patrick.net

Robert Sproul says

Yeah, I guess I was just looking for a larger context for all the "the Fed
this, the Fed that".

That's the problem. Everyone blames the Federal Reserve, but nobody can really pinpoint how exactly the Fed is causing all these bad things to happen.

tatupu70 says

Robert Sproul says

Yeah, I guess I was just looking for a larger context for all the "the Fed

this, the Fed that".

That's the problem. Everyone blames the Federal Reserve, but nobody can really pinpoint how exactly the Fed is causing all these bad things to happen.

That's not true it has been pinpointed ad nauseam. Fed prints money for the first receivers which take their cut and as it trickles down profit and risk has to be substantially higher to make any gains. It's a ponzi scheme and the people who don't profit from it pay dearly due to inflation. Come back and make such claims when the Fed prints money and distributes the exact amount to every citizen (which would be essentially zero-sum because prices would rise but at least there are no first receivers in the crony capitalist/lobbyist VIP line). It's really just simple math.

tatupu70 says

Are you saying the capitalist profit motive doesn't work? Are you a communist???

Yeah, keep peddling the bogeyman. Do you even know the meaning of the term communism, or capitalism for that matter? Here is a small 101.

Capitalism provides a balance of risk and reward based on free market, where failure plays a big part. When profits are all privatized, and all losses are socialized, it is not capitalism by definition. It is corporate fascism, which is somewhat close to communism but not exactly same.

In short, you have full access of OPM (other people's money), and you can gamble all you want, and get bailed out if anything happens, it definitely skews the profit motive.

tatupu70 says

Banks are answerable to their owners. In the case of the large banks, that is the public through stock ownership.

No, see above one more time. Since banks are not allowed to fail, they are essentially a pseudo-private entity (i.e., fascist) under government payroll. They get free money *lent* from the Fed to gamble.

And it is not just banks. The Fed give loans to powerful "rich" people too.
Here is 201 on the FED.

"Loans were made to companies owned by wealthy Americans, including Michael Dell, founder of Dell Inc.; John Paulson, hedge fund manager; and Christy Mack, wife of Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack.
"
source: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-05-12/business/fl-federal-loan-huizenga-20110512_1_loan-program-business-loans-troubled-asset-relief-program

gsr says

Yeah, keep peddling the bogeyman. Do you even know the meaning of the term
communism, or capitalism for that matter? Here is a small 101.

It was a joke--it's called irony. You are clearly not a communist so using your misstatement about the banks not having anyone to answer to imply that you are, is funny.

gsr says

No, see above one more time. Since banks are not allowed to fail, they are
essentially a pseudo-private entity (i.e., fascist) under government payroll.

Really.. Please tell that to the 465 banks that have failed since 2008. I'm sure they'd love to have that information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932010_bank_failures_in_the_United_States

mell says

Fed prints money for the first receivers which take their cut and as it trickles
down profit and risk has to be substantially higher to make any gains. It's a
ponzi scheme and the people who don't profit from it pay dearly due to
inflation.

That's a nice narrative except that it is complete BS. Please detail how the first receivers get their money. Show me the "simple math" as you call it.

tatupu70 says

mell says

Fed prints money for the first receivers which take their cut and as it trickles

down profit and risk has to be substantially higher to make any gains. It's a

ponzi scheme and the people who don't profit from it pay dearly due to

inflation.

That's a nice narrative except that it is complete BS. Please detail how the first receivers get their money. Show me the "simple math" as you call it.

There is nothing to detail, it's in front of you. The receivers of the bailout money, the Fed purchasing MBS every month, FNM, FRE, FHA, government guaranteed loans, that's all taxpayer funded crony capitalism. There is also a recent inflation graph on this thread, easy to read.

mell says

The receivers of the bailout money, the Fed purchasing MBS every month, FNM,
FRE, FHA, government guaranteed loans, that's all taxpayer funded crony
capitalism. There is also a recent inflation graph on this thread, easy tor
read.

Again--you've detailed nothing. The bailout has nothing to do with money printing. Banks and some other entities were given LOANS that they have since paid back (for the most part).

