Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › End The Fed
- This topic has 20 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM #14521November 26, 2008 at 1:45 PM #309279
Eugene
Participant[quote]The Federal Reserve is about to create billions of new money (out of thin air) to pay for all the bail out schemes being pushed down our throats.[/quote]
Would you prefer the second Great Depression?
November 26, 2008 at 1:45 PM #309749Participant[quote]The Federal Reserve is about to create billions of new money (out of thin air) to pay for all the bail out schemes being pushed down our throats.[/quote]
Would you prefer the second Great Depression?
November 26, 2008 at 1:45 PM #309644Participant[quote]The Federal Reserve is about to create billions of new money (out of thin air) to pay for all the bail out schemes being pushed down our throats.[/quote]
Would you prefer the second Great Depression?
November 26, 2008 at 1:45 PM #309666Participant[quote]The Federal Reserve is about to create billions of new money (out of thin air) to pay for all the bail out schemes being pushed down our throats.[/quote]
Would you prefer the second Great Depression?
November 26, 2008 at 1:45 PM #309687Participant[quote]The Federal Reserve is about to create billions of new money (out of thin air) to pay for all the bail out schemes being pushed down our throats.[/quote]
Would you prefer the second Great Depression?
November 26, 2008 at 5:01 PM #309736Carl Veritas
ParticipantYou mean you bought the advertisement for TARP?
The depression of the 1930s began as a banking panic
after the stock market crash. A stock market speculation that was fueled by the Feds pumping bank reserves. Banks were lending the cheap money to stock speculators who were bidding up prices on margin (sounds like the internet craze, no?)It turned into a decade long calamity only after
Pres Hoover instituted his grand bail out schemes termed the New Deal: high wage rates, public works, protectionism and propping up unsound positions.
He mistakenly thought that the depression was being caused by low prices and not the other way around.
He subsidized farming and paid them off to curtail production in an attempt to reduce supply and force prices up artificially. Some say the depression would not have occurred if only the Fed pumped even more money into the system. And like today, bankers and consumers confidence were not figured into their mathematical assumptions of money injections.Will today’s New Deal lll or Troubled Assets Relief Program get the economy out of it’s funk?
If it’s good for the government to stimulate, why not the local counterfeiter? Why stop at $800 billion? Or if raising the minimum wage will help the poor, why not make it $100 per hour and erase poverty once and for all.
Then US Treasury Secretary Mellon headed what Pres Hoover called “the leave-it-alone-liquidationists”.
Though Mellon backed the inflationary policies of the government that led to wild stock speculation and crash, he was against Hoovers bail out schemes. Mellon knew from experience in the depression of 1870s that it’s best to let it run it’s course.The pitch is eerily similar—
“Lets help the average American in main street”
Our grandchildren owe over a $Trillion in debt as our legacy of inaction and stupidity.
Down the red pill Neo, we have work to do.
November 26, 2008 at 5:01 PM #309819ParticipantYou mean you bought the advertisement for TARP?
The depression of the 1930s began as a banking panic
after the stock market crash. A stock market speculation that was fueled by the Feds pumping bank reserves. Banks were lending the cheap money to stock speculators who were bidding up prices on margin (sounds like the internet craze, no?)It turned into a decade long calamity only after
Pres Hoover instituted his grand bail out schemes termed the New Deal: high wage rates, public works, protectionism and propping up unsound positions.
He mistakenly thought that the depression was being caused by low prices and not the other way around.
He subsidized farming and paid them off to curtail production in an attempt to reduce supply and force prices up artificially. Some say the depression would not have occurred if only the Fed pumped even more money into the system. And like today, bankers and consumers confidence were not figured into their mathematical assumptions of money injections.Will today’s New Deal lll or Troubled Assets Relief Program get the economy out of it’s funk?
If it’s good for the government to stimulate, why not the local counterfeiter? Why stop at $800 billion? Or if raising the minimum wage will help the poor, why not make it $100 per hour and erase poverty once and for all.
Then US Treasury Secretary Mellon headed what Pres Hoover called “the leave-it-alone-liquidationists”.
Though Mellon backed the inflationary policies of the government that led to wild stock speculation and crash, he was against Hoovers bail out schemes. Mellon knew from experience in the depression of 1870s that it’s best to let it run it’s course.The pitch is eerily similar—
“Lets help the average American in main street”
Our grandchildren owe over a $Trillion in debt as our legacy of inaction and stupidity.
Down the red pill Neo, we have work to do.
November 26, 2008 at 5:01 PM #309757ParticipantYou mean you bought the advertisement for TARP?
