Game over for our Economy and the U.S. as we know it

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
YOu dont know what it is either. Do you think from reading a simple guide thrown together by the New York Times your now an expert? The bill is still being finalized and there is so many loopholes and so much broad authority that no one knows anything especially the media.

I would hope there is complete transparency because if Paulson does anything suspicious there will be a mob outside the treasury asking for his head.

Plus Paulson didn't become CEO of Goldman by being a pushover in negotiations. I am confident he will try to extract maximum value for taxpayers.

Where do you *think* Paulson, decades at Goldman Sachs and former CEO, back in the private sector in a few months, has his loyalties?

I would hope that when he gave up his lucrative post of CEO of the most successful and respected investment bank in the world and completely divested out of it for a government post, I would hope that he did it for noble reasons.

Trust but verify. This is why transparency is absolutely critical. I do have faith in Paulson and transparency will hopefully support it.

I wish I had trust in Paulson and the Government... How come transparency is not the main issue? Why were these institutions allowed to con the system and free market on the way up but not suffer the losses when things came back to equilibrium? Does anyone remember the lies that Ben Bernake and Herny Paulson were spouting a year ago. Ben Bernake said the sub prime problem is contained and would not spread to the rest of the economy. It has been shown time and time again in history's past civilazations that the rich and the powerful have abused the system. Its very sad but we all just got raped from the rich and the powerful running this country in the ground.
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
Because if we dont save the majority of banks then we will need to PRINT MONEY, to handle the FDIC. There is not enough money left in FDIC reserves to insure the amount of banks about to kick the bucket.

*I would also like to note*
Who gets to decide a banks failure then? Henry Paulson.... Maybe he will save his friends banks first.

Where do you get this "print money" bullshit? The US Government doesn't print money. Zimbabwe does.

So true...

Instead our Government types 00000000000000 on a computer screen.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: nullzero
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
YOu dont know what it is either. Do you think from reading a simple guide thrown together by the New York Times your now an expert? The bill is still being finalized and there is so many loopholes and so much broad authority that no one knows anything especially the media.

I would hope there is complete transparency because if Paulson does anything suspicious there will be a mob outside the treasury asking for his head.

Plus Paulson didn't become CEO of Goldman by being a pushover in negotiations. I am confident he will try to extract maximum value for taxpayers.

Where do you *think* Paulson, decades at Goldman Sachs and former CEO, back in the private sector in a few months, has his loyalties?

I would hope that when he gave up his lucrative post of CEO of the most successful and respected investment bank in the world and completely divested out of it for a government post, I would hope that he did it for noble reasons.

Trust but verify. This is why transparency is absolutely critical. I do have faith in Paulson and transparency will hopefully support it.

I wish I had trust in Paulson and the Government... How come transparency is not the main issue? Why were these institutions allowed to con the system and free market on the way up but not suffer the losses when things came back to equilibrium? Does anyone remember the lies that Ben Bernake and Herny Paulson were spouting a year ago. Ben Bernake said the sub prime problem is contained and would not spread to the rest of the economy. It has been shown time and time again in history's past civilazations that the rich and the powerful have abused the system. Its very sad but we all just got raped from the rich and the powerful running this country in the ground.

OK Here we go. Bernanke lied banks died. I can see it already.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
Because if we dont save the majority of banks then we will need to PRINT MONEY, to handle the FDIC. There is not enough money left in FDIC reserves to insure the amount of banks about to kick the bucket.

*I would also like to note*
Who gets to decide a banks failure then? Henry Paulson.... Maybe he will save his friends banks first.

Where do you get this "print money" bullshit? The US Government doesn't print money. Zimbabwe does.

The US government understands that printing money does NOTHING positive in a situation like this. Printing more money devalues each bill printed. Meaning we have more debt. Meaning more money printed to try and pay for it. Meaning its devalued even more. Meaning more money is owed. Rinse and repeat.


 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: ranmaniac
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The Great Depression in the US ended with the war economy of WW2. I suggest an invasion of Canada or Western Europe. Canada would fall easily and we already have military resources in Europe. No need to worry about this stuff if we have the courage to invade.

