because everyone would lose their saving and pensions if the banking system fails. Which is worse having a corrupt banking system or no banking system
We put in the loans - They HAD crappy assets, they wouldnt NEED loans unless they had crappy assets- STUPID.
Most businesses that took TARP and have/are paying them back.
The ones that took the most TARP and paid NOTHING back - in face they asked for more. We became partners with as well and now have a vested interest n 4+ TRILLION in bad assets. Guess who = FANNIE AND FREEDDIE !!
So why blame Wallstreet who at least pays things back?
If I could speak with President Obama, my advise would be, either become a Warrior, relative to domestic policies, or get ready for war. The cards are so horrible stacked against the American people, that force, though hopefully not armed force, is the only way to get the government back on track. As long as we allow the greed and corruption, it will go on. The only way to stop it is by extreme force. Though again, I hope that doesn't come to military force, but if it must, it must.
The problem is that every federal agency has become a shill of the corporation. The SEC doesn't protect investors, it act as an agent to protect the investment firms. The FDA are agents for the Pharmaceutical companies. The FTC in the pocket so corporations. FCC agents for big telecommunications companies. BTA is knowingly allowing arm to be sent to Mexico, so they are not protecting out national interests at all. Congress is corrupted. The President is powerless, or gutless. Who represents ME?
People the crash that happen was perdicted along time ago people rised red flag they we told to shut up and that they didnt know what they were talking about. Quess what they were right it happened. They also said this was just the start agian you see that happening as time goes on. The start of this goes well past the bush era it spans dem and rep presidents. You have more and more insiders saying we are in trouble but yet it seems you dont hear about it or they are blown off. Wake up peeps
inevitably happen anyways. But, what do you think the big banks want (who've donated hundreds of millions to politicians)--to go under or have society suffer the losses while they stay rich? And what did end up happening? It should be readily apparent who owns our gov't.
Writing something on a piece of paper doesn't change the Laws of Nature. What a horrible world we'd live in if that were possible.
Buying toxic assets keeps their prices overpriced when the correction that is needed is for those prices to come back down to reality. That's why the banks are insolvent is because they can't sell those assets at that price. If the market wasn't interfered with, the prices would naturally come down and a portion of the financials would go under and reform. If, instead, we the Fed buys those assets at the bank-preferred price, we socially-collateralize and magnify the losses which will
This is no longer a recession. In some dictionaries a recession is defined as lasting from 6 months to a year. We're well over a year now.
Can we stop listening to these guys? Stiglitz, Galbraith, Keynes, even Freidman were all wrong, have little to no predictive power in their theories. How many times do they have to call it wrong before we abandon this failed economic school?
Altho I too blame the Fed for what it does, i think extorting taxes for interest is NOT one of those things.
Fed refund all T-bill interest to US Treasury.
Fed helps 'organize' private commercial banks so they can charge 5% 20% 30% etc. Maybe you don't have consumer debt. Maybe your house is F & C. But every commodity and service is laden with interest charges in supply mfg and dist chain, a private "VAT tax".
Govt pays interest to private T-bill holders, they do not refund interest.
what the hell does that mean. i wasnt asking you what 2008 republican you supported for president. what did you support huckabee for, governer, TV host, what. i dont know if you know this but huckabee wasnt president in the last 8 years.
Where are you morons going now that Obama is in office? Meaningful political opinions don't go anywhere depending on who's in office... That's why I like principled politicians like Ron Paul who criticizes both administrations equally.
But unfortunately the EPA is another billion dollar industry for people who want hand-outs. What can they do that state and local governments can't deal with?
Ron Paul is not an anarchist. Far from it, in fact. He supports the Constitution which protects rights with the force of law. Kucinich supports too many big government programs that attack individual rights.
EPA attacks your individual rights? Hand outs?? like what? clean water and air?
you righties are INSANE. What's next? government run police and fire departments are attacking our individual rights?
get off the crack pipe. Pure capitalism is just as big of a disaster as communism. It is not about all government or no government, it is about the right balance between the too.
Your problem is that you attribute clean water and air to the EPA. I suppose before the EPA was created that we all died of typhoid fever or e. coli? States could have easily, and did effectively deal with these things before (another 'righty') Nixon signed the EPA into law.
I wouldn't compare the EPA to some Soviet equivalent, and I also don't think that the EPA is a priority right now. I am more disappointed in institutions like Fannie and Freddie, the IRS, the Fed, Homeland Security, etc.
Pure capitalism gave us individual liberties and a thriving economy capable of feeding and housing hundreds of millions of people... Communism gave us... ummm... Well, some charismatic leaders who 'accidentally' starved millions and forced hundreds of millions more to suffer in poverty. If you want to equate these two, I suppose in a free market of ideas you're allowed to do so.
The extent that the 'capitalism' you speak of ruins lives is the extent to which the government inhibits freedoms.
When did Ron Paul say there should be 'no government'? If you can find a quote and the context where he said this, I'd be happy to reconsider. But I'm pretty sure he would rather put government back into its rightful place, which is at the mercy of individual rights, not eliminate it.
If you really want to know what Ron Paul is about, maybe you should reread your Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and ease up on the Greenpeace, Karl Marx, Naomi Klein, or whatever anti-individual literature.
Oh, and also stop thinking that FDR was some sort of hero... Between him and Hoover we had some of the worst economic policies ever introduced. This is why I get worried when people think that Obama might be the next FDR... That would be the worst possible outcome if he emulated FDR in any way.
I encourage you to look more into Ron Paul, particularly what he would substitute for EPA regulations. He isn't a BP sell out. The market can protect the environment if private property rights are enforced.
If you rely on gov't to protect the environment, you can bet the house the regulatory committee will be bought out by the regulated corporations. Gov't only grants monopolies to those who can grease its palms. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Wake up; look around you. All that has happened happened under gov't's watch. You think that was an accident?
Wow. So you're saying a=b; and c, if it supports b, is equal to b. Your comment lacks courage. I don't even know what you believe in so that I can also use some lame trick to say that you're insane.
I'm pretty sure Ron is one of the only sane people in DC, so maybe we can start with you naming some people that make sense in DC. Also, why they make sense. Then we can have meaningful discussion.
Really, one of the most sane people in DC? Yeah i hear wanting to teach creationism in school is a good thing that Obama should implement right now. Or thinking that just going back to the gold standard will fix everything and fix inflation.
Oh and everyone loves a racist! He's a clear racist, but hey, racists know everything.
Ok, take a deep breath... And first, find me one Ron Paul quote or vote that is racist.
Second, Ron Paul wants to abolish the Department of Education, so how he would teach creationism through an abolished federal department is beyond me. (hint: he's pro-homeschooling, not a favourite of mine, but at least he's not trying to teach my kids anything).
Lastly, explain to me why the gold standard was so inadequate. And don't tell me because then we couldn't have a 3 trillion dollar deficit.
Paul has referenced MLK in several ways in a favourable manner... Where did you get these quotes? Quotes usually come with sources... I'd honestly like to check these out, so please tell me where they came from.
Ok, I looked them up, and it turns out these are the same quotes people used against him before... The fact is he never wrote any of them. Also, some are out of context. Eg:
MLK day, this was an argument, not made by Ron Paul, against having federal holidays for anybody, not just black civil rights leaders.
The 95 percent of the black males quote... Do you know anything about D.C? It was in response to a Justice Department study saying that 85% of all black males had been arrested in DC.
The "fleet-footed" quote was from the same article... I don't like defending these quotes. I don't agree with the way they were written nor their content. However, none of them were written by Ron Paul. Please try again.
Paul has openly criticized these quotes saying that he never talks like that, never makes personal attacks, and never criticizes groups of people unless they are getting unfair handouts from the government.
Please get some real Ron Paul quotes. Maybe you'll learn something.
I saw a photo of RP shaking hands with KKK leader in Mich. Guy is precinct delegate, so it's possible RP didn't know guy was KKK. Could you ask him, please?
Jefferson and Lincoln did not argue for Gold (which restricts money expansion and causes dollar inflation, chokes business), but opposed Ham's PRIVATE corporation central bank. Fed Bankers argued they can't trust Congress w public central bank (per Constitution!), due to "politics" aka We The People, demanded ANTI-democratic bank.
There is a strange breed of racist libertarian/constitutionalists out there, and some have donated monies to the RP campaign. However, I think it's fallacious to then say that RP is racist because of this.
Lincoln invented the greenback, so I'm not surprised he was anti-gold. And I agree, the Congress should not be allowed to print money either. Money is a commodity, so trade it like any other commodity on the free market. Why do we need an overlord to set the price?
Michael Hudson connected the dots in just a sideways word that "THE GOVERNMENT" at least in the US is really John Q. Public. That's not some "overlord". That's WE the People.
Zarlenga points out that Money is NOT a commodity and he explains why, but you have to be willing to see. Money, when successful, has always been a public good defined in Law, and NOT a private good. Practically, ... contin
Practically, it comes down to a couple choices. Obvs, EVERYONE cannot create "money" as "legal tender".
If EVERYONE can't create it, then ONLY Govt-LICENSED banks could.
Sensible is WE create it, via OUR Reps who SERVE us.
Gold is commodity. Money not.
In past, "gold was dug up then placed back underground in basement vaults in NY". Gold incompat w modern commerce, but Fed/Banks is wrong solutn to chaotic private FR banking of 1800s.
I like your viewpoint, Dilbertgeg :) It seems we both agree that the FR is bad. Now you're saying that WE the people can control money supply through congress, and I simply do not trust congress enough to print money. It wasn't the Federal Reserve that created all these big government programs, it was Congress. If you give them a printing press, there's no indication that they will cut spending to preserve the value of the dollar.
