The Federal Deficit vs. The Federal Reserve
I'd like to point out the EXTREME conflict of interest that Congress has with the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve directly or indirectly is funding a great part of the Federal Deficit authorized by Congress. Thus, until the Federal Deficit is wiped out we are holden to our Providers. Congress "can't" audit the Federal Reserve because they need the Federal Reserve.
Here is the kicker. Congress doesn't need the Federal Reserve for money. They have the Constitutional Power to create it themselves. Switching the system would be too disruptive to the powers that fund the Senators.
So they won't. So sad.
Keiser Report №17: Markets! Finance! Scandal!
We've been at financial war with China for many, many years. No one talks about the Chinese only letting us go through the kindness of their communist heart. At some point China is going start selling their worthless dollars, which will show just how little they are actually worth.
It's amazing that Goldman Sacks PROFITED from the hiding the Greek debt through derivatives and manipulating market prices. This only shows that derivatives really should be regulated. How exactly I don't know but maybe putting a cap on a derivative at $100 million would be a good idea. If banks move off shore to do this business so be it, would that put enough distance to be safe should the speculation hysteria burst?
I couldn't agree more with Keiser. The sooner and faster, the better. The more we delay the harder it will be. And there are some significant changes needed. Fiat money needs to go which is going to change a lot of things. But this is the only way to actually fix things.
If we don't fix this problem, then the banks will take everything because we all are using their future money which we need to pay back. The system is designed to make people fall off because not enough value has been, or ever could be, created to pay off their debt money with interest.
This is not a system of stable value. More money must be created to support the base of money in existence, with interest. This is an ever growing problem because the value represented by the dollar, the economy, needs to keep pace in order to stabilize the value. For decades they've created a little more money than created in the economy but now the economy has no more steam and cannot continue growing except through the shadow banking economy to which we are not allowed access. There has been extraordinary market distortions since the creation of the Federal Reserve and fiat money. That whole big mess needs to unwind before we get back on a sustainable track. This means a lot of changes which could be a complete mess if not actually planned by the government.
Not only that, but let me remind you that fiat money in the USA is actually unconstitutional.
Debt is everywhere because it is what we use as money! If you have money, it is really possessing other people's debts which they have to get back from you because, ultimately, it must go back to the bank with interest. We are literally slaves to our money system. Wasn't slavery made unconstitutional at some point?
The odd thing is that the money you do have usually lives at the bank. If you read the fine print of a new account document you'll see that it is really a loan to the bank. In exchange you get numbers in an account and the ability to (hopefully) get it back at some point in the future. Alas, they use this money as reserves to create new money and perpetuate the system.
Keiser Report №15: Markets! Finance! Scandal!
Remarkable that we let the government, the corporations, and these people do what they do.
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.
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?
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?