Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Talk about not understanding the value of capitalism and over blowing the negative issues involved!How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?
Exactly.
Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.
Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.
Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.
Do you really believe that horse puckey? It was created as a central bank, partly to keep some watch over bank actions, but mostly, using interest as a tool as a means to do the government's bidding. Now your post is what was stupid.THAT is really stupid.THAT is really irrelevant, as the Fed will invariably do what the current administration wants them to doHow much of the Fed's stock is owned by the government?
The Fed's mandate hasn't changed since 1913, to keep the private banking system intact.
This mean propping up the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers, that means taxpayers are paying interest to those banks on the banks' reserves--reserves maintained for their own private profit.
Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research
"On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance.
"According to the city, these risky home loans triggered numerous foreclosures that disproportionately affected people of color.
"The alleged predatory lending resulted in cratering property values, lost tax revenue and increased costs to the city as there are now no homeowners paying for the maintenance of those foreclosed properties.
"The Los Angeles Times reports that JPMorgan is charged with responsibility for some 200,000 foreclosures in the city between 2008 and 2012.
"Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has already gone after Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and will argue that JPMorgan has continuously practiced mortgage discrimination since 2004."
Feel free to continue making an ass out of your self, Bitch.
L.A. Sues America?s Biggest Bank Alleging Predatory Lending - Truthdig
See what I mean? You are so dumb, you don't even realize that what you just posted, contradicts absolutely nothing of what I said. Nor did I ever suggest what is written here was wrong otherwise.
You are just simply too stupid to know what you don't know.
Thomas Sowell is right.
I dont mind debating smart people. They know the limitations of their position. Its debating stupid people thats hard.You are correct. Your ignorance and arrogance is deadly. Just because someone sued the private bankers does not mean the bankers were wrong. The mortgage "fraud" as you call it was caused by the government.You're still no Thomas Sowell.
I guess you missed the irony of government suing private banksters to redress an epidemic of mortgage fraud, 80% of which was committed by private lenders?
Arrogance and ignorance are deadly.
So, you are saying you are against financing infrastructure because of interest costs? Are you aware that by paying in less valuable dollars in the future may well eliminate the actual interest costs? Are aware that government borrows because they do not have the necessary capital to pay for big projects? Do you realize that taking "cash" capital reduces what is spent on our necessary social programs?Wall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?
Exactly.
Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.
Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.
Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.
"Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.
'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Browns plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'
"Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost.
"The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project.
"That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees.
"Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion.
"But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab.
"Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion three or four times the cost of construction."
Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction
Does it sound reasonable to say preventing government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone would require a Second Constitutional Convention?I wouldn't. I don't think it's their influence that's the problem. It's what that influence affords them. Instead, I'd work to prevent government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone, wealthy or otherwise.
Given the polluted state of Constitutional case law and precedent - probably. At the very least a really solid amendment along those lines.
How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?
Exactly.
Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.
Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.
Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.
I realize gov't social engineering often fails but in this case we, as a nation, tried to include our least capable in the American dream. It was a noble idea that, other than a few exceptions, failed miserably.
Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
It wasn't the housing market.
^
Proof you don't understand derivatives or Ponzi schemes.
Look at North Dakota, and you might discover not everyone is a greedy cocksucker, like youWall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:
"Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.
'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Browns plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'
"Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost.
"The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project.
"That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees.
"Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion.
"But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab.
"Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion three or four times the cost of construction."
Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction
Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.
That is an excellent idea!
The government can loan taxpayer funds to their cronies, what could go wrong? LOL!
Look at what happened last time the government did that.
Fannie and Freddie lost hundreds of billions.
Look at the current government takeover of student loans.
"A number of other mineral-rich states were initially not affected by the economic downturn, but they lost revenues with the later decline in oil prices. North Dakota is the only state to be in continuous budget surplus since the banking crisis of 2008. Its balance sheet is so strong that it recently reduced individual income taxes and property taxes by a combined $400 million, and is debating further cuts. It also has the lowest foreclosure rate and lowest credit card default rate in the country, and it has had NO bank failures in at least the last decade."