Why not skip the middle-man? Money can and has been created by private businesses in the past. It still is a commodity, even though you make an interesting argument to the contrary... It is a unique commodity in that anyone will accept it for almost anything else. But it is a commodity nonetheless and is subject to forces of supply and demand. If supply goes up (money expansion) then value/price goes down. Same with demand, with more production demand goes up and the price/value goes up.
@reefpirate Im not gonna re-write Zarlenga or Ellen Brown who are similar. Congress *can* create money and NOT be usurious. No profit. Sure, they could print too much or not enuf, but the whole point of Cong "privatizing" it to Fed was to remove democratic popular input on monetary policy and foreign pol. They said so in 1913, and Geithner said that in 2008.
It's idiocy imo to try commerce in gold bars and ship them via FedEX. When private banks issued "notes" many cheated too. Was unstable.
@dilbertgeg During the 19th century, the purchasing power of the US Dollar, which was redeemable in gold, actually increased. In the 20th century, the century where we were finally 'freed' from the 'chains of the gold standard', the purchasing power of the dollar has plummeted. Just ask my grandma, who used to buy a chocolate bar for a few pennies. I can't find one that's not on sale for less than a dollar now. Of course gold restricts money expansion... that's a good thing. It preserves value.
@reefpirate Gold std preserves value, but clamps hard growth & expansion. Ppl used to *melt* gold coins when commodity mkt value was above face.
Prices are higher now, yet wages are higher. It's relative. Disparity in wage/price is mostly policy of anti-labor outsourcing + govt cartels.
FedRes *did* help banks and corps build overseas for more profit, wage wars on competition, so yr correct that Fed indirectly causes US poverty. Mild compared to loan-sharking 3rd world people like Mexico.
I couldn't help it, one more: This is from the president of the Austin, TX branch of the NAACP, and friend of Paul's for 20 years:
"I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.
Private banking debt was transferred to national debt.
nothing to do with "folks" taking out mortgages
no more than $150 oil last year was because demand suddenly tripled compared to supply
Oil Contracts were bid up 27 times on average before retail.
Bundled Mortgages with fraudulent AAA ratings were re-packaged and used as collateral by investors to borrow more, to buy more mortgages, then massive leveraged short selling
But who was co-signing the mortgages? The big fed was with Fannie and Freddie, and other programs meant to get more poor people into loaning money for houses they couldn't afford.
If free-markets are to blame, then the government, along with the fed and their easy money, are equally if not two or three times, or more, to blame.
The debt is catching up to us, folks, but no politician wants to say the party is over.
Nomi Prins, formerly of Goldman-Sachs and worked @ Citigroup when she was 19. She explains very well, in print and interviews.
The Rich bought houses they could not afford, to flip them. Poor bought houses told they could re-fi in 2 years when value went up.
But Prins explains how Banks/Investors PILED layers and layers of DEBT on top of mortgages they knew were trash but rated AAA. Derivatives mkt is 1000s times larger than total mortgages, but no underlying value.
contin) Deregulated Banks and unreg Hedge Funds bet on known trash w credit, used trash "assets" as collateral, spent OUR MONEY -- like gambling addict owing his bookie.
But they are powerful. They own the track and horses. Paulson, Geithner, other high positions in Govt Finance. Rigged so they could pocket quick profits, then dump inevitable losses on govt.
Obama 'enabled' them, true, but Wall St top dogs vetted Obama to serve THEM. O's doing a great job -- for them! Record profits. Dig?
I dig. It's a cartel, between the state and the big banks. Banks haven't been free-market for almost a century, even more. If banks were free-market entities they would have shied away from so much risk in these derivatives. Why did they take the risk? Government safeguards like the FDIC, cheap money from an inflationary FR, as well as Fannie and Freddie underwriting 50% of the mortgages. You take away those three things, and you wouldn't have the financial crisis that we have today.
How would they pick and choose which assets to give us? I thought the whole problem was that we can't figure out which ones are good and which are bad and whats what.
The problem was that banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, and anyone else who wanted to, skirted regulations and were allowed to create and bundle essentially worthless securities and resell them over and over again.
You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that "low-income buyers" could even run up $10 trillion dollars of debt.
Of course low-income buyers couldn't run up those kinds of debts... But governments sure could. Where do you think the banks get all their 'liquidity'? Why do people even bother talking about the Fed and their open or closed window? The Federal Reserve let these banks run wild, along with other brilliant programs leftover from the New Deal like the FDIC. If banks were forced to be accountable to markets, ie. laissez-faire, rather than accountable to the Fed, we never would have had this problem.
I was once duped into believing Fed's bullshit that they are a govt agency. Wrong. They are 12 Private interlinked banks. Greenspan said they ANSWER TO NO ONE. Bernanke refused to answer Congress, ignored Bloomberg.
Banks CREATE LIQUIDITY by writing loans.
Fed performs for it's shareholders, and then only to majors and friends. Private commerc banks buy Fed stock. GOVT DOES NOT CONTROL THE FED. MONEY wrote the rules. They appointed Obama (really). They chose Bush for his cowboy persona.
There is a difference, and maybe you should contemplate and examine what the difference is.
I'll give you a hint to get started: When workers strike, complain, and harass people to get higher wages, what they really want is more profit. Profit being more money made for time/labour spent. Every rational person on this planet is a profit-seeker because that is how you eat food and wear clothes.
Extortionists and war-mongers are more rare and specialized.
Yes, that is the reality of it. But what's the alternative? Let the banks, GM, Chrysler, etc., fail and lose a ton more jobs - and possibly risk a depression?
Yea the taxpayers are getting screwed, as usual, but hopefully we'll get two things in return. That we'll be able to pull out of this recession soon, and that the financial industry will be properly regulated so this can't happen again.
@MrGovtCheese The horses are out sure... We've tried spending gov't billions on the problem. Hasn't really gotten us anywhere. 'Lose a ton more jobs'? Sure, fine. We've already lost 8 million jobs since the "recession" hit. And we're showing no signs of getting them back despite billions and trillions of dollars. Not just taxpayer dollars, but dollars created for no good reason other than to bail-out these failed banks. Let them fail. They should all be fired, Geithner included.
@MrGovtCheese You made this quote a year ago. Are you happy with all the jobs that we didn't lose, or gained, from bailing out all these institutions? Jobless recovery is no recovery at all.
This is no longer a recession. In some dictionaries a recession is defined as lasting from 6 months to a year. We're well over a year now.
Idiot conservative constantly rant about Socialism. What's happening here is not socialism. Our government is and always have been controlled by American businesses. They ( the capitalist ) are the architects of this plan.
American Democracy in pratice is elite decision and public ratification. The true elites are not liberals, but conservative business men who control multinational corporations that control governments.
Where in my comment did I say that? No, I don't trust the government, despite what party is in control. Presidents, come and go, but the real people in power are silent, and they're the ones who are in control. Obama found this out when he came to power. That's the reason why this healthcare bill is such a tragidy.
everything you said is right, except how Obama "found this out" after the election.
You imply Obama went thru process of Brzezinski/Rockefeller "choosing" him, then Wall St bondholders and bankers vetting him, and he did not know they owned him until after election. O's "no fat cat" speech was theater, just like Bush's cowboy persona and and Christian persona. Staged. Managed. Public relations experts. Psy-warfare. Media. Edward Bernays explained it in 28, Brzezinski in 73.
I'm pretty sure Buffet doesn't know much about politics, and I cringe when he makes comments like this. Does he want the lower class to start fighting back? Next thing you know we'll have a French Revolution on our hands instead of an American one. They were quite different. (And I'm not trying to make a jab at France, they really were quite different).
Buffet's remarks may have been 'reckless' to his class, but he's honest about that anyhow.
You can't even join their clubs w less than $10 million, per NY Times. A handful of hundred-millionaires and billionaires, nowadays mostly finance capital (private tax via interest and fees) is the ruling class, rich class he speaks of. Not small biz and doctors and such.
As Nomi Prins said, they write bonuses on public dime, openly, seemingly wo a worry. They own the confusion box too.
@dilbertgeg I know you're right. This ruling class exists, and I know they're getting away with murder. But I think that both they, and their loudest critics, give themselves too much credit. (no pun intended) They don't control as much as they might think, or as much as the average NWO activist might think they do. I'm just worried that as a result of all this hysteria, and 'self-evidence' going on these days that we'll throw capitalism away. That would be sad and DEstructive.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
let ALONE what they say just teh name of this t.v media/ news program is JUST DISGUSTING. The Young Turks where a highly nationalistic group of people including not just Turks and "Turks" but also Free Masons and the Illuminati and others of secret socities. They banned together within their orders of fascism and with thier demonic attitudes began wipping out entire Christian communities mostly of Armenian, Greek, AssyRIAN, Chaldean and Bulgarian descent!! SO low and cruel to even bring the name
Wait, you're serious ShineCity711? But the original Young Turks were kick-ass intellectual elite revolutionaries that had a lot to do with secularizing what was then the Ottoman Empire and bringing about much needed reform that ultimately led to the creation of the modern state of Turkey. I would have been proud to have been among their number. Order and progress, baby!
but somebody has to repay all those sold assets. Not only mortgages and loans but also government bonds.
****Everyone should take the responsibility and pay. taxpayer for not being responsible about the loan they took, banks for giving non- transparent loans and government agencies for not stepping in.
FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON TOO,
FOR STARTING AN INNOCENT PROGRAM that allow all AMERICANS, those who can and can NOT afford a house.
Pretty distressing. Everything Stiglitz says makes sense.
What's odd is that he is I believe a Democrat, and advised Clinton, and I think Obama, at least in the past. And yet he's saying what Geitner (essentially an extension of Obama) is doing, is the opposite of what he'd suggest, and is saying their plans are potentially worse than what Paulson/Bush did!
Cenk says we get nothing in return. But that is not correct. We get JOBS in return! That is the point of the bailout!
IMO, we should let poorly run companies fail and i am against the bailout. But, i just want to clarify that the American people do get something from the plan...they get to keep their jobs.
the true answer to the economic crisis is to do away with capitalism. it breeds inequality from the owner who makes ridiculous amounts of money to the worker who is underpayed when compared to the cost of life (american culture is the example im using) could anyone imagine the problems the world would face if 6.5 billion people lived like just the middle class in america? we would have no trees, oil, ozone layer, planet.
the problem with your critique of captailism is that capitalism is one of the primary reasons that America is the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world! So your solution of doing away with capitalism is like cutting off your head because you have a headache. Capitalism isn't perfect but you don't do away with it is because having it causes temporary hardships. You are absolutely wrong and the American people reject your communist, facist, or whatever ideas.
capitalism isnt the reason why this country is wealthy or powerful. our major exports are weapons and american culture. it has nothing to do with the consumerism that goes on within the country. the country makes money off of other peoples demand to kill each other.
Without a massive domestic market to make a financial foundation, this wouldn't be possible. A free-market is a beautiful thing because it raises the standard of living for everybody. War, cronyism, price-setting, etc. are all negative things are contrary to a free-market.
Capitalism is what made America great, and the absence of capitalism is what is making it very very ugly.
@reefpirate I dont want that the standards of living rise for everybody. If that happened, how was I going to take advantage of my better position? I can go to poor countries and buy young women. They make me happy and I make them happy.
@youcantbeatfacts Well, if it's consensual, then by all means go for it, man. A rise in the standard of living of all people does not mean that you will lose any sense of status. It just means that you have to adapt your status to show that it is better than everyone else. For example, when everyone owns a yacht and has plenty of leisure time, you'll maybe try to own a yacht with a helicopter landing pad on it. These are better things to compete over, rather than who can eat, and who cannot.
@reefpirate hmm. but if my woman owns a yacht already, she may decide to 'skip' me. However, if she is living in a hut then I can come and bring light and hope into her life, always respecting her of course.
@reefpirate to put it more graphically. You should have been in Germany in 1991. You had access to stunning models from central Europe, Slovakian, Tzech girls that you dont even find in the frontpage magazine of Playboy. They were not bitches, they were ordinary women, lawyers, students, etc without a cent in their pockets. Today, you need millions of dollars to just talk to them and probably they will skip you, they have all their basic needs fulfilled.
@youcantbeatfacts I thought I could see your point a little while ago... But now you've lost me. You're talking about Eastern European prostitution? And how it affects an argument in favour of government spending during a 'financial crisis'? You're going to have to guide me a little further, your point is lost on me. Surely you're not implying that prostitution wouldn't happen if the government just spent more money and regulated more often...
@reefpirate precisely when the breakdown of Eastern Europe was realised, you did not need prostitution, like I said, ordinary women but of outstanding beauty were accesible and possible, for marriage, dating etc. As per the stone age and dreams, I am making true things that people just dream about it. You just need to speak Russian and be well off. There is not such a crisis, it is completely a structural collapse. If you can read Spanish my book "Socialist neoliberalism:a product of design"
@youcantbeatfacts You've still lost me. Are we having an argument here? capitalistic macroeconomics... Perhaps I would agree that it's dead, if what we have is capitalistic. It's not. What is hitting 'rock bottom' is the subsidized, rigged, interventionist, protectionist hodge-podge macroeconomics that Mr. Stiglitz in part endorses.
@reefpirate I never have arguments, I dont like the attitude of the word argument itself, it is too confrontational particularly in economics readings. It has to be a deepening into the truth through reasoning.Mr.Stiglitz endorses subsized macro? He was critizing the 700 billion Fed Res bailout. He said banks should have let die and instead bail out home owners because ultimately the "crisis" is on them. Once done that, regulate to avoid that happening again. U have to regulate them.
@reefpirate If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Stiglitz the guy who was complaining that the government didn't do enough spending to ease the recession? I know I can quote him saying that all governments all over the world need to do more 'stimulus'. Basically, if he's in favour of stimulus packages, he's in favour of rigged, subsidized capitalism. I'll have you know, Canada probably did the least amount of 'stimulating' and we're probably doing the best of the G8 in terms of recovery.
@reefpirate In Canada, we're in the best shape in the G8 in terms of recovery, for a very different reason than you're alleging!
We're in better shape, because our banks were PROPERLY regulated in the first place. We never deregulated the way the US, and most other countries did, and therefore our economic fall was much lighter than those countries.
You can avoid turning a $6 billion dollar housing crisis into a $780 billion dollar banking crisis.
@johnedwards1968 Regulations are conservative in Canada, this is true... But I don't think regulations did as much as a keen sense of economic reality.
Nevertheless, the opposition in Canada was having a hissy-fit because we weren't stimulating enough. The opposition got it's stimulus ideas from Keynsians like Stiglitz and Galbraith. We didn't stimulate much, and we're just fine. After the crisis, you would think Keynes would be as bankrupt as Goldman. But they're both still here.
@reefpirate If the EU had had to confine itself to an intra EU market, it would have collapsed two decades ago. Globalization is just the expression that the countdown of capitalistic macroeconomics has touched bottom. Either we retake the African colonies again or we are done. Chinaand Russia were supposed to remain poor but there is none of the sort, nor will they be releasing their thinking force to US universities. Having outsourced production nothing remains in the US or EU. We are done.
@reefpirate Sir, you might want to watch the other video of Dr.Stiglitz right here Market fundamentalism is dead. One of the lecturers there goes" why do you call it equity injection when you should say nationalisation". I was in the UK at the time. RBS, HSBC collapsed and had to be nationalised., it is now run by Civil Servants just like in the USSR in the 70's. The Federal Reserved had to nationalise the banking system. This amounts to a huge bad cynical joke.
i think it will be whole lot easier for the U.S. to set up nation-owned banks from the scratch, pay the private wall/main street banks to transfer the FDIC-insured saving accounts to those new nation-owned banks. In that case, the private wall street banks that have negative equities will be wiped out.
Why the heck do we have to give those banks money to have them lend to families and business as we all know large pct of those money will go to bonuses and luxury conferences?
So basically turn to the companies and say, "if you go under we'll step in and take over. You're existence as a company'll vanish and all you CEOs'll be SOL, but we'll take over the functions, accounts, and such, so the rest of the world won't really notice a change."? Sounds possible (but difficult) at a glance...
Problem though: if I remember my history, we've private banks 'cause of come constitutional restriction or another, so you'll need an amendment with a 2/3rds majority to pass it.
hehe, i don't like communism. moreover, i wish the government had not done anything like artificial low interest rate that "stimulated" the housing bubble. the reality is that we are heading "sort of" socialism anyway. in that case, the last thing we want is that those wall street crooks, who dared to take big bonuses after receiving bailout money, to run the "socialized" banks.
Of course, I don't. I am a fervent supporter of the free market.
But as much as one wishes to confound the two, there is a very clear distinction in the methods, if not the objectives, of socialist democracies and communist dictatorships
@vikramkrishnan free markets do not benefit anyone except capital - its a concentration of power only. you cant trust this fat Jewish man he is a truth agitator.
@vikramkrishnan Capital is already concentrated into two percent who own and control over half of the worlds resources. In where speculation rather than effort are rewarded the results are destructive. No longer is each man feeding himself but those who "own" the plough and the patents for the seeds just get richer without labour.
@vikramkrishnan Agreed. I live in Canada, and I have to face that question every time I think about our national politics. Funny thing is, in arguments I often have to admit that Candian healthcare is quite a bit better than American. But I usually end by saying that Americans don't have free-market health care, and if they actually did, it might be the best thing on the planet.
The plan isn't fair, and it doesn't follow the rules of "normal capitalism," but our capitalist system is about to break down. I don't think Cenk realizes this.
It's not fair, but its necessary. We can't just let the biggest banks in the country fail, which would lead to the loss of over 30% of the countries deposits and an economic apocalypse. Its better that the taxpayers take a trillion dollar hit than have a massive failure of the banking system and possibly, the Union.
Cenk is doing something republicans never did under Bush and that is criticize the policies of the president. We simply don't have that kind of oversight under a republican president because half the country is supportive of any policy as long as it's branded with their party brand.
If Obama keeps this up, WE will throw him under the bus, meanwhile, the republicans will be working on getting sarah palin and joe the plumber in office so that they could fix this disaster with their mad skillz.
Stiglitz is completely WRONG on the economy and Palin is COMPLETELY RIGHT! Stiglitz is Palin's DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCH and PUSSY! Palin is MORE MAN than he is. Stiglitz wears the skirt in his family while his wife wears the pants!
If this is true, I wonder how long Obama will keep Geitner on board?
I couldn't imagine very long, unless Obama has no problems being a one term president. Unlike republicans, dems want results, not feel good party crap.
I would like to hear ALL of the details of Tim's plan though before I pre-judge the dude. If this is what's REALLY being asked of the taxpayer then it's time to let him go.
Barack needs to see through Tim and soon.
