There's a reason there's a proverb that says that to give money to the wealthy is unwise.
http://www.votenobailout.org/
Of course, I'll hear you out, if you have a logically diversified point of view. ;D
If this is what I think it is, what an absolute travesty. People need to pay for their financial mistakes (or any mistake for that matter). Otherwise you don't learn AND its unfair.
I sent a message to my representatives.
While I agree that this degree of bailouts is bad, I am of the opinion that some action was necessary to stem the current crisis. Hopefully this debacle will lead to new legislation that will help regulate this industry, just like what happened during the great bank failures of the '20s and '30s.
Sorry to play devil's advocate, but you have to be realistic, with or without a bailout the big, high-earning bankers aren't the ones who are going to pay! The people who will pay if there is no buyout are those ordinary people who own their own homes (or God forbid, who just want to get onto a reasonably stable housing ladder), or simply those people who took out perfectly legitimate loans through their high-street bank, etc.
Without a bailout, the rot will spread and will soon trickle down to the ordinary folks...
Sorry to say that! I should clarify - I'm not advocating that these bankers should get away scott-free, merely that preventing the bailout would not hurt them, merely the little people.
There's also the fact (and I realise that I'm wandering dangerously off point, so I'll stop after this) that at the end of the day, we WANT entrepreneurs and banks to take risks (it's good for enterprise and therefore good for the economy as a whole) - if people are penalised too strongly for taking these risks, you run a real risk of disinclining existing entrepreneurs or new ones from making investments, which is something that no economy needs at this present time. It's a difficult balancing act, and I don't envy those people having to weigh up the options.
It's just that in this case, the safeguards on the financial markets weren't stringent enough and the risks have gotten out of hand. In a very bad way. Okay, I've finished playing Devils advocate...
Inscrutable
Well I may be arguing something differently, but living here in CA, I saw wayyyy to many people buy into houses they could not afford to begin with (via variable interest rate loans). This being due to an artificially overpriced market that fed itself upwards in a positive feedback loop.
These buyers signed a contract stating they would pay money to a lender. And when it came time to pay, they ran away. And now the government is going to bail them out at the taxpayer's expense. This is how the market will collapse.
Moodflow, that is a pretty good assessment. But, I do believe we saw a bait and switch among many realtors as well as many people being approved for loans they could never pay back. That means someone made money at these buyers' expense...greed, basically.
Buy the buy, dose anyone here wish a repetition of The Crash of '29 and with it the complete and total derailment of the Free Market? The golden years are now well and truly behind us, the longer it takes to pass the $700Bln emergency recovery package, the longer it will take for confidence to return in the banking sector which will in turn see an in cress in negative equity flow in the market, which consequently see further erosion of consumer confidence thus further depressing the market.
The enforcement of market regulations has in recent times been slight, and further more the current situation has been easy to read for at least the last year and a half and so could have been throttled back to allow for stability to return to the market; this did not happen and consequently we face the current economic downturn we face at the moment.
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel
@Cyber-Angel - My question: What consumer confidence?
They need the bail out. It helps bring the US economy down, helps install dictatorship (already most of the way there). Otherwise it won't be so easy getting people to conscript into the army or into those Fema concentration camps.
Lol, Efflux - I love your optimistic outlook! :D
Inscrutable
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1845209,00.html?cnn=yes
Quote from: calico on September 30, 2008, 10:39:08 AM
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1845209,00.html?cnn=yes
Great Read! I agree totally, If all that made mistakes aren't made accountable nothing will be learned. But sadly it will be a very painful and eyeopening experience for all of us.
As a contrarian the fact that all the nation's leaders and both presidential candidates are screaming for an immediate bailout tells me this is a very bad idea. A lot of very bad legislation was enacted when it was rushed through in recent years.
I agree with Inscrutable here. The brokers are the ones who make the risky decisions and they're very good at avoiding the burden of responsibility, after all they're not losing their own money, they're losing the money of their clients, who can just fire a couple of family men and women in place of cheap foreign labour if they haven't already.
@PG - You should check the article above. The people who are screwing with our money should be the ones held accountable; not making the average guy buying his car and house terrified of losing everything, because (and only because) someone else has been careless.
Accountability.
