Dear Wall Street: We're Sorry

[angelofdeath]

^^^ bump

[Soup]

These are technicalities you are discussing, when the actual debate should be focused on the fundamental issues of the economy and why we are even facing a crisis such as this in the first place.

 

That is flatout bullshit and you know it. What im writing is in direct response to the topic of this thread which is that article at the begining of this thread, so if it's a technicality, then this thread is a technicality. Lets be real here: You dont know shit about banking and you're too much of a putz to admit what you dont know and ask questions. So you're going to regurgitate the same script from the Zeitgeist that everyone's heard a million times before and has been debunked a million times as well. But if you want to have that discussion, bump the Zeitgeist thread because I'm trying to have a discussion about the previous stated "technicalities" which happens to be about how REAL banking works. Not conspiracies.

 

In response to that script:

 

The fed's usage of adjusting the prime rate and federal funds rate is not to perpetuate growth but to adjust the speed of a growing economy at a sustainable rate.

 

And the other staple of that script from the Zeitgeist is fiat money, except it leaves out that gold and silver are also fiat currencies. A fiat currency is a product whose value is determined by the market.

 

I dont even know where you're going with this. To discriminate against capitalism? Is that all? Great dude you're really smart, hating on capitalism... from a computer... on the internet... in the most privileged country in the world.

 

And I'll be the first to say that capitalism has its follies but if I was to say that socialist institutions are the ones saving capitalism then you get pissed off because all you guys do is react to buzzwords. It's pathetic.

 

 

AOD you're fucking pathetic. This dude just slammed your free market and you bumped it. You're a fucking moron who cant keep his opinions straight.

 

I'll say this again. Stop acting like you know everything and ask me questions. I'll answer anything.

[angelofdeath]

AOD you're fucking pathetic. This dude just slammed your free market and you bumped it. You're a fucking moron who cant keep his opinions straight.

 

I'll say this again. Stop acting like you know everything and ask me questions. I'll answer anything.

 

this is hilarious.

 

you believe the FED is a free market institution?

the corporate fascist/quasi socialist economy is the 'free market?'

 

and YOU are calling ME an idiot?

[Soup]

Uh no it's a clearing house for the united states government, but that's not what I said. I said you bumped Zig's post there when he's against capitalism and you're for it. Clearly, you didnt even read what he wrote and you'll bump anything.

[angelofdeath]

The fed is a goverment created monopoly that holds sole power to create money and artificially change interest rates. If this is the free market then I guess you are also going to tell me freedom is slavery. "you fucking idiot"

[Soup]

Have you thought about what it would be like without the federal reserve? You want to take a stab at a question like that?

[Zig]

That is flatout bullshit and you know it. What im writing is in direct response to the topic of this thread which is that article at the begining of this thread, so if it's a technicality, then this thread is a technicality. Lets be real here: You dont know shit about banking and you're too much of a putz to admit what you dont know and ask questions. So you're going to regurgitate the same script from the Zeitgeist that everyone's heard a million times before and has been debunked a million times as well. But if you want to have that discussion, bump the Zeitgeist thread because I'm trying to have a discussion about the previous stated "technicalities" which happens to be about how REAL banking works. Not conspiracies.

 

In response to that script:

 

The fed's usage of adjusting the prime rate and federal funds rate is not to perpetuate growth but to adjust the speed of a growing economy at a sustainable rate.

 

And the other staple of that script from the Zeitgeist is fiat money, except it leaves out that gold and silver are also fiat currencies. A fiat currency is a product whose value is determined by the market.

 

I dont even know where you're going with this. To discriminate against capitalism? Is that all? Great dude you're really smart, hating on capitalism... from a computer... on the internet... in the most privileged country in the world.

 

And I'll be the first to say that capitalism has its follies but if I was to say that socialist institutions are the ones saving capitalism then you get pissed off because all you guys do is react to buzzwords. It's pathetic.

 

 

AOD you're fucking pathetic. This dude just slammed your free market and you bumped it. You're a fucking moron who cant keep his opinions straight.

 

I'll say this again. Stop acting like you know everything and ask me questions. I'll answer anything.

 

Look, I'm not going to argue with you and start calling you names and insulting you. I really could care less about you personally, you can have whatever opinion you want. I'm not talking about conspiracy theories or whatever label you want to throw around, which you do quite often btw from the posts I've read, and I'm not talking about Zeitgeist either. What I am referring to is in direct correlation to the topic of the thread, which is about Wall St., The Fed, and The Economy. You want to deflect my entire response by throwing a buzzword like conspiracy theory at me, and then referencing an internet movie that I didn't even really like? That's fine. My post IS about REAL banking, it's about REAL fundamental monetary policy issues that can shed light on why we are continuously facing crises. I don't need to try and make you understand that, if you can't have an intelligent discussion then you're the putz.

 

For clarification I wasn't discriminating against capitalism. The trend I find in education today, especially in community college is that capitalism / industrialism / globalism are the culprits of modern society. I tend to be leaning more towards something along the lines of criminal elements within our capitalist structure having lead to Tyranny, so we are no longer in a pure form of capitalism or a free market economy since we don't have any control or real regulation over our monetary policies. I think though, that it is fair to say capitalism was a contributing factor which lead to the monopolies and corruption that was formed. Does this mean capitalism is evil? No. Does this mean that the answer is socialism or communism? No. I don't necessarily think a pure form of either of these economic systems truly exists, and mostly we have lost control over our economic system to the point that anything which is offered up by these same institutions is simply a means for them to expand and consolidate further authority over global economics. The answer to this problem is obviously unclear, we can't solve a crises as massive as this over night but I think the first steps towards beginning to see a change and protecting our sovereign economy rather than having it merge into a globalist economy, would be to decentralize our monetary policy, abolish the Federal Reserve and legally pursue those crony capitalists who profited off of the pyramid scheme.

 

I apologize Soup if you had trouble comprehending that.

[Soup]

 

I apologize Soup if you had trouble comprehending that.

