SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: neolib who wrote (251339)6/1/2010 7:51:45 PM
From: Skeeter BugRead Replies (1) of 306849
 
neolib, a couple points...

1. there is no fiscal restraint now.
2. we pay a trillion dollars in wealth for interest on the national debt with no fiscal restraint in place (over the course of about 3 years now, but it could easily go to a trillion per year with 8% interest rates).

now, is that system better than...

1. there is no fiscal restraint in the new system.
2. we pay $0 in interest to people who do nothing of value for america.

the latter is clearly better.

to your question, i never said decreasing the cost of money would increase restraint.

what i said was that the people who vote in the elected officials are the ones who need to impose restraint by voting out people who treat the money supply irresponsibly.

look, 99% of the people opposed the banker bail out. it didn't matter, the bankers paid themselves trillions and the people were powerless to do anything about it directly.

the fed has authoritarian rule over money issues.

think financial stalin.

this is not good for america. if congress had to make the call and 99% of their constituents told them to vote "no" or they were gone, maybe the banks wouldn't have been bailed out.

at least we could do something and go after the DECISION MAKERS.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext