Wall Street Branding.
10/10/11 21:11![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ytterbius.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI had a thought today about Wall Street, which was inspired by memory of arguments with my ex-wife. It goes something like this.
Just because nastiness can't be proven doesn't mean that it won't be noted.
If a house-builder sold a bunch of houses, and almost all of those houses burned down due to some design flaw, just because that builder might get away with denial and disinformation, doesn't mean that those affected don't know what happened. They might not have a day in court, but they certainly aren't going to buy from that builder again, and they'll likely spread the word to others.
Branding. We know that it's a powerful phenomenon.
Same deal with Wall Street.
Very very few people really understand the details of how Wall Street works. It's an incredibly complicated machine. However, an increasing number of of people are tuned in to how Wall Street is somewhere around the roots of the whole collapse, not just in the US, but globally.
Wall Street was selling derivative products to banks and investors all over the world, and it's quite clear that in many cases they knew very well what was likely to happen to them (they would explode).
Does it matter that nobody on Wall Street has been punished for their part in selling burning houses to people? Well, yes, that would be great if it happened, and might restore some credibility and "brand" to Wall Street; but the banks and politicians act as if they can just ignore the problem, and by pretending that they haven't been caught all will be like they aren't actually guilty.
To act this way is utter foolishness, though. The people know better, and the Wall Street Brand has turned to crap. The problem for WS is that they are very dependent on people buying their brand, and I suspect that many are quaking at where the future is going to take them.
What's particularly powerful is that the Wall Street brand is looked down on by both the left, and the Tea Party. Tea Party leaders are doing what they can to suggest that their supporters are against the occupy WS groups, but just because they say it doesn't make it true, and you can bet that there are alot of individuals in the Tea Party movement that really do support the occupation.
Just because nastiness can't be proven doesn't mean that it won't be noted.
If a house-builder sold a bunch of houses, and almost all of those houses burned down due to some design flaw, just because that builder might get away with denial and disinformation, doesn't mean that those affected don't know what happened. They might not have a day in court, but they certainly aren't going to buy from that builder again, and they'll likely spread the word to others.
Branding. We know that it's a powerful phenomenon.
Same deal with Wall Street.
Very very few people really understand the details of how Wall Street works. It's an incredibly complicated machine. However, an increasing number of of people are tuned in to how Wall Street is somewhere around the roots of the whole collapse, not just in the US, but globally.
Wall Street was selling derivative products to banks and investors all over the world, and it's quite clear that in many cases they knew very well what was likely to happen to them (they would explode).
Does it matter that nobody on Wall Street has been punished for their part in selling burning houses to people? Well, yes, that would be great if it happened, and might restore some credibility and "brand" to Wall Street; but the banks and politicians act as if they can just ignore the problem, and by pretending that they haven't been caught all will be like they aren't actually guilty.
To act this way is utter foolishness, though. The people know better, and the Wall Street Brand has turned to crap. The problem for WS is that they are very dependent on people buying their brand, and I suspect that many are quaking at where the future is going to take them.
What's particularly powerful is that the Wall Street brand is looked down on by both the left, and the Tea Party. Tea Party leaders are doing what they can to suggest that their supporters are against the occupy WS groups, but just because they say it doesn't make it true, and you can bet that there are alot of individuals in the Tea Party movement that really do support the occupation.
Re: "bailouts of the financial institutions"
Date: 13/10/11 02:14 (UTC)