As some of you may remember, I spent Sunday and Monday in Chicago attending "Showdown in Chicago" sponsored by multiple organizations and organized by National People's Action. Sunday was learning how to protests peacefully amongst annoyed bankers and police and learning the chants. The second half of the evening was spent listening to a panel of speakers which included Senator Durbin. Shela Blair appeared on Monday morning. Jesse Jackson was in attendance as well as numerous other notables. I was hoping for Dean Baker who was pushing this big time. Here are a few notes, pictures and clips fro the events.

Over the weekend and into Tuesday, thousands of people found one way to protest the banking and W$ excesses.

“Today, Goldman Sachs officials accepted our letter to Lloyd Blankfein and agreed to get it into his hands,” said James Mumm, Director of Organizing, National People’s Action. “In this letter we demand that Goldman Sachs stop working against the American people and instead start supporting common sense financial reform. We also showed Blankfein how he can be a hero this holiday season by directing Goldman Sachs take some of its projected $23 billion bonuses this year and redirect it to foreclosure prevention programs that work to keep people in their homes.” <link> “Thousands of Taxpayers Rally Outside Goldman Sachs”

The American Banking Association held their 2009 annual meeting in Chicago this last weekend with it running into the week as well. At the same time another group began to arrive in Chicago to protest the last decade of banking and W$ activities. Each group prepared for the eventual showdown in different ways. While the American Banking Association held a "Roaring Twenties" party to kick off their annual meeting; people from 20 different states and as far away as California came together at the Hyatt for an instructional meeting on how to protest peacefully amongst the bankers and the police and to also listen to a panel of speakers. While the roaring twenties symbolized a boisterous era of excess and prosperity in the twenties and a time for partying for the ABA; it symbolized for the protestors of Showdown in Chicago” the excesses of W$ and the Financial Industry with its policies, bonuses, and excesses. The stage was set.

The initial 90 minutes of meeting was spent on instruction on how to protest peacefully. A second meeting lasting till 6:30PM was spent listening to a panel of speakers including Senator Durbin of Illinois who has been leading the effort to pass the Consumer Finance Protection Act in the Senate. Having been rejected twice, he promised to continue his efforts in getting the CFPA passed. Including Senator Durbin, many of the same Senators backing the CFPA also voted "yea" for the Financial Services Modernization Act in 1999/2000, the change to the Banking Acting, and the approval of a restriction on governing the derivatives market. They now find themselves voting for bills that will protect consumers without fixing the fundamental problem with W$ and banking.

The meetings broke up at 6:30PM and the group formed outside the Hyatt and marched to the ABA's "Roaring Twenties" party. Like myself, others found it ironic the ABA would use this as a theme for their party and annual meeting in Chicago. Although the ABA did donate a rehab home, it was far too little and one has to wonder if it was once foreclosed. If more people did protest Sachs, BofA, Citi, Merrill, etc; Congress be paying more attention to the issues and W$ would be less obvious with their bonuses. As a representative for Angry Bear Blog and with Mary Bottari from BankstersUsa, we did capture a few minutes with Senator Durbin to discuss Glass-Steagall. I did remind the Senator there is a need for the Democrat Majority Party to begin to act like the Majority Party of the Senate rather than the Minority Party.

Some clips and pictures from the Protest:

<link> Wells Fargo Protest

<link> One Foreclose

<link> Goldman Sachs Protest

<link> Showdown in Chicago Pictures

But I'll venture that your tab was picked up by the UAW. Did you wear matching t-shirts?

How close am I?

Urq:

My trip was out-of-pocket and I stayed at my son's home near Wrigleyville. I was there to represent Angry Bear Blog. The Ts were $20 to us. I was the guy with the button down collar Kors shirt and the wool blend slacks.

I know what you look like. I'll check out the pics.

Urq:

If you find me let me know, I couldn't and the cameras were all around me. The looks of disgust were interesting.

A bit unclear on the concept, I fear. What is the message of this protest? That the evil greedy bankers after getting bailed out, decided to give themselves big fat bonuses with the proceeds? That message resonates with the majority of Americans. Or is it that I am so unfortunate my husband got sick with cancer and I couldn't make the payments and the greedy evil banks foreclosed on my home and kicked me out? That would imply that perhaps the lady should continue to live rent free, or at least mortgage free in her house--in which case, why not millions of other Americans?