FNM, FRE, FHA--those are acronyms. What does it have to do with money printing?

Government guaranteed loans have been around forever. There is no money printing associated with them.

I know crony capitalism is the new pet term for the right, but is it too much to ask how exactly money printing goes to the "first receivers" that are the supposed crony capitalists?

marcus says

Manyy studies in the past 5 years say the opposite.

The trouble with "studies" on this subject is that government agencies don't categorize statistics to real people they organize them to categories. So getting real data requires going beyond the obvious.

One hint though is that if it is on NPR it is painfully biased. I know this is hard for you to see but it is not hard to see for the rest of us.

I will say that IMO as the incessant march of government overreach continues the economy is burdened with resources being taken by force from the free market. Again this requires myopic free vision which renders you oblivious to it's insidious effects.

indigenous says

One hint though is that if it is on NPR it is painfully biased. I know this
is hard for you to see but it is not hard to see for the rest of us.

Let me rephrase that--

If the conclusion varies from Indigenous's preprogrammed viewpoint, then it is painfully biased"

tatupu70 says

I know crony capitalism is the new pet term for the right, but is it too much to ask how exactly money printing goes to the "first receivers" that are the supposed crony capitalists?

Gees this has been answered ad nauseam, earth to tatupu70

That's not inflation. That's the effect of increased border security.

MsBennet says

From what I can see inflation is definitely happening. I see it in groceries and supplies that I routinely buy...not to mention that $20.00 (base price) car wash the other day.

tatupu70 says

If the conclusion varies from Indigenous's preprogrammed viewpoint, then it is painfully biased"

Oh yes the pot calling the kettle black.

indigenous says

Gees this has been answered ad nauseam, earth to tatupu70

OK--then it should be no problem for you to summarize it for me.

tatupu70 says

OK--then it should be no problem for you to summarize it for me.

Not that you will listen this time either:

Inflation is not even. The cronys, TBTF big banks, get their money through uncle Ben.

This allows them to invest the money ahead of inflation. As more money is invested, mostly in RE or Equities, the price rises giving their investment a rise in value.

indigenous says

Inflation is not even. The cronys, TBTF big banks, get their money through
uncle Ben.

I understand that is what you and others claim is happening. My question is how? Please explain how the money is created and given to the "cronies"

tatupu70 says

I understand that is what you and others claim is happening. My question is how? Please explain how the money is created and given to the "cronies"

The money is printed out of thin air, it is then used to purchase bad mortgages through Freddy and Fanny, at the then value of the RE, from the banks.

tatupu70 says

I understand that is what you and others claim is happening. My question is how? Please explain how the money is created and given to the "cronies"

This taps into that topic a bit. It's called "Money as Debt." Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/jqvKjsIxT_8

Here's another, more in depth documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/iDtBSiI13fE

This guy gets a little Oliver Stone (at points) for my tastes, but there's still a lot of interesting information in it.

turtledove says

This taps into that topic a bit. It's called "Money as Debt." Here's the link:

TL;TR

How about the nutshell version?

tatupu70 says

Really.. Please tell that to the 465 banks that have failed since 2008. I'm sure they'd love to have that information.

Right, small banks are allowed to fail, so that big banks can get bigger. You are still in denial.

I am sure you have a solid argument in favor not pursuing HSBC as well.
Keep up the good work. You must be getting paid well to do this.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/hsbc-really-too-big-jail-231053729.html

Wow, is tatupu in complete denial or what? I don't think you guys could have explained it any more clearly than that.

Homeboy says

Wow, is tatupu in complete denial or what? I don't think you guys could have
explained it any more clearly than that.

Except it's wrong.

indigenous says

The money is printed out of thin air, it is then used to purchase bad mortgages
through Freddy and Fanny, at the then value of the RE, from the banks

If that's the case, why did the trend towards increasing income disparity clearly begin around 1980 with Reagan's election?

The Federal Reserve wasn't buying bad mortgages back then. It wasn't bailing out banks back then.

So, again, I ask. How does the Federal Reserve cause increasing income/wealth disparity?

