|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 2:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Nope, not what I'm saying regarding the Fed. I'm just pointing out how no matter what the Fed does, some, like you, are going to blame it come hell or high water.. And although the economy is not where it was or will be, without the Fed's actions, things could well be much worse. |
The Fed deserves all the blame it gets. The Fed has been a complete and utter failure in all of its stated goals.
| Quote: |
| The system is not ridiculous; it's the lack of regulation and oversight. Sure the banks should never have been able to profit the way they did with the bailout money; the Fed and Geitner should have hammered out more restrictive terms and put more force to bear on having the banks solve the problems they created. But they trusted the market. |
Are you still talking? Why should anyone listen to what a person who doesn't even know the difference between fractional reserve banking and leverage has to say about monetary policy? And the way you keep talking about the "market" is just ludicrous. The Federal Reserve gives the banks a monopoly on money creation, actively encourages inflationary bubbles, and then bails them out! How in the hell is that a "lack of regulation and oversight". If only this stuff could be explained to you in comic book form... then you might actually understand some of the most basic concepts required to carry on this discussion. Then you wouldn't have to pretend you have even the slightest clue what you're talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| I realize that there are some who believe they know everything there is to know about the topic, who will dismiss it out of hand because it is written by Ben Bernanke after all. But I highly recommend reading the whole speech to those who are actually willing to consider what he says before dismissing him as an idiot. |
Yeah, I mean Bernanke is just "misunderstood" after all... It's not like he's been proven wrong so many times that it has become a farce. Oh, wait...
30 Bernanke quotes that are so stupid you won�t know whether to laugh or cry.
A few gems:
| Quote: |
(November 21, 2002) �The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost.�
(July, 2005) �We�ve never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I don�t think it�s gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though.�
(October 31, 2007) �It is not the responsibility of the Federal Reserve � nor would it be appropriate � to protect lenders and investors from the consequences of their financial decisions.�
(November 15, 2005) �With respect to their safety, derivatives, for the most part, are traded among very sophisticated financial institutions and individuals who have considerable incentive to understand them and to use them properly.�
(Two months before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed and were nationalized) �They will make it through the storm.� |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The system is not ridiculous; it's the lack of regulation and oversight. Sure the banks should never have been able to profit the way they did with the bailout money; the Fed and Geitner should have hammered out more restrictive terms and put more force to bear on having the banks solve the problems they created. But they trusted the market. |
Are you still talking? Why should anyone listen to what a person who doesn't even know the difference between fractional reserve banking and leverage has to say about monetary policy? |
Atwood is mostly correct, at least as you've quoted him here. You may believe he stumbled at the beginning ('the system is not ridiculous'), but everything else he said is accurate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The system is not ridiculous; it's the lack of regulation and oversight. Sure the banks should never have been able to profit the way they did with the bailout money; the Fed and Geitner should have hammered out more restrictive terms and put more force to bear on having the banks solve the problems they created. But they trusted the market. |
Are you still talking? Why should anyone listen to what a person who doesn't even know the difference between fractional reserve banking and leverage has to say about monetary policy? |
Atwood is mostly correct, at least as you've quoted him here. You may believe he stumbled at the beginning ('the system is not ridiculous'), but everything else he said is accurate. |
Nah, he's just parroting the official story. Plausible deniability and all. In reality, the system was only "not ridiculous" insofar as it was a deliberate heist engineered by the banking sector. And Geithner, the ex NY Fed president was supposed to restrict his buddies from making record profits both on the way up and during the bailouts? Really? It was all just an honest mistake (the "market's fault") and we should continue to trust these people?
These are the sort of people running our financial system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hhPvas-Q8Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yshxMJNDWM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whlzFWwVv98
I guess we should blame that on the market too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The system is not ridiculous; it's the lack of regulation and oversight. Sure the banks should never have been able to profit the way they did with the bailout money; the Fed and Geitner should have hammered out more restrictive terms and put more force to bear on having the banks solve the problems they created. But they trusted the market. |
Are you still talking? Why should anyone listen to what a person who doesn't even know the difference between fractional reserve banking and leverage has to say about monetary policy? |
Atwood is mostly correct, at least as you've quoted him here. You may believe he stumbled at the beginning ('the system is not ridiculous'), but everything else he said is accurate. |
To say that the secret, immense bailout's problems stemmed from "a lack of regulation and oversight" is to completely ignore reality. The Federal Reserve kept this a secret intentionally. It wasn't reported to Congress (until forced to), it wasn't reported to the media, it wasn't supposed to be known. And the ultra-profitable conditions of the bailout were not some freak accounting error either. The Fed didn't accidentally leave off a number when determining what interest rate the banks would pay on the cash they received.
