"how to solve the economic crisis.."

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hescominsoon said:
we have not had the gov't acting within it's constitutional boundaries in nearly 150 years. fdr wasn't a capitlist but a closet socialist...the debts from his criminal violation are jsut now catching up with us. What needs to be done is everything hte gov't is doing that is in violation of the constitution needs to be instantly eliminated.
Click to expand...

And the ultimate constitutional solution to this is....
 
This is America! We have the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the CTU! And let's not forget, the IRS, the FCC, ATF, and CNN! MSNBC, NBC, CNBC, and any other NBC's out there I'm forgetting. ABC, CBS, TBS, TNN, and like 7 HBO's! We can use our commando's from C&C to infiltrate the Nod bases and steal their moneyz! Hooray for the GDI! The GDI's in C&C and able to then knock down any might the brotherhood of Nod may retain by sending a nuke over and destroying any and all advantage they may have had using GPS.


What were we talking about?
 
Last edited:
Hey I just had a thought. Isn't this the banks money..I know it sounds crazy but I just wanted to check. As far as i know banks work the following way.

Person A deposits $100 to the bank the Bank then loans that money to person B. Person B then goes and spends that money to buy a new whatever from Store A. From which, that $100 is deposited back into the bank by store A. From which the bank then loans that money back out to Person C and so on and so on. From memory by doing this the bank can loan out the same $100 enough times that should everyone pay the money back that physical $100 turns into $9999 (my intro to economics is scratchy at best but this is around the figure).

Long story short the banks essentially have a license to turn aphysical $100 note into much more money from essentially thin air. Provided that, person A and store A, etc etc do not come calling for their money at once. In the depression this is what happened, everyone tried to get their money out of the bank at once so the bank literal run out of money.

To stop this happening again the Government decreed that 10% or some similar percentage should be held by federal reserve to cover the banks if large amounts of people try to get their money out of the bank at once.

Is this money reserve what is being used for the bail out?
 
Last edited:
ppar3566 said:
Hey I just had a thought. Isn't this the banks money..I know it sounds crazy but I just wanted to check. As far as i know banks work the following way.

Person A deposits $100 to the bank the Bank then loans that money to person B. Person B then goes and spends that money to buy a new whatever from Store A. From which, that $100 is deposited back into the bank by store A. From which the bank then loans that money back out to Person C and so on and so on. From memory by doing this the bank can loan out the same $100 enough times that should everyone pay the money back that physical $100 turns into $9999 (my intro to economics is scratchy at best but this is around the figure).

Long story short the banks essentially have a license to turn aphysical $100 note into much more money from essentially thin air. Provided that, person A and store A, etc etc do not come calling for their money at once. In the depression this is what happened, everyone tried to get their money out of the bank at once so the bank literal run out of money.

To stop this happening again the Government decreed that 10% or some similar percentage should be held by federal reserve to cover the banks if large amounts of people try to get their money out of the bank at once.

Is this money reserve what is being used for the bail out?
Click to expand...

There is no money reserve. The Federal Reserve is printing money out of thin-air for the bailout. We gave them the right to do this in 1913.
 
I think giving these businesses (that should have known something was gonna happen) $700b is more productive than giving me a taxed $425.

I don't think this would have happened if there was more government control...<ducks>
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of letting them be responsible for their actions. I think the House just passed a vote NO on the bill as well.
 
Lloren said:
I like the idea of letting them be responsible for their actions. I think the House just passed a vote NO on the bill as well.
Click to expand...

What actions do you think they need to be held responsible for? (I'm assuming you are talking about the financial institutions).
 
Gods_Peon said:
What actions do you think they need to be held responsible for? (I'm assuming you are talking about the financial institutions).
Click to expand...

probably a wee off your post...but it touched off a mini-rant

well, at least in my case, there was some pretty clear collusion between the lender and the appraiser on my re-finance. granted, i didn't get myself into a loan i couldn't afford, but i was looking at doing it again with a no-fee company as the rates had dropped a bit and magically, within the span of a month, my home depreciated by about 20%. on the flip side of that, after my wife and i were married, we were looking at it again with slightly lower rates and to do a joint one...and in the span of a year it managed to keep the value associated with the 20% drop (this was with the one who did the original re-fi and claimed it substantially higher).

so...supposedly my home value went like...



+ (re-fi)
\
\
\
\ (1-2 month(s) later) - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - (1 year later)

a might bit fishy.

so while i certainly support *minimal* government involvement with free enterprise, it's quite clear to me that there are certainly situations worthy of regulation to prevent or at least significantly hamper issues like that. one really has to consider the reason we generally have regulations...it's not because someone *might* do something...it's because someone has...and with negative ramifications. do you have *any* idea how many courses just on the legalities of contract negotiations we have to go through every year because? it's disgusting. regulation is simply a negative way of spinning the word "law"...perhaps we should phrase it as we have anti-murder regulations in order to win a modicum of reasonable support for reasonable *laws*.

i suppose the complete de-regulationists out there would say that my proper recourse would be to litigate, however that's generally not feasible due to the fact that it would be prohibitively expensive, particularly against an agency with substantially more legal power than a single person...and if it were elevated to a class action, then the return would be lower than the initial claim.

heck...maybe they should toss in a a 10-15 year mortgage moratorium on the consumers that contributed to this as well in the 700B bill...and double their taxes...and make them listen to Dave Ramsey daily; except in the cases of outright fraud or life-altering situations, they're liable for this mess as well.
 
we have fraud laws for "fishy" things. Interestingly enough, the whole Enron debacle did not come about due to the effort of the government through regulation, but rather through some locals in Texas who brought them to court. It sickens me to my stomach to imagine giving more money to the government to do something which they clearly have not gotten right in the first place (*cough* Fannie and *cough* Freddie).

We haz laws.
We just don't use them.

(Kinda like our rights, but that is for a different thread.)
 
suppose the complete de-regulationists out there would say that my proper recourse would be to litigate, however that's generally not feasible due to the fact that it would be prohibitively expensive, particularly against an agency with substantially more legal power than a single person...and if it were elevated to a class action, then the return would be lower than the initial claim.
Click to expand...

And the only people who make money with this are the lawyers.
 
@ GP - yep...litigation is generally a horrible way to go; civil rarely provides sufficient compensation to the victim...criminal does nothing other than give a DA a checkmark on their resume

@ Lloren - we haz laws...yes, but again...regulationz are lawz; i don't see anyone who suffered financially due to Enron being made whole financially...i.e, they haz not had their cheezburgerz. i don't like the idea of government *owning* anything...insuring it...would be a decent start, to at least make the assets being discussed more palatable for resale; but to say no regulation means to say no law...they're one and the same and while a conservative myself...i think conservatives often overlook this minor detail and throw fits when laws governing the behavior of businesses are brought up and start ranting about too much regulation :) given infinite freedom to do bad things...bad people will do bad things.

fannie & freddie are ...bleh...same boat as the post office...I'm from KY...and well, i'll just stop while i'm ahead with that analogy, but you can see where I'm going.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top