I have a question for those of you smarter than me about the economy...

[The Rabbi]

" Before declaring bankruptcy in 2008, Lehman was the fourth largest investment bank in the USA (behind Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch)" - Lehman Brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Lehman Brothers was founded in 1850 by two cotton brokers in Montgomery, Ala. The firm moved to New York City after the Civil War and grew into one of Wall Street's investment giants. On Sept. 14, 2008, the investment bank announced that it would file for liquidation after huge losses in the mortgage market and a loss of investor confidence crippled it and it was unable to find a buyer." - Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. News - The New York Times

"A year ago today, the venerable investment-banking firm Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection" - Three Lessons of the Lehman Brothers Collapse - TIME

Those are just the first three links on google you fucking idiot. Lehmans was a investment bank you moron.



Are you fucking serious? Your hanging up on the word deposits? Jesus i was trying to make this easier for you.

The principal of leverage and how that applies to liquidation is absolutely no different. If you liquidate any sort of bank, and lehman brothers is an investment bank, you wont recovery some of that wealth.

You are a fucking ignoramus of continental proportions.

Just because you insult someone with big words doesnt mean your actually intelligent. Seriously? You've just been perpetually wrong

Wow. Just wow. You have been totally humiliated here, proving you don't have a clue what you are talking about. And now you want to compound that by showing that you cannot distinguish an "investment bank" from a commercial bank. Then you want to claim that the leverage is "no different."
So we're back to "depositors were wiped out" which is your absurd claim. There were no depositors. Only investors were wiped out, which is fine. That's capitalism.

Ive been humiliated?? You didnt even know lehmans was an investment bank you fucking idiot.

The point is that liquidation doesnt recovery all the wealth that the investors thought they had invested with the bank....Thats been my claim from the beginning.

I used deposits to simplify you. Do you not remember me pointing out to you like 3 pages back the investment banks dont take deposits? Jesus christ i try to simplify things for you and then somehow im wrong because of it. OMfg.[/QUOTE]

So you didnt write this:

f you simply allow collapses you lose real wealth. Do you know anything about fractional banking? A bank leverages its assets. Letting a bank collapse and then liquidating its assets will cause a loss in real wealth because the amount of its assets are less than the amount people have in checking accounts there, this is the difference between M0 and M1.

?
"The amount that people have in checking accounts" sure sounds like they take deposits. Lehmann Bros did not take deposits. Because they weren't a fucking bank.
Investors lose money when investments fail. So what? That's the risk of investment.
You are trying to crabwalk your way out of this and proving yourself one sorry motherfucker.

 

[cbirch2]

Just because you insult someone with big words doesnt mean your actually intelligent. Seriously? You've just been perpetually wrong

Wow. Just wow. You have been totally humiliated here, proving you don't have a clue what you are talking about. And now you want to compound that by showing that you cannot distinguish an "investment bank" from a commercial bank. Then you want to claim that the leverage is "no different."
So we're back to "depositors were wiped out" which is your absurd claim. There were no depositors. Only investors were wiped out, which is fine. That's capitalism.

Ive been humiliated?? You didnt even know lehmans was an investment bank you fucking idiot.

The point is that liquidation doesnt recovery all the wealth that the investors thought they had invested with the bank....Thats been my claim from the beginning.

I used deposits to simplify you. Do you not remember me pointing out to you like 3 pages back the investment banks dont take deposits? Jesus christ i try to simplify things for you and then somehow im wrong because of it. OMfg.

So you didnt write this:

f you simply allow collapses you lose real wealth. Do you know anything about fractional banking? A bank leverages its assets. Letting a bank collapse and then liquidating its assets will cause a loss in real wealth because the amount of its assets are less than the amount people have in checking accounts there, this is the difference between M0 and M1.

?
"The amount that people have in checking accounts" sure sounds like they take deposits. Lehmann Bros did not take deposits. Because they weren't a fucking bank.
Investors lose money when investments fail. So what? That's the risk of investment.
You are trying to crabwalk your way out of this and proving yourself one sorry motherfucker.[/quote]


Wow congrats on picking out a quote about generalized commercial banking that was said before the discussion went specifically to investment banks.

