Posts Tagged Occupy Wall Street
Photography In Public Is Not A Crime | Techdirt
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Legal on August 23, 2012
Photography In Public Is Not A Crime
from the protecting-the-first-amendment dept
Sadly, we talk way too often about police arresting people for doing nothing other than taking a picture or filming them. The police officers being filmed and photographed make these arrests using various excuses, but frequently the charges get dropped for lack of merit. The reason charges rarely stick when an officer is filmed is because filming police, or anyone in a public space, is not illegal. Some people may not like it, but it is a fact.
The New York Times is waking up to this fact that photography is not a crime. In an interview with Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counselor for the National Press Photographers Association, they get down to the nitty gritty of the legalities surrounding this age old tradition. They also talk a bit about just why such arrests are happening more frequently.
Since 9/11, there’s been an incredible number of incidents where photographers are being interfered with and arrested for doing nothing other than taking pictures or recording video in public places.
It’s not just news photographers who should be concerned with this. I think every citizen should be concerned. Tourists taking pictures are being told by police, security guards and sometimes other citizens, “Sorry, you can’t take a picture here.” When asked why, they say, “Well, don’t you remember 9/11?”
I haven’t really thought of criminalizing photography as something to do with 9/11 before. I know that a lot of our rights have been eroded since that day, but the photography aspect never really clicked until now. Just as Mickey can’t make heads nor tails of this argument, I am struggling to find a connection here. I don’t recall cameras being a part of the plots to destroy the Twin Towers, Pentagon or White House.
Of course there could be more reasons for this increase in arresting photographers. Mickey suspects that part of the reason is the proliferation of the camera. Pretty much everyone with a smart phone has a camera capable of taking some very high quality pictures. Prior to this boom, the police had some modicum of control over the press. They knew the press wasn’t going to be everywhere and were used to not being under constant recordable surveillance by the public. Now that anyone could be filming them or taking their picture, they are more on edge and more prone to lashing out.
When this happens, it is important for those accused to know their rights. However, it is also important for the police to know the public’s rights as well. While you, as a photographer, may know that you have the right to take pictures or film in a public space, some officers may not know or may have forgotten that fact. That is why the Mickey and others have been working with police to keep officers reminded of that right.
Q. After photographers were stopped from photographing the police clearing Occupy Wall Street protestors from Zuccotti Park, you and representatives of a media coalition including The Times, met with the police commissioner Ray Kelly. What happened at that meeting?
A. It was on Nov. 23. I asked the commissioner if he would reissue the “finest message” from 1999 that dealt with the police cooperating with the press. He did that. It was read at 10 consecutive roll calls in every single station house and precinct.
The finest message is a policy statement on police interactions with the press. It states that officers are not to interfere with videotaping and photographing in public places. It also reminds officers that they have an obligation to assist the press whenever possible. This is very similar to the recent news when the DC police chief laid down the law on filming of officers.
Hopefully, continually repeating this message will help slow down this barrage of arrests for photographing the police. As more officers are reminded of the rights of the cameras-wielding public, we will hopefully start to see fewer future incidents. It would be great if other police departments across the nation follow the lead of NY and DC police in proactively spreading the word about the rights of the public to record and photograph the police.
Photography In Public Is Not A Crime | Techdirt.
Related articles
- Pre-Conventions, Photographers Know Your Rights (reason.com)
- “The War on Terrorism Has Somehow Morphed into an Assault on Photography” (petapixel.com)
- Don’t Take A Picture In Public (crooksandliars.com)
- Veteran NYTimes Photographer Arrested & Allegedly Beaten by NYPD [Interview] (chasejarvis.com)
- Photojournalist group urges NYPD to ‘do the right thing’ (capitalnewyork.com)
- Photographer Arrested After Fight With Police (huffingtonpost.com)
- Weekly Photo Challenge: Fleeting Moment (mikehardisty.wordpress.com)
- Sebastien Zanella – Photography (wevelostcontrol.com)
- Times Photographer Roughed Up by NYPD Just Wants His Stuff Back (nymag.com)
- New York Times fights NYPD after photographer brutally arrested (rt.com)
Goldman Sachs and a Sale Gone Horribly Awry – NYTimes.com
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Banking, Business, Technology on July 15, 2012
Goldman Sachs and the $580 Million Black Hole

Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times
Janet and Jim Baker at home. They are fighting Goldman Sachs over its work in 2000 on the all-stock sale of their business, Dragon Systems, to a company that later collapsed, leaving them shut out.
By LOREN FELDMAN
Published: July 14, 2012
THE business deal from hell began to crumble even before the Champagne corks were popped.
The deal, the $580 million sale of a highflying technology company, Dragon Systems, had just been approved by its board and congratulations were being exchanged. But even then, at that moment of celebration, there was a sense that something was amiss.
The chief executive of Dragon had received a congratulatory bottle from the investment bankers representing the acquiring company, a Belgian competitor called Lernout & Hauspie. But he hadn’t heard from Dragon’s own bankers at Goldman Sachs.
“I still have not received anything from Goldman,” the executive wrote in an e-mail to the other bank. “Do they know something I should know?”
More than a decade later, that question is still reverberating in a brutal legal battle between Goldman and the founders of Dragon Systems — along with a host of other questions that go to the heart of how financial giants like Goldman operate and what exactly they owe their clients.
James and Janet Baker spent nearly two decades building Dragon, a voice technology company, into a successful, multimillion-dollar enterprise. It was, they say, their “third child.” So in late 1999, when offers to buy Dragon began rolling in, the couple made what seemed a smart decision: they turned to Goldman Sachs for advice. And why not? Goldman, after all, was the leading dealmaker on Wall Street. The Bakers wanted the best.
This, of course, was before the scandals of the subprime mortgage era. It was before the bailouts, before Occupy Wall Street, before ordinary Americans began complaining about “banksters” and “muppets” and “the vampire squid.” In short, before Goldman Sachs became, for many, synonymous with Wall Street greed.
