@grizzlek....When did you ever listen to an entire hour of Glenn? American history, the specifics of what these commies are doing is not nonsense. All are proud of their role in destroying America so why is that nonsense?
FIGHT BACK PEOPLE! We need to bring our pressure to bear on these people in ways other than the voting booth! Name of Senator U.S. Senate Washington D.C. 20510 Name of Representative U.S. House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515 Or call U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 Ask for your Senator or Rep by name. Be courteous, sincere, and don't say anything that gives away your demographic to them. Have notes with you, and educate yourself on current legislation.
It was Bertrand Russell that said that in 90 years you would think that the elite and the serving class came from two different species. Because of the food they will be forced to eat and vacinations, the landless peasants will be without brains.
Our monetary policy is basically welfare. Artificially low interest rates were established to help replace the abandoned fiscal welfare state the New Deal, The Fair Deal and The Great Society attempted to establish.
That form of welfare though is heavily slanted for giant corporations, has ruined the middle class via inflation and has increased the power of corporations to that of a ruling class. They are now the greatest threat to our republican democracy.
Regulations are a red herring. The corruption with derivatives and swaps were due to the enormous pressure and mandates government was putting on banks to get lending money to those who were too risky to trust and too poor to pay it back.
So while we do need some regulation there (and a whole LOT of deregulation elsewhere,) we need to look at the core of the problem and regulate government and limit government's role.
In general regulations establish monopolies and eliminate competition
There will be only phantum laws full of loop holes no way will they do anything but continue to indenture and degrade the American people into a slave class of perpetually credit strapped slobs . Congress and senate will never and I mean never do a thing to help the middle class. All their actions work through their banking masters.
Gee so lets borrow some more money so the dollar will keep going up!!!!!!!! The dollar is being manipulated. There is no sound reason for the dollar to go up. Just like there was no sound reason for housing prices to go up. . The buble will burst. Americas standard of living will bust and settle in and thake its rightfull position as a debtor nation.
I generally agree with a lot of you say, Peter, but Krugman just had a column in which he cites Canada avoiding much of the financial crisis due to regulations similar to the ones Obama has just proposed. I'd love to here your response. YT won't let me post a link, but you can find his column on the NYT site. It's called "Good and boring".
And what little gold that is in the vaults is already being counterfeited w/additives. Gold is for pure dipshit losers nowadays. It's just another scam enfolding. does peter sell gold?
Hah, so you're going to try and hold office, and then be the asshole taking money from lobbyists to finance your campaign and your leer jet? Everyone has an opinion, nobody has a solution.
I'm not a jew and I don't chase illusionary bubbles that only propogate problems. So, no i'm not the same. Wealth is eternal, not external. Pawned and owned.
Tanio12.. I don't think you understand the deeper implication of my statement. Do you think money will fill that hole in your heart? or stop thwe world from aching while you're comfortable? or are you just chasing an illusion like Peter? Will jews ever learn?
Seriously. People Go to my Youtube page and check out the Favorite videos. Because any trust in the government or bank of America is NOT to be trusted.
Peter and Obama are both clouding the issue. The crises was caused by special interest money in politics. Over time Wall Street bankers were able to strip away just about every common sense rule that governed banking and lending. Then they got very, very rich.
you are correct. this is a systemic problem and is institutionalized.
there is one other symptom that needs mentioning: the federal reserve and its interactions with congress. they are basically independant of each other. the push to audit the fed was a victim of money in politics.
the banks and financiers dance to the tune of the Federal Reserve Bank which is not owned by the American people.
Okay, help me out here then. If the Fed is the Big Bad here, why couldn't they avoid the audit, and why does Giethner pay Goldman Sachs' naked derivatives at 100 cents on the dollar (through AIG) while heading the New York Fed? It seems more like the Fed is dancing to Goldman Sachs' tune.
the Federal Reserve is totally independant except the chairman (Ben Bernanke) and can do anything they want with interest rates. They loan money to the US govt. coincidently, we were taken off the gold standard in 1971 by Nixon. now our money (in god we trust etc) is not tied to any finite commodity ie gold. the Fed was the cause of the great depression and was given monetary control in 1913. the ratio of dollars to gold has been increasing since 1971. the gov. has been printing money madly.
now our currency is floating in space. our only real anchor is that oil price is tied to dollars. the Fed is privately held. Try to find out who owns the Fed. The same bank loans money to countries all over the world. the geitner phenomanom is due to those who have millions of dollars tied up in AIG and Goldman Sachs and other financial and insurance. institutions. these are part of the lies and deception we face in our govt.
until we have transparency we don't know who our masters are.
i didnt know there was a schiffreport, this is awesome im def going to start tuning in regularly, here we have one of the only men on the planet with his head squarely on his shoulders, if you have the time mr schiff i would like to discuss with you a massive fundamental flaw in capitalism that recently became aware of, the curious thing is i have never in my life heard anyone address this issue, ill understand if you haven't the time
If anyone is smart ...they will stop cooperating in the business as usual way. Stiff all credit cards , no cash in any bank. Stop paying useless illegal mortgage. Quit trying to get wealthy. For what? Whatever riches you get will be divided up by the homeless and needy when the shit hits the fan and maybe over your dead body.
well said. It's all part of the NWO. Obama is a smarter version of Bush and the perfect sales man to sell us the lies and nonsense. Obama spends even more on militairy, but because he does have the image of being "social", nobody seems to notice...
It was the govt. that decided to implement the FED. The FED needs to go. No entity should be ABOVE all entities on earth, thus does not have to follow any laws???? Hello....
iff you consume what teen people could live on, why then wonder why some is poor?? And iff ya an a..hole for exploiting isnt the exploited only stupid...Because they dont kick ya a..? Iff i raise a kid i should b an good example, but tell workers to hold back on wages for compertition then give yaself a raise??
Common sence ahh IQ cant b hold back...What the /&%/ya need a million for then pun.s
It's all got to do with their agenda of domination over the world, stifling progress, and depopulation. The bankers think the world is theirs... that they will be the ones to craft society, not the people.
They want to perpetuate their tiered society where you do the work, and they skim from the top of your work to live in perpetuity. You could go one further and say they already have space colonies, and leave us in the dark to wallow in our ignorance. We are the natives of the modern world.
making money on money is the problem, building great castles for war and destroying or simple pussypowergetting, then wiondering why farmers where poor.....blblblblblblbl..interlect ahh well good luck
And might i ad here in my country an rightwing goverment. with all kinds off banke whilling to loan out because off the ''good'' investment..Hel. houseprices stil artificial high like currents in most western world LOL Ya all bye and sell Servises not Goods then cant understand blblblblblblblbl
might be goverment but in 30 countrys including usa houseprice went up, enshuring a good investment, so lowerincoms could borrow because of the gain. Many banks was tottaly in on this.
HOW COME..International scam??
But off course my silly question is off no importance LOL
Just think of what a great sigh of relief it would be to just abandon the entire economy, plant a garden, get back to some real hunting and fishing, and never bother to support another bank or crook on Wall Street again.
the only REASON the 21st of January WASNT a Monday like Peter said it was is because the US federal reserve is printing so much money that the 21st got inflated all the way back to Thursday.
I thought it was to get a upturn because off freevalue in rising houseprices, but thought what happens when intrest goes up. It was a ''atificial'' priceraise..But in 30 countrys the same??
might be goverment but in 30 countrys including usa houseprice went up, enshuring a good investment, so lowerincoms could borrow because of the gain. Many banks was tottaly in on this.
Can the Federal Reserve System....that's where it ALL STARTS!!!! Then can ALL Government and put in Only GOD fearing people, with Morals, Principals, and Values!
Canada stayed regulated with their mortgages much the same way US was prior to 2001. Their mortgage industry stayed stable since.... ours did not. So Schiff is saying we should go back to their kind of regulation when that's a part of how we ended up in a crisis?