Tim is the former President of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Not too sure that that is a "good" thing.
He may be smart... he did graduate from Dartmouth... but which side is he on? Guess we'll find out soon.
Although I hope that Barack finds out sooner than we do.
@Krumbz2003 I think Geithner has already shown what 'side' he is on. And as for Obama hopefully seeing what we already see as obvious... If he hasn't seen it by now, then he probably never will.
People need to realise, that ya Obama might be handsome, intelligent, and kind... But he's an American president just like all the rest of em. He'll get away with what he can get away with.
" You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow"
@johnedwards1968 What did he say in 2006? I would like to hear it, or see it, or read it... Where can I find Stiglitz's prediction?? (i already tried google search)
I dont need to hold no economics training to criticiz Sucklitz, or to know that the deriviatives were gonna cause a major catastrophe. I knew it was gonna happen since 2005. ever heard of Lyndon Larouche?? Peter Schiff??? Mr. Warren Buffet in 2003 talking about the dangers of derivatives as Weapons of financial mass destruction ,warning everyone dont invest in things you dont understand!! 9/11 truth, BITCH!
Why didn't the gov. just pay off $5,000 of every working age adult's debts......not give it straight to the people but directly to the creditors....this would take off much of the consumer debt in the nation, eliminating some citizen's debt totally, or cutting some in half or more....this would open up income for them to invest in home improvements, cars, retail, education, money into the economy, help the books of banks and other lenders, and all for the same money we have used to date.....
Because you will still be paying for it in taxes.... or the government will have to borrow it from another nation... So it makes no sense to do that... beside people will feel that they can do whatever without having to pay back what they owe, just like the banks
why so pessimistic about an idea.......are we a nation of irresponsible people, or the greatest nation on earth? I always hear the comments about how great America is, how it is "center right", and that they can manage their own money not the gov., but since I propose that we put them on a "new footing", you say they will think they can do whatever they want....we are borrowing now......we will have to pay taxes for the bail out anyway....why trust that the banks will help us instead
ummm irresponsible... it shows with this crisis. i don't trust the banks and surly not the average American that is in debt...This is not going to go away any time soon.. if i were you i would buy gold and prepare for the worst
I have invested in gold since 1982, and silver when film cameras still were vogue....you could always tell the price by how the sales of film were (silver nitrate)....I have followed the economy and the market since 1979, so I have seen everything except the depression.....there is too much relliance on laissez-faire economics....we have too many of the very rich that care little about the economy and only about their profit....so we need to open the market but regulate the irresponsible risk
I dont understand why the Govt did not just take property banks the have repossesed or mortgages that have been defaulted on as part collateral payment for the bailout, the property can then turned over charities for homeless families or to turn struggling homeownersinto tenant in their own homes instead of moving into shelters.
The Govt can become landlords and abandoned houses will stop depreciating entire neighborhoods.
we're not a socialist state yet, and yes i'm awake and the coffee was good as ever this morning. i don't agree with the bailout, let failures fail, but saying that since we bailed out the banks, lets take their property as collateral and try to make $ off of it by subsidizing more housing is a very socialist move although in some eyes it might be killing 2 or more birds with one stone. your're literally asking for a big expansion in section 8 housing with the govt as the landlord.
If the bank bailed you out, you would be expected to sign over everything you owned as collateral, they would also insist you utilised all your assets to generate income. Why not apply the same capitalist rules to Wall St.
because everyone would lose their saving and pensions if the banking system fails. Which is worse having a corrupt banking system or no banking system
thomasucc 2 weeks ago
Cenk Uygur = MOST RETARDED fucktard on planet.
We put in the loans - They HAD crappy assets, they wouldnt NEED loans unless they had crappy assets- STUPID.
Most businesses that took TARP and have/are paying them back.
The ones that took the most TARP and paid NOTHING back - in face they asked for more. We became partners with as well and now have a vested interest n 4+ TRILLION in bad assets. Guess who = FANNIE AND FREEDDIE !!
So why blame Wallstreet who at least pays things back?
jabberwolf 2 months ago
Joseph Stiglitz is a fucking moron who doesn't know his ass from a fucking hole in the ground!!!
DJSardaukar 8 months ago
If I could speak with President Obama, my advise would be, either become a Warrior, relative to domestic policies, or get ready for war. The cards are so horrible stacked against the American people, that force, though hopefully not armed force, is the only way to get the government back on track. As long as we allow the greed and corruption, it will go on. The only way to stop it is by extreme force. Though again, I hope that doesn't come to military force, but if it must, it must.
blueboyblue 9 months ago
The problem is that every federal agency has become a shill of the corporation. The SEC doesn't protect investors, it act as an agent to protect the investment firms. The FDA are agents for the Pharmaceutical companies. The FTC in the pocket so corporations. FCC agents for big telecommunications companies. BTA is knowingly allowing arm to be sent to Mexico, so they are not protecting out national interests at all. Congress is corrupted. The President is powerless, or gutless. Who represents ME?
blueboyblue 9 months ago 2
People the crash that happen was perdicted along time ago people rised red flag they we told to shut up and that they didnt know what they were talking about. Quess what they were right it happened. They also said this was just the start agian you see that happening as time goes on. The start of this goes well past the bush era it spans dem and rep presidents. You have more and more insiders saying we are in trouble but yet it seems you dont hear about it or they are blown off. Wake up peeps
Darksokta 10 months ago
Hosni Mubarak = MuBarak Obama
They have a lot in common...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
inevitably happen anyways. But, what do you think the big banks want (who've donated hundreds of millions to politicians)--to go under or have society suffer the losses while they stay rich? And what did end up happening? It should be readily apparent who owns our gov't.
Writing something on a piece of paper doesn't change the Laws of Nature. What a horrible world we'd live in if that were possible.
November 2010 and 2012 can't come sooner.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Buying toxic assets keeps their prices overpriced when the correction that is needed is for those prices to come back down to reality. That's why the banks are insolvent is because they can't sell those assets at that price. If the market wasn't interfered with, the prices would naturally come down and a portion of the financials would go under and reform. If, instead, we the Fed buys those assets at the bank-preferred price, we socially-collateralize and magnify the losses which will
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh shut the fuck up
SuntzuMocro 1 year ago
The Turk sucks at economics. He extrapolated way beyond what Dr. Stiglitz said in his interview.
PrometheanRunGood 1 year ago
I'm sorry, and what happens if the banks collapse?
TMAoD 1 year ago
@TMAoD:
You don't allow the banks to collapse. You nationalize them... under grassroots, democratic, public control.
1917T 1 year ago
Comment removed
spinnernet1 1 year ago
This is no longer a recession. In some dictionaries a recession is defined as lasting from 6 months to a year. We're well over a year now.
Can we stop listening to these guys? Stiglitz, Galbraith, Keynes, even Freidman were all wrong, have little to no predictive power in their theories. How many times do they have to call it wrong before we abandon this failed economic school?
reefpirate 1 year ago
you already agreed to it when you voted that imposter Obama into office.
Chieflandite 1 year ago
Altho I too blame the Fed for what it does, i think extorting taxes for interest is NOT one of those things.
Fed refund all T-bill interest to US Treasury.
Fed helps 'organize' private commercial banks so they can charge 5% 20% 30% etc. Maybe you don't have consumer debt. Maybe your house is F & C. But every commodity and service is laden with interest charges in supply mfg and dist chain, a private "VAT tax".
Govt pays interest to private T-bill holders, they do not refund interest.
dilbertgeg 2 years ago
Good information.
Steve458791 2 years ago
I thought Obama was going to make everything better??!!
Yea Change!
xandras711 2 years ago
this coming from someone that supports bush. we dont support our leaders no matter what happens, like you conservatives.
did you vote for bush both times, if so shut up and never talk about this again
thesparitan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't support Bush, I support Huckabee!
xandras711 2 years ago
what the hell does that mean. i wasnt asking you what 2008 republican you supported for president. what did you support huckabee for, governer, TV host, what. i dont know if you know this but huckabee wasnt president in the last 8 years.
i asked did you vote for bush
thesparitan 2 years ago
do you like his shitty band?
csrocker101 2 years ago
he is! its just the republicans are trying as hard as possible to stop them. even if it means making shit up.
doc7114 2 years ago 2
I feel betrayed too! He caved in to speculators that are ruining america.!
phaestor 2 years ago
he did. but not enough. at least he didn't make it worse like GOP would have
normalais 2 years ago
Wow... the liberals just woke up to whats going on
xandras711 2 years ago
--said to the video that was posted in February.
DylanReel 2 years ago
we've been awake all along. where were you morons during the 8 years of Bush?
normalais 2 years ago 18
Where are you morons going now that Obama is in office? Meaningful political opinions don't go anywhere depending on who's in office... That's why I like principled politicians like Ron Paul who criticizes both administrations equally.
reefpirate 2 years ago
yeah democrats are sellouts to this corporate dictatorship, just like republicans.
but I can't support ron paul. he is just too crazy. no government at all? no EPA? that's insane.
Denis Kucinich is what we need
normalais 2 years ago 14
Cheers to fans of Kucinich!
But unfortunately the EPA is another billion dollar industry for people who want hand-outs. What can they do that state and local governments can't deal with?
