PDA

View Full Version : This is getting serious folks...


Stewie
04-11-2008, 03:23 PM
Fed information as of 4/10/2008 shows non-borrowed reserves at ($99) billion compared to total reserves of $45 billion. A negative non-borrowed is a double negative and that means NOW banks have negative REAL reserves to a factor of 2X.

That means with the OTC derivatives and CDOs they hold, most of the big banks are truly insolvent. Where's your money?

The Fed will pull every string it can to correct the situation including handing all this junk to the last sucker (taxpayers). The big banks surely won't be harmed by their stupidity, they're too entwined with the powers that be.

Have a good weekend! :)

jAZ
04-11-2008, 03:35 PM
Is this what they call "burying the lede"?
...most of the big banks are truly insolvent.
Damn. Thanks for crapping in my Cheerios.

Where's my mattress?

penchief
04-11-2008, 03:55 PM
Maybe once the free money ethic that's ruining our country is finally exposed for what it really is (dishonesty) and enough honest people are personally affected, people will start to realize that we've been scammed big time by a bunch of business crooks and war profiteers, both on Wall Street and in the White House. Too bad it's going to take a lot of innocent people getting hurt badly for the people of this country to wake the **** up.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 04:05 PM
Hopefully we can get rid of our progressive money system which prints cash from thin air and go back to honest money.

jAZ
04-11-2008, 04:08 PM
...our progressive money system...
What is this?

penchief
04-11-2008, 04:19 PM
Hopefully we can get rid of our progressive money system which prints cash from thin air and go back to honest money.

And while we're at it, let's get rid of the "thin air" concepts of market manipulation and speculation as the overriding economic factors. Let's return ideas, products and services, and labor as the driving forces of our economy again.

You can still be an investor and a free marketeer even if you don't believe in the greed and corruption that has exemplified corporate America over the past thirty years.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 04:26 PM
What is this?

The money system which came with the widespread introduction of progressivism. Our money system is based on Keynesian economics. It's essentially a socialist economic system. But some of our resident socialists don't like that word, so I thought I'd be kind and call it "progressive" since it was the progressive presidents of our era who ushered it in.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 04:26 PM
And while we're at it, let's get rid of the "thin air" concepts of market manipulation and speculation as the overriding economic factors. Let's return ideas, products and services, and labor as the driving forces of our economy again.

That's what I said. Only I didn't need to mindlessly bloviate to get the point across.

jAZ
04-11-2008, 04:27 PM
The money system which came with the widespread introduction of progressivism. Our money system is based on Keynesian economics. It's essentially a socialist economic system. But some of our resident socialists don't like that word, so I thought I'd be kind and call it "progressive" since it was the progressive presidents of our era who ushered it in.

What's socialist about it? I don't know enough to even see the link you have in mind.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 04:27 PM
...except for the speculation part. That's just stupid talk.

You'll never be able to regulate speculation.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 04:28 PM
What's socialist about it? I don't know enough to even see the link you have in mind.

You're not supposed to. You're supposed to think that I'm crazy for even suggesting it. Why aren't you pointing and laughing?

*tap* *tap*

Is this thing on?

BucEyedPea
04-11-2008, 04:29 PM
And while we're at it, let's get rid of the "thin air" concepts of market manipulation and speculation as the overriding economic factors.

That would be the Fed, my dear.
That ain't a free market.
A shame it gets a bad rap for what really is market manipulation.

BucEyedPea
04-11-2008, 04:30 PM
Our money: progressively inflated.

Stewie you're scaring the b'jeezus outta me!!

penchief
04-11-2008, 04:30 PM
That's what I said. Only I didn't need to mindlessly bloviate to get the point across.

Then we agree on something.

Stewie
04-11-2008, 04:35 PM
And while we're at it, let's get rid of the "thin air" concepts of market manipulation and speculation as the overriding economic factors. Let's return ideas, products and services, and labor as the driving forces of our economy again.

You can still be an investor and a free marketeer even if you don't believe in the greed and corruption that has exemplified corporate America over the past thirty years.