And yet, even today what happened next to the Bakers seems remarkable. With Goldman Sachs on the job, the corporate takeover of Dragon Systems in an all-stock deal went terribly wrong. Goldman collected millions of dollars in fees — and the Bakers lost everything when Lernout & Hauspie was revealed to be a spectacular fraud. L.& H. had been founded by Jo Lernout and Pol Hauspie, who had once been hailed as stars of the 1990s tech boom. Only later did the Bakers learn that Goldman Sachs itself had at one point considered investing in L.& H. but had walked away after some digging into the company.
This being Wall Street, a lot of money is now at stake. In federal court in Boston, the Bakers are demanding damages, including interest and legal fees, that could top $1 billion. That figure is nearly twice what Goldman paid to settle claims that it misled investors about subprime mortgage investments before the financial crisis of 2008.
This account is based on a trove of legal filings — e-mails, motions and roughly 30 depositions, more than 8,000 pages of sworn testimony in all — that open a rare window on Goldman Sachs and the mystique that surrounds it.
JAMES AND JANET BAKER, now in their 60s, are computer speech revolutionaries. Both Ph.D.’s, they became interested in voice-recognition technology in the 1970s, back when a personal assistant like Apple’s Siri would have seemed more science fiction than scientific fact.
They are widely credited with advancing speech technology far faster than anyone thought possible, primarily because of an epiphany Mr. Baker had while doing his doctorate research. He figured out that speech recognition could, in essence, be reduced to math. You didn’t have to teach a computer to recognize accents or dialects, Mr. Baker realized — you just had to calculate the mathematical probability of one sound following another. His algorithms proved remarkably accurate and eventually became the industry standard. (Want to know more? Ask Siri.)
The Bakers founded Dragon Systems in 1982 in an old Victorian house in West Newton, Mass. At that time, despite having two school-age children and a big mortgage, they were determined to take no venture capital and to finance the company’s growth with its own revenue — once they had a product. They figured they could last 18 months, maybe 24.
Their first product was a software program for a British-made PC called the Apricot that let users open files and run programs by voice command. Then came DragonDictate, a groundbreaking speech-to-text system for dictation that still required the speaker to pause. Between. Every. Word.
For years, the Bakers pressed on, convinced that they were on track to create a program that would recognize continuous speech.
To do that, however, they eventually decided that they needed more capital. While Mr. Baker worked on the technology, Ms. Baker brokered a deal with Seagate Technology, the disk drive manufacturer. Seagate bought 25 percent of Dragon for $20 million. Then, in 1997, Dragon introduced Dragon NaturallySpeaking, a program that recognized more words than could be found in a standard collegiate dictionary. It was available in six languages and could handle normal speech, even sentences with words that sound alike, such as, “Please write a letter right now to Mrs. Wright. Tell her that two is too many to buy.”
By this time, I.B.M. and others had piled into the voice technology market, too. As the Nasdaq market raced toward record highs, the Bakers considered taking Dragon public. But in 1999, several companies — including Sony and Intel — expressed interest in buying into Dragon. Finally, unsolicited buyout offers began to arrive. One came from Visteon, a subsidiary of Ford Motor. Another arrived from Lernout & Hauspie.
TO the uninitiated, the mystique of Goldman Sachs may be hard to fathom. Known for what might politely be called ruthless professionalism, Goldman, the thinking goes, is smarter and more plugged in than just about any other investment bank. In the late 1990s, under Henry M. Paulson Jr., who later became the Treasury secretary and orchestrated the Wall Street bailouts, Goldman was the alpha dog in the lucrative game of mergers and acquisitions.
So it was that in December 1999, the Bakers, in over their heads when it came to M.& A., signed a five-page engagement letter drafted by Goldman. In it, Goldman pledged to provide “financial advice and assistance in connection with this potential transaction, which may include performing valuation analyses, searching for a purchaser acceptable to you, coordinating visits of potential purchasers, and assisting you in negotiating the financial aspects of the transaction.”
To the Dragon deal, Goldman assigned four bankers, two in their 20s and one in his early 30s. That wasn’t unusual. Although Dragon Systems was worth everything to the Bakers, the company — with $70 million in revenue and 400 employees — was small beer on Wall Street. Dragon agreed to pay Goldman a flat fee of $5 million, less than some Goldman bankers were pulling down.
But who, if anyone, supervised these bankers — later called “the Goldman Four” in court documents — remains something of a mystery. One of the four, the most senior, testified later that their supervisor was Gene T. Sykes, a Goldman partner who at the time specialized in technology and who this year was promoted to head of M.& A. at the firm, one of the most powerful jobs on Wall Street. In a deposition, Mr. Sykes disavowed any involvement.
Most of the Goldman Four didn’t stay long at the bank. Richard Wayner, who was 32 when the Dragon deal was cut, struck out on his own in 2002 and eventually landed at the Keffi Group, an investment firm. T. Otey Smith, then 21, left Goldman in 2000 and now works for RLJ Equity Partners. Alexander Berzofsky, then 25, left Goldman at about the same time and is now a managing director at Warburg Pincus, the big private investment company. Chris Fine, then 42, was a Goldman information technology specialist who was enlisted on the deal and is still with Goldman. (None of the four agreed to be interviewed for this article.)
Before the engagement letter was signed in late 1999, Goldman sent Dragon a memo indicating that its first steps would include beginning to conduct due diligence — Wall Street-speak for kicking the tires — on L.& H. The memo included specific areas of concern, including L.& H.’s sources of revenue, its major customers, its license agreements and royalty agreements, its expected growth, its partnerships and its financial statements.
THAT December, Mr. Wayner of Goldman accompanied Ms. Baker and Dragon’s chief financial officer, Ellen Chamberlain, on a trip to Belgium to meet L.& H. executives. For the trip, another of the Goldman Four, Mr. Berzofsky, prepared a list of due diligence questions. Goldman also prepared a “merger analysis” that predicted the companies’ combined sales per share, earnings per share and total debt under three acquisition scenarios: all cash, all stock and half and half.