On a personal level, you're an embarrassment to even a community college level of education by the way you handle this forum of discussion. It doesnt take a JC reading comprehension course to read the bolded words: "Goldman Sachs Group" "Taxpayer Help" "Citigroup" "AIG" "Bank of America" or "Bogus Bungle." The article doesnt even discuss prime rates or funds rates or federal control of the economy like you and AOD seem to be stuck on stupid about, but only discusses the bailout of AIG through NY Fed's buyout of toxic assets. THAT, sir, is what this discussion is about. Not capitalism, not any of your bogus "big picture" incoherant ramblings (without taking into consideration that there is no big picture, no international banking cabal pulling the strings; Just a lot of people doing a lot of shit).Simply stated, the author saw the bailout as government aid for a private interest group that could possibly sink taxpayers into debt. All my posts are in response to that. Yours arent-- and not because you can see the big picture, but because you dont understand a single fucking word of this discussion. If you know about these companies, be my guest and prove it. I don't think you do and Im not afraid to say it.

 

But your fucking problem and the problem with crossfire is that you get so fucking caught up in the etheral idealistic debate over "capitalism," "communism" "neofascistblahblahblah" that you can't even give realworld examples about... ANYTHING. This article is a real world example. Lets see you finish this debate first without going onto psychadellically discussing capitalism and communism in terms of good and evil like a fucking lunatic. Lets see Crossfire actually finish discussing ONE THING without it turning into a whole other animal entirely. Can you do that? no. you cant.

[boner9000]

Have you thought about what it would be like without the federal reserve? You want to take a stab at a question like that?

 

Sure, here's a start: http://history1800s.about.com/od/thegildedage/a/financialpanics.htm

[Zig]

On a personal level, you're an embarrassment to even a community college level of education by the way you handle this forum of discussion. It doesnt take a JC reading comprehension course to read the bolded words: "Goldman Sachs Group" "Taxpayer Help" "Citigroup" "AIG" "Bank of America" or "Bogus Bungle." The article doesnt even discuss prime rates or funds rates or federal control of the economy like you and AOD seem to be stuck on stupid about, but only discusses the bailout of AIG through NY Fed's buyout of toxic assets. THAT, sir, is what this discussion is about. Not capitalism, not any of your bogus "big picture" incoherant ramblings (without taking into consideration that there is no big picture, no international banking cabal pulling the strings; Just a lot of people doing a lot of shit).Simply stated, the author saw the bailout as government aid for a private interest group that could possibly sink taxpayers into debt. All my posts are in response to that. Yours arent-- and not because you can see the big picture, but because you dont understand a single fucking word of this discussion. If you know about these companies, be my guest and prove it. I don't think you do and Im not afraid to say it.

 

But your fucking problem and the problem with crossfire is that you get so fucking caught up in the etheral idealistic debate over "capitalism," "communism" "neofascistblahblahblah" that you can't even give realworld examples about... ANYTHING. This article is a real world example. Lets see you finish this debate first without going onto psychadellically discussing capitalism and communism in terms of good and evil like a fucking lunatic. Lets see Crossfire actually finish discussing ONE THING without it turning into a whole other animal entirely. Can you do that? no. you cant.

 

So, the bailout of America's largest banks because they were facing bankruptcy that was threatened would lead to systemic collapse, and even global recession, has nothing to do with the "big picture"?

 

Hank Paulson stated about the bailouts:

 

"They wanted us to tell the American people how bad things could get," Paulson said. "I shuddered, because I thought, to the extent we scared people, it was going to make the crisis worse."

 

"I believe that if the system collapsed, we easily could've seen unemployment of 25 percent," he said. "I think we came very, very close."

 

You're telling me I am on an ethereal idealistic high-horse, when you're the one who doesn't want to have to discuss the issues that this thread is raising. Do I really need to sit here and plug this thread full of data to have a discussion?

 

I'm assuming you were for the bailouts? I actually was against them. I don't see why we should have been bailing out the very people who have not only caused, but profited incredibly from the problems we were facing. Not only did we bail these capitalists out, but then we proceed to authorize them to solve the problems and we give them even more power over our economics. I understand Goldman Sachs is a major power player, and there is a revolving door for those at the top leading them towards high positions in government, once again regarding economic policies. That alone raises my suspicions.

 

You're also quite sure of yourself that there are no conspiracies, when that is obviously not the case. You're well aware of the theories out there, I can tell, and you consciously reject them. It's almost as if you have stockholme syndrome, defending the actions of people who could care less about your well-being. Do you know these power players personally? From your aggressive responses towards me I would assume you do, because I can't understand the anger and contempt you hold towards someone simply trying to have a conversation on a forum when it directly relates to the threads topic. Goldman Sachs, AIG, Bailouts, etc. all have to do with monetary policy and economics, and the crisis was of a proportion large enough to warrant the discussion of it's fundamental flaws.

[Soup]

AOD, I figured you would've started with the Civil war or the 1700's, but you probably have never taken an economics class in your life so you wouldn't know about times in american history when there was no federal reserve. Reality is, without fiat currencies and the fed, every state (and even every bank) having their own currency stagnates the economy. We would still be living in the 1700's.

 

Zig, I've already explained what the bailouts were in words that weren't my opinion but the professional opinions of those in the banking industry. These arent things you can understand through a blog or the internet or a single quote. You need to take an economics course to understand game theory, behavioral theory, fiscal policy, and monetary policy. These are Nobel prize winning concepts that have become the tools of economics wallstreet and the federal reserve, and without understanding those you wont understand anything. I can answer basic questions regarding the content of that article but if you want to start talking about things that big you need to go to school.

[boner9000]

 

I'm assuming you were for the bailouts? I actually was against them. I don't see why we should have been bailing out the very people who have not only caused, but profited incredibly from the problems we were facing. Not only did we bail these capitalists out, but then we proceed to authorize them to solve the problems and we give them even more power over our economics. I understand Goldman Sachs is a major power player, and there is a revolving door for those at the top leading them towards high positions in government, once again regarding economic policies. That alone raises my suspicions.

.

 

say it with me LEH-MAN BRO-THERS..

[Soup]

I'm assuming you were for the bailouts? I actually was against them. I don't see why we should have been bailing out the very people who have not only caused, but profited incredibly from the problems we were facing. Not only did we bail these capitalists out, but then we proceed to authorize them to solve the problems and we give them even more power over our economics. I understand Goldman Sachs is a major power player, and there is a revolving door for those at the top leading them towards high positions in government, once again regarding economic policies. That alone raises my suspicions.