(As an aside, it looks like income disparity went DOWN during the bailouts...)

gsr says

Right, small banks are allowed to fail, so that big banks can get bigger. You
are still in denial.

Good. I expected that would be your answer. So, my next question is: how big do you have to grow to be "too big to fail"? What's the cut-off? Because if the banks don't KNOW that they will get rescued, they can't operate recklessly. IndyMac was pretty big. So was Lehman Bros. They must have just missed the cut-off, huh?

Further, banks took huge losses--the losses weren't socialized. Government gave LOANS to the banks, which they have largely repaid. Losses came out of owners equity and future profits.

tatupu70 says

So, again, I ask. How does the Federal Reserve cause increasing income/wealth disparity?

This is now a different question, having to do with some sort of incoherent equality meme.

Apparently you now know how inflation gives an advantage to the cronys?

The top personal rate of taxes dropped from 50% to 28% in 1988 this caused people to pay their taxes as an S or LLC or partnership instead of a C because of the lower personal tax rate. This did not make anyone richer.

There always has been income inequality but the rate has not changed.

indigenous says

The top personal rate of taxes dropped from 50% to 28% in 1988 this caused
people to pay their taxes as an S or LLC or partnership instead of a C because
of the lower personal tax rate. This did not make anyone richer.

For the second time, where is the corresponding drop in corporate income taxes collected then?

david1 says

For the second time, where is the corresponding drop in corporate income taxes collected then?

As I recall you were trying to infer there would be a drop in revenue from those reporting as a C corp.

That is how the CBO thinks. The problem is that it is a dynamic problem in that when the taxes get lowered the revenue goes up. So trying to conclude that the amount of revenue is static is not how it works, there is no correlation.

indigenous says

This is now a different question, having to do with some sort of incoherent
equality meme.

Apparently you now know how inflation gives an advantage to the cronys?

OK--I think you're confused. Your (and others) thesis is that the Federal Reserve gives an advantage to the "cronies". And that causes income/wealth disparity because they are the first receivers and get the money while the general public doesn't. Did I summarize that correctly?

indigenous says

There always has been income inequality but the rate has not changed.

You're joking, right? That is 100% false. I can link to an almost unlimited number of sources that show it for you, if you'd like.

Here's some facts about the Federal Reserve everyone should know.

http://govtslaves.info/11-reasons-why-the-federal-reserve-should-be-abolished/

tatupu70 says

OK--I think you're confused.

Sorry I'm not confused, not that you are saying anything to enlighten me, you are just kibitzing.

tatupu70 says

You're joking, right? That is 100% false. I can link to an almost unlimited number of sources that show it for you, if you'd like.

This time try and make it a graph that is relevant.

carrieon says

Here's some facts of the Federal Reserve everyone should know.

http://govtslaves.info/11-reasons-why-the-federal-reserve-should-be-abolished/

Worth a second post

indigenous says

Sorry I'm not confused, not that you are saying anything to enlighten me, you
are just kibitzing.

Well, that makes sense. I'm not trying to enlighten you. I'm trying to get you to explain how exactly the Federal Reserve money printing benefits the "cronies". I've yet to hear an explanation (that corresponds with reality)

indigenous says

This time try and make it a graph that is relevant.

I think it might have something to do with this:

tatupu70 says

Well, that makes sense. I'm not trying to enlighten you. I'm trying to get you to explain how exactly the Federal Reserve money printing benefits the "cronies". I've yet to hear an explanation (that corresponds with reality)

Sure I have you just can't hear it

First of all the main thing to know about income categories is that the people in those categories change especially at the top as that is the most volatile category. So measuring a category is irrelevant.

Second the GINI index is specious. E.G. I don't even see North Korea on the graph I bet they have the most equality of any country or maybe East Germany of the past.

