The Anti-Free-Market Federal Reserve
I believe in democracy, freedom, capitalism, and a free market. Why does the Federal Reserve keep insisting that it knows better by implementing anti-capitalistic plans and perpetually fucking around with the market? Please let the market operate! Let it go! Prices are what they should be! That's the definition of a free market! When they manipulate the market it's no longer free.
This includes the proprietary trading systems at investment banks. If the bank can invest its own money, it can influence the market in any way it sees fit. Want to tell politicians that a particular law or not passing a particular law would cause the market to drop (or rise)? They can trigger it. This is called Terrorism, and it was used to pass the bank bailout bill in late 2008. Investment banks investing their own money is a conflict of interest to democracy, their own clients, and the interests of the economy.
@ 9:10
The FBI should be investigating that act of Terrorism by the banks and Federal Reserve System. Even if the people didn't know (and thus weren't afraid), the politicians were threatened directly to pass the bailout bill. Influencing law is exactly what terrorism is designed to do... at it seemed to work, unfortunately.
Official says Fed might buy more mortgage-backed securities
The Federal Reserve would consider reopening its program to support the mortgage market if interest rates spiked or the economy showed new weakness, Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William C. Dudley said in two new interviews.
The Fed is buying $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities in its effort to prop up the economy but has said it will end those purchases March 31.
They need to stop manipulating the market immediately.
This manipulation introduces distortion in the market. That distortion is not singular. It ripples out through the economy. These ripples required more fixes and those even more until it's the Katrina Hurricane of the financial market.
In order to force the market to be focused on people, this bailout money would have been better placed into the hands of the people. At least the distortion would have been citizen oriented instead of banker bonus oriented. Then again, it's corporate America that gives politicians the money to convince us to vote for them; so it's not too surprising that this didn't happen.
In all, there should have been no bailouts. Failure for companies that are too weak. Success for those that could fill their place. Would there have been pain? Yes. But, that short term pain is much smaller than the long term pain we are now in for now.
Why the Euro is important
Moving debt around isn't going to ultimately solve the problem... The problem is that Money is Debt.
The Greatest Recession
I pulled this image from the National Inflation Association- Charts
This is a wild chart. I super imposed my best guestimate fitting curve. As you can see, i tried to be conservative and deal with the bumps along the way. It's most certainly not perfect but it will do to demonstrate the ideas.
That red area is the area of the recession. There are a few notable things about this chart. The decline we've had in the recreated M3 over the last year has never happened in the last 40 years. Given the charts I've seen, this has never happened in the last century.
In order to be as prosperous as we were before the recession we need about $2.5 trillion more dollars in the system RIGHT NOW. Not some bailout for the banks or tax refund bull crap. The banks need to be loaning that amount within the next few months for us to really recover the way economists (at least were) talking about.
The dollars where the green line ends and the black line hitting 2010, is about $13.7 and $16.2 trillion dollars. The difference is about $2.5 trillion.
This is about the same amount the government has spent in budget deficits over the last 2 years. This is significant because as you can see that $2.5 trillion didn't move us up to where we "should" be. It shows either 1) just how ineffective government spending is in replacing economic output; or 2) The recreated M3 would be at $11.2 trillion if we are to believe that government spending was 100% effective at producing economic growth. I'd like to thank both the Federal Government and the banking industry for this monster.
My sense is that excessive government spending doesn't produce real sustainable economic growth. This includes the huge budget for the military. Funding technology in the military is important but only when it has real civilian use. Research, yada, yada. Agreed. Though it most certainly could and probably should be sliced in half if not more. That would be value being directly injected into the economy through lower inflation and lower taxes in the long run. This is getting at least closer to a more sustainable future.
By January 2011, this estimate shows the M3 needing to be ~$18 trillion. Obama just submitted his budget. It's enormous. The deficit is estimated to be $1.6 trillion. $18 trillion minus $16.2 is $1.8 trillion. That's damn close.... and that won't do a damn thing except cause more inflation. They need to get that value some how. (Stealing it from you is socially acceptable, no?)
Our single party system, the Corporate Republicrats, have no idea what they are doing to secure America. Removing our freedoms "for security" is giving the terrorists exactly what they want. As soon as we started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the "enemy" shipped out. Better to live to fight another day. The got us bogged down and now have the Military Industrial Complex stuck in a growing feedback loop which is sucking down our national value. More military is not the correct answer... A smarter, leaner, more efficient, and productive military is. Until our "leaders" realize that terrorism is the application of "We will fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" we won't get anywhere and we won't be all that much more secure either. If they take a page from our playbook, which a smart terrorist would do, they will attack US HERE... not our military there. The former is much scarier. Duh. I'm not going to get into how terrorism is likely a false flag operation especially given all the shady circumstances.