Peter the Dollar is up over 5% from last year. Some places of the economy is looking to pick up in certain parts of the Country. The economy in the Northwest states is looking to be going up this year than further down. Forget about housing sales, people staying and more people are still moving into the area from the hard hit areas of the Country. Look at the Northwest in guiding the US out of the downturn.
Wow, that's a lot. No Sam's club in my regional area. But two more Wal-mart super centers opening up this year. With a Winco in a year or so.
I really don't see the Republicans and Democrats doing anything to solve the problems. I'm heading the direction of the Modern Whig Party and go more centrist. I don't trust and like the founders. But for more of a Centrist central government.
I am here in the great Pacific Northwest and the real estate market is still falling. Has been since 2006. There won't be a recovery-that's not part of the plan -just more Fabian tactics and a further spiral down. Maybe after it all crashes we will fix it.
House prices have no fallen like most places in the Nation. In the Spokane and CDA area prices are still way above $100,000. When prices for the same houses back in 2004 was more like the average was $88,000 for the same houses at $120,000 today. There's no more turnarounds like in the past. But people should not rely on turnarounds on house sales in the first place. Property is still way above what it should be for the downturn.
the federal government is your ally. The banks thrive when you don't trust your flag and instead trust bank of america's flag of greed. Never back down and kill all bankers.
@marniespeaks What is wrong with running as a Republican? The true conservatives were the Republicans. It is just that Republicans today are not true conservatives. So Peter is going to claim the true spirit of what Republicans used to be. He is taking the party back from the Neocons.
@marniespeaks So what are you doing writing comments here? You are criticizing but you are not offering a course of action. I realize doing nothing is an "action" too. But staying quiet only will encourage the "plutocracy". I am going to continue supporting people like Peter Schiff. What are you going to do?
I expected more outrage after the decision by SCOTUS.
I was expecting a revolution, what I'm discovering is people like to be slaves to corporations and will continue to contribute and support the two crooked parties that destroyed the nation.
With gobs of cash being tossed into our political system by corporations Peter doesn't have a chance
He should have run on principles rather then greed
Obama wants to force banks to lend money, so if the Gov. takes the profit from trading it forces the banks to make risky loans to make up the profit they are no longer making from trading.
it sounds complicated because that's the tool they use. It's completely temporary the truth banks spit at us. Stand up and fight and watch as you fight a rotten slug shell to the ground. Dumbasses like this feel good. haha. too big to fail? aahahaha die banks.
who cares if your creditors (china)won't lend you money any more ,it just means you collapse and bring the world down with you ,and ww3 begins that's all .
I have lost faith in what he says. May be I will never again waste time watching his videos too. But good content to use, I mean words to impress people and have different opinion compared to other people, some people like to show they have different opinion while talking about economy etc.
Peter is absolutely wrong: Who cares if China will increase interest rates. Who cares if China won't lend us any more. There are plenty of Dollars elsewhere in the world. If China won't lend us money we can always borrow Dollars from Zimbabwe. I know my argument won't make sense to you, but I bet I could ind plenty of Congressmen, and Senators who would gladly endorse my argument, just as long as they could continue their reckless spending!
The increase in interest rates only affects the Chinese people. What recently happened in China was that China's commercial banks decreased loans to China's people(after a massive increase in china's domestic loans in 2009), that is all. It has nothing to do with China lending money to the US. Nothing at all. It's a totally different issue. Peter Schiff is confusing the two and confusing people that listen to him.
"if the big spenders get their way, they'll charge everything on your tax payers express card, and believe me they NEVER leave home without it" !! Ronald Reagan
The nearer Peter gets to the U.S. Senate, the more worthless his economic commentary becomes. Peter Schiff has NO CLUE about what caused the current economic crisis! ZERO. 20,000,000 Illegal Aliens are 'displacing' U.S. Workers from JOBS, which means 20,000,000 Americans are also 'displacing' even more Americans from JOBS; killing the U.S. Consumer/Tax Base. NAFTA has shipped our manufacturing base overseas, but Mr. Schiff ignores the real 'causes' and focuses all attention on the 'symptoms. ...
@Terral03 The myth of "displacing jobs" is just too silly to comment. Manufacturing base was destroyed in America through fiscal debauchery, welfare state and reckless monetary pumping. And Peter Schiff was always emphasising this. But the current crisis is strictly monetary in nature and that's where Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains the causes. You'd better get educated on it and fast.
The next crisis will be much more general and all-engulfing.
off to a republican town meeting? poor schiff , he's going to be swallowed up in that fascist movement. who really ever made a deference in the republican or democratic parties any way .
This guy is ABSOLUTELY right! Over regulation by the Fed caused this BS and here they are trying to do it AGAIN!!!! I watched this crap happen when I was in the business, I knew the collapse was coming. There were people who NEVER should have had the loans they were getting ...needless to say I got out and decided to return to school to be a Geologist while I still had time. Happy I did because everyone I knew are standing in unemployment lines now.
Yes now here's what I want to know. Are you, Schiff and others that take this line also willing to mention that destruction of Glass-Steagall was a component to the problem as well? Also, we would do well to look at the 62.5 to 1 leverage ratio allowed by the World Bank on AAA rated securities. I don't see ANYONE talking about this, even though former world bank director mentions it emphatically on Dailymotion and his blog as a primary cause.
Hello Mr.Schiff, please don't delete my comment. Be nice. I emailed small businesses in Connecticut about you as a candidate. Nothing negative. I emailed links to your twitter, facebook, your mortgage banker speech video, and your youtube channel. Is that ok with you? I think it's needed other than your little phone book thing you got going, because people don't want to be annoyed with miscellaneous phone calls. Don't delete me, be nice Mr.Schiff.
Before the partial repeal of the GlassSteagall Act in 1999, the number of sub-prime loans was only 5% of all loans, while in 2008 that same number had reached 30%. But wait! The Federal Reserve existed before "Financial Services Modernization Act" and there was little or no problem with sub-prime loans. The CRA merely stated that the banks HAD to offer loans to individuals who COULD pay the loan back. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall act lead to the banks being able to sell debt.
Could pay the loan back based on what? income or being able to get a loan from somewhere else to pay the current loan coming due? If it's the latter then it is the banks themselves that determine whether someone is sub-prime or not as they are the ones that control whether you can get a loan or not. If a man with no job could continue to get loans would he be considered a sub-prime borrower? no, because he will always be good for the money because he could keep borrowing to pay coming due debt
Are there examples of individuals borrowing without any restrictions? If so, then that contradicted the CRA and was illegal. The banks did that, not the government.
banks were always able to sell debt, if banks could not sell debt banks would not be able to get enough Federal Reserve Notes to meet depositors demand for cash withdrawals except through depositors who deposit FRNs and we all know how rare that happens as most people get paid with checks or electronic deposit. The # of sub-prime loans is based on how easy banks are lending, the easier banks are lending the less sub-prime loans there will be, and no i do not have that backwards.
Yes, but not to dummy corporations or ignorant companies or individuals across state lines. Before the repeal, such actions were controlled by the regulatory regime of the federal and state apparatuses.
You're probably confusing "selling debt" with "making loans to consumers or businesses". In the discussion with daniel987878 and I, I have discussed the difference. Sure in the past their were restrictions with lending to consumers and businesses, just like China was doing just before it started emerging a year ago or like US was doing right before the roaring 20's or like right now but banks always sold debt amongst each other and did so to keep enough legal tender available in bank's vaults.
No, no I am not. The banks bundled and sold bad debt to stupider companies, across state borders. It is a fact. It is the result of anti-regulatory ideology. It is your fault.
When the banks "sold bad debt" as you put it they were considered good loans. Who considered them good loans? Freddie and fannie may and thats who bought them. Who set the criteria for considering them good loans? Congress.
