Fiscal Cliff Compromise

61 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gary_Yarus
Gary_Yarus's picture

Why couldn't Congress just vote to repeal the Fiscal Cliff bill rather than negotiate a compromise?

Comments

miksilvr
Gary_Yarus wrote: Why

Gary_Yarus wrote:

Why couldn't Congress just vote to repeal the Fiscal Cliff bill rather than negotiate a compromise?

They basically did just that with part of the "solution" to the "problem" that was of their own making, by delaying some of the "automatic" cuts a few months.

Speaking of problems, Timmy G just might not be able to "retire" on his intended schedule ... 

Analysis: Geithner's planned departure puts Obama in tough spot

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
The whole fiscal cliff and

The whole fiscal cliff and debt ceiling dog and pony show for the sheeple is a Ponzi scheme. Barrack Hussein Obama want the nation to go further in debt to convince the bondholders that he is serious about paying the bills.  So the bondholders loan the government more money to pay the bills, we pay them back with their own money and go deeper in debt. What a deal! That is until the time when no one is dumb enough to buy into the scheme. That will be when 100% of all US toilet..er I mean Treasury paper is purchased by the federal reserve. The fed is already purchasing 70% of the drek. This should be a screaming frontpage headline, yet, the MSM lapdogs are obediently silent so as not to alert the sheeple.

But how can the fed buy so much US debt when it is not acutally legally permitted to? Also, that would upset the illusion that there is unlimited demand for US government paper. Here is how they bend the rules in the shell game.

Shell #1:  Foreign central banks sell agency debt out of their custody account with the fed.

Shell #2:  The fed buys those agency bonds with money created out of thin air.

Shell #3:  Foreign central banks use that very same money to buy Treasuries at the next government auction.

Shuffle, shuffle, shuffle, shuffle, shuffle, SHUFFLE, shuffle! Confused yet?

Don't be.  If we remove the extraneous motion from this strange act, we find that the Federal Reserve is effectively buying government debt at auction.  This is exactly, precisely what Zimbabwe did, but with one more step involved, introducing just enough complexity to keep the entire game mostly, but not completely, hidden from sight.  They can scramble the shells all they want, but the pea is still there somewhere - the pea being the fact that the Fed is creating money to fund the purchase of US debt.

All of the "stimulation to stabilize/stimulate the ecomony and lowering of rates to unheard of lows" is merely a smoke screen to insure plentiful funds for the massive treasury auctions com ing due, the goal of which is to allow foreign central banks to swap their agency debt for US government debt with money created out of thin air. This shell game has allowed the fed to monetize far more massive amounts of government debt than has been publicized.

When this shell game is fully exposed, the dollar will collapse and prices (especially food prices) and interest will rise rapidly. 

What the sheeple are allowed to see is merely the distract and distort, look the other way, dog and pony show of the phony illusion of the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling.

Does this explain why the privately owned fed does not want a full and open audit?

 

 

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:But how can the fed buy

Quote:
But how can the fed buy so much US debt when it is not acutally legally permitted to? Also, that would upset the illusion that there is unlimited demand for US government paper.

Fear not, my friend. The president is going to coin two (four? ten? ten thousand?) trillion dollar platinum coins.

Quote:
Does this explain why the privately owned fed does not want a full and open audit?

The problem is not privately owned banks (Fed Members), but politicians on Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue.

Semi permeable ...
Semi permeable memebrain's picture
 I would say the problem is

 I would say the problem is the belief that the two are separate entitties

Scappoose
Scappoose's picture
The banksters use free fiat

The banksters use free fiat currency to buy real assets - and our Politicians of course - a job that pays a few hundred thousand a year somehow leads to multi-million dollar increases in wealth over the few years a politician serves as Congressperson or Senator.

Crooks doing the bidding of Crooks.

But luckily the Powers that Be have realized that the average person will have No Problem with their "team" engaging in the corruption because if the other team got in there 'it would even be worse"

The most successful PR campaign ever conducted. 

Fiscal Cliff 1 (corporate wefare bill) passed - Fiscal Cliff 2 coming in another 2 months.

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote: I would say the

Quote:
I would say the problem is the belief that the two are separate entitties

Thanks for the clarification.

