EPTBanks - Somebody more educated fill me in? - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
lumir
1 Post
| ||
|
baba1
Canada355 Posts
All our I.O.U are belong to the Rothschilds / Rockefeller There we go  User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On October 27 2012 03:58 baba1 wrote: Ill sum it up for ya All our I.O.U are belong to the Rothschilds / Rockefeller There we go I was wondering how long antisemitic bullshit would crop up in this thread and here we go. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: look at you, antisemite, thinking all bankers are jewish.. jeez man :O Some Jews are very nice people and are not bankers at all! | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 27 2012 03:56 lumir wrote: Please WAKE UP! I used to come here all the time and I KNOW good people are here! Please watch this to understand the ENTIRE WORLD has been deceived. The system is corrupt! http://settheredline.com/ This one's better. It has Nicolas Cage in it. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
*slowly walks away from conversation grinning* User was warned for this post | ||
|
contraSol
United States185 Posts
| ||
|
Vivax
22424 Posts
Banks are able to create a certain amount of money designated for lending depending on a fractional reserve rate that gets handed over to the central bank (officially as security) when the money is created. What we are seeing now is more or less an artificial deflation. Now banks stopped lending money, so the fractional reserve remains in their accounts. I have a german "explanation" from the Bundesbank, which is written in a pretty obfuscated way, but still enough to see that this explanation fits in there. There is a youtube vid about its president, Jens Weidmann speaking deliberately about the money out of thin air. Page 70: https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/Veroeffentlichungen/Buch_Broschuere_Flyer/schule_und_bildung_geld_und_geldpolitik_schuelerbuch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile Excuse me if I'm too lazy to translate that passage. The questions should be: Where did all the bailout money go if it hasn't been spent for the national economies? Why are banks withholding loans? Are they expecting a burst and hoarding safeties? Is an artificial crisis needed to push a political agenda? If banks are so important for the national economy, and they've been saved with tax money, then why are we now in a debt crisis? Why did we (they) choose a debt crisis instead of a bank crisis? Why trade the crisis of a few for the crisis of many? I don't know how it is in the US, but southern europe is suffering a lot. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 27 2012 04:34 contraSol wrote: ... and there it goes. I need a drink. there's a use-value if I ever saw one! | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On October 27 2012 04:15 sam!zdat wrote: Rockefeller was a baptist... edit: look at you, antisemite, thinking all bankers are jewish.. jeez man :O Some Jews are very nice people and are not bankers at all! If you are ignorant of the long and rich history of antisemitism under the banner of "Rothschild bankers control all the money" then you should address that. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 27 2012 03:09 sam!zdat wrote: Ok. So in the financial community, what do people think about the idea that there is a problem besides something that can be fixed by straight-up monetary policy and, if so, what do they generally think that problem might be? Because QE is just what you do when you can't lower the interest rate any more, right? I only kind of understand what that is. One of the hardest hit sectors of the economy is the housing sector. Normally in a recovery new home construction takes off as interest rates fall and mortgage payments become affordable. That's not happening this time, in part, because we built too many houses during the boom and so there is no great need to build new ones. Eventually as the population increases and old homes fall apart the problem will resolve itself. Lower interest rates will help the turnaround happen quicker. But low interest rates, by themselves don't correct the underlying problem and so do not, by themselves, fix anything. The only other option to waiting for the problem to resolve itself is for a different part of the economy to make up the difference. Consumers can go crazy buying Apple products, cars and Chinese food (or whatever) or the government can spend a bunch of money or we improve our trade balance. The problem with consumers or the government spending more is if the spending is sustainable / worthwhile or not. If no then over the long run you don't end up fixing / improving anything. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 27 2012 04:36 Sub40APM wrote: If you are ignorant of the long and rich history of antisemitism under the banner of "Rothschild bankers control all the money" then you should address that. let's not start this. You're the one brought up anti-semitism without any real reason, the financial class does in fact control a large amount of the world's wealth, yes the Rothschilds are some of them, and yes it's possible to be concerned about this without being an anti-semite. | ||
|
Kontys
Finland659 Posts