Well they were in fact good loans at the time because payments on them were being made. It wasn't until the banks cut off the easy credit spiggot that the loans went sour. It's a ponzi scheme controlled by the banks, the banks are the one's that control whether debts are able to be paid or not because they control loans and in this ponzi scheme economy debts are paid with borrowed money. Take the ability to borrow money away and debts will not be paid.
@Numonic7 Sorry but they were never good loans because they did not conform to standard banking practices. The loans were made to freddy and fannie specifications that were imposed on them by the congress in order to make housing more avalible to the masses. This is why congress should not try and control the banks they are not bankers. Sure the banks new they were risky that is why they did not hold them. banks only made them so they could get the transaction fees.
If I do not have a job but I continue to find a bank that will loan me the money I need to pay down the loan I got from another bank, it wouldn't be a risk to loan me money. And that is only because I could always find a bank to lend me money to pay down debts from other banks. It's only when I can't find a bank to loan me the money that I become a risk to loan money to. So you don't have to have a job or salary to be considered a Prime borrower, it all depends on how easy banks are lending.
LOL What??? If you have plenty of collateral to borrow against you dont need a job. If you have no job and no collateral no bank will loan you money (unless you lie and they dont catch it).
The collateral was the house that went up in price with more and more mortgages that were made. The more mortgages that were made, the more houses that were bought and taken off the market and we all know how supply and demand works, less supply causes prices to rise. So the banks have control over the value of the collateral and as soon as they slowed the expansion of credit and mortgages house prices stopped rising and left people with no collateral to borrow against and loans defaulted.
Yes, the banks want loans to default so that the value of the assets they sold to the Fed can drop. The banks NEED the value of those assets they sold to the Fed to drop because if the value of those assets rise above what they sold it to the Fed for, when the Fed goes to sell those assets back to the banks, the banks will have to pay more for the assets than what they sold it for and the banks don't have enough cash to do that which is why they went to the Fed in the first place.
It's a short sell, that's all it is. The banks sold the assets to the Fed with a plan to buy them back in the future. Now tell me if you sold something to someone but planned on buying it back in the future, would you want the price of that thing to go up before you buy it back or down before you buy it back? It's a simple question and the answer is down. Plus the banks wouldn't go to the Fed in the first place if they didn't need the cash.
The US$/Yuan peg and the set rate of this peg is what determines the value of the Yuan compared to the US$ NOT the commercial bank interest rates/how much banks are lending. There was no mention of peg movement with the rise of commercial bank interest rates, do not confuse the two. If the peg stays flat, there is no way to profit from moving to either currency because you might as well call Yuan US dollars because they are pegged, regaurdless of how bank interest rates move. Know that.
Banks that receive the Fed Funds rates should not be able to participate in highly speculative markets. When the Fed lowers rates, the intention is to get capitol flowing into the markets. Speculation on low interest money causes spikes in the commodities being speculated in. The example I am thinking of is the oil runup of 2008. Oil hit it's peak about 10 months after the Fed began lowering rates to spur growth. Creating hyper inflation in the markets should not be the goal of lower rates.
FALSE AND ERRONEOUS!!! The supply of Federal Reserve Notes in a bank has nothing to do with how much a bank is lending BECAUSE BANKS DO NOT LEND FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES, LOANS ARE DONE ELECTRONICALLY. STOP FALLING FOR THE LIE. Do you really want to know what the "bailouts" were for? The banks needed physical cash to meet depositors demand for physical cash. That is all physical cash is used for, ATMs and cash withdrawals. It has no bearing on bank loans being made.
Banks lend funds electronically which are the same as fed notes. Fed notes are created to support physical transaction demand but most transactions are done electronically for convenience not because electronic money is any different to physical notes.
I agree but that creates a problem for the banks because banks then rarely get physical cash deposits and so their vault cash would run out if it's only source of physical cash were from depositors. So a solution is that banks take electronic assets and trade them to other commercial banks or the Federal Reserve for physical cash. This is how physical cash circulates in the system because physical cash is rarely moved by citizens, the banks have to move it themselves and do so with assets.
Their vault cash cant run out because all they need to do is ask the fed for notes and they get them as long as they have the money which is recorded electronically.
The electronic register of cash is equal to a fed note but most transactions are done electronically only for convenience.
An electronic deposit is the same as fed notes but just for convenience you only have the notes required for the public to use (otherwise physical storage is an unnecesary added cost).
You see that's false, the bureau of engraving and printing can print the cash but a single entity can only do so much. The BEP can only print as fast as the printing machines it has can print and as fast as the cash can be moved around the nation. And what most people fail to realize is that the demand for physical cash although dwarfed by the demand for electronic money, outpaces the supply of physical cash which is why the banks are selling assets to the Fed and increasing the monetary base.
The demand for physical cash may be outdoing the supply but I dont see the relevance of selling other assets and how that will change anything.
The monetary base is increasing because of the so called liquidity trap (fed reducing rates and QE programs combined with the banks not passing new funds towards lending).
The commercial banks in order to be able to supply public with extra physical cash just need to request from the FRB and they will get it. They dont need to sell securities.
Not true, in order for commercial banks to get physical cash from the FRB, it must give the FRB something in exchange. Sayin "banks not passing new funds towards lending" doesn't make any sense because most if not all lending is done electronically not with physical cash. The fed reducing rates and QE programs are HOW the monetary base is increasing but that is not the REASON the monetary base is increasing. The only logical reason to create more Fed Notes is because there is a demand for it.
In order for banks to get fed funds they need to provide collateral like US bonds to the fed. These funds they get are registered electronically and are never physical paper notes. If the banking system requires paper notes for customers or to keep in vaults then they request from fed at a later time. Afterwards when they get these physical notes they dont exchange for anything because its money they already had before that was recorded electronically and now is recorded on pieces of paper.
Fed funds are legal tender, legal tender is only physical not electronic. I agree with the first part that banks need to provide collateral like US bonds, but any kind of bank asset is collateral whether that me mortgage backed securities or car loan assets or whatever loan the banks made and everywhere I read says that Fed Funds are definitive money, which is physical cash, legal tender. Your checking account is not legal tender or definitive money, only Federal Reserve Notes are.
The electronic records are records of fed notes and can be converted to paper notes on demand. The currency isnt printed because noone needs to ands it better not to because its easier. Should anybody which owns fed notes require them printed then this can be immediately done. Like when people say printing money but nothing is actually printed, its just electronically created for convenience sakes. It is still recognised as physical though.
People misuse the term "printing money" because back when the legal tender was gold coins, credit was expanded through the printing of gold certificates or bank notes, today the legal tender is cotton and linen paper and credit is expanded electronically.
The complaints about the govt. printing too much money today is equivalent to people in the early 1900's complaining about the govt. minting too many gold coins. But just because cotton and linen is more abundant than gold and silver doesn't mean that the govt. can print as many Federal Reserve Notes as they want as fast as they want. The problem isn't what the legal tender is made of it's the fact that the burden to produce it is on one central entity and that is too much burden for one.
Electronic funds are included in the monetary base. Think of it this way as technology progressed it became more simple, cheaper and safer just to have things electronically recorded than on heaps of pieces of paper.
No electronic funds are not part of the monetary base. Electronic funds are m1 and m2 and m3, m0 is just physical money. I understand that it is more convenient to use credit, I'm just saying we still use physical in some cases.
Deposits at the fed are just electronically tracked. They dont go to the effort of printing up all the notes. Its called notes and coin but the notes and coin arent there.
Well yeah they are electronically tracked because in order for the banks to get the physical cash from the Fed, they had to give the Fed electronic assets. You have to check out the Bureau of Engraving and Printing's website, they tell you how much physical currency has been printed. It is actual printed notes and minted coins. They are there.
Banks get cash from the fed by borrowing it. When they get the cash they dont get physical notes they just get it credited to them electronically. The BEP prints money but this money isnt given to the banks to fulfil all the OMO's. Unless they specifically request this.