Try looking at it slightly more objectively. Big banks and brokers don't lose money, CEO's can always protect their personal equity. I don't know if you know of Bradford & Bingley but they're a UK Buy to Let Mortgage lender who were recently nationalised but the CEO still managed to cash in his bonus before they went bust. Accountability is sent right down the food chain. It's where the division of labour finds fault, in that the workers at the bottom of the pile have to shoulder the costs while the management continue to recieve larger and larger bonuses. I've studied economics along with political philosophy for several years and trust me accountability doesn't exist in those circles.
The taxpayer will have to bear the brunt for the short term but the idea is that when the economy regains strength the treasury will have investment in more ways than it ever has, effectively the private sector is paying tax but through investment rather than the government just taking money.
@PG, regardless of the "way it's supposed to work", it's foolishness.
Bailing out the wealthy isn't my option.
It may not be right but that's not gonna fix the economy. The wealthy create the strength in the economy and that filters down to the rest of society in what's known as Adam Smith's "trickle down effect". If we force the wealthy into relative poverty then it just drags down the rest of society.
@PG - That philosophy is a lame theory that hasn't worked for the United States since it was enforced over and again, starting with Reagan. The wealthy just keep their money and the rest of us suffer. That's seen across the world, by the way, with minor exceptions. Mexico, for example, has wealth. But, Mexico's wealthy horde it to the demise of their populace.
Think about that though. Mexico doesn't have division of labour it just has cheap labour. Since Reagan was president average wages in the US have increased, only going down during economic difficulties. The UK economy is the same, sure the rich get insanely rich and the poor only get a tiny bit richer but it is at least richer. Wages go up but not at inflationary rates, that's why it seems like those in poverty are getting poorer, it's not because the trickle down theory doesn't work, it's because inflation beating wages would cripple the economy.
The trickle down effect doesn't mean a fair ratio of wealth being distributed, it just means that wealth is distributed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqIFoBXGizc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-F89sIDDVI&feature=related
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Inflation-1923.jpg)
Yes and what he doesn't tell you is that banks and investment companies in the UK, China, Germany and Australia hold more of the dodgy debts than the American equivelants do. Indeed, Barclays bank has had to write off nearly £1.5 billion (more than $2.5 billion) of subprime debt in one week that it couldn't get rid of. Also, a direct intervention into only American banks would likely double inflation almost overnight. You can't move that much money around your own market, currency only has value when it's traded and trading money for money only works when it is in different currencies. In the same currency it leads to a depreciation because you're not getting anything new for it.
He's not suggesting a US bailout only (he doesn't want any bailout) but just explaining the nature of it which would be known by everyone if they weren't so busy watching pop idol or whatever brain damaging propaganda they soak up instead of protecting their freedom.
Without a bailout the economy is left to rot, markets depend on confidence and with no money left there's no confidence. And someone actually commented on the first video you posted that the bill is unconstitutional. Where in the bill does it say that the government can't buy unstable loans from the private sector. I don't like talking negatively about people but they're total muppets. We do what's necessary to avoid returning to the stone age. After all if the economy collapses you'll have to rely entirely on the state and that's definately against the American values that everyone keeps banging on about.
The reality is that the people who are wealthy (you know, more money than anyone can spend in 10 lifetimes) and involved in making this lie happen are so greedy and so stupid that they'll destroy the economy just to get more money. They can go to hell.
I don't really think anyone's in the state of mind to actually want to destroy the economy for short term gains, after all it's their shrewd manipulation of the markets that allowed them to make so much money so they can't be all that stupid.
But how can there be confidence with corrupt interference.
The survivors of the current catastrophe will also be the share holders and controllers of the Federal Reserve. It's the biggest coup ever pulled. The US is now controlled by a fascist banking regime. Helped along the way by other countries. This is not just the US but a global banking oligarchy with large control in Europe as well.
It's all the same cabal of conspirators every time. It just so happens that the US is centre stage now but people everywhere are being conned.
However, 300 million US citizens with guns is tricky for them. Enter USNORTHCOM troops with orders to control trouble makers and take away your weapons which is illegal under the constitution but what is legal is the right to make armed take over of a corrupt government. Of course according to George Bush the constitution is just a goddam piece of paper. Also enter nut job McCain or Obama but of course these puppets want the bail outs. After all they are going to be employed by the banking oligarchy to enslave the people. McCain aspires to be dictator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA1rF_9p_HM
None of these people are remotely fit to run a country. What they are fit for is a firing squad.
