Jump to content

Dear Wall Street: We're Sorry


lord_casek

Recommended Posts

I'd say it's probably something your banker family should read, as well. Probably a history

you haven't been privy to.

 

Considering my family's been living and breathing this for longer than you've been alive, how's about you take the realization that none of this is new and there's no fucking way anything is going to change their opinions. I've brought up all your theories with them on numerous occasions and they'll tel you it doesnt make sense to them. You can take that as meaning their lost in the quagmire between reality and fiction, or you can respect 65 congruent years of professional experience in this business and several masters degrees in socioeconomics from UC berkeley. I really don't care either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

HAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!

 

Holy shit.

 

You dont know my opinion of Bernanke. I've never mentioned it. You dont know my opinion of the Fed either, or of our government. This entire time I've been trying to inform you of how things work, not opinions. Im done dude. This isnt going anywhere. You're still a fucking moron.

 

really? that's... interesting, how i don't know of your opinion about either Bernanke or the Fed throughout this entire thread in which we've been discussing both. it's really quite amazing to me that I haven't been able to gage your stance on either subject given that you've been defending both quite vehemently and even suggesting material coming from these sources. really very interesting...

 

but you're right we're done here, since this was never a discussion in the first place.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh really? What's my opinion then? I havent been defending bernake I've been defending sound logic which you refuse to use. I've been giving you references so you could know more about bernake and banks that you can argue both ways, but instead of accepting what i say as fact you go "well that's just like, you're opinion, man." and stick to your jucier more dramatic story about "bankers making golden parachutes with our money and the fed is helping them along."

 

I personally dont care much for Bernake or Keynesian economics because although it's true in the sense that the private capitalistic sector needs more regulation and needs to redefine profits in a way that's not just growth of the GDP, the Keynesian economy theory also never takes into consideration how finite natural resources are in its equation for economic growth either. I havent said this until now because unless you stop bitching about facts and learn about the economy, you have no fucking clue what I just said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well you don't make your opinions known very easily, but i'll give it a shot...

 

-No the federal government didnt cause any of the recession by raising or lowering interest rates. If you google the Prime Rate History you can see that the key remained the same during the recession. The federal government also doesn't control the value of the dollar. They can try to put more money into circulation by lowering the key interest rate, but they dont control how much money goes in and out of circulation, nor does circulation control the dollar's value. In 2007 at the height of the recession I was in Europe when 2 bucks got 1 GBP. Now it's $1.50 for 1 pound. The economy and the value of the dollar is controlled by the market and unpredictable human behaviors, not Obama or the banks.

 

- you don't believe in abolishing the fed

 

- you don't believe the fed controls or has an effect on the value of the dollar.

 

- you don't believe the fed's policies have anything to do with the reasons for this recession.

 

This issue is so much more complex than that. What you're attempting to do is the equivalent of explaining hurricanes or natural disasters with "god" or should I say an "International weather cabal." It's not accurate. In this instance you have private interest groups, politicians trying to prevent the world's 15th largest company from tanking and taking americas entire banking infrastructure/world economy with it. Nothing new under the sun for politics and no shortage of criticisms. You have to look at this thing at a socioeconomic standpoint, a business standpoint, and a political standpoint because this conspiracy thing doesnt make much sense.

 

- you don't believe in "conspiracy theories" or anything concerning "new world order".

 

- you are in agreement with the bailouts, feeling they were a necessity in order to prevent the tanking of the entire banking infrastructure/world economy, yet you don't want to discuss the fundamental flaws of our economic system.

 

Here's why the situations is fucked up:

AIG has many branches. The one that nearly ended it all was headed the insurance of subprime mortgage bundles. As the housing market crashed, those assets became toxic and the Fed bought $86 billion worth of those assets for 100 cents on the dollar. In hi-insight that wasnt the best move but rather than this being apart of some NWO scheme, it's likely they just didnt know what they were buying. The good news is that AIG is has been paying the money back. The bad news is they're now offering $100k to employees of that branch for them to see this through. AIG's thoughts are the ones that got us into this mess will be best equipped to get us out. That's not making anyone feel better.

 

- you reject the notion that these issues were pre-meditated or conspired, rather you believe they just happened due to naivety or coincidence.

 

As for the federal funds rate dropping after 9/11. The fed was trying to push more money into circulation after 911 to save the economy. Not bankrupt it. Americans and the global market doesnt really want to invest their money in a country that's susceptible to terrorist attacks so to keep the economy moving they dropped the funds rate. Any economist would tell you that's not out of the ordinary. And if you're looking at the current funds rate and arae worried it's weakening the dollar, look at the value of the dollar because It's higher than it was in 2000.

 

- you seem to be under the impression that those of us who support the abolishment of the fed, are under the belief that those who operate at the fed are consciously and menacingly with hate in their eyes attempting to purposely destroy the U.S economy. kind of like, how people who support the idea that 9/11 was a wider conspiracy then officially told are then accused of believing that George. W. Bush and Dick Cheney themselves literally conspired and carried out the plans with Osama Bin Laden.

 

Angel, I know you enjoy looking for any reason to be dismissive of any opinion other than your own through either calling them crazy, liberals, conservatives, obamanauts, or in this case "economist section readers" but my info comes from higher up than that. God. Not that high. Bankers. I got a family full of em and together they make up the California sector of the international banking cabal.

 

- you have a banker family, so obviously you don't think your own family is part of some evil cabal. which is good, you shouldn't think that i'm sure your family are nice, good, well-meaning people.

 

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.

 

-you've watched Zeitgeist, you don't like it (neither do i). you think it's been debunked (i don't).

 

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.

 

- you don't believe these adjustments have any effect on the value of the dollar.

 

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.

 

- you think i'm against capitalism.

 

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.

 

- we have to take economics courses in order to discuss economics.

 

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

 

- you think those involved in the banking industry are 100% innocent of any wrongdoing with any tax payer money used in the bailouts.

