90 replies to this topic

[akaGP]

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Federal Reserve Bank Secretly Lent 16 Trillion to US & Foreign Banks



The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out foreign, as well as American banks since 2008. The audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months largely due to the bipartisan efforts of libertarian Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul and socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

"As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."

Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided $16,000,000,000,000 dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to France and Scotland, according to the GAO report. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve secretly bailed out these institutions, referring to them as loans, but virtually none of the money has been returned - it was loaned out at 0% interest.

Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

Make no mistake: The Federal Reserve System is the most powerful financial and economic institution in the world, with virtually no accountability to democratic processes.

As proof, the value of all good and service produced in the United States in the course of a year ("Real GDP") is 14 Trillion. The Fed gave away 16 trillion in Bailouts.

The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress also determined that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.

For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed's emergency lending programs.

In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. In other words, the Fed chose to use taxpayer money to grant funds to institutions in which the NY Fed President had personal investments and a vested interest.

The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were no-bid contracts - they were just "appointed" by Fed bamkers to receive and process the bailouts funds. Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4 million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)

[tikipete]

As I've said many times, our financial system is bogus. It is not based on sound economic principle but on privilege derived from political influence.

If you're not going to abolish the FED it at least should be Nationalized so the people paying the bills get some say in how it operates.

Basically, you folks are telling me it is economically sound to print $16 trillion dollars as a gift for foreigners but it is unsound to print one single dollar to help Americans. Am I missing something?

[Tom Ray]

The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out foreign, as well as American banks since 2008. The audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months largely due to the bipartisan efforts of libertarian Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul and socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

One reason I'm going to miss Bernie.

[billy backstay]

Unfuckingbeleivablle!! Discount window gives 7.7 trillions at 0.01%, which they use to buy t-notes at 3 %$ and make 9 million profit out of thin air. No question that Wall Street is running the country, not congress.

[billy backstay]

Want to get really, really, really pissed off about how wall street has fucked us up the ass???


http://ebm.cheetahma...tml?xrs=eml_tds

[Occams Razor]

Similar to the issue in Europe - if we're going to replace their capital - I want ownership of the damn banks(and I want to fire their risk officers). Hell - the UK can do it - why can't we?

[billy backstay]

Similar to the issue in Europe - if we're going to replace their capital - I want ownership of the damn banks(and I want to fire their risk officers). Hell - the UK can do it - why can't we?

Hell, I want to borrow from the fed at 0.01 interest rate, and invest in government securities at 3%! I could be among the one percent in no time at all!!

GOP - Guardians Of Plutocracy!!

[austin1972]

Hell, I want to borrow from the fed at 0.01 interest rate, and invest in government securities at 3%! I could be among the one percent in no time at all!!

That was on the Daily Show last night. Since we are the government funders, they weren't lending to us, were foreclosing and raising fees on us, all while we bailed them out at an incredible scale and they made big paychecks.
And Martha Stewart went to jail for what?!?!?!

Pretty surreal.

[Mark K]

Hell, I want to borrow from the fed at 0.01 interest rate, and invest in government securities at 3%! I could be among the one percent in no time at all!!

That was on the Daily Show last night. Since we are the government funders, they weren't lending to us, were foreclosing and raising fees on us, all while we bailed them out at an incredible scale and they made big paychecks.
And Martha Stewart went to jail for what?!?!?!

Pretty surreal.

Can you explain the reason why it is that when the government needs to borrow money, it has to lend it to the banks and then borrow it back from them? I am under the impression it makes sense, in some way or another.

[akaGP]

Hell, I want to borrow from the fed at 0.01 interest rate, and invest in government securities at 3%! I could be among the one percent in no time at all!!

That was on the Daily Show last night. Since we are the government funders, they weren't lending to us, were foreclosing and raising fees on us, all while we bailed them out at an incredible scale and they made big paychecks.
And Martha Stewart went to jail for what?!?!?!

Pretty surreal.

Can you explain the reason why it is that when the government needs to borrow money, it has to lend it to the banks and then borrow it back from them? I am under the impression it makes sense, in some way or another.

All the explanations can be found in this book that should

be required reading in every secondary school civics class.

[billy backstay]

Hell, I want to borrow from the fed at 0.01 interest rate, and invest in government securities at 3%! I could be among the one percent in no time at all!!

That was on the Daily Show last night. Since we are the government funders, they weren't lending to us, were foreclosing and raising fees on us, all while we bailed them out at an incredible scale and they made big paychecks.
And Martha Stewart went to jail for what?!?!?!

Pretty surreal.

Can you explain the reason why it is that when the government needs to borrow money, it has to lend it to the banks and then borrow it back from them? I am under the impression it makes sense, in some way or another.

Whoa!!?? You think it makes sense for the Fed discount window to loan 7.7 trillion dollars of taxpayer money at 0.01 percent to wall street bankers; then the banks buy secure treasurys at 3 per-cent, and make about 10 million dollars in profits on our taxpayer dollars.??

And you think that this is okay??

I will be moving to Manhattan soon to get a job as a lying, cheating salesperson at a hedge fund or other wall street banking firm, so I can join the 1 percenters, and piss on all the rest of you 99 percenters.......

[Tom Ray]

Relax, billy, it's just quantitative easing.

Sounds nice, like taking a good shit. It even comes with a multiplier. You'll love it. (Until the next bubble bursts.)

[billy backstay]

Relax, billy, it's just quantitative easing.

Sounds nice, like taking a good shit. It even comes with a multiplier. You'll love it. (Until the next bubble bursts.)

More like plutarchy... The ones with the most gold make all the rules..

plutarchy 104 up, 6 downGovernment controlled by the wealthy for the wealthy. It is what most so called Western democratic governments these days really are since they are influenced through politicians who are mostly rich celebrities, lawyers and business people (CEO's) who are supported, influenced and financed through campaign contributions and/or bribes by other rich, famous and influential individuals, families, corporations, companies, organizations and institutions.plutarchy 104 up, 6 downGovernment controlled by the wealthy for the wealthy. It is what most so called Western democratic governments these days really are since they are influenced through politicians who are mostly rich celebrities, lawyers and business people (CEO's) who are supported, influenced and financed through campaign contributions and/or bribes by other rich, famous and influential individuals, families, corporations, companies, organizations and institutions.plutarchy 104 up, 6 downGovernment controlled by the wealthy for the wealthy. It is what most so called Western democratic governments these days really are since they are influenced through politicians who are mostly rich celebrities, lawyers and business people (CEO's) who are supported, influenced and financed through campaign contributions and/or bribes by other rich, famous and influential individuals, families, corporations, companies, organizations and institutions.plutarchy 104 up, 6 downGovernment controlled by the wealthy for the wealthy. It is what most so called Western democratic governments these days really are since they are influenced through politicians who are mostly rich celebrities, lawyers and business people (CEO's) who are supported, influenced and financed through campaign contributions and/or bribes by other rich, famous and influential individuals, families, corporations, companies, organizations and institutions.Government controlled by the wealthy for the wealthy...

http://www.urbandict...?term=plutarchy

[Sol Rosenberg]

Those kids in the park are dirty and they have no message.

