Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
DomoArigato
Participant[quote=ucodegen]Sounds like you don’t understand fractional reserve banking and how it might relate to market cap. Remember that for a bank to make a loan, it often has to borrow money itself. In some cases that money may be your own bank account. In order to pay you interest, it has to generate money from it somehow. It does this by lending the money out. When things went south, the money that the bank borrowed had to be paid back.. Basically the market cap is related to Assets – Liabilities (it is not pure assets). The Fed money was to help plump up the Assets because house values (or effectively the loans face value) dropped like a stone.[/quote]
I’m not surprised that you are a supporter of one of the two major parties (Republican), because you are clearly clueless. JPM didn’t lend out that $390 billion. They just turned around and put it in Treasuries risk-free. Fractional-reserve lending has nothing to do with the massive bailouts the criminal banksters received.
A 3% risk-free spread on $390 billion is almost $12 billion. No wonder the U.S. government borrowing rates are staying so low. The Fed is giving $16 trillion in bailout money at near zero rates to the criminal bankster elites who are turning around and buying government debt with it in order to turn a risk-free profit.
What homeowner wouldn’t love to earn a risk-free return on 3 times the amount of his home? Too bad this level of criminality can only be played by the elites.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]Sounds like you don’t understand fractional reserve banking and how it might relate to market cap. Remember that for a bank to make a loan, it often has to borrow money itself. In some cases that money may be your own bank account. In order to pay you interest, it has to generate money from it somehow. It does this by lending the money out. When things went south, the money that the bank borrowed had to be paid back.. Basically the market cap is related to Assets – Liabilities (it is not pure assets). The Fed money was to help plump up the Assets because house values (or effectively the loans face value) dropped like a stone.[/quote]
I’m not surprised that you are a supporter of one of the two major parties (Republican), because you are clearly clueless. JPM didn’t lend out that $390 billion. They just turned around and put it in Treasuries risk-free. Fractional-reserve lending has nothing to do with the massive bailouts the criminal banksters received.
A 3% risk-free spread on $390 billion is almost $12 billion. No wonder the U.S. government borrowing rates are staying so low. The Fed is giving $16 trillion in bailout money at near zero rates to the criminal bankster elites who are turning around and buying government debt with it in order to turn a risk-free profit.
What homeowner wouldn’t love to earn a risk-free return on 3 times the amount of his home? Too bad this level of criminality can only be played by the elites.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]Sounds like you don’t understand fractional reserve banking and how it might relate to market cap. Remember that for a bank to make a loan, it often has to borrow money itself. In some cases that money may be your own bank account. In order to pay you interest, it has to generate money from it somehow. It does this by lending the money out. When things went south, the money that the bank borrowed had to be paid back.. Basically the market cap is related to Assets – Liabilities (it is not pure assets). The Fed money was to help plump up the Assets because house values (or effectively the loans face value) dropped like a stone.[/quote]
I’m not surprised that you are a supporter of one of the two major parties (Republican), because you are clearly clueless. JPM didn’t lend out that $390 billion. They just turned around and put it in Treasuries risk-free. Fractional-reserve lending has nothing to do with the massive bailouts the criminal banksters received.
A 3% risk-free spread on $390 billion is almost $12 billion. No wonder the U.S. government borrowing rates are staying so low. The Fed is giving $16 trillion in bailout money at near zero rates to the criminal bankster elites who are turning around and buying government debt with it in order to turn a risk-free profit.
What homeowner wouldn’t love to earn a risk-free return on 3 times the amount of his home? Too bad this level of criminality can only be played by the elites.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?[/quote]http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
The Federal Reserve conducted a massive, $16 trillion stealth bailout of the banks while everyone else was left to fend for themselves. No we know why Government Sachs employees are able to give themselves average salaries of $700,000 per year. It’s because those salaries are actually paid by taxpayers.
To put the size of the bailouts in perspective, JPM received a $390 billion bailout. That is almost 3 times their current market cap. Could you imagine if all homeowners received a bailout that equaled three times the cost of their house? There would be so many cries of socialism from the hypocrites in the criminal bankster class that you wouldn’t be able to hear yourself think.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?[/quote]http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
The Federal Reserve conducted a massive, $16 trillion stealth bailout of the banks while everyone else was left to fend for themselves. No we know why Government Sachs employees are able to give themselves average salaries of $700,000 per year. It’s because those salaries are actually paid by taxpayers.
