How does a law student have no idea how mortgages work?
sad, really.
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
On September 26 2011 12:13 Dapper_Cad wrote: Good loans? Bad loans? Who knows? What is known is that the decision to loan all that money was made without the knowledge or scrutiny of the public which now hold the debt.
Sounds peachy.
No, the banks hold the debt! And should they not pay the money back (highly unlikely) it's an issue for the Fed not the taxpayers. Fed action does not involve taxpayer money and it is SUPPOSED to be secret - it's all part of the "bank runs are bad" thing.
What am I misunderstanding here?
The entity that is owed the money holds the debt, the fed holds the debt and the fed's debt is public debt:
"Debt held by the public comprises securities held by investors outside the federal government, including that held by investors, the Federal Reserve System and foreign, state and local governments."
Seriously what have I misunderstood? Help me out.
To the Fed money lended to banks is an asset. To the banks it's a liability.
The Fed is a separate entity from the US government. When they lend money it's new money - it does not come from taxpayers.
What is the asset that the Fed holds if it's not debt?
If the public don't hold the debt then why is it included in public debt figures? Could you provide some data on historical public debt without Fed held Debt included?
OK, poor wording on my end. I was trying to make the distinction that government actions (TARP etc) involves taxpayer money whereas Fed action does not.
The money they are owed IS debt, but unlike TARP the Fed didn't have to go out and borrow money to then relend it out to save the banks.
I brought this up because someone commented that the Fed threw $16 trillion to the banks to bail them out without concern for taxpayers. Given how absolutely huge this number is it tends to freak people out which isn't necessary as taxpayers are not at risk for a variety of reasons.
Sorry for the confusion.
I'm sorry myself, I'm not interested in getting at you. I enjoy TL the most when I'm finding new stuff out or when I witness that almost alchemical rarity, someone changing their mind (It happens, I've seen it.)
I'm not an Economist so I'm cheating a little and using the brains of others. The $16 trillion is included in public debt figures, I assume there is a reason for that, you claim that the $16 T isn't public debt, and I see your point, it's the Fed that printed the money. So are the figures claimed as public debt, in fact, badly inaccurate? Aren't they the figures that are used as justification for the Neo-Liberal charge on public spending?
I can't help but suspect that you are missing something somewhere.
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
on my last post, i just want to clarify that i personally have screwed up, sorta, in buying things i don't need and then needing to spend money for medical issues. i have a strange occupation where i don't have health insurance or dental insurance, and since taking the job, i've broken a thumb, both elbows and needed two root canals (brush and floss kids).
this has cost me about $10,000 total. now, when i broke my elbows, i actually made the decision to not go to the ER because it was cost prohibitive, so i had to carefully wait 24 hours to find a cheaper doctor to do the x-rays and what not. but i have a nice TV, two nice computers, a nice apartment in manhattan, etc. i only have myself to blame.
many americans have a lot. but many americans want more.
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
I hope you're talking about large families, because if someone can't live decently off 40k they're doing something very wrong.
edit: For reference, I just got a job netting about 35k a year and will be moving out on my own soon. After my bills(rent, cable, internet, phone, car, ect) I still have about $1000 left for food/gas/luxuries.
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
I hope you're talking about large families, because if someone can't live decently off 40k they're doing something very wrong.
While I agree with you, I also understand the other guy's point that 40K isn't really enough to afford everything Americans think they are entitled to. This may be worded harshly, and I certainly don't mean it to be harsh, though I think it might be close to the truth.
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
I hope you're talking about large families, because if someone can't live decently off 40k they're doing something very wrong.
edit: For reference, I just got a job netting about 35k a year and will be moving out on my own soon. After my bills(rent, cable, internet, phone, car, ect) I still have about $1000 left for food/gas/luxuries.
congrats on your new job, i hope you work hard, do well, and gradually work your way up to greater riches.
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
I hope you're talking about large families, because if someone can't live decently off 40k they're doing something very wrong.