[austin1972]

It's like that good comedy read Tale of Two Cities. What a funny ending!

[Lifted Tack]

Those kids in the park are dirty and they have no message.

Squirrel!

[dash34]

Those kids in the park are dirty and they have no message.

Here's one they could adopt:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/hank-paulsons-crony-capitalism-20111201

I don't get why the good people of the USA put up with this sort of thing. For a country founded to throw off corrupt oppression, a great deal of corruption is being ignored.

If allowed to continue unchecked, the complete loss of separation between government and the financial sector will spread to other countries.

If it hasn't already....

dash
(OMG, I just posted in PA.... )

[Sol Rosenberg]

Those kids in the park are dirty and they have no message.

Here's one they could adopt:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/hank-paulsons-crony-capitalism-20111201

I don't get why the good people of the USA put up with this sort of thing. For a country founded to throw off corrupt oppression, a great deal of corruption is being ignored.

If allowed to continue unchecked, the complete loss of separation between government and the financial sector will spread to other countries.

If it hasn't already....

dash
(OMG, I just posted in PA.... )

It already has, and nothing will change any time soon. One party is bought and paid for and will gleefully kick the middle class in the balls time and again, and the other talks a good game but ends up pandering to the same benefactors when pu$h comes to $hove. The game is rigged. That's the heart of what the occupy movement is bitching about.

There is nothing wrong with posting in PA.

[squirel]

There is nothing wrong with posting in PA.

Why, no, there isn't, your post might even be read by three, or on a good day, four people, only two of whom will abuse you.

[Sol Rosenberg]

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world."

[dash34]

It already has, and nothing will change any time soon. One party is bought and paid for and will gleefully kick the middle class in the balls time and again, and the other talks a good game but ends up pandering to the same benefactors when pu$h comes to $hove. The game is rigged. That's the heart of what the occupy movement is bitching about.

There is nothing wrong with posting in PA.

By any reasonable moral or legal standard, Paulson should be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. He gave insider information to his investment cronies, allowing them to make billions on short sales, and got away with it. Isn't that an indictable offense in the USA? Even worse, the harm done was to average joe and jill taxpayers. Where is the SEC?

Are ordinary citizens getting angry and fed up with this, or is there a sense of hopelessness in the USA?

Just wondering. Things aren't much better up here in Canuckistan.

dash

[learningj24]

Just to play devil's advocate; anybody want to speculate on the effect of NOT pushing the 16 trill out there? How about the impact on the world economy if that list of banks had folded up shop due to overleveraging? One of the big reasons that the Fed is paying banks to take money is we don't have any tools to deal with deflation if it sets in. Going off the gold standard is off the table.

[Jambalaya]

The Fed has a responsibility to preserve the integrity of the US financial system. That includes local and foreign participants. Firms like those listed have very substantial US operations / subsidiaries (RBS Lasalle, Barcalys bought Lehman NA business, UBS owned the old Kidder/Paine Webber, Credit Suisse owned the old First Boston ...), hence their access to support. I do believe I am correct in saying that all the firms listed were US primary dealers - so they were active participants in funding the US government, hence the support.

[tikipete]

It is just more trickle down bs. It hasn't worked because it can't! It's like trying to build a skyscraper from the top down. The can just gets kicked down the road a little further.

If you spent the same money on Main St. you'd accomplish something...OH! WAIT! The mega rich would lose control of their sinking ship.

[Saorsa]

Those kids in the park are dirty and they have no message.

Squirrel!

DAMMIT, my dog was reading that and just went nuts trying to get outside.

[austin1972]

Just to play devil's advocate; anybody want to speculate on the effect of NOT pushing the 16 trill out there? How about the impact on the world economy if that list of banks had folded up shop due to overleveraging? One of the big reasons that the Fed is paying banks to take money is we don't have any tools to deal with deflation if it sets in. Going off the gold standard is off the table.

They had to. The way the banks unabashedly took advantage of it and paid themselves handsomely while slapping each other on the backs is just beyond the pale.
They need to be split up one by one and people need to go to prison.

[tikipete]

Wait a minute Austin. The banks are doing what they were designed to do, right?

Either they don't know what they're doing or they've succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. Choose one please.

[dash34]

Just to play devil's advocate; anybody want to speculate on the effect of NOT pushing the 16 trill out there? How about the impact on the world economy if that list of banks had folded up shop due to overleveraging? One of the big reasons that the Fed is paying banks to take money is we don't have any tools to deal with deflation if it sets in. Going off the gold standard is off the table.

Sure, a bunch of temporarily empty buildings on Wall Street, which would then be occupied by new tenants who did not participate in gambling overleveraging their companies. The only difference would be that some would be offshore companies (Bank of China?) and that would be politically embarrassing.

There would be a big mess to sort out for all the people who had mortgages with the failed institutions, oh, wait, that happened anyway. Individual investors would get screwed for sure.

There would, of course, be a temporary recession in the mega-yacht building business. And a lot of unemployed lobbyists.

I don't think the 99% gives a shit if the 1% have to brush up their resumes and look for new work.

dash

[Mark K]

Just to play devil's advocate; anybody want to speculate on the effect of NOT pushing the 16 trill out there? How about the impact on the world economy if that list of banks had folded up shop due to overleveraging? One of the big reasons that the Fed is paying banks to take money is we don't have any tools to deal with deflation if it sets in. Going off the gold standard is off the table.

Sure, a bunch of temporarily empty buildings on Wall Street, which would then be occupied by new tenants who did not participate in gambling overleveraging their companies. The only difference would be that some would be offshore companies (Bank of China?) and that would be politically embarrassing.

There would be a big mess to sort out for all the people who had mortgages with the failed institutions, oh, wait, that happened anyway. Individual investors would get screwed for sure.

There would, of course, be a temporary recession in the mega-yacht building business. And a lot of unemployed lobbyists.

I don't think the 99% gives a shit if the 1% have to brush up their resumes and look for new work.

dash

Most everybody's 401K would be gone. So would most all the corporate and public pension plans. There would be a panic as people tried to get their cash out of the banks before they shut their doors. Tax revenues to the federal government would have probably dropped at least in half overnight, and so would the state and city's, causing a crisis in confidence in the dollar itself.

[Tom Ray]

House Passes Audit the Fed Bill

In a move that serves as a capstone to Rep. Ron Paul’s colorful career, the House on Wednesday voted to have Congress‘ chief investigators conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve’s shrouded decision-making process.

The overwhelming 327-98 vote sends the measure to the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, at one time expressed support for an audit — though he reportedly has changed his mind.

...


Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke doesn’t like the prospect of such a broad audit, calling it a “nightmare scenario” last week and saying it would lead to politicians second-guessing his decisions.

...

The bill would grant the Government Accountability Office, which is Congress‘ chief investigative arm, the power to retroactively review the Fed’s decision-making — particularly on monetary policy.