 

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.

 

- you don't think internet research means shit.

 

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.

 

- you don't think we print money to pay debt, maybe you even don't think we print money which causes inflation. not sure about the second 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.

 

- you think cubans are capitalist.

 

- you think anyone who disagrees with you or has a different opinion is a pathetic fucking idiot moron.

 

this should get you going...:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- you don't believe in abolishing the fed

Wrong: All economics is trying to control outcomes in a wildly uncontrollable market. Basic keynesian theory in macro economics says that private companies are poor at controlling outcomes and require regulation so they dont fuck up too badly, ie, central banking. Also it's nice to have only one currency in america. It makes transactions across the border much easier and doesnt stagnate the economy like it did in the 1700's and the civil war when we had a central bank for every state, and then a central bank for the north and south. Today most economists believe that if we didnt have the fed, the regulatory power would go to private banks. We can all speculate on how that would turn out. That's all FACT, my OPINION: Im not FOR the fed, but it does currently win by default. If i ruled the world we'd all live in houses made only of renewable materials like strawbale and other agracultural waste products. We'd also all live in one giant city and leave 95% of the world unscathed.

 

 

- you don't believe the fed controls or has an effect on the value of the dollar.

The fed can raise or lower prime rates, which can affect the market (but people dont always react the same way to interest rates), which affects business which affects our GDP, which affects who wants to trade with us and how much money they give us for a dollar's worth of our products. It's not an opinion, it's reality.

 

- you don't believe the fed's policies have anything to do with the reasons for this recession.

 

The fed's policies are economic policies, which are the same economic policies that affect EVERYTHING. It's widely undisputed why the stock market posted a recession: the housing market, which inadvertently affected the credit market, plus all those subprime mortgages were rolled up and sold to investors of thousands of companies, and those rolled up suprime loans were insured which is why AIG and thousands of companies went bankrupt. It's all very complicated and pointing fingers solely at the Fed is absurd. It's like point a finger at god for when it floods. That's not opinion, that's FACT.

 

You need a history lesson and im a little too tired to write one up now. Basically this whole thing started right after WWII when soldiers came back and wanted the american dream: big house, fancy car, real estate in the burbs etc. I dont want to skip all the details so I'll finish the story later.

 

 

- you don't believe in "conspiracy theories" or anything concerning "new world order".

I dont believe in conspiracy theories and i dont CARE if there's a new world order. I dont even really consider it a conspiracy theory, because it's kinda happening and kinda never will happen at the same time. But have you ever asked yourself, who cares? One currency.. horray! THere's pros and cons to that shit too, mostly cons for the american economy because we make a lot of money just on selling american greenbacks. There's a lot more to the NWO, but crossfire has such a hard time with understanding simpler things like the $700b stimulus that more time should be committed to that before going into understanding the governing economic policies that would actually lead the world into believing the NWO is a good idea, and why it might not be. When you take an economics course, you dont just jump into hardcore macro economic theory.

 

- you are in agreement with the bailouts, feeling they were a necessity in order to prevent the tanking of the entire banking infrastructure/world economy, yet you don't want to discuss the fundamental flaws of our economic system.

 

No i said that the government felt they were a necessity, the banks could take it or leave it and in the end the treasury is returning gains on the loans, so who the fuck cares?

 

 

- you reject the notion that these issues were pre-meditated or conspired, rather you believe they just happened due to naivety or coincidence.

 

It's logically irresponsible for anyone to jump to the assumption that anything is so simple it can just be controlled, let alone the largest man-made machine in the world. And naivety or coincidence? Nonononon this whole thing is unprecedented. We've changed nearly our entire fiscal and monetary policy since the last great depression. We didnt even HAVE a credit market back then and Game theory is based on fucking videogames. Well, maybe there was some naivety to people who took loans out assuming they would get pay raises, which was the main marketing strategy in central valley Calif. where a huge portion of these foreclosures took place. And some naivety on the parts of the banks who started giving loans to people with a history of bad credit. "Oh sure look at the market it's going up up up you'll get more raises in No time! Why buy the house you can afford today when you can buy the one you can afford IN THE FUTURE?"

 

They figured that these rolled up subprime loans had so many people involved that there's no way everybody would stop paying them. There's been a lot of investigation that went into those loans and it turned out that a lot of the people who stopped payment on the loans stopped paying when the "introductory rate" went to the normal variable rate. That had nothing to do with the fed and if you look at the fed during those times, it stayed the exact same.

 

Dont forget also that the war played a huge role in our debt. Bush ran through trillions of dollars just for that. To put that debt into perspective, we went 4 trillion MORE in debt AFTER bush was out of office just because of our financial obligations to Bush's debt. So it's an amalgum of a lot of people doing a lot of shit. And here's the thing, for every person that doesnt want the fed the bearound, you're going to have 2 more people demanding MORE regulation on the private sector for all this bullshit. Hence why Obama gave more regulatory power to the fed. This isnt my opinion either. Like i said, Fed wins by default because an economy that's entirely private and self-regulated hasn't worked yet. Banks would tell you tho that its the government's fault for demanding that banks offer loans to people of lower income. And the government will tell you that it's the community activists' fault for lobbying to make loans for poor people a reality. Those community activists will then blame banks for hiding the real variable interest rates from custmoers, and banks will say "what part of introductory didnt you understand?" and the people who stopped paying will blame the economy and so on. Its one bigass blame game that I just like to sit back from and look at it all and try to figure out strategies of how to move forward because while you want quite possibly the most ridiculous reform EVER, you gotta think smaller and more doable. That's why Ron Paul aint in office, because abolishing so much of the way we do things without guarentees that life will be better after is scary as fuck. And rightfully so. That's what our economy is all about: false promises.