To get physical cash banks dont have to give electronic assets. They just have to claim it and the electronic record shows they have title to it. Nothing is exchanged.
Fed Funds are physical cash. Commercial banks get the physical cash from the Federal Reserve through the Fed Funds transactions and the Federal Reserve gets the cash from the BEP in which the Fed pays the BEP the cost to produce the physical cash. It doesn't make sense for the bailouts to be electronic money when the banks can create electronic money themselves and only need the Fed for physical cash.
The electronic records are physical. If an owner of an electrnoic records needs a note then he can have it but the banking system would be hindered if every transaction required truckloads of notes coming and going all day to and through banks.
Granted I don't see an increase in Brinks Armored trucks on the roads but the physical cash is moving around as there are ATMs all over the country and banks all over the country. Every transaction does not require physical cash, i said only a fraction does but even that fraction has become a burden on the physical cash supply.
This is where I disagree because if reserves are the deposits you make to the bank then fractional reserve banking would mean that when you look at your account balance on the computer you will only see a fraction of your account listed because the bank would have given away the other part of it. The definition of deposit is sketchy here because when I deposit a check to the bank it's considered a deposit but that check is not part of reserves, in fact my account is a liability to the bank.
When you deposit say 100 into your bank the bank owes you 100 (liability) and has 100 of money (asset). Then it lends 90 out (under 10% rr) against 90 collateral (asset) and that 90 enters another bank and money supply expands that way. The other 10 is reserve. Its a rubbish system.
The money you give to bank a certain portion is kept in reserve and the rest lent out.
Okay, i just realized when you deposit your check in a bank, you are creating both an liability and an asset for the bank, i used to think it was just a liability, not realizing that a check is an asset. So there is a money pool from which loans are made. I see now. But then what pool of money does the Fed take from? How does the Fed create money besides the physical cash it gets from the BEP? Where is the money the Fed has coming from to buy assets if it is not the physical money?
The FED doesnt take from any pool of money because they dont have any restrictions. They just create money as they see fit. The BEP is just an agency of the federal reserve and print ups whatever notes are requested by the Fed on behalf of the banking system.
The electronic records created by the fed is the same as the ink record on the federal reserve notes. So the electronic register of money the fed creates is physical money.
Although, It still makes more sense to me that the Fractional Reserve System refers to the physical cash supply, it fits perfectly with the reasoning that physical cash is only used in a small number of transactions, therefore banks are only required to keep a small fraction of it. At the end of the day, the check isn't what's being loaned out, the banks electronically type the $ amount of loans it wants to make so it's still questionable if there is a pool of money from which loans are made.
The fact that loans are done electronically is proof that there is no money pool from which loans are made. As long as the bank has a working computer and network, it can type in a $ amount as large as it wants regardless of it's assets b/c the assets are NOT what are being lent out. Unless you want to make the argument that you trust that banks will not electronically lend more than they get in assets, and come to think about it, that's contradictory in itself because a bank loan is an asset.
100% right. WOW impressed..
FOXnewsAlien 1 year ago
@grizzlek....When did you ever listen to an entire hour of Glenn? American history, the specifics of what these commies are doing is not nonsense. All are proud of their role in destroying America so why is that nonsense?
roxymlb1 1 year ago
@grizzlek
It's probably too late anyway. People are more interested in the Kardashians.
rubbersole79 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A professional shopping agent from China hlep you purchase your favorite items from the biggest website taobao. ww
w.esybuy.com
Allenlillian 1 year ago
rubbersole79 1 year ago
Peter is a globalist so is Mr. Dodd, globalization is our problem why would we support him as a replacement for Dodd.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
i watched this because it had China in the video title.
vinsong 1 year ago
It was Bertrand Russell that said that in 90 years you would think that the elite and the serving class came from two different species. Because of the food they will be forced to eat and vacinations, the landless peasants will be without brains.
OsamaBinForgotten2 1 year ago
Our monetary policy is basically welfare. Artificially low interest rates were established to help replace the abandoned fiscal welfare state the New Deal, The Fair Deal and The Great Society attempted to establish.
That form of welfare though is heavily slanted for giant corporations, has ruined the middle class via inflation and has increased the power of corporations to that of a ruling class. They are now the greatest threat to our republican democracy.
mongoose704 2 years ago 5
Regulations are a red herring. The corruption with derivatives and swaps were due to the enormous pressure and mandates government was putting on banks to get lending money to those who were too risky to trust and too poor to pay it back.
So while we do need some regulation there (and a whole LOT of deregulation elsewhere,) we need to look at the core of the problem and regulate government and limit government's role.
In general regulations establish monopolies and eliminate competition
mongoose704 2 years ago 2
Iv' been think robing
love8truth 2 years ago
There will be only phantum laws full of loop holes no way will they do anything but continue to indenture and degrade the American people into a slave class of perpetually credit strapped slobs . Congress and senate will never and I mean never do a thing to help the middle class. All their actions work through their banking masters.
jobedied 2 years ago
100% correct!!!!
sagelord87 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this loony is republican what can you expect but increase the debt by letting the banks do w the fuck they want.
rbonilla18 2 years ago
Patriots Jake Towne Money Bomb Feb 15 at dailypaul(dot)com where rEVOLution has home!
campaign4liberty 2 years ago
Oh sure Peter, the system was fine for 70 years until our congress people started to listen to your friends and deregulate the system.
Fucking idiot.
flanksteak5 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flanksteak5 Are you fucking stupid?
itachi705 1 year ago
Gee so lets borrow some more money so the dollar will keep going up!!!!!!!! The dollar is being manipulated. There is no sound reason for the dollar to go up. Just like there was no sound reason for housing prices to go up. . The buble will burst. Americas standard of living will bust and settle in and thake its rightfull position as a debtor nation.
Spurgeon687 2 years ago
I generally agree with a lot of you say, Peter, but Krugman just had a column in which he cites Canada avoiding much of the financial crisis due to regulations similar to the ones Obama has just proposed. I'd love to here your response. YT won't let me post a link, but you can find his column on the NYT site. It's called "Good and boring".
ranndino 2 years ago
looking forward to the coming collapse LOL
young20hood 2 years ago
And what little gold that is in the vaults is already being counterfeited w/additives. Gold is for pure dipshit losers nowadays. It's just another scam enfolding. does peter sell gold?
Imsorry110 2 years ago
And there is isn't enough gold to tie to the worlds economy anyway.
Imsorry110 2 years ago
Who owns the fed? The jews of course. Nuff said?
Imsorry110 2 years ago
some folks and you are one of them are not capable of analysis or even logic.
prove your statement or forever be considered the lightweight racist you really are.
d2004piney 2 years ago
Hah, so you're going to try and hold office, and then be the asshole taking money from lobbyists to finance your campaign and your leer jet? Everyone has an opinion, nobody has a solution.
virtuosaywhat 2 years ago
you got it!
d2004piney 2 years ago
End the FED.
SvrchovaneCechy 2 years ago 9
Liberty or Death, There is nothing in between.
BLUEANGEL7777777777 2 years ago
I'm not a jew and I don't chase illusionary bubbles that only propogate problems. So, no i'm not the same. Wealth is eternal, not external. Pawned and owned.
Imsorry110 2 years ago
you must be confused or very shortsighted. being a jew has nothing to do with wealth.
you are are confusing an important discussion with your spiritual problems.
you are insulting someone you really don't know and that is unfortunate.
All of us my live in the material world and if we refuse to deal with the realities, we will not be alive to worry about any holes in the heart.
d2004piney 2 years ago
Tanio12.. I don't think you understand the deeper implication of my statement. Do you think money will fill that hole in your heart? or stop thwe world from aching while you're comfortable? or are you just chasing an illusion like Peter? Will jews ever learn?