Some might say why dwell on the worst possible outcomes. Well that's simply working out what the lunatic agenda is so something can be done to stop it. The dollar should go down to something nearer it's correct value. There needs to be an inflatory correction not more inflation. That will lead to Weimar Republic Germany scenario but on world scale. The woman in the picture I posted before is burning money because firewood is worth more - the soon to be state of the US dollar with present directions. The problems that created the situation have to be stopped. This is the one thing that does have to be done globally. That is the only way to restore confidence.
sigh. I hate conspiracy theories, capitalism is built on a system where the many control the few. Yes it's unfair and yes any bailout will mainly help them but considering the alternative is communism and considering that this way has worked for nearly a century of western government it's not the black hearted class war you seem to think it is. They're protecting their investments, that's the whole point of capitalism, you protect what you invest in to see a return in dividends. It's not a dictatorship, it's the same capitalist system you've been living in for years, considering the fact that Americans are hell bent on avoiding Communism I would've thought they'd be more in favour of this bill. As I've said, if you leave the economy to crumble then all you'll have left is a controlling government, a socialist government, one with no growth in economy which will be a damn sight more dictated than anything you think we have now.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with PG. The crux is that it's not the perfect solution - it's the BEST solution. I'm not talking in the short term here either, where yes the taxpayers are the ones who will foot the bill, but rather the longer term where the taxpayers will beneft from a recovered (probably very long term in this instance!) economy.
I also have to say that the concept that there is some overarching conspiracy theory is just ridiculous. There is no conspiracy because the frameworks in place, and the most basic human nature, wouldn't support it. The fact is that the situation has arisen because of an absence of coordinated and effective oversite (I'm not advocating a cabalistic organisation, by the way!).
And on the government side, government simply isn't well organised enough to have orchestrated this sort of thin - I work for one and can tell you we'd never be able to pull something ike this off intentionally!!! ;D
Inscrutable
The Federal Reserve is seeking total power to do whatever it wants for it's masters which are not the people. That seems like a well orchestrated conspiracy otherwise the present situation would never have been reached. The bankers even tried this once before but with more obvious means so the government was alerted.
You can not recover the value from what the tax payer is taking because it will never stop without some major change of direction to sort the problems that caused the present situation. The tax payer will be forced to pump ever increasing amounts of money into the system which will feed back in a loop of constant inflation. The bankers will not be dealing in dollars when this happens. They will not lose. They will simply own everything.
There is a window of opportunity because the US has no real enemies in the world at least not in comparison to previous times. Forget war on terror and all that nonsense. It's fabricated. That window of opportunity will be lost.
See this is where the whole proof thing would normally be required. This situation was reached by people taking risky decisions that seemed like a brilliant idea at the time but were completely unsustainable in the long term, I'm of course talking about subprime mortages.
For those who aren't aware, the idea is to lend money to those who normally would never be allowed credit, i.e. those that are sub prime or under-banked. However lenders needed something to back these mortgages up, they weren't going to just give money to people who most likely wouldn't be able to pay them back, so they did a dirty little trick. They realised that the economy was incredibly strong and so they sold the debt to another bank, they get their money back, the next bank can then sell the debt on at a higher price because of the interest that has acrued. The idea should've been that the original bank could buy back the debt once those who borrowed the money in the first place had paid it back with interest. This amount would be much greater than the value the debt had risen to by that time. The problem is, this only works when the economy is strong, when people can afford to pay their bills and banks are confident to lend to each other. If banks aren't lending then the debt doesn't get back to the right place. These are the debts that the government are trying to pay for with the bailout bill.
"The government should not intervene. It should leave overleveraged financial institutions to default on their derivatives obligations and, if necessary, file for bankruptcy. Much of the crisis has arisen from miscalculating the risks involved in a large book of positions in these derivatives. It is only logical that these institutions pay for their poor management...Let the poorly managed, overly risk-taking financial institutions fail! Always remember that Wall Street and the real economy are not the same thing." - Ari J. Officer and Lawrence H. Officer
That is absolutely right, calico.
Otherwise we face the calamities I am talking about.