.

Am I for or against bailouts? I know the power players personally? What kind of questions are those? AIG and Goldman Sachs arent people you can meet you fucking moron. They're gigantic corporations with hundreds of thousands of employees, hundreds of thousands of shareholders and millions of customers. Only someone with no understanding of anything would even ask those questions. And then you go off the answer the questions for yourself like a lost fucking idiot who's too egotistical to ask for directions. Since Im tired of waiting for you to realize how little you actually know and ask basic real questions, I'm going to ask questions instead.

 

1. What the fuck is a "power player?"

2. Since you think I suffer from "stockholm syndrome" with no concept of real self interest, What do you think would happen if American banking industry collapsed and how would that affect you?

3. In the context of the above quote, the fuck is a "capitalist?" and what the fuck are you?

4. Who is "they" what was "their problem" and how did "we" solve it?

5. How did "we" "give them" more power over "our economics?"

6. What is a "revolving door" where is it, and what politicians do you know come from goldman sachs?

 

This shit is so fucking ridiculous.

[Zig]

Am I for or against bailouts? I know the power players personally? What kind of questions are those? AIG and Goldman Sachs arent people you can meet you fucking moron. They're gigantic corporations with hundreds of thousands of employees, hundreds of thousands of shareholders and millions of customers. Only someone with no understanding of anything would even ask those questions. And then you go off the answer the questions for yourself like a lost fucking idiot who's too egotistical to ask for directions. Since Im tired of waiting for you to realize how little you actually know and ask basic real questions, I'm going to ask questions instead.

 

1. What the fuck is a "power player?"

2. Since you think I suffer from "stockholm syndrome" with no concept of real self interest, What do you think would happen if American banking industry collapsed and how would that affect you?

3. In the context of the above quote, the fuck is a "capitalist?" and what the fuck are you?

4. Who is "they" what was "their problem" and how did "we" solve it?

5. How did "we" "give them" more power over "our economics?"

6. What is a "revolving door" where is it, and what politicians do you know come from goldman sachs?

 

This shit is so fucking ridiculous.

 

nah dude, you're fucking ridiculous. the entire way you have discussions is what is fucking ridiculous, because you have them in such a condescending tone and you're so disrespectful that i can definitely understand why AOD addresses you the way he does. not for nothin, but if you were in someones face talking down to them the way you are right now during a conversation someone would smack you upside the head. do you talk like this with people on a regular basis? because if so, people must think your a fucking jerk off and not like you very much. you're talking to me like i'm some kind of idiot, when i'm coming across as respectful as i possibly can without resorting to personal attacks and just voicing my opinions and perspectives on the fundamental policies of our economic system. yea i took one shot at you in my post saying you wouldn't comprehend it, but no where near the level of disrespect you've shown me and others. don't try and come off like i'm uneducated in the matter, i clearly expressed my point of view and i understand a lot more about the situation then you are giving me credit for. i don't claim to know everything about it, and neither should you.

 

1. A power player is someone in an authoritative position, like a Timothy Geithner or a Ben Bernanke, or a Henry Paulson, or CEO's, or President Barack Obama's that is what you would call a power player.

 

2. I have no idea what would happen. I don't project into the future and predict things I can't know for certain. I would assume that we would be in social crisis, probably lose more freedoms as some sort of military lock down would ensue.

 

3. In the context of the quote, my reference to capitalists were referring to the people involved with the banks and institutions that were being bailed out. What the fuck am I? What the fuck are you getting at is what I'm wondering. I'm definitely not a capitalist if that is what your trying to get me to say, I don't have any money invested into business and I'm not wealthy. I would say I'm a working class citizen, does that answer your question?

 

4. Are you serious? Do I really have to disect my post like this you can't understand just by reading it? Dude..

 

They = the bankers who were bailed out.

We = The people, the tax payers which bailed them out.

Their Problem = I didn't even say their problem, but if you are referring to the problems I stated I'm referring to the crisis, the whole topic of this discussion.

 

5. The Federal Reserve received sweeping new authority to regulate any company whose failure would endanger the U.S economy under Obama's overhaul plan.

 

6. Are you fucking for real? Like seriously, don't sit there and ridicule me with a condescending attitude when you aren't even aware of shit like this. A revolving door is when people have jobs in one industry and cycle between roles in government that are influenced by that industry. Goldman Sachs has an extensive record of such occurrences. I'll name a few for you:

 

• Robert E. Rubin, member of the board at Goldman Sachs and went on to become Secretary of the Treasury under the Clinton administration
  
• Joshua Bolten Executive Director for Legal and Government Affairs at Goldman Sachs, White House Chief of Staff under George W. Bush
  
• Jon Corzine, Chairman and Co-CEO of Goldman Sachs, 54th Governor of New Jersey
  
• Henrey Paulson, Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs, United States Treasury Secretary
  
• Neel Kashkari, Vice President at Goldman Sachs, Interim Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability in the Department of Treasury.
  

 

I could keep going, that is the tip of the iceberg!

 

I don't got a problem with you though, this is the way you have discussions I'll just get used to you.

[Soup]

You're mean and nobody likes you

Oh burrnnnn. Hahah ok lets see if you successfully elaborated on anything you were talking about. If you havent noticed you talk in bigass generalizations about things that go way over your head. This is for your benefit. Not mine. I know what you're trying to say, but you're not saying it, and Im just not going to say it for you.

 

1. A power player is someone in an authoritative position, like a Timothy Geithner or a Ben Bernanke, or a Henry Paulson, or CEO's, or President Barack Obama's that is what you would call a power player.

Oh so a power player is a person eh? So when you say Goldman sachs is a powerplayer, then you assume Goldman Sachs is a person. Got it. Reality is there are no power players. Obama doesnt call the shots at the white house without going through the bureaucratic wringer. I know exactly what Obama would be doing if he was king and it would be pretty fucking awesome, but he's not so fear not. Same with every other person on this planet. Saying there are power players is ignorant to how things actually work.

 

2. I have no idea what would happen. I don't project into the future and predict things I can't know for certain. I would assume that we would be in social crisis, probably lose more freedoms as some sort of military lock down would ensue.