AND this was done with the explicit knowledge that the bailout funds would be lent to the U.S. to profit the banks, thereby hurting American taxpayers both by direct cost and increased inflation.
This is not a lack of regulation, this is the face of it, and it should enrage any American who pays taxes or has a savings account. Increasing the power of the Fed to regulate the economy only makes these financial institutions MORE POWERFUL as they're saved from fatal mistakes with taxpayer dollars and given free profit simply for existing.
It's as though the banks are holding the economy hostage, and their best friend is the hostage negotiator. Giving the Federal Reserve more power is like allowing the negotiator to make more concessions to the hostage takers.
I feel like many posters here are rightly concerned about the power of financial institutions in the U.S. But many want to give overarching economic authority to a private company which is staffed by close friends of the financial industry, which operates in secrecy without Congressional oversight, and has consistently acted in the interests of financial institutions rather than the American people. Why is this private company immune to the criticism so quickly piled onto "the market"? And why do the supporters of government intervention not demand that an actual government agency do the job that this private company does? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The system is not ridiculous; it's the lack of regulation and oversight. Sure the banks should never have been able to profit the way they did with the bailout money; the Fed and Geitner should have hammered out more restrictive terms and put more force to bear on having the banks solve the problems they created. But they trusted the market. |
Are you still talking? Why should anyone listen to what a person who doesn't even know the difference between fractional reserve banking and leverage has to say about monetary policy? |
Atwood is mostly correct, at least as you've quoted him here. You may believe he stumbled at the beginning ('the system is not ridiculous'), but everything else he said is accurate. |
To say that the secret, immense bailout's problems stemmed from "a lack of regulation and oversight" is to completely ignore reality. The Federal Reserve kept this a secret intentionally. It wasn't reported to Congress (until forced to), it wasn't reported to the media, it wasn't supposed to be known. And the ultra-profitable conditions of the bailout were not some freak accounting error either. The Fed didn't accidentally leave off a number when determining what interest rate the banks would pay on the cash they received. |
His explanation isn't mutually exclusive with yours.
Yes, a lack of regulation was and continues to be a problem. Even as secret bailouts make things worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
His explanation isn't mutually exclusive with yours.
Yes, a lack of regulation was and continues to be a problem. Even as secret bailouts make things worse. |
Please explain to me how a government granted monopoly + having Goldman-Sachs people in regulatory positions + guaranteed bailouts + monetization of debt = "a lack of regulation". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| It's as though the banks are holding the economy hostage, and their best friend is the hostage negotiator. Giving the Federal Reserve more power is like allowing the negotiator to make more concessions to the hostage takers. |
Exactly. It's frustrating the way people still believe the whole thing was some kind of "accident". As if Goldman-Sachs "accidentally" had its people in most of the regulatory positions when AIG was given massive bailouts for them to pilfer (while letting their competitor Lehman Bros go bust). Or as if the massive housing bubble was accidental (and just a coincidence that Goldman Sachs et al happened to be shorting housing prior to the collapse).
People need to take a step back and follow the money. Who benefited? The banking cartel that runs the Federal Reserve, that's who. So they just "accidentally" allowed themselves to carry off the biggest financial heist in history? It was all just random chance that Hank Paulson was the ex-CEO of Goldman, turned Treasury Secretary, signed himself waivers to give them bailout money despite a blatant conflict of interest? I guess if the mega-banks who profited so immensely from it are that lucky, then they deserve it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Nope, not what I'm saying regarding the Fed. I'm just pointing out how no matter what the Fed does, some, like you, are going to blame it come hell or high water.. And although the economy is not where it was or will be, without the Fed's actions, things could well be much worse. |
The Fed deserves all the blame it gets. The Fed has been a complete and utter failure in all of its stated goals.