Why is the market clearing rate of interest currently negative? A much more difficult question, but it's mostly the effect of the depression. Most significantly it is due to lack of demand in the economy caused by shrinking/flat national income. Which in turn was caused by a deep negative economic shock that was the October 2008 implosion. Made worse by the fact that recoveries following financial crises are never fast or easy. Monetary policy has little traction under these circumstances (the interest rate won't go below zero!). If you wanted to do something, it would have to be fiscal policy. Potentially, raising the rate of inflation in the economy could produce positive effects, but it would be through a different mechanism: Under higher rate of inflation, the aggregate levels of debt owed by the nation's consumers would lose value, and allow for consumers to buy more stuff. edit: Wording | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 27 2012 04:40 Kontys wrote: and allow for consumers to buy more stuff. why do all the analyses end here? Is this the point? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 27 2012 04:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote: One of the hardest hit sectors of the economy is the housing sector. Normally in a recovery new home construction takes off as interest rates fall and mortgage payments become affordable. That's not happening this time, in part, because we built too many houses during the boom and so there is no great need to build new ones. Eventually as the population increases and old homes fall apart the problem will resolve itself. Lower interest rates will help the turnaround happen quicker. But low interest rates, by themselves don't correct the underlying problem and so do not, by themselves, fix anything. The only other option to waiting for the problem to resolve itself is for a different part of the economy to make up the difference. Consumers can go crazy buying Apple products, cars and Chinese food (or whatever) or the government can spend a bunch of money or we improve our trade balance. The problem with consumers or the government spending more is if the spending is sustainable / worthwhile or not. If no then over the long run you don't end up fixing / improving anything. so does this mean that the real problem with the economy is "nothing particularly useful to do"? | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On October 27 2012 04:40 sam!zdat wrote: let's not start this. You're the one brought up anti-semitism without any real reason, the financial class does in fact control a large amount of the world's wealth, yes the Rothschilds are some of them, and yes it's possible to be concerned about this without being an anti-semite. This. The amount of wealth accumulation by the financial class, and the stranglehold they have on virtually every part of of the world, is sickening. It has nothing to do with nationality, religious beliefs, etc. | ||
|
Kontys
Finland659 Posts
On October 27 2012 04:42 sam!zdat wrote: why do all the analyses end here? Is this the point? The thing is, it's not about "buying more stuff". It's about bringing the economy back to it's normal operating level. We are currently operating well below the potential level of output / consumption, which in turn means a lot of people will be out of work, and much other general misery. The economy is like a giant machine which has overheated, and is slowly getting going again. Strong consumer demand is what will get it going properly, because then businesses will be able to invest, knowing that they will have the sales to make money and not go bust. (One of the major discoveries of the 20th century in macro economics was that a negative shock leads to a deadly spiral of bad things leading to more bad things leading to more bad things.. leading to the Great Depression. We've avoided this by recapitalising the financial sector and cutting the spiral shirt there) It's not so much about living standards as it is about the economy being able to offer the average guy the means by which to lead a decent life. It's about jobs, really. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
Which is to say, I don't think the "normal operating level" is in fact a "normal operating level," I think it's a historically situated state of affairs which is coming to an end and we are willfully oblivious to this... edit: just look at how the economy wants to make things that fall apart quickly and have to be replaced, as opposed to making things that last for a long time and therefore preclude future demand... that's not rational at all. | ||
|
Kontys
Finland659 Posts
On October 27 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote: so does this mean that the real problem with the economy is "nothing particularly useful to do"? That's not exactly how it works.. to go back to what I wrote a moment ago, the problem with recessions/depressions is falling aggregate demand due to negative shock(s). This afflicts the entire economy, not just housing, even though housing is a prominent example (especially in this crisis!). When consumers do not have money in their pockets, businesses cut down prices and cut down wages, but on the society level of things, this further depresses aggregate demand. Soon no-one has enough money to use on anything. The spiral spirals down and we have a depression, a state of reality where the society's economic activity falls simply due to the imperfections of the money system of exchange. | ||
|
Prplppleatr
United States1518 Posts
Reserve requirements are a small percentage of the actual amounts deposited. If people get super scared and there is a massive run on a bank, but the bank doesn't have the reserves, then it can cause a panic and eventually put the bank out of business. So to combat that chance (which was relatively high at that time) they held massive reserves because they were scared--of aforementioned 'run' among other factors--and didn't know what would happen. Ie, Better to be safe than sorry. | ||
| ||
