Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (97053)	4/26/2009 2:03:32 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	5 Recommendations Respond to of 116555

>>What would have happened to our banks if the government had not bailed them out?<< first off, you've fallen into the trap the oligarchy set... the choice is not bailout or no bailout. there are 1 million choices in between. for example, if AIG had gone down, goldman sachs would've lost $13 billion. would that have caused GS to collapse or would it have just been a bad loss and no bonuses forthcoming like the $500k+ they set aside IN Q1 ALONE to pay bonuses? even if $13 billion would have taken down GS, how about $6 billion? nobody asked what kind of loss was acceptable BECAUSE THIS WAS ABOUT GETTING PAID 100 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR AND NOT TAKING ANY DMN LOSS AT ALL! these are mobster style GREED BAGS! anyway, some rich and powerful gamblers would have been financially hurt - at least as far as future income is concerned. not many would sell their $34 million mansion. youtube.com the bushevics used an old tactic on you - get you scared so you'll roll over and hand over your money. they did it to go to iraq, gore does it with GW and obama followed right in the footsteps of the bushevics. they could have unwound the banks and provided capital to the healthy ones - the ones that didn't lever 30-1 and buy and sell MBSes and insurance on the MBSes they knew* was total crap. "Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters." internal wall street memo, 12/15/06. hulu.com >>And who's fault was it that the banks went bankrupt?<< it was primarily the fault of the bankers who are now getting trillions of the common man's wealth. government was bought and paid for by these same bankers who wanted to turn banking into a highly leveraged casino... one where they kept all the massive profits and then transferred their massive losses to the common man. youtube.com youtube.com "they really do fool the credulous." it has worked like a charm, no? don't pay any attention to what these pychopathic liars say, pay 100% attention to WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO. they are in the process of running the largest reverse robin hood scheme in the history of earth - transferring trillions upon trillions of dollars from the common man to billionaire bankers. the democrats and republicans played along with the oligarch and rescinded glass-steagall and passed a derivatives "modernization" act (don't you LOVE the names these mobsters give their toxic laws?). it literally made it ILLEGAL FOR ANY STATE TO REGULATE CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS. oh, and larry summers was a huge proponent of this derivative "modernization" act. he's now obama's chief economic advisor. >>What would have happened to our economy if the banking system had failed?<< we'd suffer through similar pain as we are going through now. maybe worse up front, but the medicine would take effect and we would recover faster. instead, we get the medicine and an extra bill for trillions of dollars more than we otherwise would get. the debt is expected to hit $23 trillion within 8 years under obama's "leadership." at that point, our total tax revenue MAY NOT PAY FOR A SINGLE PENNY OF GOVERNMENT - IT WILL ONLY GO FOR INTEREST. >>And do you think we should get rid of the FDIC?<< no, the fdic makes sense and should be allowed to do their jobs - unwind the bad banks and make good on deposits as per the law. the bushevic / obama teams are acting no different than a banana republic... salon.com the bottom line to what they are doing is paying out the bank losses 100 cents on the dollar and someone has to pay. that would be you and i. imagine going to vegas, betting $1 trillion on black and red comes up. bushevic/obama steps in and says, "the tax payers will cover it." of course, this wasn't your first bet and you got to keep all the winnings from your prior bets. that's what happened and is happening here and obama is as knee deep as bush/cheney. btw, have you wondered why the big bankers haven't been replaced like the ceo of GM? it is b/c a new ceo's first orde rof business would be to find out what was wrong - and he'd uncover all sorts of fraud and then some oligarchs might face jail time for their illegal and immoral behavior.

To: koan who wrote (97053)	4/26/2009 2:37:09 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	9 Recommendations Respond to of 116555

koan, stiglitz is exactly right, too... youtube.com he makes lots of good points, but i will highlight two of them. 1. he said if we too $700 billion and started a new bank, we'd have INSTANT $8.4 trillion in new credit WITH NONE OF THE TRILLIONS IN LIABILITIES created by bailing out the failed banks. $8.4 trillion is a lot of credit - enough to pay off 80% of every mortgage in the country. 2. stiglitz said that we could put social security on sound footing for the next 100 years if we spent the banker bailout money on social security. the bushevic/obama team REJECTED social security and CHOSE to bailout the oligarcy's bad bets and WILL SOON DENY THE ELDERLY SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS - the math just doesn't work out any other way. obama has an amazing persona and he says the right things, "take care of the poor and common man" but he DOES the wrong thing - transfer trillions from the poor, the elderly and the common man to the elite billionaire bankers. io don't care what he says or how smooth he talks (wolf in sheeps clothing, no?) or how warm he makes anyone feel, I CARE ABOUT WHAT HE ACTUALLY DOES - AND HE'S ROBBING AMERICANS BLIND.