Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 6, 2008 at 2:59 AM in reply to: Fed in bold move to thaw credit markets says it will buy massive amounts of short-term debt #282167
CA renter
ParticipantAgree with esmith on this one.
Those who have the wealth control the flow of money, period. Of course, they want even greater amounts of money to flow to them. They don’t care what happens to the people who give this money to them (employees who make less so the execs can make more, via busted unions; customers who overpay so their vendors can make more, via monopolies & patent protection; taxpayers who pay for corporate/executive welfare, via tax credits and incentives and limited liability — see bailouts, etc.).
And you can’t convince me that the “rich” make poor people wealthier by “investing” thier wealth. They do not intend to GIVE this money to start-ups or other businesses. They want all of it back, plus interest/dividends/cap gains. IOW, the goal is to take money **out** of the system every time they invest. Someone else now owes them the same amount plus interest, and that debt service pulls money from future economic activities.
As long as we have a debt-based monetary system, there is no “trickle-down”. Credit = debt PLUS interest. Only the creditor wins. And money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands until we reach a point where the lower classes can no longer service their debt, and we get a deflationary depression. At some point, the money is redistributed and the economy (and credit cycle) can grow once the economy has hit bottom.
Wealth disparity is a bad thing.
Full disclosure: I’m a market speculator/investor and 100% of my income is from investments. What I’m saying does NOT benefit me, but somebody has to be honest about it (Warren Buffett seems to have similar beliefs). I think it is entirely immoral and unethical that my income should be taxed at a lower rate than income that is earned via labor.
ParticipantAgree with esmith on this one.
Those who have the wealth control the flow of money, period. Of course, they want even greater amounts of money to flow to them. They don’t care what happens to the people who give this money to them (employees who make less so the execs can make more, via busted unions; customers who overpay so their vendors can make more, via monopolies & patent protection; taxpayers who pay for corporate/executive welfare, via tax credits and incentives and limited liability — see bailouts, etc.).
And you can’t convince me that the “rich” make poor people wealthier by “investing” thier wealth. They do not intend to GIVE this money to start-ups or other businesses. They want all of it back, plus interest/dividends/cap gains. IOW, the goal is to take money **out** of the system every time they invest. Someone else now owes them the same amount plus interest, and that debt service pulls money from future economic activities.
As long as we have a debt-based monetary system, there is no “trickle-down”. Credit = debt PLUS interest. Only the creditor wins. And money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands until we reach a point where the lower classes can no longer service their debt, and we get a deflationary depression. At some point, the money is redistributed and the economy (and credit cycle) can grow once the economy has hit bottom.
Wealth disparity is a bad thing.
Full disclosure: I’m a market speculator/investor and 100% of my income is from investments. What I’m saying does NOT benefit me, but somebody has to be honest about it (Warren Buffett seems to have similar beliefs). I think it is entirely immoral and unethical that my income should be taxed at a lower rate than income that is earned via labor.
ParticipantAgree with esmith on this one.
Those who have the wealth control the flow of money, period. Of course, they want even greater amounts of money to flow to them. They don’t care what happens to the people who give this money to them (employees who make less so the execs can make more, via busted unions; customers who overpay so their vendors can make more, via monopolies & patent protection; taxpayers who pay for corporate/executive welfare, via tax credits and incentives and limited liability — see bailouts, etc.).
And you can’t convince me that the “rich” make poor people wealthier by “investing” thier wealth. They do not intend to GIVE this money to start-ups or other businesses. They want all of it back, plus interest/dividends/cap gains. IOW, the goal is to take money **out** of the system every time they invest. Someone else now owes them the same amount plus interest, and that debt service pulls money from future economic activities.
As long as we have a debt-based monetary system, there is no “trickle-down”. Credit = debt PLUS interest. Only the creditor wins. And money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands until we reach a point where the lower classes can no longer service their debt, and we get a deflationary depression. At some point, the money is redistributed and the economy (and credit cycle) can grow once the economy has hit bottom.
Wealth disparity is a bad thing.
Full disclosure: I’m a market speculator/investor and 100% of my income is from investments. What I’m saying does NOT benefit me, but somebody has to be honest about it (Warren Buffett seems to have similar beliefs). I think it is entirely immoral and unethical that my income should be taxed at a lower rate than income that is earned via labor.
ParticipantAgree with esmith on this one.
Those who have the wealth control the flow of money, period. Of course, they want even greater amounts of money to flow to them. They don’t care what happens to the people who give this money to them (employees who make less so the execs can make more, via busted unions; customers who overpay so their vendors can make more, via monopolies & patent protection; taxpayers who pay for corporate/executive welfare, via tax credits and incentives and limited liability — see bailouts, etc.).