While I agree with you, I also understand the other guy's point that 40K isn't really enough to afford everything Americans think they are entitled to. This may be worded harshly, and I certainly don't mean it to be harsh, though I think it might be close to the truth.
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
I hope you're talking about large families, because if someone can't live decently off 40k they're doing something very wrong.
edit: For reference, I just got a job netting about 35k a year and will be moving out on my own soon. After my bills(rent, cable, internet, phone, car, ect) I still have about $1000 left for food/gas/luxuries.
congrats on your new job, i hope you work hard, do well, and gradually work your way up to greater riches.
I don't know what every American feels like they're entitled to, maybe it's a huge house with an Escalade out front, and I know I'm not your average consumer, but I'll have all the average amenities anyone else has. Of course, there is a start up cost involved. None of those expenses cover the cost of getting furniture/computer/washer/dryer/ect, but my point is that you can live quite well at 40k a year unless you live in a place where it costs $1500 to rent a small apartment or you're trying to raise a family.
The thing is, there are a lot of reasons people should be protesting against wall street, since there are a lot of things that banks have done which they really should pay for
Unfortunately for the protestors they don't actually know or understand what these things are
Only people who either work in the financial industry or bother to learn a lot can understand what kinds of things are corrupt and what should be protested/changed
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
I hope you're talking about large families, because if someone can't live decently off 40k they're doing something very wrong.
While I agree with you, I also understand the other guy's point that 40K isn't really enough to afford everything Americans think they are entitled to. This may be worded harshly, and I certainly don't mean it to be harsh, though I think it might be close to the truth.
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
I hope you're talking about large families, because if someone can't live decently off 40k they're doing something very wrong.
edit: For reference, I just got a job netting about 35k a year and will be moving out on my own soon. After my bills(rent, cable, internet, phone, car, ect) I still have about $1000 left for food/gas/luxuries.
congrats on your new job, i hope you work hard, do well, and gradually work your way up to greater riches.
I don't know what every American feels like they're entitled to, maybe it's a huge house with an Escalade out front, and I know I'm not your average consumer, but I'll have all the average amenities anyone else has. Of course, there is a start up cost involved. None of those expenses cover the cost of getting furniture/computer/washer/dryer/ect, but my point is that you can live quite well at 40k a year unless you live in a place where it costs $1500 to rent a small apartment.
And thanks.
40k/year is the median income, that means half of the people make less than that.
Also that doesn't factor 10% unemployment rate, after unemployment benefits that drops the average closer to 38k/year (this completely ignores long term unemployed, which would probably drop this closer to 35k/year)
Also Also, considering age, the average 25-30 year old makes around 28k/year after unemployment is factored in. 28k is already cutting things pretty tight, but try living one standard deviation below average and making more like 22k/year. Can you survive on 22k/year? You sure can, as long as your 20 year old used car rarely breaks, you don't get sick or hurt too often, and you eat a lot of top ramen.
The point isn't so much that some amount of people are getting crushed at the bottom, it's what a huge percentage of people, especially recent graduates are being crushed into poverty.
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
I hope you're talking about large families, because if someone can't live decently off 40k they're doing something very wrong.
While I agree with you, I also understand the other guy's point that 40K isn't really enough to afford everything Americans think they are entitled to. This may be worded harshly, and I certainly don't mean it to be harsh, though I think it might be close to the truth.
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
I hope you're talking about large families, because if someone can't live decently off 40k they're doing something very wrong.
edit: For reference, I just got a job netting about 35k a year and will be moving out on my own soon. After my bills(rent, cable, internet, phone, car, ect) I still have about $1000 left for food/gas/luxuries.
congrats on your new job, i hope you work hard, do well, and gradually work your way up to greater riches.
I don't know what every American feels like they're entitled to, maybe it's a huge house with an Escalade out front, and I know I'm not your average consumer, but I'll have all the average amenities anyone else has. Of course, there is a start up cost involved. None of those expenses cover the cost of getting furniture/computer/washer/dryer/ect, but my point is that you can live quite well at 40k a year unless you live in a place where it costs $1500 to rent a small apartment.