Imsorry110 2 years ago
whoa there with the racist comment.
you're no different
i'm more or less with you in your previous comment. skip the debt. produce your own.
but the racism? are you really that fearful?
d2004piney 2 years ago
Seriously. People Go to my Youtube page and check out the Favorite videos. Because any trust in the government or bank of America is NOT to be trusted.
warsun99 2 years ago
Peter and Obama are both clouding the issue. The crises was caused by special interest money in politics. Over time Wall Street bankers were able to strip away just about every common sense rule that governed banking and lending. Then they got very, very rich.
DojoNDude 2 years ago
and this is the winner of all comments.
you are correct. this is a systemic problem and is institutionalized.
there is one other symptom that needs mentioning: the federal reserve and its interactions with congress. they are basically independant of each other. the push to audit the fed was a victim of money in politics.
the banks and financiers dance to the tune of the Federal Reserve Bank which is not owned by the American people.
d2004piney 2 years ago
Okay, help me out here then. If the Fed is the Big Bad here, why couldn't they avoid the audit, and why does Giethner pay Goldman Sachs' naked derivatives at 100 cents on the dollar (through AIG) while heading the New York Fed? It seems more like the Fed is dancing to Goldman Sachs' tune.
DojoNDude 2 years ago
Get a book called Financial Terrorism
effinpagan 2 years ago
the Federal Reserve is totally independant except the chairman (Ben Bernanke) and can do anything they want with interest rates. They loan money to the US govt. coincidently, we were taken off the gold standard in 1971 by Nixon. now our money (in god we trust etc) is not tied to any finite commodity ie gold. the Fed was the cause of the great depression and was given monetary control in 1913. the ratio of dollars to gold has been increasing since 1971. the gov. has been printing money madly.
d2004piney 2 years ago
now our currency is floating in space. our only real anchor is that oil price is tied to dollars. the Fed is privately held. Try to find out who owns the Fed. The same bank loans money to countries all over the world. the geitner phenomanom is due to those who have millions of dollars tied up in AIG and Goldman Sachs and other financial and insurance. institutions. these are part of the lies and deception we face in our govt.
until we have transparency we don't know who our masters are.
d2004piney 2 years ago
Please Peter, elaborate more on this "Fannie Mac" and "Freddie Mae!"
edsanville 2 years ago
i didnt know there was a schiffreport, this is awesome im def going to start tuning in regularly, here we have one of the only men on the planet with his head squarely on his shoulders, if you have the time mr schiff i would like to discuss with you a massive fundamental flaw in capitalism that recently became aware of, the curious thing is i have never in my life heard anyone address this issue, ill understand if you haven't the time
lwanatt 2 years ago
If anyone is smart ...they will stop cooperating in the business as usual way. Stiff all credit cards , no cash in any bank. Stop paying useless illegal mortgage. Quit trying to get wealthy. For what? Whatever riches you get will be divided up by the homeless and needy when the shit hits the fan and maybe over your dead body.
Imsorry110 2 years ago
@Imsorry110
yeah trying telling Peter Schiff that it ain't stopped from getting rich. SHeesh
tanio12 2 years ago
well said. It's all part of the NWO. Obama is a smarter version of Bush and the perfect sales man to sell us the lies and nonsense. Obama spends even more on militairy, but because he does have the image of being "social", nobody seems to notice...
commonsense2008 2 years ago
@commonsense2008
spends more on the miltary who do you think approved the defense budget? Congress and that includes dems and repubs. Sheesh
tanio12 2 years ago
you got that.
to quote a friend of mine: vote libertarian.
if you can find one that has a chance at getting elected.
d2004piney 2 years ago
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Please copy paste this and spread it as fast as you can. We must all take a stand and fight these mongols.
LesiureBoy 2 years ago
No Gary Johnson/Peter Schiff,Rand Paul,or Marco Rubio for VP in 2012.
cpblackangel88 2 years ago
as always, learn alot from your videos.
look forward to hearing more from you in the future..
ClueLou 2 years ago
It was the govt. that decided to implement the FED. The FED needs to go. No entity should be ABOVE all entities on earth, thus does not have to follow any laws???? Hello....
inspirediam 2 years ago
Check out all of Peter Schiff's books and his dad's Irwin Schiff too. Great stuff.
358Liberty 2 years ago
EVERY TIME I jump when his voice blares extremely loudly compared to the last video I was watching.
FUZZYisBIG 2 years ago
One of Peter's Best, Check out my Video above, Its Longtrader782 on Obama's Bank refrom. Let me know what you think
longtrader782 2 years ago
Sorry cause i am not a better person..but its the godarn truth
ppedalen 2 years ago
iff you consume what teen people could live on, why then wonder why some is poor?? And iff ya an a..hole for exploiting isnt the exploited only stupid...Because they dont kick ya a..? Iff i raise a kid i should b an good example, but tell workers to hold back on wages for compertition then give yaself a raise??
Common sence ahh IQ cant b hold back...What the /&%/ya need a million for then pun.s
ppedalen 2 years ago
It's all got to do with their agenda of domination over the world, stifling progress, and depopulation. The bankers think the world is theirs... that they will be the ones to craft society, not the people.
They want to perpetuate their tiered society where you do the work, and they skim from the top of your work to live in perpetuity. You could go one further and say they already have space colonies, and leave us in the dark to wallow in our ignorance. We are the natives of the modern world.
ParapaDrifter 2 years ago
making money on money is the problem, building great castles for war and destroying or simple pussypowergetting, then wiondering why farmers where poor.....blblblblblblbl..interlect ahh well good luck
ppedalen 2 years ago
And might i ad here in my country an rightwing goverment. with all kinds off banke whilling to loan out because off the ''good'' investment..Hel. houseprices stil artificial high like currents in most western world LOL Ya all bye and sell Servises not Goods then cant understand blblblblblblblbl
ppedalen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
might be goverment but in 30 countrys including usa houseprice went up, enshuring a good investment, so lowerincoms could borrow because of the gain. Many banks was tottaly in on this.
HOW COME..International scam??
But off course my silly question is off no importance LOL
ppedalen 2 years ago
Just think of what a great sigh of relief it would be to just abandon the entire economy, plant a garden, get back to some real hunting and fishing, and never bother to support another bank or crook on Wall Street again.
soothsayer76 2 years ago
nice plan, but it doesn't work in the USA anymore...they've got you by the short hairs
pretorious700 2 years ago
At the beginning he says "Hi this is Monday Jan. 21st. Well Jan. 21st was a Thursday.
krakhoor 2 years ago
the only REASON the 21st of January WASNT a Monday like Peter said it was is because the US federal reserve is printing so much money that the 21st got inflated all the way back to Thursday.
strasheep 2 years ago
everybody knows the crisis was caused by poor people and losers.
cvcdgftr7676545 2 years ago
Peter please use a decent microphone, in a room with good acoustics!
great videos
harpreetdua 2 years ago
Comment removed
ppedalen 2 years ago
Comment removed
ppedalen 2 years ago
I thought it was to get a upturn because off freevalue in rising houseprices, but thought what happens when intrest goes up. It was a ''atificial'' priceraise..But in 30 countrys the same??
ppedalen 2 years ago
might be goverment but in 30 countrys including usa houseprice went up, enshuring a good investment, so lowerincoms could borrow because of the gain. Many banks was tottaly in on this.
HOW COME..International scam??
ppedalen 2 years ago
Can the Federal Reserve System....that's where it ALL STARTS!!!! Then can ALL Government and put in Only GOD fearing people, with Morals, Principals, and Values!
SurprizedDaily 2 years ago
Canada stayed regulated with their mortgages much the same way US was prior to 2001. Their mortgage industry stayed stable since.... ours did not. So Schiff is saying we should go back to their kind of regulation when that's a part of how we ended up in a crisis?
