The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

[c1ue]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

The above narrative is relevant in that it is an obvious propagandistic attempt to frame the discussion and the thinking of the public, that is precisely why it was published.

I fear the conclusions you drew from the article are polar opposite to what I drew.

It is not that Ames agrees with the Nihilist. (he does not as clearly indicated at the end)

It is not that the Nihilist is right. (or wrong)

It is that this may very well be the attitude of those 'in charge'.

And if indeed it is accurate, this is the problem.

Similarly the description of the lonely libertarian, the touchy feelie hippie, the proponent for fairness, the talk about Hayek and Jekyll Island etc - this too has some ring of truth.

The purpose of the article is to possibly illustrate the attitude of the 'alternate view' from what is common on iTulip, not to push any specific agenda.

Though to be fair it is much easier for those who have less to rage like Sampson and desire to bring the Temple down.

Well said. Of course it is propaganda. You dismantle the corruption piece by piece, not all at once. You go after individuals. Their personal assets. You use one snake against the other. You never get them all but a few examples will go a long way toward producing a chilling effect on the whole scam. The same way most crimes are deterred. There is always someone standing in line to fill their shoes. This idea that they will just all take their ball and go home is a joke. Take it where? Probably a bad example, but more than one banker or Industrialist who felt they had the power to knock heads with Hitler in WWII found themselves under arrest. The rest then fell right in line.

If you couple this with the "Fraudonomics" article I posted in Rant 'N Rave, it might be more clear that it may not be possible to dis-assemble the fraud machine piece by piece.

Besides the Nihilist mentioning that Bear Stearns led to a massive loss of confidence in the economy followed by a massive loss of public savings and public consumption, it may just be that the Ponzi is so advanced that it is impossible to slice pieces off without the entire scheme unravelling.

[jneal3]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

I fear the conclusions you drew from the article are polar opposite to what I drew.

It is not that Ames agrees with the Nihilist. (he does not as clearly indicated at the end)

It is not that the Nihilist is right. (or wrong)

It is that this may very well be the attitude of those 'in charge'.

Exactly.

Henry Ford II once was heard to say, after being pulled over for suspicion of drunken driving, 'never complain, never explain'. At the time, productive-economy titans were 'in charge', as opposed to finance. To me, this quote was a window into their world-view; when you are an elite, to give in to the temptation to explain yourself was taboo in his social class and elevated those beneath you to the position of being able to judge you (I figured he picked up the phrase up from some boarding-school old money buddy, he wasn't really clever enough to come up with it on his own, and he was technically new money). Complaining led to the same result.

The attitude of those 'in charge' is not and never has been influenced by any notion of doing right by those beneath them. That is the cold reality and the 'adult' view of the world, and should be the reference frame under which any action for change is pursued.

[reggie]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

I fear the conclusions you drew from the article are polar opposite to what I drew.

It is not that Ames agrees with the Nihilist. (he does not as clearly indicated at the end)

It is not that the Nihilist is right. (or wrong)

It is that this may very well be the attitude of those 'in charge'.

And if indeed it is accurate, this is the problem.

Similarly the description of the lonely libertarian, the touchy feelie hippie, the proponent for fairness, the talk about Hayek and Jekyll Island etc - this too has some ring of truth.

The purpose of the article is to possibly illustrate the attitude of the 'alternate view' from what is common on iTulip, not to push any specific agenda.

Though to be fair it is much easier for those who have less to rage like Sampson and desire to bring the Temple down.



If you couple this with the "Fraudonomics" article I posted in Rant 'N Rave, it might be more clear that it may not be possible to dis-assemble the fraud machine piece by piece.

Besides the Nihilist mentioning that Bear Stearns led to a massive loss of confidence in the economy followed by a massive loss of public savings and public consumption, it may just be that the Ponzi is so advanced that it is impossible to slice pieces off without the entire scheme unravelling.

If the elite have absolute power, as is hypothesized, then they would not require the acquiescence of the public, as this propaganda piece serves to do.

More specifically, what this piece is asking the public to do is to align themselves with the "aggressor" (i.e. Wall Street & the DC establishment) while simultaneously mocking members of the public who demand law & order as weak tea party totelers.

The attitude of those "in-charge" (while I don't agree with that term) is commensurate with that attitudes of a sociopath, which can be described as follows:

Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless. You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world. You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences, will most likely remain undiscovered.

"The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless vs. the Rest of Us"
by Martha Stout Ph.D., a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School

In summary, this piece was designed to force people to start making choices, either to abandon the rule of law and align themselves with power, OR to fight for law and order but relegate themselves to a marginalized minority.

IMHO, this piece, and this frame, are merely the work of a weak bully, who is attempting to push the American people into a very bad set of choices. Given that frame, I think pushing the bully out of the way and letting the "adults" in the room (my definition of "adult" does not include the bullies) take over and bring normality back, irregardless of the short term consequences.

For more on the frame that I'm alluding to, I refer interested forum members to Zbigniew Brzezinski's book: "The Choice, Global Domination or Global Leadership"
(Ames' piece falls under the dialectical category of 'global leadership', which means that the public goes along with the dystopia)

[c1ue]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

If the elite have absolute power, as is hypothesized, then they would not require the acquiescence of the public, as this propaganda piece serves to do.