North Dakota's Economic ?Miracle??It's Not Oil by Ellen Brown ? YES! Magazine
It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse.So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.
I have been very up front with discussions in this thread. Anyone who suggests they do not understand what I say or mean is being obtuse and showing only concern for their own personal agenda. That is the typical left wing manner of discussing an issue. I can't remember how many times I have said things like, "the government's fiscal and monetary policy" is the primary cause of the housing balloon and crash. EXCESSIVELY LOW INTEREST AND LOW OR NO DOWN PAYMENT LOANS. That is followed by the policy to push CRA, well beyond the literal meaning of the law.It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse.So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.
In GP's case, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Who are "they"?So who owns the Fed's stock?
They shouldn't have called it stock. Causes confusion.
They should have called it a bond or a risk requirement?
Maybe a membership deposit?
The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
Anyone in your family?
You're sadly ignorant of US History:Government had a vested interest in tying the east coast to the west coast for the betterment of our country. That includes moving people and freight. Government got a lot out of the deal as well as the entrepreneurs who built the railroad.How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?How does the government negotiate the trade-offs between costs and profits? What gives you the idea the government does anything but see to the self interests of the politicians?
But none of that is relevant to TODAY. What was done over 100 years ago is not relevant to a current discussion of capitalism.
People like Morgan, Aldrich, Rockefeller, and Warburg, you mean?Who are "they"?They shouldn't have called it stock. Causes confusion.
They should have called it a bond or a risk requirement?
Maybe a membership deposit?
The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
Anyone in your family?
Who are "they"?
The people who decided to call it stock, back in 1913.
Anyone in your family?
Not that I'm aware of. But it was over 100 years ago, anything is possible.
Look at North Dakota, and you might discover not everyone is a greedy cocksucker, like youWall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:
"Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.
'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Browns plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'
"Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost.
"The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project.
"That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees.
"Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion.
"But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab.
"Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion three or four times the cost of construction."
Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction
Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.
That is an excellent idea!
The government can loan taxpayer funds to their cronies, what could go wrong? LOL!
Look at what happened last time the government did that.
Fannie and Freddie lost hundreds of billions.
Look at the current government takeover of student loans.
"A number of other mineral-rich states were initially not affected by the economic downturn, but they lost revenues with the later decline in oil prices. North Dakota is the only state to be in continuous budget surplus since the banking crisis of 2008. Its balance sheet is so strong that it recently reduced individual income taxes and property taxes by a combined $400 million, and is debating further cuts. It also has the lowest foreclosure rate and lowest credit card default rate in the country, and it has had NO bank failures in at least the last decade."
North Dakota's Economic ?Miracle??It's Not Oil by Ellen Brown ? YES! Magazine
I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.
I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.
Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:
"The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .
"It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1
"When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"
"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.
"Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.
"Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)
"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
"To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
Along with Hank Paulson.I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.
Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:
"The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .
"It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1
"When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"
"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.
"Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.
"Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)
"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
"To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.
You're right, those liberal Democrat insiders who ran Fannie and Freddie should have done jail time for their accounting fraud.
Along with Hank Paulson.I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?
Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:
"The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .
"It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1
"When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"
"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.
"Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.
"Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)
"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
"To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.
You're right, those liberal Democrat insiders who ran Fannie and Freddie should have done jail time for their accounting fraud.
Central banks can be created as public or private institutions.Do you really believe that horse puckey? It was created as a central bank, partly to keep some watch over bank actions, but mostly, using interest as a tool as a means to do the government's bidding. Now your post is what was stupid.THAT is really stupid.THAT is really irrelevant, as the Fed will invariably do what the current administration wants them to do
The Fed's mandate hasn't changed since 1913, to keep the private banking system intact.
This mean propping up the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers, that means taxpayers are paying interest to those banks on the banks' reserves--reserves maintained for their own private profit.
Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research
