USA 2008 Depression

[MehMan 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's all lies. Long time ago back in decadent rome people didn't have to lie. People were slaves and masters, and that was it.

...

With the same terminology the vietnam war was a war on "terror" and for "freedom", but oddly enough the vietnamese people were "terrorists" and didn't want "freedom" when they opposed the US mass-murders, terror bombings and hunger for profit.

Communism is slavery. I'd rather be dead than live like that. Many southern Vietnamese felt the same way as me, and many did die defending their country from the communist invaders.

Please don't feed the troll.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not trying to trash our country either. Although it does have its faults, I do believe it is still the free-est place on Earth, and I don't have to believe in any god to feel that way.

But it does have flaws, flaws which are shared by every other country (at least, every country with a central bank). I believe these flaws are leading to an economic disaster, possibly on the scale of the 1930's.

Even if the disaster doesn't happen now, we still have millions of baby-boomers waiting to retire on the back of a bankrupt, socialist-welfare system called Social Security. And we aren't the only country with that problem. You think we have a "liquidity crisis" now? What's going to happen when millions of baby-boomers suddenly start selling their stocks to fund their retirement? What will happen social security suddenly needs to pay out far more than it takes in? All the surplus money in that program has already been spent, you know.

Our generation is going to pay for the socialist BS of our grandparent's generation.

So bigger and bigger problems are looming on the horizon, what is being done to prevent them or to make their impact less severe?

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

I also live in an european country which forces working people to pay social security (it's so bad that if you're a considered "independent collaborator" of sorts and don't have a contract with the company but have to dish out "green receipts" for the money you earn, for each receipt you have to pay 150€ to social security, no matter if the receipt is for 1000€ or for 1 eurocent!!! ) and in my country at least social security is the uttermost bullshit crap there is with miserable retirement pay for the average person. I wish it were like Germany where the so-called "free-employed" have the choice to either pay social security, or set up their own private retirement fund+insurances. But then again in Germany at least AFAIK the system works, whereas here social security is the nightmare of lost funds where you can be sure that you way more less out of it than you have to pay for over the years.

[baddo 0]

no I agree what we does effect everyone else as well but so does everyone else. But thats because economics is global now. You think what happens in England or China or Russia doesn't effect the U.S? If that was the case hell gas would be 10 cents a barrel but its not. America imports 90% of all goods sold within the us from China,taiwan, miiddle east, Mexico and Korea. So if those countries have problems they effect us as well. I remember when Taiwan had that huge fire back in the early 90's it caused PC memory to be scarce and 100 bucks per meg. Which we paid to build systems. I mention this because I build em for a living and that put one hell of a crunch on new systems I built and sold. and without going thru the web and looking it up I can bet  you could make a laundry list of items that have effected us over the last 50+ years. Bottom line is there will be no US "Depression" if it came to that there would be a "world" despression due to the fallout.

**NOTE** as for the God bless America statement that isn't a slogan to me. I believe and honor both sides of it. Now if you are Godless and don't wish your own country well that's on you.  

God Bless America and all those who believe in Him.

It shall be noticed also that the biggest trade partner with the USA is the European Union.

http://www.eurunion.org/profile/facts.htm

Quote[/b] ]Facts and Figures on the European Union and the United States

EU - USA Summit                                                                            

An EU27 surplus in trade in goods of more than 90 billion euro with the USA in 2006                                  

An increasing trade surplus with the USA

Taking goods and services together, the EU and the USA account for the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world. The significant amount of bilateral trade and investment illustrates a high degree of interdependence of the two economies.

Yes, it's several countries combined under one name, but still. This might have gone unnoticed by many people.

According to this information, the USA is very much tied to the European Union financially, and vice versa of course.

[walker 0]

Hi all

There is an interesting analysis from Oxford Analytica on Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/home....rd.html

At the very least there seems to be some meat in the argument for Decoupling. The latest IMF estimate still puts UK and Europe in growth while US is in recession. This is also the case for China and India. South America also seems to be weathering the storm.

The question is how does this affect the future political and military equation, China is already on track to surpass the US militarily by 2020. Brazil is already working on its own nuclear subs. With US talk of puling out of NATO and Europe because of budgetary problems maybe it is now time for a European army.

