Rand Paul Wins!!!

Parker · Jun 6, 2010

Patrick Bateman said:
Until we break the cycle

If dollars = speech (according to your supreme court) then how do we widen the gap between business and government?

Big Business' only duty is to their share holders

You are a proponent of a minimally regulated free market while you oppose the elected officials which are, by your own admission, bought and paid for by the very thing you favor

Do you see the problem?

Why would a business, that has a duty to their shareholders, purposely narrow their customer base and in turn make less money? I wouldn't invest in them.

I see the problem when government imposes force when they have no authority to do it. The front of the bus, back of the bus, was brought about by the government not business.

Patrick Bateman · Jun 6, 2010

undertheice said:
the power of business within a free market is based solely on its ability to service the needs of consumers.

At a business' inception, I agree completely.

However, when you have a market ruled by 2 or 3 companies, as with investment banking who have immense access to liquidity because of their banking status

Then use their limitless liquidity to cause price spikes throughout the commodities market by doing things like purchasing millions of barrels of oil and holding them in limbo at benefit to themselves and to oil companies

Oil, which like any other commodity would normally be subjected to the conditions of supply and demand, you have a product whose price is artificially controlled by big business

So you see, the power of business is not "solely based on its ability to service the needs of consumers" as you would suggest

It is mainly based on access to large amounts of capital at low cost to the business

The people who want more a more laissez faire market are the same ones who turn around with their hands out waiting for government subsidies and free capital

Subsidies which are at the tax payer's expense

Taxpayers (the consumers) then pay again when the monopolies set their prices, knowing that they do not need to set competitive prices in order to ensure economic prosperity

undertheice said:
there is no force, other than the economic force that can be so easily turned against a business that goes against the will of the people.

Economic force is potent, however when you suggest that it can "easily be turned against a business that goes against the will of the people" you are simply wrong

That is the whole point of monopolization made possible by the free market system, to cripple the the rest of the industry so that only your business may be supported, while no true options are left to the consumer

undertheice said:
it is government that controls the strings of the military and law enforcement, armed beasts ready to do their master's bidding.

On paper yes, this is true

Their true masters however, are the private military, private prison, big oil, etc. standing to make profit from the slaughter and imprisonment of those who are made to seem as if they threaten our society (Iraq War, War on drugs, etc.)

undertheice said:
of course business will attempt to influence government, but a government with limited power is of little use to the avarice that exists within the private sector.

On the contrary, although a government with limited influence would certainly reduce the amount of dollars being poured into lobbies and elected officials' pockets, a more loosely regulated market would absolutely allow business to further rape the consumer

When one does not face repercussion for unethical behaviors on which profit can be made, can you truly say these behaviors would not be fully engaged in by every single business looking to increase efficiency?

undertheice said:
the sin does not lie in the control of government by business, business is made up of the people and is just another arm of the citizenry. the sin lies in the peddling of the power entrusted to government by the people to fulfill the personal agendas of those in power or to force the agenda of one group onto another.

Business is made of citizens with a disproportionate amount of influence on policy and regulation

I am in full agreement with you on the second sentence, although we may vary from one another in just whose agendas they actually are

thebuttonpusher · Jun 6, 2010

hanimmal said:
I don't for the life of me understand why anyone would want complete control over our money totally in the hands of our government. All the conspiracy theories (that are mistaken) about the Fed creating money is bullshit, because they cannot issue new treasuries or purchase new treasuries, their control over the money supply is only what is out in the system, all the treasury securities they own, where already at one point purchased by a bank with the money they are holding for the depositors.

Ummm banks do create money, where did you learn they didn't? Are you from the USA? Fractional reserve banking, look into it.

How many Ipods could you purchase back in good ole 1913? Or cars, or tvs, or anything. The value of the dollar is not in the number that is written on it, it is what you can purchase with it. Imagine how much of your yearly pay you would need to spend to buy anything back then, vs today. Goods are better, less expensive (if you understand to base it off a % of how much you earn), and far more available.

Umm the value of the dollar is because of legal tender laws and NOTHING ELSE. Its just a used up piece of paper only redeemable in more valueless pieces of paper. What you can purchase with it keeps getting to be less and less and less. An apple in 1913 cost 1-3 cents, how is it possible after increasing apple production and harvesting efficiencies by multiples that an apple now costs 83 cents? Are apples so much better than 90 years ago that they are worth 50-30 times more? Are apples actually 30 times more scarce or more expensive to produce?

It is statements like these that make me wonder if you got your economic and banking theories from the local comic book section at B Daltons.

hanimmal · Jun 7, 2010

Ummm banks do create money, where did you learn they didn't? Are you from the USA? Fractional reserve banking, look into it.

Maybe you are not NoDrama. Banks do not create money. They do not have printing presses, they do not forge bills, all they can do is receive deposits and try to give out loans up to 90% of those deposits they took in.

If a bank has a million dollars in deposits what they can do however is to lend out 900 thousand of that in loans if customers are willing to take on the loan. That allows us as depositors to get some interest back from our deposit, the person getting the money to turn and make the investment into their business to generate more wealth for them or to purchase what they need to (with the understanding that they are doing so with forfeiting future interest on that loan), and the banks make the money in the middle. And because they have so many depositors you always have full access to your funds if you need them, because they keep a side pool for just those occasions (10% is mandatory due to the Fed's guidelines).

So without customers Banks cant do shit. The same thing would happen if we decided to lend out money to someone that will pay it back. We would lend an unused portion of our money to someone else, and poof you have the same 'money creation' minus having tons of funds available for your personal use. Only it is far harder because lending is a bitch, you need to know who your lending to and if you do chances are they will feel too comfortable with you and be slow paying you back at times.

Umm the value of the dollar is because of legal tender laws and NOTHING ELSE. Its just a used up piece of paper only redeemable in more valueless pieces of paper. What you can purchase with it keeps getting to be less and less and less.

You gold people crack me up.

An apple in 1913 cost 1-3 cents, how is it possible after increasing apple production and harvesting efficiencies by multiples that an apple now costs 83 cents?

And we were also mostly a agricultural society then were we not? How much does the priceof that apple cost you now as a unit of your time?

http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/1918-19.pdf Just scroll down slightly and you will see the charts.

In 1913 the Average household income was about what $2,000, so that 3 cent apple represents .000015% of your time worked.
in 2002 the Average household income was about ----$50,000, so that 83 cent apple represents .0000166% of your time worked.

Basically identical right? It really seems that you are stuck thinking that somehow a penny has to always and forever be a penny. All it is a way to figure out and put a nominal amount of value for everything you see from your time worked to the apple you buy. There is no difference in the hour that a doctor worked or one that a fast food employee worked, but they do have different values.