And thanks.
40k/year is the median income, that means half of the people make less than that.
Also that doesn't factor 10% unemployment rate, after unemployment benefits that drops the average closer to 38k/year (this completely ignores long term unemployed, which would probably drop this closer to 35k/year)
Also Also, considering age, the average 25-30 year old makes around 28k/year after unemployment is factored in. 28k is already cutting things pretty tight, but try living one standard deviation below average and making more like 22k/year. Can you survive on 22k/year? You sure can, as long as your 20 year old used car rarely breaks, you don't get sick or hurt too often, and you eat a lot of top ramen.
The point isn't so much that some amount of people are getting crushed at the bottom, it's what a huge percentage of people, especially recent graduates are being crushed into poverty.
I was thinking about it like that. When he said 'average American' I'm think the average person making 40k, not the median income and standard deviations below it. Of course living off 22k a year is hard. So yea, if the average American has to make 40k so that the poorest can barely survive, I get it - I just didn't interpret it like that.
And I won't argue that the cost of living is going up while the average income is staying the same.
On September 26 2011 12:13 Dapper_Cad wrote: Good loans? Bad loans? Who knows? What is known is that the decision to loan all that money was made without the knowledge or scrutiny of the public which now hold the debt.
Sounds peachy.
No, the banks hold the debt! And should they not pay the money back (highly unlikely) it's an issue for the Fed not the taxpayers. Fed action does not involve taxpayer money and it is SUPPOSED to be secret - it's all part of the "bank runs are bad" thing.
What am I misunderstanding here?
The entity that is owed the money holds the debt, the fed holds the debt and the fed's debt is public debt:
"Debt held by the public comprises securities held by investors outside the federal government, including that held by investors, the Federal Reserve System and foreign, state and local governments."
Seriously what have I misunderstood? Help me out.
To the Fed money lended to banks is an asset. To the banks it's a liability.
The Fed is a separate entity from the US government. When they lend money it's new money - it does not come from taxpayers.
What is the asset that the Fed holds if it's not debt?
If the public don't hold the debt then why is it included in public debt figures? Could you provide some data on historical public debt without Fed held Debt included?
OK, poor wording on my end. I was trying to make the distinction that government actions (TARP etc) involves taxpayer money whereas Fed action does not.
The money they are owed IS debt, but unlike TARP the Fed didn't have to go out and borrow money to then relend it out to save the banks.
I brought this up because someone commented that the Fed threw $16 trillion to the banks to bail them out without concern for taxpayers. Given how absolutely huge this number is it tends to freak people out which isn't necessary as taxpayers are not at risk for a variety of reasons.
Sorry for the confusion.
I'm sorry myself, I'm not interested in getting at you. I enjoy TL the most when I'm finding new stuff out or when I witness that almost alchemical rarity, someone changing their mind (It happens, I've seen it.)
I'm not an Economist so I'm cheating a little and using the brains of others. The $16 trillion is included in public debt figures, I assume there is a reason for that, you claim that the $16 T isn't public debt, and I see your point, it's the Fed that printed the money. So are the figures claimed as public debt, in fact, badly inaccurate? Aren't they the figures that are used as justification for the Neo-Liberal charge on public spending?
I can't help but suspect that you are missing something somewhere.
Fed Lending:
Well first the $16 trillion was largely, if not entirely repaid. The Fed usually lends in very short-term durations (24hr, week, month) so any lending they did gets repaid very quickly.
Second, any lending they did that is still outstanding would not be in the public debt figures. Public debt figures is money owed by the government to outside lenders. The Fed is reverse - money owed by outside borrowers to the Fed.
Right now there's about $2 trillion in debt on the Fed's balance sheet. Of that $1 trillion is us treasuries. That $1 trillion in treasuries is either counted as public debt (gross debt) or not (net debt) depending on who you ask.