Thirty years? They were just getting warmed up 85 years ago. They (the banks) rigged the system to their benefit way back then. In fact, Henry Ford was outraged that the Federal gov't was issuing BONDS! WTF? Why does the Federal gov't need to issue bonds? Oh wait, the banks got $36 million profit (for doing nothing) on a $30 million power project. Nothing has changed since then.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 04:36 PM
I don't know enough to even see the link you have in mind.


Might I suggest you start here... (http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Routledge-Classics-S/dp/0415253896/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207953166&sr=8-1)

Or don't, and instead just point and laugh. I'm more used to the latter than anyone actually taking the time to learn something different than what they've been fed through the state education system and the state media system.

That's right. I said it. I meant it.

penchief
04-11-2008, 04:45 PM
Thirty years? They were just getting warmed up 85 years ago. They (the banks) rigged the system to their benefit way back then. In fact, Henry Ford was outraged that the Federal gov't was issuing BONDS! WTF? Why does the Federal gov't need to issue bonds? Oh wait, the banks got $36 million profit (for doing nothing) on a $30 million power project. Nothing has changed since then.

I don't disagree. It's just that Reagan Era deregulation has assisted in restoring an imbalance that overwhelmingly favors commercial interests, corporations, and banks while turning a blind eye to dishonesty and unfair practices that restrict a true free market (fair market). And such deregulation has contributed to an overall anti-social environment in this country (i.e usury, gouging, market manipulation, environmental destruction, worker exploitation, etc.).

After all, we could return to the days of child labor, unsafe working conditions, or maybe even slavery.

jAZ
04-11-2008, 04:51 PM
Might I suggest you start here... (http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Routledge-Classics-S/dp/0415253896/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207953166&sr=8-1)

Or don't, and instead just point and laugh. I'm more used to the latter than anyone actually taking the time to learn something different than what they've been fed through the state education system and the state media system.

That's right. I said it. I meant it.

I almost said "can you point me to something I don't have to order online". But in reading the first review on the book, I realized what your point was and came up with a more relevant bit of snark.

You could have just said "central economic planning".

I really was just looking for the cruxct of what was socialized about any of this. But I get your point now. Thanks for the link.

jAZ
04-11-2008, 04:53 PM
Oh, and would the opposite of cental economic planning be multiple and competing American currencies?

irishjayhawk
04-11-2008, 04:55 PM
And yet people scoffed when I asked the question of whether we'd see the Great Depression 2.

BucEyedPea
04-11-2008, 04:56 PM
And yet people scoffed when I asked the question of whether we'd see the Great Depression 2.

Well, at least that's not as bad as when they were called "panics" in the 19th century. If anything the language just gets softer: panics, depressions, recessions, soft landings etc.

penchief
04-11-2008, 05:05 PM
And yet people scoffed when I asked the question of whether we'd see the Great Depression 2.

Not me. Another depression might actually be necessary to clean out the scum without it turning to revolution.

This is exactly why I have always advocated balance and economic justice. IMO, balance and fairness are aspects of our system that perpetuate hope in the American Dream and buffer the violent overthrow of our government.

penchief
04-11-2008, 05:17 PM
...except for the speculation part. That's just stupid talk.

You'll never be able to regulate speculation.

I didn't necessarily say regulate it, I said it shouldn't be the overriding factor affecting everybody's life. Wall Street speculators pretty much run our economy. And when they're doing it for their own financial windfall, that ain't right.

How much it costs a rural family to drive to their minimum wage job ought to depend more on fair market factors instead of prices manipulated by Wall street greed-mongers or the stifling of ingenuity (i.e. CAFE standards).

Brock
04-11-2008, 05:20 PM
And yet people scoffed when I asked the question of whether we'd see the Great Depression 2.

I am still scoffing at that. It shows a complete lack of understanding of history. It's like comparing Iraq with Vietnam.

irishjayhawk
04-11-2008, 05:23 PM
I am still scoffing at that. It shows a complete lack of understanding of history. It's like comparing Iraq with Vietnam.