Palin's moosehunting skills will come in handy after all, and America will finally have better tasting beer.

She can lead a mounted moose brigade and invade from Alaska.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: nullzero
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
Because if we dont save the majority of banks then we will need to PRINT MONEY, to handle the FDIC. There is not enough money left in FDIC reserves to insure the amount of banks about to kick the bucket.

*I would also like to note*
Who gets to decide a banks failure then? Henry Paulson.... Maybe he will save his friends banks first.

Where do you get this "print money" bullshit? The US Government doesn't print money. Zimbabwe does.

So true...

Instead our Government types 00000000000000 on a computer screen.

Well, you just proved your ignorance. Go do some learning and come back.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
Because if we dont save the majority of banks then we will need to PRINT MONEY, to handle the FDIC. There is not enough money left in FDIC reserves to insure the amount of banks about to kick the bucket.

*I would also like to note*
Who gets to decide a banks failure then? Henry Paulson.... Maybe he will save his friends banks first.

Where do you get this "print money" bullshit? The US Government doesn't print money. Zimbabwe does.

The US government understands that printing money does NOTHING positive in a situation like this. Printing more money devalues each bill printed. Meaning we have more debt. Meaning more money printed to try and pay for it. Meaning its devalued even more. Meaning more money is owed. Rinse and repeat.

You can try to teach nullzero facts but he'll just come back and say govt prints money.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: nullzero
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
Because if we dont save the majority of banks then we will need to PRINT MONEY, to handle the FDIC. There is not enough money left in FDIC reserves to insure the amount of banks about to kick the bucket.

*I would also like to note*
Who gets to decide a banks failure then? Henry Paulson.... Maybe he will save his friends banks first.

Where do you get this "print money" bullshit? The US Government doesn't print money. Zimbabwe does.

So true...

Instead our Government types 00000000000000 on a computer screen.

.... Uhh you do realize that is the same net effect as "printing" money right?
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
Because if we dont save the majority of banks then we will need to PRINT MONEY, to handle the FDIC. There is not enough money left in FDIC reserves to insure the amount of banks about to kick the bucket.

*I would also like to note*
Who gets to decide a banks failure then? Henry Paulson.... Maybe he will save his friends banks first.

Where do you get this "print money" bullshit? The US Government doesn't print money. Zimbabwe does.

The US government understands that printing money does NOTHING positive in a situation like this. Printing more money devalues each bill printed. Meaning we have more debt. Meaning more money printed to try and pay for it. Meaning its devalued even more. Meaning more money is owed. Rinse and repeat.

You can try to teach nullzero facts but he'll just come back and say govt prints money.

It's sad that he will be voting, and most of the American public has as much knowledge about these topics as Nullzero does....
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
Because if we dont save the majority of banks then we will need to PRINT MONEY, to handle the FDIC. There is not enough money left in FDIC reserves to insure the amount of banks about to kick the bucket.

*I would also like to note*
Who gets to decide a banks failure then? Henry Paulson.... Maybe he will save his friends banks first.

Where do you get this "print money" bullshit? The US Government doesn't print money. Zimbabwe does.

The US government understands that printing money does NOTHING positive in a situation like this. Printing more money devalues each bill printed. Meaning we have more debt. Meaning more money printed to try and pay for it. Meaning its devalued even more. Meaning more money is owed. Rinse and repeat.

Dont you understand the only real power that the FED has is to either contract or expand the money supply. The only thing the government can do is throw money at the problem or sit back and let the market figure it out. The FED and Government dont have complete control of anything else.

Issuing more debt is just like printing more money... This reminds me of all the credit given to the idiots that took out the subprime loan to buy the $500k house. Now look what happened...
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: nullzero
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
Because if we dont save the majority of banks then we will need to PRINT MONEY, to handle the FDIC. There is not enough money left in FDIC reserves to insure the amount of banks about to kick the bucket.

*I would also like to note*
Who gets to decide a banks failure then? Henry Paulson.... Maybe he will save his friends banks first.

Where do you get this "print money" bullshit? The US Government doesn't print money. Zimbabwe does.