Kind Regards walker

[MehMan 0]

With US talk of puling out of NATO and Europe because of budgetary problems maybe it is now time for a European army.

Where did you hear that?

[JdB 151]

I doubt they will, after they have just increased their interests in Europe by adding more ex-soviet states to NATO, and negotiating with the Russians on the anti-missile system.

Also it would isolate them even more in international matters. I can still vividly remember how they were mocked at the environment summit in Indonesia. Looked like a third world country crying because the rest of the world bullied it.

There are plenty of things that costs the US more than NATO, the war in Iraq not supported by NATO being one of them. Walking away from NATO might give their economy some temporary, partial relief, but in the long run it would be disastrous. No matter how much the US and other NATO members fight each other, they can't do without each other. The US' contribution to NATO has been too extensive for that.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

With US talk of puling out of NATO and Europe because of budgetary problems maybe it is now time for a European army.

Eh?!? Wtf?? Weren't the US actually pushing to enlarge the NATO envelope as far as the Ukraine? That would be totally contrary to such a view, wouldn't it?

[Baff1 0]

Amen to that. This "credit crisis" is caused by people (both "rich" and "poor") who simply don't know how to manage their money. They are screwing things up for the rest of the world. So are the banks who are lending to them.

But again, if we didn't have a fractional reserve system (where the governments and banks are able to "create" ~10 dollars for every 1 dollar they have in deposits), then the banks wouldn't really be so willing to lend all this money in the first place.

I mean, if someone let you print almost as much money as you wanted, wouldn't YOU lend as much as you can for a nice return?

The governments set up the rules, and these rules are flawed from the start. If those rules were different, we wouldn't have this problem.

The federal reserve system is a hindrance to capitalism. Capitalism is about competition, yet governments outlaw competing currencies. Then, when banks STILL manage to somehow screw themselves up (even though they own the printing presses for the dollars), the government turns around and forces the taxpayer to bail that bank out (like what happened in the UK recently). Maybe we'd be a bit more careful if things weren't so darn "safe". Maybe we'd avoid more disasters if we were a bit more careful.

A popular misconception this one.

The Fractional Reserve system does not allow you to lend out 10 times what you have in the vault, it requires you to keep 10% of what you lend out in the vault.

There is a very major difference.

They don't "create" money.

They don't get $1 dollar in the vault and lend out $10 on the strength of it.

They get $10 in the vault and lend out only $9 of them.

A fractional reserve of 10% must be kept back at all times so that investors will always be able to make withdrawls.

At no point is money "created", banks may only lend money that they own. Each year at the end of the year they must provide the accounts.

A bank may lend from it's actual cash reserves, or it may lend against it's assets.

A mortgage you have with a bank for example, is one of it's assets.

The recent trouble in the banking sector has been because of the large number of defaulting mortgages. Assets the bank thought it owned, collapsed. Assets it had lent money out against suddenly disappeared.

Banks across the world were forced to revalue their assets writing off hundreds of millions off of their capital.

(My bank assets have fallen in value by 25% this year).

With less assets at their disposal banks have been unable to lend out as much as they had previously.

The Credit Crunch.

The danger to the economy here has been because of all the inter-bank lending. Lending against it's assets (sub prime mortgages) bank A has lent Bank B many millions of pounds at a commercial rate.

Bank B has in turn lent some of that money to Bank C at a commercial rate and also private individuals at a profitable rate.

When Bank A says that it's sub prime mortgages have now lost their value, this creates a chain reaction devaluing not just it's own assets and lending power, but also those of all the banks that it had lent money to against that debt. And all the banks they had lent money to with that money, etc etc etc.

The danger in the U.S. economy has always been (at least in my lifetime) what happens when the investors are no longer willing to invest.

I've never made a profit on any U.S. investment ever. It's like a black hole over there.

If like me you have spent the last few years saving up a war chest of cash ready for the next recession, I would advise that you not buy gold, but instead buy what is cheap.