Besides, there is no line between investment banks and commercial banks in this country, remember you fool? Investment banks can also be commercial banks, and visa versa.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow. Just wow. You have been totally humiliated here, proving you don't have a clue what you are talking about. And now you want to compound that by showing that you cannot distinguish an "investment bank" from a commercial bank. Then you want to claim that the leverage is "no different."
So we're back to "depositors were wiped out" which is your absurd claim. There were no depositors. Only investors were wiped out, which is fine. That's capitalism.

Ive been humiliated?? You didnt even know lehmans was an investment bank you fucking idiot.

The point is that liquidation doesnt recovery all the wealth that the investors thought they had invested with the bank....Thats been my claim from the beginning.

I used deposits to simplify you. Do you not remember me pointing out to you like 3 pages back the investment banks dont take deposits? Jesus christ i try to simplify things for you and then somehow im wrong because of it. OMfg.

So you didnt write this:

f you simply allow collapses you lose real wealth. Do you know anything about fractional banking? A bank leverages its assets. Letting a bank collapse and then liquidating its assets will cause a loss in real wealth because the amount of its assets are less than the amount people have in checking accounts there, this is the difference between M0 and M1.

?
"The amount that people have in checking accounts" sure sounds like they take deposits. Lehmann Bros did not take deposits. Because they weren't a fucking bank.
Investors lose money when investments fail. So what? That's the risk of investment.
You are trying to crabwalk your way out of this and proving yourself one sorry motherfucker.

Wow congrats on picking out a quote about generalized commercial banking that was said before the discussion went specifically to investment banks.

Besides, there is no line between investment banks and commercial banks in this country, remember you fool? Investment banks can also be commercial banks, and visa versa.[/QUOTE]

Wow. What a howler. No difference, eh? You prove just how stupid you really are every single time.
Hey, what kind of regulation did the Fed do with Lehman Bros?

 

[General_XVI]

personally i think that a turnabout will come in about 3-5 years so about 2014-2016... reason being... we ar funding many things military, government non needed programs, and many more things that dont need to be heavily funded. i believe that once people know that without spendigmoney the economy wont get better, THEN and only Then, will the economy improve

 

[cbirch2]

Ive been humiliated?? You didnt even know lehmans was an investment bank you fucking idiot.

The point is that liquidation doesnt recovery all the wealth that the investors thought they had invested with the bank....Thats been my claim from the beginning.

I used deposits to simplify you. Do you not remember me pointing out to you like 3 pages back the investment banks dont take deposits? Jesus christ i try to simplify things for you and then somehow im wrong because of it. OMfg.

So you didnt write this:

f you simply allow collapses you lose real wealth. Do you know anything about fractional banking? A bank leverages its assets. Letting a bank collapse and then liquidating its assets will cause a loss in real wealth because the amount of its assets are less than the amount people have in checking accounts there, this is the difference between M0 and M1.

?
"The amount that people have in checking accounts" sure sounds like they take deposits. Lehmann Bros did not take deposits. Because they weren't a fucking bank.
Investors lose money when investments fail. So what? That's the risk of investment.
You are trying to crabwalk your way out of this and proving yourself one sorry motherfucker.

Wow congrats on picking out a quote about generalized commercial banking that was said before the discussion went specifically to investment banks.

Besides, there is no line between investment banks and commercial banks in this country, remember you fool? Investment banks can also be commercial banks, and visa versa.

Wow. What a howler. No difference, eh? You prove just how stupid you really are every single time.
Hey, what kind of regulation did the Fed do with Lehman Bros?[/QUOTE]

Dude like i said before, your hung up on the word deposits you fucking idiot. Replace the word deposits with accounts and you have the same fucking situation.

Omg i try to use deposits to make the explanation more personal to you and all of the sudden you think im wrong.

The principal im proving is still fucking right. You dont recover all the money in the accounts. is that better?

you thick mother fucker.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you didnt write this:
?
"The amount that people have in checking accounts" sure sounds like they take deposits. Lehmann Bros did not take deposits. Because they weren't a fucking bank.
Investors lose money when investments fail. So what? That's the risk of investment.
You are trying to crabwalk your way out of this and proving yourself one sorry motherfucker.

Wow congrats on picking out a quote about generalized commercial banking that was said before the discussion went specifically to investment banks.

Besides, there is no line between investment banks and commercial banks in this country, remember you fool? Investment banks can also be commercial banks, and visa versa.

Wow. What a howler. No difference, eh? You prove just how stupid you really are every single time.
Hey, what kind of regulation did the Fed do with Lehman Bros?