 

- you seem to be under the impression that those of us who support the abolishment of the fed, are under the belief that those who operate at the fed are consciously and menacingly with hate in their eyes attempting to purposely destroy the U.S economy. kind of like, how people who support the idea that 9/11 was a wider conspiracy then officially told are then accused of believing that George. W. Bush and Dick Cheney themselves literally conspired and carried out the plans with Osama Bin Laden.

 

I dont even follow you there. No, definitely not something i believe.

 

 

- you have a banker family, so obviously you don't think your own family is part of some evil cabal. which is good, you shouldn't think that i'm sure your family are nice, good, well-meaning people.

 

The whole bringing my family into this debate is so you can understand what a rather large company like City National Bank is all about. (They also recieved about 200 million bucks from this stimulus, which is a loan not a grant, and they payed about 9 million bucks to receive it and will end up paying about 290 million back to the treasury in the next couple years. And while their business was hurt like every otherbusiness, they weren't going bankrupt) The economy is a fucked up situation for everyone. Bigass banks, just like people, dont like the government telling them what to do because a lot of bankers would argue a lot of the regulatory things the government does fucks banks up. The point being, the government and bankers arent FRIENDS in all this. Obama doesnt have any FRIENDS in the banking industry. Everybody's just trying to do what's right in their own way and sort of fucking it up for everyone else trying to do right. Dont forget either that the $700b stimulus package was from bush's administration.

 

-you've watched Zeitgeist, you don't like it (neither do i). you think it's been debunked (i don't).

 

I forced my father whos a very bright man to sit and watch that thing. After the 40th pause during the economics section because he had to explain why it's untrue, he couldnt watch anymore of it. I'll be happy to write it all down again because i think what he says adds a lot of needed balance to crossfire.

 

 

- you don't believe these adjustments have any effect on the value of the dollar.

 

I sorta explained that one above already. next.

 

- you think i'm against capitalism.

 

That or you're really bad at grammatical structure, which im a stickler for and so is everyone in politics/business. When you postulated your opinion as "these capitalists are doing bad things. Also I am not a capitalist." That's generally how anyone would read that.

 

 

- we have to take economics courses in order to discuss economics.

 

You dont play with your own fecal matter unless you're studying scatology. You dont try to understand economics as an outsider because then you just point fingers a lot and that gets you nowhere. The economy is the world's largest man-made machine and nobody understands how it works. There are entire schools dedicated to economic thought and theory because people dont fucking understand it. I gave you a list of things you should research, fiscal policy, monetary policy, game theory, behavioral theory. Im not saying these concepts will indefinitely go over your head, but you sir are definitely currently confused about ALL of it.

 

- you think those involved in the banking industry are 100% innocent of any wrongdoing with any tax payer money used in the bailouts.

 

Im not sure i understand but these are publicly traded companies. They're going to do whatever their shareholders want them to do. I'll give you a quick example. My girl heads PG&E's green energy research department. PG&E is a publicly traded company so they post EVERYTHING that they're doing and because of that, not a lot gets done. The other day their shares dropped $4 a share because they told their shareholders about the possible acquisition of a windfarm in Bakersfield. Just TOLD them about it and the stock went down. End result? Not gonna do it. Or at least approach the deal in a different way. Most of the banks dont want this money because it stinks to high heaven, like goldman sachs, they just want to give the money back and be done with the government regulations because they're fine without it. Some other banks are going to spend the money other ways as well, but NOTHING that they're doing can really be foreseen as being good or bad in the long run, so as long as they pay back the loans with all the interest owed, I dont think the taxpayers really should worry.

 

- you don't think internet research means shit.

 

No i think nobel prize winning theories that have international schools dedicated to understanding them take a lot more studying than a wikipedia article or whatever else you can find about them on the internet.

 

- you don't think we print money to pay debt, maybe you even don't think we print money which causes inflation. not sure about the second one...

 

Of course we dont print money to pay debt. If we did that nobody would want our debt. We make a lot of money selling our debt to other countries, why would we lower the value of the dollar? Here

 

- you think cubans are capitalist.

 

Look I've been to cuba when i ws 17 and acted as sort of an ambassador for american students for a couple months. I saw it all and while people who suck at understanding concepts like capitalism and socialism dont really understand how compatible the two are, that country is HIGHLY capitalistic and HIGHLY socialistic at the same time.

 

- you think anyone who disagrees with you or has a different opinion is a pathetic fucking idiot moron.

 

No i think people who put together ideas like you do are idiots. Im a stickler for a well founded and put together argument. And I like to swear. I'm a man of many contradictions. NEXT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering my family's been living and breathing this for longer than you've been alive, how's about you take the realization that none of this is new and there's no fucking way anything is going to change their opinions. I've brought up all your theories with them on numerous occasions and they'll tel you it doesnt make sense to them. You can take that as meaning their lost in the quagmire between reality and fiction, or you can respect 65 congruent years of professional experience in this business and several masters degrees in socioeconomics from UC berkeley. I really don't care either way.

 

 

 

I was saying that to mean exactly what it says. Not for some smart assed reply about how

your banker family is so much more informed.

 

I bet they cringe when someone brings up auditing the Fed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong: All economics is trying to control outcomes in a wildly uncontrollable market. Basic keynesian theory in macro economics says that private companies are poor at controlling outcomes and require regulation so they dont fuck up too badly, ie, central banking. Also it's nice to have only one currency in america. It makes transactions across the border much easier and doesnt stagnate the economy like it did in the 1700's and the civil war when we had a central bank for every state, and then a central bank for the north and south. Today most economists believe that if we didnt have the fed, the regulatory power would go to private banks. We can all speculate on how that would turn out. That's all FACT, my OPINION: Im not FOR the fed, but it does currently win by default. If i ruled the world we'd all live in houses made only of renewable materials like strawbale and other agracultural waste products. We'd also all live in one giant city and leave 95% of the world unscathed.