Ron Paul is not an anarchist. Far from it, in fact. He supports the Constitution which protects rights with the force of law. Kucinich supports too many big government programs that attack individual rights.
reefpirate 2 years ago
EPA attacks your individual rights? Hand outs?? like what? clean water and air?
you righties are INSANE. What's next? government run police and fire departments are attacking our individual rights?
get off the crack pipe. Pure capitalism is just as big of a disaster as communism. It is not about all government or no government, it is about the right balance between the too.
normalais 2 years ago
Your problem is that you attribute clean water and air to the EPA. I suppose before the EPA was created that we all died of typhoid fever or e. coli? States could have easily, and did effectively deal with these things before (another 'righty') Nixon signed the EPA into law.
I wouldn't compare the EPA to some Soviet equivalent, and I also don't think that the EPA is a priority right now. I am more disappointed in institutions like Fannie and Freddie, the IRS, the Fed, Homeland Security, etc.
reefpirate 2 years ago
Pure capitalism gave us individual liberties and a thriving economy capable of feeding and housing hundreds of millions of people... Communism gave us... ummm... Well, some charismatic leaders who 'accidentally' starved millions and forced hundreds of millions more to suffer in poverty. If you want to equate these two, I suppose in a free market of ideas you're allowed to do so.
The extent that the 'capitalism' you speak of ruins lives is the extent to which the government inhibits freedoms.
reefpirate 2 years ago
When did Ron Paul say there should be 'no government'? If you can find a quote and the context where he said this, I'd be happy to reconsider. But I'm pretty sure he would rather put government back into its rightful place, which is at the mercy of individual rights, not eliminate it.
If you really want to know what Ron Paul is about, maybe you should reread your Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and ease up on the Greenpeace, Karl Marx, Naomi Klein, or whatever anti-individual literature.
reefpirate 2 years ago
Oh, and also stop thinking that FDR was some sort of hero... Between him and Hoover we had some of the worst economic policies ever introduced. This is why I get worried when people think that Obama might be the next FDR... That would be the worst possible outcome if he emulated FDR in any way.
reefpirate 2 years ago
@normalais
I encourage you to look more into Ron Paul, particularly what he would substitute for EPA regulations. He isn't a BP sell out. The market can protect the environment if private property rights are enforced.
"Free Market Environmentalism"
watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@normalais
If you rely on gov't to protect the environment, you can bet the house the regulatory committee will be bought out by the regulated corporations. Gov't only grants monopolies to those who can grease its palms. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Wake up; look around you. All that has happened happened under gov't's watch. You think that was an accident?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Ron Paul is insane and you're insane if you support him.
bIoodypingu 2 years ago
Wow. So you're saying a=b; and c, if it supports b, is equal to b. Your comment lacks courage. I don't even know what you believe in so that I can also use some lame trick to say that you're insane.
I'm pretty sure Ron is one of the only sane people in DC, so maybe we can start with you naming some people that make sense in DC. Also, why they make sense. Then we can have meaningful discussion.
reefpirate 2 years ago
Really, one of the most sane people in DC? Yeah i hear wanting to teach creationism in school is a good thing that Obama should implement right now. Or thinking that just going back to the gold standard will fix everything and fix inflation.
Oh and everyone loves a racist! He's a clear racist, but hey, racists know everything.
bIoodypingu 2 years ago
Ok, take a deep breath... And first, find me one Ron Paul quote or vote that is racist.
Second, Ron Paul wants to abolish the Department of Education, so how he would teach creationism through an abolished federal department is beyond me. (hint: he's pro-homeschooling, not a favourite of mine, but at least he's not trying to teach my kids anything).
Lastly, explain to me why the gold standard was so inadequate. And don't tell me because then we couldn't have a 3 trillion dollar deficit.
reefpirate 2 years ago
He referred to MLK day as " annual Hate Whitey Day."
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"
"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal
Not racist at all.
bIoodypingu 2 years ago
Paul has referenced MLK in several ways in a favourable manner... Where did you get these quotes? Quotes usually come with sources... I'd honestly like to check these out, so please tell me where they came from.
reefpirate 2 years ago
Ok, I looked them up, and it turns out these are the same quotes people used against him before... The fact is he never wrote any of them. Also, some are out of context. Eg:
MLK day, this was an argument, not made by Ron Paul, against having federal holidays for anybody, not just black civil rights leaders.
The 95 percent of the black males quote... Do you know anything about D.C? It was in response to a Justice Department study saying that 85% of all black males had been arrested in DC.
reefpirate 2 years ago
The "fleet-footed" quote was from the same article... I don't like defending these quotes. I don't agree with the way they were written nor their content. However, none of them were written by Ron Paul. Please try again.
Paul has openly criticized these quotes saying that he never talks like that, never makes personal attacks, and never criticizes groups of people unless they are getting unfair handouts from the government.
Please get some real Ron Paul quotes. Maybe you'll learn something.
reefpirate 2 years ago
rp,
I saw a photo of RP shaking hands with KKK leader in Mich. Guy is precinct delegate, so it's possible RP didn't know guy was KKK. Could you ask him, please?
Jefferson and Lincoln did not argue for Gold (which restricts money expansion and causes dollar inflation, chokes business), but opposed Ham's PRIVATE corporation central bank. Fed Bankers argued they can't trust Congress w public central bank (per Constitution!), due to "politics" aka We The People, demanded ANTI-democratic bank.
dilbertgeg 2 years ago
There is a strange breed of racist libertarian/constitutionalists out there, and some have donated monies to the RP campaign. However, I think it's fallacious to then say that RP is racist because of this.
Lincoln invented the greenback, so I'm not surprised he was anti-gold. And I agree, the Congress should not be allowed to print money either. Money is a commodity, so trade it like any other commodity on the free market. Why do we need an overlord to set the price?
reefpirate 2 years ago 2
reefpirate,
Michael Hudson connected the dots in just a sideways word that "THE GOVERNMENT" at least in the US is really John Q. Public. That's not some "overlord". That's WE the People.
Zarlenga points out that Money is NOT a commodity and he explains why, but you have to be willing to see. Money, when successful, has always been a public good defined in Law, and NOT a private good. Practically, ... contin
dilbertgeg 2 years ago
reef, continued
Practically, it comes down to a couple choices. Obvs, EVERYONE cannot create "money" as "legal tender".
If EVERYONE can't create it, then ONLY Govt-LICENSED banks could.
Sensible is WE create it, via OUR Reps who SERVE us.
Gold is commodity. Money not.
In past, "gold was dug up then placed back underground in basement vaults in NY". Gold incompat w modern commerce, but Fed/Banks is wrong solutn to chaotic private FR banking of 1800s.
Fiat money WE create is not tyrannical.
dilbertgeg 2 years ago
I like your viewpoint, Dilbertgeg :) It seems we both agree that the FR is bad. Now you're saying that WE the people can control money supply through congress, and I simply do not trust congress enough to print money. It wasn't the Federal Reserve that created all these big government programs, it was Congress. If you give them a printing press, there's no indication that they will cut spending to preserve the value of the dollar.
reefpirate 2 years ago
Why not skip the middle-man? Money can and has been created by private businesses in the past. It still is a commodity, even though you make an interesting argument to the contrary... It is a unique commodity in that anyone will accept it for almost anything else. But it is a commodity nonetheless and is subject to forces of supply and demand. If supply goes up (money expansion) then value/price goes down. Same with demand, with more production demand goes up and the price/value goes up.
reefpirate 2 years ago
@reefpirate Im not gonna re-write Zarlenga or Ellen Brown who are similar. Congress *can* create money and NOT be usurious. No profit. Sure, they could print too much or not enuf, but the whole point of Cong "privatizing" it to Fed was to remove democratic popular input on monetary policy and foreign pol. They said so in 1913, and Geithner said that in 2008.
It's idiocy imo to try commerce in gold bars and ship them via FedEX. When private banks issued "notes" many cheated too. Was unstable.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg During the 19th century, the purchasing power of the US Dollar, which was redeemable in gold, actually increased. In the 20th century, the century where we were finally 'freed' from the 'chains of the gold standard', the purchasing power of the dollar has plummeted. Just ask my grandma, who used to buy a chocolate bar for a few pennies. I can't find one that's not on sale for less than a dollar now. Of course gold restricts money expansion... that's a good thing. It preserves value.
reefpirate 1 year ago
@reefpirate Gold std preserves value, but clamps hard growth & expansion. Ppl used to *melt* gold coins when commodity mkt value was above face.
Prices are higher now, yet wages are higher. It's relative. Disparity in wage/price is mostly policy of anti-labor outsourcing + govt cartels.
FedRes *did* help banks and corps build overseas for more profit, wage wars on competition, so yr correct that Fed indirectly causes US poverty. Mild compared to loan-sharking 3rd world people like Mexico.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
One more for ya: This from the David Duke website protesting the fact that Ron Paul called MLK his hero and had a fundraising money-bomb on MLK day.:
The fact that Ron Paul would call King his hero and promote a Ron Paul money bomb on Martin Luther King Day is disgraceful.
David Duke is an open anti-semite and clearly racist... Paul is not. Duke criticizes Paul for liking MLK... so what the hell is your problem?
reefpirate 2 years ago
I couldn't help it, one more: This is from the president of the Austin, TX branch of the NAACP, and friend of Paul's for 20 years:
"I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.
Great interview.
reefpirate 2 years ago
Oh, and you only attempted to answer my first question (and failed)... so please go on to answer the next two:
2. How can anyone force creationism down anyone's throat if you abolish the Department of Education as president?
3. What's wrong with the gold standard? You can't print money?
reefpirate 2 years ago
Oh, and you have yet to give me an example of a sane person in DC (Ron Paul excluded).
reefpirate 2 years ago
We need Hugo Stiglits instead. Now that's a way to solve problems.
lmm85 2 years ago 2
Private banking debt was transferred to national debt.
nothing to do with "folks" taking out mortgages
no more than $150 oil last year was because demand suddenly tripled compared to supply
Oil Contracts were bid up 27 times on average before retail.