Oh word you have no idea what would happen, but you're against any form of government bailout soooo, what are you basing your opposition of "bailouts" on then if not your own self-interest? And "Social crisis?" Hahahah "Social crisis." That's as specific as you could get huh? Oh man.

 

3. In the context of the quote, my reference to capitalists were referring to the people involved with the banks and institutions that were being bailed out. What the fuck am I? What the fuck are you getting at is what I'm wondering. I'm definitely not a capitalist if that is what your trying to get me to say, I don't have any money invested into business and I'm not wealthy. I would say I'm a working class citizen, does that answer your question?

Haha you're not a capitalist? What are you apart of some art colony? Dude, if you're an american, you're a capitalist. Get over it.

 

4. Are you serious? Do I really have to disect my post like this you can't understand just by reading it? Dude..

This is me seeing if you have any idea what you're talking about because if you noticed (probably didnt) your entire post refers to everyone as "us" and "them" and the entire multifaceted stimulus package AND the NY Fed bank's buyout of AIG asset as a "bailout" which it isnt. CNB, GS, and several other banks didnt need any bailing out. We forced them loans and told them it was for their own good and the good of the american people... you would know this if you read any of my posts in this thread.

 

They = the bankers who were bailed out.

Bankers? Reeeal specific. No Banker got a government check. Let's put it that way.

 

We = The people, the tax payers which bailed them out.

No tax payer gave a banker a check either. Maybe one deposited a check but that's different.

 

Their Problem = I didn't even say their problem, but if you are referring to the problems I stated I'm referring to the crisis, the whole topic of this discussion.

What was the crisis? Did all banks have the same problem, or did banks have different crisis? Was it their crisis or was it a crisis for all of us? You seem to think the government just handed a bunch of banker elitists a fat check and skipped merrily away. If you read any of my posts in this thread you would know otherwise. And once again how did anything anyone did solve this so called "crisis?" Also, where is all this money now? Do the banks have it? Are they ever giving it back? Whats going on, man? How much do you really know about all this, if anything? I'll give you a hint, I already wrote it up in a previous post if you want to cheat off that.

 

5. The Federal Reserve received sweeping new authority to regulate any company whose failure would endanger the U.S economy under Obama's overhaul plan.

Nothing you just said was an elaboration on your previous post. What the fuck do you mean by sweeping new authority? Authority in what way? Im asking you if you even know what you're talking about. First you act like banks get whatever they want from the government because the government takes care of bankers. Now they have a giant overseer. Don't you see the contradiction?

 

 

6. Are you fucking for real? Like seriously, don't sit there and ridicule me with a condescending attitude when you aren't even aware of shit like this. A revolving door is when people have jobs in one industry and cycle between roles in government that are influenced by that industry. Goldman Sachs has an extensive record of such occurrences. I'll name a few for you:

 

• Robert E. Rubin, member of the board at Goldman Sachs and went on to become Secretary of the Treasury under the Clinton administration
  
• Joshua Bolten Executive Director for Legal and Government Affairs at Goldman Sachs, White House Chief of Staff under George W. Bush
  
• Jon Corzine, Chairman and Co-CEO of Goldman Sachs, 54th Governor of New Jersey
  
• Henrey Paulson, Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs, United States Treasury Secretary
  
• Neel Kashkari, Vice President at Goldman Sachs, Interim Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability in the Department of Treasury.
  

 

I could keep going, that is the tip of the iceberg!

 

I don't got a problem with you though, this is the way you have discussions I'll just get used to you.

Hahahahhahahahahahh dude I know what a fucking revolving door is. Tip of the iceberg. Yeah you really stumbled on something amazing there. Five people from a giant corporation moving into menial positions is a huuuge conspiracy. Goldman sachs is the most successful bank in America. Does it surprise you that the Vice Prez at Goldman Sachs would become an assistant secretary of the treasury? Seems like america would be lucky to have him because a. politicians suck at balancing checkbooks and b. that's a definite step down in salary.

 

Ok since you seemingly failed to answer any of the questions here lets try this again.. and might i suggest you actually read this thread. I feel like a freshman english teacher: BE SPECIFIC. GIVE EXAMPLES. NOT THIS GENERALIZED "WE BAILED THEM OUT OF A CRISIS AND THE FED HAS SWEEPING AUTHORITY." BULLSHIT.

And im not trying to be condescending. Honestly I'm not. And if you say one more thing about it I'm gonna call you a pussy.

[angelofdeath]

AOD, I figured you would've started with the Civil war or the 1700's, but you probably have never taken an economics class in your life so you wouldn't know about times in american history when there was no federal reserve. Reality is, without fiat currencies and the fed, every state (and even every bank) having their own currency stagnates the economy. We would still be living in the 1700's.

 

i more or less chose to bow out of this conversation because of your attitude. because of your need to call everyone 'fucking idiots,' duck arguments, call them idiots again, then go into hysterics about how you wont talk about the topic at hand, but to 'ask me any question you want.'

 

i question your economic knowledge. you actually told me, not with sarcasm but in an attacking manner, that the federal reserve system is a 'free market system.' its sort of you like believe the line that most americans do...'well, you know the FED, its a BANK, and banks have something to do with money which is capitalism. yup, fed is capitalist!' just because you go to college, party all the time, and listen to marxist economic professors rail against capitalism for 4 years, doesnt give you any more intellectual authority than anyone else

 

yes i know what life would be like without a central bank.

the first central bank in england pretty much came into being to fund the kings military adventures.

america didnt have a central bank for most of its history. hamilton's bank was shut down by jackson. america never had a perfect gold standard. but it was close. there was no such thing as 'inflation.' all recessions were caused when the federal government in some way artificially manipulated the money supply, suspended specie payments and issued paper money to fund various wars, issued inflationary bonds out of thin air to fund internal improvements/subsidies to railroads, etc, etc.

 

lincolns greenbacks were declared unconstitutional when he used them to finance his war.

when the individual states used inflation in the form of continental currency to fund the AWI, a saying came about...'not worth a continental.'

 

when the federal reserve was created a dollar was worth 1.00. the dollar of today is worth 95% less.

