<p>I don’t agree Pure, Main Street seriously not only believes it was WS’s fault, but that everyone on WS played a role. WS has always been the target of those who disliked the salaries paid there so the only thing that has changed is scale.</p>
<p>And don’t worry, MS will be pi**ed beyond words at the Doe’s too when the bailout comes for those who took the liar loans.</p>
<p>“I don’t agree Pure, Main Street seriously not only believes it was WS’s fault, but that everyone on WS played a role”</p>
<p>That is ridiculous. Untrue.</p>
<p>It is purely, simply and plainly Wall Street’s fault.
The financial system has failed.
Business has become a thing conducted to impress WS analysts without regard for long term performance.
It is what I believe.
It is what my very conservative neighbors believe.
It is what the members of my church believe.</p>
<p>So why is everyone worried? If it’s all Wall Street’s fault shareholders will vote with their feet and the banks will fail.</p>
<p>Dstark, I think BigG speaks for most of America.</p>
<p>hmom5 and monydad thanks for your professional insight. Hopefully it will give folks some education beyond the “let’s blame bankers for all woes” simplistic view of the current situation.</p>
<p>PureAdvisor, you also have been informative and mature in this thread. Good luck in your summer internship.</p>
<p>IMO you folks get it.</p>
<p>Just because you have cheap and easy money doesn’t mean you should take it. I thought it was the jobs of the armies of risk managers that bank hire to decide what easy money to take and what easy money looks fishy. Because if it’s too good to be true, it usually is.</p>
<p>There needs to be a thorough house-cleaning on wall street.</p>
<p>If the banks had exercised even a modicum of prudence when the going was good, they wouldn’t be in this mess. It’s for this reason that the Canadian banking system isn’t collapsing upon itself.</p>
<p>Let them fail. Let them feel the consequences of being reckless. I like to compare Wall Street to a 5 year old kid. When you’re done yelling at them to stop doing whatever they’re not supposed to do, you cane them until they cry (well they used to in England). And then they probably won’t do it again.</p>
<p>I LOL’d when I read this.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/business/economy/27norris.html?_r=1&ref=business[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/business/economy/27norris.html?_r=1&ref=business</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wall Street, in whatever form it survives the present crisis, has got to stop rewarding people for playing accounting games. When a few firms do this, they reap big, unearned rewards. When everyone does it, the system crashes. “Juicing” stock prices by pandering to the ignorance of Wall Street is like any other vice; on a small scale it is profitable for some and tolerated, on a large scale it leads to the destruction of society.</p>
<p>You can get a little more enjoyment from a prostitute than a wall street product. :)</p>
<p>Ya know, when I hear the BigG’s of the world, Times Square by night starts to look pretty darn attractive:)</p>
<p>I have a banker friend that’s written quite a bit about the relationships between Wall St and prostitutes.</p>
<p>“Ya know, when I hear the BigG’s of the world, Times Square by night starts to look pretty darn attractive”</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s your point? Here’s a reproduction of the grammatically correct version of what you’re trying to say:</p>
<p>I have a banker friend who has written quite a bit about the relationship between Wall Street and Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>"You can get a little more enjoyment from a prostitute than a wall street product. "</p>
<p>I don’t see how, when most of you apparently feel they provide exactly the same service to the consumer.</p>
<p>"You can get a little more enjoyment from a prostitute than a wall street product. "</p>
<p>“I don’t see how, when most of you apparently feel they provide exactly the same service to the consumer.”</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Prostitutes give you a better bang for a buck.</p>
<p>Well let’s face it, those of us putting in the legendary 100 hour weeks on Wall Street are in even worse shape than the old girls in in Times Square. Sad but true according to the about to be published ‘Women of Wall Street, Should Have Stayed With The Oldest Profession’ by Maureen Dowd.</p>
<p>“Prostitutes give you a better bang for a buck.”</p>
<p>So now we’re just quibbling about the price?</p>
<p>“…the legendary 100 hour weeks…”</p>
<p>I like a good time as much as anyone, but that’s got to be tough duty, I can see why I Banking would have more appeal. At the margin.</p>
<p>“What’s your point? Here’s a reproduction of the grammatically correct version of what you’re trying to say:”</p>
<p>Forums are a loose medium. People that point out spelling and grammar errors are generally idiots for not understanding the medium.</p>
<p>“Prostitutes give you a better bang for a buck.”</p>
<p>So now we’re just quibbling about the price?</p>
<p>“…the legendary 100 hour weeks…”</p>
<p>I like a good time as much as anyone, but that’s got to be tough duty, I can see why I Banking would have more appeal. At the margin. </p>
<p>LOL…</p>
<p>In the world’s oldest profession, women sell their bodies.
On Wall Street, men sell their souls.</p>