Dude like i said before, your hung up on the word deposits you fucking idiot. Replace the word deposits with accounts and you have the same fucking situation.

Omg i try to use deposits to make the explanation more personal to you and all of the sudden you think im wrong.

The principal im proving is still fucking right. You dont recover all the money in the accounts. is that better?

you thick mother fucker.[/QUOTE]

Geezus are you one dumb motherfucker. I think a bowl of jello has more brain power. You are making Chris look like a genius.
Kiplinger.com
The investments in a brokerage account are insured in case the broker goes bust. They aren't insured against the actual loss of any investment. That isn't the same as a deposit in a COMMERCIAL bank, which isn't an investment bank, in case you wondered.

 

[Avorysuds]

Iran will never initiate an attack.

I hate to drag my own topic off course but why do you feel confident enough to make that statement? And do you also believe Iran wouldn't sell or give nukes to a terrorist?

Iran is a peace-loving state that has never invaded another country. Just ask Ron paul.

One idiot to say something stupid and another to thank him for saying it... Paul never said Iran was a peace loving state.

Maybe this is why your business hurts Gramps, you purposely don’t seek out the right answers. You would rather blame Obama (maybe not in this very thread) then support Republicans that have he same policies as Obama (Newt atm lol).

Maybe we would recover if we were not so concerned with what Iran might be doing...

What gets me the most is that Paul knows more about the economy that both of you noobz pressed together and times by 10 yet that is who you use to derail your own thread based on the economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

I hate to drag my own topic off course but why do you feel confident enough to make that statement? And do you also believe Iran wouldn't sell or give nukes to a terrorist?

Iran is a peace-loving state that has never invaded another country. Just ask Ron paul.

One idiot to say something stupid and another to thank him for saying it... Paul never said Iran was a peace loving state.

Maybe this is why your business hurts Gramps, you purposely don’t seek out the right answers. You would rather blame Obama (maybe not in this very thread) then support Republicans that have he same policies as Obama (Newt atm lol).

Maybe we would recover if we were not so concerned with what Iran might be doing...

What gets me the most is that Paul knows more about the economy that both of you noobz pressed together and times by 10 yet that is who you use to derail your own thread based on the economy.

Ron Paul has no problem with Iran having a nuke. That automatically disqualifies him for anything more than "scold".
Our policies in Iran have nothing, zero, to do with the economy. You appear to be the noob here.

 

[Avorysuds]

Iran is a peace-loving state that has never invaded another country. Just ask Ron paul.

One idiot to say something stupid and another to thank him for saying it... Paul never said Iran was a peace loving state.

Maybe this is why your business hurts Gramps, you purposely don’t seek out the right answers. You would rather blame Obama (maybe not in this very thread) then support Republicans that have he same policies as Obama (Newt atm lol).

Maybe we would recover if we were not so concerned with what Iran might be doing...

What gets me the most is that Paul knows more about the economy that both of you noobz pressed together and times by 10 yet that is who you use to derail your own thread based on the economy.

Ron Paul has no problem with Iran having a nuke. That automatically disqualifies him for anything more than "scold".
Our policies in Iran have nothing, zero, to do with the economy. You appear to be the noob here.

Ron Paul does not want Iran to have a Nuke, so you lied again... And that has nothing to do with the economy...

 

[The Rabbi]

One idiot to say something stupid and another to thank him for saying it... Paul never said Iran was a peace loving state.

Maybe this is why your business hurts Gramps, you purposely don’t seek out the right answers. You would rather blame Obama (maybe not in this very thread) then support Republicans that have he same policies as Obama (Newt atm lol).

Maybe we would recover if we were not so concerned with what Iran might be doing...

What gets me the most is that Paul knows more about the economy that both of you noobz pressed together and times by 10 yet that is who you use to derail your own thread based on the economy.

Ron Paul has no problem with Iran having a nuke. That automatically disqualifies him for anything more than "scold".
Our policies in Iran have nothing, zero, to do with the economy. You appear to be the noob here.

Ron Paul does not want Iran to have a Nuke, so you lied again... And that has nothing to do with the economy...

I ddint lie, you did.
Ron Paul has no problem with Iran having a nuke. He makes excuses for it. Like here:
Ron Paul: Why Shouldn

 

[Avorysuds]

Ron Paul has no problem with Iran having a nuke. That automatically disqualifies him for anything more than "scold".
Our policies in Iran have nothing, zero, to do with the economy. You appear to be the noob here.