 

The best way for me to respond to this, is to point out what was already posted here which you basically shrugged off and dismissed. The video casek posted:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ3JNcMDWwg

 

You say, ALL economics tries to CONTROL outcomes in a wildly uncontrollable market, but the very idea of free-market capitalism is the concept that the markets are supposed to be absent of any economic intervention or regulation by government, or any institution such as the Fed, unless of course to protect against fraud. You are bringing up the stagnation of the economy from the 1700's, but the crises we face today on a global scale where our economic system almost collapsed into a world-wide depression due to the institutions of central banks on a global scale is much more serious of an issue. Ron Paul said it the best in the video, "We haven't had free-market economics. Now they're blaming capitalism for all of these problems and not enough regulation. We've had crony capitalism, we've had inflationism, corporatism, big government, we've not had true free-market capitalism."

 

Which you responded to:

I never said Keynesian economics made sense. I said that's the theology implemented by the fucking fed. If you want me to take you seriously as a spokesman for the abolition of central banking, READ THE FUCKING BOOK.

 

So you are admitting that the institution which some of us are advocating for it's abolition is instituting a policy that doesn't make sense. In this video Ron Paul states very clearly what is at the root of the financial crisis, and those interviewing him seem to be in complete agreement, yet you want to claim that the fed controlling our economy wins by default?

 

The fed can raise or lower prime rates, which can affect the market (but people dont always react the same way to interest rates), which affects business which affects our GDP, which affects who wants to trade with us and how much money they give us for a dollar's worth of our products. It's not an opinion, it's reality.

 

In order for the fed to raise or lower prime rates, they have to decrease or increase the money supply. This has an effect on the value of the dollar...

 

The fed's policies are economic policies, which are the same economic policies that affect EVERYTHING. It's widely undisputed why the stock market posted a recession: the housing market, which inadvertently affected the credit market, plus all those subprime mortgages were rolled up and sold to investors of thousands of companies, and those rolled up suprime loans were insured which is why AIG and thousands of companies went bankrupt. It's all very complicated and pointing fingers solely at the Fed is absurd. It's like point a finger at god for when it floods. That's not opinion, that's FACT.

 

You need a history lesson and im a little too tired to write one up now. Basically this whole thing started right after WWII when soldiers came back and wanted the american dream: big house, fancy car, real estate in the burbs etc. I dont want to skip all the details so I'll finish the story later.

 

So the Fed's policies, and inflation, and the decreased value of our dollar has NOTHING to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? If you have a mortgage (and this happened to my sister btw), and you believe you can pay this mortgage because it's a certain amount of money a month that you can afford, and suddenly that monthly payment shoots up in price and you are starting to not be able to afford it because you are still only making the same amount of money a month as you were before, then obviously you are not going to be able to pay for this anymore and your standard of living is going to diminish. They may end up foreclosing on your house now because you can no longer make the monthly mortgage payments. This has nothing to do with the fundamental flaws of our economic system under the Fed? That has nothing to do with the value of our currency?

 

Sure, after WW2 everyone wanted the American dream and who sold that dream to them on credit?

 

I dont believe in conspiracy theories and i dont CARE if there's a new world order. I dont even really consider it a conspiracy theory, because it's kinda happening and kinda never will happen at the same time. But have you ever asked yourself, who cares? One currency.. horray! THere's pros and cons to that shit too, mostly cons for the american economy because we make a lot of money just on selling american greenbacks. There's a lot more to the NWO, but crossfire has such a hard time with understanding simpler things like the $700b stimulus that more time should be committed to that before going into understanding the governing economic policies that would actually lead the world into believing the NWO is a good idea, and why it might not be. When you take an economics course, you dont just jump into hardcore macro economic theory.

 

who cares? well... first of all I care. I know plenty of people who do care actually, there are lots of people who care. maybe YOU don't care, that's fine you don't really have to care either people don't care that you don't care. :lol:

 

this is the typical argument though coming from a lot of people who dispute this information, that NWO is inevitable, that it is GOOD for us, etc. as much as i would like to believe that some form of unity and collaboration between sovereign nations is beneficial to humanity, i also understand what our founding fathers warned us about and why limited government is the only way to secure liberty and freedom. you already admit that this whole concept is already kind of happening, but then you make the arrogant statement that it "kinda will never happen" which i don't even really understand, how can something KINDA NEVER happen? that's an oxymoron... but you of course don't know the future either so you can't predict something will never happen. if you're able to admit that this process is occurring, then it confuses me why you would be in disagreement with those who insist on preventing it.

 

No i said that the government felt they were a necessity, the banks could take it or leave it and in the end the treasury is returning gains on the loans, so who the fuck cares?

 

once again the who cares thing...

 

the returns we are receiving on the loans are no where near the amount of money that was robbed from the tax payers.

 

It's logically irresponsible for anyone to jump to the assumption that anything is so simple it can just be controlled, let alone the largest man-made machine in the world. And naivety or coincidence? Nonononon this whole thing is unprecedented. We've changed nearly our entire fiscal and monetary policy since the last great depression. We didnt even HAVE a credit market back then and Game theory is based on fucking videogames. Well, maybe there was some naivety to people who took loans out assuming they would get pay raises, which was the main marketing strategy in central valley Calif. where a huge portion of these foreclosures took place. And some naivety on the parts of the banks who started giving loans to people with a history of bad credit. "Oh sure look at the market it's going up up up you'll get more raises in No time! Why buy the house you can afford today when you can buy the one you can afford IN THE FUTURE?"

 

They figured that these rolled up subprime loans had so many people involved that there's no way everybody would stop paying them. There's been a lot of investigation that went into those loans and it turned out that a lot of the people who stopped payment on the loans stopped paying when the "introductory rate" went to the normal variable rate. That had nothing to do with the fed and if you look at the fed during those times, it stayed the exact same.