Congress established the Federal Reserve nearly a century ago. The system, which consists of a board of governors and 12 regional banks, acts as lender of last resort to the country’s banking system, and it is charged with fighting inflation and with promoting economic growth and employment.

The interest rates it sets have a direct impact on the rates that banks charge consumers, but Congress shielded some of the board’s decision-making from view in order to give the agency independence.

Now, after the recent financial collapse, many lawmakers have begun to question the Fed’s decisions and want a closer look at why it has taken those steps.

Mr. Frank, though, said that giving the GAO powers to look at monetary policy is a precursor to Republicans trying to change the Fed’s mission overall to focus solely on monetary policy, not employment.

The bill marks a major win for Mr. Paul, who is retiring from Congress this year after 12 terms and three presidential runs — two as a Republican and one as the Libertarian Party nominee.

On the campaign trail in 2008 and again in 2012, his call to audit the Fed drew wild applause from his supporters, many of whom said they first discovered the maverick lawmaker because of his writings on monetary policy.

The House’s action will put pressure on Mr. Reid in the Senate, where a companion audit bill is sponsored by Mr. Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican.

Senate Republicans have some methods that they could use to try to force a vote on the measure, too.

Mr. Reid’s office didn’t reply to a request for comment Wednesday.

Congress has approved more limited audits of the Fed in recent years. Following through on that, the GAO reported last year that the Fed repeatedly invoked emergency authority to expand its lending during the Wall Street crisis in 2008 and 2009, including major loans to prop up the housing market.

The audit also found that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which had a major role in the lending, did not have sufficient controls to prevent conflicts of interest for its employees.

[tikipete]

There is an awful lot of insider trading on Wall St. and much of it involves speculation about what the Fed may do next. So, making the Fed transparent would go along way towards quashing insider trading.

[tikipete]

Hind sight being what it is, I'm convinced giving 1% of that amount to the poor would have stimulated the economy out of this mess.

[kmccabe]

you only watch MSNBC don't you?

ya really need to flip the channel Tiki.

[tikipete]

I never watch MSNBC. You might give the dial a spin yourself.

[kmccabe]

Good - that eliminates one source of lunacy.

[tikipete]

Seems all you "bankers are God" types are a little down in the dumps. Whas up!

[kmccabe]

Probably the realization that the existing "leadership" in this country has no clue what to do.

[Bull Gator]

What ever happened to aka? He was an asshole but no more so than TMS.

[tuk tuk joe]

1343351528[/url]' post='3802327']
Probably the realization that the existing "leadership" in this country has no clue what to do.

Plastic man?

[zzrider]

Anyone who reads stuff like this and truly comprehends how the Federal Reserve and Federal Government actually functions, but then goes on to vote for either Obama or Romney anyway, deserves whatever financial ruin befalls them due to the serial screwing we're getting from this malicious organized crime syndicate.

[kmccabe]

anyone who thinks we did this out of the kindness of our hearts or stupidity needs to check themselves into a mental institution.

[zzrider]

anyone who thinks we did this out of the kindness of our hearts or stupidity needs to check themselves into a mental institution.

Agreed. It frustrates me when I hear people say that the FedGov/FedRes does what it does because they are either (a)stupid or ( doing what is necessary "to protect us" from worse outcomes.

No, they are a malicious, self-serving parasite, and they are slowing killing the host.

[kmccabe]

indeed that evil government colluding with the bankers - you heard about the Trilateral Commission right? Yup. You guessed it, they're in on this too. In fact ALL that money is offshore now... why do you suppose that is? Well, I'll tell you - its being turned into Gold, sent to Antarctica, and is being given to the remnants of Hitler's regime - where they've been hiding out waiting for the correct time to return to Europe and take it over and that time is near.

dolt.

[zzrider]

indeed that evil government colluding with the bankers - you heard about the Trilateral Commission right? Yup. You guessed it, they're in on this too. In fact ALL that money is offshore now... why do you suppose that is? Well, I'll tell you - its being turned into Gold, sent to Antarctica, and is being given to the remnants of Hitler's regime - where they've been hiding out waiting for the correct time to return to Europe and take it over and that time is near.

dolt.

Excuse me? I'm afraid you've lost me, kmccabe. Are you trying to make a point?

My argument is this: the Federal Reserve has intentionally violated the terms of its charter in order to rig the system in favor of the Wall Street banker community. The Federal Government goes along with this, rather than rightfully revoking the Fed's charter and throwing them all in jail, because these games allow the FedGov to go on spending ever more money they don't have (and will never repay) in various efforts to buy votes and sustain their political lives. Now, if you'd like to try to debate this position, see if you can do it without hyperbole or ad hominem.

[tikipete]

http://www.federalre...ries/frseri.htm

Let's all give this a little look see. Maybe there's something in here we missed.

Well shucks! I DID miss something:

Representation
Only one member of the Board may be selected from any one of the twelve Federal Reserve Districts. In making appointments, the President is directed by law to select a "fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests and geographical divisions of the country." These aspects of selection are intended to ensure representation of regional interests and the interests of various sectors of the public.

I wonder who my representative is? Anyone know? Heck, I'm prolly too small a sector to git represented. How 'bout y'all?

Whoa! There's a whole bunch of stuff in here I'll bet y'all didn't know and some of it sounds important!

Responsibilities
The primary responsibility of the Board members is the formulation of monetary policy....

Golly, isn't the innerweb neat?

[zzrider]

The main problem I have with the Federal Reserve is this, from the Fed's charter:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The Fed had violated all three of the founding principles of their charter. Let's look up the word "stable" in the dictionary, just to doublecheck:

Definition of STABLE1a : firmly established : fixed, steadfast <stable opinions> b : not changing or fluctuating : unvarying <in stable condition>

Ok, so "stable prices" means prices that don't change over time. And the wording of the charter says stable prices, not stable inflation. Got it. So how come we have the Federal Reserve board coming out and openly saying things like this:

Looking beyond the temporary effects on inflation of this year's fluctuations in oil and other commodity prices, almost all participants continued to anticipate that inflation over the medium-term would run at or below the 2 percent rate that the Committee judges to be most consistent with its statutory mandate.

Wait a minute! So the plain-English definition from the Federal Reserve Act gives as a mandate the maintenance of stable prices. 2% inflation is NOT stable prices. 2% annual inflation means that something that costs you $1.00 when you are 20 will cost you $2.39 when you are looking to retire at age 65. How is a 235% increase in prices over the course of an average person's working life stable?!

Inflation is a phenomenon that is being intentionally created by our Federal Reserve, with the Federal Government's willing consent. It's not something that just magically happens by accident. Inflation is raw theft from everyone who works for a living.


I focused on "stable prices" for this post, but I think it should be equally clear that the Fed had equally violated the goals of "maximum employment" and "moderate long-term interest rates" as well.