Now, keep in mind like I've already said that $2 trillion is not owed by the Fed to anybody - rather they owe it to the Fed.
--------------------------------------------
Public Debt:
Now, currently total US debt is about $14 trillion (gross). This is money owed by the Treasury to people outside the government who gave the government $14 trillion in cash and now have a claim (bond) to get repaid with interest.
This is separate from any Fed issues. The Fed (central bank) and Treasury (US Federal Government) are not the same.
On September 26 2011 12:13 Dapper_Cad wrote: Good loans? Bad loans? Who knows? What is known is that the decision to loan all that money was made without the knowledge or scrutiny of the public which now hold the debt.
Sounds peachy.
No, the banks hold the debt! And should they not pay the money back (highly unlikely) it's an issue for the Fed not the taxpayers. Fed action does not involve taxpayer money and it is SUPPOSED to be secret - it's all part of the "bank runs are bad" thing.
What am I misunderstanding here?
The entity that is owed the money holds the debt, the fed holds the debt and the fed's debt is public debt:
"Debt held by the public comprises securities held by investors outside the federal government, including that held by investors, the Federal Reserve System and foreign, state and local governments."
Seriously what have I misunderstood? Help me out.
To the Fed money lended to banks is an asset. To the banks it's a liability.
The Fed is a separate entity from the US government. When they lend money it's new money - it does not come from taxpayers.
What is the asset that the Fed holds if it's not debt?
If the public don't hold the debt then why is it included in public debt figures? Could you provide some data on historical public debt without Fed held Debt included?
OK, poor wording on my end. I was trying to make the distinction that government actions (TARP etc) involves taxpayer money whereas Fed action does not.
The money they are owed IS debt, but unlike TARP the Fed didn't have to go out and borrow money to then relend it out to save the banks.
I brought this up because someone commented that the Fed threw $16 trillion to the banks to bail them out without concern for taxpayers. Given how absolutely huge this number is it tends to freak people out which isn't necessary as taxpayers are not at risk for a variety of reasons.
Sorry for the confusion.
I'm sorry myself, I'm not interested in getting at you. I enjoy TL the most when I'm finding new stuff out or when I witness that almost alchemical rarity, someone changing their mind (It happens, I've seen it.)
I'm not an Economist so I'm cheating a little and using the brains of others. The $16 trillion is included in public debt figures, I assume there is a reason for that, you claim that the $16 T isn't public debt, and I see your point, it's the Fed that printed the money. So are the figures claimed as public debt, in fact, badly inaccurate? Aren't they the figures that are used as justification for the Neo-Liberal charge on public spending?
I can't help but suspect that you are missing something somewhere.
Fed Lending:
Well first the $16 trillion was largely, if not entirely repaid. The Fed usually lends in very short-term durations (24hr, week, month) so any lending they did gets repaid very quickly.
Second, any lending they did that is still outstanding would not be in the public debt figures. Public debt figures is money owed by the government to outside lenders. The Fed is reverse - money owed by outside borrowers to the Fed.
Right now there's about $2 trillion in debt on the Fed's balance sheet. Of that $1 trillion is us treasuries. That $1 trillion in treasuries is either counted as public debt (gross debt) or not (net debt) depending on who you ask.
Now, keep in mind like I've already said that $2 trillion is not owed by the Fed to anybody - rather they owe it to the Fed.
--------------------------------------------
Public Debt:
Now, currently total US debt is about $14 trillion (gross). This is money owed by the Treasury to people outside the government who gave the government $14 trillion in cash and now have a claim (bond) to get repaid with interest.
This is separate from any Fed issues. The Fed (central bank) and Treasury (US Federal Government) are not the same.
Hi friend,
This is my first post, so if I make any mistakes don`t make a big fuss about it.
The Fed has been the main supplier of cash for the US government for quite a few years now. Without the Fed financing the US deficit, there would not have been the:
a. easy credit b. over-consumption c. negative savings rates d. inflated asset values e. inflation that doesn't show up necessarily in consumer prices, but rather in asset prices.