 

Dont forget also that the war played a huge role in our debt. Bush ran through trillions of dollars just for that. To put that debt into perspective, we went 4 trillion MORE in debt AFTER bush was out of office just because of our financial obligations to Bush's debt. So it's an amalgum of a lot of people doing a lot of shit. And here's the thing, for every person that doesnt want the fed the bearound, you're going to have 2 more people demanding MORE regulation on the private sector for all this bullshit. Hence why Obama gave more regulatory power to the fed. This isnt my opinion either. Like i said, Fed wins by default because an economy that's entirely private and self-regulated hasn't worked yet. Banks would tell you tho that its the government's fault for demanding that banks offer loans to people of lower income. And the government will tell you that it's the community activists' fault for lobbying to make loans for poor people a reality. Those community activists will then blame banks for hiding the real variable interest rates from custmoers, and banks will say "what part of introductory didnt you understand?" and the people who stopped paying will blame the economy and so on. Its one bigass blame game that I just like to sit back from and look at it all and try to figure out strategies of how to move forward because while you want quite possibly the most ridiculous reform EVER, you gotta think smaller and more doable. That's why Ron Paul aint in office, because abolishing so much of the way we do things without guarentees that life will be better after is scary as fuck. And rightfully so. That's what our economy is all about: false promises.

 

i agree with you to some extent, that the entire system is not so simple that can be controlled is true. i don't personally believe someone is pulling strings and manipulating the entire system, but i don't disbelieve that people were in the know of what was occurring and profiting off of other peoples personal losses.

 

The whole bringing my family into this debate is so you can understand what a rather large company like City National Bank is all about. (They also recieved about 200 million bucks from this stimulus, which is a loan not a grant, and they payed about 9 million bucks to receive it and will end up paying about 290 million back to the treasury in the next couple years. And while their business was hurt like every otherbusiness, they weren't going bankrupt) The economy is a fucked up situation for everyone. Bigass banks, just like people, dont like the government telling them what to do because a lot of bankers would argue a lot of the regulatory things the government does fucks banks up. The point being, the government and bankers arent FRIENDS in all this. Obama doesnt have any FRIENDS in the banking industry. Everybody's just trying to do what's right in their own way and sort of fucking it up for everyone else trying to do right. Dont forget either that the $700b stimulus package was from bush's administration.

 

that's definitely true, i wouldn't see why any banking institution would want to be under the governments thumb. i don't think they appreciate it either, but i'm sure there are people who do find this situation to be beneficial.

 

 

I forced my father whos a very bright man to sit and watch that thing. After the 40th pause during the economics section because he had to explain why it's untrue, he couldnt watch anymore of it. I'll be happy to write it all down again because i think what he says adds a lot of needed balance to crossfire.

 

eh, i'm not really interested in your father's information since it is coming from someone involved in that industry i wouldn't expect his perspective to be critical.

 

That or you're really bad at grammatical structure, which im a stickler for and so is everyone in politics/business. When you postulated your opinion as "these capitalists are doing bad things. Also I am not a capitalist." That's generally how anyone would read that.

 

well i explained above, and in my posts actually that it isn't pure free-market capitalism. it's crony capitalism / corporatism, so that is what i meant.

 

You dont play with your own fecal matter unless you're studying scatology. You dont try to understand economics as an outsider because then you just point fingers a lot and that gets you nowhere. The economy is the world's largest man-made machine and nobody understands how it works. There are entire schools dedicated to economic thought and theory because people dont fucking understand it. I gave you a list of things you should research, fiscal policy, monetary policy, game theory, behavioral theory. Im not saying these concepts will indefinitely go over your head, but you sir are definitely currently confused about ALL of it.

 

no i don't think i'm confused about all of it, in the manner that i would be walking around in the dark trying to reach for something i can't see, sort of like you're implying. i wouldn't say i'm an expert and i have lots of room for learning more, but i do have more of an open mind then you do to listen to people and agree with those who are speaking about the more fundamental flaws of the economic system and advocate abolishing the fed, so... that much i can appreciate and understand. i can comprehend the long term effects this system has had on our economy and notice that these crisis could have been avoided had we a more constitutional monetary policy, and i can also comprehend that the policy we have today is unconstitutional and this could be the reasons for all the crony capitalism and corruption that is occurring.

 

Im not sure i understand but these are publicly traded companies. They're going to do whatever their shareholders want them to do. I'll give you a quick example. My girl heads PG&E's green energy research department. PG&E is a publicly traded company so they post EVERYTHING that they're doing and because of that, not a lot gets done. The other day their shares dropped $4 a share because they told their shareholders about the possible acquisition of a windfarm in Bakersfield. Just TOLD them about it and the stock went down. End result? Not gonna do it. Or at least approach the deal in a different way. Most of the banks dont want this money because it stinks to high heaven, like goldman sachs, they just want to give the money back and be done with the government regulations because they're fine without it. Some other banks are going to spend the money other ways as well, but NOTHING that they're doing can really be foreseen as being good or bad in the long run, so as long as they pay back the loans with all the interest owed, I dont think the taxpayers really should worry.

 

you don't seem to be taking into account that criminal activity occurred during these bailouts, money that went missing and hasn't been accounted for. everything isn't as transparent as your gf's PG&E, especially an institution like the fed which has no regulation. there have already been reports about back door bailouts...

 

 

ok.. enough of the quoting bs. i hate doing that...

as for the internet thing, if you are a student or someone who maybe is not as privileged as others, the internet is just fine, actually excellent for researching and general knowledge. there is an abundance of information on the internet, and just as much bad information as there is good information. like i said in another thread, this is the age of information so you can find support for whatever paradigm it is you want to align yourself with. we could sit here all day with information supporting whatever side of the debate it is that we are on, that's why i prefer discussion over a battle of who has the best sourced credible information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be a discussion but it doesnt mean you understand any of it.

 

Everything you wrote is bolded out because im too lazy to quote it.