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:The banksters use free

Quote:
The banksters use free fiat currency to buy real assets

Not so.

Banks are required by law to retain U.S. securities in their reserves, which is another way of saying that they must lend money to the federal government at ridiculously low interest rates. If a commerical loan defaults, the banks must put their earnings into their reserves to cover the loss. The banks must also pay interest to other banks when they borrow money to boost their reserves.

I know that the U.S. Federal Reserve System is a bête noire for posters on this Board and that its operations are poorly understood by the general public. Yours is a common misconception.

Scappoose
Scappoose's picture
Let me paraphrase your post

Let me paraphrase your post --> "Oh those poor misunderstood banks doing Gods Work - its all the Governments fault - the Fed has no power"

The banks OWN the Fed Reserve - The Fed owns the Politician.  the Fed prints money. The Fed bails out the banks as needed - who use the free cash to buy their own stocks, to buy out the competitor, to lobby the politican and to pay out bonuses.

The Fed and their international organizations like the IMF and the World Bank rain down Austerity on the average citizen lowering wages and gov revenue, Lowering standards of living as they rearrange the economy into a wealth redistribution model to the point where 93% of all new income goes to the top 1%. 

a thoroughly rotten and corrupt system.  And as one senator said "the bankers own the joint".

stuff
stuff's picture
Not much of a chance for

Not much of a chance for rational discussion of the topic here.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
Stuff is right. Scappose is

Stuff is right. Scappose is somewhat correct that a member bank is required to have stock in the FED. But they have no control over the operations of the fed.  Banks borrow from the fed other banks excess reserves they need to meet reserve requirements or sell excess reserves to the fed to loan to banks for their reseve requirements. Banks buy US securities and bonds and hold them as assets in their portfolios just like commercial and consumer loans they make.

As an ex banker, I can look at a banks statement of financial condition and tell by the amount of fed funds they have either sold or borrowed and its loan loss reserve and pretty much tell you what kind of condition that bank is in. Aslo one must look at owners equity. The fed is mainly a clearing for banks. Its open market activities have nothing to do with banks except the selling and buying of securities. 

Of course, this is a rather over simplification of how this system works with respect to banking operations.

chilidog
I am really hoping someone

I am really hoping someone can explain the Federal Reserve System to me.

One of my understandings is that the member banks get a guaranteed rate of return on their reserves, which IIRC is 4% (which beats 2% on U.S. Treasuries.)

Another of my understandings (which I got from someone posting here) is that when Bernanke prints money and buys assets, the member banks get that guaranteed 4% on the bigger balance sheet.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
chilidog wrote: I am really

chilidog wrote:

I am really hoping someone can explain the Federal Reserve System to me.

One of my understandings is that the member banks get a guaranteed rate of return on their reserves, which IIRC is 4% (which beats 2% on U.S. Treasuries.)

Another of my understandings (which I got from someone posting here) is that when Bernanke prints money and buys assets, the member banks get that guaranteed 4% on the bigger balance sheet.

Not true.

Scappoose
Scappoose's picture
http://www.globalresearch.ca/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489  by ellen brown 

The member banks own the Federal Reserve and name the members that run the federal reserve.  

The fed government gets to pick the top fed reserve directors from preapproved list.

I believe people are naive if they think that Fed Reserve Boards of Directors - most of who also sit on their own large corporate boards as CEO, Chairman of the Board, or CFO  simutaneously,  don't have any influence over the Fed.

http://www.frbsf.org/federalreserve/people/officers/san-francisco-board-...

Current San Fran board members include bank of the west, costco, chevron, as well as multiple other banks etc - these members sit on the board concurrently with their corporate gigs - of course they affect each other.

 

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:The member banks own

Quote:
The member banks own the Federal Reserve and name the members that run the federal reserve.

Curious. Why, then, does the Fed have a "dot gov" website, and not a "dot com" URL?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/

 

Scappoose
Scappoose's picture
I'm going to guess you didnt

I'm going to guess you didnt read the Ellen Brown article.......

Or maybe simply a  15 sec perusal of the wiki page will suffice. 

I din't see the <sarc> tag but i'm guessing its there because the statement is silly if not.

 

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:I din't see the <sarc>

Quote:
I din't see the <sarc> tag but i'm guessing its there because the statement is silly if not.