Just like over time as more money is out in the system we demand more money for our time worked.

Are apples so much better than 90 years ago that they are worth 50-30 times more? Are apples actually 30 times more scarce or more expensive to produce?

Nope. You just don't understand math.

It is statements like these that make me wonder if you got your economic and banking theories from the local comic book section at B Daltons.

Whats B Daltons? Do they have a "Learning to Read" or "Comprehending what you are reading" section, if so it might not be a bad idea to check it out. Because if you read your cut and paste you will clearly see that I clearly put "If you understand to base it off a % of how much you earn" in it.

Parker · Jun 7, 2010

This chart shows how $100 grows on a 20 percent reserve.

hanimmal · Jun 7, 2010

Yeah but what it is not showing is that there is a little story behind every transaction:

Transaction---- Loan Amount----- Customer pays back-----Money made by bank and depositor
A----------------$80----------------$88-----------------$8
B----------------$64----------------$70-----------------$6
C----------------$51----------------$56-----------------$5
D----------------$41----------------$45-----------------$4
E----------------$33----------------$36-----------------$3
F----------------$26----------------$29-----------------$3
G----------------$21----------------$23-----------------$2
H----------------$17----------------$19-----------------$2
I----------------$13.5---------------$15----------------$1.5
K----------------$11----------------$12-----------------$1

Each time there is a transaction, that is a person who has decided that they would rather pay back a loan + interest and deposit the entire amount into another bank (remember the account is theirs, as is the money the bank lent out), and that bank has to then loan out the full amount to a second customer who then puts the entire amount they borrowed (with interest) into another bank, and so on. So do you think this is really what happens?

No, that 1st customer took that money and invested it into what they wanted (be it a new PS3 game, or into their business), and that company that sold the good they purchased uses it to pay their employees, rent, taxes, self wages, ect. Now all those people who benefited from that purchase may put that money in the bank, but chances are first it will still move around the entire economy before it goes back into the bank.

So just by allowing your money to be in a bank which you know they are going to lend out up to 90% of it with the understanding that whenever you wish to have your money it is there for you (again due to large volume of depositors). You make money, the bank makes money, and the person who decided that the loan was worth the interest to be able to get what they wanted to, not to mention everyone in the economy that the money touched benefits.

All that money that is 'created' is what the people who take the loans out for have agreed to pay back with the wages they make for selling their time to their employer. And if they used that money for reinvesting in their companies because they had a money making idea, they come out ahead too, all because we allowed them to use our unused wealth.

Without a banking system our industry would not be nearly as large as it is, we would not have computers, tvs, fridges, ect. Nor if we did would be be able to afford them. If you are under the age of 40 think about how much you rely on being able to have credit. For example not having to pay outright for a new car. If there was not a banking system we would not be able to get loans and you would have to wait until you could save up 20k to buy a decent new car. Which could take you years. Or if you had to pay outright for a home, you would have to save up 100k+ before you could outright buy it.

I think this is where the gold freaks come out and say that prices would be far cheaper if that were the case, but they are not realizing that means that they are thinking about where we are today (because of the banking system we have), and not about how little goods would be on the market because there would be such a small pool of people that could afford them.

And industry would be so small because they would have to wait until they had say a million + in the bank before they could expand to the point they would be able to mass produce, which would be even another barrier for small businesses. They would not be able to compete with the haves, if they were not born with that silver spoon.

And if you don't believe how ending the banking system destroys economies, just look at history, anywhere before the 1700's look at what happened when they kicked out the jews who were the banking industry then.

Parker · Jun 8, 2010

hanimmal said:
And if you don't believe how ending the banking system destroys economies, just look at history, anywhere before the 1700's look at what happened when they kicked out the jews who were the banking industry then.

I didn't understand where you were going with your post until this sentence. Who here is advocating ending the banking industry?
Getting rid of the Central banking system like Jackson did and rightfully so is a good idea but that's different from what you are saying.

hanimmal · Jun 8, 2010

The banks need regulation, they are so important, but before the Fed banks could do whatever they wished and most went bankrupt very often. The Fed is a way to regulate them that is about 33% self regulation (Because the Fed is paid for by the banks, and has a large commitment into getting them the best tools to do their jobs), 33% government regulation (Fed is still a quasi government entity), and 33% regulation of the people that put their money into them (not just depositors, but stock owners, media, ect).

It is a way to have a government entity that we do not have to pay for. Almost all of the FDIC funds to buy banks and sell them when they go bankrupt is from the banks own insurances.

I mean it is such a cheap and effective way to govern that we make about what 30 billion a year (the Fed just hands this money over to the treasury) off of it, and it does a good job of regulating the banks.

If you remove the Fed, the only alternatives are to give control totally to the banks (not a good idea at all, because we are all human and know how much we can mess shit up that we have total control over) or the politicians (do you really want people that have very little clue about economics and are more worried about getting votes to control the most important sector of our economy). And if you do either one of those it will be bad, and our country will take a economic nose dive.

And the first central banks in america were very experimental, but needed, that is why they had to keep trying it. After huge depressions you would see the government scrambling to somehow get a grasp of the situation but always keeping the reigns so tight that the central banks would not have much that they could do to help anyone.

Even the Fed almost had this happen, after the depressions of the 1907(ish) the Fed took about 5 years to get developed, but even then it would never do much because nobody trusted banking, or government (which is why the Fed was set up the way it was). And with virtually no thought of a macro economic system (that came after the depression) they really had little clue on what to do. But after the Depression they woke up to having to actively manage what banks have in their system as that directly relates to things like industries expansion.

And you have people like the Paul's that somehow think that there is a better way if just somehow we... what give it to the government and have political cycle booms and busts, or give it all to the banks (they do love some free market right) and see them remove all the chains they have now and invest in whatever however they would want, which is what the shadow banking industry is allowed to do.

Because people need to know, that this crisis did not start in the banks, and that is all the Fed has control of, they do not have any regulation control over insurance companies (AIG), or other financial non-bank entities. Really they cannot even do anything with credit unions unless those credit unions bought into the Fed and got FDIC insurance, even then it is really a separate entity that regulates them.

The problem is this financial meltdown is a direct result of a separate financial industry having near complete freedom to do whatever they wanted, and that led to some very risky behavior. And if people would just listen to what the Fed is saying, they do not want control over anything else, and that there should be other Fed like entities that work with the other industries.

I would love to see our government go to less 100% government owned entities and go to more a quasi blend of regulation bodies, we would save a ton of money, and the businesses would have a better idea of why the rules they have are there for all of their benefits.