Yes, because in order to have the equivalent of the Great Depression 2, we'd have to have the EXACT same conditions.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 05:37 PM
You could have just said "central economic planning".


Yes but I prefer to assign philosophical ideologies to these white-washed terms so that people are clear on what it is that they are supporting, even if that clarity doesn't come without having to do some leg work to get there. It's part of my whole "teach a man to fish" charm... :)

Taco John
04-11-2008, 05:41 PM
Oh, and would the opposite of cental economic planning be multiple and competing American currencies?

Now you're talking. In technology, it's called something like "redundant fail-over." In architecture they say things like "if they drove a plane into it, it would still hold up - kind of like pushing a pencil through the mesh of a screen door."

Yes. I am an advocate of decentralized, competing bartering currency.

jAZ
04-11-2008, 06:09 PM
Yes but I prefer to assign philosophical ideologies to these white-washed terms so that people are clear on what it is that they are supporting, even if that clarity doesn't come without having to do some leg work to get there. It's part of my whole "teach a man to fish" charm... :)

That's fine by me. I just meant as an answer to my question.

jAZ
04-11-2008, 06:26 PM
Now you're talking. In technology, it's called something like "redundant fail-over." In architecture they say things like "if they drove a plane into it, it would still hold up - kind of like pushing a pencil through the mesh of a screen door."

Yes. I am an advocate of decentralized, competing bartering currency.

Well, they exist right?

Called foreign currency? There's just no market for them because of the network affects of (the high value of) the existing US dollar.

But as the dollar's value drops, more and more domestic business is conducted using the euro.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 07:08 PM
Well, they exist right?

Called foreign currency? There's just no market for them because of the network affects of (the high value of) the existing US dollar.

But as the dollar's value drops, more and more domestic business is conducted using the euro.


I'm trying to get away from our fiat system. Why in the world would I want to chain myself to someone else's fiat currency (many of which are propped up only by our fiat currency).

I'm talking about honest money vs. the paper & tin stuff. Actual capital. Stuff I don't have to rely on greedy white guys in New York or Washington pulling levers and crunching numbers in order to keep afloat.

banyon
04-11-2008, 07:17 PM
The money system which came with the widespread introduction of progressivism. Our money system is based on Keynesian economics. It's essentially a socialist economic system. But some of our resident socialists don't like that word, so I thought I'd be kind and call it "progressive" since it was the progressive presidents of our era who ushered it in.

More horse s*** borne out of a late-blooming internet education (or brainwashing, seriously you used to be more reasonable) I guess.

Progressives (myself included, on this site as well) have long advocated monetary reform. What do you think William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech was about anyway?

No progressive elements advocated the creation of the Federal Reserve or the abolishment of the gold standard in 1972 (nor fractional reserve banking dating back to the Middle Ages). To the contrary, T.R. activley campaigned against it. "We are opposed to the so-called Aldrich Currency Bill because its provisions would place our currency and credit system in private hands, not subject to effective public control." TR- 1912

Progressives are against any combination of unchecked power, government or private, that doesn't exclude the Fed and you won't find any progressive sources trumpeting its virtues.

Of course when you conflate Socialists, progressives, liberals, and anyone who disagrees with you into one pile, these sort of things become difficult to explain, so your confusion is understandable. Check the history and see if it agrees with anything you've posted here.

CHIEF4EVER
04-11-2008, 11:00 PM
I don't have to rely on greedy white guys in New York or Washington pulling levers and crunching numbers in order to keep afloat.

Barack? Is it really you?
















Just kidding Teej. Couldn't pass that one up. :evil:

wazu
04-11-2008, 11:09 PM
Now you're talking. In technology, it's called something like "redundant fail-over." In architecture they say things like "if they drove a plane into it, it would still hold up - kind of like pushing a pencil through the mesh of a screen door."

Yes. I am an advocate of decentralized, competing bartering currency.

I am opposed to this. Honestly, this is where I felt the good doctor finally went off the deep end. Re-instate the gold standard if you want. I don't necessarily agree with abolishing the Fed completely, but I wouldn't be crying if they did. But half a dozen different currencies to deal with at the supermarket is not an improvement in my opinion. We can't afford for the U.S. dollar to fail.

