Brawls at the Federal reserve?

[dmarc117]

yeah, because everything is going so swell right now....

 

 

shhhhh, if you have thoughts or lilies and daises, then it will all be good

[TimC]

yeah, because everything is going so swell right now....

 

Maybe the Fed can lower interest rates. Wait.

[wiegie]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-25/f...-documents.html

For what it's worth, the likely reason that they (at least initially) didn't want to name names is because they were scared if they did say which banks were hurting that it would set up a run on these banks and basically force them into failure, (A similar type of thing happened in the Great Depression when a bank aid program was set up and then later the agency running the program was forced to say which banks it had helped.)

 

The fact that they don't want to release names now could be because they are still worried about the solvency of these banks (something that is not that unrealistic). [i do agree, though, that eventually they should reveal everything.]

[dmarc117]

For what it's worth, the likely reason that they (at least initially) didn't want to name names is because they were scared if they did say which banks were hurting that it would set up a run on these banks and basically force them into failure, (A similar type of thing happened in the Great Depression when a bank aid program was set up and then later the agency running the program was forced to say which banks it had helped.)

 

The fact that they don't want to release names now could be because they are still worried about the solvency of these banks (something that is not that unrealistic). [i do agree, though, that eventually they should reveal everything.]

 

 

completely agree. these banks are all in trouble still. i guess the greater good is the message here. do we want the truth or the end o days.

[dmarc117]

Banana Ben absolutely wants to do a massive QE2 program. The only thing holding him back is gold is near an all time high. What he wants is gold much lower and stocks much lower to give him cover... He is scared to do it here and he is right to be scared because such a reaction would be the end of the Fed right then and there. The Fed will be gone anyway within a few years in my opinion but it’s going to fight hard to survive and if you want to make money in this market you need to understand that. The most powerful institution in the world is fighting for its survival. Never forget that. So what is he going to do? I believe that the Fed and government are doing a lot more than people think to manipulate all markets behind the scenes. After all, they have publicly announced their manipulation in many other ways so does it make any sense whatsoever to assume they aren’t doing a plethora of other things behind the scenes? Of course not. I think that with the Fed in a bind they will accelerate and become ever more aggressive in behind the scenes games. This will make markets even more volatile and extraordinarily challenging. This is financial war make no mistake about it. The only way in my opinion to survive this is to buy all dips in precious metals, agriculture and oil. It is in these three areas that I expect to see the most price inflation as money eventually figures out the end game. The end game is more and more people will eventually wake up to the fact that the markets are a hologram put in front of you by the magicians at the Fed. That what constitutes real wealth in the years ahead will be owning food, energy and a means of exchange that will be accepted should a black market economy arise as it has in virtually all nations at one time or another throughout history. - Michael Krieger

[whomper]

Would the crisis of 1857 have anything to do with too many uneducated Irish immigrants finally overwhelming the system? Would crisis of 1873 have anything to do with the devastation the norther aggressors wrecked on the south, and that debt that they accumulated doing so?

 

 

Thats right bitches

[Perchoutofwater]

Thats right bitches

 

Too bad y'all couldn't shoot for $hit, or the war would have only lasted a few months. You had us out numbered and out gunned almost two to one, and we still killed 37% more of you than you did of us. If we had just had a couple of factories and more ammo we'd all be whistling Dixie.

[Pope Flick]

Too bad y'all couldn't shoot for $hit, or the war would have only lasted a few months. You had us out numbered and out gunned almost two to one, and we still killed 37% more of you than you did of us. If we had just had a couple of factories and more ammo we'd all be whistling Dixie.

 

 

Scoreboard.

 

And how is the aggressor not the one who shot first?

Edited August 27, 2010 by Pope Flick

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Too bad y'all couldn't shoot for $hit, or the war would have only lasted a few months. You had us out numbered and out gunned almost two to one, and we still killed 37% more of you than you did of us. If we had just had a couple of factories and more ammo we'd all be whistling Dixie.

 

Yep. We'd be the China of the world right now, what with the cheap slave labor now expanded to include not only the black folk and such. We'd rule the world and be selling our stuff at all the Walmarts everywhere. Our quality of life would suck, but we'd sell alot of crap.

[Perchoutofwater]

Scoreboard.

 

And how is the aggressor not the one who shot first?

 

Because they were occupying a fort that was not in their country and refused to vacate it.