Quote from: calico on October 02, 2008, 03:13:34 PM
"The government should not intervene. It should leave overleveraged financial institutions to default on their derivatives obligations and, if necessary, file for bankruptcy. Much of the crisis has arisen from miscalculating the risks involved in a large book of positions in these derivatives. It is only logical that these institutions pay for their poor management...Let the poorly managed, overly risk-taking financial institutions fail! Always remember that Wall Street and the real economy are not the same thing." - Ari J. Officer and Lawrence H. Officer
Did you read my post? Bankruptcy just means that the debt is written off. Which means that the debt is consumed in inflation, so it's the taxpayer who pays anyway when interest rates go up.
Interest rates don't have to go up. It could be regulated.
The alternative is thievery.
Interest rates are used as a tool to control inflation. If the estimated 1.5 trillion bad depts are written off then inflation will go sky high, the only options would be a massive push in interest rates or devaluation of the currency. Both are bad news for everyone. That includes those at the top that you seem to despise so much.
I don't seem to despise the wealthy who are only greedy and don't care about others. I pity them.
Ever watch a biography on anyone with mega-riches? Even if they don't fit into my above discreet explanation of greed and heartlessness, they tend to be lonely, depressed, miserable and basically disappointed. "Huh. Is this frikkin' it?"
There is no reason to particularly despise rich people but there is every reason to despise rich people to wish to have more power than others within the democratic process.
Quote from: PG on October 02, 2008, 03:57:17 PM
Interest rates are used as a tool to control inflation. If the estimated 1.5 trillion bad depts are written off then inflation will go sky high, the only options would be a massive push in interest rates or devaluation of the currency. Both are bad news for everyone. That includes those at the top that you seem to despise so much.
Re-nationalising the Federal Reserve from private hands would write off everyone's need to pay income tax. That would be the healthiest boost to the economy if the bad debts were written off as bankruptcy, giving an average American person up to 80% extra income to spend on the economy, rather than it going into the coffers of a select few to pay off loan interest rates for the cash
they loan to the US every year. None of your income tax goes towards public needs (only to the Federal Reserve in repayments) which can be comfortably covered by corporation tax alone.
Apparently.
Governments by the people must control the money for the people. The Federal Reserve should not be privatized. People often say that central banks should be independent to avoid political interference i.e. manipulations at time of elections. Could that be any worse than the interference if they are private?
Yes, that's correct about the Federal Reserve. In the US it takes all income tax just to pay for the Federal Reserve's interest from loans to the government.
In the UK the Bank Of England was nationalised on 1 March 1946, and gained "independence" again in 1997 by the hijacked Labour party which used to be a party for working people until asshole Tony Blair took over so now there is no balance in UK politics just like the US. Money controls it.
Notice how Tony Blair now has his position at J.P Morgan. He is a traitor and is guilty of treason. A hanging offense in the UK until Tony Blair himself changed that law. He should be hanged from the nearest lampost.
Quote from: efflux on October 05, 2008, 09:54:04 AM
He should be hanged from the nearest lampost.
Well, luckily for us, we have a member here on the forums from whom he can be hanged :P.
Quote from: efflux on October 05, 2008, 09:54:04 AM
Notice how Tony Blair now has his position at J.P Morgan. He is a traitor and is guilty of treason. A hanging offense in the UK until Tony Blair himself changed that law. He should be hanged from the nearest lampost.
Really really not actually. Treason against the Queen was the only standing offense punishable by death but it was reduced to a life sentence in 2005. And regarding your previous post. If you despise peoples desire to make more money than others then go find a nice little communist country because that's all it boils down to. And you may remember that it was Gordon Brown who was chancellor, not Tony Blair, the former was the one who has let our economy decompose into the weak state it's in.
It's treasonous to hand power over to another country.
If you go into a police station with evidence of Tony Blair's crimes including the Iraq war, they are obliged to investigate it. If they don't they are also complicit in treason and breaches of international law because international law is part of our local law. You can not have this unanswerable to anyone corruption at top level. That's one law for our leaders and another for us. Of course this sort of thing has always gone on but the world is different now. We can not continue in this way.