Really not a response to the question. Like I say, rational discourse is probably not possible on this Board when it comes to the Fed.

Just wait till we get around to trade protectionism!

polycarp2
You do realize that the Fed 

You do realize that the Fed  issues shares, don't you? The shares are owned by the private banks that make up the Federal Reserve System. They are the only ones allowed to own them. They collect dividends on them.

The Pres. selects the Head of the Fed from their list of nominees.

It's a federally chartered corporation under nominal oversight by the Congress. It was set up that way to meet Constitutional requirements. 'Tis a sham.

Probably a true Central Bank would operate under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Dept. and private banksters would have no say in which one of their lackey's were selected to run it. For certain, it wouldn't pay them annual dividends.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Semi permeable ...
Semi permeable memebrain's picture
stuff wrote: Quote: I would

stuff wrote:

Quote:
I would say the problem is the belief that the two are separate entitties

Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

 I guess sarcasm serves to avoid the meaningful topics?

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote: I guess sarcasm serves

Quote:
I guess sarcasm serves to avoid the meaningful topics?

Oh, I am more than willing to have meaningful discussion, but when posters use terms like "banksters," I see little prospect of rational discourse.

Private bankers are not "gangsters," as the epitath clearly suggests. To say that private banks and the U.S. government are one and the same thing is preposterous and not worthy of a reasoned response.

Scappoose
Scappoose's picture
I call them banksters because

I call them banksters because they are basically Financial Terrorists....

They went to congress with a 1/2 page bill giving them funds with no conditions and said Sign this or the whole system goes up in flames.   I call that terrorism.

The - the banksters - broke the LAW multiple times - i'll refer you to Bill Black for those facts.

And now we have the Justice Dept run by Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer - who both were partners at Covington and Burling - representing these very same banks - saying that we can't prosecute the banks because it'll bring down the financial system.

So we have to allow a 2 tier justice system AND allow this law breaking to occur because they are too big to Prosecute.   These same Banksters have been among the Top Lobbyiests in Washington - the head of the Senate Banking Committee came right out and said "They own the Joint".  

So they broke the law leading to a crashed financial and econmic system, they recieved their free loot, they get named to the top echelons of the Obama admin as well as Congressional staff appointments, they get to name whoever they eant to run Monetary Policy - creating and then popping bubbles - making money off the upside and the downside, short selling stocks and other financial instruments they claim are AAA and they call We The People  - Muppits.

And since the crash the middle class has seen their wages go down, millions of jobs lost, 1/2 of the wealth the bottom 90% had is GONE.

Its a Financial Coup detat.    Even michale hudson and other well know economists say that.

So the Banksters have destroyed the economy and delivered to the top 1% - 93% of all new income.

And you're worried that we call them Banksters instead of bankers and not showing them their proper respect?

They should be in PRISON if the concept of Justice applied equally to all - and not just to those who have political connections or the best attorneys money can buy.

In fact Bankster may be too Nice of a term for them - 

I liken the banksters to the  Sopranos family and We the People are the Sporting Goods store owner..... Under the guise of 'helping us' they fleece us until we wake up one day broke and hungry in country our forefathers founded.

These bankster tricks have historically led to world wars etc 

These banksers can allow higher taxes and an end to their graft schemes or history says we will have to deal with them other ways.

Those ways included being strung up from the nearest petro lamppost, the french invented a nifty little toy for them called the guillotine, the ruskies lined them up and shot the whole family.

People around the world are Killing themselves due to the actions of the Banksters - in many european countries they are now self immolating themselves in protest.

But still the call is More for them and Austerity for the 99.9%.

The Banksters better hope NDAA does the trick keeping us in line if they continue on their plundering ways.  They better build a higher wall to hide behind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acT_PSAZ7BQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:I call them banksters

Quote:
I call them banksters because they are basically Financial Terrorists....

This is exactly what I mean. The idea is preposterous and undeserving of serious response.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
stuff wrote: Quote: I guess

stuff wrote:

Quote:
I guess sarcasm serves to avoid the meaningful topics?

Oh, I am more than willing to have meaningful discussion, but when posters use terms like "banksters," I see little prospect of rational discourse.

Private bankers are not "gangsters," as the epitath clearly suggests. To say that private banks and the U.S. government are one and the same thing is preposterous and not worthy of a reasoned response.

Hey, thats a nice economy youse gots there. It be bad if it happened to burn down, so's youse better bail me out/ pay protection money etc etc. If someone holds a gun to my head and tells me pay them or bad things happen, they are a gangster. Nothing less. If in place of a gun they have widespread poverty and demand 30% of the national gdp or else, I guess that makes them bankers? 

Notice how the first person Enron called was Vice President Cheney? The head of the Fed, and the Treasury always seem to be Goldman Sachs or CITI capos, why? They can't trust academics who'll put doing the right thing for all Americans ahead of doing what helps the banking cartel out most. I'd stop referring to them as banksters if they quit operating in the same fashion as gangsters. 

The only two courses of action that'd get the economy rolling again are to go Icelandic on the banksters, or mint platinum coins to pay off the debt. Any chance that the GoldmanSachs capo is going to advocate to tell the banksters they aren't getting paid and they are going to prison? Or do you think they want paid off in inflated currency? Nope, we'll let the banksters keep 30% of Americans in poverty and another 30% a missed paycheck away from poverty. 

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:The only two courses of

Quote:
The only two courses of action that'd get the economy rolling again are to go Icelandic on the banksters, or mint platinum coins to pay off the debt.

Did you know that the government in Iceland restricts the names that parents can give their children to those an official list? That's freedom for ya!

Why waste platinum? Why not mint a coin made out of toe nail clippings?

polycarp2
Actually, government can use

Actually, government can use toe nail clippings if it's your preference. It has the Constitutional authority to issue coins out of anything and declare their value.

Currently it says that 4 cents of metal in a nickle is worth 5 cents. You can trade 80 cents worth of metal for a dollar.

Susan B.. Anthony dollar coins had an even better exchange rate. A dimes worth of metal was declared  to be worth a buck and was accepted as such by your local retailer.

If you'd like the Treasury to stamp out trillions of one dollar coins, I suppose it could do that. However, it would be much more efficient to just issue a few trillion dollar coins, hand them over to the Fed and extinguish the debt held by the Fed.

Stamp out a few more, put them in the Treasury vault, and write checks on them equal to the 25% of economic capacity that isn't being utilized. Increase productive output...increase employment. Increased productive ouptut backs the money. No inflation.

We could always, of course, borrow several trillion a year from banksters and do the same thing and plunge ourselves into unpayable debt.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

.

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:Actually, government

Quote:
Actually, government can use toe nail clippings if it's your preference. It has the Constitutional authority to issue coins out of anything and declare their value.

It could but it won't and it shouldn't. World capital markets would think the U.S. government had been seized by madmen and chislers. No president of the United States is going to allow the collapse of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, not even Obama.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
stuff wrote: Quote:Actually,

stuff wrote:

Quote:
Actually, government can use toe nail clippings if it's your preference. It has the Constitutional authority to issue coins out of anything and declare their value.

It could but it won't and it shouldn't. World capital markets would think the U.S. government had been seized by madmen and chislers. No president of the United States is going to allow the collapse of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, not even Obama.

World capital markets just haven't yet figured out the US government HAS been seized by madmen and chislers. Wait until enough countries start trading oil in something other than the dollar, say, gold. This is what Saddam was trying to do and so was Qadaffi. Look what happened to them.

Zimbabwe’s hyper-Inflation was a result of the monetary authority irresponsibly borrowing money to pay all its expenses and funding quasi-fiscal activities. Sound familiar? In 2009 they cound not print money fast enough. A $750,000 note would not even buy a loaf of bread.

Money printed on tiolet paper would at least be more useful.

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:Wait until enough

Quote:
Wait until enough countries start trading oil in something other than the dollar, say, gold.

There isn't enough gold in the world to handle the volume of oil trading. There aren't enough euros, pound, yen or yuan to handle the volume of oil trading. There are no alternatives to the dollar for oil trading.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
stuff wrote: Quote:Wait until

stuff wrote:

Quote:
Wait until enough countries start trading oil in something other than the dollar, say, gold.

There isn't enough gold in the world to handle the volume of oil trading. There aren't enough euros, pound, yen or yuan to handle the volume of oil trading. There are no alternatives to the dollar for oil trading.