And you can’t convince me that the “rich” make poor people wealthier by “investing” thier wealth. They do not intend to GIVE this money to start-ups or other businesses. They want all of it back, plus interest/dividends/cap gains. IOW, the goal is to take money **out** of the system every time they invest. Someone else now owes them the same amount plus interest, and that debt service pulls money from future economic activities.
As long as we have a debt-based monetary system, there is no “trickle-down”. Credit = debt PLUS interest. Only the creditor wins. And money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands until we reach a point where the lower classes can no longer service their debt, and we get a deflationary depression. At some point, the money is redistributed and the economy (and credit cycle) can grow once the economy has hit bottom.
Wealth disparity is a bad thing.
Full disclosure: I’m a market speculator/investor and 100% of my income is from investments. What I’m saying does NOT benefit me, but somebody has to be honest about it (Warren Buffett seems to have similar beliefs). I think it is entirely immoral and unethical that my income should be taxed at a lower rate than income that is earned via labor.
ParticipantAgree with esmith on this one.
Those who have the wealth control the flow of money, period. Of course, they want even greater amounts of money to flow to them. They don’t care what happens to the people who give this money to them (employees who make less so the execs can make more, via busted unions; customers who overpay so their vendors can make more, via monopolies & patent protection; taxpayers who pay for corporate/executive welfare, via tax credits and incentives and limited liability — see bailouts, etc.).
And you can’t convince me that the “rich” make poor people wealthier by “investing” thier wealth. They do not intend to GIVE this money to start-ups or other businesses. They want all of it back, plus interest/dividends/cap gains. IOW, the goal is to take money **out** of the system every time they invest. Someone else now owes them the same amount plus interest, and that debt service pulls money from future economic activities.
As long as we have a debt-based monetary system, there is no “trickle-down”. Credit = debt PLUS interest. Only the creditor wins. And money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands until we reach a point where the lower classes can no longer service their debt, and we get a deflationary depression. At some point, the money is redistributed and the economy (and credit cycle) can grow once the economy has hit bottom.
Wealth disparity is a bad thing.
Full disclosure: I’m a market speculator/investor and 100% of my income is from investments. What I’m saying does NOT benefit me, but somebody has to be honest about it (Warren Buffett seems to have similar beliefs). I think it is entirely immoral and unethical that my income should be taxed at a lower rate than income that is earned via labor.
ParticipantEXCELLENT response, David!!!! You nailed it!
ParticipantEXCELLENT response, David!!!! You nailed it!
ParticipantEXCELLENT response, David!!!! You nailed it!
ParticipantEXCELLENT response, David!!!! You nailed it!
ParticipantEXCELLENT response, David!!!! You nailed it!
ParticipantHow does that work in this bill anyway? If they start off with a $700 billion line of credit, buy some toxic sludge for $350 billion and then turn around and sell that same sludge for $100 billion, does this mean the line of credit is back to $700 billion or is it down to $450 billion?
———————-
That’s what I’m trying to figure out as well.
As they take losses, is that reflected in the total $700B, or is it only $700B in purchases/assets held at a time, and when those assets are sold, it resets back to a $700B blank check?
ParticipantHow does that work in this bill anyway? If they start off with a $700 billion line of credit, buy some toxic sludge for $350 billion and then turn around and sell that same sludge for $100 billion, does this mean the line of credit is back to $700 billion or is it down to $450 billion?
———————-
That’s what I’m trying to figure out as well.
As they take losses, is that reflected in the total $700B, or is it only $700B in purchases/assets held at a time, and when those assets are sold, it resets back to a $700B blank check?
ParticipantHow does that work in this bill anyway? If they start off with a $700 billion line of credit, buy some toxic sludge for $350 billion and then turn around and sell that same sludge for $100 billion, does this mean the line of credit is back to $700 billion or is it down to $450 billion?
———————-
That’s what I’m trying to figure out as well.
As they take losses, is that reflected in the total $700B, or is it only $700B in purchases/assets held at a time, and when those assets are sold, it resets back to a $700B blank check?
ParticipantHow does that work in this bill anyway? If they start off with a $700 billion line of credit, buy some toxic sludge for $350 billion and then turn around and sell that same sludge for $100 billion, does this mean the line of credit is back to $700 billion or is it down to $450 billion?
———————-
That’s what I’m trying to figure out as well.
As they take losses, is that reflected in the total $700B, or is it only $700B in purchases/assets held at a time, and when those assets are sold, it resets back to a $700B blank check?
-
AuthorPosts
