Wall Street .vs. Main Street

ClimateSanity

New member
theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/08/07/two-divergent-platforms-donald-trumps-main-street-vs-hillary-clintons-wall-street/

9c686dc24a158a19490ff704c16adc92.jpg



A collage of pictures of people opposed to Trump's America first economic policy .


Here is a portion of the article explaining how we moved from a main Street economy to a fake wall Street economy:

♦ In most of the modern post-war industrial era (1950-1980) banking was a boring job and only slide rule bean-counters and actuarial accountants moved into that sector of the workforce. Most people don’t like math – these were not exciting jobs. Inside the most boring division of a boring banking industry were the bond departments within the larger bank and finance companies.

The excitement was in the actual economy of Main Street business. The giants of industry created businesses, built things, manufactured products, created innovation and originated internal domestic wealth in a fast-paced real economy. Natural peaks and economic valleys, as the GDP expanded and contracted, based on internal economic factors of labor, energy, monetary policy and regulation.

Main Street generated the pool of political candidates*– because the legislative conduct of politicians had more impact on Main Street.* Simply, the business agents had a vested interest in political determinations. Political candidates courted industrialists, business owners, and capitalist giants to support them. As a consequence Main Street USA was in control of DC outcomes.

Despite the liberal talking points to the contrary, this relationship was a natural synergy of business interests and political influence. It just made sense that way, and the grown-ups were generally in charge of it.

*Commercial banks courted businesses because bankers needed deposits. Without deposits banks could not generate loans; without loans banks could not generate profits…. and so it was. By rule only 10 percent of a commercial bank’s income could stem from securities.

One exception to this 10% rule was that commercial banks could underwrite government-issued bonds. Investment banks (the bond division) were entirely separate entities. The Glass-Steagall banking laws of 1932 kept it that way.

However, mid 1970’s bank regulators began issuing Glass–Steagall interpretations -that were upheld by courts- and permitted banks and their affiliates to engage in an increasing variety and amount of securities activities. After years of continual erosion of the Glass-Steagall firewall, eventually it disappeared.

This became the origin of the slow-motion explosion of investment banking. If you look back historically from today toward 1980 (ish) what you will find is this is also the ultimate fork where*economic globalism*began overtaking*economic nationalism.

Banks could now make money, much more money, from investment divisions issuing paper financial transactions, not necessarily dependent on actual physical assets. The transactions grew exponentially.

The bond market portion ultimately led to the ’07/’08 housing collapse, and derivative trading (collateralized debt obligations or CDO’s) generated trillions of paper dollars. Long before the ’08 collapse, business schools in 1980 began calling this the second economy (a false economy, or the invisible economy).

The second economy, which ultimately became the global economy, is also the Wall Street investment economy. Two divergent economies: Wall Street (paper), and Main Street (real).

There is no real property, real capital, real tangible assets in the Wall Street economy. The false economy is based on trades and financial transactions, essentially opinions. Paper shifts, and buys and sells based on predictions and bets (derivatives).

Insurance products create an even larger subdivision within the false economy as hedgers wagered on negative outcomes. The money wagered is exponential – some say more than a quadrillion currently floats.

♦ Now you realize, in hindsight, there had to be a point where the value of the second economy (Wall Street) surpassed*the value of the first economy (Main Street). Investments, and the bets therein, needed to expand outside of the USA. hence, globalist investing.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
The second economy, which ultimately became the global economy, is also the Wall Street investment economy. Two divergent economies: Wall Street (paper), and Main Street (real).

There is no real property, real capital, real tangible assets in the Wall Street economy. The false economy is based on trades and financial transactions, essentially opinions. Paper shifts, and buys and sells based on predictions and bets (derivatives).

Insurance products create an even larger subdivision within the false economy as hedgers wagered on negative outcomes. The money wagered is exponential – some say more than a quadrillion currently floats.