Bundled Mortgages with fraudulent AAA ratings were re-packaged and used as collateral by investors to borrow more, to buy more mortgages, then massive leveraged short selling
incomprehensible capital gains
the casino is rigged
dilbertgeg 2 years ago
you're a conspiracy theorist
xandras711 2 years ago
But who was co-signing the mortgages? The big fed was with Fannie and Freddie, and other programs meant to get more poor people into loaning money for houses they couldn't afford.
If free-markets are to blame, then the government, along with the fed and their easy money, are equally if not two or three times, or more, to blame.
The debt is catching up to us, folks, but no politician wants to say the party is over.
reefpirate 2 years ago
Nomi Prins, formerly of Goldman-Sachs and worked @ Citigroup when she was 19. She explains very well, in print and interviews.
The Rich bought houses they could not afford, to flip them. Poor bought houses told they could re-fi in 2 years when value went up.
But Prins explains how Banks/Investors PILED layers and layers of DEBT on top of mortgages they knew were trash but rated AAA. Derivatives mkt is 1000s times larger than total mortgages, but no underlying value.
dilbertgeg 2 years ago
contin) Deregulated Banks and unreg Hedge Funds bet on known trash w credit, used trash "assets" as collateral, spent OUR MONEY -- like gambling addict owing his bookie.
But they are powerful. They own the track and horses. Paulson, Geithner, other high positions in Govt Finance. Rigged so they could pocket quick profits, then dump inevitable losses on govt.
Obama 'enabled' them, true, but Wall St top dogs vetted Obama to serve THEM. O's doing a great job -- for them! Record profits. Dig?
dilbertgeg 2 years ago
I dig. It's a cartel, between the state and the big banks. Banks haven't been free-market for almost a century, even more. If banks were free-market entities they would have shied away from so much risk in these derivatives. Why did they take the risk? Government safeguards like the FDIC, cheap money from an inflationary FR, as well as Fannie and Freddie underwriting 50% of the mortgages. You take away those three things, and you wouldn't have the financial crisis that we have today.
reefpirate 2 years ago
How would they pick and choose which assets to give us? I thought the whole problem was that we can't figure out which ones are good and which are bad and whats what.
tubby6t9 2 years ago
Quit drinking that right-wing kool-aid.
The problem was that banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, and anyone else who wanted to, skirted regulations and were allowed to create and bundle essentially worthless securities and resell them over and over again.
You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that "low-income buyers" could even run up $10 trillion dollars of debt.
MrGovtCheese 2 years ago 2
Of course low-income buyers couldn't run up those kinds of debts... But governments sure could. Where do you think the banks get all their 'liquidity'? Why do people even bother talking about the Fed and their open or closed window? The Federal Reserve let these banks run wild, along with other brilliant programs leftover from the New Deal like the FDIC. If banks were forced to be accountable to markets, ie. laissez-faire, rather than accountable to the Fed, we never would have had this problem.
reefpirate 2 years ago
I was once duped into believing Fed's bullshit that they are a govt agency. Wrong. They are 12 Private interlinked banks. Greenspan said they ANSWER TO NO ONE. Bernanke refused to answer Congress, ignored Bloomberg.
Banks CREATE LIQUIDITY by writing loans.
Fed performs for it's shareholders, and then only to majors and friends. Private commerc banks buy Fed stock. GOVT DOES NOT CONTROL THE FED. MONEY wrote the rules. They appointed Obama (really). They chose Bush for his cowboy persona.
dilbertgeg 2 years ago
is there a difference between profit seekers and extortionist ,war mongers??
lisabob22 2 years ago
There is a difference, and maybe you should contemplate and examine what the difference is.
I'll give you a hint to get started: When workers strike, complain, and harass people to get higher wages, what they really want is more profit. Profit being more money made for time/labour spent. Every rational person on this planet is a profit-seeker because that is how you eat food and wear clothes.
Extortionists and war-mongers are more rare and specialized.
reefpirate 2 years ago
Yes, that is the reality of it. But what's the alternative? Let the banks, GM, Chrysler, etc., fail and lose a ton more jobs - and possibly risk a depression?
Yea the taxpayers are getting screwed, as usual, but hopefully we'll get two things in return. That we'll be able to pull out of this recession soon, and that the financial industry will be properly regulated so this can't happen again.
The horses are already out of the barn.
MrGovtCheese 2 years ago
@MrGovtCheese The horses are out sure... We've tried spending gov't billions on the problem. Hasn't really gotten us anywhere. 'Lose a ton more jobs'? Sure, fine. We've already lost 8 million jobs since the "recession" hit. And we're showing no signs of getting them back despite billions and trillions of dollars. Not just taxpayer dollars, but dollars created for no good reason other than to bail-out these failed banks. Let them fail. They should all be fired, Geithner included.
reefpirate 1 year ago
@MrGovtCheese You made this quote a year ago. Are you happy with all the jobs that we didn't lose, or gained, from bailing out all these institutions? Jobless recovery is no recovery at all.
This is no longer a recession. In some dictionaries a recession is defined as lasting from 6 months to a year. We're well over a year now.
reefpirate 1 year ago
analogy fail.
kewltony 2 years ago
check out "Economyincrisis" and find out why this plan is falling apart in front of our eyes!
charr05 2 years ago
Idiot conservative constantly rant about Socialism. What's happening here is not socialism. Our government is and always have been controlled by American businesses. They ( the capitalist ) are the architects of this plan.
American Democracy in pratice is elite decision and public ratification. The true elites are not liberals, but conservative business men who control multinational corporations that control governments.
jamesmaseobrown 2 years ago 4
Right, so you're saying that we should trust the government when they say that they need to borrow a trillion dollars?
reefpirate 2 years ago
Where in my comment did I say that? No, I don't trust the government, despite what party is in control. Presidents, come and go, but the real people in power are silent, and they're the ones who are in control. Obama found this out when he came to power. That's the reason why this healthcare bill is such a tragidy.
jamesmaseobrown 2 years ago
@ Jamesmaseo,
everything you said is right, except how Obama "found this out" after the election.
You imply Obama went thru process of Brzezinski/Rockefeller "choosing" him, then Wall St bondholders and bankers vetting him, and he did not know they owned him until after election. O's "no fat cat" speech was theater, just like Bush's cowboy persona and and Christian persona. Staged. Managed. Public relations experts. Psy-warfare. Media. Edward Bernays explained it in 28, Brzezinski in 73.
dilbertgeg 2 years ago
I thought everyone was supporting Obama on this great wealth transfer plan...
Oh. You thought it would go from the rich to the poor?
Sorry for the confusion. Better luck next time.
Ron Paul still look unelectable?
Paetaor 2 years ago
Theres class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning. - Warren Buffet
Cambodia69 2 years ago 3
I'm pretty sure Buffet doesn't know much about politics, and I cringe when he makes comments like this. Does he want the lower class to start fighting back? Next thing you know we'll have a French Revolution on our hands instead of an American one. They were quite different. (And I'm not trying to make a jab at France, they really were quite different).
reefpirate 2 years ago
reefpirate,
Buffet's remarks may have been 'reckless' to his class, but he's honest about that anyhow.
You can't even join their clubs w less than $10 million, per NY Times. A handful of hundred-millionaires and billionaires, nowadays mostly finance capital (private tax via interest and fees) is the ruling class, rich class he speaks of. Not small biz and doctors and such.
As Nomi Prins said, they write bonuses on public dime, openly, seemingly wo a worry. They own the confusion box too.
dilbertgeg 2 years ago
@dilbertgeg I know you're right. This ruling class exists, and I know they're getting away with murder. But I think that both they, and their loudest critics, give themselves too much credit. (no pun intended) They don't control as much as they might think, or as much as the average NWO activist might think they do. I'm just worried that as a result of all this hysteria, and 'self-evidence' going on these days that we'll throw capitalism away. That would be sad and DEstructive.
reefpirate 1 year ago
alot of nutty people these days
canadianbeeph 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
let ALONE what they say just teh name of this t.v media/ news program is JUST DISGUSTING. The Young Turks where a highly nationalistic group of people including not just Turks and "Turks" but also Free Masons and the Illuminati and others of secret socities. They banned together within their orders of fascism and with thier demonic attitudes began wipping out entire Christian communities mostly of Armenian, Greek, AssyRIAN, Chaldean and Bulgarian descent!! SO low and cruel to even bring the name
ShineCity711 2 years ago
Wait, you're serious ShineCity711? But the original Young Turks were kick-ass intellectual elite revolutionaries that had a lot to do with secularizing what was then the Ottoman Empire and bringing about much needed reform that ultimately led to the creation of the modern state of Turkey. I would have been proud to have been among their number. Order and progress, baby!
Mishalex 2 years ago 4
OBAMA RUN BY THE BANKERS = EASY EXPLANATION AS to what is going on.
american people are getting stuffed.
WAKE UP !!!! BEFORE WE ALL GO UNDER !!!
radeon28 2 years ago
good, good , good ...
but somebody has to repay all those sold assets. Not only mortgages and loans but also government bonds.
****Everyone should take the responsibility and pay. taxpayer for not being responsible about the loan they took, banks for giving non- transparent loans and government agencies for not stepping in.
FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON TOO,
FOR STARTING AN INNOCENT PROGRAM that allow all AMERICANS, those who can and can NOT afford a house.
