thedude wrote:Easy to get the docs revealed is relative. The facts a the FED did not want to turn them over and made a stink about how it would hurt the consumer confidence if they were forced to turn it over, a court order was a appealed and the appeal rejected and now we have the records. If it was so easy why dont we have the loan history for the past 100 years?
Seriously dude, in terms of getting access to Federal documents that was easy. That's the kind of procedures bureaucracies are built to handle, and handle with ease. If that's the total of the hurdles in place then there are no effective hurdles in place.
And of course such loans have been made.
No, that's you guessing. At this point you're saying "the lack of evidence of any loans in the past is just a sign of how deep this thing goes!"
You are wrong again with regards to the risk. In 2008 and 2009 the only idea we had as to what kind of risk the banks where exposed to was that we had no idea.
I think you've fallen for the version written up in Time or something. We didn't know the full scope of the problem, but we knew exactly who it related to - companies with mortgage backed securities. Companies without mortgage backed securities were facing liquidity risk (if they undergoing expansion or something similar) but were not facing balance sheet risk.
Again Bear stearns had a liquidity problem that what something like a 14 million injection was not able to replenish its lossess and stop the hemeraging.
No, Bear Stearns had both a liquidity and a balance sheet problem. It's possible you don't know the difference between the two, so missed my point in differentiating them, basically balance sheet risk is the possibility that your assets may be worth less than your liabilities, generally because you bought some assets that turned out to be worth a lot less than you paid for them (like mortgage backed securities). Liquidity risk is when your underlying financial position is fine (assets worth lots more than liabilities) but the cash inflows from your assets are longer term, while you have short term cash outflows. Companies use bridging finance to resolve this, but in the wake of the GFC there was no bridging finance available (there was no finance available in general).
You also state that by havign the FED back and insure the Chase take over that somehow this loss is not traced back to the FED. Clearly everyting they do works right
No, not everything they do works. But you're complaining about a loss on the
JP Morgan takeover where no such loss occurred. It's not my problem that you're complaining about a loss that didn't happen.
You go on and are pointing at the fact we are near the target inflation rate as a the fact that the system is working and even went so far as to say we have not seen a rapid increase in pricing. While there are various factors for commodity pricing of course, inflation is just as a prominant factor today as a result of all this QE affecting our global economy as supply and demand or speculation is. While inflation cannot be held soley to blame, we have seen a rapid increase in prices and it is a contributing factor for this perfect storm of...say it with me...rapid price increases.
That is incoherent.
You complain about rapid price increases, but accept that inflation has been steady, and it doesn't seem to bother you that these two things are mutually exclusive. You complain about increasing commodity prices, seemingly unaware that commodity prices are outside the scope of the Fed.
Your logic as to what constitutes a working economy is the same logic as the man who has managed to keep his life raft afloat by bailing out the water faster than the current holes are leaking the water in.
No, my logic is that we've observed economies have grow over centuries, developing institutions to meet their requirements. There are certainly many ways they can be improved, but to actually look to improve the system you first have to understand why things work as they do.
Reading semi-conspiracy stuff stops you learning why things work as they do, and makes you useless to any effort to improve things. If you genuinely desire to improve the system, this should bother you.
Further, my assertion is Keynesian economics is somehow responsible for the divide between rich and poor is only indirectly. The combination of central banking and human nature is to blame. Keynesian ideals does not require central banking but it is a match made in heaven if you will. When you couple this with fiat currency you have the catalyst for unlimited government spending and a situation where you have what we see today.
None of which in any way answers my question about you think the middle class are made poorer by Keynesian economics.
You've kind of said 'well that's because it goes hand in hand with central banking'... well how does central banking make the middle class poorer, and grow the divide between the rich and poor?
You keep trying to belittle my point by assuming someone is feeding me this information that is all based on consipiracy theories and the call for so called 'sound money' is just rantings from an uninformed vocal minority.In this you are wrong on all accounts. The system is fundamentally flawed. The government will go further in debt, wars will continue to be waged for profit and the central bank will continue to fund all of this and the system will reach a level of unsustainablity eventual without complete reform.
The US is drifting further into debt because of the structure of the political system, where the budget is built on compromise and ultimately no position is strong enough to take full responsibility for it.
None of which has anything to do with Keynesian economics. I mean, you won't find a country in the world where Keynesian economics are more universally accepted than Australia (not even England, and they named a town after they guy), and we've got a debt to GDP ratio of about 20%. So clearly you can have both a sustainable long term budget and an understanding that you run deficits in poor economic times and surpluses in good economic times.