Think again.  Oil producing nations sold oil for gold (via the US dollar convertibility factor) until 1971, when the US reneged on its promise to redeem paper dollars from other nations for gold at $35/oz (and in the last three years it was $38/oz.). From about 1950 until 1971, "oil for gold" sales averaged about $4/barrel, a time when the dollar had been losing purchasing power for 38 years (and it's lost much more since 1971).  The fact that heaven and hell has been moved to separate gold from the oil price. At today's artificial gold price, massively manipulated by the US Federal Reserve/Treasury/Wall Street, the price equilibrium of gold/oil will be impossible to maintain much longer. Only at a much higher gold price can the historic linkage between gold and oil be reestablished, as it surely will be. Unbacked paper currencies are dying worldwide, but gold is not dying anywhere. It has simply been subjected to a facade of price manipulation.

http://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/

http://rt.com/news/us-india-oil-iran-635/

You don't see this in the corporate controlled lapdog media in the US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

We invaded Iraq and Saddam is no longer with us for plotting the same scheme. The banksters of the west are pissing in their pants and doing everything they can to prevent the reversion to trading oil for gold or any other combination of US rivals currencies. And you can bet the family farm,THERE is enough gold (especially when the price triples again) and other currencies to replace the oil backed dollar. It would devistate the value of the USdollar.

http://dumpdc.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/gadhafi%E2%80%99s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar/.

The US has been like the little Dutch boy putting his fingers in the dike to prevent this from happening since before 9/11. 

Watch for the next chapter in Iran.

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:Think again. Your own

Quote:
Think again.

Your own narrative makes my point.

The U.S. dollar has not been convertible to gold since 1971. The first oil shock of 1973 saw a rush to the U.S. dollar; the second oil shock of 1979 saw a rush to the U.S. dollar, too.

Quote:
Only at a much higher gold price can the historic linkage between gold and oil be reestablished, as it surely will be.

Perhaps, but I am not convinced.

The total value of gold in the world, at today's prices, is $8.4 trillion. In the fourth quarter of 2011--a single quarter--the value of traded oil and gas was $42.2 billion. On an annual basis, that is $168 billion. At that rate, oil producers would own 100 percent of the world's gold in 50 years.

That might seem plausible, except what are oil producers going to do with all their gold? Barter is possible, but all that gold is pretty heavy and difficult to transport; $168 billion in gold bullion weighs 50 short tons. Plus, we are talking about oil trades that occur on a minute by minute basis, which makes gold transfer impractical.

Finally, the big problem with gold is the unworkability of the gold standard, which is really what you are proposing. A gold standard limits the world's currency to the value of gold, again, only about $8.4 trillion. In 2011, total world gross product was $69.1 trillion. That leaves a $61 trillion gap. Either gold prices must soar, which increases the price of oil, or the world economy must shrink by $61 trillion. The resulting economic chaos in either scenario is most improbable. 

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
Then why has the US (govt,

Then why has the US (govt, fed, treas., wall street) done everything , including invading sovereign nations and murdering their leaders to prevent this from even beginning to happen. It doesn't have to be moved around. Dollars aren't physically transfered with every transaction , it all done electronically.

You can buy physical gold(and silver) with the dollar, even from the government. I do it all the time. Not from the government though.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
stuff wrote: Quote:The only

stuff wrote:

Quote:
The only two courses of action that'd get the economy rolling again are to go Icelandic on the banksters, or mint platinum coins to pay off the debt.

Did you know that the government in Iceland restricts the names that parents can give their children to those an official list? That's freedom for ya!

Why waste platinum? Why not mint a coin made out of toe nail clippings?

Did you know the US govt, under Reagan, outlawed lawn darts? But nice job of ignoring that the term bankster was earned.

Semi permeable ...
Semi permeable memebrain's picture
stuff wrote: Quote: I guess

stuff wrote:

Quote:
I guess sarcasm serves to avoid the meaningful topics?

Oh, I am more than willing to have meaningful discussion, but when posters use terms like "banksters," I see little prospect of rational discourse.

Private bankers are not "gangsters," as the epitath clearly suggests. To say that private banks and the U.S. government are one and the same thing is preposterous and not worthy of a reasoned response.