 

each state would not have its own currency. apparently you do not understand the constitution. the constitution says that congress retains the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and that gold and silver are legal tender for all debts public and private.

 

what would life be like without the FED?

there would be no business cycle/boom bust/depressions. there would be no inflation. in fact when the US was on its quasi precious metal standard the monetary unit INCREASED in value instead of decreasing like it does today. interest rates would be determined like everyone other thing in the free market, by the market its self not by a politburo. the government would be forced to live beneath its means as it couldnt print money to pay for its debt. people would be free to choose what methods of payment they wanted instead of going to jail for using anything in general commerce than federal reserve notes. the purchasing power of the savings of americans would not be eroded by 5%or more percent each year like it is now.

 

this view was held by nobel laureate FA hayek. in fact hayek won the prize because of this exact theory. the austrian business cycle theory. also by reknown economist ludwig von mises.

 

but i fully expect your response to contain various slurs, hysterics and accusations of being a conspiracy freak, a kook, uneducated, bigoted redneck 'fucking idiot' that doesnt know my ass from a hole in the ground because i dont worship at the alter of 'Soup'

[Zig]

OK... I don't even know where to begin with you, its obvious to me that your someone impossible to not only get through to, but have any sort of conversation with unless it's a dick measuring contest or an argument.

 

No, I'm not a capitalist. Being American definitely does not mean you are a capitalist, there are all different kinds of people living here in America, that is why we are American because there is diversity. I'm not part of some art colony or whatever you are talking about, just because America is capitalist doesn't make me one.

 

I'm not even going to bother going point by point with you, you're saying ridiculous things like no banker got a government check when they were giving themselves bonuses with tax payer money, and saying no tax payer gave a banker a check. ????????????????? What are you delusional? It was tax payer money that was used to bail out the banks.

 

What was the crisis? Did all banks have the same problem, or did banks have different crisis? Was it their crisis or was it a crisis for all of us? You seem to think the government just handed a bunch of banker elitists a fat check and skipped merrily away. If you read any of my posts in this thread you would know otherwise. And once again how did anything anyone did solve this so called "crisis?" Also, where is all this money now? Do the banks have it? Are they ever giving it back? Whats going on, man? How much do you really know about all this, if anything? I'll give you a hint, I already wrote it up in a previous post if you want to cheat off that.

 

You are arrogant beyond anything I've ever even come across, the way you talk it's like you are Ben Bernanke himself defending his position or something, like you are in some sort of know over the rest of the American people, lol. Chill out, take a breather and stop throwing questions at me. First of all, the government did just hand a bunch of banker elitists a fat check in the form of a $700 billion dollar bailout, which was supposed to be used for buying the toxic mortgage securities and unfreeze the credit markets but were instead used by the bankers to give employees pay raises, executive bonuses or literally just sit on the money. That is the definition of a tax payer cutting a banker a check. Where is the money now? I don't fucking know, because they won't tell us and there is no oversight or regulation of these institutions so if they don't tell us then we don't know. They are supposed to pay back the money, but there is such a large sum of it going back and forth, along with back door bailouts that the congress just held sessions with Geitner about, that it's impossible for me individually to have any idea where that money is or who it went to. That's why there should probably be some sort of criminal investigation.

 

I'm not generalizing anything either, I'm being very very specific about what I am referring to. lol look, i'm not going to continue this dick measuring contest with you that isn't why i started posting here on these forums. you're over here, calling me shit like fucking idiot, whatever it is you want to call me that's cool. you're not bringing up anything that i don't already know or understand, and you're actually even contradicting yourself and saying ridiculous things that aren't true. you're definitely being condescending, if you can't even realize that then you need help with your communication skills. I didn't fail anything, this isn't a contest or a game it's a discussion.

 

As for the Federal Reserve powers, read it for yourself since you need things cited:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/16/plan-gives-fed-sweeping-power-over-companies/?feat=home_headlines

[Zig]

what would life be like without the FED?

there would be no business cycle/boom bust/depressions. there would be no inflation. in fact when the US was on its quasi precious metal standard the monetary unit INCREASED in value instead of decreasing like it does today. interest rates would be determined like everyone other thing in the free market, by the market its self not by a politburo. the government would be forced to live beneath its means as it couldnt print money to pay for its debt. people would be free to choose what methods of payment they wanted instead of going to jail for using anything in general commerce than federal reserve notes. the purchasing power of the savings of americans would not be eroded by 5%or more percent each year like it is now.

 

exactly, people make it seem like we can't live without these institutions. like for some reason without them we would be back in the dark ages, it's absurd.

[Soup]

i more or less chose to bow out of this conversation because of your attitude. because of your need to call everyone 'fucking idiots,' duck arguments, call them idiots again, then go into hysterics about how you wont talk about the topic at hand, but to 'ask me any question you want.'

Hahaha this is how you bow out? You're not bowing out of shit.

 

i question your economic knowledge. you actually told me, not with sarcasm but in an attacking manner, that the federal reserve system is a 'free market system.' its sort of you like believe the line that most americans do...'well, you know the FED, its a BANK, and banks have something to do with money which is capitalism. yup, fed is capitalist!' just because you go to college, party all the time, and listen to marxist economic professors rail against capitalism for 4 years, doesnt give you any more intellectual authority than anyone else

Quote me where i said the Fed is a free market. That doesnt even make sense, how can an institution be a free market? I said it's a government clearing house. And all you want to talk about is the same illusive group of americans that are dumber than you, yet you're not a statistician. You dont post authentic polls of any kind about what americans think. You just ramble about your assumption that americans are dumb. So while you give me shit for wanting to stick to the subject at hand, the reality is I have to because all you do is qualify yourself by making up shit about me and "most people." it's bullshit.

 

 

yes i know what life would be like without a central bank.

the first central bank in england pretty much came into being to fund the kings military adventures.

america didnt have a central bank for most of its history. hamilton's bank was shut down by jackson. america never had a perfect gold standard. but it was close. there was no such thing as 'inflation.' all recessions were caused when the federal government in some way artificially manipulated the money supply, suspended specie payments and issued paper money to fund various wars, issued inflationary bonds out of thin air to fund internal improvements/subsidies to railroads, etc, etc.

Where'd you come up with THAT? You really think the fed invented inflation and recession?