In its initial offer, L.& H. proposed paying $580 million, half in cash and half in stock. But the Bakers weren’t sure. News reports had questioned L.& H.’s revenue, particularly in fast-growing Asian markets, as well as some of the company’s licensing deals. Mr. Baker felt that L.& H. had inferior voice technology. But then, he reasoned, if L.& H. could generate so much revenue with lesser technology, imagine what it could do with Dragon.
By mid-February 2000, Ms. Chamberlain had sent an angry memo to Goldman. It urged the bank to move faster in its analysis of L.& H. Talks with the other companies had gone nowhere, and she expected Goldman to “drive” the due diligence process. Mr. Wayner testified later that the bank’s reaction to that memo was “to do as our client asked and to revisit all of our analyses.”
But on Feb. 29, Dragon received an odd memo from Goldman. It wasn’t addressed to anyone in particular at Dragon, and it wasn’t signed by anyone at Goldman. The Goldman Four testified later that they had no idea who had sent it. But the memo referred to many of the same due diligence issues that Ms. Chamberlain raised. The memo asserted, however, that Dragon’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, should do the work, not Goldman.
The memo shocked Ms. Chamberlain. She had come to Dragon from Seagate, where she had participated in similar deals. She believed that this sort of thing was generally done by investment bankers, not by accountants. But the moment passed. No one at Dragon or Goldman brought up the mystery memo again — at least not until the lawsuits began flying. (The Bakers also filed suit against other participants in the transaction.)
THE Dragon executives thought that Goldman was taking a hard look at L.& H. After all, Dragon was paying Goldman $5 million for its advice. If Goldman wasn’t conducting due diligence, what was it doing?
“They put items on and off the due diligence list,” Ms. Baker later testified. “We discussed the issues at — at basically every meeting that we were at, and we were meeting often in person or by phone, typically, several times a week in this time frame — sometimes multiple times a day, as we’ve seen. And so they knew what everybody was doing. And they were, they were directing it.”
One of the tasks was a conference call that Mr. Wayner arranged, at Ms. Baker’s request, between Dragon and Charles Elliott, a Goldman analyst in London. Dragon was wondering why L.& H.’s share price had been gyrating wildly. Mr. Wayner told Ms. Baker, he later testified, that Mr. Elliott was following L.& H.’s stock and was up to date on its fluctuations. And Mr. Elliott assured Ms. Baker that investors were worried about the market in general, rather than L.& H. in particular. He also said he expected the stock price of the combined companies to rise substantially once a merger was struck.
Years later, in his deposition, Mr. Elliott told a more complete story. He acknowledged that he actually had not been following L.& H.; that had been the responsibility of another Goldman analyst who had left the firm shortly after the Bakers retained Goldman. After the other analyst left, Mr. Elliott testified, Goldman terminated its coverage of L.& H. No one told the Bakers that Goldman was no longer covering the company they were about to bet their futures on.
Mr. Elliott also testified that he was unaware of press reports at the time that suggested L.& H. was claiming huge revenue gains in Asia. If he had been aware, he said, he would have been “very skeptical” of those gains, given the challenges that Asian languages present for speech recognition. He also acknowledged that it would not have been difficult for him to call up L.& H.’s customers and check the revenue claims.
As the Nasdaq composite index raced toward a record high that March, Dragon’s executives made fateful decisions. On March 8, the Bakers met with L.& H. executives and that company’s advisers from SG Cowen to try to reach a definitive agreement.
A few days before that meeting, Mr. Wayner of Goldman told Ms. Baker that he would be away on vacation and couldn’t make the session. He also said that he would be unable to call in and that it was pointless to send anybody else from Goldman because there wasn’t time to catch up on the deal. It was at this meeting that L.& H. proposed shifting the $580 million deal from half stock and half cash to all stock. The Bakers, with their high-priced investment bankers M.I.A., agreed.
Later, after L.& H. collapsed, Mr. Wayner testified that the bank “did not form a point of view” as to whether an all-stock deal would be risky or advisable for the Bakers. He said he could not remember if it had crossed his mind to warn the Bakers about potential issues with an all-stock deal.
Two weeks after the initial agreement was reached, Mr. Wayner told Ms. Baker that he would be leaving the next day for another vacation. He would not participate in a conference call with L.& H.’s accounting firm, KPMG, that was set up to discuss any open questions about accounting and due diligence. Mr. Berzofsky of Goldman did participate but later acknowledged that he did not raise any concerns. The Bakers say they believed that all issues had been addressed.
Mr. Wayner was still on vacation on March 27, when Dragon’s board met to take a final vote on the proposed acquisition. This time, Mr. Fine and Mr. Smith of Goldman attended the meeting, and Mr. Wayner called in from Argentina. No one from Goldman gave a presentation, but minutes from the meeting, taken by Dragon’s outside lawyers, indicate that the Goldman bankers expressed confidence that the combination of Dragon and L.& H. would produce a market leader. The board voted unanimously to accept the $580 million all-stock deal.
Years later, Mr. Wayner testified that lingering issues of due diligence had never been resolved to his satisfaction. He was asked if he had said as much that March day on the phone from his vacation.
“No, I don’t recall saying that,” he responded.
The deal closed on June 7. By Aug. 8, the merged companies were in crisis amid reports that L.& H. had cooked its books. Reporters for The Wall Street Journal did something the Goldman Four did not: they picked up the phone and called L.& H.’s supposed customers in Asia. They found that companies in South Korea and elsewhere that L.& H. had claimed were its customers weren’t doing any business with it at all. L.& H. had pulled sales figures out of thin air.