The best way for me to respond to this, is to point out what was already posted here which you basically shrugged off and dismissed. The video casek posted:

 

Ok First of all do you understand what Ron's talking about with "Fannie and freddie?" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started out as community activist groups demanding that banks extend house loans to poorer communities way back in the 60's and 70's. Those initiatives became laws that forced banks to do these sub-prime loans in the first place, so you'll hear lots of bankers and economists like Ron Paul blaming the government when those subprime mortgages went bad. It wasnt like Ron Paul was alone in that opinion back in 2003 because no business wants to be told what to do. THEN AGAIN, nobody told banks how to bundle these loans, nor did the government or these community activist groups twist their arm to give loans to people with poor credit. Banks who did these subprime loans and credit card companies figured so many people were rolled up in these subprime loans that if people couldnt pay it wasnt a big deal. What happened tho was one person would stop paying, the bank would hike up the interest rate on the other people to make up the difference, so more people would stop paying and so on. So while Ron Paul blames the government, Fanny May and Freddie Mac, the banks and credit companies were fucking stupid too.

 

Also, can i just say that those people interviewing Ron Paul acting like this is big news and treating him like a fucking massiah is stupid. No offense to Ron Paul, i just dont like how those other two idiots are acting like it's 3rd grade show and tell, talking slow and saying "Did you hear that everybody? wasnt that amazing?". Everybody knew that those rolled up sub prime loans and credit lending to people with bad credit was high-risk. That's no secret.

You say, ALL economics tries to CONTROL outcomes in a wildly uncontrollable market, but the very idea of free-market capitalism is the concept that the markets are supposed to be absent of any economic intervention or regulation by government, or any institution such as the Fed, unless of course to protect against fraud. You are bringing up the stagnation of the economy from the 1700's, but the crises we face today on a global scale where our economic system almost collapsed into a world-wide depression due to the institutions of central banks on a global scale is much more serious of an issue. Ron Paul said it the best in the video, "We haven't had free-market economics. Now they're blaming capitalism for all of these problems and not enough regulation. We've had crony capitalism, we've had inflationism, corporatism, big government, we've not had true free-market capitalism."

No. Just no.

Which you responded to:

So you are admitting that the institution which some of us are advocating for it's abolition is instituting a policy that doesn't make sense. In this video Ron Paul states very clearly what is at the root of the financial crisis, and those interviewing him seem to be in complete agreement, yet you want to claim that the fed controlling our economy wins by default?

No im saying none of it makes sense. And rRon Paul, as far as I can tell from that video, is just talking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In order for the fed to raise or lower prime rates, they have to decrease or increase the money supply. This has an effect on the value of the dollar...

They dont decrease or increase money supply. They adjust the prime rate at which banks can loan more money, but they're only going to borrow as much as they can loan out. The answer is: Customers of banks, banks, and the fed all together control the money supply.

 

Side note: Why are all these videos only five minutes long? And why are they all of Ron Paul rambling on and on and on with Bernanke speaking in like 10 second bubbles? That doesnt shock you?

 

So the Fed's policies, and inflation, and the decreased value of our dollar has NOTHING to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? If you have a mortgage (and this happened to my sister btw), and you believe you can pay this mortgage because it's a certain amount of money a month that you can afford, and suddenly that monthly payment shoots up in price and you are starting to not be able to afford it because you are still only making the same amount of money a month as you were before, then obviously you are not going to be able to pay for this anymore and your standard of living is going to diminish. They may end up foreclosing on your house now because you can no longer make the monthly mortgage payments. This has nothing to do with the fundamental flaws of our economic system under the Fed? That has nothing to do with the value of our currency?

Banks control their own interest rates. Obviously it's always going to be higher than the prime rate, but if you noticed the prime rate's been pretty fucking flat in the last decade. If you agree to a variable interest rate, Banks can do whatever they want.

Sure, after WW2 everyone wanted the American dream and who sold that dream to them on credit?

I still gotta write up that story would explains just that.

who cares? well... first of all I care. I know plenty of people who do care actually, there are lots of people who care. maybe YOU don't care, that's fine you don't really have to care either people don't care that you don't care. :lol:

Grammar buddy. Grammar. And I dont care because it doesn't affect anyone negatively in the long run.

this is the typical argument though coming from a lot of people who dispute this information, that NWO is inevitable, that it is GOOD for us, etc. as much as i would like to believe that some form of unity and collaboration between sovereign nations is beneficial to humanity, i also understand what our founding fathers warned us about and why limited government is the only way to secure liberty and freedom. you already admit that this whole concept is already kind of happening, but then you make the arrogant statement that it "kinda will never happen" which i don't even really understand, how can something KINDA NEVER happen? that's an oxymoron... but you of course don't know the future either so you can't predict something will never happen. if you're able to admit that this process is occurring, then it confuses me why you would be in disagreement with those who insist on preventing it.

Did I say NWO was good? I said there's pros and cons, but it'll never happen, although people keep pushing it forward. Also politicians talk about current events, not events way far into the future, that whole thing about limited government was mostly just a bunch of anti-Britain slurs. You dont have to agree with me, you just have to agree it's all speculative what the founding fathers "foresaw."

 

once again the who cares thing...

 

the returns we are receiving on the loans are no where near the amount of money that was robbed from the tax payers.

The money they're paying back is actually more than the bailout was. I know you know this because you say you read my posts and i've said this a bajillion times already. You can be mad but that was treasury money. They didnt "rob" tax payers nor did they hike up taxes.

i agree with you to some extent, that the entire system is not so simple that can be controlled is true. i don't personally believe someone is pulling strings and manipulating the entire system, but i don't disbelieve that people were in the know of what was occurring and profiting off of other peoples personal losses.

 

Great.

that's definitely true, i wouldn't see why any banking institution would want to be under the governments thumb. i don't think they appreciate it either, but i'm sure there are people who do find this situation to be beneficial.