This tragedy was no doubt brought about mainly by the greed of the banks with their full acknowledgment that the government would bail them out, as suring the Savings & Loan crisis. The banksters simply made off with a fortune in commissions and bonuses. It was a win-win proposition for tem, but a lose-lose for the rest of the people. But to say that the banksters should use taxpayer money to forgive those debtors in default would merely be substitution of another evil.

I looked for you in the pics. Are you the balding fellow in the red jacket?

What exactly were you protesting against?

Jack

Jack:

What the group was looking for is Financial Reform as shown in its site: <link> "Showdown In Chicago." As an example:

"In the US today, three banks hold almost 34% of the nation’s deposits, four banks issue 50% of the country’s mortgages and the five largest credit card lenders control 74% of the market. These companies have a stranglehold on our wallets. And as we’ve seen, when they make bad decisions, they can take the whole economy down with them.

New laws should be put in place that minimize the risk of the “too big to fail” problem. No single institution should be in control of such a large part of the market. Instead, we should encourage a vibrant, diverse, stable banking system, made up of thousands of small and medium size banks. Strong competition policies and antitrust laws will encourage financial institutions to invest in productive activity, instead of investing in changing the rules of the game or manipulating the market."

The group was directly protesting how poorly America was treated over the last 9-10 years as a result of the financial industry and W$ partying in a "Roaring Twenties" fashion. The excess and abuse are without measure and are regulated with a thought of industrial self regulation being all that is needed. As we know, it didn't work and they brought the country to its knees.

I am not so sure we need laws to treat the symptoms as much as laws getting to the root causes of the 2008 collapse and the present. W$ and the financial industry is still doing the same unregulated and nontransparent trading in derivatives with leveraging of a similar magnitude as in the past. Inplementing some form of Glass-Steagal and a change to the Bank Holding Act back to pre 1999 years would again create a firewall to slow down a collapse. Giving the CFTC the ability to track derivatives (as Brooksley Born demanded) would be a big step forward. Since the collapse in 2008, not much has changed in this arena and W$ and the Financial Industry are lobbying heavily against any change.

80% of the subprime loans made by private originators (not Fannie and Freddie) and did not fall under the CRA as many would claim. This needs to be brought up to date. Most of these originators (Countrywide, AIG, etc, to name a couple) fell under the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) which was very lax in its supervision of members. The American Banking Association is lobbying to stop Obama from transferring this supervision to other jurisdictions such as the FDIC or the Fed. We could do with one department less and this makes sense given the past.

What appears to be a major issue in all of this is the lack of information made available to people when they go to the banks. I never had issue with the banks but then a lot has changed over 8-10 years, your bank is no longer in the community for the most part, and your mortgage is a part of s MBS/CDO with is sold in tranches to many differnt investors all over the world. Your recourse has gone from walking to the neighborhood bank on the corner to following a chain of sales amongst many global buyers and typically done with transfers with no original mortgage document (remember that point).

While everyone is responsible for their own well being, it has become difficult to ascertain the risk and exposure when you are given incomplete information as allowed by law. Those who have the information are in control over those who lack it and that is the quandry we now find ourselves in today. You can either continue down the same path and trust in those who have screwed you once and are geting ready to do it again or try to do something about it.

Good for you, for getting actively involved in the protests and being a showing genuine civil and citizen concern in this matter. You and I have had several nice chats in Jurisprudence Fray for one, recently. And I know you are astute in matters of finance. This issue is complex (the who what where and how it came about) and though, I know you tend to like to minimize the impact of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans as the main contributing factor and throw the balme largely upon the brokers and the banks, I still wholly admire what you are doing. It is a terrible affront to the American citizens, overall, how so many were given these reckless housing loans by the banks and how they get paid off by us (the taxpayers) through Federal Bail-outs, while the citizens in foreclosure just have to suck it up and suffer for their excess and irresponsibility.

Well done.

