Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: clowns

Posted 2 years ago on March 25, 2012, 2:12 p.m. EST by BullsAndBears (-36)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

You're all a bunch of clowns, making up conspiracy theories about everything and then backing them up by say "you're a slave to mainstream media" or "You're so naive". If you're so unhappy with this country, leave. It would make this country much better without you guys here. Even though that's probably hard for you guys to believe because you think you're making a huge change in this country.

100 Comments

100 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 9 points by beautifulworld (22225) 2 years ago

So you think it's okay, even good, that half of Americans earn less than $26,000 per year, that 22% of our children live in poverty, that 42% of African American children live in poverty, that 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps, that CEO's, who 30 years ago earned an average of 40 times the wage of the average worker, today earn an average of 343 times the average worker, that foreclosures are at an all time high, that the true unemployment rate hovers around 10%, that 50 million Americans have no health insurance, that college costs have soared in the last two decades while wages have fallen, etc., etc.? These things are all cool with you? Why don't you find some compassion and empathy for the millions of people who are suffering in this country? And, when you look in the mirror see the true clown.

[-] 4 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Thanks for saying what needed to be said.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22225) 2 years ago

: -)

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Well, you shut that clown up.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22225) 2 years ago

Thanks. Nice to see you're back, GK.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thanks. I can only drop in once in a while for a few months or so, because I'm just too busy, but I'll be back. Thanks to you and DKA and Shooz and therising, GirlFriday and Shadz, and HitGirl and Odin and so many others for keeping the mentall fires burning here!

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

It is always nice to have you around.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Likewise!!!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22225) 2 years ago

Please do stop in when you can. You are missed!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I'll do my best. Thanks again BW!!! Our karma is going to run over their dogma!

[-] 3 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

Our karma is going to run over their dogma!

this is great,gk!!!!!

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Plus... 50% of all Americans are in poverty or close to it because of low income, 97% of workers earn a below average income, 18% cannot get a full-time job, and 55% of all workers are wasting their lives doing pointless jobs that can be automated with existing technology

Since income determines your standard of living and your freedom and your political power, and since the hugely unequal allocation of income has left the vast majority with too little income, society is neither humane, free or democratic.

Our system of allocating income has left the majority with too low a standard of living, too little freedom and too little political power.

Income must be allocated democratically, not through the market, so that everyone is guaranteed a job at a fair wage. Allocating income democratically would guarantee you a job of at least $115k per year.

Unemployment and lack of income from unequal income allocation is the cause of nearly every problem in society. There is no problem more important than this. Fixing it should take priority over everything else because there is nothing more important to do.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22225) 2 years ago

I agree that we need find a new way to value labor.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

97% of Americans make below average salary.... No average salary is at 50% of the total population. For being a man who works in the fed you sure have a problem with numbers

[-] 3 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"No average salary is at 50% of the total population"

You should learn the difference between median and average - basic math concepts taught to children in grade school - before you try to criticize me.

Capitalism works great for people like you who don't understand simple math because you are too ignorant to figure how bad a deal you are getting.

Try getting a clue. You can start by reading my posts and comments.

[-] -1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yeah no i read it.

You should also know that yes we use the median as the real average to get rid of outliers on the top and bottom. So i may of used the "wrong" word but at least i'm being ethical and not lying with statistics. Stop spreading fear and lies to push your system

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

So you want to use the median income instead of the average in order to hide the fact that income is allocated so unequally. You want to "get rid" of the data that contains all the income concentrated at the top. And that is not lying.

Lying is including the concentrated income data.

lol

The magnitude of stupidity in the people brainwashed to promote capitalism is shocking.

But I guess you have to be pretty dumb to advocate a system that keeps you poor because the people who are getting rich off of you told you to.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Well first of all im just do what im trained to do be an engineer and leave you in your bullshit world. I was pointing out that your are manipulating data in an unethical way but you just attack me

coming from a guy who works in the fed you sure are an idiot but i bet your just the coffee guy

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Hey DB, I told you before .. you are not welcome here.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Gonna be friendly yet no thats ok. Like i said before i can stay because i make real advice. Also you don't own this thread so you cant stop my opinions. I respect yours so learn to respect mine.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-occupy-should-really-protest/#comment-688732

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

you are a horrible person DB.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You might want to ask for a refund on your tuition if your engineering school taught you that you must get rid of numbers you don't like or that reporting an average is an unethical manipulation of data.