[Remodel]

indeed that evil government colluding with the bankers - you heard about the Trilateral Commission right? Yup. You guessed it, they're in on this too. In fact ALL that money is offshore now... why do you suppose that is? Well, I'll tell you - its being turned into Gold, sent to Antarctica, and is being given to the remnants of Hitler's regime - where they've been hiding out waiting for the correct time to return to Europe and take it over and that time is near.

dolt.

LOL. Good one Mccabe. Not quite up to the LR standard, but pretty close!

[kmccabe]

indeed that evil government colluding with the bankers - you heard about the Trilateral Commission right? Yup. You guessed it, they're in on this too. In fact ALL that money is offshore now... why do you suppose that is? Well, I'll tell you - its being turned into Gold, sent to Antarctica, and is being given to the remnants of Hitler's regime - where they've been hiding out waiting for the correct time to return to Europe and take it over and that time is near.

dolt.

LOL. Good one Mccabe. Not quite up to the LR standard, but pretty close!

people have no fucking clue - I put this on our glorious education system supported of course by those "journolists" in our media.

[tikipete]

We have more than a clue!

I offered you the opportunity to explain your views but you choose to malign others instead. Maybe you realize your position is indefensible? That is if you had a position.

[Saorsa]

We have more than a clue!

I offered you the opportunity to explain your views but you choose to malign others instead. Maybe you realize your position is indefensible? That is if you had a position.

To get even, just burn all your federal reserve notes.

[kmccabe]

So you think we'd be better off without a Federal Reserve system? You think the key function of the Fed is to "line the pockets" of bankers? You think its a grand act of collusion? Somehow, I think someone else has a position that's indefensible. Soliciting a comment in defense of your position is only going to draw criticism.

Chief, I get the anger its just misplaced.

[Tom Ray]

House Passes Audit the Fed Bill

The audit also found that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which had a major role in the lending, did not have sufficient controls to prevent conflicts of interest for its employees.

If we can't have a Fed with some transparency, like enough to allow controls on conflicts of interest, then yes, I'd say we are better off without one.

[tikipete]

I don't think its possible to function without a Fed. Hence, open it up, make it a fully governmental function open to public scrutiny and all the second guessing that goes with it. I like the sound of that word "transparency". I like it a lot.

[kmccabe]

House Passes Audit the Fed Bill

The audit also found that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which had a major role in the lending, did not have sufficient controls to prevent conflicts of interest for its employees.

If we can't have a Fed with some transparency, like enough to allow controls on conflicts of interest, then yes, I'd say we are better off without one.

They publish their minutes. They're as transparent as they can be to be effective. What more do you want? Understand that sometimes just a statement when they know the market believes them will suffice to raise asset values.

Draghi in Europe did something that he's never done before - he stated unequivocally that the ECB would do "what it takes" to save the Euro. The markets reacted strongly - did he DO anything? No - just the idea that they said something and took a position was enough for the markets.

The ECF isn't even in place to do anything yet. The fate of it is in the German high courts now. I don't think they're going to allow it - and I don't blame them. The Finnish experience with austerity in the 90's has proven that you can work your way out of this and the "northern" economies know this and don't cut a damn bit of slack for the south. THAT's the problem the Euro faces. I digress.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm

The goal of the Federal Reserve is two fold:

"The Congress established the statutory objectives for monetary policy--maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates--in the Federal Reserve Act. "

they ARE working towards this end. They control MONETARY policy. Its pushing a string. They implement their monetary policy in the only way they can - through the financial system. If you don't understand that - speaking with you is meaningless.

[Tom Ray]

The goal of the Federal Reserve is two fold:

"The Congress established the statutory objectives for monetary policy--maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates--in the Federal Reserve Act. "

they ARE working towards this end.

Looks like they are failing toward this end. This is only recent history, but they have been failing for a long time. That's why a silver dime still buys a gallon or so of gasoline, but a fiat dime does not.



Publishing their minutes does not provide enough detail to control conflicts of interest, so it's not enough for me.

[tikipete]

"They're as transparent as they can be to be effective. What more do you want?"

Control. The Fed mandate calls for policies which maintain high unemployment levels and representation of the public. I don't see that happening. What I see are enormous bank profits, secrecy and high unemployment.

Fed policy is, in one word, INEFFECTIVE! Since '08 the Fed has been trying to undo the damage caused by greedy, reckless, irresponsible bankers. They don't seem to be any closer than when they started. The public can do as well cause it's for damn sure they couldn't do worse.

KICK THE CAN IS A GAME FOR CHILDREN! IT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE, EFFECTIVE MONETARY POLICY!

[Mark K]

House Passes Audit the Fed Bill

The audit also found that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which had a major role in the lending, did not have sufficient controls to prevent conflicts of interest for its employees.

If we can't have a Fed with some transparency, like enough to allow controls on conflicts of interest, then yes, I'd say we are better off without one.

They publish their minutes. They're as transparent as they can be to be effective. What more do you want? Understand that sometimes just a statement when they know the market believes them will suffice to raise asset values.

Draghi in Europe did something that he's never done before - he stated unequivocally that the ECB would do "what it takes" to save the Euro. The markets reacted strongly - did he DO anything? No - just the idea that they said something and took a position was enough for the markets.

The ECF isn't even in place to do anything yet. The fate of it is in the German high courts now. I don't think they're going to allow it - and I don't blame them. The Finnish experience with austerity in the 90's has proven that you can work your way out of this and the "northern" economies know this and don't cut a damn bit of slack for the south. THAT's the problem the Euro faces. I digress.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm

The goal of the Federal Reserve is two fold:

"The Congress established the statutory objectives for monetary policy--maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates--in the Federal Reserve Act. "

they ARE working towards this end. They control MONETARY policy. Its pushing a string. They implement their monetary policy in the only way they can - through the financial system. If you don't understand that - speaking with you is meaningless.

Just embellishing:

They publish more than their minutes. They publish the transcripts too, just after 5 years. The ones for 2006 are now available. Read somebody I trust say they show no collusion or evil plotting, and that the most interesting thing was a remarkable nativity about the dangers of that housing bubble, which ain't all that interesting. The lack of general outrage indicates that to be a general consensus view. Haven't seen any Congress critters waving them around and citing stuff off them anyway, not even Ron.

[Tom Ray]

So it's really too soon to look at how they behaved in years like 2008 and 2009?

Ron Paul has called out things that seem... well... like this:

Snuck through Congress on Christmas Eve in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act established the Fed as America’s central bank. The Fed essentially creates money out of thin air, manipulates interest rates, and interferes with the free market. By doing so, the Fed fuels our economy’s boom-bust cycle and has helped devalue our dollar by over 95%.

According to the Minneapolis Federal Reserve branch’s own website, what you could buy with $1.00 in 1913 would now cost you $22.55.

Although Congress and the Treasury helped bring about the housing bubble and financial collapse with legislation, regulations, and keeping the funds flowing to reckless institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Fed was the main cause of the crisis. Its interference in setting interest rates distorted the market, and its status as the “lender of last resort” ensured banks could hook individuals and businesses for loans on projects that weren’t in as high demand as forecasters believed.

