Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Derivatives became a money-making venture for financial institutions in an economy that was no longer producing anything in the US.
That's nice, but not relevant to the question I asked.
Selling each other cheeseburgers and insurance policies is what we are. They saw the "housing boom" was simply a massive Ponzi scheme built on the promise of a 25% yearly equity bump. So they decided to package up their junk, talk AIG into insuring it, and off to Europe they went with it.
A wee bit of over-simplification, perhaps?
As to fiat currency, it allows rogue nations like china to keep their currency valuation far below it's actual worth and keep their labor price low. All to squeeze more capital flight from the US.
Perhaps, but how would a gold standard in the USA stop this? In fact, wouldn't it make matters worse?
Japan did it and have done quite well with it. They claim they can't honor our trade agreements with them because they're in a "recession" that's now lasted about 15 years. Countries without gold (or cotton or coal...whatever you attach a fiat currency to) have no obligation to back up their currency with anything but promises. We back our currency with the United States Marine Corps....should that ever not be the case, we'll quickly move into third-world status as our wealth rots on the vine.
A fiat currency in any nation is backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing agency - nothing more. The Marines have nothing to do with it.
You ARE correct that introduction of currency at a rate substantially greater than the introduction of wealth into that economy, will erode the wealth of wage earners, as we are seeing in this nation.
Everything I said is correct. Doesn't have to be gold to back a currency...could be oil or even fresh water inventory to determine a country's true wealth. And don't think for a minute our military might doesn't make us the swingin dick in the world markets....there are several examples of us simply bulldozing competing economies.
Everything I said is correct. Doesn't have to be gold to back a currency...could be oil or even fresh water inventory to determine a country's true wealth. And don't think for a minute our military might doesn't make us the swingin dick in the world markets....there are several examples of us simply bulldozing competing economies.
If you are of the Chicago school, then aggregate value, the sum of produced goods and services, is the backing for a currency, and monetary policy must exactly match to produce a stable economy. The Austrian view varies, and the Keynesian view is simply absurd.
Everything I said is correct. Doesn't have to be gold to back a currency...could be oil or even fresh water inventory to determine a country's true wealth. And don't think for a minute our military might doesn't make us the swingin dick in the world markets....there are several examples of us simply bulldozing competing economies.
If you are of the Chicago school, then aggregate value, the sum of produced goods and services, is the backing for a currency, and monetary policy must exactly match to produce a stable economy. The Austrian view varies, and the Keynesian view is simply absurd.
Okay, but GDP is subjective when it comes to determining true value. We've been trying your model for years and look where we are. Bernake's Fed buying our own Treasury bills to keep the interest rate down. If you floated our T-Bills without Fed interference the interest rate would jump to 5% on the road to 10% making the vig equal to our total budget. Like I said earlier in this thread, we are already in the classic bankrupt condition; ie unable to ever pay off our debt, having less assets then liabilites. Now if we were still on the silver standard, at least we could trade our soon-to-be worthless paper dollars into silver-coated zink coins, and phony nickels. You can make a makeshift battery out that at least (season 2 of Breaking Bad).
So everyone whose outstanding mortgage exceeds their annual income is in a "classic bankrupt condition" according to the "military-math" wizard?
So everyone whose outstanding mortgage exceeds their annual income is in a "classic bankrupt condition" according to the "military-math" wizard?
They are if they take out a new mortgage every year - which is essentially what our irresponsible government does.
No, bankruptcy is inability to make payments, not liabilities outweighing assets. It doesn't't matter how much debt one has, as long as one can make the scheduled payments.ike I said earlier in this thread, we are already in the classic bankrupt condition; ie unable to ever pay off our debt, having less assets then liabilites.
The premise of your question is false. It is not Democrats who are running up the debt, Clinton had a surplus, Bush exploded the debt and Obama cut spending in half.
THREE lies in one sentence.....but then you don't know any better and pulled something out of your butt when confronted with reality. No NUMBER, not allowed to stay. SCRAM.
dear moderator....please close this thread....it's no longer of any use to anybody with a brain. Thank you.
At least so far....maybe today we'll get a breakthrough.
HOW MUCH DEBT are you willing to allow the government shysters to put us in? What's the number when even the maoists say enough is enough? We're at $17T now....many economists think $20T is the tipping point. Obama has raised the debt-ceiling 7 times after screaming like a woman when Dubya did it. He's added $6T to the debt and continues to run $1T yearly deficits. After $20T, another financial meltdown of any kind, could tip us over into default. Surely you leftists don't believe Wall Street has stopped dealing in mortgage-based derivatives. Surely you don't believe criminal enterprises like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have stopped rigging the futures markets. So how much is enough....how close to the edge of diaster are you willing to tread?
So you want more regulation on Wall Street? Okay, we are down with that.
At least so far....maybe today we'll get a breakthrough.
HOW MUCH DEBT are you willing to allow the government shysters to put us in? What's the number when even the maoists say enough is enough? We're at $17T now....many economists think $20T is the tipping point. Obama has raised the debt-ceiling 7 times after screaming like a woman when Dubya did it. He's added $6T to the debt and continues to run $1T yearly deficits. After $20T, another financial meltdown of any kind, could tip us over into default. Surely you leftists don't believe Wall Street has stopped dealing in mortgage-based derivatives. Surely you don't believe criminal enterprises like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have stopped rigging the futures markets. So how much is enough....how close to the edge of diaster are you willing to tread?
This keeps getting pointed out to him, and he keeps on pretending he doesn't see it and bleating the same thing over and over. Pretty funny stuff.So everyone whose outstanding mortgage exceeds their annual income is in a "classic bankrupt condition" according to the "military-math" wizard?
