[quote=pri_dk]Yes, start by seizing all the assets of everyone on Wall Street. (Ignore the fact that more than 99.999% of them have broken no laws.)
Let’s start with Rich T. – he’s one of them investment guys, right? I hear he makes good money trading and hedging and all that fancy stuff that causes booms and busts. Hell, the bubble didn’t even put a dent in his income – just look at that chart!
Of course, now that there’s no Wall Street, there’s no place for CalPERS or CalSTRS to put their money, so there’s no growth which means the shortfalls are now gonna be ten times bigger.
And since the public-sector employees have already taken a cut it wouldn’t be right to take any more from them, so we’ll have to go to Wall Street…oh shit we just took all the Wall Street money but still need lots more – so where we gonna get the money to pay Park Ranger Smith her $70K a year for life? (after all, she just turned 50 – you don’t expect her to still have to work the entry kiosk at Anza Borrego, do you?)
(hint: it’s taxpayers).[/quote]
Firstly, I’m not talking about Rich. He had nothing to do with causing the financial crisis. As a matter of fact, he was trying to warn everyone about it well before the “housing bubble” issue became mainstream. I also have made 100% of my income from investments, so am clearly not biased against *everyone* in the financial industry. That being said, there is no question that what many “investors” (including myself) do is completely unproductive and simply takes money from the more productive part of the economy.
No, not *everyone* on Wall Street, but you’re naive to think that only .001% knew what was going on.
Let’s start with those who absolutely knew what they were doing. Their actions are already well documented by multiple investigators and journalists. The only reason they are still sailing around the world on their yachts and making *record* profits is because they have corrupted our legal system. Start with those first.
CalPERS and CalSTRS are capable of making money without having to use massive leverage and without having to take on enourmous risks. Yes, yields would be lower, contribution rates would be higher, and benefit amounts would be lower. I have no problem with that at all. But in a world like that, there would also be far less asset price appreciation (the least productive, but most lucrative, type of income). This would make workers’ paychecks go much further than they do now, and it would have the added benefit of reducing the wealth disparity that is causing so many of our economic and social problems.