Although the Goldman Four never tried to call those customers, it emerged during litigation that other bankers at Goldman had done precisely that — about two years earlier, when Goldman itself considered investing in L.& H. in a plan known internally as Project Sermon. In it, Goldman’s merchant banking division took a closer look at L.& H. — but, apparently, never shared what it knew, and was never asked. Goldman was considering putting $30 million into L.& H., a step that, at the time, might have seemed conceivable, given the hype surrounding L.& H.
“Whenever we invest, we always want to talk to customers,” Luca Velussi, a Goldman analyst who worked on Project Sermon, later testified. Based on what Project Sermon’s team leader, Ramez Sousou, termed “preliminary” due diligence, Goldman declined to invest in L.& H.
By Nov. 29, L.& H. had plunged into bankruptcy. Indictments and convictions followed. L.& H.’s stock price sank to zero — and the Bakers lost everything.
Dragon Systems, the Bakers’ “third child,” was put up for sale at a bankruptcy auction. Visteon acquired some of Dragon’s technology. ScanSoft bought the bulk of it and went on to become a $7 billion giant, with a licensing deal with Apple. (The Bakers believe that some of their technology made its way into Siri.) ScanSoft later acquired — and assumed the name of — Nuance, another voice technology company.
Indeed, Nuance had gone public about the same time L.& H. bought Dragon, and Goldman handled the initial offering — a fact that still angers the Bakers. They say they had no idea Goldman was simultaneously representing their company and a rival.
It wasn’t until after the bankruptcy auction, the Bakers now say, that the full force of what had happened hit them. The money was one thing. But what they really wanted was the opportunity to complete the work they had started decades earlier. As part of the deal with L.& H., they had expected to continue their research. Once L.& H. collapsed, they had held out hope that they might get their technology back — either through litigation or through the bankruptcy auction. They now knew that it wasn’t going to happen.
“The door is closed,” Mr. Baker remembers thinking. “Not only do we not have the technology any more, but we have no chance of getting it back.”
THE Bakers’ case against Goldman is simple. Their lawyer, Alan K. Cotler of Philadelphia, captured it in a single sentence in a motion for summary judgment: “The Goldman Four were unsupervised, inexperienced, incompetent and lazy investment bankers who were put on a transaction that in the scheme of things was small potatoes for Goldman.”
Summarizing Goldman’s defense is more complicated. Based on the firm’s response to the complaint, its motion for summary judgment and testimony of the people it employed, most of that defense falls under one of three rubrics: The Bakers do not have standing to sue. Goldman had no obligation to do a financial analysis of L.& H. And Goldman’s bankers actually performed quite well. The firm released a statement that asserted, “Goldman Sachs was retained as a financial adviser by Dragon Systems, not its shareholders, and performed its assignment satisfactorily in all respects.”
Goldman’s lawyer, John D. Donovan of Ropes & Gray in Boston, has argued that under the terms of the engagement letter, only Dragon Systems had the right to sue, and Dragon no longer exists. Goldman has even filed a countersuit against Ms. Baker, contending that by suing Goldman she had breached the contract. Even though Ms. Baker lost everything in a deal Goldman orchestrated, the firm says Ms. Baker should now pay its legal fees.
To support the argument that Goldman was not obligated to perform due diligence, the firm points to that mystery memo of Feb. 29, 2000 — the memo that no one at Goldman has acknowledged sending — as establishing that Dragon Systems needed to push its accounting firm to explain any red flags or resolve outstanding worries.
Goldman’s lawyers have argued in a motion that while Goldman “strongly urged” Dragon to engage an international accounting firm to do a “forensic accounting analysis on L.& H.,” Ms. Baker “prevented” Dragon from following Goldman’s advice because she did not want to incur the expense of the due diligence and did not want to delay the transaction. The Bakers call this argument “complete fiction,” and even the Goldman Four seem dubious. They testified that Ms. Baker did nothing to block the performance of due diligence.
Goldman also hired an independent investment banker, Ian Fisher, who filed an expert report arguing that Goldman was not obligated to conduct due diligence because Dragon did not order what is known as a fairness opinion, an analysis of the acquisition price.
The Bakers have hired their own expert, Donna Hitscherich, a former investment banker with JPMorgan Chase who lectures at Columbia Business School. She wrote in her expert report that Goldman was obligated to perform due diligence with or without a fairness opinion.
If the case goes to trial in Boston, as scheduled, on Nov. 6, the final argument that Goldman can be expected to make is that the bankers, as Mr. Wayner testified, gave the Bakers “great advice.”
Mr. Berzofsky, too, testified in his deposition that the Goldman Four did a “great job.”
Even though Dragon lost everything?
“Yes,” Mr. Berzofsky said. He was given several opportunities to clarify. And then he was asked one more time — the fact that the Bakers and Dragon’s shareholders lost everything doesn’t affect your opinion?
“Correct,” Mr. Berzofsky responded. “We guided them to a completed transaction.”
Goldman Sachs and a Sale Gone Horribly Awry – NYTimes.com.
Related articles
- Goldman Sachs and a Sale Gone Horribly Awry (nytimes.com)
- Goldman Sachs and the $580 Million Black Hole (nytimes.com)
- Inventors of Nuance’s Dragon sue Goldman over deal gone bad (bizjournals.com)
- These Cofounders Say Goldman Sachs Owes Them $1 Billion Because It Sold Their $580 Million Company To Fraudsters (GS) (nytimes.com)
- Trust, But Verify. Big Fees Don’t Guarantee Advice That Should Be Followed. Goldman Sachs ‘Deal’ Destroys Couple’s Life’s Work (inelegantinvestor.com)
- The deal’s the thing (brandrepair.typepad.com)
- Goldman Sachs Shares Eyeing The Century Mark Ahead Of Q2 Earnings (seekingalpha.com)
- Why Goldman Sachs Is Worth $200 A Share (seekingalpha.com)
- Goldman Sachs Goes from ‘Muppets’ to Tweets (dailyfinance.com)
- When Corporate Culture Becomes a Public Relations Nightmare (globalcompliance.com)
Concentrated wealth is a long-term threat to America – The Washington Post
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion on March 28, 2012

Opinion Writer
The rich are different; they get richer
By Harold Meyerson, Published: March 27
Occupy Wall Street is not known for the precision of its economic analysis, but new research on income distribution in the United States shows that the group’s sloganeering provides a stunningly accurate picture of the economy. In 2010, according to a study published this month by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez, 93 percent of income growth went to the wealthiest 1 percent of American households, while everyone else divvied up the 7 percent that was left over. Put another way: The most fundamental characteristic of the U.S. economy today is the divide between the 1 percent and the 99 percent.