[Pope Flick]

Because they were occupying a fort that was not in their country and refused to vacate it.

 

 

 

That's so CUTE!

[Perchoutofwater]

Yep. We'd be the China of the world right now, what with the cheap slave labor now expanded to include not only the black folk and such. We'd rule the world and be selling our stuff at all the Walmarts everywhere. Our quality of life would suck, but we'd sell alot of crap.

 

Slavery was on the decline. The foreign slave trade had ended. Cheap immigrant workers were less expensive to maintain that slaves, so slavery would have phased out in another decade or two due to simple economics. So that is fallacious argument.

 

China is looking a lot stronger than we are right now if you haven't noticed.

[MikesVikes]

What started the fight? Were they at a garage sale?

[Perchoutofwater]

What started the fight? Were they at a garage sale?

 

I heard Lee told Grant his wife had a high SPF.

[wiegie]

Slavery was on the decline. The foreign slave trade had ended. Cheap immigrant workers were less expensive to maintain that slaves, so slavery would have phased out in another decade or two due to simple economics. So that is fallacious argument.

Not true.

 

Slavery was still quite profitable and would have continued to be profitable for quite some time in the future. (see the classic reference by Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Fogel and his co-author Stanley Engermann, "Time on the Cross".

 

Relevant summary via wikipedia: ":In the book, Fogel and Engerman argue that the system of slavery was profitable for slave owners because they organized plantation production "rationally" to maximize their profits. Due to economies of scale (the so called "gang system" of labor on cotton plantations), they argued, Southern slave farms were more productive, per unit of labor, than northern farms. The implications of this, Engerman and Fogel contended, is that slavery in the American South was not going away on its own (as it had in some historical instances such as ancient Rome) because, despite its exploitative nature, slavery was immensely profitable and productive for slave owners."

[Perchoutofwater]

Not true.

 

Slavery was still quite profitable and would have continued to be profitable for quite some time in the future. (see the classic reference by Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Fogel and his co-author Stanley Engermann, "Time on the Cross".

 

Relevant summary via wikipedia: ":In the book, Fogel and Engerman argue that the system of slavery was profitable for slave owners because they organized plantation production "rationally" to maximize their profits. Due to economies of scale (the so called "gang system" of labor on cotton plantations), they argued, Southern slave farms were more productive, per unit of labor, than northern farms. The implications of this, Engerman and Fogel contended, is that slavery in the American South was not going away on its own (as it had in some historical instances such as ancient Rome) because, despite its exploitative nature, slavery was immensely profitable and productive for slave owners."

 

Yeah, it southern plantations couldn't be more profitable than northern farms because of longer planting seasons, or better soils. There was a influx of cheap Irish labor that continued to come into America right up until the civil war, and would have continued had it not been for the war, this cheap labor would have been more profitable than trying maintain slaves, as you could work the labors much harder until they broke and just hire new laborers. If you worked the slaves that hard, you would ruin what was viewed as an asset, and because the slave trade was dead you couldn't renew it.

 

It amazes me how many Nobel prize winning economists there are that you can find to quote. Of course when Al Snore gets a Nobel for lying about falsified and obviously inaccurate data, and Obama gets one for basically running a good campaign and getting elected, Nobel prizes seem to lose a little bit of their luster.

[wiegie]

 

It amazes me how many Nobel prize winning economists there are that you can find to quote.

Don't feel too bad for yourself, sometimes the breadth and depth of my knowledge amazes even me.

Of course when Al Snore gets a Nobel for lying about falsified and obviously inaccurate data, and Obama gets one for basically running a good campaign and getting elected, Nobel prizes seem to lose a little bit of their luster.

Only among people who don't understand how the awards are bestowed. Edited August 27, 2010 by wiegie

[Brentastic]

 

here's that clip...his videos are well worth the viewing...

I got a minute and a half in and the guy is simply wrong on his assumptions. I'm sure his intentions are pure but he's another example someone 'tricked' into thinking another alternative (in this case coinage) is the answer. These bankers created the world we live in, so they have a leg up on all of us and being highly motivated/competitive, they understand that people are catching onto the scheme. So their only 'move' now is to get people thinking a coinage system is the answer, but that system will still be controlled by the bankers who control things now.

 

There is key thing he talks about in that first minute that clues in on the truth behind a coinage system.

