We could have survived the depression. We will not survive these bailouts. Short term they're great, long term its catastrophic.
But, that is only my opinion, thankfully people that know far more than me are making decisions.
We could have survived the depression. We will not survive these bailouts. Short term they're great, long term its catastrophic.
Please explain this mathematically utilizing accepted economic models. Otherwise [citation needed]
You won't find any studies on this buddy. We are in uncharted territory.. Trillions in the supposedly "stable" world reserve currencies being printed year after year is unprecedented.
Then stop making assumptions as to what will happen if we simply do not know.
totalnoob said:You won't find any studies on this buddy. We are in uncharted territory
There's no reason we can't speculate.. We have a good history of countries trying to print their way out of a fiscal mess. The result is usually terrible inflation and social chaos.
We could have survived the depression.
First you can't prove or back-up anything with studies, now you have a good history. Make up your mind and give me numbers, otherwise stop speculating about shit that "no one knows."
world reserve currencies
Weimar bitch. That's one end of the spectrum. A fiscally sane government with balanced budgets and 1% inflation is on the other. We are likely to end up somewhere in the middle.
The welfare states of the world who think they can print their way into prosperity are likely going to end up somewhere in the middle like Venezuela. - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100508...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDdmVuZXp1ZWxhYW5u
Please explain this mathematically utilizing accepted economic models. Otherwise [citation needed]
The fiscal problems we face in the future have less to do with economics than they have to do with basic political science and fundamental accounting principles.
There are two basic facts:
1. The U.S. and many European countries have unsustainable welfare states, with future liabilities dwarfing potential future government tax revenue (short of an extremely unlikely huge increase in GDP in these countries).
2. The political class refuses to acknowledge the facts of part 1, causing them to do nothing about it. Why? Because of the way the political system is set up. Anyone who talks about either massive reductions in welfare benefits or massive tax increases faces political suicide.
Take 1 and 2, put them together and it is quite easy to predict that there are stormy waters ahead. Right now it is a game of Hot Potato. The politicians of the past made promises that the politicians of the future can't possibly keep. A good example was Bush's prescription drug bill, which was passed at a time when it was clear to anyone who cared to check that Social Security and Medicare were (and still are) in big trouble.
Fortunately for Bush, he is now out of office. Woe to any politician who tries to reverse the promise he made to the old folks. Hence, politicians just keep passing the buck along, hoping they can make political gains at the expense of future politicians who actually have to face the music.
That wasn't the claim I asked him to verify was it? He directly stated we could have survived a depression, and that we can't survive the bail out. You have addressed neither of these.
Well, we might survive the bailout. If we can't, those who know we can't aren't going to tell us, and if we can then there will be a 'recovery' that will carry us through until the welfare state starts crumbling wholesale. The best route would be to declare bankruptcy now, dismantle the Fed and start over with a free market currency and non-fractional reserve banking. There is about 0 chance of this happening.
Yeah, because allowing free manipulation of a currency has shown to be so correct historically. We had runs on the dollar in the 18th and 19th centuries by foreign creditors and dollar holders. I guess you forgot that.
Then, you go to FRB, which is another strawman. Removing FRB would not solve a damn thing, as most savings aren't put into deposit accounts anyway. Bank runs have nothing to do with deposits these days and only a fraction of bank funding comes from deposits.
If deposits and FRB were the cause of this crisis, how do you explain the near collapse of several non-deposit taking institutions and the utter collapse of two non-deposit taking institutions. Furthermore, how do you explain the fact that SIVs weren't funded with deposits, but were off-bs.
Using Weimar as an "example" of how this will lead is silly. Nobody had faith in Weimar's ability to do anything, as it also had reparations far in excess of it's GDP, especially with the removal of the Saar from its control. There simply was no economic viability behind the country and no military force. Thus, it had no legitimacy nor long-term viability.
If the role of the FRB was to promote "economic stability" then it sure hasn't done its job. Unless by "stability" they mean "perpetual inflation."
Getting rid of the Fed is probably not a realistic solution (yet), but it should be audited. And reinstate Glass-Steagall. That little piece of legislation would have prevented the Wall St speculators from holding our economy hostage.
Please show me how you know the economy would have been more stable without the fed.
Right after you show me how the Fed had anything to do with promoting economic stability.
Then, you go to FRB, which is another strawman. Removing FRB would not solve a damn thing, as most savings aren't put into deposit accounts anyway. Bank runs have nothing to do with deposits these days and only a fraction of bank funding comes from deposits.
Can you elaborate on this section? Where are most savings put these days, if not deposit accounts? Tbills?
Why don't bank runs have anything to do with deposits? I thought the definition of a bank run was a mass withdrawal of deposits.
Finally, where does the majority of bank funding come from nowdays if not from deposits?
If the role of the FRB was to promote "economic stability" then it sure hasn't done its job. Unless by "stability" they mean "perpetual inflation."
Getting rid of the Fed is probably not a realistic solution (yet), but it should be audited. And reinstate Glass-Steagall. That little piece of legislation would have prevented the Wall St speculators from holding our economy hostage.
Inflation would exist without FRB.
How does FRB, on its own, cause inflation?
Yeah, because allowing free manipulation of a currency has shown to be so correct historically. We had runs on the dollar in the 18th and 19th centuries by foreign creditors and dollar holders. I guess you forgot that.
Then, you go to FRB, which is another strawman. Removing FRB would not solve a damn thing, as most savings aren't put into deposit accounts anyway. Bank runs have nothing to do with deposits these days and only a fraction of bank funding comes from deposits.
If deposits and FRB were the cause of this crisis, how do you explain the near collapse of several non-deposit taking institutions and the utter collapse of two non-deposit taking institutions. Furthermore, how do you explain the fact that SIVs weren't funded with deposits, but were off-bs.
Using Weimar as an "example" of how this will lead is silly. Nobody had faith in Weimar's ability to do anything, as it also had reparations far in excess of it's GDP, especially with the removal of the Saar from its control. There simply was no economic viability behind the country and no military force. Thus, it had no legitimacy nor long-term viability.
Yes, every member country of the IMF is bailing out Greece, just as every member of the Klan is funding hate speech and not just the guy that makes the web site.* There is no Magic Cupboard, and giving money to a third person does not absolve you of guilt nor rob you of credit.Using the same logic that you're using, then I suppose every member country of the IMF is bailing out Greece. That's just a flawed way of looking at things, but w/e, if you really think you're supporting Greece and you don't want to, then what are you going to do about it? No one is necessarily representing your interest at the IMF.