 

 Then I guess then I will make statements as opposed to a reasonable discussion. The simplest and most obvious element is the revolving door. Bank presidents and CEO's sit on supposed regulatory commisions more often than not. Campaign contributions and corporate lobbyists are at an all time high It's really not rocket science to see clearly that what you claim is ludicrous is in fact the cold reality. If you want to say that is merely influence and that the structures of private and public somehow remain intact, then I guess we can agree that we probably do have little chance for rational discourse

Scappoose
Scappoose's picture
He refuses to see or admit

He refuses to see or admit the truth even when its right there in front of him.....

http://www.frbsf.org/federalreserve/people/officers/san-francisco-board-...

Theres the Names of the San Fran Fed board of directors - 90% of which sit Concurrently (at the same time ) on the boards of the biggest bank and corporations.

Frankly its hard to have a 'rational discourse' with people who refuse Facts.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Simon Johnson author of 13

Simon Johnson author of 13 Bankers offers some clarity.

http://www.americanbankster.com/ is the libertarian take, Peter Schiff and Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, austrian austerity combined with conspiracy [the eye on the pyramid]

The nuts in the gerrymandered districts that only listen to right wing radio hucksters plan on defaulting on the debt ceiling if they can't cut medicare, medicaid and social security, because they believe the hucksters and can not be reasoned with.They are like the Allen Wests and Joe Walshes that got a district of loons..

btw, money is so cheap now, the buyers of the debt are paying us to issue it to them. If a decent infrastructure bill of about a trillion and a half had passed, the GDP would be back above 16 trillion and the deficits would shrink. The jobs for all the construction would be paying 8% FICA and Medicare, plus income tax. Revenue should go back to 20% like it did under Clinton, not 14.8% under W.

chilidog
stuff wrote: There are no

stuff wrote:

There are no alternatives to the dollar for oil trading.

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously when you post remarks like this.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
A  review of Simon Johnson's

A  review of Simon Johnson's book.

One thing congress did besides passing spending for Nascar, Goldman Sachs and something in Alaska to help hurricane Sandy victims was a rule dropped preventing bankers from using FDIC insured accounts in derivative bets. So if they lose we pay, if they win they don't have to claim it or pay tax on it.

Quote:

To put it bluntly, as this book does: the efficient-market hypothesis does not work. It never has. Markets are not self-­correcting. Left to their own devices, bankers at the biggest institutions can’t seem to stop themselves from speculating with borrowed money until they inevitably crash the system.

Johnson, a professor of entrepreneurship at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management, and Kwak, a former consultant for ­McKinsey & Company, tell this story in matter-of-fact prose. Even their discussion of derivatives is accessible to ordinary readers (most of the time). Their conclusion: during only one period over the past two centuries was government regulation sufficiently restrictive to rein in Wall Street and the bankers. “The result,” they say, “was the safest banking system that America has known in its history.” Johnson and Kwak are referring to the 50 years from the 1930s through the 1970s.

Ronald Reagan, of course, brought us back to the efficient-market hypothesis with its faith in laissez-faire — a faith embraced, to one degree or another, by all of Reagan’s successors as well. Who needs government oversight when markets correct themselves, they agreed, and so they stood by as regulations disappeared or were canceled. Even the Obama administration, seeking to revive regulation, has not easily shaken off the old faith in markets — and “13 Bankers” needles the president’s team on this point.

For example, the authors skewer Lawrence H. Summers, the director of the National Economic Council, and thus Obama’s chief economist. In 1998, while he was deputy secretary in the Clinton Treasury, he opposed the efforts of Brooksley Born, then running the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to regulate derivatives. Her efforts “provoked furious opposition, not only from Wall Street but also from the economic heavyweights of the federal government,” Johnson and Kwak write.

I call them banksters, too. I want some in jail instead of defered prosecution as Matt Taibbi has written of in Rolling Stone.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
chilidog wrote: stuff

chilidog wrote:

stuff wrote:

There are no alternatives to the dollar for oil trading.

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously when you post remarks like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:You can buy physical

Quote:
You can buy physical gold(and silver) with the dollar, even from the government. I do it all the time. Not from the government though.

I have explained elsewhere why gold is not a viable alternative to the U.S. dollar with respect to oil trading.