1 - gold coins with a fraction of silver and/or fractionalized coins

 

Both of these caveats are exactly how the current fiat scheme began - it's what kings used to do, water down the coins (hence more of the pure metalics for the elite). Gold is scarce, I think silver is at least 15x more abundant than gold. The majority of gold that has not been mined (I wonder who owns the mines?) is in the hands of few. Having gold coins that are watered down with anything (in this case silver) allows the banks to 'fractionalize' it just the same (keep making coins with less gold). The fractional reserve system we have now is exactly what's wrong with our current system. Plus that guy doesn't even address the Federal Reserve - no matter what the system, if there is a private organization that is the sole lender to our government at interest, then the system is still broke.

 

Borrower is servant to the lender- remember that. If our government continues to be the borrower then we the citizens and our government (who is supposed to serve us)are servants to a greater power operated mostly from foreign soil. We must stop this way of living and set a better path for our children. Serioiusly.

[Ursa Majoris]

Yeah, it southern plantations couldn't be more profitable than northern farms because of longer planting seasons, or better soils. There was a influx of cheap Irish labor that continued to come into America right up until the civil war, and would have continued had it not been for the war, this cheap labor would have been more profitable than trying maintain slaves, as you could work the labors much harder until they broke and just hire new laborers. If you worked the slaves that hard, you would ruin what was viewed as an asset, and because the slave trade was dead you couldn't renew it.

 

It amazes me how many Nobel prize winning economists there are that you can find to quote. Of course when Al Snore gets a Nobel for lying about falsified and obviously inaccurate data, and Obama gets one for basically running a good campaign and getting elected, Nobel prizes seem to lose a little bit of their luster.

Another year, another fallacious Perch argument about the south's war.

[wiegie]

 

Plus that guy doesn't even address the Federal Reserve - no matter what the system, if there is a private organization that is the sole lender to our government at interest, then the system is still broke.

For those who care, at the present moment, the Fed owns approximately $780 billion in government securities. This represents slightly less than 6% of total government debt. The Fed is also prohibited from buying US government securities directly from the Treasury. So I'm not sure exactly what Brent is talking about here.

[wiegie]

Another year, another fallacious Perch argument

I was actually thinking earlier today that Perch is pretty much in a league of his own in being so wrong about so many different things.

[bushwacked]

I was actually thinking earlier today that Perch is pretty much in a league of his own in being so wrong about so many different things.

 

[Brentastic]

For those who care, at the present moment, the Fed owns approximately $780 billion in government securities. This represents slightly less than 6% of total government debt. The Fed is also prohibited from buying US government securities directly from the Treasury. So I'm not sure exactly what Brent is talking about here.

According to the chart in the link below, the Federal Reserve owns about half of the US debt while foreigners own another 28% - the foreigners being the central banks of various countries (mostly owned by the central banks of China, Japan and the UK). That's nearly 80% of the debt owned by private central banks. Keep trying, wiegie. The Fed buys the US securities from banks and financial institutions who are only middlemen in the transaction - what's your point there?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estimate...tegory_0608.jpg

[wiegie]

According to the chart in the link below, the Federal Reserve owns about half of the US debt while foreigners own another 28% - the foreigners being the central banks of various countries (mostly owned by the central banks of China, Japan and the UK). That's nearly 80% of the debt owned by private central banks. Keep trying, wiegie. The Fed buys the US securities from banks and financial institutions who are only middlemen in the transaction - what's your point there?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estimate...tegory_0608.jpg

you don't know what your link means--intragovernmental holdings are NOT Fed holdings.** The numbers I provided above about the Fed are correct.

 

And I don't understand your point about the other central banks in conjunction with your previous statement that there is a sole lender to the government. Are you suggesting that the Chinese central bank and the Fed comprise a "sole lender"?

 

**intragovernment holdings would be things like the current social security surplus.

Edited August 28, 2010 by wiegie

[Lady.hawke]

Don't feel too bad for yourself, sometimes the breadth and depth of my knowledge amazes even me.

Only among people who don't understand how the awards are bestowed.

 

No one really cares as to the method of award bestowal. We only are informed as to the recipients and we instantly realize the method is tainted. There is no way Al Gore or Obama earned anything on merit. All other Nobel awards are suspect.

 

So, spare us your Nobel winning references. We are not impressed. Actually, if one vouched for you - my already low opinion of you is further reduced.