It is ok for you to attack me, but it is not ok for me to attack you? Did they teach you that at engineering school too?

For the record, I worked for the fed 15 years ago.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

you worked for the fed !

I have been trying to understand something about how the debt is created .. and why , if the fed can print money and borrow to the treasury , why do they sell bonds to investors .. .. to me it seems the bonds would only tie up" money that should remain in circulation ..

I have been discussing this on another thread .. and I am having difficulty understanding the entire mechanism ..

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The goal of the fed is price stability. If there is inflation, it wants to shrink the money supply. If there is deflation, it wants to increase the money supply.

But the fed doesn't have direct control over the money supply. By selling treasuries they only hope to affect the interest rates that banks lend to each other. That interest rate determines what rates the banks can lend at to the public.

If there is inflation, they will want to increase the bank lending rate. That will deter borrowing, increase saving and therefore decrease the money being spent in circulation.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Yes , I understand how interest rates affect borrowing and thus spending, plus the increase or decrease of inflation.

When the government runs up a deficit, they need to borrow from the fed .. does the fed print this , or sell bonds to collect this money ?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The treasury securities market is the largest bond market in the world. Hundreds of billions are traded every day. That is why it is so liquid and essentially drives the entire debt market.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The fed is under the jurisdiction of the treasury. So it can command the fed to do whatever. But the fed gets the money to lend to the treasury by selling treasury bonds to investors. There are almost always investors, but if there aren't, the fed prints the money.

The federal government doesn't wait around for the fed to sell treasuries in an auction.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

okay, that's pretty clear.. so the fed can print/ does print money, but also borrows money / to borrow money. Thats what I have meant by saying we buy money from the fed with existing money ?

question : they probably do this to reduce money in circulation by selling bondsie. to china and locally, but, by selling those bonds they are also reducing money in the economy .. tightening up whats in circulation .. and than trying to replace that with " stimulus money " it's just .. whats the word I can use to describe this .. ? They sell bonds to prevent inflation , and than they borrow money to create stimulus .. what am I looking for ... ?there is an overlap here ... we are paying interest on bonds to keep money out of circulation and prevent inflation .. on one hand , and than we borrow money to add to the economy as a stimulus .. if it's not redundant.. it's ..[ I can't find the right word ] ? We are borrowing money from china to prevent inflation , and than we need to borrow money for stimulus .. why not just give china their money back ? as I mentioned if we borrow from the fed to pay china our debt would still be 15 trillion ... and the money we pay china would be stimulus for the economy .. at least globally ..

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Selling treasury bonds reduces inflation"

When you lend money to the government, it has no effect on inflation.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Sure it has. The GNP is directly affected by the amount of money in circulation. When the fed borrows money from the public instead of printing its own money , the debt is raised but the GNP remains the same. If the fed would leave the money in the private sector and print money as needed than inflation would occur. Thus selling treasury reduces the inflation, or rather suppresses inflation. In this it does negatively affect the GNP: debt ratio. Also keep in mind , if we had inflation than every piece of tax the government collects would be a little bit larger helping to reduce the debt quicker.

Selling treasuries is a bad idea. It distorts the GNP : debt ratio negatively. It removes money from the economy. It causes the double-debt payment. And it suffocates the economy.

All bonds should be paid off with newly printed money. This may seem like inflation but in fact will be where the value of the dollar is supposed to be.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"You do realize that everytime the fed sells treasuries to the public it reduces the GNP value making it harder to pay off the national debt."

It never reduces GNP.

GNP = Consumption + Investment + Net Exports + Government

Government adds to our total production. So if government borrows money that is not being spent and spends it, it is increasing total production.

If the money, that the government borrows, would have never been spent, had the government not borrowed it, then the government borrowing that money would have increased total GNP.

If that money would have been spent on consumption, for example, if the government never borrowed the money, then it would not have increased total GNP. It would have no effect on total GNP. It would have lowered Consumption by the borrowed amount and increased Government by the borrowed amount, leaving GNP the same.

But Government spending always increases the Government part of the GNP equation above so it never decreases GNP.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Inflation increases the value of GNP. Since GNP is measured in dollars.

Selling treasury bonds reduces inflation , thus reducing the GNP value. And this negatively changes the debt: GNP ratio.

A lower GNP value vs constant debt value.

Yes, money would be spent stimulating the economy by the private sector, if the fed would print instead of borrow. And give the dollar it's true value.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"which is it ?"

The govt borrows its money from the fed. The fed gets the money by selling treasuries to the public.

The fed acts as the govt's bank and provides the same services for the govt that your bank provides to you. It is where the govt keeps its checking account.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

You do realize that everytime the fed sells treasuries to the public it reduces the GNP value making it harder to pay off the national debt.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"the fed prints the money to the banks and than the banks loan the money to the federal government ?"

No, the Fed is the govt's bank. The govt borrows from the fed.

The public borrows from regular, private banks.

.

"over and over again and each time the debt gets larger and larger .. but in reality the amount of money in circulation remains at a trillion ??"

The govt's debt only grows when they borrow more money. They only need to borrow when their expenses exceed their revenues. But the govt doesn't have to ever borrow money. If politicians were more disciplined, they would not spend any more money than the govt generates in taxes and fees.

We produce $15 trillion in sales each year. But we don't need $15 trillion in money in order to run the economy. We need less. That is because a single dollar bill circulates through the economy forever and is used for more than $1 in sales per year.

You spend $100 at the grocery store to buy food. A couple of days later, that same $100 is paid to a grocery store employee. A couple of days later, that employee spends that $100 at a restaurant. A couple days later, the restaurant pays that $100 to one of their waiters. A couple of days later that waiter uses that $100 to go to a baseball game.

So that single $100 bill was used 5 times over the course of a couple of week to buy $500 worth of goods and services.

The amount of times our money supply is used per year in buying things is called money velocity. Depending on the money measure you use, the velocity is as high as 7.

So you only need $2 trillion in money in order to have a $15 trillion yearly economy.

Everyone is constantly reusing the same money in their borrowing, lending and spending, not just the govt.

.

"I hope I am getting across with how the recirculation of borrowed money becomes a compounding debt"

The recirculation of money does not ever force anyone to ever borrow any money.

The govt only constantly increases its debt because it is constantly spending more than it has. If it stopped spending more than it has, the govt would never borrow any money.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

"The government borrows money just like you would. It borrows it from savers."

"No, the Fed is the govt's bank. The govt borrows from the fed."

which is it ?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"We can assume all USA dollars originated from the fed and into the treasury where the federal government than spent it into the economy through various avenues.."

Are you trying to say that all the money in the entire economy, in the entire money supply, came into existence in this way?

That is not true. The government only makes up a small percentage of the economy. There was money in the economy long before the fed. And new money that is created goes from the fed to private banks then into the private economy.

The govt can borrow money directly from the fed and the fed can create new money to lend to the govt and that would increase the money supply. But it would only do this as a last resort. And if the fed did do this, it only represents a small portion of the govt's $15 trillion debt.

.

"if the government borrows money from the economy they are paying interest on that money again .. it's a double-debt"

The government borrows money just like you would. It borrows it from savers.

If it borrows $1 trillion, it will pay interest on that loan.

If it borrows another trillion the next year, it will have 2 loans it is paying interest on. The same goes for you or anyone else that borrows money. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

so what are you saying ... the fed prints the money to the banks and than the banks loan the money to the federal government ? makes me want to press the red button right now ..and nuke the whole banking system !!!

double - debt.

lets say the goverment borrows a trillion dollars , pays interest , and disperses it to the economy. now the economy saves a half trillion in the bank, and next year the Government borrows another half trillion ands pays interest on that too ... so the gov't pays interest on the first trillion and than reborrows half of that first trillion and pays interest on that too .. so the same money keeps compounding in debt .. and the debt rises and rises .. each time paying an additional interest .. there is really only one trillion in circulation but each year as it is reborrowed .. the debt goes beyond the actual trillion .. they are reborrowing the same money .. over and over again and each time the debt gets larger and larger .. but in reality the amount of money in circulation remains at a trillion ??

it's a double debt , than a triple-debt ..

that 15 trillion debt could have originated from 1 trillion .. in reality .. and yes I realize the origins of money are unaccountable .. I was assuming .. for explanation purposes to set up an example of my point .. but thanks for all the responses .. I hope I am getting across with how the recirculation of borrowed money becomes a compounding debt.. double-debt. thanks

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"makes me wonder about the 15 trillion debt ..? is that real debt or is some of it non existent multiplier debt ?"

No, this is very real debt. It is the same kind of debt that you or I would have. The government has $15 trillion in debt because it paid out $15 trillion more in expenses than it took in revenue.

