Are we going into another depression?

[Rob C]

just don't call the white house when you see a russian tank in your neighborhood.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don´t think Halliburton would agree with you...

Rob C

[hankg]

i'm sure wallstreet would love to see a 25% slash in taxes.  it would go a long way to funding the financial mess everyone is in.  if coporate america had that 25% savings for the last three decades maybe lehman bros. would still be around.

When you are holding junk paper leveraged 1000 to 1 and getting margin calls on the Ponzi scheme you created your tax rate is irrelevant. You don't pay taxes on losses. The free market levies a much higher tax on greed and stupidity -you get wiped out.

How would a tax cut protect American business and investors from wreckless stupid decisions enabled by a government in the pocket of the financial scam artists who created this mess?

They say there are no athiests in foxholes. We are now finding out there are no free market libertarians in a financial crisis. All those 'free market conservatives' who wanted governement off their backs and an end to regulation of the markets turned into Socialists overnight begging for government intervention when it was their head and not some poor working stiffs head on the chopping  block.

[BernardLanguillier]

No I'm not kidding. I never said Michael Moore was exploiting fear I said everyone else is trying to be the next Michael Moore by exploiting fear.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What do you mean?

- What fear is everyone trying to exploit?
- How does that relate to Michael Moore?

Cheers,
Bernard

[BFoto]

They say there are no athiests in foxholes. We are now finding out there are no free market libertarians in a financial crisis. All those 'free market conservatives' who wanted governement off their backs and an end to regulation of the markets turned into Socialists overnight begging for government intervention when it was their head and not some poor working stiffs head on the chopping  block.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could not agree more. And as i pointed out in an earlier post, this is very reminicent of an old forgotten economic policy - the "Third Way".

[a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position[/url]

[Dansk]

What do you mean?

- What fear is everyone trying to exploit?
- How does that relate to Michael Moore?

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  Michael Moore made a huge success of digging into current events/news at a whole new level that takes things far beyond news and the trends since his success seem to emulate that style more and more to the point where a mere opinion ( ironically only if its radical enough ) gets taken as fact. The fear in question here is the fear of economic collapse and goes directly to the OP's post of "Are we going into another depression"?

  I stated my brief thoughts on it originally and then tried to re direct back to point and avoid personal squabble matches in hoped that this thread will survive and I could read others points of views which so far has happened and been a good read.

Speaking of good read hankg well done and good points.

On the web things can spiral out of control to the point where specualation and emotionally driven agendas can supersede cold hard facts and actually hamper progress. The HYPE I guess is what I try and steer away from if possible. Interestingly enough there has been talk of this recently and how to regulate it on the BBC

For instance when the LHC experiment was being built the "fear" of these types of reporters/experts etc ( who have zero real science credibility ) managed to create such a fuss that a good chunk of the otherwise sensible world was believing that starting the machine would create a black hole that would suck us all into it. Even though ALLLLLLL the experts involved and all the real science behind it stated otherwise fiction in popular opinion that is... started to become fact.

So thats the type of crap that is happening now about the economy and the doom and gloomers who wants either hits on their websites or viewers of their work dont seem to take the same level of journalistic responsibility as I think they should.

[BFoto]

Michael Moore made a huge success of digging into current events/news at a whole new level that takes things far beyond news and the trends since his success seem to emulate that style more and more to the point where a mere opinion ( ironically only if its radical enough ) gets taken as fact. The fear in question here is the fear of economic collapse and goes directly to the OP's post of "Are we going into another depression"?

 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224155\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's Fox news brainwashing you.

Your president is the king of fear campaigns. and um, did you here your illustrious leaders words tonight? It seems, as "He" has spoken, you are officially in the poo.

No bail out = depression....according to Bush.

So, now should i be scared. Answer, yes, but not because "he" spoke, instead because there are a bunch of people who are far more educated in these matters who have been warning of this potential for months.

[BFoto]

Check out where your federal tax $ go, or where they could go

Before last weeks melt down...

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Proposed...ionary%20Budget

Current cost of the war

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar0508

The current bail out

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/node/6885

[Dansk]

No bail out = depression....according to Bush.

You believe that guy? The same guy that said that Iraq had weapons of Maaaaaaaassss godamn destruction? hype........ hmmmm

What was I saying above?

Your president is the king of fear campaigns.

  I dont have a President I'm not American. I'm also done posting in this thread

[BFoto]

Interesting to read into a bit of history behind the existence of the Federal Reserve.

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

Some interesting points.

"Aldrich fought for a private bank with little government influence, but conceded that the government should be represented on the Board of Directors. Most Republicans favored the Aldrich Plan,[5] but it lacked enough support in the bipartisan Congress to pass.[6] Progressive Democrats instead favored a reserve system owned and operated by the government and out of control of the "money trust", ending Wall Street's control of American currency supply.[5] Conservative Democrats fought for a privately owned, yet decentralized, reserve system, which would still be free of Wall Street's control.[5] The Federal Reserve Act passed Congress in late 1913 on a mostly partisan basis, with most Democrats in support and most Republicans against it"



"The Federal Reserve has the authority and financial resources to act as “lender of last resort” by extending credit to depository institutions or to other entities in unusual circumstances involving a national or regional emergency, where failure to obtain credit would have a severe adverse impact on the economy.[15]"


mmmmm

The Federal Reserve System is the part of government that regulates the private banks. The balance between privatization and government involvement is also seen in the structure of the system.

Preventing asset bubbles

The board of directors of each Federal Reserve Bank District also have regulatory and supervisory responsibilities. For example, a member bank (private bank) is not permitted to give out too many loans to people who cannot pay them back. This is because too many defaults on loans will lead to a bank run.

So, who is really responsible for allowing this current crisis and who is now off to clean there own mess up! THE FED

[BernardLanguillier]

So, who is really responsible for allowing this current crisis and who is now off to clean there own mess up! THE FED
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Who is paying the interests of the money to be loaned by the Feberal Reserve to the banks to cover the mess banks created with tacit authorization from the Federal Reserve?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

This is all good argument, blame switching back and forth, but if you forget that side of the thing and consider the guy with the bank account, the one wondering whether or not there´s any money still left to call upon, then it all take on a much more personal colour.

That man, the one with his savings in the bank, has little to do with running the bank or owning it, neither does it mean he has bought shares in it. He only deposited his money there as a safe alternative to under the mattress. That sounds funny now, were it not for the fact that it is too damn true.

So, as far as I am concerned, stuff the "taxpayer" part of the argument against aid - we are all taxpayers at one level or another - let us save the banks and our monies held there on trust! If we lose that we lose everything. All of us lose everything, whether or not we even have a bank account.

But there has to be a price in the form of future control. The ugly face of capitalism was around decades ago and identified as such in Great Britain; nobody learned much from the exposure, least of all government which is meant to be there to do the best for us ALL. Yes the free market works, but there is also such a thing as excess, and controlling that for the future is no bad thing. For myself, the first people I´d crucify are those who buy oil on margin, having neither wish nor ability actually to hold it, just raising the price in order to sell on the option at top dollar, just before they would have to take delivery, making money without spending any or contributing anything positive to the world. In my book, nobody who has no actual need for the product should be allowed, INTERNATIONALLY, to buy it. Nor, of course, to pretend to be buying it as described above. As everything made has to be transported, the cost to the world of such speculation is beyond calculation.

As for the greed of banks and financial advisers pushing the poor into debt they have no ability to service, the mind boggles that there are no prosecutions of the people creating these problems - or are there?

So please, bail out the banks and create a real, tight and vigilant control so that this sort of thing never again becomes anything but a bad memory.

Rob C

[Jeremy Roussak]

As for the greed of banks and financial advisers pushing the poor into debt they have no ability to service, the mind boggles that there are no prosecutions of the people creating these problems - or are there?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224260\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nobody was "pushed into debt". Nobody's arm was twisted to force him to take out a loan. Greedy banks played on the aspirations of greedy people.

To view the poor who took out these loans as entirely passive and unable to comprehend the concept of repaying a loan is supremely condescending.

What criminal offence do you imagine has been committed?

Jeremy

[Craig Lamson]

This is all good argument, blame switching back and forth, but if you forget that side of the thing and consider the guy with the bank account, the one wondering whether or not there´s any money still left to call upon, then it all take on a much more personal colour.

That man, the one with his savings in the bank, has little to do with running the bank or owning it, neither does it mean he has bought shares in it. He only deposited his money there as a safe alternative to under the mattress. That sounds funny now, were it not for the fact that it is too damn true.

So, as far as I am concerned, stuff the "taxpayer" part of the argument against aid - we are all taxpayers at one level or another - let us save the banks and our monies held there on trust! If we lose that we lose everything. All of us lose everything, whether or not we even have a bank account.

But there has to be a price in the form of future control. The ugly face of capitalism was around decades ago and identified as such in Great Britain; nobody learned much from the exposure, least of all government which is meant to be there to do the best for us ALL. Yes the free market works, but there is also such a thing as excess, and controlling that for the future is no bad thing. For myself, the first people I´d crucify are those who buy oil on margin, having neither wish nor ability actually to hold it, just raising the price in order to sell on the option at top dollar, just before they would have to take delivery, making money without spending any or contributing anything positive to the world. In my book, nobody who has no actual need for the product should be allowed, INTERNATIONALLY, to buy it. Nor, of course, to pretend to be buying it as described above. As everything made has to be transported, the cost to the world of such speculation is beyond calculation.

As for the greed of banks and financial advisers pushing the poor into debt they have no ability to service, the mind boggles that there are no prosecutions of the people creating these problems - or are there?

So please, bail out the banks and create a real, tight and vigilant control so that this sort of thing never again becomes anything but a bad memory.

Rob C
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Laws are fine and dandy, but they only matter when you use them.

If the guys doing the policing are as shady as the crooks they are watching, new laws mean nothing. For example back in 05 there was a lot of concern that fanny and freddy were out of control.  The guys at the head of of the pack (Dodd and Franks among others) said, back off, everything is fine.  Now they are the ones setting up the "fix"  Fox guarding the henhouse?