 

lincolns greenbacks were declared unconstitutional when he used them to finance his war.

when the individual states used inflation in the form of continental currency to fund the AWI, a saying came about...'not worth a continental.'

 

when the federal reserve was created a dollar was worth 1.00. the dollar of today is worth 95% less.

I dont get you man. Those were times in american history when we had no central bank and now you decided to quote all that shit that says money without a central bank is unconstitutional and not worth shit. Seems contradictory to everything you've been trying to tell me. Lucky for you I dont think you full grasp the 1700's or the civil war and Im gonna advise you to do a bit more research.. maybe even (gasp) outside of the internet.

 

 

each state would not have its own currency. apparently you do not understand the constitution. the constitution says that congress retains the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and that gold and silver are legal tender for all debts public and private.

So what you're saying is all the money in America would have to be backed by gold and silver. So which is it? Gold, or silver? If you knew anything about the 1700's you'd know there were states backed by gold, and some backed by silver and the two would fucking argue back and forth about who's money is worth more. It basically stagnated any trading between states and the economy didn't grow until there was a central bank. And you can't back america's money by either because what would happen is people would horde resources and the economy would stagnate . Our money is backed by something much larger, our GNP, and that's what allows our economy to grow.

 

what would life be like without the FED?

there would be no business cycle/boom bust/depressions. there would be no inflation. in fact when the US was on its quasi precious metal standard the monetary unit INCREASED in value instead of decreasing like it does today. interest rates would be determined like everyone other thing in the free market, by the market its self not by a politburo. the government would be forced to live beneath its means as it couldnt print money to pay for its debt. people would be free to choose what methods of payment they wanted instead of going to jail for using anything in general commerce than federal reserve notes. the purchasing power of the savings of americans would not be eroded by 5%or more percent each year like it is now.

 

this view was held by nobel laureate FA hayek. in fact hayek won the prize because of this exact theory. the austrian business cycle theory. also by reknown economist ludwig von mises.

 

That's cool you know one nobel prize winning economist. Every policy and theory wallstreet, economists and the fed uses is nobel prize winning. Game theory, behavioral theory, monetary policy, fiscal policy. You cant learn these concepts over the internet; you need to go to school.

 

And you want our money backed literally by gold and silver? Which one, Gold or silver? Because if you knew anything about when the states all had their own currencies some would say their money is backed by gold, others by silver, and the two would debate over what's worth more. There isnt even enough gold or silver in the world to back up the amount of money we need in circulation. Not to mention if money was based on finite resources, people would just horde it all and stagnate the economy. The current value of the dollar is based on the GDP of America. The more people want our products, the more the dollar is worth. And the natural eb and flow of business is to go in cycles-- Not because of the fed but because of human behavior--Nothin you ever do will change that.

 

And you can't print more money to pay off debt (I dont even think you understand what debt is) you moron. It doesnt work like that, and if you're assuming that's what america does you're a bigger idiot than i thought. It doesnt matter how much money they print. You can't just print money and push it into circulation. The amount of money in circulation is determined by human behavior. You can raise and lower the interest rate all you want but if nobody's buying then it doesnt go anywhere. You gotta get this through your head: Nothing the fed does directly controls the circulation of money. It's a billion times more complicated than this.

 

but i fully expect your response to contain various slurs, hysterics and accusations of being a conspiracy freak, a kook, uneducated, bigoted redneck 'fucking idiot' that doesnt know my ass from a hole in the ground because i dont worship at the alter of 'Soup'

Hahaha this coming from a guy who called me an obamunist, neofascistliberal blah blah blah every fucking political buzzword you could think of. What im trying to do is bring crossfire out of this hole you and likeminds have dug where nobody wants to discuss this shit with you because you and likeminds think you have all the answers.

[Soup]

OK... I don't even know where to begin with you, its obvious to me that your someone impossible to not only get through to, but have any sort of conversation with unless it's a dick measuring contest or an argument.

 

No, I'm not a capitalist. Being American definitely does not mean you are a capitalist, there are all different kinds of people living here in America, that is why we are American because there is diversity. I'm not part of some art colony or whatever you are talking about, just because America is capitalist doesn't make me one.

Capitalism isnt a race or a religion you dumbass. If you're apart of the industrialized world you're a capitalist. Americans, Cubans, Brazilians, all CAPITALISTS. If you see an opening in the market and you go for it, you're CAPITALISTIC. You act like its a bad thing. Do you have a job? Do you have a computer? Are you reaping the benefits of capitalism? Of course you are. You're not some deaf mute art colonist in vietnam who lives in the woods and makes wooden elephants to sell to tourists. You're an american. Be proud, or at least realistic, about who you are.

 

I'm not even going to bother going point by point with you,

For no other reason than you can't.

 

you're saying ridiculous things like no banker got a government check when they were giving themselves bonuses with tax payer money, and saying no tax payer gave a banker a check. ????????????????? What are you delusional? It was tax payer money that was used to bail out the banks.

Riiiiiight. The BANKS got government loans. Not BANKERS. No BANKER is paying for a house or a car on a government check. No BANKER is sending their kids to school on money from the treasury. No BANKERS are getting bonuses from the government. Fucking idiot. Do you know any bankers? If you did you would know this economy is hard on them and everyone's taking cuts in bonuses (which for the higher-ups is 50-75% of their salary), if they haven't lost their job already.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. Pick a bank, any bank and explain the relationship between the government and them. AIG, Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, any single one. Give it a shot and I will help you understand the reality of these bailouts.

 

 

You are arrogant beyond anything I've ever even come across, the way you talk it's like you are Ben Bernanke himself defending his position or something, like you are in some sort of know over the rest of the American people, lol. Chill out, take a breather and stop throwing questions at me. First of all, the government did just hand a bunch of banker elitists a fat check in the form of a $700 billion dollar bailout,

 

Wrong, on so many levels. The $700 billion dollar bailout by the bush administration wasnt only for banks. It was for schools and a million other things too. Secondly, the money that went to banks was a loan not a fat check to the presidents of the banks for personal use. Third, that money is way more complicated than this.