It was not ever thus. In the recovery that followed the downturn of the early 1990s, the wealthiest 1 percent captured 45 percent of the nation’s income growth. In the recovery that followed the dot-com bust 10 years ago, Saez noted, 65 percent of the income growth went to the top 1 percent. This time around, it’s reached 93 percent — a level so high it shakes the foundations of the entire American project.919
While never putting a premium on economic equality, America has always prided itself on being the preeminent land of economic opportunity. If all of this nation’s wealth is captured by a narrow stratum of the very rich, however, that claim is relegated to history’s dustbin. Research byJulia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution, as part of the Economic Mobility Project, has shown that intergenerational mobility in the United States has fallen far below the levels in Germany, Finland, Denmark and other more social democratic nations of Northern Europe. Now, Saez’s analysis of income data provides further evidence that mocks America’s self-image as a land where hard work yields rewards.
How has the top 1 percent been able to decouple itself from the nation beneath it? To begin, much of its income comes from investments in funds and firms that are raking in profits from overseas ventures in economies like China’s, which weathered the downturn better than ours. Much of those firms’ profits also derive from their reduced labor costs — the result of layoffs and paycuts. Finally, as Saez points out, there has been “an explosion of top wages and salaries” since 1970. In that year, 5.1 percent of all wages and salaries paid in the United States went to the wealthiest 1 percent. In 2007, the share going to the wealthiest 1 percent had more than doubled, to 12.4 percent.
The consequences of this concentration of wealth and income extend beyond the purely economic. A middle class enduring prolonged stagnation isn’t likely to fund projects the nation needs to undertake — such as rebuilding our infrastructure or increasing teacher pay — or, ultimately, to retain its faith in the efficacy of democracy. The rise of super PACs, the low rates of taxation on capital gains and hedge fund operators, the ability of the major banks to fend off reform — all testify to the power of a neo-plutocracy beyond democratic control.
Most proposals to restore a modicum of balance to the American economy focus on making the tax code more progressive. Raising the tax on investments to the level of the tax on wages, for instance, and increasing the inheritance tax would help start reconstruction of a more viable economy.
But changes to the tax code, indispensable though they would be, aren’t remotely sufficient to the challenge of restoring the broadly shared prosperity that Americans enjoyed in the mid-20th century. That would require changing some laws to give stockholders and other corporate stakeholders the power to diminish the share of corporate revenue routinely claimed these days by top executives — at the expense of everyone else. It would require revitalizing unions. David Madland and Nick Bunker of the Center for American Progressrecently found that in 1968, when 28 percent of the workforce was unionized, 53 percent of the nation’s income went to the middle class. In 2010, when 11.9 percent of the nation’s workers were unionized, the share claimed by the middle class had fallen to 46.5 percent.
Capitalism can create prosperity, but left unfettered it doesn’t create broadly shared prosperity — and never will. If belief and participation in democracy are sustained by people’s conviction that democracy produces good economic outcomes, then the growing concentration of wealth and income in the United States is a long-term threat to everything we profess to stand for. A nation where 93 percent of income growth goes to the top 1 percent is not a nation that will embark on great projects, or long command the allegiance of its people.
Concentrated wealth is a long-term threat to America – The Washington Post.
Related articles
- Concentrated wealth is a long-term threat to America – The Washington Post (jdeanicite.typepad.com)
- How The 1 Percent And The 99 Percent Are Doing, In 1 Table (npr.org)
- Recovery Leaves 99 Percent Poorer (reason.com)
- The 1% collects 93% of the ‘recovery’ (dailykos.com)
- The Widening Wealth Divide, and Why We Need a Surcharge on the Super Wealthy (alternet.org)
- The Widening Wealth Divide, and Why We Need a Surtax on the Super Wealthy (robertreich.org)
- Johnston: The 10% Get Richer, the 90% Get Poorer (taxprof.typepad.com)
- The 1% Captures Most Growth From Recovery (blogs.wsj.com)
- Why We Need a Surtax on the Super Wealthy (wallstreetpit.com)
- Will the Banksters and the Corpocracy Eventually Own it All? (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)
Magnanimous Banker Hires Occupy Wall Street Protesters | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Humor/Parody on November 16, 2011
‘I Like Your Pluck!’ Says Gracious Plutocrat
NOVEMBER 15, 2011

NEW YORK—Saying the recently arrested protesters had just the right kind of tenacity and pluck needed to shake up the financial services industry, magnanimous and benevolent Morgan Stanley banker Hank Billings approached members of the Occupy Wall Street movement Tuesday morning and hired each and every one of them on the spot. “This is exactly the kind of self-starting, ‘won’t go home till the job’s done’ kind of attitude I like to see,” said the gracious Billings, claiming that he had grown to admire “the cut of [the activists'] jib” since the movement began in mid-September and that “moxie such as [theirs]” should not go unrewarded. “You all were out there every day, giving it everything you had, and by God if you ever took no for an answer. Sure, you all took some digs at me, but who needs a bunch of yes-men standing around, anyway?” Billings then reportedly smiled, shook each protester’s hand, and said he would see them all in the office “bright and early Monday morning,” noting that a personal history of lawbreaking had never hindered anyone’s career on Wall Street.![]()
Magnanimous Banker Hires Occupy Wall Street Protesters | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source.