| Quote: |
| The system is not ridiculous; it's the lack of regulation and oversight. Sure the banks should never have been able to profit the way they did with the bailout money; the Fed and Geitner should have hammered out more restrictive terms and put more force to bear on having the banks solve the problems they created. But they trusted the market. |
Are you still talking? Why should anyone listen to what a person who doesn't even know the difference between fractional reserve banking and leverage has to say about monetary policy? And the way you keep talking about the "market" is just ludicrous. The Federal Reserve gives the banks a monopoly on money creation, actively encourages inflationary bubbles, and then bails them out! How in the hell is that a "lack of regulation and oversight". If only this stuff could be explained to you in comic book form... then you might actually understand some of the most basic concepts required to
| Quote: |
| carry on this discussion |
. Then you wouldn't have to pretend you have even the slightest clue what you're talking about. |
You're funny enough to be a comic strip writer. If the Fed "actively encourages inflationary bubbles" as you claim, where's the inflation?
One of the reason the banks got into a positon where they had to be bailed out was a lack of oversight on the Fed's part, Greenspan in particular. Then after being bailed out, they sat on their reserves instad of laoning it out or using it to trade in their own behalf. That's where regulation is needed.
As for monopoly, anyone can start a bank. How is that a monopoly?
BTW, if no one should be listening to me, why do you keep responding to my posts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| It's as though the banks are holding the economy hostage, and their best friend is the hostage negotiator. Giving the Federal Reserve more power is like allowing the negotiator to make more concessions to the hostage takers. |
Exactly. It's frustrating the way people still believe the whole thing was some kind of "accident". As if Goldman-Sachs "accidentally" had its people in most of the regulatory positions when AIG was given massive bailouts for them to pilfer (while letting their competitor Lehman Bros go bust). Or as if the massive housing bubble was accidental (and just a coincidence that Goldman Sachs et al happened to be shorting housing prior to the collapse).
People need to take a step back and follow the money. Who benefited? The banking cartel that runs the Federal Reserve, that's who. So they just "accidentally" allowed themselves to carry off the biggest financial heist in history? It was all just random chance that Hank Paulson was the ex-CEO of Goldman, turned Treasury Secretary, signed himself waivers to give them bailout money despite a blatant conflict of interest? I guess if the mega-banks who profited so immensely from it are that lucky, then they deserve it. |
It's all a conspiracy. And Bush's grandfather was a banker. Yes, yes...the pieces of the puzzle are all there. Now I see it. How could I have been such a dupe?
But wait, wait...how do the Jews fit into this? They're the ones controlling the world's banks. And if Prescott Bush was funding the Nazis, why would his grandson join forces with those same bankers?
Screw it! Free silver, that's the ticket! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| It's as though the banks are holding the economy hostage, and their best friend is the hostage negotiator. Giving the Federal Reserve more power is like allowing the negotiator to make more concessions to the hostage takers. |
Exactly. It's frustrating the way people still believe the whole thing was some kind of "accident". As if Goldman-Sachs "accidentally" had its people in most of the regulatory positions when AIG was given massive bailouts for them to pilfer (while letting their competitor Lehman Bros go bust). Or as if the massive housing bubble was accidental (and just a coincidence that Goldman Sachs et al happened to be shorting housing prior to the collapse).
People need to take a step back and follow the money. Who benefited? The banking cartel that runs the Federal Reserve, that's who. So they just "accidentally" allowed themselves to carry off the biggest financial heist in history? It was all just random chance that Hank Paulson was the ex-CEO of Goldman, turned Treasury Secretary, signed himself waivers to give them bailout money despite a blatant conflict of interest? I guess if the mega-banks who profited so immensely from it are that lucky, then they deserve it. |
It's all a conspiracy. And Bush's grandfather was a banker. Yes, yes...the pieces of the puzzle are all there. Now I see it. How could I have been such a dupe?
But wait, wait...how do the Jews fit into this? They're the ones controlling the world's banks. And if Prescott Bush was funding the Nazis, why would his grandson join forces with those same bankers?
Screw it! Free silver, that's the ticket! |
Where did Visitorq say anything about Jews? But don't let that get in the way of your grotesque strawman. You may think Visitorq is obnoxious and aggressive, but he doesn't traffic in anti-semitism. (And believe me, this forum has seen some of that)
I regret sticking up for your point, even if you had one.
Visitorq is right, you know. A lot of the big traders were at least dimly aware of the negative consequences, and didn't care. Its not a conspiracy, more like a culture. A fraudulent, psychopathic culture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
His explanation isn't mutually exclusive with yours.