Bigbird5553 2 years ago
he had this a long time ago..
watch?v=dddAi8FF3F4
nVei06 2 years ago
Peter the Dollar is up over 5% from last year. Some places of the economy is looking to pick up in certain parts of the Country. The economy in the Northwest states is looking to be going up this year than further down. Forget about housing sales, people staying and more people are still moving into the area from the hard hit areas of the Country. Look at the Northwest in guiding the US out of the downturn.
idrobinhood 2 years ago
we are recovering? Sam's club will lay off 11000 jobs....thats recovering? where are you from?
nyznicca 2 years ago
Wow, that's a lot. No Sam's club in my regional area. But two more Wal-mart super centers opening up this year. With a Winco in a year or so.
I really don't see the Republicans and Democrats doing anything to solve the problems. I'm heading the direction of the Modern Whig Party and go more centrist. I don't trust and like the founders. But for more of a Centrist central government.
idrobinhood 2 years ago
I am here in the great Pacific Northwest and the real estate market is still falling. Has been since 2006. There won't be a recovery-that's not part of the plan -just more Fabian tactics and a further spiral down. Maybe after it all crashes we will fix it.
OsamaBinForgotten2 2 years ago
House prices have no fallen like most places in the Nation. In the Spokane and CDA area prices are still way above $100,000. When prices for the same houses back in 2004 was more like the average was $88,000 for the same houses at $120,000 today. There's no more turnarounds like in the past. But people should not rely on turnarounds on house sales in the first place. Property is still way above what it should be for the downturn.
idrobinhood 2 years ago
marniespeaks
The reason is simple, because he knows history, and Libertarians do not get elected.
The main thing is GET IN.
2Zaptos 2 years ago 2
too late
marniespeaks 2 years ago
the federal government is your ally. The banks thrive when you don't trust your flag and instead trust bank of america's flag of greed. Never back down and kill all bankers.
ihavestage4coolness 2 years ago
which makes me ask the question if you want government out why are you running as a Republican rather than a Libertarian?
Philosophically and morally it makes no sense
marniespeaks 2 years ago
@marniespeaks What is wrong with running as a Republican? The true conservatives were the Republicans. It is just that Republicans today are not true conservatives. So Peter is going to claim the true spirit of what Republicans used to be. He is taking the party back from the Neocons.
farhadcoyote 2 years ago 2
He's contributing and taking, but mostly contributing, to this corrupt party.
This Republican appointed court just killed The Republic. These rich elite can buy and sell anyone now.
There's no taking this party back just like there's no taking the Democrats back
they are all bought and sold by big corps on Wall Street.
Now more than ever do we need for individuals to stand on principle, not money.
marniespeaks 2 years ago
@marniespeaks So what are u suggesting? Should we give up? I believe in Peter schiff.
farhadcoyote 2 years ago
believe in?
giving up... well that's a tough one seeing we just lost the Republic and well on our way to a Plutocracy.
Moral character and high principles are needed more now than ever.
Supporting either party is at best counter productive
marniespeaks 2 years ago
@marniespeaks So what are you doing writing comments here? You are criticizing but you are not offering a course of action. I realize doing nothing is an "action" too. But staying quiet only will encourage the "plutocracy". I am going to continue supporting people like Peter Schiff. What are you going to do?
farhadcoyote 2 years ago
I expected more outrage after the decision by SCOTUS.
I was expecting a revolution, what I'm discovering is people like to be slaves to corporations and will continue to contribute and support the two crooked parties that destroyed the nation.
With gobs of cash being tossed into our political system by corporations Peter doesn't have a chance
He should have run on principles rather then greed
marniespeaks 2 years ago
correct and Bernanke Greenspan Paulson Geithner needs to be arrested
marniespeaks 2 years ago
@marniespeaks On what charges?
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
treason
marniespeaks 2 years ago
Obama wants to force banks to lend money, so if the Gov. takes the profit from trading it forces the banks to make risky loans to make up the profit they are no longer making from trading.
hardscaperx 2 years ago
Obama may want to force them but he cant.
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
it sounds complicated because that's the tool they use. It's completely temporary the truth banks spit at us. Stand up and fight and watch as you fight a rotten slug shell to the ground. Dumbasses like this feel good. haha. too big to fail? aahahaha die banks.
ihavestage4coolness 2 years ago
Congress are the bad guys.
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
who cares if your creditors (china)won't lend you money any more ,it just means you collapse and bring the world down with you ,and ww3 begins that's all .
spectre1929 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have lost faith in what he says. May be I will never again waste time watching his videos too. But good content to use, I mean words to impress people and have different opinion compared to other people, some people like to show they have different opinion while talking about economy etc.
MunnaOwais 2 years ago
Comment removed
MunnaOwais 2 years ago
Comment removed
MunnaOwais 2 years ago
Peter is absolutely wrong: Who cares if China will increase interest rates. Who cares if China won't lend us any more. There are plenty of Dollars elsewhere in the world. If China won't lend us money we can always borrow Dollars from Zimbabwe. I know my argument won't make sense to you, but I bet I could ind plenty of Congressmen, and Senators who would gladly endorse my argument, just as long as they could continue their reckless spending!
farhadcoyote 2 years ago
The increase in interest rates only affects the Chinese people. What recently happened in China was that China's commercial banks decreased loans to China's people(after a massive increase in china's domestic loans in 2009), that is all. It has nothing to do with China lending money to the US. Nothing at all. It's a totally different issue. Peter Schiff is confusing the two and confusing people that listen to him.
Numonic7 2 years ago
"if the big spenders get their way, they'll charge everything on your tax payers express card, and believe me they NEVER leave home without it" !! Ronald Reagan
FlyingFox1971 2 years ago
Pete's right...can't blame your dog for chewing-up your shoe
uturniaphobic 2 years ago
The nearer Peter gets to the U.S. Senate, the more worthless his economic commentary becomes. Peter Schiff has NO CLUE about what caused the current economic crisis! ZERO. 20,000,000 Illegal Aliens are 'displacing' U.S. Workers from JOBS, which means 20,000,000 Americans are also 'displacing' even more Americans from JOBS; killing the U.S. Consumer/Tax Base. NAFTA has shipped our manufacturing base overseas, but Mr. Schiff ignores the real 'causes' and focuses all attention on the 'symptoms. ...
Terral03 2 years ago
@Terral03 The myth of "displacing jobs" is just too silly to comment. Manufacturing base was destroyed in America through fiscal debauchery, welfare state and reckless monetary pumping. And Peter Schiff was always emphasising this. But the current crisis is strictly monetary in nature and that's where Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains the causes. You'd better get educated on it and fast.
The next crisis will be much more general and all-engulfing.
Arjozof 2 years ago
It would have been quicker to just say:
Government BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD.......
Business GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD
Please
JPHyslop 2 years ago
off to a republican town meeting? poor schiff , he's going to be swallowed up in that fascist movement. who really ever made a deference in the republican or democratic parties any way .
hobieslug45 2 years ago
You mean "this is Thursday" not Monday :)
jeffmoppi 2 years ago
This guy is ABSOLUTELY right! Over regulation by the Fed caused this BS and here they are trying to do it AGAIN!!!! I watched this crap happen when I was in the business, I knew the collapse was coming. There were people who NEVER should have had the loans they were getting ...needless to say I got out and decided to return to school to be a Geologist while I still had time. Happy I did because everyone I knew are standing in unemployment lines now.
sweetbilly 2 years ago 3
man i gotta get some sleep.
Numonic7 2 years ago
Yes now here's what I want to know. Are you, Schiff and others that take this line also willing to mention that destruction of Glass-Steagall was a component to the problem as well? Also, we would do well to look at the 62.5 to 1 leverage ratio allowed by the World Bank on AAA rated securities. I don't see ANYONE talking about this, even though former world bank director mentions it emphatically on Dailymotion and his blog as a primary cause.
