patrick.net

chanakya4773 says

if fed money is loaned the right way ,

You fool, that never happens. And you know why? Its not their money to loan.
They are NOT loaning their hard earned money. They have a very little incentive check if the money is lent the right way. They are not answerable to public or even to themselves.

The same goes for the banks, which is why fractional reserve lending is fundamentally evil.

gsr says

chanakya4773 says

if fed money is loaned the right way ,

You fool, that never happens. And you know why? Its not their money to loan.
They are NOT loaning their hard earned money. They have a very little incentive check if the money is lent the right way. They are not answerable to public or even to themselves.

The same goes for the banks, which is why fractional reserve lending is fundamentally evil.

Thats why there are lending standards !
the people of US through their representatives are supposed to push for it.
When you have to put 20% down , even if the bank is willing to give you free money to invest in some junk, you won't do that because you will lose your collateral.
this is just one example, their are more ways to make sure the banks are not reckless. its not rocket science.actually banks are required to have some collateral as well.

fractional reserve lending has worked for several decades wonderfully until we removed all checks and balances.

gsr says

chanakya4773 says

if fed money is loaned the right way ,

You fool, that never happens. And you know why? Its not their money to loan.

They are NOT loaning their hard earned money. They have a very little incentive check if the money is lent the right way. They are not answerable to public or even to themselves.

The same goes for the banks, which is why fractional reserve lending is fundamentally evil.

Yep.

gsr says

They have a very little incentive check if the money is lent the right way. They
are not answerable to public or even to themselves.

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

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

indigenous says

How much income mobility exists in America? Research consistently affirms that there is substantial upward income mobility in the United States, with the lowest income earners typically showing the strongest results.

Manyy studies in the past 5 years say the opposite.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120905141920.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120905141920.htm

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/07/173733691/social-mobility-is-the-american-dream-slipping-away

Even Jeb Bush knows...

JEB BUSH: I think going forward we have to deal with our longer structural problems. The biggest one, as far as I'm concerned, is that we're no longer socially mobile as a country. You have people that are born poor, and there's a higher and higher probability they're going to stay poor; and you have people that are born rich, and there's a greater probability they're going to stay rich.

Bernanke is certainly aware of this- I think he is just talking taper-remember he said he would taper if the economy improved as per Fed forecasts-it wont, and he'll keep up the stimulus

Some things become clearer if you look higher up the food chain. They micromanage the whole fucking world for the sole benefit of the Plutonomy (to use a Citigroup coinage)

http://www.occupy.com/article/global-power-project-part-1-exposing-transnational-capitalist-class

"With such massive wealth and power held by these institutions and "networks" of corporations, those individuals who sit on the boards, executive committees and advisory groups to the largest corporations and banks wield significant influence on their own. But their influence does not stand in isolation from other elites, nor do the institutions of banks and corporations function in isolation from other entities such as state, educational, cultural or media institutions.

Largely facilitated by the cross-membership that exists between boards of corporations, think tanks, foundations, educational institutions and advisory groups — not to mention the continual "revolving door" between the state and corporate sectors — these elites become a highly integrated, organized and evolved social group. This is as true for the formation of national elites as it is for transnational, or global, elites.

The rise of corporations and banks to a truly global scale – what is popularly referred to as the process of “globalization” – was facilitated by the growth of other transnational networks and institutions such as think tanks and foundations, which sought to facilitate these ideological and institutional structures of globalization. A wealth of research and analysis has been undertaken in academic literature over the past couple of decades to understand the development of this phenomenon, examining the emergence of what is often referred to as the "Transnational Capitalist Class" ".

And yeah the Fed dutifully plays their designated role in this despoiling of the commons.

Income disparity, consolidation of wealth?
(perpetual armed conflict, exponential debt growth)
Well that is the whole point, my dears.
And they certainly don't care what you do with your little "vote"

The quoted article is actually pretty good. But nowhere does it mention the Federal Reserve. You might as well follow by saying:

"And the New York Yankees dutifully play their designated role in this despoiling of the commons"

tatupu70 says

But nowhere does it mention the Federal Reserve

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

tatupu70 says

"And the New York Yankees dutifully play their designated role in this despoiling of the commons"

OK, I think that's fair to say as well.

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: