hey democrats ! is Americas capitalistic system a form of white supremacy ?

[Andylusion]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

 

[Andylusion]

the majority of the anti capitalist are weak limp wristed white democrats.

You forgot rich trustful and kids.The kind who will never have to work a day in their lives.

.

Other than Hunter Biden, and other elite left-wingers... name those mythical kids that never work a day in their life?

 

[BlueGin]

hey democrats ! is Americas capitalistic system a form of white supremacy ?

To them, capitalism and white supremacy are the same thing.

It's all bullshit.

They are all out to destroy capitalism. That's what this is all about.

Commies gonna commie!!!

KACFM!!!

.

They arent out to destroy Capitalism. They rely on it in the form of Google,Twitter,Facebook,Hollywood,The NFL,The MSM etc...to force their agenda on the public.

 

[Mac1958]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

 

[JustAGuy1]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

Is that so? How do they "do" that?

 

[JustAGuy1]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

" Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES. "

At what cost?

 

[Mac1958]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

Is that so? How do they "do" that?

Please see the post before yours.

 

[Mac1958]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

" Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES. "

At what cost?

That depends on how effectively they unwind them off their balance sheet.

The point, of course, is their importance in the system.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

no

Don't let Democrats lie to you.

They hate America and are out to destroy anything American and fundamentally transform America into a global socialist police state run by oligarchs out of Europe.

 

[pknopp]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

No, it recovered. The value of the stocks increased because the companies were making money by selling products at a profit. The Fed did not make Apple computer successful, or Walmart, or anyone else.

There isn't a single stock I own, at least none I am aware of, that company got a penny from the Feds.

Wal Mart get billions every year in the form of social welfare programs. Stocks aren't where they are because of "profits".

Has Tesla ever made a profit?

 

[pknopp]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

Right, Trillions in QE played no role.

 

[Andylusion]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a
$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment
Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of
CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union
Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –
they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union
Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income
borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of
1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy
capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide
credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,
managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair
Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership
in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of
competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction
enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and
have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the
investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

 

[Cecilie1200]

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

You should take a close look at who you support and ask yourself why you are so angry all of the time.

Why would you assume that's due to the people he supports, Cornball, rather than the muck dwellers who oppose him and their pusillanimous tactics?

 

[Cecilie1200]

angry ?are republicans rioting and burning things down ? the answer is no !

Republicans blow-up federal buildings, crash economies, and give me the best tax deductions!

No, no, yes, and has anyone mentioned to you that you're either a liar or insane? I mean, since the last time I mentioned it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You have to be rioting to be angry? LOL

the rioting and looting makes us angry .... please tell us if you believe capitalism is a form of white supremacy .

I'm pretty sure that's AOC and the other leftists' way of telling us that they think black people are too dumb and lazy to get ahead on their own.

 

[JustAGuy1]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

Right, Trillions in QE played no role.

The only "role" they played was to kick the can down the road.

 

[Mac1958]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

 

[Andylusion]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

No, it recovered. The value of the stocks increased because the companies were making money by selling products at a profit. The Fed did not make Apple computer successful, or Walmart, or anyone else.

There isn't a single stock I own, at least none I am aware of, that company got a penny from the Feds.

Wal Mart get billions every year in the form of social welfare programs. Stocks aren't where they are because of "profits".

Has Tesla ever made a profit?

This implies that if we canceled that those social welfare programs, that walmart would lose money. Prove that.

If you can prove that, then you just proved we need to eliminate social welfare programs.

If you can't prove that, then your argument is crap.

I'll give you a hint. The report where that BS argument came from, all they did was look at wage rates, and assume they were the sole wage earner in household, and then assumed, without actually questioning a single person, that they were collecting every benefit they theoretically qualified for.

To give you an idea of how stupid that is, when I was in high school, at age 16, I was working for McDonald. If you blindly looked at my wage, assumed I was the sole wage earner in my household, you would think I was getting tons of benefits. In reality I was getting zero government benefits. I was living at home.

Yes, I agree about Tesla. I mentioned green energy in a prior post. By all means, lets end all green energy programs, tax benefits, and subsidies. Tesla will cease to exist.

 

[Andylusion]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

Right, Trillions in QE played no role.

Are you telling me, that Apple computer got money from QE? If so, prove it. Their information if publicly available. I know this, I'm a stock holder. If you can find where in Apple's legally required SEC filing, it says they got money from QE, then I will forever change my opinion about QE.

By the way, I'm against QE. I want the Fed to do as little as possible. I don't believe they are required for successful Capitalism.

There are two factors that play into the long term recovery of the stock market. Just two. Only two.

The value of the profit sharing (dividends on the stock), and the over all success of the company itself.

If Apple recorded a loss of billions, no amount of QE is going to magically make people buy that stock and have the market recover.
And if Apple records a profit of billions, no lack of QE is going to magically make me sell my stock in Apple, causing the market to crash.

Now if you want to argue that QE caused people to buy iPhones and Mac Computers..... Yeah good luck with that, because that would imply somehow I magically had more money to buy Apple products, because of QE. That didn't happen for me. Did it happen for you?

And if QE had no effect on Apple stock, why would it have an effect on Walmart stocks? Or Microsoft stock? On Honda, or Toyota or Ford, or any other company? Well of course it wouldn't have any effect.

So, the answer to your passive aggressive statement is... No: QE played no role whatsoever.
In the extreme short term, QE can boast stock prices, but only for a moment. After that moment where investors say "oh government is doing something!"... after that brief day or two at most, QE has zero long term impact. Zero.

That's actually one of the reasons I'm entirely against QE. The idiotic Fed is screwing around, and it does zero good whatsoever. In fact, I'm convinced the reason the government does this mindless crap, is because it convinces the stupid people, that you need them. Nothing empowers government more, than YOU thinking that THEY saved you. The government has their lemmings by the balls, and the lemmings don't even know it, because they are just mindlessly following the government propaganda.

 

[georgephillip]

many in blm antifa and dem leaders like the gang of 4 headed by AOC claim that the capitalist system in America is a form of white supremacy and the ultimate goal of said leaders and groups is to do away with that system .... so the question for left voters is whether or not they believe capitalism is a form of white supremacy and what economic system do they believe would be better or more importantly to their ideology fairer ?

Do you see a connection between white supremacy and US slavery?

"There was no such thing as capitalism without slavery."

Is Capitalism Racist?

"As Walter Johnson, one of our leading historians of slavery, wrote in 2018, 'There was no such thing as capitalism without slavery: the history of Manchester never happened without the history of Mississippi.'"