I never said I despised anyones desire to make more money than others. Communism doesn't work except as yet another invention of the super rich global bankers. Wait till David "Commie" Cameron gets in. That was his nickname. Notice how he says he will do socially what Margaret Thatcher did economically. Of course that's if we get that far considering the quadrillions of toxic $ derivatives that will be the next crash force.
An interesting fact is that people from former Soviet block countries are a lot more informed about political issues than the average UK person. I know this because I work with people from these countries.
Tony Blair was the front man stooge for must be almost a decade but got next to no criticism compared to Gordon Brown. That's because nobody does anything until the problems arrive at their doorstep. Not that Brown is much better but the criticism is not balanced. Brown probably doesn't care about England anyway. Notice how the UK has been run by Scottish politicians. Scotland, A country seeking independence. Doesn't anyone think that is a bit strange? Does anyone know here that the modern monetary policy of the world was invented by the Scottish except for the initial idea that it had to have built in moral obligation.
People do not live within their means. This is essentially the problem.
I say that we, as a group, invest in ice sculptures and beanie babies. The depreciation of those is less than you think. From there we buy up a majority of the market, keep the ice in storage still the fresh water crisis hits a peak then melt them down. As for the beanie babies we get around 97% of them then we sell them like they sell diamonds, releasing only a limited amount each year and make the populace think they are a girls best friend.
@ Efflux
No, sorry it is not treasonous to hand power over to another country. That is simply too black and white a definition. In truth, any sort of international trade carries with it the transferrance of some degree of power as it leads to some degree of dependency (in most cases the level of dependency is so weak as to be dismissed out of hand, though there are some notable exeptions - oil, enyone?!?).
While amusing, I fear that this discussion is veering away from the original topic, and is becoming dangerously polarised. I myself have had to bite my virtual tongue rather than reply to some of the more extremeist views expressed here, and I think it's now only a matter of time before this gets a out of hand.
Still fun to see people here arguaing so vehemently for what they believe in though - and absolutely worthwhile. There's a quote hovering at the edge of my conciousness that applies particularly to this discussion. Something about not agreeing with what you say, but being willing to lay down my life in defence of your right to say it...
Inscrutable
Efflux, try to look at it with a slightly less patriotic view. Our law isn't written in that way and the they have various degrees, it's not praised or crucified like some American bills. I do however very much agree with you that the criticism between Blair and Brown isn't anywhere as well distributed as it should be but then Brown doesn't have Alistair Cambell, well he did for the conference speech but that's about it. To be honest I haven't seen anyone who can lead this country and the fact that the SNP are willing to break up the United Kingdom is completely moronic. That's why it's a bad idea to get the conservatives back in power, the tories are notoirious for testing politically dangerous taxes in Scotland. Remember the uproar from Poll tax? It's also important to remember that only 28% of Scots said they wanted to break away, that's a big number but not a majority.
Anyhow this is getting into a political philosophy debate. Awesome as that is, it's a bit far from the bailout bill debate.
OK.
To move back more to the initial topic.
The bankers want bailing out. It's clearly wrong even if you disagree about whether it could work or not. The income tax from all US citizens only covers the Federal Reserve interest. The Federal Reserve is private and controlled by the bankers. In essence income tax now ends up going to bankers. What if that income tax was used to build power stations or say put into solar energy, geothermal energy, wind warms, tide etc etc. Maybe Nuclear is not even necessary. Our technology is now so advanced we could generate fee power for everyone on the planet. How would that improve "economy" because economy is not just about money. Why does this not happen? Even nuclear ha been around for so long yet we still fill our cars with petrol. The reason is that the capability we now have through technology to create abundance for everyone is an absolute enemy of our monetary system which relies on scarcity. At one time it worked to a certain degree at least for some nations but now it's a total failure. The globalists (monopolists) are running scared because they want to control technology. We have an abundance of information now with the net and an abundance of free open source software. This is anathema to the globalists (bankers).