For all the less government talk, I would have thought that more people would agree, but I don't think that there is much actual information about the Fed that floats around websites.

thebuttonpusher · Jun 8, 2010

Hanimal, you couldn't be more of a Keynesian if you tried. I can only assume you are a student or possibly an ill informed teacher of economics. I could probably get any college level book on economics printed in the last 30 years and it would have the exact same talking points you keep saying. Unfortunately the Keynesians didn't see this one coming and their only solution is to print print print, inflate inflate inflate. It will only lead to an even worse crash later on. the Austrian school saw this coming and their solution is the most logical, end the fed.

hanimmal · Jun 9, 2010

As soon as someone brings up kenesyian economics, you can see that they are deciding that economics is a political issue.

Economics is not. If there is something out there that has a better explanation, it is used. This is a science, not a religion. We are not talking about intelligent design here.

The problem is the only people that anyone ever listens to is not the economists, they have newscasters or politicians that have no clue what they are talking about try to argue economics. I use some classical models, some keynesian, some new classical, Monetary (Friedmans), ect, and there are some old Austrian things that have indeed crept in (really stuff from the 1800's but still they have contributed). The thought that economics is only one thing just shows that you have a limited understanding of this field.

Most economists had seen this for a long time, there is several books that have been published about this before 2006. They were trying to tell people what is happening and how to fix these issues before they were, but the problem is that it is not the economists that are making the decisions on the economy (aside from the Fed and monetary policy) it is the government.

You had CEOs of banks in a senate hearing asking for them to pass laws to stop the type of loans that they were able to make, because they knew it was bad, but had very little choice. The shadow banking industry was making all these loans pulling billions away from the real banks because they were able to do whatever they wished and they would have to participate if they left this wide open hole open. So it was about losing their investors to these banks that were making a killing. But still, it was all there. And they did nothing, because they are lawyers not economists.

Just nobody was listening, because nobody listened to the economists. Well you can't get more Keynesian that Krugman right? Bad sound, but a vid from 2006.
[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qo4ExWEAl_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qo4ExWEAl_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Austrian school of economics has turned into a political party, you got duped.

But even still, you end the Fed, and then what happens? What is the eutopia that they think is going to happen? Who is going to regulate banks? Who will pay for that? What will happen to foreign investment, and how will that impact our country? And what will happen with unemployment or lending, when banks fail, will there be an FDIC? Or will we just allow them to collapse and everyone loses their money deposited in them. What extra costs from not having a central processing center for banks be when they have to move money from one persons deposits to another. What will the effects be on things like debit cards, automatic transactions, ect with out all those banks having their reserves at the Fed banks in their regions.

If you are for free market, why would you want to not listen to the banks which are a huge part of the free market? Or businesses? You don't see Warren Buffet or Bill Gates coming out with a protest against the Fed, or is it that there secret ninja assassin guild they house in the basement scare all of them?

I mean seriously you come on here, correctly (everyone on this board pretty much knows my backround, it is not hard to find, especially if you are just someone else with a new avatar) guess my economics studies. And after several posts describing what is happening you dismiss it all and just say your keynesian economics are invalid, mine our better. Wow, what insight. Maybe put a little of yourself out there man, tell us what you think is happening in the banking industry, what is it that you think that I have said is wrong?

No offense but it seems that you do not have much understanding of economic theories nor how they work, and that is ok, because it is not what you do. So maybe you should read stuff before you decide how you feel about it, then after you absorb it decide.

But maybe a little theory of macro economics is in order. Because you should know that in times of economic collapse you do indeed print money to get the wheels greased and banks lending to businesses to expand, and cut taxes so that people have more money in their pockets, and increase the unemployment benefits or social safety nets so that they can only fall so far and the businesses that depend on their spending do not collapse with nobody buying their stuff. And increase government spending so that the people that get the jobs have money to pay for stuff in the private sector and stimulate the businesses in those regions. This all is to stop the fall from being as deep as it could get. Like now, it is horrible, but before all the greek government cooking of their books fucking up the euro zone and driving our dollar back up slowing our exports (we will have to see on the next GDP report, but I am pretty sure that will be the case) and bp oil spill sending everyone into a panic, there was not the same devestation that you have seen in the great depression times (pre-macro economics (or as you like to call it 'keynesian').

But what you may not know is that there is an opposite side of this coin. When things get better we should stop the government spending and increase taxes (to slow the macro economic growth to a manageable level, and build up a surplus for the next collapse). Decrease the social network spending so that people have the incentive to get back to work, the Fed starts a selling of their existing treasuries to pull money out of the system and slow inflation that will happen with higher employment levels. on and on.

The right wingers that scream to end the fed don't usually think this far into it though, they here the word "Keynesian" and flip their lid and think that somehow they are going to try to paint our flag red and take all your gold. This is far from reality. It is just looking at the entire country as a whole and figuring out the best way to get us all to work together to accomplish far more than if we did not.

But I guess if a doctor of medicine can read a few pre-depression economic ideas that did not examine the economy as an entire scale and focused on the firm, and all of a sudden be a economists of such renown that they know ending the Fed is somehow a great idea, maybe I should watch Grey's anatomy and read a few new england journals of medicine so that I can perform surgery.

hanimmal · Jun 9, 2010

As soon as someone brings up kenesyian economics, you can see that they are deciding that economics is a political issue.

Economics is not. If there is something out there that has a better explanation, it is used. This is a science, not a religion. We are not talking about intelligent design here.

The problem is the only people that anyone ever listens to is not the economists, they have newscasters or politicians that have no clue what they are talking about try to argue economics. I use some classical models, some keynesian, some new classical, Monetary (Friedmans), ect, and there are some old Austrian things that have indeed crept in (really stuff from the 1800's but still they have contributed). The thought that economics is only one thing just shows that you have a limited understanding of this field.

Most economists had seen this for a long time, there is several books that have been published about this before 2006. They were trying to tell people what is happening and how to fix these issues before they were, but the problem is that it is not the economists that are making the decisions on the economy (aside from the Fed and monetary policy) it is the government.

You had CEOs of banks in a senate hearing asking for them to pass laws to stop the type of loans that they were able to make, because they knew it was bad, but had very little choice. The shadow banking industry was making all these loans pulling billions away from the real banks because they were able to do whatever they wished and they would have to participate if they left this wide open hole open. So it was about losing their investors to these banks that were making a killing. But still, it was all there. And they did nothing, because they are lawyers not economists.

Just nobody was listening, because nobody listened to the economists. Well you can't get more Keynesian that Krugman right? Bad sound, but a vid from 2006.
[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qo4ExWEAl_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qo4ExWEAl_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Austrian school of economics has turned into a political party, you got duped.