AN FED FOR THEIR BUBBLES
BullGuy87 2 years ago
the answer is to get rid of the federal reserve, nationalize it, make it smaller, give it less power. no more interest rate manipulation.
mrzack888 2 years ago 2
yo dawg we heard you like youtube so we embedded a youtube video into your youtube video so you can watch while you watch
Pardessus 2 years ago
So the big question is.... just how long is it going to take until the sheeple finally stop putting up with this.
Still waiting.
tor1976 2 years ago
Pretty distressing. Everything Stiglitz says makes sense.
What's odd is that he is I believe a Democrat, and advised Clinton, and I think Obama, at least in the past. And yet he's saying what Geitner (essentially an extension of Obama) is doing, is the opposite of what he'd suggest, and is saying their plans are potentially worse than what Paulson/Bush did!
What a mess!
zenmachinefilms 2 years ago
He has academic and professional integrity and honesty. He is not a partisan but a thinker and that is the difference ...
StriborCumez 2 years ago 3
Cenk says we get nothing in return. But that is not correct. We get JOBS in return! That is the point of the bailout!
IMO, we should let poorly run companies fail and i am against the bailout. But, i just want to clarify that the American people do get something from the plan...they get to keep their jobs.
halette20001 2 years ago
the true answer to the economic crisis is to do away with capitalism. it breeds inequality from the owner who makes ridiculous amounts of money to the worker who is underpayed when compared to the cost of life (american culture is the example im using) could anyone imagine the problems the world would face if 6.5 billion people lived like just the middle class in america? we would have no trees, oil, ozone layer, planet.
KWU1231979 2 years ago
the problem with your critique of captailism is that capitalism is one of the primary reasons that America is the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world! So your solution of doing away with capitalism is like cutting off your head because you have a headache. Capitalism isn't perfect but you don't do away with it is because having it causes temporary hardships. You are absolutely wrong and the American people reject your communist, facist, or whatever ideas.
halette20001 2 years ago
capitalism isnt the reason why this country is wealthy or powerful. our major exports are weapons and american culture. it has nothing to do with the consumerism that goes on within the country. the country makes money off of other peoples demand to kill each other.
KWU1231979 2 years ago
Without a massive domestic market to make a financial foundation, this wouldn't be possible. A free-market is a beautiful thing because it raises the standard of living for everybody. War, cronyism, price-setting, etc. are all negative things are contrary to a free-market.
Capitalism is what made America great, and the absence of capitalism is what is making it very very ugly.
reefpirate 2 years ago
@reefpirate I dont want that the standards of living rise for everybody. If that happened, how was I going to take advantage of my better position? I can go to poor countries and buy young women. They make me happy and I make them happy.
youcantbeatfacts 1 year ago
@youcantbeatfacts Well, if it's consensual, then by all means go for it, man. A rise in the standard of living of all people does not mean that you will lose any sense of status. It just means that you have to adapt your status to show that it is better than everyone else. For example, when everyone owns a yacht and has plenty of leisure time, you'll maybe try to own a yacht with a helicopter landing pad on it. These are better things to compete over, rather than who can eat, and who cannot.
reefpirate 1 year ago
@reefpirate hmm. but if my woman owns a yacht already, she may decide to 'skip' me. However, if she is living in a hut then I can come and bring light and hope into her life, always respecting her of course.
youcantbeatfacts 1 year ago
@youcantbeatfacts Keep dreaming, buddy. There's plenty of things from the stone age that we need to be rid of.
reefpirate 1 year ago
@reefpirate to put it more graphically. You should have been in Germany in 1991. You had access to stunning models from central Europe, Slovakian, Tzech girls that you dont even find in the frontpage magazine of Playboy. They were not bitches, they were ordinary women, lawyers, students, etc without a cent in their pockets. Today, you need millions of dollars to just talk to them and probably they will skip you, they have all their basic needs fulfilled.
youcantbeatfacts 1 year ago
@youcantbeatfacts I thought I could see your point a little while ago... But now you've lost me. You're talking about Eastern European prostitution? And how it affects an argument in favour of government spending during a 'financial crisis'? You're going to have to guide me a little further, your point is lost on me. Surely you're not implying that prostitution wouldn't happen if the government just spent more money and regulated more often...
reefpirate 1 year ago
@reefpirate precisely when the breakdown of Eastern Europe was realised, you did not need prostitution, like I said, ordinary women but of outstanding beauty were accesible and possible, for marriage, dating etc. As per the stone age and dreams, I am making true things that people just dream about it. You just need to speak Russian and be well off. There is not such a crisis, it is completely a structural collapse. If you can read Spanish my book "Socialist neoliberalism:a product of design"
youcantbeatfacts 1 year ago
@youcantbeatfacts You've still lost me. Are we having an argument here? capitalistic macroeconomics... Perhaps I would agree that it's dead, if what we have is capitalistic. It's not. What is hitting 'rock bottom' is the subsidized, rigged, interventionist, protectionist hodge-podge macroeconomics that Mr. Stiglitz in part endorses.
reefpirate 1 year ago
@reefpirate I never have arguments, I dont like the attitude of the word argument itself, it is too confrontational particularly in economics readings. It has to be a deepening into the truth through reasoning.Mr.Stiglitz endorses subsized macro? He was critizing the 700 billion Fed Res bailout. He said banks should have let die and instead bail out home owners because ultimately the "crisis" is on them. Once done that, regulate to avoid that happening again. U have to regulate them.
youcantbeatfacts 1 year ago
@reefpirate If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Stiglitz the guy who was complaining that the government didn't do enough spending to ease the recession? I know I can quote him saying that all governments all over the world need to do more 'stimulus'. Basically, if he's in favour of stimulus packages, he's in favour of rigged, subsidized capitalism. I'll have you know, Canada probably did the least amount of 'stimulating' and we're probably doing the best of the G8 in terms of recovery.
reefpirate 1 year ago
@reefpirate In Canada, we're in the best shape in the G8 in terms of recovery, for a very different reason than you're alleging!
We're in better shape, because our banks were PROPERLY regulated in the first place. We never deregulated the way the US, and most other countries did, and therefore our economic fall was much lighter than those countries.
You can avoid turning a $6 billion dollar housing crisis into a $780 billion dollar banking crisis.
johnedwards1968 1 year ago
@johnedwards1968 Regulations are conservative in Canada, this is true... But I don't think regulations did as much as a keen sense of economic reality.
Nevertheless, the opposition in Canada was having a hissy-fit because we weren't stimulating enough. The opposition got it's stimulus ideas from Keynsians like Stiglitz and Galbraith. We didn't stimulate much, and we're just fine. After the crisis, you would think Keynes would be as bankrupt as Goldman. But they're both still here.
reefpirate 1 year ago
@reefpirate LOL, I love the idea that regulations are conservative in Canada, while the conservative parties are the ones who have been DEREGULATING!
That's a pretty clever twist on reality there. ;)
Truth is , we just didn't need the stimulus, and that's because we NEVER allowed "conservatives" to make any impact on our economy in the first place.
johnedwards1968 1 year ago
@reefpirate Yeah, he seems to know what caused the problems, but his "solutions" will only make things worse.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@reefpirate If the EU had had to confine itself to an intra EU market, it would have collapsed two decades ago. Globalization is just the expression that the countdown of capitalistic macroeconomics has touched bottom. Either we retake the African colonies again or we are done. Chinaand Russia were supposed to remain poor but there is none of the sort, nor will they be releasing their thinking force to US universities. Having outsourced production nothing remains in the US or EU. We are done.
youcantbeatfacts 1 year ago
@reefpirate Sir, you might want to watch the other video of Dr.Stiglitz right here Market fundamentalism is dead. One of the lecturers there goes" why do you call it equity injection when you should say nationalisation". I was in the UK at the time. RBS, HSBC collapsed and had to be nationalised., it is now run by Civil Servants just like in the USSR in the 70's. The Federal Reserved had to nationalise the banking system. This amounts to a huge bad cynical joke.
youcantbeatfacts 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok here is another test and aleast it does work lol : KISSER TEST
1.hold ur breathe
2.go to another vid
3.add this comment
4.did u make it??
WELL IF U DID UR ROCK AT KISSING :]
sierrelove09 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok here is another test and aleast it does work lol : KISSER TEST
1.hold ur breathe
2.go to another vid
3.add this comment
4.did u make it??
WELL IF U DID UR ROCK AT KISSING :]
andydrummer123 3 years ago
i think it will be whole lot easier for the U.S. to set up nation-owned banks from the scratch, pay the private wall/main street banks to transfer the FDIC-insured saving accounts to those new nation-owned banks. In that case, the private wall street banks that have negative equities will be wiped out.
Why the heck do we have to give those banks money to have them lend to families and business as we all know large pct of those money will go to bonuses and luxury conferences?
vonleixy 3 years ago 3
So basically turn to the companies and say, "if you go under we'll step in and take over. You're existence as a company'll vanish and all you CEOs'll be SOL, but we'll take over the functions, accounts, and such, so the rest of the world won't really notice a change."? Sounds possible (but difficult) at a glance...
Problem though: if I remember my history, we've private banks 'cause of come constitutional restriction or another, so you'll need an amendment with a 2/3rds majority to pass it.
ThoughtRipple 3 years ago
so you want communism? a government controlled economy.
