[bubba99]

“Hello Deflation!! It’s coming on hard and fast now. What’s Ben’s next trick to get reflation going? I cant wait for this one.”

I have been wondering the same thing, and I came up with the following:

– Fed or Treasury takes over Fannie and Freddie

– The new nationalized lending institution offers home owners refinancing at Greenspan rediciously low rates 1% -2%.

– Now bad mortgages (6%) are refinanced to 2% and the defaults go much lower. The rent to own equation moves in favor of own – the ownership cost is cut by 60%.

– The Fed creates new mortgage bonds that it forces the reserve banks to buy (or locks them out of the short term, or long term lending facilities).

– The Fed justifies this by saying it would cost more to do nothing.

– The cycle of mortgages going bad is stopped or at least the housing crash is delayed and slowly deflates – in a manageable way for banks.

– The new money to pay for the above, adds to inflation, and in a few years, (10), the problem is solved.

I am really hoping that someone can explain why this will not work, and that the FED will need to come up with a real solution!

[bubba99]

“Hello Deflation!! It’s coming on hard and fast now. What’s Ben’s next trick to get reflation going? I cant wait for this one.”

I have been wondering the same thing, and I came up with the following:

– Fed or Treasury takes over Fannie and Freddie

– The new nationalized lending institution offers home owners refinancing at Greenspan rediciously low rates 1% -2%.

– Now bad mortgages (6%) are refinanced to 2% and the defaults go much lower. The rent to own equation moves in favor of own – the ownership cost is cut by 60%.

– The Fed creates new mortgage bonds that it forces the reserve banks to buy (or locks them out of the short term, or long term lending facilities).

– The Fed justifies this by saying it would cost more to do nothing.

– The cycle of mortgages going bad is stopped or at least the housing crash is delayed and slowly deflates – in a manageable way for banks.

– The new money to pay for the above, adds to inflation, and in a few years, (10), the problem is solved.

I am really hoping that someone can explain why this will not work, and that the FED will need to come up with a real solution!

[bubba99]

“Hello Deflation!! It’s coming on hard and fast now. What’s Ben’s next trick to get reflation going? I cant wait for this one.”

I have been wondering the same thing, and I came up with the following:

– Fed or Treasury takes over Fannie and Freddie

– The new nationalized lending institution offers home owners refinancing at Greenspan rediciously low rates 1% -2%.

– Now bad mortgages (6%) are refinanced to 2% and the defaults go much lower. The rent to own equation moves in favor of own – the ownership cost is cut by 60%.

– The Fed creates new mortgage bonds that it forces the reserve banks to buy (or locks them out of the short term, or long term lending facilities).

– The Fed justifies this by saying it would cost more to do nothing.

– The cycle of mortgages going bad is stopped or at least the housing crash is delayed and slowly deflates – in a manageable way for banks.

– The new money to pay for the above, adds to inflation, and in a few years, (10), the problem is solved.

I am really hoping that someone can explain why this will not work, and that the FED will need to come up with a real solution!

[bubba99]

You know those new financial products like CMO’s, and CDO’s, and trillions in garbage loans to people who put nothing down, had inadequate income and lied about their assets. I would not really care if I were not one of the ones paying for their total lack of fiscal responsibility.

Up until 1999, we had regulations that separated the insured banks from the riskier Financial houses. Risk your shareholders money, not the FDIC’s. That Glass Steagall act was not hardly a South American style “preserve the status quo”, but a reasonable and prudent law to prevent the type of failure we see now.

Clearly the current financial meltdown was seen by many who chose to open their eyes to the “less than adequate” assets secured by the money they were lending and repackaging for sale to themselves and others. Those with their eyes closed were the “wealthy stewards” of the financial systems that made billions by selling crap to gain more. They are not stripped of their ill-gotten gains, you and I are paying for their lack of prudent planning and execution.

Take B. S. or Lehman Bros. for example, leveraged over 20 times, with little due diligence on the crap they bought held or sold swaps on. The stewards are granted their lofty positions more by the social order of the boards of directors than any real accomplishment. And given their poor performance, laws that prevent you and I from being on the hook for their bad judgments are a good thing.