But even still, you end the Fed, and then what happens? What is the eutopia that they think is going to happen? Who is going to regulate banks? Who will pay for that? What will happen to foreign investment, and how will that impact our country? And what will happen with unemployment or lending, when banks fail, will there be an FDIC? Or will we just allow them to collapse and everyone loses their money deposited in them. What extra costs from not having a central processing center for banks be when they have to move money from one persons deposits to another. What will the effects be on things like debit cards, automatic transactions, ect with out all those banks having their reserves at the Fed banks in their regions.

If you are for free market, why would you want to not listen to the banks which are a huge part of the free market? Or businesses? You don't see Warren Buffet or Bill Gates coming out with a protest against the Fed, or is it that there secret ninja assassin guild they house in the basement scare all of them?

I mean seriously you come on here, correctly (everyone on this board pretty much knows my backround, it is not hard to find, especially if you are just someone else with a new avatar) guess my economics studies. And after several posts describing what is happening you dismiss it all and just say your keynesian economics are invalid, mine our better. Wow, what insight. Maybe put a little of yourself out there man, tell us what you think is happening in the banking industry, what is it that you think that I have said is wrong?

No offense but it seems that you do not have much understanding of economic theories nor how they work, and that is ok, because it is not what you do. So maybe you should read stuff before you decide how you feel about it, then after you absorb it decide.

But maybe a little theory of macro economics is in order. Because you should know that in times of economic collapse you do indeed print money to get the wheels greased and banks lending to businesses to expand, and cut taxes so that people have more money in their pockets, and increase the unemployment benefits or social safety nets so that they can only fall so far and the businesses that depend on their spending do not collapse with nobody buying their stuff. And increase government spending so that the people that get the jobs have money to pay for stuff in the private sector and stimulate the businesses in those regions. This all is to stop the fall from being as deep as it could get. Like now, it is horrible, but before all the greek government cooking of their books fucking up the euro zone and driving our dollar back up slowing our exports (we will have to see on the next GDP report, but I am pretty sure that will be the case) and bp oil spill sending everyone into a panic, there was not the same devestation that you have seen in the great depression times (pre-macro economics (or as you like to call it 'keynesian').

But what you may not know is that there is an opposite side of this coin. When things get better we should stop the government spending and increase taxes (to slow the macro economic growth to a manageable level, and build up a surplus for the next collapse). Decrease the social network spending so that people have the incentive to get back to work, the Fed starts a selling of their existing treasuries to pull money out of the system and slow inflation that will happen with higher employment levels. on and on.

The right wingers that scream to end the fed don't usually think this far into it though, they here the word "Keynesian" and flip their lid and think that somehow they are going to try to paint our flag red and take all your gold. This is far from reality. It is just looking at the entire country as a whole and figuring out the best way to get us all to work together to accomplish far more than if we did not.

But I guess if a doctor of medicine can read a few pre-depression economic ideas that did not examine the economy as an entire scale and focused on the firm, and all of a sudden be a economists of such renown that they know ending the Fed is somehow a great idea, maybe I should watch Grey's anatomy and read a few new england journals of medicine so that I can perform surgery.

thebuttonpusher · Jun 9, 2010

Economics isn't a science, if it were there could be no bubbles or misappropriation of funds. Economics is the psychological study of human nature, why do people buy and sell? What do they do when confronted with fiscal insolvency, a large sum of money etc etc etc.

MOST economists did not see shit coming, I don't even understand how you come up with that, most economists were completely blind to the crash of 08. Find me proof of your statement and I will believe it, but the fact is 99% of economists didn't see the bubble and still think we are recovering.

I work on PROOF, you can say whatever you want, but unless you provide some kind of PROOF it is purely story telling on your part. I provide PROOF of my statements, like the fed creates money, yet you still won't accept facts so it really makes no difference what the truth is, becasue you are blind to it.

Nothing will improve until the bad debt is purged from the system, businesses are forced to deal with their own problems, people are kicked out of their homes etc etc etc. The USA can print as much money as it wants, it will not improve anything.

Where does the money for unemployment come from?

thebuttonpusher · Jun 9, 2010

How much money will a retired old lady have to have in the bank to earn a modest $50,000 a year in interest?

medicineman · Jun 9, 2010

BTW, JFYI, a penny costs 1.73 cents to make,(By some estimates). How much are we losing annualy on keeping the penny. We should round up to the nickle, except the nickle Costs 5.73 cents. By doing away with the nickle and penny, the mint could save millions every year, as the dime is a real bargain to make, at 1.88 cents. Now there would be nothing cheaper than one thin dime. It would make making change easier for the braindead speedfreaks that inhabit a lot of retail jobs, minus the automatic change readout.

thebuttonpusher · Jun 9, 2010

medicineman said:
It would make making change easier for the braindead speedfreaks that inhabit a lot of retail jobs, minus the automatic change readout.

i went to a local gas station, bought $15.45 worth of merchandise, gave the kid at the counter $20.45 and he gave me $15 back, I told him he was wrong about the change he gave me , told him he gave me $10 too much, he argued that he was correct, I left with the extra $10.

Went to Burger King for lunch the very same day, my total was $5.36. I gave the young gal $20.36, she gave me $25 back in change. Fucking idiots!

thebuttonpusher · Jun 9, 2010

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The banks have basically found their version of NIRVANA since they now have the ability to[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hide their losses via "extend and pretend." [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Borrow at zero Interest Rates. They can borrow from the Government at zero and then lend it right back to the Government by buying 30 year guaranteed FHA Bonds that pay 4% and don't require any reserves be held. If all that is not enough, they are then allowed to hide their losses with phony accounting. As the profits roll in, a large portion of these newly created profits (taxpayer gifts), after paying back TARP, begin to flow into highly liquid stocks.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Once the stock bubble starts, just like every other successful Ponzi scheme, it needs ever increasing amounts of money. The propaganda machine then gears up using manipulated government statistics to suck everyone else in. It certainly helps if the Fed also takes away all other investment options. Investors (especially senior citizens) are desperate for yield. By dropping rates to zero, the Fed has wiped out CDs, money markets, and Treasuries as solid, safe and reasonable yielding investment options. This essentially forces the public and fund managers into buying stocks and junk bonds in a desperate search for yield because the "safe" investments pay them nothing. The higher the market goes, the more investors get sucked in, just as they are in every Ponzi scheme.[/FONT]

hanimmal · Jun 9, 2010

Economics isn't a science, if it were there could be no bubbles or misappropriation of funds. Economics is the psychological study of human nature, why do people buy and sell? What do they do when confronted with fiscal insolvency, a large sum of money etc etc etc.

