of company stocks are still based on the performance of each company.

[Magoo48]

81. Perhaps,

I’ve always been fairly radical, and I have difficulty seeing Wall Street as anything but a self serving, insatiable beast. I don’t trust the super rich banksters and their payola addled, political lickspittles. If I’m proved wrong, and they accept harsh restrictions, I will happily admit my mistake.🤙🏽

[guillaumeb]

80. Yours, or mine?

Wall Street, meaning the trading and financial industry, serves the interests of the rich. If others also benefit, that is secondary to the main goal, which is to serve the interests of the rich even if those interests are detrimental to workers in general.

[Joe941]

42. I have a 401k. I need it to do well so I can retire without eating dog food.

Stocks are not out enemy.

[Kingofalldems]

47. Wall Street is excited about Sanders?

[LiberalLovinLug]

57. Sanders platform is almost the same as Warrens

Warren is just marketing it as regulated capitalism, rather than democratic socialism, for optics. Which is probably smart.

Sanders uses Nordic countries as his example.

I don't know a lot about stock exchanges, but Googling around, it seems like the Swedish stock exchange, the Nasdaq Stockholm, is doing quite well. Record trading and bonds for 2017 and 2018.

https://business.nasdaq.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/1663236/record-year-for-listings-on-nasdaqs-nordic-markets
https://business.nasdaq.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/1630705/record-number-of-listings-reached-at-nasdaq-nordic-markets
https://business.nasdaq.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/1668807/record-year-for-nasdaqs-nordic-bond-markets

Seems like capitalists do quite well under Bernie's version of "socialism"

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. I'm retired. I need the markets to do well

in order to preserve my modest nest egg. I want to be able to buy cat food for my cats and not have to eat it myself. Like most of the Democratic candidates I favor a system of regulated capitalism in which the playing field is reasonably level for small investors as well as large ones, and a taxation system that places a fair burden on corporations and wealthy individuals. Anything wrong with that?

[Kurt V.]

54. ppl are conflating wall street, capitalism and the market in this thread. that is actual problem.

[stonecutter357]

55. you seem very concerned !

[Hoyt]

56. Get what you are saying, and agree up to a point. But, if we want healthcare, education, free

colleges, college debt reduction, jobs, climate change reduction, infrastructure, income for those displaced by automation, reduction in deficits and national debt, bolstering Social Security, and much more, business needs to do well.

Now, I'd tax the heck out of wealthy when they are doing well. But fact is that most of us work for businesses and, indirectly, Wall Street.

[Demsrule86]

58. I have a 401K...and a mortgage from a bank...geez.

You have to have an economy...we need regulation of banks and other financial institutions...not destruction.

[Magoo48]

63. Does Joe have a history of taking meaningful regulatory action against Banks?

[tonedevil]

70. ROTFLMAO /nt

[Aaron Pereira]

75. Breaking up the big banks isn't the same as destroying the economy is it?

That particular move has been advocated by two former CEO's of Citibank as the best option for the long term health of the economy and to minimize the odds of another taxpayer bailout.

[Demsrule86]

92. I don't want to break up the banks...regulation not destruction...we will lose wall Street and yes

it will destroy the economy or hurt it badly... I do not agree that it is a good idea to do this...one of the reasons I don't support Sanders or Warren in the primary...destroy insurance company jobs...MFA, destroy banking jobs...break up the banks. We can't lose that many jobs. I consider both well intentioned but the plans just won't work for the economy.

[crazytown]

62. Wall Street is certainly 'excited' by Elizabeth Warren

and after two Wells Fago CEOs were forced to resign after she took them to the woodshed in Committee, they have good reason to be very excited.

[Bradical79]

71. Yes, it's defenitely something to look at

When "Wall Street" is excited, it's probably because they think de-regulation is coming. The sort of de-regulation that built up to the '08 crash, hurting a lot of peoples' livelihoods and retirements.

[BeyondGeography]

74. People seem confused about "Wall Street"

Wall Street is shareholder values on steroids. It’s 94% of every profit dollar being channeled to a small group of major shareholders via stock buybacks and dividends while your income moves sideways. It is the engine of income and wealth inequality.

Yeah, if you’re lucky enough to have a 401k and were able to stick to your guns over the years, you may have had a nice little ride yourself, but this is Milton Friedman’s world and the vast majority of Americans have been left behind. So much so that even the Business Roundtable now seems to realize that what’s good for Wall Street is not necessarily good for America.

One candidate, of course, has been very clear on this issue:

Link to tweet

[Magoo48]

83. Wall Street banksters find ways to skim the financial cream off the top of everything

while leaving their institutions near destitute just below the surface. Think 2008.

[betsuni]

85. It's become a shadowy all-powerful enemy instead of an industry that can be regulated if

Democrats have majorities in the legislature.

Warren knows what to do, it doesn't require magic or the supernatural. Only one candidate goes on and on about enemies who will "stop at nothing" to thwart him, and that the Democratic Party doesn't want to regulate the financial industry because they are corrupt. "Billionaires twisting mustaches, adjusting monocles, and jealously guarding their 'rigged system.'"

[BeyondGeography]

86. I always had a high comfort level with her nt

[Iwasthere]

77. Confused? I simply moved my entire IRA into gold and silver ETFs

And my wife moved hers mostly into a silver ETF. Wasn't hard. Did it it all online (Charles Schwab accounts). Another route would be EV battery stocks or Meat Alternative stocks. Many experts caum gold will reach $20,000 and silver will do even better. At the very least we are safe.

[BlueMississippi]

90. Charles Schwab and ETFsare wall street phenomena

Good luck with the gold though -- it is no longer a hedge against currency deflation as it used to be -- since most of the "gold" exists on paper only and large speculators manipulate the markets.

If I were you, I'd have no more than 10% of the portfolio in commodities. Equities are still king.