Ron Paul does not want Iran to have a Nuke, so you lied again... And that has nothing to do with the economy...

I ddint lie, you did.
Ron Paul has no problem with Iran having a nuke. He makes excuses for it. Like here:
Ron Paul: Why Shouldn

Again, Paul does not want Iran to have a Nuke, you lied once more... Also this is about the economy, not Iran. Why would I trust you on anything when you can't even quote Paul right. IF you can find a direct quote of Paul saying "I want Iran to have a Nuke" then maybe I could take you seriously.

Until then you’re just another mindless lemming wondering around spouting made up talking points. It seems it’s not that you don’t like Paul’s foreign policy, it’s that you don’t know what his foreign policy is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ron Paul does not want Iran to have a Nuke, so you lied again... And that has nothing to do with the economy...

I ddint lie, you did.
Ron Paul has no problem with Iran having a nuke. He makes excuses for it. Like here:
Ron Paul: Why Shouldn

Again, Paul does not want Iran to have a Nuke, you lied once more... Also this is about the economy, not Iran. Why would I trust you on anything when you can't even quote Paul right. IF you can find a direct quote of Paul saying "I want Iran to have a Nuke" then maybe I could take you seriously.

Until then you’re just another mindless lemming wondering around spouting made up talking points. It seems it’s not that you don’t like Paul’s foreign policy, it’s that you don’t know what his foreign policy is.

I never wrote Ron Paul wants Iran to hav a nuke. I wrote that he has no problem with it. The video amply demonstrates that. I don't have to quote Paul. The video is definitive.
You are the mindless wookie-suiter here, defending the indefensible.

 

[cbirch2]

Wow congrats on picking out a quote about generalized commercial banking that was said before the discussion went specifically to investment banks.

Besides, there is no line between investment banks and commercial banks in this country, remember you fool? Investment banks can also be commercial banks, and visa versa.

Wow. What a howler. No difference, eh? You prove just how stupid you really are every single time.
Hey, what kind of regulation did the Fed do with Lehman Bros?

Dude like i said before, your hung up on the word deposits you fucking idiot. Replace the word deposits with accounts and you have the same fucking situation.

Omg i try to use deposits to make the explanation more personal to you and all of the sudden you think im wrong.

The principal im proving is still fucking right. You dont recover all the money in the accounts. is that better?

you thick mother fucker.

Geezus are you one dumb motherfucker. I think a bowl of jello has more brain power. You are making Chris look like a genius.
Kiplinger.com
The investments in a brokerage account are insured in case the broker goes bust. They aren't insured against the actual loss of any investment. That isn't the same as a deposit in a COMMERCIAL bank, which isn't an investment bank, in case you wondered.

No shit retard, i realize the difference between a commercial bank and an investment bank. I had to explain it to you in the first place remember???!

The point is that liquidating a bank is a bad idea.

Im trying to debate something of substance, and you cant be past the fucking semantics of the sentence.

And like i said before, insurance typically only covers up to so much of a loss.

And what does it matter if its insured? That just changes who takes the loss. If the government insures the bank then the government just takes the loss.

And even further, it should be taken as a given that the bankruptcy of investment banks would effect commercial banks. Investment banks are integral to the funding of smaller commercial banks. If the government had just let the banking system collapse in 2008 it wouldnt have been just an investment banking problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're just fucking pitiful. Total tits on a boar hog useless. You dont have a clue what you're talking about and aren't man enough to admit it or even just drop out.
There's no debating with someone like that.

 

[cbirch2]

You're just fucking pitiful. Total tits on a boar hog useless. You dont have a clue what you're talking about and aren't man enough to admit it or even just drop out.
There's no debating with someone like that.

You cant debate the substance of the subject so you just convoluted it with bullshit.

You somehow think your right because i used the word deposits to make it easier for your dumbass to understand, after i had to explain the difference between an investment bank and a commercial bank to you.

Why dont you actually talk about the original topic!?!

You dont liquidate large banks!

you distract from the issue the entire time because you dont know what the fuck your talking about.

 

[cbirch2]

You really didnt even answer any of the things i said!

U said insurance makes bank failures fine, i said insurance just moves around the loss.

I said investment banks help to fund commercial banks, and you just said nothing.

Stop crying like a rick perry little bitch and debate the topic.