I've been buying up bank stock while it is at bargain prices.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

The good thing about the very low dollar is, that it's very cheap for us europeans to go to the US... It's just like going to a third world country - everything is so god damn cheap

[sparks50 0]

True that. Me and a few buddies is going to NYC in the summer, Its a good time to take a vacation in the states now.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Well, see you there then perhaps! I'm going to NYC in August!

[General Barron 0]

A popular misconception this one.

The Fractional Reserve system does not allow you to lend out 10 times what you have in the vault, it requires you to keep 10% of what you lend out in the vault.

There is a very major difference.

They don't "create" money.

They don't get $1 dollar in the vault and lend out $10 on the strength of it.

They get $10 in the vault and lend out only $9 of them.

A fractional reserve of 10% must be kept back at all times so that investors will always be able to make withdrawls.

At no point is money "created", banks may only lend money that they own. Each year at the end of the year they must provide the accounts.

A bank may lend from it's actual cash reserves, or it may lend against it's assets.

Hmm... I had to go re-read some economics textbooks to make sure I didn't totally miss something in that class. You are sorta right, but not fully.

I deposit $10 in the bank. The bank turns around and lends out $9 of it, keeping 10% in reserve with the Fed.

Those $9 dollars are then deposited in another bank. That bank turns around and lends out $8.1 dollars, keeping 10% in reserve.

Those $8.1 dollars are then deposited in another bank, which lends out $7.3 dollars, which is deposited and lent out, and so on.

Money is created, because there are now more dollars in "circulation" (M2 money supply) then there were before the original $10 dollars was deposited and lent out.

I was wrong in that the banks aren't directly creating the money themselves. They are simply following the rules set up by the government / Federal Reserve, and these rules allow the creation of money in this manner. So I suppose its really the Fed that ultimately is creating the money in the first place (and this isn't even considering the other options of the Fed like buying and selling of T-notes, or changing overnight interest rates).

I found a great chart on wikipedia which shows the growth in the US money supply: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....ly2.svg

If you were to extend this graph to the left, you'd see that the money supply really didn't grow much at all before the 60's. So we truly are in a 'dollar bubble', which is leading to all other sorts of problems.

Quote[/b] ]If like me you have spent the last few years saving up a war chest of cash ready for the next recession, I would advise that you not buy gold, but instead buy what is cheap.

I've been buying up bank stock while it is at bargain prices.

My plan is to buy real estate after the bubble fully bursts, as I'd prefer income producing assets to gain my wealth. For protecting my wealth I'd rather have gold until the price gets too much higher.

[walker 0]

With US talk of puling out of NATO and Europe because of budgetary problems maybe it is now time for a European army.

Where did you hear that?

Hi all

Talking to someone in 1st ID last year, apparently a long term DOD plan. They had already started reducing numbers then. There have been some articles in the media. Pentagon has been leaking the story to them for some time now. Looking back they were talking about it back in 2001 it is Republican party policy. It was Donald Rumsfeld who announced it in 2001, the process started in 2002 the plan is to more than halve the US troop numbers by 2012.

Increasing NATO size to extra members would reduce the need for a large US presence. And may be the real reason the White House is encouraging others to join NATO. With the US dollar falling through floor apparently a White House policy, the cost to US of European bases is rising exponentially.

Basing ABM in Poland does not take a large presence and its deployment is already uncertain.

Kind Regards walker

[Baff1 0]

A popular misconception this one.

The Fractional Reserve system does not allow you to lend out 10 times what you have in the vault, it requires you to keep 10% of what you lend out in the vault.

There is a very major difference.

They don't "create" money.

They don't get $1 dollar in the vault and lend out $10 on the strength of it.

They get $10 in the vault and lend out only $9 of them.

A fractional reserve of 10% must be kept back at all times so that investors will always be able to make withdrawls.

At no point is money "created", banks may only lend money that they own. Each year at the end of the year they must provide the accounts.

A bank may lend from it's actual cash reserves, or it may lend against it's assets.

Hmm... I had to go re-read some economics textbooks to make sure I didn't totally miss something in that class. You are sorta right, but not fully.

I deposit $10 in the bank. The bank turns around and lends out $9 of it, keeping 10% in reserve with the Fed.