Dude seriously, I know that may be what you think economics is, but you are missing almost everything, that may be a small portion of it, but no where near the entirety of it. It is a math based science. There are actual numbers associated with everything we do, and if the numbers don't jive you have nothing.

What you are describing is Austrian economics, because like I said that is really a political idea that they disguised with the term economics at the end of it. The neo-classical ("Reganomics"), Monetary, and "Keynesian" all are very very close, and actually at full employment all the numbers pretty much line up. The differences lie basically in what is deemed "Full employment". The only real knock I give to the other two "Non-Keynesian" is that they determine their models on always being at full employment (which is almost never the case).

Like for example if you have a Fed purchase of 1 million in treasury securities that will boost the amount of money that the banks have in their vaults (because it is no longer tied up in 30 year bonds) and they will reduce interest rates in order to attract investors which will increase business investment which will increase their hiring so unemployment goes down. All of these numbers will have some multiplier effect that either slows down the change in the next link of the chain or speeds it up, and those are scientifically evaluated (using stringent mathematical means) to determine their accuracy.

Now here is where they schools of thought differ, is that the Neo classical and Monetarist model the economy at full employment, and that increase in employment just means that there is more money in the system (with the same number of jobs) and that is why they say it leads to inflation. And I can understand why, because they are saying if you want a job you can get one (you just may not like the work you get nor the price you receive for it).

Keynesian system (which has changed much over the 50 years it has been around) doesn't view the economy at full employment and does not carry the same instant view of inflation, because they say it takes time for that money to get around and if there are higher unemployment numbers that money is needed to boost spending so that the industries will hire the unused labor with that money. Because otherwise you have people trying to save money and spending less, and the hording means that businesses suffer and end up laying off more, which leads to even more hoarding, downward spiral.

Either way you usually get the same results if everything is at close to full employment, unless we are in a recessionary trend.

Republicans tend to think that they are following either the Neo classical or monetary economists views (even if they have no idea what that truly means) because it is about being at full employment and cutting spending. But they miss that the tax breaks will push more money in the system at that point and increase inflation. And in recessions they get the cutting taxes (which is great) but then think that somehow if nobody is buying shit, they should cut back too, when the government can do things like build roads, schools, hospitals, whatever and help get some money back into the economy when everyone else is scared shitless.

While the Dems in recessions see the safety net approach and stave off recessions by having a economic floor in place with things like unemployment that stop the blood loss the companies face with the people consuming their goods not having a job to buy them with. And government spending to stimulate the economy in bad times. But they screw the pooch with spending a assload during good times and not rebuilding the government surplus back up for the next inevitable decline. See at that point if the government actually had a surplus it can be used to get us out without having to worry about having a huge deficit afterwards like we are faced with now (Not to put this on Bush, but after 2001 the surplus from Clinton was toast (as it should have been) but he never replenished it, and that left us having to deficit spend on this recession to get us out).

The problem again is they are lawyers not economists and truly are flying blind with understanding all this, both sides.

MOST economists did not see shit coming, I don't even understand how you come up with that, most economists were completely blind to the crash of 08. Find me proof of your statement and I will believe it, but the fact is 99% of economists didn't see the bubble and still think we are recovering.

How much do you need? You have Krugman on Bloomberg in 2006, here is some stuff in 2005.

Panel warns of looming financial crisis in U.S.
by Laura McCallum, Minnesota Public Radio
October 17, 2005

Federal budget experts speaking at a conference in Minneapolis offered a bleak forecast for the nation's fiscal health. The panel included representatives from both conservative and liberal organizations. Despite their political differences, they generally agreed the country faces a looming financial crisis, and elected officials aren't making the tough choices required to fix the problem. The panel spoke at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute on Monday

We are recovering, but it is a slow ass process because employers need time to feel safe to rehire workers, and this shit with N korea, greece, and BP are just muddying the waters.

March 21, 2007
Recession Forecast: 49.7%
Has it been six weeks already? Well, that means we've got another FOMC rate announcement to consider!

Using our tool for reckoning the odds of recession, we find that the 1-quarter rolling averages for the ongoing Federal Funds Rate (5.25%) and the spread between the 3-month and 10-year Constant Maturity Treasuries gives the probability of recession beginning sometime in the next twelve months at 49.7%, having increased from 48.9% when we last considered it on March 1.

By contrast, the rolling one-quarter average for the daily values of the Constant Maturity U.S. Treasuries is likely to continue increasing for a time, and will exceed the 50% probability level in the very near future. At present, trends suggest that the probability of recession using the method developed by Jonathan Wright will continue to move upward to float somewhere in the 50-52% range.

'07 recession forecast

U.S. downturn will jar state, expert warns. Economist Tucker Hart Adams says that if a national recession does hit next year, the state won't be hit as hard as others.
By Aldo Svaldi
Denver Post Staff Writer
Posted: 09/13/2006 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 09/14/2006 08:49:29 AM MDT

By this time next year, the U.S. economy will face a recession that will drag the Colorado economy down with it in 2008, U.S. Bank regional economist Tucker Hart Adams predicted Tuesday.
In her closely watched annual economic forecast, Adams placed the chances of a national recession in 2007 at three-in-four. A recession is commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of economic contraction.

I can keep going, but I think that I should stop, because you do have a point, by saying "most economists saw this coming" I guess that I need to be more exact. Most economists saw this was very possible as there were a lot of negative indicators. But all the efforts to get the government and people to actually listen to them and to do shit right fell on deaf ears.

Nothing is certain, but there was plenty of economists that were producing material that was ignored on things that needed to be done to stop the recession well before it took hold and collapsed. Which would have slowly deflated the bubble and stop it from popping like it did.

I work on PROOF, you can say whatever you want, but unless you provide some kind of PROOF it is purely story telling on your part. I provide PROOF of my statements, like the fed creates money, yet you still won't accept facts so it really makes no difference what the truth is, becasue you are blind to it.

Saying the Fed creates money is not proof, no matter how you want it to be. What proof have you shown that the Fed has actually purchased from the Treasury a new security? I mean just the word it's self "Open Market Operation" you would think you could get that it is on the Open market and not a transaction within the government. They can only purchase existing securities that are on the market.

So you know what, fuck it, I will go through all of the acts dealing with banking in the us and the Fed and find the lines that deal with this, I guess I can just use this to write a paper on. Because maybe this is something that they need to get out there, because if you are looking at it from your point of view this must be obscure, but it is important.

