Occupy Wall Street/occupy Federal Reserve

[dingo]

"The European Central Bank has launched the biggest lending operation in its history, and banks pounced on the offer on Wednesday, borrowing almost a half-billion euros for three years at a low interest rate. Governments hope the banks will use the cash to buy sovereign bonds, but critics warn the ECB's strategy is risky and could stoke inflation."

well the Euros are forging ahead with the fiat gorging, rather than tackle it with politically uncomfortable prudence

well see how it pans out for them...cause were next !! so stock up on Gold !haha !

[Amskeptic]

"The European Central Bank has launched the biggest lending operation in its history, and banks pounced on the offer on Wednesday, borrowing almost a half-billion euros for three years at a low interest rate. Governments hope the banks will use the cash to buy sovereign bonds, but critics warn the ECB's strategy is risky and could stoke inflation."

well the Euros are forging ahead with the fiat gorging, rather than tackle it with politically uncomfortable prudence

well see how it pans out for them...cause were next !! so stock up on Gold !haha !

Like any fresh engine rebuild, you have to prime the pump! We have to prime the economic engine! Unfortunately, the banks are the pump, and they seem all too happy to hoard the cash. Our bearings are in danger of seizing.
Colin

[steve74baywin]

"The European Central Bank has launched the biggest lending operation in its history, and banks pounced on the offer on Wednesday, borrowing almost a half-billion euros for three years at a low interest rate. Governments hope the banks will use the cash to buy sovereign bonds, but critics warn the ECB's strategy is risky and could stoke inflation."

well the Euros are forging ahead with the fiat gorging, rather than tackle it with politically uncomfortable prudence

well see how it pans out for them...cause were next !! so stock up on Gold !haha !

Gold is good, or plain ole "goods of real value" too. The advantages for someone who lives
more off grid than on grid or more from their own resources become apparent. If you live more through
your own efforts each day in a paid for place you will be much better off than someone
who consumes tons and must purchase most of those things.
I can't say I'm set up as good as I would have liked.

The banks now being the feeders of our economy has put this country in an enslaved scenario.
We need to end this banking system, or keep begging the masters to feed it.

[dingo]

Like any fresh engine rebuild, you have to prime the pump! We have to prime the economic engine! Unfortunately, the banks are the pump, and they seem all too happy to hoard the cash. Our bearings are in danger of seizing.
Colin

“The boost to growth from more monetary easing and more deficit spending – naturally always transitory and the source of further misallocation of resources – will be ever more faint and short-lived. Instead of igniting a new false boom, a progressively larger share of the policy stimulus will simply evaporate in the service of maintaining the accumulated misallocations, of avoiding a correction of artificially raised asset prices and of bloated balance sheets. As the manufactured recoveries get weaker, fiscal deficits get larger as a result of the combination of ongoing welfare state outlays and futile Keynesian stimulus spending. "

Paper MoneyCollapse p 204

[dingo]

"Firstly, the credit you get to buy a house should be backed by savings. Someone saves, gives the money to you as a loan, you buy a house and repay your lender over time. The problem starts if nobody saves and we just print the money to build houses. If that was such a good idea, why should we then not just double (triple?) the money supply tomorrow? We would get a lot of houses, no? Secondly, your friend is right that banks have been somewhat reluctant to lend (in particular to other banks!) and the private sector reluctant to borrow. So the problem is obviously not that there is too little money in the system. The money is there but doesn’t flow. So why is printing more money the solution? Should we not ask ourselves why the banks are reluctant to lend to other banks and why the private sector does not want to take on more debt? Maybe these banks know that what the other banks have on their balance sheets is a lot of toxic waste for which there is no ultimate buyer and which is being kept on these balance sheets at artificially high valuations. Maybe these banks correctly infer from their own dismal finances that other banks must be in dire straights. Maybe the private sector is reluctant to take on more debt because it feels it has already enough. Is the problem not that there is too much bad debt in the system and that the states in particular are accumulating ever more debt that will be difficult, if not outright impossible, to ever repay? So if that is the problem, does force-feeding the system with ever more money solve this problem? Artificially low interest rates and QE do not lower the debt load but increase it! So the problem is excessive debt, over-extended balance sheets and distorted asset markets, which lead to money not flowing but being hoarded. So the solution is pumping more money into the system, which encourages more debt accumulation, bigger balance sheets and further market distortions? — At this point, most bankers and mainstream economists simply stop listening."