To put the size of the bailouts in perspective, JPM received a $390 billion bailout. That is almost 3 times their current market cap. Could you imagine if all homeowners received a bailout that equaled three times the cost of their house? There would be so many cries of socialism from the hypocrites in the criminal bankster class that you wouldn’t be able to hear yourself think.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?[/quote]http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
The Federal Reserve conducted a massive, $16 trillion stealth bailout of the banks while everyone else was left to fend for themselves. No we know why Government Sachs employees are able to give themselves average salaries of $700,000 per year. It’s because those salaries are actually paid by taxpayers.
To put the size of the bailouts in perspective, JPM received a $390 billion bailout. That is almost 3 times their current market cap. Could you imagine if all homeowners received a bailout that equaled three times the cost of their house? There would be so many cries of socialism from the hypocrites in the criminal bankster class that you wouldn’t be able to hear yourself think.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?[/quote]http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
The Federal Reserve conducted a massive, $16 trillion stealth bailout of the banks while everyone else was left to fend for themselves. No we know why Government Sachs employees are able to give themselves average salaries of $700,000 per year. It’s because those salaries are actually paid by taxpayers.
To put the size of the bailouts in perspective, JPM received a $390 billion bailout. That is almost 3 times their current market cap. Could you imagine if all homeowners received a bailout that equaled three times the cost of their house? There would be so many cries of socialism from the hypocrites in the criminal bankster class that you wouldn’t be able to hear yourself think.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?[/quote]http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
The Federal Reserve conducted a massive, $16 trillion stealth bailout of the banks while everyone else was left to fend for themselves. No we know why Government Sachs employees are able to give themselves average salaries of $700,000 per year. It’s because those salaries are actually paid by taxpayers.
To put the size of the bailouts in perspective, JPM received a $390 billion bailout. That is almost 3 times their current market cap. Could you imagine if all homeowners received a bailout that equaled three times the cost of their house? There would be so many cries of socialism from the hypocrites in the criminal bankster class that you wouldn’t be able to hear yourself think.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Geesh, I get real tired when I keep hearing that the banks were the main problem. They weren’t. They did screw up, but it also cost them. [/quote]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.
No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).
If the banksters did actually have to pay for their mistakes, both Government Sachs and JPM would be bankrupt. Unfortunately, taxpayers had to pay for their mistakes instead and are left to try and pay down a $14 trillion deficit created by the bailout of the criminal banksters.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Geesh, I get real tired when I keep hearing that the banks were the main problem. They weren’t. They did screw up, but it also cost them. [/quote]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.
No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).
If the banksters did actually have to pay for their mistakes, both Government Sachs and JPM would be bankrupt. Unfortunately, taxpayers had to pay for their mistakes instead and are left to try and pay down a $14 trillion deficit created by the bailout of the criminal banksters.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Geesh, I get real tired when I keep hearing that the banks were the main problem. They weren’t. They did screw up, but it also cost them. [/quote]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.
No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).
If the banksters did actually have to pay for their mistakes, both Government Sachs and JPM would be bankrupt. Unfortunately, taxpayers had to pay for their mistakes instead and are left to try and pay down a $14 trillion deficit created by the bailout of the criminal banksters.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Geesh, I get real tired when I keep hearing that the banks were the main problem. They weren’t. They did screw up, but it also cost them. [/quote]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.
No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).
If the banksters did actually have to pay for their mistakes, both Government Sachs and JPM would be bankrupt. Unfortunately, taxpayers had to pay for their mistakes instead and are left to try and pay down a $14 trillion deficit created by the bailout of the criminal banksters.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Geesh, I get real tired when I keep hearing that the banks were the main problem. They weren’t. They did screw up, but it also cost them. [/quote]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.
No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).
If the banksters did actually have to pay for their mistakes, both Government Sachs and JPM would be bankrupt. Unfortunately, taxpayers had to pay for their mistakes instead and are left to try and pay down a $14 trillion deficit created by the bailout of the criminal banksters.
ParticipantThis is just more of the same unholy union between our corrupt government and criminal banksters who work at the likes of Government Sachs. If there is any karma in this world, God will strike down the criminal banksters at Government Sachs, as well as those who enable and support them.
-
AuthorPosts