 

The government was thinking: "Gee I dont want the american people to suffer through the entire collapse of the american banking industry or even worry that's going to happen, so Im going to give Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, City National Bank and a bunch of other successful banks a fat loan to make sure they thrive and grow through this economic recession. This will be good for the taxpayers too because that treasury money will be returned to us with 4.5% interest and if it's not returned to us in a few years, then it will be 9% interest, and we're charging them 4% just to receive the loan. That's already hundreds of millions of dollars we'll be making from the get-go."

 

 

Then the banks thought: "What the hell? We dont need this money. Sure the economy is slow and we're all taking fat reductions in business, and our salaries are taking hits as much as 75% for the higher-ups, but we dont want to give the government $9 million for a $200 million loan that we have to pay back with interest. Oh shit they're forcing us to take it?" then goldman sachs said "Fuck lets pay it all back over the next nine months. We dont need this shit" Or City National Bank "Fuck lets use this money to acquire some of these bankrupted banks since you can get one cheap" Or AIG said "Fuck lets give those assholes in the department that thought insuring rolled up subprime loans was a good idea a $100,000.00 to stay on and fix that mess."

 

Reality is even AIG is paying their loan off, with interest. Score one for the taxpayers. So while you're all bummed out about some really smart resourceful bankers making more money than you, the reality is that's our banking industry and if that goes so goes our entire fucking economy. Have a better sense of self interest why dont you. And besides this shit is almost over. Most of the money has been returned.

 

 

 

which was supposed to be used for buying the toxic mortgage securities and unfreeze the credit markets but were instead used by the bankers to give employees pay raises, executive bonuses or literally just sit on the money. That is the definition of a tax payer cutting a banker a check. Where is the money now? I don't fucking know, because they won't tell us and there is no oversight or regulation of these institutions so if they don't tell us then we don't know. They are supposed to pay back the money, but there is such a large sum of it going back and forth, along with back door bailouts that the congress just held sessions with Geitner about, that it's impossible for me individually to have any idea where that money is or who it went to. That's why there should probably be some sort of criminal investigation.

Just nonsense. Stop generalizing what AIG did in one department into the entire banking industry.

 

 

I'm not generalizing anything either,

HAH!

 

 

I'm being very very specific about what I am referring to. lol look, i'm not going to continue this dick measuring contest with you that isn't why i started posting here on these forums. you're over here, calling me shit like fucking idiot, whatever it is you want to call me that's cool. you're not bringing up anything that i don't already know or understand, and you're actually even contradicting yourself and saying ridiculous things that aren't true. you're definitely being condescending, if you can't even realize that then you need help with your communication skills. I didn't fail anything, this isn't a contest or a game it's a discussion.

 

As for the Federal Reserve powers, read it for yourself since you need things cited:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/16/plan-gives-fed-sweeping-power-over-companies/?feat=home_headlines

I did read it. I already knew exactly what you're referring to and I dont think you even understand what they're talking about.

[Zig]

I never said capitalism was a bad thing, I said it has been a contributing factor to the tyranny we face today in economics and the political spectrum. I also said that I don't believe we live in a pure form of free-market capitalism, because there are criminal elements which prevent that from being in existence. And no, I don't consider myself a capitalist, I told you already I consider myself a working-class citizen. I disagree entirely on your point that Cubans, and Brazilians are capitalists also. I honestly don't know where you're coming from with that, but ok...

 

Riiiiiight. The BANKS got government loans. Not BANKERS. No BANKER is paying for a house or a car on a government check. No BANKER is sending their kids to school on money from the treasury. No BANKERS are getting bonuses from the government. Fucking idiot. Do you know any bankers? If you did you would know this economy is hard on them and everyone's taking cuts in bonuses (which for the higher-ups is 50-75% of their salary), if they haven't lost their job already.

 

They gave themselves bonuses and golden parachutes with tax payer money, how do you know how they are spending that money? What about that simple concept don't you understand, we pay taxes, big banks fail, we bail them out with the taxes we pay, they cut themselves checks, they take our money and use it the way they want. How is that not BANKERS getting Tax payer money? :rolleyes:

 

Here, since you need citations:

http://www.wopular.com/news/misuse-bailout-money

 

Wrong, on so many levels. The $700 billion dollar bailout by the bush administration wasnt only for banks. It was for schools and a million other things too. Secondly, the money that went to banks was a loan not a fat check to the presidents of the banks for personal use. Third, that money is way more complicated than this.

 

The government was thinking: "Gee I dont want the american people to suffer through the entire collapse of the american banking industry or even worry that's going to happen, so Im going to give Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, City National Bank and a bunch of other successful banks a fat loan to make sure they thrive and grow through this economic recession. This will be good for the taxpayers too because that treasury money will be returned to us with 4.5% interest and if it's not returned to us in a few years, then it will be 9% interest, and we're charging them 4% just to receive the loan. That's already hundreds of millions of dollars we'll be making from the get-go."

 

 

Then the banks thought: "What the hell? We dont need this money. Sure the economy is slow and we're all taking fat reductions in business, and our salaries are taking hits as much as 75% for the higher-ups, but we dont want to give the government $9 million for a $200 million loan that we have to pay back with interest. Oh shit they're forcing us to take it?" then goldman sachs said "Fuck lets pay it all back over the next nine months. We dont need this shit" Or City National Bank "Fuck lets use this money to acquire some of these bankrupted banks since you can get one cheap" Or AIG said "Fuck lets give those assholes in the department that thought insuring rolled up subprime loans was a good idea a $100,000.00 to stay on and fix that mess."

 

Reality is even AIG is paying their loan off, with interest. Score one for the taxpayers. So while you're all bummed out about some really smart resourceful bankers making more money than you, the reality is that's our banking industry and if that goes so goes our entire fucking economy. Have a better sense of self interest why dont you. And besides this shit is almost over. Most of the money has been returned.

 

Talk about generalizations. :lol:

 

The $700 billion bailout once again is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of how much money went back and forth between the Fed and Banks not only domestically but also around the world. Till this day the Fed won't tell us which banks got any of that money, and the amount of which was paid. Actually, I could be wrong on that issue I think it is possible that the information was put out and I think that is what could have sparked the whole Timothy Geithner AIG congressional hearings but I wasn't following that situation very closely I have to admit. I could be wrong, I don't really know to be honest.