If the banks buy T-bonds and T-notes from the US government and then flip them over to the FED, isn't that as if the FED bought the US government bonds to fund the deficit ?
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
I hope you're talking about large families, because if someone can't live decently off 40k they're doing something very wrong.
While I agree with you, I also understand the other guy's point that 40K isn't really enough to afford everything Americans think they are entitled to. This may be worded harshly, and I certainly don't mean it to be harsh, though I think it might be close to the truth.
without knowing any details, seems to me that a better answer would be find a job, save up money, live within means, and be happy.
beats spending a fortune on education, going broke and then screaming about it, in my opinion.
the list of people that want things is a lot longer than the list of people that want to work
Your response intrigues me as many on both sides of the political isle acknowledge that the main problems facing the country are education, rising healthcare costs, jobs that do not pay enough, and staggering costs of education costs that continue to rise higher than said healthcare costs. Wages have pretty much been frozen since the 80's while costs of living has steadily risen, I believe the average American would need to earn around 77k just to meet that end IIRC, it is around 40k last time I checked.
Youth Unemployment is never good for any nation and in the U.S. it is very high near WWII end high. Education is going up, nobody is hiring, costs are being cut by employers, and the cost of living continues to rise while poverty also climbs. It is a recipe for disaster.
People have a right to be pissed and there isn't a reset button anywhere in sight.
i respectfully disagree. i believe that the main problem in this country is that we spend money on things we don't need today in lieu of saving money for things we need. then when we need money, say, for a medical issue, we say "oh, i don't have any money, healthcare costs are too high"
i'm guessing that plenty of people survive on 40k. if i'm correct, i'm also guessing that those people do without luxuries such as cable television, high speed internet, smart phones, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy purses, and as a side issue, don't have too many kids (really a separate issue but something i think about a lot).
people have the right to be pissed off, but it won't get them very far, and if they do get something it will be at the detriment of us all
I hope you're talking about large families, because if someone can't live decently off 40k they're doing something very wrong.
edit: For reference, I just got a job netting about 35k a year and will be moving out on my own soon. After my bills(rent, cable, internet, phone, car, ect) I still have about $1000 left for food/gas/luxuries.
congrats on your new job, i hope you work hard, do well, and gradually work your way up to greater riches.
I don't know what every American feels like they're entitled to, maybe it's a huge house with an Escalade out front, and I know I'm not your average consumer, but I'll have all the average amenities anyone else has. Of course, there is a start up cost involved. None of those expenses cover the cost of getting furniture/computer/washer/dryer/ect, but my point is that you can live quite well at 40k a year unless you live in a place where it costs $1500 to rent a small apartment.
And thanks.
40k/year is the median income, that means half of the people make less than that.
Also that doesn't factor 10% unemployment rate, after unemployment benefits that drops the average closer to 38k/year (this completely ignores long term unemployed, which would probably drop this closer to 35k/year)
Also Also, considering age, the average 25-30 year old makes around 28k/year after unemployment is factored in. 28k is already cutting things pretty tight, but try living one standard deviation below average and making more like 22k/year. Can you survive on 22k/year? You sure can, as long as your 20 year old used car rarely breaks, you don't get sick or hurt too often, and you eat a lot of top ramen.
The point isn't so much that some amount of people are getting crushed at the bottom, it's what a huge percentage of people, especially recent graduates are being crushed into poverty.
As someone who is finally bumping up the median wage just a little, with none of the debt from getting a 6 year college degree in arts, I'll offer my 2 cents. Crap is expensive. Living responsibly on <$30k a year is pretty rough, and something little like a accident playing sports could potentially screw you for life. I broke my ankle a year or two ago playing basketball, pretty badly, and was out of work for ~2.5 months. I was lucky, my boss kept my job for when I got back, and I had insurance through the company I worked for. I know quite a few people who would have been screwed if the same thing had happened to them. Losing 2.5 months of work, plus paying for doctor bills, and potentially not having a job when you get back...........that's just how close some people live to ruin. If you live paycheck to paycheck on a cut-throat job, breaking your ankle is going to drop you $10-20k in the red. Some people already have that in credit card debt, have little to no savings, and can't take a week off work and survive, much less 3 months.