The US government understands that printing money does NOTHING positive in a situation like this. Printing more money devalues each bill printed. Meaning we have more debt. Meaning more money printed to try and pay for it. Meaning its devalued even more. Meaning more money is owed. Rinse and repeat.

Dont you understand the only real power that the FED has is to either contract or expand the money supply. The only thing the government can do is throw money at the problem or sit back and let the market figure it out. The FED and Government dont have complete control of anything else.

Issuing more debt is just like printing more money... because the loans are junk.

Uhhh pulling the "bad" debt to the government so it can hold on to it while it matures, is not the same as printing money.

Basically the government is trading "bad" debt (what these loans are) for "good" debt (that is backed by the federal government). At least in a super simple way dumbed down version of it.
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: nullzero
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
Because if we dont save the majority of banks then we will need to PRINT MONEY, to handle the FDIC. There is not enough money left in FDIC reserves to insure the amount of banks about to kick the bucket.

*I would also like to note*
Who gets to decide a banks failure then? Henry Paulson.... Maybe he will save his friends banks first.

Where do you get this "print money" bullshit? The US Government doesn't print money. Zimbabwe does.

The US government understands that printing money does NOTHING positive in a situation like this. Printing more money devalues each bill printed. Meaning we have more debt. Meaning more money printed to try and pay for it. Meaning its devalued even more. Meaning more money is owed. Rinse and repeat.

Dont you understand the only real power that the FED has is to either contract or expand the money supply. The only thing the government can do is throw money at the problem or sit back and let the market figure it out. The FED and Government dont have complete control of anything else.

Issuing more debt is just like printing more money... because the loans are junk.

Uhhh pulling the "bad" debt to the government so it can hold on to it while it matures, is not the same as printing money.

Basically the government is trading "bad" debt (what these loans are) for "good" debt (that is backed by the federal government). At least in a super simple way dumbed down version of it.

KEY WORD backed by the Federal Government.... back by anything else? What does backed by the federal government mean? Is it like me depositing money in IndyMac bank and IndyMac bank saying that your money is backed by IndyMac bank. Then IndyMac issues debt to a deadbeat who defaults on the loan. It then comes back to IndyMac we all know the rest of the story.
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
So what assets are in place for the U.S. to issue more debt? Because I have not heard of any reserve requirements for the U.S. treasury...

The reason the government can do this is because we have a monoply system of currency it will work fine until their is a lost of faith in the currency (Which is happening now).
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: nullzero
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: nullzero
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: nullzero
Because if we dont save the majority of banks then we will need to PRINT MONEY, to handle the FDIC. There is not enough money left in FDIC reserves to insure the amount of banks about to kick the bucket.

*I would also like to note*
Who gets to decide a banks failure then? Henry Paulson.... Maybe he will save his friends banks first.

Where do you get this "print money" bullshit? The US Government doesn't print money. Zimbabwe does.

The US government understands that printing money does NOTHING positive in a situation like this. Printing more money devalues each bill printed. Meaning we have more debt. Meaning more money printed to try and pay for it. Meaning its devalued even more. Meaning more money is owed. Rinse and repeat.

Dont you understand the only real power that the FED has is to either contract or expand the money supply. The only thing the government can do is throw money at the problem or sit back and let the market figure it out. The FED and Government dont have complete control of anything else.

Issuing more debt is just like printing more money... because the loans are junk.

Uhhh pulling the "bad" debt to the government so it can hold on to it while it matures, is not the same as printing money.

Basically the government is trading "bad" debt (what these loans are) for "good" debt (that is backed by the federal government). At least in a super simple way dumbed down version of it.

KEY WORD backed by the Federal Government.... back by anything else? What does backed by the federal government mean? Is it like me depositing money in IndyMac bank and IndyMac bank saying that your money is backed by IndyMac bank. Then IndyMac issues debt to a deadbeat who defaults on the loan. It then comes back to IndyMac we all know the rest of the story.

The government is not the same as a bank. If that were true, then how come all this national debt hasn't killed our economy back when it was ~$7 trillion? The government is able to hold this money, and set it aside waiting for it to mature.