Money allows you to buy stuff. If this thing you need or desire is in abundance or easy to get hold of then it has little or no money value. Technology is the way we create this abundance. This is growing all the time. The history of mankind is the history of technology. It is at a stage now where it is possible to supply lots of things in abundance. In this scenario things would start losing monetary value. Scarcity allows banks to control everything by overvaluing it with money. They juggle the economy to constantly create artificial values so they can pocket the difference. This kind of thing has gone on for ages but now it is gigantic in scale hence the current (but deliberate) meltdown. They want to move to a position of owning everything and hence controlling it even if it's potentially in abundance. They want to own politicians and people. They want to move to restricting and controlling everything globally without using money but by absolute totalitarianism. To do this they have to completely destroy the USA while at the same time using it for their ends which is what they've been doing for decades. This is why they are now the enemy of all people. They want anyone who opposes them to be the "terrorist".
All the dots join together perfectly to support this idea which many might think is conspiracy theory. Whether it's conspiracy or not, it is happening. I don't believe people get together to conspire all this but their goals are the same or at least the outcome of the system they support is all the same.
You should take a closer look at the relationship between the price of oil and inflation. Removing fossil fuels from the equation would cause inflation to go like crazy. The price of oil would plummet (although it would eventually skyrocket again once it's completely obsolete), and it's hard to predict how inflation would react. Normally if the price of oil goes up, inflation goes up. If the price of oil goes down it eases inflation. Not across the board mind but it does still have a significant impact on the highest capital areas of the market such as banks and mining companies.
You think governments are resistent to finding cleaner energy sources because they hate our planet? It's because our finance system is so tightly interwoven with the energy industry that a violent move could cripple the entire world. These sorts of changes have to be gradual. Plus it's kinda nieve to think that corperations haven't been thinking of ways to monopolize new energy sources. Eon already control the majority of wind farm power in the UK and Npower controls most of the nuclear power and make a damn good living off of it. Indeed the worst of are actually those running coal and oil power stations because the price of fuel is too high, but it's too expensive to replace the furnaces with reactors or solar panels.
And seriously, you're putting far too much thought into this, yes many companies try to create gaps in the supply of their products to increase prices, hell why do you think diamonds cost so much? Africa's p***ing the stuff but entire countries are encouraged to go to war to hide these resources to keep the prices up, that's well known. However bankers and other entrepreneurs have nothing to gain and everything to lose from crashing the economy into a brick wall. They rely on a sustainability of the economy, not a quick cash in. If the economy keeps going the way it's going then the dollar will have to be devalued, the bankers will lose massive amounts of money. Why in the hell would they plan that? Seriously, try to learn a bit more about the economy before creating these wild covin fantasies. I've been studying economics and politics for a long time.
It is all about control.
I'm telling you fresh water is the new gold in the commodity market. The demand will be here soon.
Indeed water is going to be a much needed commodity and with the right application we could change the market to be more reliant on water than oil. However I do find it quite astounding that no one seems to have figured out that we're actually surrounded by water. We've had desalination on ships for hundreds of years to make sea water safe to drink and we've had massive technological advances since then. Corperations currently have very little to gain from conserving water other than water bottling companies but they can hardly be said to have any clout.
Put some money into research of desalination, build massive desalination plants around Africa. Bingo, millions of gallons of drinking water and countless jobs and a sustainable market. The only thing left to do is find the right place to pump water from, the wrong place could disturb ocean currents or algae/sea life populations.
Yes, we should use our technology to say supply water to places like Africa. That helps them and us and would create jobs, wealth and freedoms for people but like calico says, our present direction is all about control. We have nut cases and psychopathic power mongers running the planet. Clever people who are nevertheless incapable of creating anything useful except some idea of some future modeled and controlled by them.
Yes, these things can't happen fast but the should already be happening. Because of this stifling of progress through fake wars, economic manipulation etc, civilization is going backwards not forwards.
I like to think of desalination as similar to has the development of ultra-capacitors is being slowed by battery company's. It is like calico said its all about control, in this case its about control of the market. Not sure if you've seen total recall but imagine if water became like the air on mars (this won't make sense if you haven't seen the movie).
Yeah one man controlling the button that can turn off access to the resource.
@efflux: I think you've got something there about reverse progress in civilisation, but have you noticed a pattern in civilisations in the past? The faster they rise, the faster they fall. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians. They all rose to power in their own way and fell from power in a way that mimicked it almost exactly.
One thing we've learned from history is that we don't learn from history.
:D true. But I'm watching china intently. If their economy collapses and they return to the state they were in before then it proves my theory quite accurate. They've only come to power in the last decade or so and they've gone straight to the top far too quickly and with no foundation their economy is too heavy for itself.