And it isn't getting better. People are doing more and more work for less money, just to keep a job. Why pay someone with a 4 year state college degree worth $10k, $70k a year when you can get a guy with a masters degree worth $200,000 to do the job for $40k a year?
The cost of education goes up, while the job market isn't improving. More and more people are leaving college with extremely expensive degrees, and find that even menial jobs are taken by people even more qualified than them.
Fortunately for me........being an electrician doesn't require a degree, just a state license, and machines always break, so I have to fix them.
On September 26 2011 00:27 purgerinho wrote: It is funny how everywhere in the world sheeps (advocats of the system) have same approach to protesters (people that aren't sheeps). All of them will say things like "hipsters", "lazy hippies", "people that need a hobby", "people that don't know why for they protests"... All of that is just showing how weak you are as a person or human being. System destroyed you and you think like it (some kind of a Borg, LOL) and you are scared when there is someone who can think by himself.
And it is so funny to read about why Wall Street is good etc. Come on, wall street is just a point, nothing else. Money is there and money is spread from there. Wall Street doesn't care about people and now people came to Wall Street just to prove a point. They don't want to be involved in bail out crap anymore and they want changes because money is spread at wrong places. I mean, look at economy of USA, it is broken, only the richest can survive. System must be changed.
You bankars and financial wise guys from this thread should involve human factor in your "money-tales" because you are missing the point. This protests will continue and this protest will go to DC, so all the culprits will be included. You know, if a criminal comes to you (and you know that person is a criminal) and aks you to do some job for him you will be involved in a crime. So, government/companies can't be apology for Wall Street.
It's embarrassing when the vanguard of this leftist protest does it on a WEEKEND and they have no demands because they have no idea what the fuck they are doing besides protesting that their degree in mongolian history isn't landing them a job.
No, this "System" provided you the computer that allowed you to post what you just did. It isn't perfect. Get over it.
The people that will change the system aren't the idiots that were protesting on wall street, it will be the middle to upper middle class that actually sustain the system in a demonstrable way. It won't be hipsters that think everyone is equal and that wishful thinking can change the world.
No, I provided it by myself. System only slows me down, like it slows millions of people.
This guy is honest and he told everything. People should fight against it.
And, just to say it, those "leftist" knows what they want and they said it, why can't you accept it? This kind of money making system at Wall Street is wrong and unhuman. Capitalism is meaner than nacism. This makes no sense anymore, to start wars because of money, to walk over the dead bodies to make money, to dream crysis (with millions in suffer) to make money. Wake up.
On September 26 2011 12:13 Dapper_Cad wrote: Good loans? Bad loans? Who knows? What is known is that the decision to loan all that money was made without the knowledge or scrutiny of the public which now hold the debt.
Sounds peachy.
No, the banks hold the debt! And should they not pay the money back (highly unlikely) it's an issue for the Fed not the taxpayers. Fed action does not involve taxpayer money and it is SUPPOSED to be secret - it's all part of the "bank runs are bad" thing.
What am I misunderstanding here?
The entity that is owed the money holds the debt, the fed holds the debt and the fed's debt is public debt:
"Debt held by the public comprises securities held by investors outside the federal government, including that held by investors, the Federal Reserve System and foreign, state and local governments."
Seriously what have I misunderstood? Help me out.
To the Fed money lended to banks is an asset. To the banks it's a liability.
The Fed is a separate entity from the US government. When they lend money it's new money - it does not come from taxpayers.
What is the asset that the Fed holds if it's not debt?
If the public don't hold the debt then why is it included in public debt figures? Could you provide some data on historical public debt without Fed held Debt included?