Logical
04-11-2008, 11:31 PM
I'm trying to get away from our fiat system. Why in the world would I want to chain myself to someone else's fiat currency (many of which are propped up only by our fiat currency).

I'm talking about honest money vs. the paper & tin stuff. Actual capital. Stuff I don't have to rely on greedy white guys in New York or Washington pulling levers and crunching numbers in order to keep afloat.I am all for this, it would make my Gold fund and Gold stocks worth literally a fortune. Lets see how much would gold have to be worth to back our multi trillion dollar currency, the mind boggles.

patteeu
04-12-2008, 07:29 AM
And yet people scoffed when I asked the question of whether we'd see the Great Depression 2.

<---- Still scoffing.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2008, 08:39 AM
Progressives are against any combination of unchecked power, government or private, that doesn't exclude the Fed and you won't find any progressive sources trumpeting its virtues.

Private power? LMAO
What happened to the will of the people?

banyon
04-12-2008, 08:52 AM
Private power? LMAO
What happened to the will of the people?

It gets usurped by the will of the few. Ultra wealthy corporations aren't "the people".

irishjayhawk
04-12-2008, 01:16 PM
<---- Still scoffing.

Why again?

It keeps getting more serious and yet you're still scoffing at a simple question of whether we'll reach GD levels.

Stewie
04-12-2008, 01:44 PM
Why again?

It keeps getting more serious and yet you're still scoffing at a simple question of whether we'll reach GD levels.

You're closer to being right than wrong, unfortunately. Depression? I don't know, but Greenspan said you could never see a recession while it was happening. Well, he said we are now in a recession. What has changed? Things have to be so bad that he knows we're in a recession... AS IT'S HAPPENING?!

From my favorite economist. He advised Volcker back when he turned the economy around when he raised rates to 20%. No one now has the balls to do that, so play the other side of the coin. He published this about three years ago and it was prescient.

First interest rates rise affecting the drivers of the US economy, housing, but before that auto production goes from bull to a bear markets.
This impacts many other industries and the jobs report. An economy is either rising at a rising rate or business activity is falling at an increasing rate. That is economic law 101. There is no such thing in any market as a Plateau of Prosperity or Cinderella - Goldilocks situations.
We have witnessed the Dow rise on economic news indicating deceleration of activity. This continues until major corporations announce poor earnings, making the Dow fall faster than it rose, moving it deeply into the red.
The formula economically is inherent in #2 which is lower economic activity equals lower profits.
Lower profits leads to lower Federal Tax revenues.
Lower Federal tax revenues in the face of increased Federal spending causes geometric, not arithmetic, rises in the US Federal Budget deficit. This is also true for cities & States as it is for the Federal government.
The increased US Federal Budget deficit in the face of a US Trade Deficit increases the US Current Account Deficit.
The US Current Account Balance is the speedometer of the money exiting the US into world markets (deficit).
It is this deficit that must be met by incoming investment in the US in any form. It could be anything from businesses, equities to Treasury instruments. We are already seeing a fall off in the situation of developing nations carrying the spending habits of industrial nations; a contradiction in terms.
If the investment by non US entities fails to meet the exiting dollars by all means, then the US must turn within to finance the shortfall.
Assuming the US turns inside to finance all maturities, interest rates will rise with the long term rates moving fastest regardless of prevailing business conditions.
This will further contract business activity and start a downward spiral of unparalleled dimension because the size of US debt already issued is of unparalleled dimension. Therefore as you get to #12 you are automatically right back at #1. This is an economic downward spiral.

patteeu
04-13-2008, 09:26 AM
Why again?

It keeps getting more serious and yet you're still scoffing at a simple question of whether we'll reach GD levels.

The Great Depression was an event that lasted over a decade. I think it's a little (to understate the matter) chicken-little-ish to be announcing that we're entering the Great Depression II even before the country has officially landed in a two quarter recession. Get back to me in 5 or 10 years.