When the crash occurred, common sense dictated a change in policy. But the Federal Reserve only increased its lending and intervention to historic highs.

While selling Americans a bill of goods that the economy would never recover without unprecedented bailouts, we now know that at the peak of its “emergency lending,” the Fed was providing nearly 90% of its discount window loans to foreign banks! This included making over 70 loans to a bank partially owned by the Bank of Libya.

The Bank of Libya?

[tikipete]

I've read this before but never read a single word of rebuttal. It's as if the bankers simply don't care what the public knows or thinks. Their lack of response is arrogant, condescending and indifferent.

IF we cannot live without a Federal Reserve system it needs to be a wholly public system, transparent and answerable to "We the people."

[Mark K]

It's based on the quaint notion that there should be some insulation between that process and political manipulation. Forgive them, they didn't have the learned, wise, and extremely ethical congress critters we have today.

[Tom Ray]

It's based on the quaint notion that there should be some insulation between that process and political manipulation. Forgive them, they didn't have the learned, wise, and extremely ethical congress critters we have today.

Congress created the Fed and has the right to oversee their creation. Not just the right, the responsibility.

Emergency lending to the Bank of Libya strikes me as the kind of thing that could stand a little political manipulation. Also, it strikes me as the kind of shit that grows in the dark.

[Mark K]

It's based on the quaint notion that there should be some insulation between that process and political manipulation. Forgive them, they didn't have the learned, wise, and extremely ethical congress critters we have today.

Congress created the Fed and has the right to oversee their creation. Not just the right, the responsibility.

Emergency lending to the Bank of Libya strikes me as the kind of thing that could stand a little political manipulation. Also, it strikes me as the kind of shit that grows in the dark.

Boy oh boy, "Libya" sure sounds scary. Not sure I have been scared enough to go along with Ron just yet though. I want to be properly outraged, so could you look up what percentage of the un-named bank the Bank of Libya controls, Tom?

[Tom Ray]

Probably not without a proper audit.

[Mark K]

Probably not without a proper audit.

So Ron is in league with them! Now I am scared.

[tikipete]

It's based on the quaint notion that there should be some insulation between that process and political manipulation. Forgive them, they didn't have the learned, wise, and extremely ethical congress critters we have today.

Congress created the Fed and has the right to oversee their creation. Not just the right, the responsibility.

Emergency lending to the Bank of Libya strikes me as the kind of thing that could stand a little political manipulation. Also, it strikes me as the kind of shit that grows in the dark.

Boy oh boy, "Libya" sure sounds scary. Not sure I have been scared enough to go along with Ron just yet though. I want to be properly outraged, so could you look up what percentage of the un-named bank the Bank of Libya controls, Tom?

Who cares? Is there nothing that outrages you that has a profit attached? Human trafficking? Narco-terrorism? It's all good as long as it makes its way to a small tropical island and the bankers earn a percentage?

There are things more important than money, though I don't expect you to understand.

[Mark K]

It's based on the quaint notion that there should be some insulation between that process and political manipulation. Forgive them, they didn't have the learned, wise, and extremely ethical congress critters we have today.

Congress created the Fed and has the right to oversee their creation. Not just the right, the responsibility.

Emergency lending to the Bank of Libya strikes me as the kind of thing that could stand a little political manipulation. Also, it strikes me as the kind of shit that grows in the dark.

Boy oh boy, "Libya" sure sounds scary. Not sure I have been scared enough to go along with Ron just yet though. I want to be properly outraged, so could you look up what percentage of the un-named bank the Bank of Libya controls, Tom?

Who cares? Is there nothing that outrages you that has a profit attached? Human trafficking? Narco-terrorism? It's all good as long as it makes its way to a small tropical island and the bankers earn a percentage?

There are things more important than money, though I don't expect you to understand.

[kmccabe]

"They're as transparent as they can be to be effective. What more do you want?"

Control. The Fed mandate calls for policies which maintain high unemployment levels and representation of the public. I don't see that happening. What I see are enormous bank profits, secrecy and high unemployment.

Fed policy is, in one word, INEFFECTIVE! Since '08 the Fed has been trying to undo the damage caused by greedy, reckless, irresponsible bankers. They don't seem to be any closer than when they started. The public can do as well cause it's for damn sure they couldn't do worse.

KICK THE CAN IS A GAME FOR CHILDREN! IT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE, EFFECTIVE MONETARY POLICY!

then quite simply you really don't understand a thing of what the hell you are saying. Thanks for playing.

[tuk tuk joe]

1343504011[/url]' post='3804155']

1343503328[/url]' post='3804144']

1343304044[/url]' post='3801307']
House Passes Audit the Fed Bill

The audit also found that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which had a major role in the lending, did not have sufficient controls to prevent conflicts of interest for its employees.

If we can't have a Fed with some transparency, like enough to allow controls on conflicts of interest, then yes, I'd say we are better off without one.

They publish their minutes. They're as transparent as they can be to be effective. What more do you want? Understand that sometimes just a statement when they know the market believes them will suffice to raise asset values.

Draghi in Europe did something that he's never done before - he stated unequivocally that the ECB would do "what it takes" to save the Euro. The markets reacted strongly - did he DO anything? No - just the idea that they said something and took a position was enough for the markets.

The ECF isn't even in place to do anything yet. The fate of it is in the German high courts now. I don't think they're going to allow it - and I don't blame them. The Finnish experience with austerity in the 90's has proven that you can work your way out of this and the "northern" economies know this and don't cut a damn bit of slack for the south. THAT's the problem the Euro faces. I digress.

http://www.federalre...money_12848.htm

The goal of the Federal Reserve is two fold:

"The Congress established the statutory objectives for monetary policy--maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates--in the Federal Reserve Act. "

they ARE working towards this end. They control MONETARY policy. Its pushing a string. They implement their monetary policy in the only way they can - through the financial system. If you don't understand that - speaking with you is meaningless.

You are an uneducatable vindictive ass. Stable prices? Maximum employment? Moderate long term Interest rates? Yeah right....

[tikipete]

I keep telling you guys, all the banks understand is profit. Above all else! You can't reason with them, can't charge them with responsibility, all they're interested in is money.

We need to throw this baby out with the filthy bath water and start over.

Reinstating Glass-Steagall is a good starting point.

[kmccabe]

You are an uneducatable vindictive ass. Stable prices? Maximum employment? Moderate long term Interest rates? Yeah right....

That's the best you can come up with?

Who's stupid?

[mr_fabulous]

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world."

Makes you think about "The Talent on Wall Street", doesn't it?


The Banking industry makes The Russian Credit card scammers look legit. Our bankers by comparison mostly know nothing, and and legislate thievery.

[zzrider]

So you think we'd be better off without a Federal Reserve system? You think the key function of the Fed is to "line the pockets" of bankers? You think its a grand act of collusion? Somehow, I think someone else has a position that's indefensible. Soliciting a comment in defense of your position is only going to draw criticism.