Obama! Yo! Fix it! Also, can we put Bush on trial as a War Criminal? Congress didn't even declare war. They put a face on terrorism and then funded its destruction without actually consenting to explicitly to kill it. Then the Republicans declare the Democrats as being soft? That's a load of bull crap. If you want something to happen, do it the way the Constitution defines it be done. It's not legitimate if you don't. You can't make claims that anybody is "soft on terror" because they believe in the constitution. In fact, making these claim only makes you "soft on democracy."
Ah yes, how is this for communist/facsist?
If you don't follow the corporate party line (on either side), you are ostracized and made not important by the corporate mega-phone media.
Wait a minute... Isn't this reminiscent of Communist Russia?
Bankrupt Bogus Bonuses
This holds for Goldman Sacks too... they are giving out $150 billion of OUR MONEY to each other. Just remember when you do your taxes for last year that at least $500 of that is paying for Goldman Sacks bonuses. Just their bonuses!
Why aren't these people in jail?
Jon Stewart Warns Dems: Republicans Are “F**king With You!”
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Blues Clueless | ||||
|
||||
It's really amazing how politics is so fucked up. You have to ask yourself, how much of it is real? What part is purely peacock distractions?
Better Off Deadbeat: Craig Cunningham Has a Simple Solution for Getting Bill Collectors Off His Back. He Sues Them.
Cunningham armed himself with this knowledge, and the next time a debt collector called, the trap was set.
It didn't take long. Cunningham had canceled a home alarm service with ADT Security after two months, and the company had billed him a $450 early termination fee, which he disputed. ADT sent his account to Equinox Financial Management Solutions, a third-party debt collector. The collection agency sent him a letter asking that he call back immediately. He dialed, armed with a voice recorder.
"Can you garnish my wages if I don't pay?" he asked.
"Yes," the voice on the other end of the line said.
"Can you put a lien on my house?"
"Yes."
Wrong answers. Turns out, Texas consumer rights laws are some of the most consumer-friendly in the country. And according to a federal consumer protection law, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), debt collectors are prohibited from threatening legal action that would violate state laws. In this case, garnishing wages or putting a lien on Cunningham's house would violate the Texas Debt Collection Act.
Cunningham knew he had a good enough case to file a lawsuit against the debt collection agency, and for his first lawsuit, he decided to enlist the help of a lawyer. Two months later, he had a check in his hand for $1,000.
"It's like discovering fire," says Cunningham, thumbing through the stack of lawsuit papers on his table.
....
Like Cunningham, Smith now armed himself with voice recorders and began keeping meticulous financial files. His file cabinet grew quickly. "I mean there's nothing I don't document now and that's probably the best thing a consumer can do."
Find out the laws in your state and take action. This is not a bad idea.
How the banks make the big bucks (by taking it from you)
Does Obama know this is going on? If he does, why doesn't he stop it?
Obama is a really smart guy. How could he not know this is going on?
Two things:
1- if he doesn't know, then he's incompetent.
2- if he does know and isn't doing anything about it, he's implicitly authorizing theft of government coffers at a biblical scale.
Lastly, why isn't the FBI investigating this kind of fraud?
Elizabeth Warren On The Daily Show: If We Don’t Act ‘The Game Really Is Over’
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Elizabeth Warren | ||||
|
||||
I've always liked Elizabeth Warren because she is right.
Just as I posted earlier, people are waking up to the fact that politics is theatre and that politicians do not represent us (at least most of them). It's angering but it's important to get a third party or more going in America.
My solution to making third parties real is laws stating that all elections are to be instant run-off. Instead of voting for one candidate, you prioritize them. If the one you chose first doesn't have enough votes your next in line is thus counted as your choice. So, you could have voted in the last Presidential Election like this
- Ron Paul
- Cynthia McKinney
- Ralph Nader
- Dennis Kucinich
- Barack Obama
How sweet would that be? If none of your other choices had a chance, you still could have helped to defend against McCain (or visa versa). You could actually vote based on your principles instead of the lesser of two evils. If course it must be said that our political party election system is more like voting for the one evil as they really are the same party with different faces. I ask you, what would McCain have done substantially different from Obama? And how is Obama any different than Bush?
Democrats And The 60 Vote Lie
It seems that people are starting to get it that politics is just a theatre for thieves to profiteer but for very few. This is particularly disturbing now knowing that the Conservative Supreme Court just gave corporations nearly full access to politicians through money. This will utterly drown out everyone else. This means laws will, wait, will? THEY ARE being made for the benefit of corporations because it keeps the corrupt in power. Ad-Infinitum.
We absolutely must pass a constitutional amendment stating this:
Reclaim Democracy: Proposed Constitutional Amendments
An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections
SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.
SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.
SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.
SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.
More on why we need to revoke corporate constitutional privileges (a.k.a., corporate personhood)
Of course, no crooked Republican or Democrat (which is most of them) in their right mind would vote for this lest their corporate master overlords wrath. Then the states very likely wouldn't pass it either.