This thing is far more than America.  But it looks like the American taxpayer just might foot the bill to bail out the world.   Look  at AIG.  They are worldwide in scope.

"But the case of AIG, the US insurer, also shows the importance of another, hidden, link across financial markets, namely massive evasion of regulatory requirements. AIG’s last annual report reveals that it had written coverage for more than $300bn of credit insurance for European banks. The comment by AIG itself on these positions was that they were “for the purpose of providing them with regulatory capital relief rather than risk mitigation in exchange for a minimum guaranteed fee”. Thus, a formal default by AIG would have exposed European banks to large increases in regulatory capital requirements, with possibly devastating effects on their ratings and market confidence. Thus, the US Treasury has saved, inter alia, the European banking system"

[a href=\"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/41960e1c-8972-11dd-8371-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/41960e1c-8972-11...?nclick_check=1[/url]

From the same article:

"The crucial problem on this side of the Atlantic is that the largest European banks have become not only too big to fail, but also too big to be saved. For example, the total liabilities of Deutsche Bank (leverage ratio over 50!) amount to about €2,000bn (more than Fannie Mae) or more than 80 per cent of the gross domestic product of Germany. This is simply too much for the Bundesbank or even the German state, given that the German budget is bound by the rules of the European Union’s stability pact and the German government cannot order (unlike the US Treasury) its central bank to issue more currency. Similarly, the total liabilities of Barclays of around £1,300bn (leverage ratio 60!) are roughly equivalent to the GDP of the UK. Fortis bank has a leverage ratio of “only” 33, but its liabilities are three times the GDP of its home country of Belgium."

Again, its not the lack of regulation, but how they are applied.

[BFoto]

Nobody was "pushed into debt". Nobody's arm was twisted to force him to take out a loan. Greedy banks played on the aspirations of greedy people.

To view the poor who took out these loans as entirely passive and unable to comprehend the concept of repaying a loan is supremely condescending.

What criminal offence do you imagine has been committed?

Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Precisely, exactly, the most relevant point.

[snickgrr]

Hollywood producer Aaron Russo's take on the Federal Reserve.

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

[Nill Toulme]

Nobody was "pushed into debt". Nobody's arm was twisted to force him to take out a loan. Greedy banks played on the aspirations of greedy people.

To view the poor who took out these loans as entirely passive and unable to comprehend the concept of repaying a loan is supremely condescending.

What criminal offence do you imagine has been committed?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For a different perspective, read [a href=\"http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/09/25/money.pushers/index.html?iref=mpstoryview]this[/url].

Nill

[sergio]

As I see this, there was HUGE wealth transfer from one corner of society to the other. Very neatly done. I am sure the big boyz got their money offshore and in gold or some other form of safe currency. Now when everything rots they will be even more powerful than before. I think the US is going sooner or later into a fascist state. It already is in some way. They make everyone believe they are free, when actually people in the US aren't as free as they think they are.  It is pretty obvious when you live somewhere else and go there for holidays or whatever.

I see the US society worshipping material wealth and the dollar like their god. My impressions were of a very poor society where everyone is full of stuff and things, but real values like family ties, sense of community and frienship are very degraded, in a general sense.

The good thing about economic crisis is that people learn to be happy without material wealth. People stop needing so much stuff and that is good for people, bad for the boyz.

Everybody wants something in exchange of nothing there. I see a society full of very good people as individuals, but sick as a whole, as a group. US government has made that all people of the world dislike the US. That is very unfair with the normal working people there. But it is true, the world doesn't like the US except for the money. Nobody sees the US a friend anymore, but as a menace.

The war in Irak and Afghanistan was not pointless as someone put it in this thread. A few people got very rich doing it. All the drug money gets laundered back into the US banking system. And war, well war, is the only way out for capitalism. That really activates some peoples economy. Has nothing to do with democracy or freedom, but with money.

And the notion of the self proclaiming "America" doesn't help either. Puts in evidence lots of arrogance. America is continent from Ushuaia, Argentina, to the Canadian Arctic. This is so put into people's unconscious that even a magazine as National Geographic, whose mission and slogan is,"for the diffusion of geographical knowledge" falls into the same big arrogant error of calling the US America. It puts into evidence the philosophy behind the minds.

This thread is very interesting. I hope nobody takes offense and nobody feels insulted, for whatever reason. The actual state of things in the US is very sad, and it isn't being easier for anybody else, no matter what corner of the world you are in. I hope people can overcome the national hatred implanted into people's mind against the russians. They are good people too.

 

[BFoto]

Hollywood producer Aaron Russo's take on the Federal Reserve.

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, and a link from within that...

[a href=\"http://www.restoretherepublic.com/economy/the-idiocy-of-wall-street-applauding-its-own-demise#comment-top]http://www.restoretherepublic.com/economy/...ise#comment-top[/url]

[BFoto]

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

[Craig Lamson]

For a different perspective, read this.

Nill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes...but as always, its free will.  Somone at the other end of the phone must say yes.