"One thing we've learned from history is that we don't learn from history."
Another good point. If everybody studied some history and in particular the history of money, there would probably be millions of people marching on Washington or whatever other governments are involved. There would literally be revolutions happening everywhere because the whole system is one huge con.
The USA is an empire and it's also hooked with a financial empire still in Europe, in particular London. It's a hidden Empire that's why people don't think it exists. Organizations like the IMF are instruments of this Empire. It is too far stretched like every empire before eventually became. The problem is that this is a point where the maniacs controlling often take a kind of desperate double your money gamble.
The world economy is bankrupt. No amount of bail outs can solve this. The bail outs would have to go into quadrillions of $.
The Council On Foreign Relations actually staged a trial run of this 8 years ago. Insiders say that this trial run was not about looking to solve the issue but how to actually create it. It even involved war with Russia via an incited invasion of the Ukraine, just like the $ bank rolled problems in Georgia. These globalists then want to step in as the saviours when crisis is huge. World currency etc. It's problem, reaction, solution just as Icke talks about. It has been used since time immemorial. You have something you want to achieve (global empire) but it's not supported by people so you create a reaction through wars, food shortages, financial meltdown etc to get the people to back your solution. The Bush regime uses this again and again. It is government by constant manufactured crisis. Our leaders are totally useless to humanity now. There are no waring superpowers for them and their backers to exploit anymore. They need to find other crisis to divide and conquer.
Reagan scuppered a lot of the globalists plans. Notice how there was an attempted assassination and Guess who would have taken over. George Bush senior. Son of the Hitler financier. These people are sewer rats.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100902953.html
Itsy bitsy control issues? Not enough Cymbalta?
That's a weird story. Pervert spies :D
The trouble with the bailouts is they're designed to absolve the subprime mortgages which have been haunting the banking system. Trouble is, we've no idea who holds them so unless banks start lending to each other the money is simply extra capital for whichever banks hold it. The stock market gives us an indication of the health of the economy but it isn't the area to target a solution as some think. Places in the City have begun plans to encourage people to start buying stocks, but that's not the issue, the issue is that people see a bank having trouble and pull out stocks. The rest of the market sees stocks being pulled out of banks and panics. We need to put a clause on these bailouts. Lend to each other and if you're in serious trouble then this money will help you out. However if you use it then you'll have to pay it back with interest later.
Insane plans will be cooked up over the weekend.
Here's a highly relevant and prophetic take on recent issues:
http://www.flixxy.com/subprime-mortgage-loans.htm
The pathetic thing is that you'd learn more from that sketch than a news item on the topic. Governments actually encouraged these subprime mortgages as well.
Also, this should never have been repealed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
and there should have been a recession after 9/11 not because of 9/11 but because a recession was imminent. It would not have been serious but people were told to keep spending and interest rates were kept low.
Those two are brilliant. I go to every Bremner, Bird and Fortune show. And it echoes what I said here, http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=4849.30
I really don't know where to be on the idea of government control of the markets though. I mean, we know that if markets are left unteathered they go crazy with money as if it's candy but as we saw in Thatchers and then Clintons days, removing government control actually allows the economy to explode with prosperity.
The market has to be as free as possible but with regulations that stop the blow out and gets more transparency. There was government interference in the market as well. They wanted to encourage lending to those who couldn't afford it. Both government and banks are responsible but the banks are worse culprits since they have power over governments demonstrated by the US style bail out and banking coup.
The trouble is, who is going to lead things next. McCain and Palin are disaster in my opinion. To think that Palin could be second in line to US president is frightening. Obama seems the lesser evil. That's all we have to pray on - that Obama will listen to the right people because he doesn't seem like a strong enough leader to me. It depends on what Bush does as well. Who knows what crazy plans are being devised. Cheney doesn't seem to be rearing his head lately. He is really the worst politician possible.
The world needs to comprise of sovereign nation states who agree about how to regulate the system from their elected leaders. This EU, North American Union, Asian Union superstate nonsense with organizations like the IMF, world bank etc dictating things is absolutely no good. It is part of a fascist banking plan where there are no nations just a bunch of bankers controlling everything with no opposition. The rest of us will of course will be living in kind of system that makes communism look good.