 

Here is Bernanke himself just flat out telling us we aren't allowed to know where our money went:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyl8c91qPbw

 

Here is him telling us he doesn't know where the money went:

 

I doubt you'll watch either of those videos... :rolleyes:

 

I did read it. I already knew exactly what you're referring to and I dont think you even understand what they're talking about.

 

that's good, i'm happy to know we have a mutual respect for each others opinions. :lol:

[Soup]

Hahahaha Im tired of repeating myself so just write up your "tip of the iceberg theory" and bounce. You have no understanding of how banking works. No understanding of how the economy works. No understanding of politics or how the fed works and no reading comprehension skills or writing skills because all you do is refer to the entire banking industry, hundreds and hundreds of different kinds of multifaceted banks, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY as "The bankers." Then you go onto saying that they're capitalists and you're not and Cuba and Brazil arent capitalistic and that they're all very rich and they're running away with the tax payer's money. You dont even get how fucking stupid you sound by boiling it down to "us" and "them." You are SO confused SO disenfranchised it's fucking sad how poorly you've been informed. I dont need to respond to that again because I've already responded MULTIPLE times before. So go for it. Finish your thoughts here on what's "really going on." since you think you can speak for economics and ho they work.

 

Maybe after I can muster up the will to repeat myself for the billionth time but really Im questioning the point. Btw i did watch those videos and I was going to write a response, but then I realized a.) you clearly dont read anything i write and b.) if you really wanted answers to what that white haired eggplant colored man is saying, all you have to do is listen to who he's talking to.

[russell jones]

To say that AOD doesn't know a lot about economics is a falsehood Soup. He is definitely well versed in economic theory. These accusations are not helping.

 

I disagree with AOD, but I would never accuse him of being ignorant of economic theory.

[Soup]

I would and I would advise you against taking his word for it too. AOD isnt an economist. He isn't an economics student. He doesnt even follow wallstreet on a daily basis. Game theory, behavioral theory, fiscal policy and monetary policies are incredibly complicated and unless you have a masters in business economics there's no way you will fully understand it. i don't understand them myself. Then again i've been enlisting the support of UC berkeley graduate business econ majors who are now high up in enormous california banks to help me answer any and all questions in this thread. So like i said, ASK ME QUESTIONS. Dont just pretend you know shit because I sure as fuck arent. I'm doing what you all should be doing and asking smarter people.

 

Then again you people are getting confused on some pretty basic shit. Like those two videos. Fed invests in other countries--LOANS, with INTEREST--and Zig's asking "well what about me?" The success of our economy is reliant on other country's economies too. He gave loans to other central banks and because he doesnt know the names of the hundreds and thousands of banks that bought US currency from those central banks you want to pretend you dont know where it went? This is fucking ridiculous.

 

There is 90% transparency to the american bank government loans. All you have to do is read any newspaper. These are publicly traded companies who report every employee bonus, every buyout, ever dollar spent because they want YOU to invest in them.

[Zig]

i don't have a theory, the tip of the iceberg i was referring to is the fact that there was a lot more money than just $700 billion on the governments bailout tab.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/where_stimulus_fits_in/index.htm

 

if it's us vs. them, which i haven't even been saying btw your just plugging that argument into my posts, i'm pretty certain i didn't refer to anything like that, if i said us and them i clearly defined what that meant... but if it is us vs. them then it would be the average american working-class individual who pays taxes and puts trust in his/her government against those who work in government, the banking industry, and the federal reserve central banking system. that goes for foreign central banks as well, since it is a system that is intimately involved with one another.

 

what would my theory be if i did have one... probably that eventually this manipulation of the value of our currency and the criminal unconstitutional handling of our monetary policy will result in a dollar crash and either we capitulate to the big central banks and allow reforming to a new system that increases the authority of the central banks over global monetary policies, or we would have to suffer through a much more serious recession that could end up becoming a depression. probably the new system would be close to some form of world bank, global governance, electronic monetary system is what i'm assuming would be encouraged in order for us to save the collapsing old system. not really my theory, kind of just what already is being prepared because of the crisis we are discussing here, and is now being proposed as a more secure and regulated system of economics that would prevent future crisis.

 

you can read about that here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axEnb_LXw5yc

 

now, i have no problem with you soup... you've called me a lot of things, that's fine. you're entitled to your opinion about me, i'm not going to resort to calling you anything. if you want to talk about reading comprehension and what not, you should go back through this thread from my initial post and look for a single statement i've made towards you as a personal attack. i don't think you'll find much. you can then browse through every one of your responses towards anyone who isn't in agreement with you and take notice to how many insults you throw around. i don't care what economics you take up in school, or in college. you could be going to harvard, and i wouldn't give a damn. you're college courses mean nothing to me here on these forums, and you don't decide when i bounce from threads. this is 12ozprophet, if you want to write a paper about economics, game theory, behavioral theory, whatever it is your interested in doing go right ahead and hand it in to a professor who cares that will give you a grade on it. i'm not here to grade your papers for you, and i'm not here to write papers for you. you're not professor Soup, you're just plain old Soup here. :lol:

[Soup]

So what you're saying is you enjoy being in the dark and need no help from educated professionals because your cup is already full.

Ok. Have fun.

Moron.

[Zig]

no... that's what your taking my jab at you as. i'm not in the dark either, and i enjoy having conversations about these issues and hearing other peoples perspectives and takes on them. if i was in the dark i wouldn't bother listening to what anyone has to say, kind of like you actually. :lol:

[Soup]

Oh you're not in the dark? Take any of those videos or any of the articles you've posted and explain them in pragmatic terms without using the words "the bankers" "them" "us" or any of their synonyms.

 

And go.

[Zig]

i already did explain them to you, and didn't i just get done telling you i don't have to write papers here for you. is there something in those articles and videos i posted that you don't understand and need clarification on. i explained my point and what i was getting at, and then used those as citations to the point i was making. so, if there is something unpractical about that then i'm certainly missing it.

 

and no, i'm not in the dark.

[Soup]

Nononono I mean REALLY dissect ONE of them. Lets see your analytical prowess and understanding of business economics shine. You say you want to converse, lets see you converse. Stop wasting time and start writing.