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:But nice job of

Quote:
But nice job of ignoring that the term bankster was earned.

I reject categorically the epiteth, "bankster." Epiteths have no place in reasoned discourse.

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:Then I guess then I

Quote:
Then I guess then I will make statements as opposed to a reasonable discussion. The simplest and most obvious element is the revolving door. Bank presidents and CEO's sit on supposed regulatory commisions more often than not. Campaign contributions and corporate lobbyists are at an all time high It's really not rocket science to see clearly that what you claim is ludicrous is in fact the cold reality. If you want to say that is merely influence and that the structures of private and public somehow remain intact, then I guess we can agree that we probably do have little chance for rational discourse

I described the epiteth, "bankster," as ludicrous, not the realtiy of corporate influence on government affairs. Drop the epiteth and I think we are in pretty much agreement.

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:Theres the Names of the

Quote:
Theres the Names of the San Fran Fed board of directors - 90% of which sit Concurrently (at the same time ) on the boards of the biggest bank and corporations.

Frankly its hard to have a 'rational discourse' with people who refuse Facts.

None of your "facts" merit the epiteth, "bankster."

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:I'm having a hard time

Quote:
I'm having a hard time taking you seriously when you post remarks like this.

Please describe your viable alternative.

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:Did you know the US

Quote:
Did you know the US govt, under Reagan, outlawed lawn darts?

Lawn darts can be injurious. What the hell harm can come of naming a child something other than is permitted by a government?

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:I call them banksters,

Quote:
I call them banksters, too. I want some in jail instead of defered prosecution as Matt Taibbi has written of in Rolling Stone.

Nothing in your excerpt comes even close to prosecutable criminal offenses, much less organized thuggery, which is to say, gangsterism.

What is the matter with posters on this Board? Are people so blinded by their hatred that they resort to extreme exaggerations instead of reasoned discourse?

stuff
stuff's picture
Wikipedia? Wikipedia isn't

Wikipedia? Wikipedia isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Scholars do not waste their time posting their research on Wikipedia. There is nothing to prevent the Iranian secret police from posting whatever they like on Wikipedia.

I categorically reject Wikipedia as an authority on anything; nobody will impress me with arguments based on Wikipedia links.

Posters on this Board should find more reliable sources of information if they wish to engage in reasoned discourse.

Scappoose
Scappoose's picture
We can take the horse to

We can take the horse to water but we can't make him drink.

Google BILL BLACK if you want proof.  But I'm sure you have a reason why Black also doesn't know what he is talking about.  When in fact the clueless one is the one who won't accept any sort of proof offered and instead stays Willfully ignorant.

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:Google BILL BLACK if

Quote:
Google BILL BLACK if you want proof. But I'm sure you have a reason why Black also doesn't know what he is talking about. When in fact the clueless one is the one who won't accept any sort of proof offered and instead stays Willfully ignorant.

I have not followed this story. Can you summarize its relevance to the topic, please?

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:The Best Way to Rob a

Quote:
The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One

Oh, okay, William Black.

Nobody--certainly not I--pretends that there is no fraud or corruption in the banking industry, but that doesn't differentiate banking from industrial enterprises, mining, agriculture, health care, entertainment, insurance, or, for that matter, government.

If you view banking as no different from extortion, prostitution, gambling, rackets, and murder for hire, then by all means use the epiteth, "bankster."

I reject the comparison and would appreciate your tolerance for my opinion just as I try to tolerate your opinion. We can differ on this point without name calling or attacking one another's integrity.

Scappoose
Scappoose's picture
I call them Banksters because

I call them Banksters because the law breaking is industry wide and goes right to the top of the largest banking firms. 

But I refuse to be your Research Assistant when it appears you simply Do Not want to know - 

Google Bill Black and just read a few of his multiple articles detailing the Financial Terrorism the Banksters engage in.

Bill Black was the lead investigator for the Savings and Loan thefts - he Jailed many Banksters.  He is an EXPERT in the field.

Be informed or not - thats up to each one of us personally.  .

stuff
stuff's picture
Quote:But I refuse to be your

Quote:
But I refuse to be your Research Assistant ..

Then don't bring up obscure facts whose connection with the Thread Topic is unclear at best.

Anyway, I did my own research and you can find my response, above.