EvanWells1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ aurahimage84
wow i can't believe youtube hasn't deleted that nude video of yourself you have up
btw you are a very good looking woman!
biglick0007 2 years ago
Hello Mr.Schiff, please don't delete my comment. Be nice. I emailed small businesses in Connecticut about you as a candidate. Nothing negative. I emailed links to your twitter, facebook, your mortgage banker speech video, and your youtube channel. Is that ok with you? I think it's needed other than your little phone book thing you got going, because people don't want to be annoyed with miscellaneous phone calls. Don't delete me, be nice Mr.Schiff.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
Before the partial repeal of the GlassSteagall Act in 1999, the number of sub-prime loans was only 5% of all loans, while in 2008 that same number had reached 30%. But wait! The Federal Reserve existed before "Financial Services Modernization Act" and there was little or no problem with sub-prime loans. The CRA merely stated that the banks HAD to offer loans to individuals who COULD pay the loan back. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall act lead to the banks being able to sell debt.
agharta788 2 years ago
Could pay the loan back based on what? income or being able to get a loan from somewhere else to pay the current loan coming due? If it's the latter then it is the banks themselves that determine whether someone is sub-prime or not as they are the ones that control whether you can get a loan or not. If a man with no job could continue to get loans would he be considered a sub-prime borrower? no, because he will always be good for the money because he could keep borrowing to pay coming due debt
Numonic7 2 years ago
Are there examples of individuals borrowing without any restrictions? If so, then that contradicted the CRA and was illegal. The banks did that, not the government.
agharta788 2 years ago
banks were always able to sell debt, if banks could not sell debt banks would not be able to get enough Federal Reserve Notes to meet depositors demand for cash withdrawals except through depositors who deposit FRNs and we all know how rare that happens as most people get paid with checks or electronic deposit. The # of sub-prime loans is based on how easy banks are lending, the easier banks are lending the less sub-prime loans there will be, and no i do not have that backwards.
Numonic7 2 years ago
Yes, but not to dummy corporations or ignorant companies or individuals across state lines. Before the repeal, such actions were controlled by the regulatory regime of the federal and state apparatuses.
agharta788 2 years ago
You're probably confusing "selling debt" with "making loans to consumers or businesses". In the discussion with daniel987878 and I, I have discussed the difference. Sure in the past their were restrictions with lending to consumers and businesses, just like China was doing just before it started emerging a year ago or like US was doing right before the roaring 20's or like right now but banks always sold debt amongst each other and did so to keep enough legal tender available in bank's vaults.
Numonic7 2 years ago
No, no I am not. The banks bundled and sold bad debt to stupider companies, across state borders. It is a fact. It is the result of anti-regulatory ideology. It is your fault.
agharta788 2 years ago
When the banks "sold bad debt" as you put it they were considered good loans. Who considered them good loans? Freddie and fannie may and thats who bought them. Who set the criteria for considering them good loans? Congress.
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
Well they were in fact good loans at the time because payments on them were being made. It wasn't until the banks cut off the easy credit spiggot that the loans went sour. It's a ponzi scheme controlled by the banks, the banks are the one's that control whether debts are able to be paid or not because they control loans and in this ponzi scheme economy debts are paid with borrowed money. Take the ability to borrow money away and debts will not be paid.
Numonic7 2 years ago
@Numonic7 Sorry but they were never good loans because they did not conform to standard banking practices. The loans were made to freddy and fannie specifications that were imposed on them by the congress in order to make housing more avalible to the masses. This is why congress should not try and control the banks they are not bankers. Sure the banks new they were risky that is why they did not hold them. banks only made them so they could get the transaction fees.
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
If I do not have a job but I continue to find a bank that will loan me the money I need to pay down the loan I got from another bank, it wouldn't be a risk to loan me money. And that is only because I could always find a bank to lend me money to pay down debts from other banks. It's only when I can't find a bank to loan me the money that I become a risk to loan money to. So you don't have to have a job or salary to be considered a Prime borrower, it all depends on how easy banks are lending.
Numonic7 2 years ago
LOL What??? If you have plenty of collateral to borrow against you dont need a job. If you have no job and no collateral no bank will loan you money (unless you lie and they dont catch it).
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
The collateral was the house that went up in price with more and more mortgages that were made. The more mortgages that were made, the more houses that were bought and taken off the market and we all know how supply and demand works, less supply causes prices to rise. So the banks have control over the value of the collateral and as soon as they slowed the expansion of credit and mortgages house prices stopped rising and left people with no collateral to borrow against and loans defaulted.
Numonic7 2 years ago
So you think the banks want loans to default???
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
Yes, the banks want loans to default so that the value of the assets they sold to the Fed can drop. The banks NEED the value of those assets they sold to the Fed to drop because if the value of those assets rise above what they sold it to the Fed for, when the Fed goes to sell those assets back to the banks, the banks will have to pay more for the assets than what they sold it for and the banks don't have enough cash to do that which is why they went to the Fed in the first place.
Numonic7 2 years ago
Now im sure you are yankin my chain. Thats so wrong.
See ya
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
It's a short sell, that's all it is. The banks sold the assets to the Fed with a plan to buy them back in the future. Now tell me if you sold something to someone but planned on buying it back in the future, would you want the price of that thing to go up before you buy it back or down before you buy it back? It's a simple question and the answer is down. Plus the banks wouldn't go to the Fed in the first place if they didn't need the cash.
Numonic7 2 years ago
Monday was the 18th not the 21st. Hmmm.. wonder what other things he got wrong ?
luwdmke 2 years ago
anyone know if wall street unspun was on this week?
ILovelisanova 2 years ago
This guy doesn't even know what fucking day it is.
shalcall 2 years ago
Monday?
creekesl 2 years ago
The US$/Yuan peg and the set rate of this peg is what determines the value of the Yuan compared to the US$ NOT the commercial bank interest rates/how much banks are lending. There was no mention of peg movement with the rise of commercial bank interest rates, do not confuse the two. If the peg stays flat, there is no way to profit from moving to either currency because you might as well call Yuan US dollars because they are pegged, regaurdless of how bank interest rates move. Know that.
Numonic7 2 years ago
Banks that receive the Fed Funds rates should not be able to participate in highly speculative markets. When the Fed lowers rates, the intention is to get capitol flowing into the markets. Speculation on low interest money causes spikes in the commodities being speculated in. The example I am thinking of is the oil runup of 2008. Oil hit it's peak about 10 months after the Fed began lowering rates to spur growth. Creating hyper inflation in the markets should not be the goal of lower rates.
YourIntertainment 2 years ago
FALSE AND ERRONEOUS!!! The supply of Federal Reserve Notes in a bank has nothing to do with how much a bank is lending BECAUSE BANKS DO NOT LEND FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES, LOANS ARE DONE ELECTRONICALLY. STOP FALLING FOR THE LIE. Do you really want to know what the "bailouts" were for? The banks needed physical cash to meet depositors demand for physical cash. That is all physical cash is used for, ATMs and cash withdrawals. It has no bearing on bank loans being made.
Numonic7 2 years ago
Banks lend funds electronically which are the same as fed notes. Fed notes are created to support physical transaction demand but most transactions are done electronically for convenience not because electronic money is any different to physical notes.
daniel987878 2 years ago
I agree but that creates a problem for the banks because banks then rarely get physical cash deposits and so their vault cash would run out if it's only source of physical cash were from depositors. So a solution is that banks take electronic assets and trade them to other commercial banks or the Federal Reserve for physical cash. This is how physical cash circulates in the system because physical cash is rarely moved by citizens, the banks have to move it themselves and do so with assets.
Numonic7 2 years ago
Their vault cash cant run out because all they need to do is ask the fed for notes and they get them as long as they have the money which is recorded electronically.
The electronic register of cash is equal to a fed note but most transactions are done electronically only for convenience.