KWU1231979 2 years ago
hehe, i don't like communism. moreover, i wish the government had not done anything like artificial low interest rate that "stimulated" the housing bubble. the reality is that we are heading "sort of" socialism anyway. in that case, the last thing we want is that those wall street crooks, who dared to take big bonuses after receiving bailout money, to run the "socialized" banks.
vonleixy 2 years ago
Do not confuse socialism with communism
vikramkrishnan 2 years ago
Ok, I won't. So long as you agree to not confuse capitalism with socialism either.
reefpirate 2 years ago
Of course, I don't. I am a fervent supporter of the free market.
But as much as one wishes to confound the two, there is a very clear distinction in the methods, if not the objectives, of socialist democracies and communist dictatorships
vikramkrishnan 2 years ago
@vikramkrishnan free markets do not benefit anyone except capital - its a concentration of power only. you cant trust this fat Jewish man he is a truth agitator.
myhairyscapegoat 1 year ago
@myhairyscapegoat Yes but everybody holds capital, including me and you.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan Capital is already concentrated into two percent who own and control over half of the worlds resources. In where speculation rather than effort are rewarded the results are destructive. No longer is each man feeding himself but those who "own" the plough and the patents for the seeds just get richer without labour.
myhairyscapegoat 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan Agreed. I live in Canada, and I have to face that question every time I think about our national politics. Funny thing is, in arguments I often have to admit that Candian healthcare is quite a bit better than American. But I usually end by saying that Americans don't have free-market health care, and if they actually did, it might be the best thing on the planet.
reefpirate 1 year ago
Comment removed
vonleixy 3 years ago
The plan isn't fair, and it doesn't follow the rules of "normal capitalism," but our capitalist system is about to break down. I don't think Cenk realizes this.
It's not fair, but its necessary. We can't just let the biggest banks in the country fail, which would lead to the loss of over 30% of the countries deposits and an economic apocalypse. Its better that the taxpayers take a trillion dollar hit than have a massive failure of the banking system and possibly, the Union.
orientrat 3 years ago
Welcome to the Reign of Barack Obama
But notice how Cenk continues to give Barack a "get out of jail free" card, at every step.
It's because Cenk could never hold Obama responsible for anything.
Cenk is an Obama-shill, Go after everybody EXCEPT Obama.
This whole Stimulus plan IS Obama's retarded step-child, is it not?
It's really kinda cute... in a sickening kind of way.
FurkDaJerk 3 years ago
Cenk is doing something republicans never did under Bush and that is criticize the policies of the president. We simply don't have that kind of oversight under a republican president because half the country is supportive of any policy as long as it's branded with their party brand.
If Obama keeps this up, WE will throw him under the bus, meanwhile, the republicans will be working on getting sarah palin and joe the plumber in office so that they could fix this disaster with their mad skillz.
sholtzrevtek 3 years ago
I hope so, sincerely, *IF* he keeps this up.
& please, DON'T mention Sarah Pain and Joe the Dumber, just reading their names make my head throb...
Peace!
FurkDaJerk 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stiglitz is completely WRONG on the economy and Palin is COMPLETELY RIGHT! Stiglitz is Palin's DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCH and PUSSY! Palin is MORE MAN than he is. Stiglitz wears the skirt in his family while his wife wears the pants!
ecwaufisxtreme 3 years ago
Do you know that you're a sexist pig?
I'm a bitch without balls or a dick, but I have a pussy. And I certainly am not a man.
ShilgenVens 3 years ago
If this is true, I wonder how long Obama will keep Geitner on board?
I couldn't imagine very long, unless Obama has no problems being a one term president. Unlike republicans, dems want results, not feel good party crap.
capitalistT00L 3 years ago 2
I agree.
I would like to hear ALL of the details of Tim's plan though before I pre-judge the dude. If this is what's REALLY being asked of the taxpayer then it's time to let him go.
Barack needs to see through Tim and soon.
Tim is the former President of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Not too sure that that is a "good" thing.
He may be smart... he did graduate from Dartmouth... but which side is he on? Guess we'll find out soon.
Although I hope that Barack finds out sooner than we do.
Krumbz2003 3 years ago
@Krumbz2003 I think Geithner has already shown what 'side' he is on. And as for Obama hopefully seeing what we already see as obvious... If he hasn't seen it by now, then he probably never will.
People need to realise, that ya Obama might be handsome, intelligent, and kind... But he's an American president just like all the rest of em. He'll get away with what he can get away with.
reefpirate 1 year ago
" You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow"
-Ronald Reagan
evilblades 3 years ago
There is socialism in America-except it's only the preserve of the rich;Welfare for the rich, capitalism for everyone else. That's how it works.
rickelmonoggin 3 years ago 6
You explained it better than Stiglitz.
jove04 3 years ago
fractional reserved banking is a fucking scam ppl abolish the fed reserve.
VoiDofReasoN 3 years ago
stiglitz didn't warn us about the crash did he? economic nobel prize my ass
mrzack888 3 years ago
lol
LOL
LahmariS 3 years ago
Actually he did warn as early as 2006. Nobody listened.
johnedwards1968 3 years ago 5
@johnedwards1968 What did he say in 2006? I would like to hear it, or see it, or read it... Where can I find Stiglitz's prediction?? (i already tried google search)
reefpirate 1 year ago
Actually, he did. In 2006. What economics training and/or education do you hold, btw?
ibwilliamsi 3 years ago
I dont need to hold no economics training to criticiz Sucklitz, or to know that the deriviatives were gonna cause a major catastrophe. I knew it was gonna happen since 2005. ever heard of Lyndon Larouche?? Peter Schiff??? Mr. Warren Buffet in 2003 talking about the dangers of derivatives as Weapons of financial mass destruction ,warning everyone dont invest in things you dont understand!! 9/11 truth, BITCH!
mrzack888 3 years ago
@ibwilliamsi Where, when and how did he predict anything in 2006? I am not being sarcastic, I would like to know what he said in 2006.
reefpirate 1 year ago
Socialism is on its way - and thats good.
I times when we have not enough work for the people its the only to get a fair transfer of money so that everyone is fine.
And no a greeter at Wal Mart is not a productive job, is't slavery forced by the current system and not worth having
llothar68 3 years ago
Socialism is for losers. I for one don't want to be lumped in with 90% of the unproductive fat lazy douchebags in this country.
I've had my own business for 20 years, worked hard, paid taxes out the wazoo, and have done pretty well.
So now I should embrace socialism?
Fuck that.
pretorious700 2 years ago
Why? Because the rich stay rich.
keithrockerboblewis 3 years ago
Who the fuck needs money anyway its just paper nothing works without the sheeple :)
sailorboy704 3 years ago
Why didn't the gov. just pay off $5,000 of every working age adult's debts......not give it straight to the people but directly to the creditors....this would take off much of the consumer debt in the nation, eliminating some citizen's debt totally, or cutting some in half or more....this would open up income for them to invest in home improvements, cars, retail, education, money into the economy, help the books of banks and other lenders, and all for the same money we have used to date.....
prideventures 3 years ago
Because you will still be paying for it in taxes.... or the government will have to borrow it from another nation... So it makes no sense to do that... beside people will feel that they can do whatever without having to pay back what they owe, just like the banks
nuprincenj 3 years ago
why so pessimistic about an idea.......are we a nation of irresponsible people, or the greatest nation on earth? I always hear the comments about how great America is, how it is "center right", and that they can manage their own money not the gov., but since I propose that we put them on a "new footing", you say they will think they can do whatever they want....we are borrowing now......we will have to pay taxes for the bail out anyway....why trust that the banks will help us instead
prideventures 3 years ago
ummm irresponsible... it shows with this crisis. i don't trust the banks and surly not the average American that is in debt...This is not going to go away any time soon.. if i were you i would buy gold and prepare for the worst
nuprincenj 3 years ago
I have invested in gold since 1982, and silver when film cameras still were vogue....you could always tell the price by how the sales of film were (silver nitrate)....I have followed the economy and the market since 1979, so I have seen everything except the depression.....there is too much relliance on laissez-faire economics....we have too many of the very rich that care little about the economy and only about their profit....so we need to open the market but regulate the irresponsible risk
prideventures 3 years ago
Thanks for clearing this up for us, I finally understand this issue.
worldsavy 3 years ago
Same pile of shit, just a different and bigger shovel... nice!
blueshadowdude 3 years ago
wow that make more sense lol
number0017 3 years ago
I dont understand why the Govt did not just take property banks the have repossesed or mortgages that have been defaulted on as part collateral payment for the bailout, the property can then turned over charities for homeless families or to turn struggling homeownersinto tenant in their own homes instead of moving into shelters.
The Govt can become landlords and abandoned houses will stop depreciating entire neighborhoods.
xdir 3 years ago
way to expand government and begin the long path to socialism.
mikemikemofo 3 years ago
Wake up and smell the coffee, your already living in a socialist state, Bush socialised the nation when he bailed out Wall St.
If capitalism involves handing over $trillions to banks for zero collateral then capitalism is dead.
You have milions homeless living in shelters or on the street while homes owned by banks are boarded up for the foreseable future.
xdir 3 years ago
we're not a socialist state yet, and yes i'm awake and the coffee was good as ever this morning. i don't agree with the bailout, let failures fail, but saying that since we bailed out the banks, lets take their property as collateral and try to make $ off of it by subsidizing more housing is a very socialist move although in some eyes it might be killing 2 or more birds with one stone. your're literally asking for a big expansion in section 8 housing with the govt as the landlord.
mikemikemofo 3 years ago
If the bank bailed you out, you would be expected to sign over everything you owned as collateral, they would also insist you utilised all your assets to generate income. Why not apply the same capitalist rules to Wall St.
xdir 3 years ago 3