OK, poor wording on my end. I was trying to make the distinction that government actions (TARP etc) involves taxpayer money whereas Fed action does not.
The money they are owed IS debt, but unlike TARP the Fed didn't have to go out and borrow money to then relend it out to save the banks.
I brought this up because someone commented that the Fed threw $16 trillion to the banks to bail them out without concern for taxpayers. Given how absolutely huge this number is it tends to freak people out which isn't necessary as taxpayers are not at risk for a variety of reasons.
Sorry for the confusion.
I'm sorry myself, I'm not interested in getting at you. I enjoy TL the most when I'm finding new stuff out or when I witness that almost alchemical rarity, someone changing their mind (It happens, I've seen it.)
I'm not an Economist so I'm cheating a little and using the brains of others. The $16 trillion is included in public debt figures, I assume there is a reason for that, you claim that the $16 T isn't public debt, and I see your point, it's the Fed that printed the money. So are the figures claimed as public debt, in fact, badly inaccurate? Aren't they the figures that are used as justification for the Neo-Liberal charge on public spending?
I can't help but suspect that you are missing something somewhere.
Fed Lending:
Well first the $16 trillion was largely, if not entirely repaid. The Fed usually lends in very short-term durations (24hr, week, month) so any lending they did gets repaid very quickly.
Second, any lending they did that is still outstanding would not be in the public debt figures. Public debt figures is money owed by the government to outside lenders. The Fed is reverse - money owed by outside borrowers to the Fed.
Right now there's about $2 trillion in debt on the Fed's balance sheet. Of that $1 trillion is us treasuries. That $1 trillion in treasuries is either counted as public debt (gross debt) or not (net debt) depending on who you ask.
Now, keep in mind like I've already said that $2 trillion is not owed by the Fed to anybody - rather they owe it to the Fed.
--------------------------------------------
Public Debt:
Now, currently total US debt is about $14 trillion (gross). This is money owed by the Treasury to people outside the government who gave the government $14 trillion in cash and now have a claim (bond) to get repaid with interest.
This is separate from any Fed issues. The Fed (central bank) and Treasury (US Federal Government) are not the same.
Hi friend,
This is my first post, so if I make any mistakes don`t make a big fuss about it.
The Fed has been the main supplier of cash for the US government for quite a few years now. Without the Fed financing the US deficit, there would not have been the:
a. easy credit b. over-consumption c. negative savings rates d. inflated asset values e. inflation that doesn't show up necessarily in consumer prices, but rather in asset prices.
If the banks buy T-bonds and T-notes from the US government and then flip them over to the FED, isn't that as if the FED bought the US government bonds to fund the deficit ?
a,b,c,d,e - all fair criticisms of the Fed's monetary policy for the past decade so I won't argue. Althought it's not the deficit contributing to those points but Fed policy of low interest rates / printing money.
As far as the Fed financing the deficit I think the only area where I disagree is that the Fed's buying is temporary. Once the economy is growing / inflation rises the Fed will change from being a buyer of bonds to a seller.
On September 26 2011 00:27 purgerinho wrote: It is funny how everywhere in the world sheeps (advocats of the system) have same approach to protesters (people that aren't sheeps). All of them will say things like "hipsters", "lazy hippies", "people that need a hobby", "people that don't know why for they protests"... All of that is just showing how weak you are as a person or human being. System destroyed you and you think like it (some kind of a Borg, LOL) and you are scared when there is someone who can think by himself.
And it is so funny to read about why Wall Street is good etc. Come on, wall street is just a point, nothing else. Money is there and money is spread from there. Wall Street doesn't care about people and now people came to Wall Street just to prove a point. They don't want to be involved in bail out crap anymore and they want changes because money is spread at wrong places. I mean, look at economy of USA, it is broken, only the richest can survive. System must be changed.