The depression of the 1930s began as a banking panic
after the stock market crash. A stock market speculation that was fueled by the Feds pumping bank reserves. Banks were lending the cheap money to stock speculators who were bidding up prices on margin (sounds like the internet craze, no?)It turned into a decade long calamity only after
Pres Hoover instituted his grand bail out schemes termed the New Deal: high wage rates, public works, protectionism and propping up unsound positions.
He mistakenly thought that the depression was being caused by low prices and not the other way around.
He subsidized farming and paid them off to curtail production in an attempt to reduce supply and force prices up artificially. Some say the depression would not have occurred if only the Fed pumped even more money into the system. And like today, bankers and consumers confidence were not figured into their mathematical assumptions of money injections.Will today’s New Deal lll or Troubled Assets Relief Program get the economy out of it’s funk?
If it’s good for the government to stimulate, why not the local counterfeiter? Why stop at $800 billion? Or if raising the minimum wage will help the poor, why not make it $100 per hour and erase poverty once and for all.
Then US Treasury Secretary Mellon headed what Pres Hoover called “the leave-it-alone-liquidationists”.
Though Mellon backed the inflationary policies of the government that led to wild stock speculation and crash, he was against Hoovers bail out schemes. Mellon knew from experience in the depression of 1870s that it’s best to let it run it’s course.The pitch is eerily similar—
“Lets help the average American in main street”
Our grandchildren owe over a $Trillion in debt as our legacy of inaction and stupidity.
Down the red pill Neo, we have work to do.
November 26, 2008 at 5:01 PM #309713ParticipantYou mean you bought the advertisement for TARP?
The depression of the 1930s began as a banking panic
after the stock market crash. A stock market speculation that was fueled by the Feds pumping bank reserves. Banks were lending the cheap money to stock speculators who were bidding up prices on margin (sounds like the internet craze, no?)It turned into a decade long calamity only after
Pres Hoover instituted his grand bail out schemes termed the New Deal: high wage rates, public works, protectionism and propping up unsound positions.
He mistakenly thought that the depression was being caused by low prices and not the other way around.
He subsidized farming and paid them off to curtail production in an attempt to reduce supply and force prices up artificially. Some say the depression would not have occurred if only the Fed pumped even more money into the system. And like today, bankers and consumers confidence were not figured into their mathematical assumptions of money injections.Will today’s New Deal lll or Troubled Assets Relief Program get the economy out of it’s funk?
If it’s good for the government to stimulate, why not the local counterfeiter? Why stop at $800 billion? Or if raising the minimum wage will help the poor, why not make it $100 per hour and erase poverty once and for all.
Then US Treasury Secretary Mellon headed what Pres Hoover called “the leave-it-alone-liquidationists”.
Though Mellon backed the inflationary policies of the government that led to wild stock speculation and crash, he was against Hoovers bail out schemes. Mellon knew from experience in the depression of 1870s that it’s best to let it run it’s course.The pitch is eerily similar—
“Lets help the average American in main street”
Our grandchildren owe over a $Trillion in debt as our legacy of inaction and stupidity.
Down the red pill Neo, we have work to do.
November 26, 2008 at 5:01 PM #309350ParticipantYou mean you bought the advertisement for TARP?
The depression of the 1930s began as a banking panic
after the stock market crash. A stock market speculation that was fueled by the Feds pumping bank reserves. Banks were lending the cheap money to stock speculators who were bidding up prices on margin (sounds like the internet craze, no?)It turned into a decade long calamity only after
Pres Hoover instituted his grand bail out schemes termed the New Deal: high wage rates, public works, protectionism and propping up unsound positions.
He mistakenly thought that the depression was being caused by low prices and not the other way around.
He subsidized farming and paid them off to curtail production in an attempt to reduce supply and force prices up artificially. Some say the depression would not have occurred if only the Fed pumped even more money into the system. And like today, bankers and consumers confidence were not figured into their mathematical assumptions of money injections.Will today’s New Deal lll or Troubled Assets Relief Program get the economy out of it’s funk?
If it’s good for the government to stimulate, why not the local counterfeiter? Why stop at $800 billion? Or if raising the minimum wage will help the poor, why not make it $100 per hour and erase poverty once and for all.
Then US Treasury Secretary Mellon headed what Pres Hoover called “the leave-it-alone-liquidationists”.
Though Mellon backed the inflationary policies of the government that led to wild stock speculation and crash, he was against Hoovers bail out schemes. Mellon knew from experience in the depression of 1870s that it’s best to let it run it’s course.The pitch is eerily similar—
“Lets help the average American in main street”
Our grandchildren owe over a $Trillion in debt as our legacy of inaction and stupidity.