Why exactly do you think its just fine to liquidate a bank?

If wed had just liquidated every bank and shadow bank that failed we would be in serious trouble right now.

 

[likeabird03]

Actually we're $15 trillion in debt and BO is still in the Whitehouse. Do you think $20 or $40 trillion would be too much,.....to pay back. You do know it has to be paid back-right?

Good point. CBirch has over and over pointed to the fact that yields are so low, but they can increase three fold in a matter of weeks or months, much like we've seen with some european countries over the past 18 months.

Yes, yields are about 2% right now, but I bet my bottom dollar that if the govt came out today and said they were going to nationalize 3, 5, 10 trillion dollars worth of private debt like CBirch is proposing you would see those yields reverse very very quickly. We would be screwed pretty much, if we aren't already that is.

The government has already fucking done that!

Interest rates on US treasuries have dropped as the deficit has risen. Not only in the recent years, but since the late 70's.

We have temporarily defied economic law at this time because of a number of factors. The most important being the fact that despite the governments financial situation - investors don't really see very much of a better alternative at this point. We've also flown under the radar somewhat because of the fact that the situation is worse in Europe. If anything this should illustrate that going the way of Europe is not the right solution.

You can't seriously say with a straight face that somehow increasing borrowing makes interest rates go down, that's just crazy.

So far we've had 1 trillion here, 800 billion here, another trillion and a quarter here. But announcing govt bond issues in the neighborhood of 3, 5, 10 trillion dollar like you propose has not been done yet, thank god. Also, that would be far more negatively perceived right now when we already have a baseline deficit of 1.2 trillion compared to 3 years ago when our deficit and outstanding debt was far less.

Oh and you can make your point without having to use the F-word, it only shows that even you believe you don't have much of an argument.

 

[Toro]

Interest rates have collapsed because the economy sucks and monetary velocity has plummeted, as usually happens after asset values collapse and the economy experiences a balance sheet recession.

 

[rdean]

Which would be literally everyone on earth.

 

[cbirch2]

Good point. CBirch has over and over pointed to the fact that yields are so low, but they can increase three fold in a matter of weeks or months, much like we've seen with some european countries over the past 18 months.

Yes, yields are about 2% right now, but I bet my bottom dollar that if the govt came out today and said they were going to nationalize 3, 5, 10 trillion dollars worth of private debt like CBirch is proposing you would see those yields reverse very very quickly. We would be screwed pretty much, if we aren't already that is.

The government has already fucking done that!

Interest rates on US treasuries have dropped as the deficit has risen. Not only in the recent years, but since the late 70's.

We have temporarily defied economic law at this time because of a number of factors. The most important being the fact that despite the governments financial situation - investors don't really see very much of a better alternative at this point. We've also flown under the radar somewhat because of the fact that the situation is worse in Europe. If anything this should illustrate that going the way of Europe is not the right solution.

You can't seriously say with a straight face that somehow increasing borrowing makes interest rates go down, that's just crazy.

So far we've had 1 trillion here, 800 billion here, another trillion and a quarter here. But announcing govt bond issues in the neighborhood of 3, 5, 10 trillion dollar like you propose has not been done yet, thank god. Also, that would be far more negatively perceived right now when we already have a baseline deficit of 1.2 trillion compared to 3 years ago when our deficit and outstanding debt was far less.

Oh and you can make your point without having to use the F-word, it only shows that even you believe you don't have much of an argument.

"We have temporarily defied the laws of economics"

O right the private bond markets are just wrong. Obviously the economy must be defying the laws of economics because they dont match your predictions. Have you ever thought a more mundane explanation might be that your diagnosis is just wrong?

Are you seriously arguing that weve defied the laws of economics for the last 30 years? No. Rather, the status of our bond yields are unique because the dollars status as a reserve currency and the fact that the market for treasuries is the safest and most liquid in the world.

All economics are relative. Just because our debt increases doesnt mean investors will demand higher yields, because the market for treasuries is an integral part of the world economy.

If the rest of the world is teetering on default, and equities are perceived as extremely risky, the market for US treasuries will be the only safe market left. And not only that, the only way to preserve wealth. Holding your money is essentially investing in the dollar, a depreciating asset. Investing in treasuries that pay interest is a hedge against inflation, which will eat away at your wealth if its not invested.

Thus the US enjoys a special position because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world.