~LAM

diogene:

You are smarter than the rest here and I would have expected you to go to the "Showdown In Chicago" site and look for yourself. To assist you: <link> "Showdown In Chicago"

You also appear to make light of the situation one in particular faced as well as so many millions of others have faced diogene. If you call a doubling of mortgage payment a fair contract, I guess you are right. One of the leading causing of bankruptcy today is illness and injury such that people are forced to draw upon their assets to meet the hospital payments that are not covered by insurance. Now you may say this is her own tough luck as evidenced by your attitude towards the story she told; but, I sense it is more a story about one person who was forced to turn to a financial institutional to seek a new mortgage or loan to cover her husbannds needs. She didn't say she wouldn't pay, she did say she couldn't afford to pay a doubling of payments. It appears she had the wherewithal to request a loan modification which the court "may" decide.

I do not believe I am in the pictures. If I was I would be in the Sunday and Monday pictures. By Monday noon, the flu virus was dragging me down and I was forced to leave due to being so tired. I would have been the guy at 6'1" tall dude with "black and gray" or "gray and black hair" (dependent upon which mirror I look in) on my head to keep my brain from being addled by the Thai sun and appropriately dressed in a Kors button down shirt, light wool slacks, and a dark windbreaker.

I'm not sure how we could prevent a very few entities from claiming a majority of any given market. That they need to be regulated is a given in my mind. Banks and credit card companies are robber barons as far as I am concerned.

As for bailouts, it is my opinion that no company is too big to fail and no company should be bailed out. I see no benefit from the latest bailout fiasco. It is an affront to the free enterprise system that a company run by incompetents and/or crooks can have a government parachute.

I blame Bush and the Republicans as much or more than I blame the Democrats. I am especially still pissed off at the Lehman Brothers bailout. The CEO, in the three years before the company failed, and while it was spiraling doenward, received $280 million in salary and bonuses. He, and the Board of Directors should be in prison.

Anyway, I am not prone to go to protests but I admire those who do, whether they are protesting for or against issues I embrace.

Jack

I do believe I called it a "tragedy". The banks are the malefactors here, and so many people were duped. But many of them have had their mortgages re-written, and meanwhile, who pays? The taxpayers or future taxpayers. The banks should have had to eat it, but Uncle Sam keeps picking up the tab. But to say that some people were duped by the banks does not equate to allowing everyone willy nilly to forego paying their mortgages or to demand multiple re-negotiations of them. (I believe JackDallas himself re-negotiated his mortgage down, and Jack is hardly what you would call "needy". Wholesale bailouts--whether to banks or to individuals--bother me. They indicate that the legal and moral system is breaking down...along with the financial.

As far as someone being unable to make her mortgage because of a medical condition, that is a separate issue, and I am on record as favoring a universal and portable healthcare system for all citizens and permanent residents. The lady could have continued making her mortgage had the insurance companies not entered the picture.

to kick off their annual meeting'!?!?

Hard to conceive more in-your-face brazenly arrogant (or astonishingly tone-deaf) than that!

Good for you and the others for participating in peaceful protests. Agree that more people should speak up against the Wall Street and Big Banking excesses. I do keep in touch with our Congressional delegation & Senators about it but since the Big Banks don't have HQs here and our local/regional banks are (for the most part) quite ethical and in good $$ shape, it's not that much of an issue here. Although the Big Bonuses do bother everyone. EVERYONE.

Did Mrs. run participate, too, may I ask?

As for the Roaring Twenties theme, how horrendous! What is wrong with them? Don't they have more sense than that? What is wrong, especially, with their President & Board and various P.R. / Communications staffers for not foreseeing how bad that would look, at a time like this? Such arrogance boggles the mind. So insensitive, it's just amazing.

Tell us more, if you have the time, about Dean Baker. I saw him on PBS/Lehrer Evening Report last night & was struck by his strength and outspoken firmness. I could look him up, of course, but would prefer your own take on it & his positions and activities.

Thanks for the links, too.

Good on ya, run!

SN/t.

Agree with tartuffe; it's incredibly arrogant and unspeakably insensitive. Am wondering how Sen. Baucus' efforts on the health care reform bill is being treated back home in Montana?