The government has control over the total amount of money (can pull it out of the economy, or infuse it into the economy), and why can't they just take out $700bn setting it aside until it is worth something again?
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: nullzero
So what assets are in place for the U.S. to issue more debt? Because I have not heard of any reserve requirements for the U.S. treasury...

The reason the government can do this is because we have a monoply system of currency it will work fine until their is a lost of faith in the currency (Which is happening now).

Yes it is, but only to a point. If the dollar collapses the global economy does with it. The dollar is the basis for the global economy.
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: nullzero
So what assets are in place for the U.S. to issue more debt? Because I have not heard of any reserve requirements for the U.S. treasury...

The reason the government can do this is because we have a monoply system of currency it will work fine until their is a lost of faith in the currency (Which is happening now).

Yes it is, but only to a point. If the dollar collapses the global economy does with it. The dollar is the basis for the global economy.

Yes I know the world goes with it... You can see my point of view though very clearly. This system is very complicated and what we have been doing for a while does not add up.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: nullzero
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: nullzero
So what assets are in place for the U.S. to issue more debt? Because I have not heard of any reserve requirements for the U.S. treasury...

The reason the government can do this is because we have a monoply system of currency it will work fine until their is a lost of faith in the currency (Which is happening now).

Yes it is, but only to a point. If the dollar collapses the global economy does with it. The dollar is the basis for the global economy.

Yes I know the world goes with it... You can see my point of view though very clearly. This system is very complicated and what we have been doing for a while does not add up.

I'll agree that we cannot continue on the path we were on. The government knows it, and thats what this bailout is set to fix. The start of repairing and fixing the holes. I see where you are coming from, but your conclusion is flawed.
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: nullzero
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: nullzero
So what assets are in place for the U.S. to issue more debt? Because I have not heard of any reserve requirements for the U.S. treasury...

The reason the government can do this is because we have a monoply system of currency it will work fine until their is a lost of faith in the currency (Which is happening now).

Yes it is, but only to a point. If the dollar collapses the global economy does with it. The dollar is the basis for the global economy.

Yes I know the world goes with it... You can see my point of view though very clearly. This system is very complicated and what we have been doing for a while does not add up.

I'll agree that we cannot continue on the path we were on. The government knows it, and thats what this bailout is set to fix. The start of repairing and fixing the holes. I see where you are coming from, but your conclusion is flawed.

We wont know what the conclusion is until the dust settles.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Great, another ignorant person claiming things beyond their ken.

Please, do the world a favor. Disconnect from the internet, go live in your bunker. Come out in 20 years so we can laugh our asses off.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
What happens to money supply when credit dries out? Does it expand? :roll:
When people start redeeming their money market funds and put cash into treasuries, does that expand money supply or contract it?

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: halik
What happens to money supply when credit dries out? Does it expand? :roll:

Of course it does. It's like Sleepwalker running around like an idiot claiming "INFLATION, INFLATION, INFLATION" for the last 6 months. Then, suddenly, he is screaming "DEFLATION, DEFLATION, DEFLATION". The guy is so screwed up in the head he doesn't know up or down. He just knows whatever blog he read today. It's actually quite amusing.

It's like watching a dog chase its tail.
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
Originally posted by: nullzero
I believe we are heading into the worst hyperinflation we have ever seen in a society. This 700 billion dollar bailout plan will just be the match that starts the fire.

Did you guys see Bush's face... it looked grim during the financial disaster speech. Imagine how bad it really is if the government is already admitting to a major economic disasater. Guys prepare for the worst... If this bill passes we are going into hyperinflation.

Once this bill passes, I gurantee people will start hoarding gold, guns, ammo, any hard asset they can run off with. China will soon then dump their massive T-Bill reserves. Japan and South Korea will soon follow afterword to get out before the door hits them. This dumping of T-Bills will further intensify the hyperinflation. Soon after this we can expect millions of people starving, rioting in the streets, and marshall law. If you dont think this can happen dont kid yourself because look how fast this economic disaster has materialized.

So far looks like I am right about the guns, ammo, and gold. All the nay sayers are on the wrong side of this argument when the government does stuff like this http://in.reuters.com/article/.../idINN2051567320090320