Campaign donations.

[Boss]

We were discussing QE.
The fed can't press the intrest rate any lower so they've resorted to QE.

QE is the equivalent of saying... The patient isn't responding fast enough to the leaches so we've decided to lacerate the wrists. Short-term economic goals are met, but we'll pay for it in the end with deflation of currency. It is stupid policy on top of already economically incompetent policy.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Why don't you tell me about the junk assets?
And then I'll show you your error.

How would I be able to tell you,? Rating agencies commited a big fraud overrating assets.
I am not even sure how you or the government will be sure of what they bought.
So clearly QE1 was all about Freddie and Fanny .
But what about QE3? Every single article just says buying MBS ( without specifying the source).

What exactly is the Fed buying - The Buzz - Investment and Stock Market News

It seems to me like a way of buying time ( elections ? ). I am not sure the current oil prices play a favourable role in all this ( Insolvent oil companies might increase the overall preassure in the banking system). Alas , I might be wrong.

This is also a good read:
QE3 into infinity and stagflation Federal Reserve now purchasing over 50 percent of MBS and planning on buying 40 billion per month into infinity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you tell me about the junk assets?
And then I'll show you your error.

How would I be able to tell you,? Rating agencies commited a big fraud overrating assets.
I am not even sure how you or the government will be sure of what they bought.
So clearly QE1 was all about Freddie and Fanny .
But what about QE3? Every single article just says buying MBS ( without specifying the source).

What exactly is the Fed buying - The Buzz - Investment and Stock Market News

It seems to me like a way of buying time ( elections ? ). I am not sure the current oil prices play a favourable role in all this ( Insolvent oil companies might increase the overall preassure in the banking system). Alas , I might be wrong.

This is also a good read:
QE3 into infinity and stagflation Federal Reserve now purchasing over 50 percent of MBS and planning on buying 40 billion per month into infinity.

How would I be able to tell you,?

You've been making the claim, now you realize you have no proof? LOL!

Rating agencies commited a big fraud overrating assets.

You should stop digging.

Every single article just says buying MBS

Before the crisis, they bought Treasuries. For QE, they bought Treasuries and guaranteed MBS.
MBS guaranteed by Fannie and Freedie. Kinda the opposite of junk.

 

[danielpalos]

What if, hypothetically and in that alternative, a party of Capitalism simply for the sake of capitalism, merely required the wealthiest capitalists to "ante up" a few million each, and select from among their membership, their best capitalists to make more money with that "petty cash fund" and perchance have a decent run in any given market, to pay for their election bid or not run that cycle.

Would that be more or less complicated than what we have now?

 

[Andylusion]

Pinochet did have public support. Allende, only had 34% of the vote.
"When General Augusto Pinochet ousted Chilean president Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973 , 80% of Chileans viewed the coup as a rescue operation—a return to order from a chaotic presidency."

Myths of Latin America

When you don't know what you are talking about, make sure you don't accuse others of not knowing. I've read about Pinochet in detail. He was widely supported by the public at the time. Allende was NEVER supported by the public.
In fact, Pinochet had more public support in the 1980s while he was in power, than Obama has right now.

Salvador Allende was not popular. I'll admit that.
That is very different from saying Augusto Pinochet was popular. Man , where did this site get the 80% figure.
He didn't get that even in the rigged referendum :
Chilean constitutional referendum 1980 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In the aftermath most Chileans regard this period of history as a negative one .

BBC News - Chile still split over Gen Augusto Pinochet legacy

I have read that Pinochet was favored in Chile from numerous sources. Not just this source.

As for the referendum being rigged... Possibly, but other than 'he said she said' hearsay and counter claims, there really isn't that much support.

Yet, the fact the referendum got 67% of the vote, tends to make the 80% believable. I would expect support to fall between the coup, and the referendum.

I may disagree slightly with your claim that most Chileans view that period of history negatively.

I think they view Pinochet generally negatively, but not that time period. And that also is not surprising. If we find out Bill Clinton had some of the girls he raped 'disappeared' by secret police, and had laundered money to international banks, I'd wager his opinion polls could drop. Doesn't mean the 90s suddenly were terrible.

The Chilean economy grew very fast after economic liberalization. Standard of living went up. Education drastically increased. Many people supported that.

 

[CultureCitizen]

What if, hypothetically and in that alternative, a party of Capitalism simply for the sake of capitalism, merely required the wealthiest capitalists to "ante up" a few million each, and select from among their membership, their best capitalists to make more money with that "petty cash fund" and perchance have a decent run in any given market, to pay for their election bid or not run that cycle.

Would that be more or less complicated than what we have now?

Well, if you look at regulations for Banks , they are manuscripts with 1,600+ pages.
Tax laws are also extremely complicated. That said, I am not a lawyer , nor a tax expert, but I am sure there are ways to make laws more simple.