Related articles
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt Joins Bryce Dallas Howard For a Screening, Then Occupies Wall Street (popsugar.com)
- Obama-Endorsed #OWS Occupy Wall Street Blocks/Bans Press (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
- Wall Street Protesters Now Occupy an Office [Occupy Wall Street] (gawker.com)
- The Loyal Opposition: The Next Step for Occupy Wall Street (loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Harry Reid Channels Occupy Wall Street In GOP Attack (huffingtonpost.com)
- Daniel Dicker: The Koch Brothers and MF Global – Friends to the End (huffingtonpost.com)
- Nash & Crosby React To Occupy Wall Street Developments (wncx.radio.com)
- “Perhaps the protesters occupying Wall Street are not so misguided after all. The questions they…” (underpaidgenius.com)
- New Poll Shows Occupy Wall Street Protests Waning In Popularity (mediaite.com)
- Reiterating Occupy Changes (asecondcup.wordpress.com)
What the occupiers and tea party have in common – The Washington Post
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Economy, Opinion, Perspective, Society on November 13, 2011
By Barry Sloane, Published: November 12
The tea party is a very simple expression of a desire for smaller government. Occupy Wall Street is more of an emotional outburst and reaction.
If you throw out the fringe commentary, what they’re both really angry about is that there haven’t been any consequences for taking bad credit risks and for bad behavior. They feel victimized by Wall Street and the federal government.
The one common denominator between the two is not liking the bank bailout — in actuality, the bank bailout was actually a good thing, but the government failed to penalize the shareholders and bondholders. The taxpayers should have owned the companies and the government should have taken ownership of the companies for a limited period of time. In the real world, if you can’t pay your bills, you go bankrupt.
What small business owners should do as a voting block and a lobbying block is to continue to push for smaller government and getting the money out of politics.
The reason for this inequity occurring is because of special interests. You had government picking who the winners and the losers were. The tea party’s interest and solution is the best solution for Occupy Wall Street. There are some Occupiers who want entitlements — but I think at the bottom line, people are mad that Wall Street got bailed out, and they are correct.
If you look at all of the ills of the economy — they’ve all been created by quasi public and private entities. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are quasi public and private entities — they’ve driven up the cost of education. In every instance, there’s a bubble, and it burst.
Small businesses should continue to reduce their debt, reduce their leverage, reduce their consumption and put more dollars into investment and savings.
Our economy is way overbalanced in terms of consumption versus savings and investments. They should be making investments in their own businesses, better computer hardware and software — the one area where you’re getting cost reduction is through technology. Investing in cloud computing and things like that are where small businesses can get efficiencies.
Barry Sloane is chairman and chief executive of Newtek Business Services in New York.
What the occupiers and tea party have in common – The Washington Post.
Related articles
- Paul Ryan’s frown should make Democrats smile – The Washington Post (mbcalyn.com)
- Asher Smith: What Distinguishes Occupy Wall Street From the Tea Party? Follow the Money (huffingtonpost.com)
- Occupy Wall Street: The tea party of the left? – CNN.com (mbcalyn.wordpress.com)
- Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party: Is There a Bridge Over America’s Troubled Waters? (huffingtonpost.com)
- #OccupyWallSt Roundup, Day 56 (cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com)
- You: Occupy the Highway: The immense pain of walking from New York to Washington – Washington Post (blog) (washingtonpost.com)
- Americans Favor Protesters Over Wall Street, Washington (huffingtonpost.com)
- Occupy Wall Street – Of Course Obama is OK With it – It’s Just More Alinsky (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Occupy Wall Street or Occupy a Small Business? (hiscoxusa.com)
- Herman Cain Believes Occupy Wall Street is a Pro-Obama Conspiracy (timesunion.com)
Occupy protesters declare Goldman Sachs guilty, get arrested | McClatchy
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Banking, Business, Economy, Finance, Society, Wall Street on November 4, 2011
By Gianna Palmer | McClatchy Newspapers
NEW YORK — In the latest round of demonstrations calling for corporate accountability, 16 Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested in front of the global headquarters of Goldman Sachs in lower Manhattan.
A New York Police Department spokesperson confirmed that nine men and seven women were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
The protest began with a mock trial of the giant investment firm at 10 a.m. in Zuccotti Park, the protesters’ base. During “A People’s Hearing of Goldman Sachs,” a group gathered to hear testimony from people who shared stories of how they were directly affected by Goldman Sachs’ influence on financial markets. Civil rights activist and Princeton professor Cornel West also spoke at the panel, as did journalists Chris Hedges and Nomi Prins.
A five-month McClatchy investigation in 2009 revealed how Goldman Sachs peddled billions of dollars in shaky securities tied to subprime mortgages on unsuspecting pension funds, insurance companies and other investors when it concluded that the housing bubble would burst.
Shortly before noon, the protesters began to make their way to 200 West St., Goldman’s headquarters.
“Banks got bailed out, we got sold out,” the protesters chanted as they walked. Some drummed, other held signs. One protester held a piece of cardboard that read simply, “GREED.” Another said: “Goldman Sucks.”
Police with plastic handcuffs dangling from their belts walked alongside the demonstrators as they marched north on Church Street, past the National September 11 Memorial. The group arrived at the Goldman Sachs building just before 12:30 p.m.
At least 19 police offers stood on the pedestrian walkway watching as protesters blocked the front entrance of the building and delivered their “guilty” verdict. Soon, a white-shirted police officer entered the crowd with a megaphone and asked the protesters to leave. By this time, a small group had sat in a circle on the ground.
“You will be arrested, I repeat, you will be arrested,” the officer told the group when they stayed sitting, arms linked.
The majority of people moved to a nearby walkway.
“We stopped listening to orders, when will you?” a man shouted in the direction of the police, who were now gathered around the remaining group, all of whom would be arrested.
Among the first was activist Bill Talen, commonly known as Reverend Billy — an activist actor who was led away in plastic cuffs. The arrests were largely a nonviolent affair, though some protesters struggled as the officers picked them up by their hands and feet.
