Bubbles, Employment, and Inflation
A New Bubble Of the Fed's Creation
Let's start with the $1.45 trillion that the Fed has committed to propping up the mortgage market -- money that, for the most part, was simply printed.
As it was printing all that money, the Fed was also lowering the interest rate at which banks borrow from the Fed and each other, to pretty close to zero. What didn't change was the interest rate banks charged everyone else. As a result, "spreads" between what banks pay for money and what they charge are near record highs.
So who is borrowing? By and large, it's not households and businesses, which are reluctant to borrow during a recession. Rather, it's hedge funds and other investors, who have been using the money to buy stocks, corporate bonds and commodities, driving prices to levels unsupported by the business and economic fundamentals.
In other words, the stock market. The Federal Reserve and Banks are propping up the stock market in yet ANOTHER attempt to continue domination; for it wins when we all have lost. The only problem here is that a parasite dies when its host dies. We lose, they lose. This is a perfect case explained by the prisoners dilemma. Do you want to change your retirement fund allocation now?
But it is certainly not too early for the Fed, at the conclusion of its meeting Wednesday, to warn Wall Street that its current policies cannot, and will not, continue indefinitely -- particularly if the money is used to inflate bubbles rather than finance real, sustainable economic growth.
So you're telling me that the banks that own the Fed and dictate actual financial policy (the proverbial fox guarding the hen-house) will finally "see the light"? That's just about the biggest load of crock I've ever heard. The banks will never see it in their best interest to give control of their money back to the government. This is why the government needs to take that power back, flat out.
Another interpretation to take is that they are saying a stock market bubble collapse is imminent? No?
The number of young Americans without a job has exploded to 52.2 percent — a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept. — meaning millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their lifetime earning potential will be diminished and, combined with the predicted slow economic recovery, their transition into productive members of society could be put on hold for an extended period of time.
Instead of that extended period of time being... i dunno... maybe never? will they take back their future? When? How? I hope it's Gandhi style to show that we have had and will always have the ethical and moral high ground over corporations, greed, banks, money, and usury. It is our Constitution after all. Corporations should live by our rules... we'll see just how powerful they are in this battle.
We need to fight with ideas, ethics, and morals. That is what the constitution expects of us. We need to think for ourselves.
The Politics of Inflation: Theft by Other Means
That is, inflation is wonderful because it enable us to pay off our debts with future "cheaper" dollars. But if our incomes are being robbed by inflation, then is that "benefit" of inflation really so valuable?
This is a great example of why stable inflation is a misnomer.... It means unsustainable. Inflation isn't stable, it's exponential growth! 3%/year is growing growth. These are some of the word and mind tricks played to make you think everything is fine and "stable." The system is unstable. Towards the end things get out of control faster and are more dangerous not just in a finite way but exponentially. For instance... federal deficit next year could increase the same amount it increased this year... 300-400-500%... in one year? This is an extreme case. Imagine if the federal deficit were 4 or 5 trillion in one year! Next Year!!! That's the effect of the same "stable" growth from last year to this year extrapolated to next year. Obviously, Obama did the right thing and put all spending in a budget instead of following Bush and his running to Congress every few months begging for more war money. It's a more honest way to conduct affairs but it also put the lies out in the sun. I believe the huge growth in year over year defecit is purely one time and reflects the inability of G. W. Bush to be an honest man.
Now I want to throw a Windows 7 party
This is awesome! Can i have my _very_ _own_ "launch party"?
We can’t wait any longer
Cassandras of Climate from New York Times
Responding to climate change with the vigor that the threat deserves would not, contrary to legend, be devastating for the economy as a whole. But it would shuffle the economic deck, hurting some powerful vested interests even as it created new economic opportunities. And the industries of the past have armies of lobbyists in place right now; the industries of the future don’t.
This is the truth, yo. Change does not mean total destruction. It means unrest. The companies need the unrest. It is survival of the fittest, no? That's what capitalism is! Capitalism is darwinian theory in ideas and products. We can apply our own "darwinian force" on companies. If we change the priorities of companies, they will follow. I don't advocate excessive regulation... only for the externalities... that is to say, what business does not naturally account for, like the environment, health, democracy, or national security. (BTW, we already classify mathematical formula for encryption as munitions thus rendering their export illegal, aka. math and ideas are a national security concern).
Glen Beck Prepare For The Worst
An interesting watch.
The first is a left wing doomsday but I don't believe "liberals" want that first scenario either. A part of this is to fear-monger the conservatives into behaving in line with the "right wing agenda". They even implicate the government in possible hyperinflation... The real cause will be (and is now) the Federal Reserve and the banking system's ability to create money out of thin air. That's where money comes from... debt. I don't see them talking about this or money reform in the first scenario.
The last (3rd) case is the best. Are they advocating an American Revolution? We need our government back. We need our money back. We need democracy back. Laws are not passed for the benefit of profit, ever. Laws benefit the people and only the people. If corporate wants fall in-line with the peoples' best interest, then yes, they may have a profitable law but only then. Profit does not contain our best interest at heart much of the time.
This is not a partisan issue. This is about reclaiming our history and staying true to our Constitution. This is about staying true to our historical figures and thoughts. 17th century does not mean antiquated. Our constitution was, and still is, a high water mark in the control of government for the people, by the people. Our founding fathers were genius in their craft of the US Constitution. Such original thought only comes when there is competition, in this case, against the English and their control. Their solution: Freedom. Freedom from banks, debt, government control, inflation, and deflation. It defined a way for us to control our own government. Our founding fathers wanted us to be the ones in control of our own lives. They wanted us to be the ones in control of our government. It was imperfect though. Many changes have been needed throughout the centuries to ensure the right of the people. So the question now is, are we going to put into the constitution that corporations are indeed people and deserve the right to freedom of speech=money=influence=control (over us) OR are we going to put into the constitution that corporations are, indeed, not people and thus removing their constitutional rights.
On that note, I'm not entirely opposed to having corporations be singular separate entities. I just don't believe they should have the right of individuals. We should have an amendment that only real people have the rights of the constitution. To be fair, we can make a business entity constitution and bill of rights. One that is subservient to ours.
The really crappy thing is that if the issue were to be raised in congress, either corporate personhood or the removal of corporate personhood, then corporations would send an ENORMOUS amount of money into its passage or blockage... It would solidify their control over us in many ways. If corporate personhood passed, we'd be in deep shit. If the removal of corporate personhood failed, it'd be decades before it would be re-evaluated. It would be too late then. This would mean, in essence, that we are slaves to corporate control. Each company would be a fiefdom of sorts only updated to the 21st century style via capitalism. Did the serfs of medieval times accept their slavery for protection? Yes. Could we be re-enacting that now? Is there a better way?
The working parts of a system don't need to know the master plan to function their part. There may or may not be an individual or group doing the planning... i really don't care. That conspiracy i don't care about. Indeed, there may even be a master meme above the "elite" that Alex Jones rants about. My vote is for the power and control meme... regardless. We, the people, need to assume our right to self-government.