Nothing will improve until the bad debt is purged from the system, businesses are forced to deal with their own problems, people are kicked out of their homes etc etc etc. The USA can print as much money as it wants, it will not improve anything.

Yeah I am all for getting rid of bad debt. No question 100% you are right with this.

But why anyone would want to remove the only governmental agency that pays for itself (and much more that they hand over to the treasury every year) is beyond me.

Where does the money for unemployment come from?

Us that have jobs.

How much money will a retired old lady have to have in the bank to earn a modest $50,000 a year in interest?

Why would a old lady need to get $50,000 in interest every year?

But pretty cake math, at around 3% for high balance accounts (Prime rates right): 50,000/.03 = 1.7 million. Or about $2000 a month being saved for 20 years with 10% annually. Or $1000 a month for 30 years. http://www.dinkytown.net/java/CompoundSavings.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The banks have basically found their version of NIRVANA since they now have the ability to[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hide their losses via "extend and pretend." [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Borrow at zero Interest Rates. They can borrow from the Government at zero and then lend it right back to the Government by buying 30 year guaranteed FHA Bonds that pay 4% and don't require any reserves be held. If all that is not enough, they are then allowed to hide their losses with phony accounting. As the profits roll in, a large portion of these newly created profits (taxpayer gifts), after paying back TARP, begin to flow into highly liquid stocks.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Once the stock bubble starts, just like every other successful Ponzi scheme, it needs ever increasing amounts of money. The propaganda machine then gears up using manipulated government statistics to suck everyone else in. It certainly helps if the Fed also takes away all other investment options. Investors (especially senior citizens) are desperate for yield. By dropping rates to zero, the Fed has wiped out CDs, money markets, and Treasuries as solid, safe and reasonable yielding investment options. This essentially forces the public and fund managers into buying stocks and junk bonds in a desperate search for yield because the "safe" investments pay them nothing. The higher the market goes, the more investors get sucked in, just as they are in every Ponzi scheme.[/FONT]

1st Where do you get that they are borrowing still at almost zero %? I know they got Tarp, but you are saying they can borrow for zero%.

2nd Why would you need to have a reserve on a bond you purchased? I mean why would you need to have a reserve requirement on something that is a yielding asset? That is like saying, you can hold money, but you need to hold more money to make sure that money is there?

3rd If you are retired or even a few years out from retiring, you should not need yields, you should have what you need in place already. Everything else is just bad planning. Everyone should know before they buy a stock that they should not need this money for years.

4th If it is such a bad investment why are they trading well?

5th Really Gold-Eagle.com?

thebuttonpusher · Jun 9, 2010

You pretty much contradict yourself when you say "Like for example if you have a Fed purchase of 1 million in treasury securities that will boost the amount of money that the banks have in their vaults (because it is no longer tied up in 30 year bonds) and they will reduce interest rates in order to attract investors which will increase business investment which will increase their hiring so unemployment goes down. All of these numbers will have some multiplier effect that either slows down the change in the next link of the chain or speeds it up, and those are scientifically evaluated (using stringent mathematical means) to determine their accuracy." But the whole time you are saying that the fed does not purchase securities, the banks do. So which is it, they do or don't? You can't have it both ways.

When you say MOST economists, I assume you mean that more than HALF of ALL economists saw the recession coming. So there are approx 15,000 official economists, can you find 7,501 separate posts/blogs/reports to confirm what you are saying, or do you just think that 3 people is good enough to say most?

You go to post the 10 year bond rate and then make the statement that we are in recovery. Really ? all you have to do is look at the 10 year bond rate to figure out if we are recovering or not? Have you told Ben Bernanke this? He would be surprised to realize it is so easy. Instead lets look at total GDP in the US and you tell me if it looks like recovery. Looks to me like government is spending like crazy, yet we are in negative growth territory. Since the government produces NOTHING and gets every penny it needs to spend by borrowing it at interest we are surely FUCKED!!!

View attachment 984222

Why would an old lady need 50K a year in interest? Really ? You think old people live on nothing but air? They need to pay their bills, eat, drive cars, insurance etc etc etc, all the things that you and I need money for they need money for also. Where do you think they will get it? Maybe they can make it in the stock market, oooh ooh I know, they can go to Vegas and put it on the tables. FAIL!!!! Old people want SAFETY for their money, risk free interest is THE MOST DESIRABLE, the kind that comes from having money saved up and put into a liquid account that earns more interest that inflation consumes. Official inflation is at 3% so your yield needs to be more than 3% for you to experience ANY GAIN AT ALL!!!! So again, I ask, how much money will an old retired lady with no job and no income need to have saved in the bank to EARN 50k a year in interest?

1) Fed Funds rate ( the rate at which banks borrow from the Fed) is .25% its almost 0

2) You don't know what an FHA bond is do you? Lets just say it isn't a US Treasury. It has something to do with mortgages, but I will let you research it yourself.

3) Well that used to be the correct way to do it, before FIAT currency, but since you would be dirt poor because inflation will have wiped all your purchasing power out then you MUST find something that will earn at least as much as inflation eats. The Fiat dollar GAURANTEES you will never be able to save enough for the future, inflation will always render it eventually worthless. Nothin like retiring with 1 million in the bank, earn $3000 in interest per year on it and have inflation erode your purchasing power down to the equivalent of 150,000 over 30 years, yep saving for the future sure isn't fun when your money becomes worth less and less every day. By the end of your life you will owe money in the form of taxes, death tax oh and lets not forget the government is going to tax your interest you earned also, so you really really need to find something that yields ALOT more than inflation if you want to preserve any of your wealth you worked your whole life to save. You will learn this as you get older.

4) What is trading well? I don't understand what the subject is you are asking about, Are you asking about the market itself? It has lost 1 trillion in the last 2 weeks, not exactly "Well" is it?

5) Aubie Baltin, from Zerohedge.

hanimmal · Jun 9, 2010

You pretty much contradict yourself when you say "Like for example if you have a Fed purchase of 1 million in treasury securities that will boost the amount of money that the banks have in their vaults (because it is no longer tied up in 30 year bonds) and they will reduce interest rates in order to attract investors which will increase business investment which will increase their hiring so unemployment goes down. All of these numbers will have some multiplier effect that either slows down the change in the next link of the chain or speeds it up, and those are scientifically evaluated (using stringent mathematical means) to determine their accuracy." But the whole time you are saying that the fed does not purchase securities, the banks do. So which is it, they do or don't? You can't have it both ways.

Let's try this again, I think this is number what 4.

The Fed cannot buy NEW TREASURY SECURITIES. They can only purchase ones that BANKS HAVE ALREADY PURCHASED with their excess reserves ( or sell the ones that they had previously purchased from banks in the past in order to slow inflation by pulling money out of the system).