You bankars and financial wise guys from this thread should involve human factor in your "money-tales" because you are missing the point. This protests will continue and this protest will go to DC, so all the culprits will be included. You know, if a criminal comes to you (and you know that person is a criminal) and aks you to do some job for him you will be involved in a crime. So, government/companies can't be apology for Wall Street.
It's embarrassing when the vanguard of this leftist protest does it on a WEEKEND and they have no demands because they have no idea what the fuck they are doing besides protesting that their degree in mongolian history isn't landing them a job.
No, this "System" provided you the computer that allowed you to post what you just did. It isn't perfect. Get over it.
The people that will change the system aren't the idiots that were protesting on wall street, it will be the middle to upper middle class that actually sustain the system in a demonstrable way. It won't be hipsters that think everyone is equal and that wishful thinking can change the world.
No, I provided it by myself. System only slows me down, like it slows millions of people.
This guy is honest and he told everything. People should fight against it.
And, just to say it, those "leftist" knows what they want and they said it, why can't you accept it? This kind of money making system at Wall Street is wrong and unhuman. Capitalism is meaner than nacism. This makes no sense anymore, to start wars because of money, to walk over the dead bodies to make money, to dream crysis (with millions in suffer) to make money. Wake up.
But is that capitalism or human nature? I would think the latter since there are always people who will profit over dead bodies in every economic system humans have had. I don't think that's capitalism and it's pretty far fetched to blame wall street for that.
On September 26 2011 00:27 purgerinho wrote: It is funny how everywhere in the world sheeps (advocats of the system) have same approach to protesters (people that aren't sheeps). All of them will say things like "hipsters", "lazy hippies", "people that need a hobby", "people that don't know why for they protests"... All of that is just showing how weak you are as a person or human being. System destroyed you and you think like it (some kind of a Borg, LOL) and you are scared when there is someone who can think by himself.
And it is so funny to read about why Wall Street is good etc. Come on, wall street is just a point, nothing else. Money is there and money is spread from there. Wall Street doesn't care about people and now people came to Wall Street just to prove a point. They don't want to be involved in bail out crap anymore and they want changes because money is spread at wrong places. I mean, look at economy of USA, it is broken, only the richest can survive. System must be changed.
You bankars and financial wise guys from this thread should involve human factor in your "money-tales" because you are missing the point. This protests will continue and this protest will go to DC, so all the culprits will be included. You know, if a criminal comes to you (and you know that person is a criminal) and aks you to do some job for him you will be involved in a crime. So, government/companies can't be apology for Wall Street.
It's embarrassing when the vanguard of this leftist protest does it on a WEEKEND and they have no demands because they have no idea what the fuck they are doing besides protesting that their degree in mongolian history isn't landing them a job.
No, this "System" provided you the computer that allowed you to post what you just did. It isn't perfect. Get over it.
The people that will change the system aren't the idiots that were protesting on wall street, it will be the middle to upper middle class that actually sustain the system in a demonstrable way. It won't be hipsters that think everyone is equal and that wishful thinking can change the world.
No, I provided it by myself. System only slows me down, like it slows millions of people.
This guy is honest and he told everything. People should fight against it.
And, just to say it, those "leftist" knows what they want and they said it, why can't you accept it? This kind of money making system at Wall Street is wrong and unhuman. Capitalism is meaner than nacism. This makes no sense anymore, to start wars because of money, to walk over the dead bodies to make money, to dream crysis (with millions in suffer) to make money. Wake up.
But is that capitalism or human nature? I would think the latter since there are always people who will profit over dead bodies in every economic system humans have had. I don't think that's capitalism and it's pretty far fetched to blame wall street for that.
Hahahaha Human Nature what garbage are you ousting, many Scientist disagree with your fallacy.
For example Dr Robert Saposlky Professor of Neurological Science, Stanford University
Dr. James Gilligan Former Director: Center for the Study of Violence, Harvard Medical School
Dr. Gabor Maté Physician, Author Portland Society
Richard Wilkinson Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology, University of Nottingham
EPT