As to the rest see my previous posts about inflation.

indigenous says

Sure I have you just can't hear it

I'm assuming you mean read it, but regardless, the only explanation you've provided was contradicted by the evidence I just posted.

indigenous says

First of all the main thing to know about income categories is that the people
in those categories change especially at the top as that is the most volatile
category. So measuring a category is irrelevant

First--I think you're wrong. Second--it doesn't matter. I don't care about the names of the 1%, just the level of inequality. The unequal distribution is what kills the economy--not the lack of mobility. Although I'd prefer more mobility over less too.

indigenous says

Second the GINI index is specious. E.G. I don't even see North Korea on the
graph I bet they have the most equality of any country or maybe East Germany of
the past.

Why is it specious?? Data on N. Korea is very difficult to obtain so I imagine that's why it's not on there. But who cares?? The point is that inequality in the US has been rising steadily since Reagan and now approaches levels usually seen in 3rd world countries.

indigenous says

Do you consider Marcus an unimpeachable source of information?

Did Marcus write the articles?? I think it's more appropriate to evaluate the author of the article rather than the poster that provides the link. Don't you?

indigenous says

As I stated that data is noise

lol--and what led you to that conclusion? Please explain why you feel that way.

indigenous says

Say What? So you are all riled up about a category?

Yep. When all the money is in the hands of just 1% of the people (whoever they are), they economy grinds to a halt. See 1929 for example.

indigenous says

It is specious because the people in N Korea are literally starving to death,
but they are very equal.

Really? Are you sure about that? My guess is that is not at all the case. Government officials probably have it quite well.

indigenous says

Equality is just a meme, head trash, a straw man for someone to make a buck
off of, i.e. the unions that Marcus belongs to, nope the real culprit here is
the overpaid government parasites.

I'm speechless. "Overpaid" government workers earn 1/100th as much as a well paid CEO gets with options. And we're worried about the government workers? Really?

tatupu70 says

Say What? So you are all riled up about a category?

Yep. When all the money is in the hands of just 1% of the people (whoever they are), they economy grinds to a halt. See 1929 for example.

Ok yes you are riled up about a category. Think of it this way a professional sports franchise changes players often as it is very competitive, the only thing that remains are the management. The management with the economy is the FED and Cronys

tatupu70 says

Really? Are you sure about that? My guess is that is not at all the case. Government officials probably have it quite well.

Quite

tatupu70 says

I'm speechless. "Overpaid" government workers earn 1/100th as much as a well paid CEO gets with options. And we're worried about the government workers? Really?

That well paid CEO creates jobs. The people who hire CEO's are not stupid they pick people who are going to make them money.

SoftShell says

The same can be said about marriage, circa 2013..

Not quite.

But even if what you are saying were true, the 14th Amendment is why same-sex marriages must be the law. See the Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia.

indigenous says

That well paid CEO creates jobs. The people who hire CEO's are not stupid
they pick people who are going to make them money.

That's interesting. Aren't you the one who posts all the time about how unemployment is much higher than actually stated? I guess those CEOs aren't doing a very good job after all.

tatupu70 says

That's interesting. Aren't you the one who posts all the time about how unemployment is much higher than actually stated? I guess those CEOs aren't doing a very good job after all.

The CEOs are not the problem.

From this:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Also

from this :

http://mises.org/daily/5112/

In the article Professor Murphy states:

"The last two recessions have changed that standard pattern. The blue line, at a February 2011 level of 108.3 million private-sector jobs, is lower than it was way back in June 1999 at 108.6 million jobs. In the more than 11 intervening years, through immigration and natural growth the (civilian noninstitutional) US population has increased by 31 million people. And yet we have fewer private-sector jobs in the country now than in mid-1999. Simple inspection of the chart above shows that there hasn't been a comparable period of stagnant job creation since the late 1930s."

indigenous says

The CEOs are not the problem.

How could they not be the problem? They create the jobs! You just said so:

indigenous says

That well paid CEO creates jobs.

Are you now saying the CEOs don't create jobs??

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

The CEOs are not the problem.

How could they not be the problem? They create the jobs! You just said so:

indigenous says

That well paid CEO creates jobs.

Are you now saying the CEOs don't create jobs??

Talking to you is like talking to a kid who has discovered he can control the conversation by asking questions.

There are other factors, not the least of which is government. Read the article.