Chief, I get the anger its just misplaced.

You are countering a strawman argument I never made. I never said this is a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" situation (Tiki does, though). I just want a Federal Reserve that actually follows the plain-english mandate of its charter. The current incarnation of this institution needs to have its charter revoked and its members imprisoned for public fraud. Then start over with a new Fed, and enforce the damn mandate!

Are you actually claiming that the Fed's behavior is consistent with the goals of STABLE PRICES, let alone maximum employment and moderate long-term interest rates?

A monetary policy that intentionally creates inflation is most certainly not stable prices.

Or are you just saying that for some reason you are OK with 2% inflation created intentionally by our government, even though it erodes the value of the currency in your wallet right now?

You have $100,000 in the bank. Every month, I hack your account and extract $167 from it. There is nothing you can do about my theft. Are you OK with that?

[kmccabe]

So you think we'd be better off without a Federal Reserve system? You think the key function of the Fed is to "line the pockets" of bankers? You think its a grand act of collusion? Somehow, I think someone else has a position that's indefensible. Soliciting a comment in defense of your position is only going to draw criticism.

Chief, I get the anger its just misplaced.

You are countering a strawman argument I never made. I never said this is a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" situation (Tiki does, though). I just want a Federal Reserve that actually follows the plain-english mandate of its charter. The current incarnation of this institution needs to have its charter revoked and its members imprisoned for public fraud. Then start over with a new Fed, and enforce the damn mandate!

Are you actually claiming that the Fed's behavior is consistent with the goals of STABLE PRICES, let alone maximum employment and moderate long-term interest rates?

A monetary policy that intentionally creates inflation is most certainly not stable prices.

Or are you just saying that for some reason you are OK with 2% inflation created intentionally by our government, even though it erodes the value of the currency in your wallet right now?

You have $100,000 in the bank. Every month, I hack your account and extract $167 from it. There is nothing you can do about my theft. Are you OK with that?

They're trying to keep asset prices elevated - if you look at my post in the Debt Crisis thread - the short term fear of all these "central banks" is actually DEFLATION. Check it out. Inflation of 2% we can deal with. Deflation is disastrous for the financial system.

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world."

Makes you think about "The Talent on Wall Street", doesn't it?


The Banking industry makes The Russian Credit card scammers look legit. Our bankers by comparison mostly know nothing, and and legislate thievery.

another quality post.

[zzrider]

They're trying to keep asset prices elevated - if you look at my post in the Debt Crisis thread - the short term fear of all these "central banks" is actually DEFLATION. Check it out. Inflation of 2% we can deal with. Deflation is disastrous for the financial system.

Oh this I agree with 100% - that's exactly what they're doing - propping up the stock market by devaluing currency. However I disagree that deflation is necessarily a bad thing, but more importantly, it is unavoidable. The Fed and the FedGov simply cannot continue playing these games indefinitely - the mess we're in today is exactly because central banks have been doing this crap for decades, and the game is about over. Deflation is not only GOOD for those who are financially responsible (i.e., savers), it is inevitable - all the Fed is doing is prolonging it and ultimately making the damage worse when it comes.

Disastrous for the financial system? Good! Let them go bankrupt, prosecute, seize the assets, and imprison those responsible for committing this fraud upon the public. Anyone who still has money in the stock market right now will get exactly zero sympathy from me when, not if, this bogus market collapses. The unsustainable folly of this game is just as plainly evident now as the real estate bubble was in 2007, for those who choose to keep their eyes open. Likewise the tech bubble at the end of Clinton's second term - again clearly unsustainable and based on fantasy. So now we've had TWO solid examples of government-facilitated financial bubbles go boom within the adult lifetime of anyone who is at least 40. So there is no excuse to be burned when it happens again, yet, people will be.

One last point - I don't see where in the Federal Reserve's charter they are mandated to prop up the stock market. They are supposed to maintain stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate long-term interest rates. That's what their charter says. So, are we a nation governed by the rule of law, or not?

[Tom Ray]

Stable prices?

Look what happens when you create a trillion:

[kmccabe]

They're trying to keep asset prices elevated - if you look at my post in the Debt Crisis thread - the short term fear of all these "central banks" is actually DEFLATION. Check it out. Inflation of 2% we can deal with. Deflation is disastrous for the financial system.

Oh this I agree with 100% - that's exactly what they're doing - propping up the stock market by devaluing currency. However I disagree that deflation is necessarily a bad thing, but more importantly, it is unavoidable. The Fed and the FedGov simply cannot continue playing these games indefinitely - the mess we're in today is exactly because central banks have been doing this crap for decades, and the game is about over. Deflation is not only GOOD for those who are financially responsible (i.e., savers), it is inevitable - all the Fed is doing is prolonging it and ultimately making the damage worse when it comes.

Disastrous for the financial system? Good! Let them go bankrupt, prosecute, seize the assets, and imprison those responsible for committing this fraud upon the public. Anyone who still has money in the stock market right now will get exactly zero sympathy from me when, not if, this bogus market collapses. The unsustainable folly of this game is just as plainly evident now as the real estate bubble was in 2007, for those who choose to keep their eyes open. Likewise the tech bubble at the end of Clinton's second term - again clearly unsustainable and based on fantasy. So now we've had TWO solid examples of government-facilitated financial bubbles go boom within the adult lifetime of anyone who is at least 40. So there is no excuse to be burned when it happens again, yet, people will be.

One last point - I don't see where in the Federal Reserve's charter they are mandated to prop up the stock market. They are supposed to maintain stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate long-term interest rates. That's what their charter says. So, are we a nation governed by the rule of law, or not?

read the post on the Debt Crisis and you'll change your tune. Its a systemic problem Simply saying "let them go" under current circumstances is unquestionable. Again you and tiki haven't a clue what you're talking about. 2008 wasn't about saving the bank's collective asses - it was about saving our own asses. Once you realize the interconnectedness of our markets/investment/retirement fund/pension funds - you'll reconciler your position. Letting them go is not an option.

[zzrider]

read the post on the Debt Crisis and you'll change your tune. Its a systemic problem Simply saying "let them go" under current circumstances is unquestionable. Again you and tiki haven't a clue what you're talking about. 2008 wasn't about saving the bank's collective asses - it was about saving our own asses. Once you realize the interconnectedness of our markets/investment/retirement fund/pension funds - you'll reconciler your position. Letting them go is not an option.

I'm sorry km, I fundamentally disagree on this point and it's not because I'm uneducated or I simply don't understand the issue. I do. I get that letting the market sort itself out without government intervention would have been painful in 2008. But I don't understand how an intelligent person can defend propping up fraud with even more fraud. Pension funds, particularly public employee and union pension funds, are fraudulent political promises based on a false assumption - an unsustainable 8% annual return. They were frauds then, and they are still frauds now. Markets/investments/retirement funds in general are always risky, always a gamble. The only thing certain in life is death, and allowing our politicians to deceive us into thinking they can guarantee our future financial security is how we wound up in this mess in the first place.