This is a false dichotomy: the elite can only have power with at least the acquiescence of the pubic. Because without at least acquiescence, you end up with revolution.

And again, I believe you fail to understand: the attitude illustrated is not intended to belittle the reformers, but to potentially convey a better understanding.

If it is wrong in your opinion, so be it.

As I have said, Ames has a long history of publishing unpleasant truths - about himself, political leaders, anything. Certainly he is one of the tree-hugger hippies noted, but again I fail to see how this article of him being 'put down' by a financial better (note I don't say social) is in any way a propaganda piece for anyone.

IMHO, this piece, and this frame, are merely the work of a weak bully, who is attempting to push the American people into a very bad set of choices. Given that frame, I think pushing the bully out of the way and letting the "adults" in the room (my definition of "adult" does not include the bullies) take over and bring normality back, irregardless of the short term consequences.

For more on the frame that I'm alluding to, I refer interested forum members to Zbigniew Brzezinski's book: "The Choice, Global Domination or Global Leadership"
(Ames' piece falls under the dialectical category of 'global leadership', which means that the public goes along with the dystopia)

I do find it highly amusing that you would consider Brzezinski one of the 'adults' - he being one of the premier practitioners of realpolitik in our present time.

His actions, if not words, echo much more closely with the Nihilist than anything else.

[reggie]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

This is a false dichotomy: the elite can only have power with at least the acquiescence of the pubic. Because without at least acquiescence, you end up with revolution.

Thank you, you just affirmed my point about the elite requiring the acquiescence of the public to move forward with its plans.

Hence, it logically follows that the elite are now seeking said acquiescence from the public via propaganda, as well as other means.

Further, it logically follow that this Ames' piece, which was originally published in an elite controlled mainstream media outlet, The New York Press, is part of this propaganda effort.

Lastly, given the dialectical frame established in said piece (see choices below), I deduce that this piece is propaganda designed to establish a set of alternatives in which the elite win, and the public lose, irrespective of the choice made.

And again, I believe you fail to understand: the attitude illustrated is not intended to belittle the reformers, but to potentially convey a better understanding.

I believe you fail to understand the purpose of propaganda and how it technically works in order to construct social realities in the minds of the public. The purpose of this article is to frame people's thinking around a specific dialectic. I would NOT refer to this as a "better understanding."

As I have said, Ames has a long history of publishing unpleasant truths - about himself, political leaders, anything. Certainly he is one of the tree-hugger hippies noted, but again I fail to see how this article of him being 'put down' by a financial better (note I don't say social) is in any way a propaganda piece for anyone.

My understanding of Ames' role is quite different than yours. His role is to frame perception, and that is what he is doing here. It's about creating choices in the minds of the readers, choices that both have negative consequences for the public. So, in this piece the choices are:

• Choice A: Maintain the FIRE charade and possibly retain your savings at the expense of rule-of-law.

• Choice B: Pursue rule-of-law and definitely lose your savings which will result in chaos and the loss of rule-of-law anyway.

I do find it highly amusing that you would consider Brzezinski one of the 'adults' - he being one of the premier practitioners of realpolitik in our present time.

His actions, if not words, echo much more closely with the Nihilist than anything else.

I referred readers to Brzezinski because he articulates the dialectical techniques of elite thinkers, not because I consider him an "adult" as you inaccurately refer. His book, and speech tour, help to illustrate the techniques that Ames' is using and further highlight the frames being developed.

[c1ue]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

My understanding of Ames' role is quite different than yours. His role is to frame perception, and that is what he is doing here. It's about creating choices in the minds of the readers, choices that both have negative consequences for the public. So, in this piece the choices are:

• Choice A: Maintain the FIRE charade and possibly retain your savings at the expense of rule-of-law.

• Choice B: Pursue rule-of-law and definitely lose your savings which will result in chaos and the loss of rule-of-law anyway.

And again, I will point out that your view is absolutely wrong - at least with respect to Ames' purpose.

Mark Ames, unlike his fellow editor at the Exile.ru - Matt Taibbi, has always been so far from the establishment that he has not been in any way marketable.

He doesn't have fame, he doesn't have fortune, he is merely one of a number of far left media types starving in their basements that are occasionally published in Alternet.org and the like.

Frankly I think your understanding of this article is colored by your own perceptions.

And to be equally honest, an establishment pushback on such an article would be exactly what you are doing: a muddying of the waters via positioning something to be different than what it is.

Equally - it is also far from disproven that a collapse of the system won't do exactly what is asserted in the article: the destruction of the savings of an entire generation.

The only thing that can be argued in my view is whether there is any alternative.

It is naive in the extreme to think that everything can be fixed, but no one but the 'bad guys' hurt.

[reggie]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

And again, I will point out that your view is absolutely wrong - at least with respect to Ames' purpose.

Mark Ames, unlike his fellow editor at the Exile.ru - Matt Taibbi, has always been so far from the establishment that he has not been in any way marketable.