Those $9 dollars are then deposited in another bank. That bank turns around and lends out $8.1 dollars, keeping 10% in reserve.

Those $8.1 dollars are then deposited in another bank, which lends out $7.3 dollars, which is deposited and lent out, and so on.

Money is created, because there are now more dollars in "circulation" (M2 money supply) then there were before the original $10 dollars was deposited and lent out.

I was wrong in that the banks aren't directly creating the money themselves. They are simply following the rules set up by the government / Federal Reserve, and these rules allow the creation of money in this manner. So I suppose its really the Fed that ultimately is creating the money in the first place (and this isn't even considering the other options of the Fed like buying and selling of T-notes, or changing overnight interest rates).

I found a great chart on wikipedia which shows the growth in the US money supply: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....ly2.svg

If you were to extend this graph to the left, you'd see that the money supply really didn't grow much at all before the 60's. So we truly are in a 'dollar bubble', which is leading to all other sorts of problems.

Quote[/b] ]If like me you have spent the last few years saving up a war chest of cash ready for the next recession, I would advise that you not buy gold, but instead buy what is cheap.

I've been buying up bank stock while it is at bargain prices.

My plan is to buy real estate after the bubble fully bursts, as I'd prefer income producing assets to gain my wealth. For protecting my wealth I'd rather have gold until the price gets too much higher.

Money is not created.

There is not more money in circulation than before.

The existing money is in greater circulation.

More people have the use of the existing money. The sum total of all the money in circulation remains unchanged.

In your given example. A bank has $10. It lends out 9$ and now only has $1.

Of the $9 dollars lent, the next bank lends out $8.1. and now only has $.9.

1+0.9 + 8.1 =10.

The total money is still $10. The only thing that has changed is who is in possession of it.

Money is a promisary note. A promise to redeem goods to a certain value in exchange for it.

Increasing the amount of currency in circulation decreases the value of your currency.

You have more notes, but the same amount of money.

If you print more dollars, the value of each dollar becomes less, and you are not able to redeem those dollars for the same amount.

Printing more notes does not create money.

I can't open your linked graph, but I suspect that it relates to the devaluation of the $.

My income is provided by the dividend payments from my shares. In the case of my bank stocks, these payments have gone up in order to keep my investment attractive. Despite my net banking assets having dropped by 25% this year, my income has increased.

I own some real estate too; the increases in property values having been at a record high since I bought it but I am still making a greater return on my stocks.

Real estate at the bottom of the market is however a great idea. Anything at the bottom of the market is good.

I bought mine at the bottom too.

Gold, is at the top of the market, it is time to sell it, not buy.

[Baff1 0]

With US talk of puling out of NATO and Europe because of budgetary problems maybe it is now time for a European army.

Where did you hear that?

Hi all

Talking to someone in 1st ID last year, apparently a long term DOD plan. They had already started reducing numbers then. There have been some articles in the media. Pentagon has been leaking the story to them for some time now. Looking back they were talking about it back in 2001 it is Republican party policy. It was Donald Rumsfeld who announced it in 2001, the process started in 2002 the plan is to more than halve the US troop numbers by 2012.

Increasing NATO size to extra members would reduce the need for a large US presence. And may be the real reason the White House is encouraging others to join NATO. With the US dollar falling through floor apparently a White House policy, the cost to US of European bases is rising exponentially.

Basing ABM in Poland does not take a large presence and its deployment is already uncertain.

Kind Regards walker

Except that no one else in NATO wants a mutual defence pact with Ukraine or Georgia.

The U.S. would need to engage in bi-lateral defence agreements with them. NATO isn't an option.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Baff1 you are half correct. The velocity of money is a key factor in money supply. This was ignored by Milton Friedman as part of Monetarism (mainly because the math was too tough for him). That is why Thatcher's monetised policy and Friedman's own experiments in south America caused so many problems.

It is also why Keynesian economics has come back to the fore.

But General Barron does not tell the full truth on Fractional Reserve banking. He is talking about the Money or Bank Multiplier which is the number of times the Central bank will allow a high street commercial bank to lend on their reserves. The Central Bank backs them on this. If there is a run on a high street bank the government will pay the investors.