I reject the "too big to fail" argument. Is our system fragile? Hell yes! Why? Because it's a fraud built upon unsustainable levels of debt and criminal behavior on the part of our central bank! Perpetuating a fraud fixes nothing.

In 2008 the total US Federal debt held by the public stood at $5.3 trillion. For fiscal year 2012, it will be $9.7 trillion. We have nearly doubled the debt in only four years!!! We have fixed nothing.

[tikipete]

They're trying to keep asset prices elevated - if you look at my post in the Debt Crisis thread - the short term fear of all these "central banks" is actually DEFLATION. Check it out. Inflation of 2% we can deal with. Deflation is disastrous for the financial system.

Oh this I agree with 100% - that's exactly what they're doing - propping up the stock market by devaluing currency. However I disagree that deflation is necessarily a bad thing, but more importantly, it is unavoidable. The Fed and the FedGov simply cannot continue playing these games indefinitely - the mess we're in today is exactly because central banks have been doing this crap for decades, and the game is about over. Deflation is not only GOOD for those who are financially responsible (i.e., savers), it is inevitable - all the Fed is doing is prolonging it and ultimately making the damage worse when it comes.

Disastrous for the financial system? Good! Let them go bankrupt, prosecute, seize the assets, and imprison those responsible for committing this fraud upon the public. Anyone who still has money in the stock market right now will get exactly zero sympathy from me when, not if, this bogus market collapses. The unsustainable folly of this game is just as plainly evident now as the real estate bubble was in 2007, for those who choose to keep their eyes open. Likewise the tech bubble at the end of Clinton's second term - again clearly unsustainable and based on fantasy. So now we've had TWO solid examples of government-facilitated financial bubbles go boom within the adult lifetime of anyone who is at least 40. So there is no excuse to be burned when it happens again, yet, people will be.

One last point - I don't see where in the Federal Reserve's charter they are mandated to prop up the stock market. They are supposed to maintain stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate long-term interest rates. That's what their charter says. So, are we a nation governed by the rule of law, or not?

read the post on the Debt Crisis and you'll change your tune. Its a systemic problem Simply saying "let them go" under current circumstances is unquestionable. Again you and tiki haven't a clue what you're talking about. 2008 wasn't about saving the bank's collective asses - it was about saving our own asses. Once you realize the interconnectedness of our markets/investment/retirement fund/pension funds - you'll reconciler your position. Letting them go is not an option.

I understand full well. I've no confidence "they" are trying to save the system. On the contrary I believe "they" are trying to loot it.

[tuk tuk joe]

1343607964[/url]' post='3805182']

1343604855[/url]' post='3805134']

1343601904[/url]' post='3805084']
They're trying to keep asset prices elevated - if you look at my post in the Debt Crisis thread - the short term fear of all these "central banks" is actually DEFLATION. Check it out. Inflation of 2% we can deal with. Deflation is disastrous for the financial system.

Oh this I agree with 100% - that's exactly what they're doing - propping up the stock market by devaluing currency. However I disagree that deflation is necessarily a bad thing, but more importantly, it is unavoidable. The Fed and the FedGov simply cannot continue playing these games indefinitely - the mess we're in today is exactly because central banks have been doing this crap for decades, and the game is about over. Deflation is not only GOOD for those who are financially responsible (i.e., savers), it is inevitable - all the Fed is doing is prolonging it and ultimately making the damage worse when it comes.

Disastrous for the financial system? Good! Let them go bankrupt, prosecute, seize the assets, and imprison those responsible for committing this fraud upon the public. Anyone who still has money in the stock market right now will get exactly zero sympathy from me when, not if, this bogus market collapses. The unsustainable folly of this game is just as plainly evident now as the real estate bubble was in 2007, for those who choose to keep their eyes open. Likewise the tech bubble at the end of Clinton's second term - again clearly unsustainable and based on fantasy. So now we've had TWO solid examples of government-facilitated financial bubbles go boom within the adult lifetime of anyone who is at least 40. So there is no excuse to be burned when it happens again, yet, people will be.

One last point - I don't see where in the Federal Reserve's charter they are mandated to prop up the stock market. They are supposed to maintain stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate long-term interest rates. That's what their charter says. So, are we a nation governed by the rule of law, or not?

read the post on the Debt Crisis and you'll change your tune. Its a systemic problem Simply saying "let them go" under current circumstances is unquestionable. Again you and tiki haven't a clue what you're talking about. 2008 wasn't about saving the bank's collective asses - it was about saving our own asses. Once you realize the interconnectedness of our markets/investment/retirement fund/pension funds - you'll reconciler your position. Letting them go is not an option.

So you really believe this crap? I new someone must or we wouldn't be in such deep shit. So let me get this straigh pensioners are better off with negative interest on their life saving? Asswipe..

[zzrider]

So you really believe this crap? I new someone must or we wouldn't be in such deep shit. So let me get this straigh pensioners are better off with negative interest on their life saving? Asswipe..

Apparently, destroying the purchasing power of our currency is "saving" us.

Let's say you bust your ass from age 20 to 55 and manage to save a million dollars for your retirement. Over the next 20 years, by the time you hit 75, you will have lost $332,392.03 - a third of your life savings - to this annual 2% inflation artificially and intentionally created by the Federal Reserve.

If I hack your bank account and steal $1,385 a month out of your million dollar account, it's raw theft, right? So why when the government does it is it "saving us"?

But oh! It's even worse than that! Not only do we have to endure this ongoing governmental theft, we can't even earn any honest interest with what's left of our savings through legitimate banking savings & loan practices anymore, because the Federal Reserve has destroyed that too with ZIRP! So we're supposed to "invest" in rigged financial markets, the value of which is supported only by the exact same entity - the Federal Reserve - who has already screwed us twice with inflation and ZIRP!

[Mark K]

Why do you guys think you would still have those savings plans if the system had been allowed to melt down?

[Tom Ray]

Why do you guys think you would still have those savings plans if the system had been allowed to melt down?

Mostly because I live on it. Also the guns and neighbors with guns.

[zzrider]

Why do you guys think you would still have those savings plans if the system had been allowed to melt down?

Are you suggesting the purpose of the bailouts was to protect individual cash depositors' accounts? Got a link to a reference where we can validate that individual depositor accounts would have been wiped out if we hadn't bailed out the TBTF banks? That's what FDIC is for - if your concern was loss of depositor savings, the ONLY thing we needed to do was bolster FDIC. Liquidate the banks, make the depositors whole. TARP was completely unnecessary.

The bank I use for my personal finances (a local bank & trust) did not receive a penny of federal bailout money. So yeah, my savings (or what which I keep in a bank) would have been perfectly safe. Harm to the rest of my assets would have required someone personally coming to my property and taking it from me at gunpoint.