If you want a free market place, the tax payer cannot be the one on the hook every time the “stewards” fail.

[bubba99]

You know those new financial products like CMO’s, and CDO’s, and trillions in garbage loans to people who put nothing down, had inadequate income and lied about their assets. I would not really care if I were not one of the ones paying for their total lack of fiscal responsibility.

Up until 1999, we had regulations that separated the insured banks from the riskier Financial houses. Risk your shareholders money, not the FDIC’s. That Glass Steagall act was not hardly a South American style “preserve the status quo”, but a reasonable and prudent law to prevent the type of failure we see now.

Clearly the current financial meltdown was seen by many who chose to open their eyes to the “less than adequate” assets secured by the money they were lending and repackaging for sale to themselves and others. Those with their eyes closed were the “wealthy stewards” of the financial systems that made billions by selling crap to gain more. They are not stripped of their ill-gotten gains, you and I are paying for their lack of prudent planning and execution.

Take B. S. or Lehman Bros. for example, leveraged over 20 times, with little due diligence on the crap they bought held or sold swaps on. The stewards are granted their lofty positions more by the social order of the boards of directors than any real accomplishment. And given their poor performance, laws that prevent you and I from being on the hook for their bad judgments are a good thing.

If you want a free market place, the tax payer cannot be the one on the hook every time the “stewards” fail.

[bubba99]

You know those new financial products like CMO’s, and CDO’s, and trillions in garbage loans to people who put nothing down, had inadequate income and lied about their assets. I would not really care if I were not one of the ones paying for their total lack of fiscal responsibility.

Up until 1999, we had regulations that separated the insured banks from the riskier Financial houses. Risk your shareholders money, not the FDIC’s. That Glass Steagall act was not hardly a South American style “preserve the status quo”, but a reasonable and prudent law to prevent the type of failure we see now.

Clearly the current financial meltdown was seen by many who chose to open their eyes to the “less than adequate” assets secured by the money they were lending and repackaging for sale to themselves and others. Those with their eyes closed were the “wealthy stewards” of the financial systems that made billions by selling crap to gain more. They are not stripped of their ill-gotten gains, you and I are paying for their lack of prudent planning and execution.

Take B. S. or Lehman Bros. for example, leveraged over 20 times, with little due diligence on the crap they bought held or sold swaps on. The stewards are granted their lofty positions more by the social order of the boards of directors than any real accomplishment. And given their poor performance, laws that prevent you and I from being on the hook for their bad judgments are a good thing.

If you want a free market place, the tax payer cannot be the one on the hook every time the “stewards” fail.

[bubba99]

You know those new financial products like CMO’s, and CDO’s, and trillions in garbage loans to people who put nothing down, had inadequate income and lied about their assets. I would not really care if I were not one of the ones paying for their total lack of fiscal responsibility.

Up until 1999, we had regulations that separated the insured banks from the riskier Financial houses. Risk your shareholders money, not the FDIC’s. That Glass Steagall act was not hardly a South American style “preserve the status quo”, but a reasonable and prudent law to prevent the type of failure we see now.

Clearly the current financial meltdown was seen by many who chose to open their eyes to the “less than adequate” assets secured by the money they were lending and repackaging for sale to themselves and others. Those with their eyes closed were the “wealthy stewards” of the financial systems that made billions by selling crap to gain more. They are not stripped of their ill-gotten gains, you and I are paying for their lack of prudent planning and execution.

Take B. S. or Lehman Bros. for example, leveraged over 20 times, with little due diligence on the crap they bought held or sold swaps on. The stewards are granted their lofty positions more by the social order of the boards of directors than any real accomplishment. And given their poor performance, laws that prevent you and I from being on the hook for their bad judgments are a good thing.

If you want a free market place, the tax payer cannot be the one on the hook every time the “stewards” fail.

[bubba99]

You know those new financial products like CMO’s, and CDO’s, and trillions in garbage loans to people who put nothing down, had inadequate income and lied about their assets. I would not really care if I were not one of the ones paying for their total lack of fiscal responsibility.