Down the red pill Neo, we have work to do.
November 26, 2008 at 5:42 PM #309718patientrenter
Participant[quote=esmith][quote]The Federal Reserve is about to create billions of new money (out of thin air) to pay for all the bail out schemes being pushed down our throats.[/quote]
Would you prefer the second Great Depression?[/quote]
esmith, I am getting jaded with the threat of economic armageddon for all of us if people who bought overpriced houses on borrowed money, and their lenders, don’t get bailed out on the backs of people who didn’t. At this point, I am becoming more and more convinced that this is nothing more than a sophisticated scheme to transfer wealth from net savers to net borrowers.
I would be perfectly OK if our GDP dropped by 30% if the 30% of economic activity we lost was concentrated in the things I think we need to move away from anyway – sending smart, energetic people into careers of moving money around in clever ways to create the impression that it is “growing” quicker than it is.
It would be painful, but we are worse off paying people to continue doing things we no longer value than simply letting them find better uses for their energies and time, with some basic sustenance to get them through the tough times. Basic sustenance does not extend to paying people more money for their house than the price they paid for their first house 10-30 years ago, increased for inflation.
November 26, 2008 at 5:42 PM #309741Participant[quote=esmith][quote]The Federal Reserve is about to create billions of new money (out of thin air) to pay for all the bail out schemes being pushed down our throats.[/quote]
Would you prefer the second Great Depression?[/quote]
esmith, I am getting jaded with the threat of economic armageddon for all of us if people who bought overpriced houses on borrowed money, and their lenders, don’t get bailed out on the backs of people who didn’t. At this point, I am becoming more and more convinced that this is nothing more than a sophisticated scheme to transfer wealth from net savers to net borrowers.
I would be perfectly OK if our GDP dropped by 30% if the 30% of economic activity we lost was concentrated in the things I think we need to move away from anyway – sending smart, energetic people into careers of moving money around in clever ways to create the impression that it is “growing” quicker than it is.
It would be painful, but we are worse off paying people to continue doing things we no longer value than simply letting them find better uses for their energies and time, with some basic sustenance to get them through the tough times. Basic sustenance does not extend to paying people more money for their house than the price they paid for their first house 10-30 years ago, increased for inflation.
November 26, 2008 at 5:42 PM #309354Participant[quote=esmith][quote]The Federal Reserve is about to create billions of new money (out of thin air) to pay for all the bail out schemes being pushed down our throats.[/quote]
Would you prefer the second Great Depression?[/quote]
esmith, I am getting jaded with the threat of economic armageddon for all of us if people who bought overpriced houses on borrowed money, and their lenders, don’t get bailed out on the backs of people who didn’t. At this point, I am becoming more and more convinced that this is nothing more than a sophisticated scheme to transfer wealth from net savers to net borrowers.
I would be perfectly OK if our GDP dropped by 30% if the 30% of economic activity we lost was concentrated in the things I think we need to move away from anyway – sending smart, energetic people into careers of moving money around in clever ways to create the impression that it is “growing” quicker than it is.
It would be painful, but we are worse off paying people to continue doing things we no longer value than simply letting them find better uses for their energies and time, with some basic sustenance to get them through the tough times. Basic sustenance does not extend to paying people more money for their house than the price they paid for their first house 10-30 years ago, increased for inflation.
November 26, 2008 at 5:42 PM #309762Participant[quote=esmith][quote]The Federal Reserve is about to create billions of new money (out of thin air) to pay for all the bail out schemes being pushed down our throats.[/quote]
Would you prefer the second Great Depression?[/quote]
esmith, I am getting jaded with the threat of economic armageddon for all of us if people who bought overpriced houses on borrowed money, and their lenders, don’t get bailed out on the backs of people who didn’t. At this point, I am becoming more and more convinced that this is nothing more than a sophisticated scheme to transfer wealth from net savers to net borrowers.
I would be perfectly OK if our GDP dropped by 30% if the 30% of economic activity we lost was concentrated in the things I think we need to move away from anyway – sending smart, energetic people into careers of moving money around in clever ways to create the impression that it is “growing” quicker than it is.
It would be painful, but we are worse off paying people to continue doing things we no longer value than simply letting them find better uses for their energies and time, with some basic sustenance to get them through the tough times. Basic sustenance does not extend to paying people more money for their house than the price they paid for their first house 10-30 years ago, increased for inflation.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.