When you say MOST economists, I assume you mean that more than HALF of ALL economists saw the recession coming. So there are approx 15,000 official economists, can you find 7,501 separate posts/blogs/reports to confirm what you are saying, or do you just think that 3 people is good enough to say most?

I am sure if you wanted to call and confirm, easily we could find that many that had seen the economic data and new if changes were not made most likely it would end up in a recession. But I guess all economists must have a blog to have an opinion on economic data.

But of course we may need to first remove the large portion that are micro economists and focus less on the entire economy and more on efficiencies in firms, but that is nitpicking right.

I guess you have not actually looked at the data then. Consumption is way up this last quarter and government has been dropping for quite a while now.

Why would an old lady need 50K a year in interest? Really ? You think old people live on nothing but air? They need to pay their bills, eat, drive cars, insurance etc etc etc, all the things that you and I need money for they need money for also. Where do you think they will get it? Maybe they can make it in the stock market, oooh ooh I know, they can go to Vegas and put it on the tables. FAIL!!!! Old people want SAFETY for their money, risk free interest is THE MOST DESIRABLE, the kind that comes from having money saved up and put into a liquid account that earns more interest that inflation consumes. Official inflation is at 3% so your yield needs to be more than 3% for you to experience ANY GAIN AT ALL!!!! So again, I ask, how much money will an old retired lady with no job and no income need to have saved in the bank to EARN 50k a year in interest?

You forget about all the money she saved, if you want that 50k a year, you would not need 50k worth of interest to do that, if she has 15 years left and needs 50k a year, she would need to have saved 750k (or save $350 a month for 30 years). And that is before interest, which would actually yield an extra $22500 in interest just in the first year.

1) Fed Funds rate ( the rate at which banks borrow from the Fed) is .25% its almost 0

Common mistake, the Federal funds rate is the interest rate that banks can lend to themselves, you need to look at the discount rate or the prime rate (same thing now, changed in 2002 I think), which is actually .75 or three times the amount that another bank can lend, so why would you borrow from the Fed?

Prime rate, fed funds, COFI
This week Month ago Year ago WSJ Prime Rate 3.25 3.25 3.25 Federal Discount Rate 0.75 0.75 0.50 Fed Funds Rate (Current target rate 0-0.25) 0.25 0.25 0.25 11th District Cost of Funds 1.825 1.859 1.380

2) You don't know what an FHA bond is do you? Lets just say it isn't a US Treasury. It has something to do with mortgages, but I will let you research it yourself.

Is it (pause for dramatic effect) a bond? I mean that is a key term in it right? A bond is a form of money. Would you want them to have to have a cash reserve requirement on gold? That is just retarded.

3) Well that used to be the correct way to do it, before FIAT currency, but since you would be dirt poor because inflation will have wiped all your purchasing power out then you MUST find something that will earn at least as much as inflation eats. The Fiat dollar GAURANTEES you will never be able to save enough for the future, inflation will always render it eventually worthless. Nothin like retiring with 1 million in the bank, earn $3000 in interest per year on it and have inflation erode your purchasing power down to the equivalent of 150,000 over 30 years, yep saving for the future sure isn't fun when your money becomes worth less and less every day. By the end of your life you will owe money in the form of taxes, death tax oh and lets not forget the government is going to tax your interest you earned also, so you really really need to find something that yields ALOT more than inflation if you want to preserve any of your wealth you worked your whole life to save. You will learn this as you get older.

YEAR
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
AVE
2010 2.63% 2.14% 2.31% 2.24% 2009 0.03% 0.24% -0.38% -0.74% -1.28% -1.43% -2.10% -1.48% -1.29% -0.18% 1.84% 2.72% -0.34% 2008 4.28% 4.03% 3.98% 3.94% 4.18% 5.02% 5.60% 5.37% 4.94% 3.66% 1.07% 0.09% 3.85% 2007 2.08% 2.42% 2.78% 2.57% 2.69% 2.69% 2.36% 1.97% 2.76% 3.54% 4.31% 4.08% 2.85% 2006 3.99% 3.60% 3.36% 3.55% 4.17% 4.32% 4.15% 3.82% 2.06% 1.31% 1.97% 2.54% 3.24% 2005 2.97% 3.01% 3.15% 3.51% 2.80% 2.53% 3.17% 3.64% 4.69% 4.35% 3.46% 3.42% 3.39% 2004 1.93% 1.69% 1.74% 2.29% 3.05% 3.27% 2.99% 2.65% 2.54% 3.19% 3.52% 3.26% 2.68% 2003 2.60% 2.98% 3.02% 2.22% 2.06% 2.11% 2.11% 2.16% 2.32% 2.04% 1.77% 1.88% 2.27% 2002 1.14% 1.14% 1.48% 1.64% 1.18% 1.07% 1.46% 1.80% 1.51% 2.03% 2.20% 2.38% 1.59% 2001 3.73% 3.53% 2.92% 3.27% 3.62% 3.25% 2.72% 2.72% 2.65% 2.13% 1.90% 1.55% 2.83% 2000 2.74% 3.22% 3.76% 3.07% 3.19% 3.73% 3.66% 3.41% 3.45% 3.45% 3.45% 3.39% 3.38% 1999 1.67% 1.61% 1.73% 2.28% 2.09% 1.96% 2.14% 2.26% 2.63% 2.56% 2.62% 2.68% 2.19%

The average is just below 3%, which 2.5%-3% is the targeted rate. Pretty easy to outpace that just by keeping your money in the bank. And that is why they give 3%+ on large deposit accounts, because otherwise nobody would keep any money in the banks because they would lose money doing so. And everyone with less money in their accounts really are benefiting if nothing else for the ease of transactions, the small amount of interest on small deposit amounts is because they still do want to attract customers and banks bid for us, they just don't want to bid too much.

The Fiat dollar GAURANTEES you will never be able to save enough for the future, inflation will always render it eventually worthless. Nothin like retiring with 1 million in the bank, earn $3000 in interest per year on it and have inflation erode your purchasing power down to the equivalent of 150,000 over 30 years, yep saving for the future sure isn't fun when your money becomes worth less and less every day.

What? First, 3% of a million is $30,000, and it is a wash with inflation. So if someone was stupid enough to keep 1 million dollars in a bank for 30 years, they must have inherited that money because nobody slow enough to do that would be able to earn that much in the first place (well unless they got very lucky). I mean if nothing else they could have rolled that into a bond in the 80's when they were paying 13+% interest.