He doesn't have fame, he doesn't have fortune, he is merely one of a number of far left media types starving in their basements that are occasionally published in Alternet.org and the like.

Frankly I think your understanding of this article is colored by your own perceptions.

At this point in time the only thing that I know to do would be to refer you to material on propaganda, it purpose, its techniques, and how it is constructed. To this end, may I suggest one option being Jacques Ellul's book, "Propaganda, The Formation of Men's Attitudes"

And to be equally honest, an establishment pushback on such an article would be exactly what you are doing: a muddying of the waters via positioning something to be different than what it is.

Equally - it is also far from disproven that a collapse of the system won't do exactly what is asserted in the article: the destruction of the savings of an entire generation.

The only thing that can be argued in my view is whether there is any alternative.

If I am pushing back, as you assert, then what exactly am I pushing back on? What does Ames give the public that provides the public any hope at all? Nothing! There's nothing to push back on (refer back to the dialectical choices that I call out from Ames' article).

I would agree that this is a time that we should be assembling people in open debate to discuss our alternatives in the best interest of all. But Ames is NOT doing this, he's putting us into a box through the creation of a fictitious "Nihlist" character and a fictitious dialog, manufacturing choices that suck for the public. I have no idea why you're defending this material.

It is naive in the extreme to think that everything can be fixed, but no one but the 'bad guys' hurt.

Not sure where this is coming from, and if you are attempting to relate it to anything in my post.

[c1ue]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

If I am pushing back, as you assert, then what exactly am I pushing back on? What does Ames give the public that provides the public any hope at all? Nothing! There's nothing to push back on (refer back to the dialectical choices that I call out from Ames' article).

I don't know about you, but understanding that the powers that be have zero concern for anything but keeping in power is itself a strong message.

If there is to be a groundswell of public opinion so as to change the course we are presently embarked on, it will almost require this change in visceral understanding.

In the same vein, understanding that the powers that be will not fix the system - not due to lack of understanding but due to pure cynical self interest - is also a necessary step.

Not sure where this is coming from, and if you are attempting to relate it to anything in my post.

Very simple - you are trying to say that this piece is propaganda because it raises the possibility that the 'financial reform revolution' will actually hurt.

I'm pointing out that this is in no way unrealistic.

If government subsidies are all that is keeping real estate prices up, then by contrast the removal of these subsidies will allow real estate prices to fall (further).

A further fall in real estate prices will impact every single owner of real estate today - as real estate is the largest single area of investment for the typical American. And more Americans than not own property.

The question then is: is it worth it?

Maybe the majority of property owners don't want financial reform if it means losing money on their house.

[bart]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

Interesting how program trading has dropped off since the GS stuff hit the fan.

[Jay]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

Very cool Bart. First time I've seen something like this. Where do you get that info?

[bart]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

Very cool Bart. First time I've seen something like this. Where do you get that info?

It's from the NYSE - http://www.nyse.com/press/12_2010.html

Here's the long term picture:

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

It's from the NYSE - http://www.nyse.com/press/12_2010.html

Interesting.

Any idea why the public share volume (excluding program trading) (the red line) doubled (from ~1250 to ~2500) in late 2007, and has not come back down since?

There are also a couple of sharp spikes that look odd. In 2Q2009, the red line spikes down as the blue line spikes up. In 4Q2009, those two lines spike the other way. Any conspiratorial cow worth her salt would presume that these spikes are some artifact of mislabeling trades as program trading or not, rather than dramatic, but counter-balancing, shifts in trading volume.

[Rajiv]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

PC,

It appears that after 2006, program trading and public trading are mirror images. That does not appear to be the case before 2006. Bart? Any thoughts?

[thunderdownunder]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

And that dear Rajiv is the crux. This is the first 'actionable' bomb we must dismantle. The solution is simple, if they work with pennies to game the game tax them with two pennies to play. HFT can be eliminated over night by charging them 1% (or less) in and out of their shenanigans. Front running is a pox on society and distorts free markets. True capital stays for time/ reward. Front running buy/sell just shaves margin and steals from both buyer and seller. It is not investing. It certainly would be welcomed by both Main street and Business. Tax at source can never be avoided.

[Diarmuid]

Re: The alternate view: Confessions of a Wall Street Nihilist

This line of reasoning does not take into account the systemic risk posed to society associated with the collapse in the rule of law and moral degradation, when people generally become aware of deep rooted corruption, and the inconsistency of the application of law, societal norms can and do break down, why follow the rules if you are aware of the hypocrisy, this type of breakdown in norms can be seen from the "stasis" in Greek city states during the Peloponnesian wars to the fall of Rome to more modern times , as for the ideologue libertarians whiners et al , the nihilistic wall street types (I have the displeasure to meet more then a few who have this type of attitude) as portrayed in the above piece are the types to complain loudest if they are the one being robbed or wronged rather then the other way , it is ever so with people who's sense of self importance greatly outweighs their empathy, the only reason they can do what they do and live in a relatively civilized society is because the so called ideologues i.e. the majority have a sense of shame, justice, right and wrong. They had better hope the herd does not adopt the same attitude as they have, if so all should beware!!!