But the Central Bank just prints the money without any asset to back it. The FED which is not owned by the US government by the way sold all its Fort Knox Gold long ago.

Things get bad with Commercial Banks, when people get their figures wrong about how much they have as liquid reserves. This is why Sub-Prime is causing all the problems.

In the case of Bear Stearns they have a whole bunch of paper liquid assets based on loans for expensive houses when the house market is declining. By the way most of the problem Sub-Prime loans are for second homes and speculative investments on very expensive properties in places like Florida and California. So Bear Stearns complex paper assets (loans on expensive houses) were suddenly worth less and becoming less liquid (transferable into cash)

Until Bear Stearns went arse over tip governments did not back none high street banks.

In the case of Northern Rock they counted loans they could get off other banks as their liquid reserves. In fact Northern Rocks fundamental assets are fine they are real bricks and mortar loans on normal houses. Northern Rocks problem is that they were taking loans out on their assets when the interest rates suddenly started to rise due to the Sub Prime problem. Suddenly they did not have enough liquid assets.

There is some fear for companies heavily invested in Mortgage Insurance may be the next companies to suffer Goldman Sachs is the one most people talk of in this matter.

Kind regards walker

[Baff1 0]

Friedman, Thatcher, Keynsian.

Lol. Who?

While I absolutely concur with your assessments of Bear Stearns and Northern Rock 100%, I have no idea's about the economic policies or theories of the above people. In fact other than Thatcher, I've never heard of them.

I'm surprised that you associate Thatcher with economic problems, her monetary policy is widely accredited with bringing the U.K. out of recession and reversing our economic fortunes. She is hated for a lot of reasons, but economic policy isn't one of them.

Central banks issue currency against their assets. They do not create money.

The money issued is raised by selling assets such as government bonds. An intrest bearing investment.

Here again, money is not created it is merely redistributed.

The money comes from the savers who lend it to them at a commercial rate or in extreme circumstances such Northern Rock it may be lent to them by the government and raised through taxation.

Central banks are "for profit" organistaions with the profits usually surrendered to their governments. They are only semi-private institutions. Public/private partnerships so to speak. More independence has been granted to central banks in order to preserve against electioneering government policy and increase economic stability during these periods. Directors are still poilitical appointee's and the government backs the bonds they sell and in the most cases takes all the profits.

In the old days a central bank would be called upon to have a gold reserve as assets against which to value currency. These days it is more common to allow the market to decide the value of a currency.

[mr.g-c 6]

Baff1, you are totally wrong with your postings..... its no secret that its really a fractional reserve banking and that money IS CREATED (out of nothing and without any real backing by a PRIVATE INSTITUTION).

Read here for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

and especially here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

Then read this:

http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed45.html

Quote[/b] ]Reserve Requirements and Money Creation

Reserve requirements affect the potential of the banking system to create transaction deposits. If the reserve requirement is 10%, for example, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $90 of that deposit. If the borrower then writes a check to someone who deposits the $90, the bank receiving that deposit can lend out $81. As the process continues, the banking system can expand the initial deposit of $100 into a maximum of $1,000 of money ($100+$90+81+$72.90+...=$1,000). In contrast, with a 20% reserve requirement, the banking system would be able to expand the initial $100 deposit into a maximum of $500 ($100+$80+$64+$51.20+...=$500). Thus, higher reserve requirements should result in reduced money creation and, in turn, in reduced economic activity.

And now would you please stop to convince people with your half-knowledge, you confuse people only - accept thats "it's like it is".

If you want to educate yourself even more watch these:

http://video.google.de/url?doc....ncfI_CA

http://video.google.de/videopl....index=2

http://video.google.de/url?doc....xIDrziw

And my favorite:

http://video.google.de/videopl....index=5

Best Regards, Christian

[MehMan 0]

Baff1, you are totally wrong with your postings..... its no secret that its really a fractional reserve banking and that money IS CREATED (out of nothing and without any real backing by a PRIVATE INSTITUTION).