4) What is trading well? I don't understand what the subject is you are asking about, Are you asking about the market itself? It has lost 1 trillion in the last 2 weeks, not exactly "Well" is it?

Treasuries are up. If they were indeed worthless, people would just leave their money cash.

5) Aubie Baltin, from Zerohedge.

Ah sorry, that was the one that popped up when I searched for the article.

The Zero Hedge Team

Tyler Durden - Founder
Marla Singer - Foil
Travis - Author
Cornelius - Author
Sacrilege - Senior Researcher

Some pretty high profile names there.

thebuttonpusher · Jun 9, 2010

hanimmal said:
Let's try this again, I think this is number what 4.

The Fed cannot buy NEW TREASURY SECURITIES. They can only purchase ones that BANKS HAVE ALREADY PURCHASED with their excess reserves ( or sell the ones that they had previously purchased from banks in the past in order to slow inflation by pulling money out of the system).

Did you know that the Federal reserve was a bank? And here you thought what exactly? The Fed is a bank therefore it can buy treasuries Directly from one of the few Primary Dealers whenever they have an auction. But I guess you are correct, the Fed isn't buying them from the treasury directly, they are buying them directly from the Primary dealers, who are buying them direct from the treasury. So the dealers skim off a commission is all. They call this open market operations. Just so you know no bank can buy treasuries, they MUST go through primary dealers.
Here is a list of the dealers.
BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
Banc of America Securities LLC
Barclays Capital Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
Jefferies & Company, Inc.
J. P. Morgan Securities Inc.
Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
Nomura Securities International, Inc.
RBC Capital Markets Corporation
RBS Securities Inc.
UBS Securities LLC.

Of these dealers can you guess which ones have a Controlling interest in the Federal Reserve? I mean after all the FED is a Private Bank and is OWNED by others. I wonder if JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs own parts of the fed hmmmmmm? No those aren't banks just buying for itself now are they?

View attachment 984482
I guess you have not actually looked at the data then. Consumption is way up this last quarter and government has been dropping for quite a while now.

exports are down, that means the USA cannot pay for the things it buys. Ever heard of a trade imbalance? Your graph proves my point better than it proves yours.

You forget about all the money she saved, if you want that 50k a year, you would not need 50k worth of interest to do that, if she has 15 years left and needs 50k a year, she would need to have saved 750k (or save $350 a month for 30 years). And that is before interest, which would actually yield an extra $22500 in interest just in the first year.

Why don't you just admit that you cannot figure out the question? Do you know when you will die? Do you know exactly how much money you will need to survive your golden years so that the day you die is also the day your bank account goes to zero? Don't be an imbecile, just answer the question. What if she lives for 30 more years instead of 15? looks like she will be homeless and eating cat food for the last 15 years eh? What if some medical emergency happens and its going to cost $300,000, what will she do then, she will have to commit suicide 6 years early , is this what you advocate for the retired people who live in the USA?

Lets try this one more time. How much cash in the bank at the high rate of 2% earnings will a retired person need to ensure they can sustain their lifestyle forever? I want a single number from you, not some formula trying to figure out how much you need to save each year. or how much compounded interest it will take or what kind of bond she should have bought in 1982, I want a fucking whole number and that is to illustrate to you how much money we are talking about here.

just so you know, banks aren't offering 3% interest on savings accounts, not even to the big savers. here is a list of the top interest bearing accounts you can get.
http://www.money-rates.com/savings.htm

Common mistake, the Federal funds rate is the interest rate that banks can lend to themselves, you need to look at the discount rate or the prime rate (same thing now, changed in 2002 I think), which is actually .75 or three times the amount that another bank can lend, so why would you borrow from the Fed?

Ok so thanks for reiterating my point for me. the bank is able to earn 3.25% for borrowing from the Government and lending to the FHA. So now you know and you helped prove my point.

Is it (pause for dramatic effect) a bond? I mean that is a key term in it right? A bond is a form of money. Would you want them to have to have a cash reserve requirement on gold? That is just retarded.

Obviously you did not read up on the subject.

The average is just below 3%, which 2.5%-3% is the targeted rate. Pretty easy to outpace that just by keeping your money in the bank. And that is why they give 3%+ on large deposit accounts, because otherwise nobody would keep any money in the banks because they would lose money doing so. And everyone with less money in their accounts really are benefiting if nothing else for the ease of transactions, the small amount of interest on small deposit amounts is because they still do want to attract customers and banks bid for us, they just don't want to bid too much.

ok so I already PROVED you can't beat 3% by keeping money in the bank, people keep money in the bank to facilitate ease of transactions and the fact that its hard as hell to do many of lifes transactions without one. Online Banking makes things much easier than having to take cash and get a Money order to pay the monthly bills. Writing a check is pretty easy except if you don't have a bank account. Lets not even start to talk about how many employers use direct deposit and getting your pay CHECK is difficult and poses all sorts of problems in our modern age. No the interest rate most people are getting is little to none, and usually even less once you take out all the hidden fees and ATM fees you might have paid over the year. We don't put money in checking and savings accounts hoping it will grow with compound interest, we do it for the convenience. 28 years ago you could actually earn enough money on your deposit and this was very good for the aged among us living on fixed incomes. You didn't need a small fortune to get some benefit.

What? First, 3% of a million is $30,000, and it is a wash with inflation. So if someone was stupid enough to keep 1 million dollars in a bank for 30 years, they must have inherited that money because nobody slow enough to do that would be able to earn that much in the first place (well unless they got very lucky). I mean if nothing else they could have rolled that into a bond in the 80's when they were paying 13+% interest.

Ok so you just said that old people should save their money for retirement then you say the exact opposite and say it is stupid for people to save. So which one is it? Or do you just enjoy being wishy washy? Or is it that your not really sure what it is your trying to say?

Treasuries are up. If they were indeed worthless, people would just leave their money cash.

When yield on treasuries go up, you are losing money on the ones you own, its not a good thing when treasuries are up. Increasing treasury Yields means the government is having a hard time selling its securities and must raise the interest rate to entice others to buy.

So only big names can call things correctly or have any knowledge? really? So you personally aren't a big name, does that mean everything you say must be false, lies, uninformed? I mean after all "hanimal" is a nobody just like thebuttonpusher, does that mean neither of us has any clue just because we aren't celebrated names or have high office?

If you only listen to the big named people its no wonder you are lost in this vast ocean. Irving Fisher was a big name in economics, but if you listened to his advice you were flat broke by 1933 just like he was.

But alas I see the humor in pointing out that Brad Pitts Characters name in the Movie "FightClub" is also Tyler Durden, how clever.

Rand Paul Wins!!!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member