There is NO DEFENSE for the TARP bailouts. What we should have done is let the banks fail, seize assets, prosecute the executives, and protect the cash depositors. I would have no issue whatsoever using federal money to make sure individual depositors were made whole via FDIC. There was no need whatsoever to save these particular insolvent banks.

[mr_fabulous]

Why do you guys think you would still have those savings plans if the system had been allowed to melt down?

There is NO DEFENSE for the TARP bailouts. What we should have done is let the banks fail, seize assets, prosecute the executives, and protect the cash depositors. I would have no issue whatsoever using federal money to make sure individual depositors were made whole via FDIC. There was no need whatsoever to save these particular insolvent banks.

While I don't fully agree that taking our medicine is the best strategy here, (would have led to deflation and world banking collapse) I do think that more execs should have been thrown under the bus and prosecuted for the leveraging strategy and shareholder communication regarding their risk/asset ratio. Not to defend it, but large protions of geithner's TARP policy were actually profitable.

The parachutes of all the bailed out bank CEO's should have been forfeited at a minimum, and reset, pending further reform and growth of their institution. However, those goofy financial instruments that contributed to the 2008 disaster were made legal in 2000 by Congress, so 'tough tuna' to the American Taxpayer. Many large banks bought mortgage-backed securities based on sub-prime loans—or assumed the equivalent risk exposure through off-balance sheet financing arrangements, or goofy derivatives contracts—and suffered unexpected losses and became undercapitalized, requiring tax payers to pump them up by printing money. The deregulation policies of the last 20 years failed to maintain financial stability at the systemic level because gaps that developed in regulatory jurisdiction and overlapping jurisdictions meant the left hand had no idea what the right hand was doing, and that institutions were subject to more than one regulator. How could this possibly ensure the soundness of regulated financial firms? Was it on purpose or incompetancy? Those are good questions.

In addition, Regulatory limits on risk-taking were/or became insufficient. Regulators have a number of risk-reduction tools at their disposal, but I think they are an incompetant lot, and not even the perpetrators of some of thes goofy financial instruments understand them, let alone a bank regulator hump, so what can we expect? Abolish the instruments that make no sense, and rely as much as possible on the one that makes the most sense - capital regulation- those standards that require firms to maintain capital cushions to protect themselves against unexpected losses or insolvency. These leverage points were, and still may be, way out of whack, which is why the US printed money, and the principal reason why the banks had to be forced to take it. Arguably, its the reason why some of the big bank execs should be forced to be regulated based on leverage, or broken up.

[tikipete]

Incompetent? I doubt it, extortionists more like. RICO!

[Mark K]

Why do you guys think you would still have those savings plans if the system had been allowed to melt down?

Are you suggesting the purpose of the bailouts was to protect individual cash depositors' accounts? Got a link to a reference where we can validate that individual depositor accounts would have been wiped out if we hadn't bailed out the TBTF banks? That's what FDIC is for - if your concern was loss of depositor savings, the ONLY thing we needed to do was bolster FDIC. Liquidate the banks, make the depositors whole. TARP was completely unnecessary.

The bank I use for my personal finances (a local bank & trust) did not receive a penny of federal bailout money. So yeah, my savings (or what which I keep in a bank) would have been perfectly safe. Harm to the rest of my assets would have required someone personally coming to my property and taking it from me at gunpoint.

There is NO DEFENSE for the TARP bailouts. What we should have done is let the banks fail, seize assets, prosecute the executives, and protect the cash depositors. I would have no issue whatsoever using federal money to make sure individual depositors were made whole via FDIC. There was no need whatsoever to save these particular insolvent banks.

There weren't a lot of people who had the lions share of their pensions in passbook savings accounts. But even if that had been the case, where would the FDIC find trillions in cash to bail them all out?

[kmccabe]

Why do you guys think you would still have those savings plans if the system had been allowed to melt down?

Are you suggesting the purpose of the bailouts was to protect individual cash depositors' accounts? Got a link to a reference where we can validate that individual depositor accounts would have been wiped out if we hadn't bailed out the TBTF banks? That's what FDIC is for - if your concern was loss of depositor savings, the ONLY thing we needed to do was bolster FDIC. Liquidate the banks, make the depositors whole. TARP was completely unnecessary.

The bank I use for my personal finances (a local bank & trust) did not receive a penny of federal bailout money. So yeah, my savings (or what which I keep in a bank) would have been perfectly safe. Harm to the rest of my assets would have required someone personally coming to my property and taking it from me at gunpoint.

There is NO DEFENSE for the TARP bailouts. What we should have done is let the banks fail, seize assets, prosecute the executives, and protect the cash depositors. I would have no issue whatsoever using federal money to make sure individual depositors were made whole via FDIC. There was no need whatsoever to save these particular insolvent banks.

There weren't a lot of people who had the lions share of their pensions in passbook savings accounts. But even if that had been the case, where would the FDIC find trillions in cash to bail them all out?

You're arguing with people who have no clue.

Anybody here have a pension?

Anybody here have a 401(k)?

Anybody here have a money market account? Mutual Fund?

Take a guess where all that money goes and has gone. Take a guess what would have happened if the government didn't bail out the banks... You people think this is about bailing out the stock market??? If so, you really should vote Demo - because you do need people taking care of you and making those decisions. You obviously can't discern.

[Mark K]

You're arguing with people who have no clue.

I'm not sure. Did you not see the garb? The muskets? The tri-corner hats? These may be brave Revolutionary's, whose only regret is that they have but one 401K to give for this country.

[Tom Ray]

Take a guess what would have happened if the government didn't bail out the banks...

Lots of things, among them: we would not now be blowing up the next bubble with more printed money. We would not have the moral hazard of private profits and socialized losses. The markets would adjust to that new reality, which is nothing but good in my view.

The idea that suddenly all wealth would disappear and we'd all be left destitute without government bailing out big shots does not fly with me. Would taking our lumps hurt? Yes. Will it hurt again when this bubble pops? Yes.

So we have pain either way, but down one road lies moral hazard and cronyism. I'll take the straight and unadulterated pain and get it over with, thanks.

[kmccabe]

Take a guess what would have happened if the government didn't bail out the banks...

Lots of things, among them: we would not now be blowing up the next bubble with more printed money. We would not have the moral hazard of private profits and socialized losses. The markets would adjust to that new reality, which is nothing but good in my view.

The idea that suddenly all wealth would disappear and we'd all be left destitute without government bailing out big shots does not fly with me. Would taking our lumps hurt? Yes. Will it hurt again when this bubble pops? Yes.

So we have pain either way, but down one road lies moral hazard and cronyism. I'll take the straight and unadulterated pain and get it over with, thanks.

contemplate the banks going bankrupt and all those accounts being wrapped in the court system for the next five years. How quickly do lawyers wish to move a case through? If you think we have an overpolitization of our day to day lives - consider that scenario.

[tikipete]

I supported the first bail out. Unfortunately the banksters have made no attempt to correct their irresponsible practices, in fact they are emboldened. They've gone from believing they are too big to fail and now also believe they are too big to jail.

The banksters have run amok. RICO!