d. schlichter

[denjohn]

To graphically support dingo's last 2 posts, I have lifted this from:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/worse-2008/67136

Debt

Let's begin with debt. This crisis was rooted in too much debt. Even without the headwinds caused by structurally rising energy prices (we'll get to those in a minute), the credit bubble was destined to someday pop all on its own. After all, there's no way for debt to continually expand faster than income, which is what was happening across the entire OECD, thanks to the ultra-accommodative policies of the world's central banks.


(Source)

Note that GDP is virtually unchanged since 2008, meaning that $5 trillion did not buy us any incremental GDP; it only managed to bring us back to about even:


(Source)

That means we have about the same-sized economy to support an additional $5 trillion in federal debt, or roughly half more than when the crisis started.

It is also true that GDP growth in the US is weaker this year than last year, a trend that does not bode well for the US deficit situation

[dingo]

good article describing the giant ponzi scheme that is the economies of the western world


http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 72,00.html

[steve74baywin]

good article describing the giant ponzi scheme that is the economies of the western world


http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 72,00.html

Very long article, I started to read it and like what I had read thus far.

[Sylvester]

Occupy the courts, in SF:


http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress ... democracy/

[steve74baywin]

Occupy the courts, in SF:


http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress ... democracy/

End Corporate Personhood...It is a good idea due to the corrupt system we have, but it is another one of those things,,,wrongs on top of wrongs muddies it up.
It is a very tricky one.
IE, Years ago a corporation was created and given a small advantage, but it was allowed solely because the people wanted it and to help the people, and it was temporary many cases. This was when people still had their natural inherent rights protected. Then, over the years corporations became like they are today and they get a major unfair advantage while we no longer have our rights to our property like we use to. The truer more correct thing is to restore our rights, stop the advantages given to corps by the gov, and then that's it. Most of these corps today shouldn't exist as what a corp is today(or they shouldn't exist as a corp is in todays legal world), instead they would be a business that happened to be owned by more than one person, hence they would have no more or no less protection than an individual person.

Edited to add,
They veered so far from what it was that it is hard to discuss or explain without clarification.
The legal thing created by the law society called a corporation, as we know it today shouldn't exist. That first needs to be look at and understood.
Each persons rights need to be understood and protected.
Then, if one or multiple people own something, their rights would and should be protected, they would sorta be like a person and it's rights protected.
However, now that we have this law thing called a corporation that has greater rights than it should and we have less rights, the need comes up to say "end corporate person hood", but that is only because a corporation is given extra privileges and our rights aren't protected by the gov.

[vdubyah73]

i'd vote to take corporate money out of politics as soon as union money is included.

[Velokid1]

I'd fight it all the way down the line. If my neighbor were rich and could give a candidate $10k and I could only afford to give my candidate $50, I would still bitch and mOan about his vote being worth more than mine.

[Amskeptic]

i'd vote to take corporate money out of politics as soon as union money is included.

This is pretty much the same sentence spoken by almost every member of Congress.
It is a gridlock of "I ain't going first."

How do we vote to take money out of politics if the politicians are all so beholden?
Colin

[vdubyah73]

vote for citizens not politicians.
i'm not voting for anybody running for a 3rd term. not voting for anybody that is from the wings either. not choosing according to one plank of a platform or religious ideology. i like mitt for his proven ability to work with a hugely predominant liberal state congress.

[Velokid1]

Watch the video in my lazy potead thread? IMO watching a man interact with others speaks far more loudly than their words. Mitt clearly lacks empathy for others, not to mention the simplest of social skills.