 

[Andylusion]

"The distinguishing feature of Iraq's auction of oil rights this weekend is the relative absence of American companies, in contrast to five weeks ago, when US firm ExxonMobil and Anglo-Dutch Shell signed an agreement to develop the West Qurna Phase 1 field."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KL16Ak01.html

“The Chinese are the biggest beneficiary of this post-Saddam oil boom in Iraq,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...its-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Exxon to Pull Out of Huge Iraq Oil Project InvestorPlace

Russia appears ready to step into the Iraqi oil picture - UPI.com
"Iraq's strategic effort to become the world's leading oil producer has taken some bad knocks, with the defection of Exxon Mobil and other majors to independence-minded Kurdistan, and Wednesday's expulsion of Turkey's state oil outfit from an exploration deal.

But Russia seems more than ready to step in and fill the gap in foreign investment that Baghdad needs to rebuild and expand its oil and gas industry on which the country's future depends"

So let's recap....

Claim "Entire war was exclusively about oil".

1. They are pulling out , which clearly means there was an intention to develop the industry . Isn't that proof enough?
2. Why are they pulling out ? Might it be because they are having trouble dealing with the government in midst of the turmoil and the widthrawall of troops.
Again , a failed strategy. Add insult to injury, Dubya wages the war , spends trillions with false statements and now Rusian and Chinese will get the war spoils.

Can you not see your post, from the perspective of others reading it?

Here's what I see when I read your post: You assume the motive was X, with no proof that the motive was X, and then use the fact we didn't get X, to prove that X was the motive and we failed to get X.

If the true goal of the entire war was Oil, we'd have it. If the true goal was to 'get the spoils of war', we would have the spoils of war.

We wouldn't be paying $2 a gallon, if we went to Iraq, and confiscated their oil, as you claim the goal was.

Yes, it is proof enough. Proof enough that oil wasn't the goal, or they most certainly wouldn't be pulling out. We'd have Blackwater, and whatever else there, making sure we got our oil, if that's why we went there.

 

[CultureCitizen]

How would I be able to tell you,?

You've been making the claim, now you realize you have no proof? LOL!

Rating agencies commited a big fraud overrating assets.

You should stop digging.

Every single article just says buying MBS

Before the crisis, they bought Treasuries. For QE, they bought Treasuries and guaranteed MBS.
MBS guaranteed by Fannie and Freedie. Kinda the opposite of junk.

The point is you can't either proove those are quality assets, specially with QE3.
Regardless, with the pressure from shale oil companies having losses with current oil prices, soon enough will know if this was a sound strategy or not.

 

[CultureCitizen]

If the true goal of the entire war was Oil, we'd have it. If the true goal was to 'get the spoils of war', we would have the spoils of war.

There were many other goals : a quick victory , a more stable country/region, destruction of the WMD. None of those were achieved.
You make it sound as: whatever our goals are, we achieve them. For this war at least , it doesn't seem to be so.

My point: Going into war was reckless. The money would have done marvels had it been spend on R&D. Aren't inventions & engineering the strong point of the USA ?

 

[Andylusion]

If the true goal of the entire war was Oil, we'd have it. If the true goal was to 'get the spoils of war', we would have the spoils of war.

There were many other goals : a quick victory , a more stable country/region, destruction of the WMD. None of those were achieved.
You make it sound as: whatever our goals are, we achieve them. For this war at least , it doesn't seem to be so.

I think the primary goal was removing Saddam, who failed to abide by the cease-fire agreement, from power.

I think that goal was achieved.

As for WMDs, the way I always understood it, was that we didn't want him to become an eminent threat. He didn't. It's now clear he had tons of WMDs, and that the Russians moved some of them to Syria. Unless you think the new Iraq government is on track to become a threat, I think that goal was also achieved. I could be wrong. Time will tell.

As for the failures... A quick victory. That was a pipe dream to begin with. I knew it wouldn't be quick. Creating a stable country, that also was not going to happen without us staying in Iraq for the long term. Unforatunely, we elected Obama, and pulled out.

It's easy to declare failure, when you don't do what is required to succeed.

Regardless, my point isn't that we succeeded in everything we set out to do. My point is, Oil wasn't the goal. It never was. We didn't capture an oil field. We didn't start shipping billions of barrels of free oil back to the US. We don't own any of it now, and we never will.

Until you can provide clear, conclusive proof that we went there for oil, and show me the oil we got free... that is not a supportable statement.

 

[g5000]

QE and ZIRP are rescuing zombie banks at the expense of everyone else in America. Savers are being punished. Interest rates are being held artificially low. This is not a free market in any sense of the word.

How anyone can defend our government stealing from the common citizen so that corrupt and thieving banks can be saved is beyond me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How would I be able to tell you,?

You've been making the claim, now you realize you have no proof? LOL!

Rating agencies commited a big fraud overrating assets.

You should stop digging.

Every single article just says buying MBS

Before the crisis, they bought Treasuries. For QE, they bought Treasuries and guaranteed MBS.
MBS guaranteed by Fannie and Freedie. Kinda the opposite of junk.

The point is you can't either proove those are quality assets, specially with QE3.
Regardless, with the pressure from shale oil companies having losses with current oil prices, soon enough will know if this was a sound strategy or not.

The point is you can't either proove those are quality assets, specially with QE3.

US Treasuries and Fannie and Freddie MBS backed by the US Treasury.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure those are quality assets.

Regardless, with the pressure from shale oil companies having losses with current oil prices, soon enough will know if this was a sound strategy or not.

Lower oil prices are going to harm the guaranteed bonds?
I need a laugh, can you explain why? Pretty please? LOL!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling ( e.g. the minimum wage of a day per election) ?

My position follows :
A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
B) Most of the elements in the system are fueled by greed.
C) Politicians beneffit from large donations from persons and corporations
D) Politicians will want to keep the donations flowing as they recieve a beneffit from them.
E) From D, it follows large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations.

... I somehow get the impression this line of though went unnoticed by the Supreme Court .

Share your thoughts.

The unions and the DNC press should simply select our rulers. We can't have the "little people" interfering with the rule by their betters by forming PACS and demanding that they have a voice in the process.

You are right Comrade, speech must not be allowed for the riff-raff. Only the GLORIOUS party and their representatives in the public employee unions and the corrupt press can be permitted a voice!

 

[danielpalos]

We were discussing QE.
The fed can't press the intrest rate any lower so they've resorted to QE.

QE is the equivalent of saying... The patient isn't responding fast enough to the leaches so we've decided to lacerate the wrists. Short-term economic goals are met, but we'll pay for it in the end with deflation of currency. It is stupid policy on top of already economically incompetent policy.

It is the right's version of trickle down, bail out the wealthiest first and let the rest, "trickle down".

 

[Uncensored2008]

Leftists see freedom as too precious to allow the unwashed masses to have it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We were discussing QE.
The fed can't press the intrest rate any lower so they've resorted to QE.

QE is the equivalent of saying... The patient isn't responding fast enough to the leaches so we've decided to lacerate the wrists. Short-term economic goals are met, but we'll pay for it in the end with deflation of currency. It is stupid policy on top of already economically incompetent policy.

It is the right's version of trickle down, bail out the wealthiest first and let the rest, "trickle down".

bail out the wealthiest first and let the rest, "trickle down".

You're right, saving the banking system only helps the wealthy.
Just look at what happened with massive bank failures during the Great Depression.
Poor and middle class people did great. Not.

 

[danielpalos]

Leftists see freedom as too precious to allow the unwashed masses to have it.

public baths solved that problem for ancient Romans.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Regardless, with the pressure from shale oil companies having losses with current oil prices, soon enough will know if this was a sound strategy or not.

Lower oil prices are going to harm the guaranteed bonds?
I need a laugh, can you explain why? Pretty please? LOL!

Not harm the "guaranteed bonds" but harm the economy . This bond buying stuff is quite similar to printing money, the result has been some sort of stagflation.

Shale oil companies have beneffited with zirp , but now they will have to shrink as they are unable to produce below cost and pay their obligations. Companies will close, jobs will be lost and interests will rise, increasing the pressure upon the remaining companies. What's next another recesion, probably.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Regardless, with the pressure from shale oil companies having losses with current oil prices, soon enough will know if this was a sound strategy or not.

Lower oil prices are going to harm the guaranteed bonds?
I need a laugh, can you explain why? Pretty please? LOL!

Not harm the "guaranteed bonds" but harm the economy . This bond buying stuff is quite similar to printing money, the result has been some sort of stagflation.

Shale oil companies have beneffited with zirp , but now they will have to shrink as they are unable to produce below cost and pay their obligations. Companies will close, jobs will be lost and interests will rise, increasing the pressure upon the remaining companies. What's next another recesion, probably.

Not harm the "guaranteed bonds" but harm the economy

We consume much more oil than we produce. Lower oil is good for the economy.

Shale oil companies have beneffited with zirp

Many more than just shale companies. And homeowners. Borrowers of all types.

Companies will close, jobs will be lost and interests will rise

And other companies will open, expand, hire.

What's next another recesion, probably.

There is always a recession on the way.
Usually caused by bad things, like rising oil, not good things, like falling oil.

 

[Boss]

We were discussing QE.
The fed can't press the intrest rate any lower so they've resorted to QE.

QE is the equivalent of saying... The patient isn't responding fast enough to the leaches so we've decided to lacerate the wrists. Short-term economic goals are met, but we'll pay for it in the end with deflation of currency. It is stupid policy on top of already economically incompetent policy.

It is the right's version of trickle down, bail out the wealthiest first and let the rest, "trickle down".

QE has nothing to do with the right or Reagan's "supply side" economic policies. In essence, every free market economy functions on a "trickle down" principle. If you don't like that principle then you don't like free market economy. Because that's what is happening.

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money. This is used like smoke and mirrors to keep a fledgling economy from tanking. We'll pay the piper for it down the road in devaluing of the dollar. So... two or three years from now, when we're all paying $4 for a loaf of bread, you'll understand why... or no... maybe YOU won't, I'm sure you'll blame that on Bush and Republicans too.