Read here for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

and especially here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

Then read this:

http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed45.html

Quote[/b] ]Reserve Requirements and Money Creation

Reserve requirements affect the potential of the banking system to create transaction deposits. If the reserve requirement is 10%, for example, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $90 of that deposit. If the borrower then writes a check to someone who deposits the $90, the bank receiving that deposit can lend out $81. As the process continues, the banking system can expand the initial deposit of $100 into a maximum of $1,000 of money ($100+$90+81+$72.90+...=$1,000). In contrast, with a 20% reserve requirement, the banking system would be able to expand the initial $100 deposit into a maximum of $500 ($100+$80+$64+$51.20+...=$500). Thus, higher reserve requirements should result in reduced money creation and, in turn, in reduced economic activity.

And now would you please stop to convince people with your half-knowledge, you confuse people only - accept thats "it's like it is".

If you want to educate yourself even more watch these:

http://video.google.de/url?doc....ncfI_CA

http://video.google.de/videopl....index=2

http://video.google.de/url?doc....xIDrziw

And my favorite:

http://video.google.de/videopl....index=5

Best Regards, Christian

Yes...Zeitgeist the movie...that's what we need to believe... Zeitgeist is full of crap.

[Baff1 0]

Baff1, you are totally wrong with your postings..... its no secret that its really a fractional reserve banking and that money IS CREATED (out of nothing and without any real backing by a PRIVATE INSTITUTION).

Read here for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

and especially here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

Then read this:

http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed45.html

Quote[/b] ]Reserve Requirements and Money Creation

Reserve requirements affect the potential of the banking system to create transaction deposits. If the reserve requirement is 10%, for example, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $90 of that deposit. If the borrower then writes a check to someone who deposits the $90, the bank receiving that deposit can lend out $81. As the process continues, the banking system can expand the initial deposit of $100 into a maximum of $1,000 of money ($100+$90+81+$72.90+...=$1,000). In contrast, with a 20% reserve requirement, the banking system would be able to expand the initial $100 deposit into a maximum of $500 ($100+$80+$64+$51.20+...=$500). Thus, higher reserve requirements should result in reduced money creation and, in turn, in reduced economic activity.

And now would you please stop to convince people with your half-knowledge, you confuse people only - accept thats "it's like it is".

If you want to educate yourself even more watch these:

http://video.google.de/url?doc....ncfI_CA

http://video.google.de/videopl....index=2

http://video.google.de/url?doc....xIDrziw

And my favorite:

http://video.google.de/videopl....index=5

Best Regards, Christian

It's no secret, it is in fact a very common conspiracy myth.

Let me explain the critical error to you.

When a bank with a $100 dollars lends out $90, it now has $10. NOT $100.

So your given equation $100 + $90 +$81 = $271 is working on a flawed premise.

The correct equation is $10 + $9 + $81 =$100.

Once the bank has lent $90 of it's $100 dollars out, the money is gone. I cannot go to Bank A and withdraw my $100 at the same time as punter B goes to bank B and withdraws the $81, (I cannot add $100 to $81) because Bank A no longer has $100. It now only has $10 available.

No money has been created.

However Punter B can now use my $81 to open a shop and make some money of his own. Which isn't a problem for me because I don't want to spend my whole $100 now anyway.

With a 20% reserve the equation changes to $20 + $16 +$64 = $100.

So in our given examples we can see that a bank operating on a 10% reserve is able to lend out $90, while with a 20% reserve has only $80 available to it to make money from.

Higher reserves result in smaller loans. Or the lower availablity of loans.

Which results in the same economic problems the Credit Crunch has.

Reduced lending.

This is bad for the economy as borrowing is an integral part of our business models.

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS (lol) are not the only investors to back banks.

Many of them are private individuals like myself, who either buy shares as part of their pension schemes or hold savings accounts for example.

Shareholders are invariably not giant nameless faceless associations of the mega rich but instead hardworking people saving for their retirement.