An electronic deposit is the same as fed notes but just for convenience you only have the notes required for the public to use (otherwise physical storage is an unnecesary added cost).
daniel987878 2 years ago
You see that's false, the bureau of engraving and printing can print the cash but a single entity can only do so much. The BEP can only print as fast as the printing machines it has can print and as fast as the cash can be moved around the nation. And what most people fail to realize is that the demand for physical cash although dwarfed by the demand for electronic money, outpaces the supply of physical cash which is why the banks are selling assets to the Fed and increasing the monetary base.
Numonic7 2 years ago
The demand for physical cash may be outdoing the supply but I dont see the relevance of selling other assets and how that will change anything.
The monetary base is increasing because of the so called liquidity trap (fed reducing rates and QE programs combined with the banks not passing new funds towards lending).
The commercial banks in order to be able to supply public with extra physical cash just need to request from the FRB and they will get it. They dont need to sell securities.
daniel987878 2 years ago
Not true, in order for commercial banks to get physical cash from the FRB, it must give the FRB something in exchange. Sayin "banks not passing new funds towards lending" doesn't make any sense because most if not all lending is done electronically not with physical cash. The fed reducing rates and QE programs are HOW the monetary base is increasing but that is not the REASON the monetary base is increasing. The only logical reason to create more Fed Notes is because there is a demand for it.
Numonic7 2 years ago
In order for banks to get fed funds they need to provide collateral like US bonds to the fed. These funds they get are registered electronically and are never physical paper notes. If the banking system requires paper notes for customers or to keep in vaults then they request from fed at a later time. Afterwards when they get these physical notes they dont exchange for anything because its money they already had before that was recorded electronically and now is recorded on pieces of paper.
daniel987878 2 years ago
Fed funds are legal tender, legal tender is only physical not electronic. I agree with the first part that banks need to provide collateral like US bonds, but any kind of bank asset is collateral whether that me mortgage backed securities or car loan assets or whatever loan the banks made and everywhere I read says that Fed Funds are definitive money, which is physical cash, legal tender. Your checking account is not legal tender or definitive money, only Federal Reserve Notes are.
Numonic7 2 years ago
The electronic records are records of fed notes and can be converted to paper notes on demand. The currency isnt printed because noone needs to ands it better not to because its easier. Should anybody which owns fed notes require them printed then this can be immediately done. Like when people say printing money but nothing is actually printed, its just electronically created for convenience sakes. It is still recognised as physical though.
daniel987878 2 years ago
People misuse the term "printing money" because back when the legal tender was gold coins, credit was expanded through the printing of gold certificates or bank notes, today the legal tender is cotton and linen paper and credit is expanded electronically.
Numonic7 2 years ago
The complaints about the govt. printing too much money today is equivalent to people in the early 1900's complaining about the govt. minting too many gold coins. But just because cotton and linen is more abundant than gold and silver doesn't mean that the govt. can print as many Federal Reserve Notes as they want as fast as they want. The problem isn't what the legal tender is made of it's the fact that the burden to produce it is on one central entity and that is too much burden for one.
Numonic7 2 years ago
Electronic funds are included in the monetary base. Think of it this way as technology progressed it became more simple, cheaper and safer just to have things electronically recorded than on heaps of pieces of paper.
daniel987878 2 years ago
No electronic funds are not part of the monetary base. Electronic funds are m1 and m2 and m3, m0 is just physical money. I understand that it is more convenient to use credit, I'm just saying we still use physical in some cases.
Numonic7 2 years ago
Deposits at the fed are just electronically tracked. They dont go to the effort of printing up all the notes. Its called notes and coin but the notes and coin arent there.
daniel987878 2 years ago
Well yeah they are electronically tracked because in order for the banks to get the physical cash from the Fed, they had to give the Fed electronic assets. You have to check out the Bureau of Engraving and Printing's website, they tell you how much physical currency has been printed. It is actual printed notes and minted coins. They are there.
Numonic7 2 years ago
Banks get cash from the fed by borrowing it. When they get the cash they dont get physical notes they just get it credited to them electronically. The BEP prints money but this money isnt given to the banks to fulfil all the OMO's. Unless they specifically request this.
To get physical cash banks dont have to give electronic assets. They just have to claim it and the electronic record shows they have title to it. Nothing is exchanged.
daniel987878 2 years ago
is he a zombie?
MrTrueConservative 2 years ago
Fed Funds are physical cash. Commercial banks get the physical cash from the Federal Reserve through the Fed Funds transactions and the Federal Reserve gets the cash from the BEP in which the Fed pays the BEP the cost to produce the physical cash. It doesn't make sense for the bailouts to be electronic money when the banks can create electronic money themselves and only need the Fed for physical cash.
Numonic7 2 years ago
The electronic records are physical. If an owner of an electrnoic records needs a note then he can have it but the banking system would be hindered if every transaction required truckloads of notes coming and going all day to and through banks.
daniel987878 2 years ago
Granted I don't see an increase in Brinks Armored trucks on the roads but the physical cash is moving around as there are ATMs all over the country and banks all over the country. Every transaction does not require physical cash, i said only a fraction does but even that fraction has become a burden on the physical cash supply.
Numonic7 2 years ago
The banks cannot create funds electronically unless they get the deposits first from the public and then through fractional reserve lending.
daniel987878 2 years ago
This is where I disagree because if reserves are the deposits you make to the bank then fractional reserve banking would mean that when you look at your account balance on the computer you will only see a fraction of your account listed because the bank would have given away the other part of it. The definition of deposit is sketchy here because when I deposit a check to the bank it's considered a deposit but that check is not part of reserves, in fact my account is a liability to the bank.
Numonic7 2 years ago
When you deposit say 100 into your bank the bank owes you 100 (liability) and has 100 of money (asset). Then it lends 90 out (under 10% rr) against 90 collateral (asset) and that 90 enters another bank and money supply expands that way. The other 10 is reserve. Its a rubbish system.
The money you give to bank a certain portion is kept in reserve and the rest lent out.
daniel987878 2 years ago 2
Okay, i just realized when you deposit your check in a bank, you are creating both an liability and an asset for the bank, i used to think it was just a liability, not realizing that a check is an asset. So there is a money pool from which loans are made. I see now. But then what pool of money does the Fed take from? How does the Fed create money besides the physical cash it gets from the BEP? Where is the money the Fed has coming from to buy assets if it is not the physical money?
Numonic7 2 years ago
@Numonic7 The fed sells bonds to raise money.
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
The FED doesnt take from any pool of money because they dont have any restrictions. They just create money as they see fit. The BEP is just an agency of the federal reserve and print ups whatever notes are requested by the Fed on behalf of the banking system.
The electronic records created by the fed is the same as the ink record on the federal reserve notes. So the electronic register of money the fed creates is physical money.
daniel987878 2 years ago
Although, It still makes more sense to me that the Fractional Reserve System refers to the physical cash supply, it fits perfectly with the reasoning that physical cash is only used in a small number of transactions, therefore banks are only required to keep a small fraction of it. At the end of the day, the check isn't what's being loaned out, the banks electronically type the $ amount of loans it wants to make so it's still questionable if there is a pool of money from which loans are made.
Numonic7 2 years ago
@Numonic7 A check is not money it is a request to transfer money.
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
The fact that loans are done electronically is proof that there is no money pool from which loans are made. As long as the bank has a working computer and network, it can type in a $ amount as large as it wants regardless of it's assets b/c the assets are NOT what are being lent out. Unless you want to make the argument that you trust that banks will not electronically lend more than they get in assets, and come to think about it, that's contradictory in itself because a bank loan is an asset.
Numonic7 2 years ago
@Numonic7 Banks can and do loan more than their assets but are limited by the reserve amount set by the fed.
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
banks can't possibly loan more than their assets being that every loan is an asset.
Numonic7 2 years ago