“First Amendment rights, First Amendment rights,” one woman shouted as she was handcuffed and led away to nearby police vans.
By 1 p.m., all of protesters in front of the Goldman Sachs entrance had been arrested. The same white-shirted officer then warned the remaining crowd of protesters that they were obstructing pedestrian and vehicular traffic and would be subject to arrest if they stayed.
The crowd slowly marched away, as a handful of employees in the Goldman Sachs building stood by the windows watching the protesters from several floors up. Police on foot and on motorcycles followed the group back to Zuccotti Park.
“The police as an institution are in a position where they’re protecting the real criminals, the people who are responsible for the economic state of the world right now,” said Zack Rosen, 22, as he was leaving Goldman Sachs headquarters. Rosen, who was previously arrested in another Occupy Wall Street protest, said he thought the demonstration “went great.”
Occupy protesters declare Goldman Sachs guilty, get arrested | McClatchy.
Related articles
- OWS: Chris Hedges, Rev. Billy and other protesters arrested at Goldman Sachs (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
- Here’s What Happened Today When At Least 15 People Got Arrested Outside Of Goldman (GS) (businessinsider.com)
- #OccupyWallSt Roundup, Day 48 (cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com)
- A Letter by Goldman Sachs RE: Investing on Occupy Wall Street (michellesantos.wordpress.com)
- Latest developments in the Occupy protests (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Goldman Sachs Tries Tries To Shut Down Occupy Wall Street: A Greg Palast Investigation (newsworldwide.wordpress.com)
- NYC mayor becoming more critical of “Occupy” (cbsnews.com)
- Goldman Sachs and the Criminal Charges (trenhoteleuropa.wordpress.com)
- Occupy protesters lament violence in Oakland (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Oakland erupts into violence as demonstrators shut down port (independent.co.uk)
The #Occupy Movement Needs To Converge On Washington With Specific Grievances – National Political Buzz | Examiner.com
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Open Rant Forum, Opinion, Social, Society, Wall Street on October 31, 2011
Glenn Osrin
October 30, 2011
The Occupy Wall Street movement has accomplished a great deal in just over two months. It has given voice to the simmering undercurrent of down-trodden disgust felt by Americans of every flavor, age, religion and social status. No longer are the 99%er’s sitting on their hands in bars and coffee shops and unemployment lines reading about our economic problems, they are protesting in ever larger numbers, trying to do something about the gaping hole in the side of Titanic America’s spirit.
Indeed, what began as a small protest in Zuccati Park in New York’s financial district has spread like a wildfire accelerated by steroidal Red Bull.
It’s given us call outs, shout outs, General Assemblies, communal living, pitched tents and curious celebrities and onlookers; and, it’s given the world the arrests by the New York Police on the Brooklyn Bridge, the infamous tear gas attack on four penned in women in downtown New York, and now even a critical injury to Iraq War Veteran Scott Olsen courtesy of the Oakland Police.
Yet what remains sorely lacking in this burgeoning movement is a cohesive message; the absence of which seems driven largely by the Occupy philosophy that the movement is of the People and should not be co-opted by formal leadership or political parties.
More troubling still is that as the numbers of protests grow in cities and towns all across the U.S. and the world, they exist in a specific municipality or geographic region where the media may or may not cover their story; or, the reasons for protest differ markedly.
Thus, the message doesn’t necessarily get to the right people, and the Occupy discontent continues to morph from anger at Wall Street to joblessness to political corruption to no jobs for college graduates, ad nauseum.
With winter fast approaching, the Occupy collective brain-trust needs to do two key things before the worst of Mother Nature buries them in snow and freezing temperatures and surely thins their ranks.
First, a core leadership needs to emerge that can serve as the locus of control or brain trust of the movement, capable of harnessing the individual efforts of all of the groups and compelling them all to converge on the Mall in Washington, D.C. to make their points over 500,000 people strong.
Perhaps even take things a step further and coordinate a National Strike, using the power of social networking like Twitter and Facebook the way the Egyptian people did to mushroom their protests in Tahrir Square.
Second, Occupy could take protests from big-city sit-ins to right outside the front doors of Congressional leadership in Washington, D.C. where they can’t be ignored or avoided by the elected officials not showing up for work or ducking into underground garages or back entrances.
If history has proven anything, it’s that the protests that ended the Viet Nam War or the marches that won civil rights would have accomplished less over a long period of time had they remained splintered in individual fiefdoms of disconnection. One need simply imagine the majesty, spectacle, and power of half a million or more Occupiers showing up together from around the nation in Washington, D.C., digging in and not leaving until politicians on both sides acknowledge they exist and take up their cause.
That said, Occupy needs to accept that while the overall gist of the movement is that 1% of the people and corporations in this country hold all the cards financially and hold the rest of the 99%er’s hostage, each protest in every locale may have different specific goals and needs within that framework.
For example, Wisconsin may be all about protesting the GOP assault on unions while Florida might be all about protesting immigration reform. Cleveland may want first-responders to be Priority One while Des Moines may demand a consortium of ethanol producers subsidize affordable energy initiatives in industries other than corn.
Even the Tea Party, for all their ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ bravado found a way to bring all the individual branches of the party together in a loosely defined amalgamation of purpose: specifically, their core value agendas hew not so coincidentally to the GOP side of the slate and by doing so the movement uses the party and the party uses the movement to mutual gain.
No one is saying that Occupy has to sell their souls to politicians on either side. The fact of the matter is, while the movement has majority support of most Americans, support from major labor unions, the eyes of the media and the full attention of the American people, Occupy needs to rise to the challenge of the moment and pull it all together as one, fighting for the common purpose of us all.
It’s time for the movement to take it up a notch and mature from scintillating television and rapid fire social networking updates to a sustained and clear roadmap for change that everyone can believe and participate in.
Without that, Occupy runs a very real risk of losing momentum and being marginalized by bad weather and the splintered framework of directionless demands.