[mr.g-c 6]

I wont discuss with you any further because obviously:

a) you don't watched the videos i linked

b) you take terms in your mouth which usually only coming from very stupid people ("conspiracy myth" is one of them)

c) you knowledge is probably based on "Mainstream TV lies" and "schoolbook lies" from lower education levels

d) you don't checked the sources by your self (especially the FED's own website from which i quoted the important part)

e) and so on... i don't want to waste my energy with people who are obviously such close-minded and which don't get it.

Anyway, Best Regards and a very nice weekend,

Christian

[Baff1 0]

There isn't much point quoting from the FED's website, if you misunderstand what is written.

As for the rest of your links, nothing I haven't seen before.

"My sources" are the banks themselves, many of which report to me in writing four times a year, my fellow investors and the business media.

My knowledge is based on 20 successful years investing in the banking sector. It is my primary source of income.

I do watch TV shows on this subject (daily), but I have never studied this subject in school.

I'm still learning of course, but I do alright.

I do not consider "mainstream TV" to be home of "lies" and internet conspiracy films to be home of "the truth".

Having spent a significant part of my life as a school teacher myself, it seems to me that you show a very strong resistance to learning.

School books are written for your benefit. The world is not out to get you.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]School books are written for your benefit.

Not really.

[abs 2]

Quote[/b] ]School books are written for your benefit.

Not really.

You are really funny. I always enjoy your posts, as they give me quite the laugh.

So far, I agree with General Barron the most. I am doing all I can to save what little money I make in the hopes of buying a house when the economy explodes. Until then, I will be converting my hard earned Canadian dollars into silver. I wish I had done so just 5 months ago when the damn thing was at $14 per ounce, but now it is at $18, so I've got to live with my choices.

Abs

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to Baff1

As a person who experienced Thatcher-ism: the decade of massive unemployment, the massive decline in value of the UK pound, the UK housing mortgage crisis, the destruction of UK manufacturing industry and Black Monday allow me to differ on the assessment of Thatchers legacy.

Basically what the US is experiencing now is what UK experienced under Thatcher. She is so much of an idiot her own party sacked her; and she and her family dare not live in the UK because she is so hated.

Thatchers monetarist policy you are so enamoured of is in actual fact Milton Friedman's work, Thatcher was not an economist she was a Chemist. You have Google look up Milton Friedman or go to your public library ask for a book on monetarism; I cannot be arsed to teach you. You will also find John Maynard Keynes by the same process.

Friedman and hence Thatcher actually said the velocity of money was irrelevant, mostly because he could not do the maths in his theory which if you consider the formula.

Where is the velocity of money transaction.

It is obvious that the velocity of money transactions is the most important factor in the Formula. Between WWI and WWII Germans realised this at noon every day when they left work in order to spend a barrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread before the barrow of cash became worthless. In Zimbabwe now the same lesson is being learned and the current flight from the US Dollar is the same lesson.

Those are cases in extremis when people try to maximise the velocity of money transactions in order to gain the maximum benefit from it in times of inflation. Of more importance in the maximisation velocity of money transaction in times of stability. By maximising the number of people who buy goods with each circulating currency note you maximise your product on that currency note.

This is also why trickle down does not work but flood up does.  Whether you are trying to stimulate a stagnant economy or maximise GDP the key thing is to make each note more efficient. You do this by maximising the things you buy with it. Business analyst have proven cash fed into the bottom of an economy is more effective. The multiplier on dollar input to rich business owners is 75 cents on every dollar. Where as the multiplier on dollar input to poor and lower middle class families is 1.35 cents on every dollar.

So you give tax back to poor people not rich to improve your economy. They will buy goods and services with it. Secondly you buy services such as health, roads, infrastructure, military, police etc. in each of these cases the persons working for these organisations then pay the cash they earn to others for further services and goods, thus maximising the velocity of money transactions. This is what Keynesian economics is based on.

I would take this moment to remind you that Thatchers moneterism is the exact opposite of what you said when you pointed out the importance of:

Quote[/b] ]There is not more money in circulation than before.

The existing money is in greater circulation.

More people have the use of the existing money. The sum total of all the money in circulation remains unchanged.

So your great economic hero Thatcher actually thought the exact opposite of what you espouse.

Friedman now admits his idea of monetarism was a complete disaster.

Kind Regards walker