♦ Now you realize, in hindsight, there had to be a point where the value of the second economy (Wall Street) surpassed*the value of the first economy (Main Street). Investments, and the bets therein, needed to expand outside of the USA. hence, globalist investing.

I'm ignoring the Trump part but I agree with some of the general idea about Wall St vs Main St. I'd support putting some tighter controls on some of the funny business that goes on in the investment world.
 

ClimateSanity

New member
I'm ignoring the Trump part but I agree with some of the general idea about Wall St vs Main St. I'd support putting some tighter controls on some of the funny business that goes on in the investment world.
Would you agree our economy has been run by wall Street from bush 1 to the end of Obamas presidency?
 

rexlunae

New member
Based on your opening post it started before that.

Long, long before that. It's always been our banking capital...and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when the banks are too powerful, too unaccountable, and held in too few hands.
 

rexlunae

New member
No. What else you want to know?

Just that Trump has been hiring exactly the people you would expect if he were going to serve Wall Street. He had called himself the King of Debt, which helps Wall Street. And he and other Republicans have been trying to roll back banking regulations which Wall Street have wanting to do away with since they were passed (Dodd-Frank). It's true that Clinton wasn't as strong against the banks as Obama, and Obama wasn't as strong as some other like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, but she would have been far better than Trump or any other Republican.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Long, long before that. It's always been our banking capital...and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when the banks are too powerful, too unaccountable, and held in too few hands.
The power of banks may be part of the problems but I read this as being more about the types of things investors can do.
 

ClimateSanity

New member
Just that Trump has been hiring exactly the people you would expect if he were going to serve Wall Street. He had called himself the King of Debt, which helps Wall Street. And he and other Republicans have been trying to roll back banking regulations which Wall Street have wanting to do away with since they were passed (Dodd-Frank). It's true that Clinton wasn't as strong against the banks as Obama, and Obama wasn't as strong as some other like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, but she would have been far better than Trump or any other Republican.
He has been hiring people who are in the establishment economy. He uses them to know what the other side thinks and how it operates. He hasn't implemented any of their ideas yet so that has to tell you something.
 

ClimateSanity

New member
The power of banks may be part of the problems but I read this as being more about the types of things investors can do.
It's all about trading in things that have no physicality backing them up. That never serves the worker and invites disaster.
 

rexlunae

New member
He has been hiring people who are in the establishment economy. He uses them to know what the other side thinks and how it operates. He hasn't implemented any of their ideas yet so that has to tell you something.

These are people with real power over the system, not presidential advisers. Steve Mnuchin is really the Treasury Secretary, and he really controls how the government chooses to enforce the laws against banks, and he is also really a Goldman Sachs alum with a history of shady foreclosures. Trump business have been fined by Treasury in the last few years. This is a direct example of putting the fox in charge of the hen house. If Trump wants people who understand the system to advise him, that's a fine theory, until you realize that they're in positions of power, and not advisership.
 

ClimateSanity

New member
It's always had an out-sized influence on the country's economy, and thus, society. I'm not sure what your criteria for being a fake economy are.
Anything not based in actual wealth. Examples of actual wealth: manufacturing goods. Farmed goods. Anything you can purchase with money that has weight to it.
 

rexlunae

New member
Anything not based in actual wealth. Examples of actual wealth: manufacturing goods. Farmed goods. Anything you can purchase with money that has weight to it.

Could you give me an example of what that would be? What are you calling actual wealth? Where does money fit? Are you thinking of it as wealth?
 

ClimateSanity

New member
These are people with real power over the system, not presidential advisers. Steve Mnuchin is really the Treasury Secretary, and he really controls how the government chooses to enforce the laws against banks, and he is also really a Goldman Sachs alum with a history of shady foreclosures. Trump business have been fined by Treasury in the last few years. This is a direct example of putting the fox in charge of the hen house. If Trump wants people who understand the system to advise him, that's a fine theory, until you realize that they're in positions of power, and not advisership.
Name one thing Mnuchin has enacted that is not in accord with Trump's America first policy?
 
Top