Up until 1999, we had regulations that separated the insured banks from the riskier Financial houses. Risk your shareholders money, not the FDIC’s. That Glass Steagall act was not hardly a South American style “preserve the status quo”, but a reasonable and prudent law to prevent the type of failure we see now.

Clearly the current financial meltdown was seen by many who chose to open their eyes to the “less than adequate” assets secured by the money they were lending and repackaging for sale to themselves and others. Those with their eyes closed were the “wealthy stewards” of the financial systems that made billions by selling crap to gain more. They are not stripped of their ill-gotten gains, you and I are paying for their lack of prudent planning and execution.

Take B. S. or Lehman Bros. for example, leveraged over 20 times, with little due diligence on the crap they bought held or sold swaps on. The stewards are granted their lofty positions more by the social order of the boards of directors than any real accomplishment. And given their poor performance, laws that prevent you and I from being on the hook for their bad judgments are a good thing.

If you want a free market place, the tax payer cannot be the one on the hook every time the “stewards” fail.

[bubba99]

Truly the rich want to get richer, and do in cycles. At the end of these cycles more regulation is put in to detour the very greedy from taking everything. Unfortunately at the end of the regulation cycle, the regulation is removed (Glass Steagall), and the cycle starts over.

We are now at the start of the re-regulation cycle. If we fail to elect a president that will limit “robber baron capitalism”, the Armageddon scenario may play out, but likely we will put limits on the new combo finance and banking houses, and go along in the next tick of the cycle. The new creative financial products that are heralded as the gift of “a free market place” are crap and need to be eliminated.

[bubba99]

Truly the rich want to get richer, and do in cycles. At the end of these cycles more regulation is put in to detour the very greedy from taking everything. Unfortunately at the end of the regulation cycle, the regulation is removed (Glass Steagall), and the cycle starts over.

We are now at the start of the re-regulation cycle. If we fail to elect a president that will limit “robber baron capitalism”, the Armageddon scenario may play out, but likely we will put limits on the new combo finance and banking houses, and go along in the next tick of the cycle. The new creative financial products that are heralded as the gift of “a free market place” are crap and need to be eliminated.

[bubba99]

Truly the rich want to get richer, and do in cycles. At the end of these cycles more regulation is put in to detour the very greedy from taking everything. Unfortunately at the end of the regulation cycle, the regulation is removed (Glass Steagall), and the cycle starts over.

We are now at the start of the re-regulation cycle. If we fail to elect a president that will limit “robber baron capitalism”, the Armageddon scenario may play out, but likely we will put limits on the new combo finance and banking houses, and go along in the next tick of the cycle. The new creative financial products that are heralded as the gift of “a free market place” are crap and need to be eliminated.

[bubba99]

Truly the rich want to get richer, and do in cycles. At the end of these cycles more regulation is put in to detour the very greedy from taking everything. Unfortunately at the end of the regulation cycle, the regulation is removed (Glass Steagall), and the cycle starts over.

We are now at the start of the re-regulation cycle. If we fail to elect a president that will limit “robber baron capitalism”, the Armageddon scenario may play out, but likely we will put limits on the new combo finance and banking houses, and go along in the next tick of the cycle. The new creative financial products that are heralded as the gift of “a free market place” are crap and need to be eliminated.

[bubba99]

Truly the rich want to get richer, and do in cycles. At the end of these cycles more regulation is put in to detour the very greedy from taking everything. Unfortunately at the end of the regulation cycle, the regulation is removed (Glass Steagall), and the cycle starts over.

We are now at the start of the re-regulation cycle. If we fail to elect a president that will limit “robber baron capitalism”, the Armageddon scenario may play out, but likely we will put limits on the new combo finance and banking houses, and go along in the next tick of the cycle. The new creative financial products that are heralded as the gift of “a free market place” are crap and need to be eliminated.

[bubba99]

Aecetua,

Yep that would have done it, but we were out of nukes. Both Fat Man and Little Boy were used in Japan.

Russia is a big country, and we didnt have any real big bombs until the mid 50’s.

[bubba99]

Aecetua,

Yep that would have done it, but we were out of nukes. Both Fat Man and Little Boy were used in Japan.

Russia is a big country, and we didnt have any real big bombs until the mid 50’s.

[Author]

Posts