Related articles
- The #Occupy Movement Needs To Converge On Washington With Specific Grievances (americanpeoplesplatformblog.com)
- How do you measure success for Occupy Wall Street movement? (news.blogs.cnn.com)
- Support for Occupy Wall Street is at 50% (robertlindsay.wordpress.com)
- The Occupy movement and the wisdom of non-violence (dailykos.com)
- Pat Buchanan’s dire prediction for Occupy Wall Street (rt.com)
- What is the Occupy Movement? (jaggedpad.wordpress.com)
- Big challenges ahead for Occupy movement (sfgate.com)
- Why the Occupy Movement Will Succeed…..By Jake Olzen, From Nation of Change (truthnreality.wordpress.com)
- What Would Jesus Occupy? (the1955hudson.com)
- Would Jesus Occupy Wall Street? (dangerousminds.net)
It’s hard to hate these occupiers – The Washington Post
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Banking, Society, Wall Street on October 26, 2011

Opinion Writer
It’s hard to hate these occupiers
By Harold Meyerson, Published: October 20
By the hoary conventions of American politics, Americans should fear and loathe Occupy Wall Street. The occupiers are vaguely countercultural, counterculturally vague. They are noisy. They are radical. They offer no solutions, though they are prey to the damnedest ideas. (Anti-consumerism! Anti-leaderism!) They are an extra-parliamentary menace, mocking the very possibility of liberal reform. They are anarchists or, worse, McGovernites. Some of them appear genuinely nuts. For all these reasons and a hundred more, real Americans should hate their guts.
And yet, they don’t. Despite the best efforts of trained pundits, working feverishly to convince the public that these are not people you’d want running the republic or dropping by for lunch, Americans seem remarkably unperturbed by the menace of Occupy Wall Street. In fact, the majority supports the protesters. According to a National Journal poll, 59 percent of Americans agree with Occupy Wall Street, while 31 percent disagree — a level of support comparable to that found by a Time magazine survey last week. The Post’s Greg Sargent has thoughtfully broken down the data and found that the group that should resent the occupiers most — working-class whites — doesn’t resent them any more than anyone else does. In the National Journal poll, 56 percent of non-college-educated whites back the demonstrators, though the right-wing media continually depict them as trust-fund babies gone wild.442
In the strange case of Occupy Wall Street, none of the usual cultural signifiers by which we’ve been conditioned to hate one another seems to be working. Where have you gone, Archie Bunker? What gives?
What gives, I suspect, is that most Americans don’t particularly care what the demonstrators in downtown New York and other cities look like or believe in. They’re not interested in the demonstrators’ attempt to build a movement prefigurative of a radically consensual society (which could end up just as gridlocked as the U.S. Senate). What they care about is that the demonstrators are confronting unmerited power and unearned wealth. They are taking on the banks.
For good, historically specific reasons, everybody hates the banks. Even New Yorkers, whose economy depends on the bankers’ ability to pay for overpriced amenities, hate the banks. In a Quinnipiac University poll this week, New York City voters supported Occupy Wall Street by a 67-percent-to-23-percent margin. Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein is a profiteer without honor in his own home town.
Whence this fall — if not from grace (a state that few of us, and even fewer bankers, attain), then from the occasional decent opinion of humankind? At its root is the simple fact that the Wall Street banks over the past quarter-century have done none of the things that a financial sector should do. They have not helped preserve the thriving economy that America once enjoyed. They have not funded our boldest new companies. (That’s fallen to venture capitalists.) They haven’t provided the financing to maintain our infrastructure, nor ponied up the capital for manufacturing to modernize and grow here (as opposed to in China). Instead, they’ve grown fat on the credit they extended when Americans’ incomes stopped rising. They’ve grown plump on proprietary trading and by selling bad deals to suckers. (Citigroup, likeGoldman before it, just agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to settle charges that it defrauded investors.)
The original J.P. Morgan was hardly a beloved figure. But in the course of attending to his business, he helped form the American economy. He consolidated railroads, cobbled together the companies that became U.S. Steel and General Electric. In pursuit of profit, he helped build the country. By no stretch of the imagination is that what today’s Wall Street is about. The country isn’t being built; no one’s been building it for the past 30 years. Wall Street’s interests are elsewhere, in realizing huge profits and bonuses for arbitrage and paper-swapping that has brought little but debt and ruin to the larger economy.
So Occupy Wall Street espouses a fuzzy radicalism? That’s fine. At its best, American radicalism kick-starts an era of liberal reform, to which, as in the ’30s and ’60s, its zeal is essential. At its worst, that radicalism can hinder those reforms by itself becoming an object of public ire. But Occupy Wall Street, all our assumptions about cultural polarization to the contrary, isn’t an object of ire. It’s channeling ire — our ire — where ire should go: toward the banks that have fostered and profited from America’s decline.
It’s hard to hate these occupiers – The Washington Post.
Related articles
- It’s hard to hate these occupiers (talkingunion.wordpress.com)
- NYPD Blames Occupy Wall Street for a Jump in Gun Crimes (neatorama.com)
- Occupy Wall Street Plans March And “Aerial Demonstration” For Oakland (timesunion.com)
- Occupy Wall Street Or Halloween: Can You Spot The Difference? (buzzfeed.com)
- Ben & Jerry’s “Occupy Wall Street” (247wallst.com)
- Occupy Seattle vs. Occupy Wall Street (delong.typepad.com)
- Loved this Fresh Pressed Story about Occupy Wall Street (greenlifegirl.wordpress.com)
- Conservative Filmmaker Allegedly Passes Out Bongs To Occupy Wall Street Protesters (mediaite.com)
- Occupy Wall Street, five days before Halloween (thebeardedblogger.wordpress.com)
- New Target for ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Critics: Media (americanpeoplesplatformblog.com)


































Recent Comments