For instance the execs at AIG who had long-standing contractual salary agreements so when we gave AIG money they legally had to pay them. Just so you know that whole thing was incredibly controversial in the banking industry too. More often than not Chairmen CEO's take a dollar for their salary in recessions: Steve Jobs, that redneck running GM right now, etc.

eh, i'm not really interested in your father's information since it is coming from someone involved in that industry i wouldn't expect his perspective to be critical.

That's flatout retarded, but something I would expect from a person who thinks the internet is just as good as a formal education.

well i explained above, and in my posts actually that it isn't pure free-market capitalism. it's crony capitalism / corporatism, so that is what i meant.

ok...

no i don't think i'm confused about all of it, in the manner that i would be walking around in the dark trying to reach for something i can't see, sort of like you're implying. i wouldn't say i'm an expert and i have lots of room for learning more, but i do have more of an open mind then you do to listen to people and agree with those who are speaking about the more fundamental flaws of the economic system and advocate abolishing the fed, so... that much i can appreciate and understand. i can comprehend the long term effects this system has had on our economy and notice that these crisis could have been avoided had we a more constitutional monetary policy, and i can also comprehend that the policy we have today is unconstitutional and this could be the reasons for all the crony capitalism and corruption that is occurring.

I'm also a fan of blunt honesty so saying "Im not an expert on the subject" instead of what you should've said, "I have no formal education on the subect and am amateur at best." Bugs me. Also saying "I can comprehend the longterm effects." bugs me. Nobody comprehends them. It's all speculative.

you don't seem to be taking into account that criminal activity occurred during these bailouts, money that went missing and hasn't been accounted for. everything isn't as transparent as your gf's PG&E, especially an institution like the fed which has no regulation. there have already been reports about back door bailouts...

The fed has regulation. It follows Keynesian Economics like AOD follows the constitution. How can you say the Fed's not transparent when Bernanke's been in all those videos you posted trying to explain Keynesian economics to everyone. This guy is a professor on this shit. He teaches economics. You dont have to like the guy or agree with him but he's outspoken in what he believes in. Maybe if you understood eynesian economics better you'd be better at understanding what's going on, which is why i told you to read that textbook.

 

And bailouts are loans. Just loans. Not crazy variable interest subprime loans. Loans get payed off eventually and according to Bernanke "The fed's never lost a penny on these loans" which really means "We make bank on this shit."

 

 

 

 

ok.. enough of the quoting bs. i hate doing that...

as for the internet thing, if you are a student or someone who maybe is not as privileged as others, the internet is just fine, actually excellent for researching and general knowledge. there is an abundance of information on the internet, and just as much bad information as there is good information. like i said in another thread, this is the age of information so you can find support for whatever paradigm it is you want to align yourself with. we could sit here all day with information supporting whatever side of the debate it is that we are on, that's why i prefer discussion over a battle of who has the best sourced credible information.

Look homie, i've been to third world countries so dont tell me you're not privileged. I hate when americans say that shit. Every man woman and child can afford college in america, even when they can't. And I'm not fucking battling you. That shit's what ignorant douchebags do. Im giving you reality here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wasn't saying we aren't privileged, i meant for those people who maybe don't have the opportunity to go to a college, or maybe a more "elite" college, that the internet is a good tool for educating yourself. obviously formal education with some combination of self-education is best... i don't see what third world countries has to do with anything i said, unless of course you were misunderstanding what i meant by privileged. you seem to have already stereotyped me, so i guess your just basing your arguments off of that stereotype whenever you see certain words, like capitalist, privileged, new world order, etc.

 

Ok First of all do you understand what Ron's talking about with "Fannie and freddie?" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started out as community activist groups demanding that banks extend house loans to poorer communities way back in the 60's and 70's. Those initiatives became laws that forced banks to do these sub-prime loans in the first place, so you'll hear lots of bankers and economists like Ron Paul blaming the government when those subprime mortgages went bad. It wasnt like Ron Paul was alone in that opinion back in 2003 because no business wants to be told what to do. THEN AGAIN, nobody told banks how to bundle these loans, nor did the government or these community activist groups twist their arm to give loans to people with poor credit. Banks who did these subprime loans and credit card companies figured so many people were rolled up in these subprime loans that if people couldnt pay it wasnt a big deal. What happened tho was one person would stop paying, the bank would hike up the interest rate on the other people to make up the difference, so more people would stop paying and so on. So while Ron Paul blames the government, Fanny May and Freddie Mac, the banks and credit companies were fucking stupid too.

 

yes, actually i do understand what Ron Paul is talking about with Freddie and Fannie...

what does this response have to do with anything i said? i posted the video casek posted, which is mentioning the Fannie and Freddie situation but what? you don't comprehend the deeper message that Ron Paul is sending in that video? the one that goes beyond just Fannie and Freddie? when i try to address that, with;

 

You say, ALL economics tries to CONTROL outcomes in a wildly uncontrollable market, but the very idea of free-market capitalism is the concept that the markets are supposed to be absent of any economic intervention or regulation by government, or any institution such as the Fed, unless of course to protect against fraud. You are bringing up the stagnation of the economy from the 1700's, but the crises we face today on a global scale where our economic system almost collapsed into a world-wide depression due to the institutions of central banks on a global scale is much more serious of an issue. Ron Paul said it the best in the video, "We haven't had free-market economics. Now they're blaming capitalism for all of these problems and not enough regulation. We've had crony capitalism, we've had inflationism, corporatism, big government, we've not had true free-market capitalism."

 

you just say "no."

 

what is the point of even talking to you?

 

Grammar buddy. Grammar. And I dont care because it doesn't affect anyone negatively in the long run.

 

you're going to seriously point out my grammar with that sentence? are we checking each others spelling now?

 

Did I say NWO was good? I said there's pros and cons, but it'll never happen, although people keep pushing it forward. Also politicians talk about current events, not events way far into the future, that whole thing about limited government was mostly just a bunch of anti-Britain slurs. You dont have to agree with me, you just have to agree it's all speculative what the founding fathers "foresaw."