Yes, a lack of regulation was and continues to be a problem. Even as secret bailouts make things worse. |
Please explain to me how a government granted monopoly + having Goldman-Sachs people in regulatory positions + guaranteed bailouts + monetization of debt = "a lack of regulation". |
The repeal of Glass-Steagal. Regulatory bodies were active in aggressive deregulation. Look at the SEC's 2004 exemption to the Big 5. Its regulatory capture; the banks lobby for their rules, and they get their rules. Only fools call it a conspiracy theory when its so out in the open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
His explanation isn't mutually exclusive with yours.
Yes, a lack of regulation was and continues to be a problem. Even as secret bailouts make things worse. |
Please explain to me how a government granted monopoly + having Goldman-Sachs people in regulatory positions + guaranteed bailouts + monetization of debt = "a lack of regulation". |
The repeal of Glass-Steagal. Regulatory bodies were active in aggressive deregulation. Look at the SEC's 2004 exemption to the Big 5. Its regulatory capture; the banks lobby for their rules, and they get their rules. Only fools call it a conspiracy theory when its so out in the open. |
Actually, when you get down to it I agree. The thing is that banking as it exists today is not really a legitimate industry. In an actual free market system, deregulation would help put scarce resources to the most valuable use. But the Federal Reserve system has nothing to do with the free market. Rather, it is a system that erodes real wealth through inflation. Putting more controls on the banks in this system would actually helps slow down that process and prevent the sort of massive collapse that occurred due to massive post-1980's money creation (although it would not stop business cycles from occurring altogether). For this reason I would agree that as long as we have a central bank, reinstating something like the Glass-Steagall act would be better than nothing; at least until a proper free market system could take its place. It would certainly be better than the sort of wanton fraud and looting that has gone on recently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| It's as though the banks are holding the economy hostage, and their best friend is the hostage negotiator. Giving the Federal Reserve more power is like allowing the negotiator to make more concessions to the hostage takers. |
Exactly. It's frustrating the way people still believe the whole thing was some kind of "accident". As if Goldman-Sachs "accidentally" had its people in most of the regulatory positions when AIG was given massive bailouts for them to pilfer (while letting their competitor Lehman Bros go bust). Or as if the massive housing bubble was accidental (and just a coincidence that Goldman Sachs et al happened to be shorting housing prior to the collapse).
People need to take a step back and follow the money. Who benefited? The banking cartel that runs the Federal Reserve, that's who. So they just "accidentally" allowed themselves to carry off the biggest financial heist in history? It was all just random chance that Hank Paulson was the ex-CEO of Goldman, turned Treasury Secretary, signed himself waivers to give them bailout money despite a blatant conflict of interest? I guess if the mega-banks who profited so immensely from it are that lucky, then they deserve it. |
It's all a conspiracy. And Bush's grandfather was a banker. Yes, yes...the pieces of the puzzle are all there. Now I see it. How could I have been such a dupe?
But wait, wait...how do the Jews fit into this? They're the ones controlling the world's banks. And if Prescott Bush was funding the Nazis, why would his grandson join forces with those same bankers?
Screw it! Free silver, that's the ticket! |
Where did Visitorq say anything about Jews? But don't let that get in the way of your grotesque strawman. You may think Visitorq is obnoxious and aggressive, but he doesn't traffic in anti-semitism. (And believe me, this forum has seen some of that)
I regret sticking up for your point, even if you had one.
Visitorq is right, you know. A lot of the big traders were at least dimly aware of the negative consequences, and didn't care. Its not a conspiracy, more like a culture. A fraudulent, psychopathic culture. |
Some of you guys need to get a sense of humor. It's a common conspiracy theory that Jewish bankers control the world's economy. Satire, dude, satire.
As for you sticking up for me, that's up to you. If you think insults posted on an Internet forum by folks I don't know bothers me, I'm here to tell you they don't.
"The big traders"--individuals run amok do not a cartel make. Don't forget "herd mentality" and traders pushing too hard to make bonus, not to mention hang onto their jobs. Now it's a lot easier to buy into conspiracy theory, but easy doesn't always do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Some of you guys need to get a sense of humor. It's a common conspiracy theory that Jewish bankers control the world's economy. Satire, dude, satire. |
That isn't satire. That's just a massive cliche (like your entire persona). When the deluded, ignorant leftist has lost the debate, and else fails, then it's time to play the race card. Gee, how original. Give it up already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