 

there are no "pros" to a new world order...

i don't agree with you either, i don't believe the limited government concepts were only "anti-Britain slurs", i believe our founders had a grander vision than that. you can mitigate it down to something as simple as "anti-Britain slurs" if you want, i'm sorry you feel that way. i don't think it's speculative either of what our founding fathers foresaw, i believe their intentions are known and felt in the hearts and minds of many Americans even today.

 

The fed has regulation. It follows Keynesian Economics like AOD follows the constitution. How can you say the Fed's not transparent when Bernanke's been in all those videos you posted trying to explain Keynesian economics to everyone. This guy is a professor on this shit. He teaches economics. You dont have to like the guy or agree with him but he's outspoken in what he believes in. Maybe if you understood eynesian economics better you'd be better at understanding what's going on, which is why i told you to read that textbook.

 

And bailouts are loans. Just loans. Not crazy variable interest subprime loans. Loans get payed off eventually and according to Bernanke "The fed's never lost a penny on these loans" which really means "We make bank on this shit."

 

The fed has no real regulation or transparency, don't give me that bull shit.

 

I'm def not your homie neither lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, as a spectator, this thread was enjoyable until soup began manipulating the debates direction so that he could end it by saying no one understands the system like him and his family. zig held true to his view while soup came off as mysterious and high and mighty, though i still managed to get your view eventually.

 

AUDIT THE FED. End oligarchies and all the slick willies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, as a spectator, this thread was enjoyable until soup began manipulating the debates direction so that he could end it by saying no one understands the system like him and his family. zig held true to his view while soup came off as mysterious and high and mighty, though i still managed to get your view eventually.

 

AUDIT THE FED. End oligarchies and all the slick willies.

 

That's funny because I've received an huge amount of props for keeping crossfire on point, so I gotta assume you are Zig on a diff account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol your funny dude, i wouldn't bother going out of my way to do something like that.

 

keeping crossfire on point? i received props from this thread too from several people, the only thing you are doing is keeping what you label "conspiracy theory" out of crossfire because you don't want to discuss anything that is "deep", you'd rather discuss the technical issues that are on the surface of all of our problems.

 

oh i'm sorry, i assumed that getting to the root of societies problems would take some deeper critical analysis rather then just doing what we've been doing for the past 50-60 years and making patches to a system that isn't working. even Obama acknowledges that much...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im ignoring that comment about obama because it's trash. Obama agrees with what exactly? You didnt explain what obama agrees with you just threw it out like he personally agrees with YOU. And you want to act like IM manipulative. You're the king of contextomy and i feel sorry for anyone who doesnt see it.

 

Here's the problem about your "deep critical analysis" Its boring, it's abstract, it's unfounded, and above all it's a waste of time. YOu need to work with the system and make reforms from within. Abolishion is not possible, nor do you have an answer for what you will replace the fed/central banking with after abolishing it. It's called being REALISTIC. You cant do that unless you understand the system and since you dont/ have no interest in understanding it, discussing it with you is a waste of time.

 

 

IM done with this thread homie. Im sure you can carry on with some of those people who you say propped you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im ignoring that comment about obama because it's trash. Obama agrees with what exactly? You didnt explain what obama agrees with you just threw it out like he personally agrees with YOU. And you want to act like IM manipulative. You're the king of contextomy and i feel sorry for anyone who doesnt see it.

 

Here's the problem about your "deep critical analysis" Its boring, it's abstract, it's unfounded, and above all it's a waste of time. YOu need to work with the system and make reforms from within. Abolishion is not possible, nor do you have an answer for what you will replace the fed/central banking with after abolishing it. It's called being REALISTIC. You cant do that unless you understand the system and since you dont/ have no interest in understanding it, discussing it with you is a waste of time.

 

 

IM done with this thread homie. Im sure you can carry on with some of those people who you say propped you.

 

Actually discussing anything with you is a waste of time. Which if you actually read your post's you should be able to figure out.

 

You are the up most authority on every issue. If your stamp of approval isn't already on a course of action, it's stupid.

 

Seriously, you exaggerate the majority of what you claim Zig has said or attacked you about.

 

It's hysterical to actually read Zig's post's, than read your reply. It's almost as if you are reading something completely different from what is actually being said to you.

 

Case in point, the last 2 post's that were made in this thread.

 

Also funny, the fact that you brought out props on an internet forum to establish some form of credibility, than when it was brought up that props were given for the same reason, for his side of the issue, you tried to throw it in his face.

 

I'm sure in some way shape or form this will be taken as an "attack" on you. When it is just the attempt of bringing your behavior to your own attention.

 

I'm done with this off topic discussion though, anything else hit up the PM box. This shit is for the birds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahah now we're just debating what level of douchebag you are.

 

i'm a douchebag now too? interesting...

 

anyway.

 

as for the Obama comment, no I wasn't saying he agreed with me personally that's impossible he doesn't know me personally. I actually wasn't even insinuating whatsoever that he was in any sort of agreement with me... what I was saying was that throughout his campaign and in his speeches Obama has repeatedly stated that we need to find change within ourselves, and we need to start thinking outside of the box and doing things differenly than we have in the past in order to make real substantial changes to our country. that can be taken as, we need to start critically thinking at the way things are done currently and get at the roots of these issues so that real changed can be affected. whether or not he agrees with my personal views on what would affect real change is not something that can be debated here, and from his actions as president i would assume that answer would be: no.

 

also, as for what we would do without the fed. i believe aod actually posted a very good starting alternative idea, but none of us individually can formulate a plan in detailed fashion for you to check and approve. the point is to make the steps towards affecting change in our society for the better, and you take small steps towards doing these things and come together with other people to bring about plans for the future. it isn't impossible, saying Abolition is not possible is like saying resistance is futile.

 

everything is possibllleeeeeeee

 

but you're done with this thread though homie. peace san. KEEP UP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...