.

"Double-debt ... "

I'm still not sure of what you are asking.

But so long as there are people who are unemployed, the economy has room to expand. So you could make the argument that the govt should borrow money in order to pay for these people to work. That would not cause inflation because there would be an increase in total production to match the increase in the money supply.

But if we were at full employment, the govt won't be able to increase production by dumping money into the economy. That would just cause inflation.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

a 2nd attempt to explain double -debt

All the money the government has put into the economy , the government is paying interest on .. so now if the government borrows money from the economy they are paying interest on that money again .. it's a double-debt .. are they really doing any good trying to avoid inflation but at the same time double interest payments ? some of that money in bonds may be a third or fourth time reinvested ... tripling and quadrupling the interest on the original dollar. yikes !

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

"double-debt"

I would like to clear this up-

We can assume all USA dollars originated from the fed and into the treasury where the federal government than spent it into the economy through various avenues..

Now all this money circulating within the economy is considered debt owed by the government to the treasury . To get it back and pay interest .. [ where does the money come from to pay the additional interest ? ] the government collects taxes . It would be impossible to collect it all back . so enough is collected to pay the interest and a bit of princple. ..and hopefully enough to respend and circulate through the next budget.

What happens though is some of the money within circulation is accumulated in the form of profit and is not recollected as a tax to pay off its origins.. and with the government borrowing that accumulated profit to spend within its budget and circulate throughout ht economy.. now the government is indebted twice to the same money .. double-debt.. the government must collect taxes to pay off the loan borrowed from profits , and than when that is paid off and recirculates the government must collect it again to pay off the original loan .. it is a double debt using the same money .. while you may be trying to prevent inflation , the fe government is doubling its interest payments .. because the government is paying interest on the first loan from the fed .. dispersing that money amongst the economy and than reborrowing the dispersed money and paying a debt interest payment a 2nd time ..

sorry I am repeating myself here .. is it clear .. are you seeing a glimpse of this ..?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"I don't believe Bank A should include the $ 90 borrowed out as part of their balance sheet"

I probably should have made myself more clear.

I'm not saying this is what the banks claim. This is what fed conspiracy videos and popular crackpot books like the Web of Debt claim.

These people claim that banks can make their own money and then point to the money multiplier as proof. If someone were to really look at bank balance sheets, they would see these claims are false.

In practice, the money multiplier does increase the M1 measure of the money supply. And if you start out with $100, like in my example, the money multiplier can ultimately create more money because if Bank A lends out more than they are allowed, they can just borrow from the Fed to increase their reserve.

But a bank lending out more than it has in deposits by borrowing additional funds from the fed (and paying interest on those borrowed funds) is something completely different than what the conspiracy books and videos claim that banks have the power to print their own money

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

okay , so it is only the fed that has the power to print money out of thin air . thanks

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"where does the fed get the money to buy back theses treasuries? I assume they print the money?"

Yes, they "print" it. The fed has direct control over the size of bank reserves. If they buy a treasury security from a bank, all they do is just increase the digital number representing the bank's reserve. The fed doesn't have to have this money in savings. The total amount of this money is referred to as M0 or the monetary base.

.

"why doesn't the fed buy all the tresury securities from the federal government in the first place ? "

They can, but that would likely cause inflation. Some (like Kucinich) argue that the government should always borrow from the fed interest free instead of from the market and pay interest.

The fed bank deals are short-term (like 2 weeks).

.

"it is locked in a gauranteed treasury and will not be back in circulation until the treasury security is cashed in"

I'm not sure I follow. If the govt borrows from the market like it does now, it is borrowing money that is already in circulation. So it has no effect on the money supply.

If it borrows from the fed, the fed has to create new money. That would increase the money supply and potentially increase inflation.

.

"if banks are allowed to print 90% of what they have in deposits.. than they are not actually printing money out of thin air .. they are borrowing money out that they had as deposited funds"

That is absolutely correct. Banks cannot print money. They can only lend a portion of their deposits.

.

"as I understood banks could print out of thin air up to ten times as nuch as they have in deposit"

This is not true. Unfortunately a lot of fed conspiracy videos on the internet get this wrong.

This is a misunderstanding of fractional reserve banking and the multiplier effect.

Let's say there is only $100 in existence. That $100 is deposited at Bank A. Bank A can now lend out $90. The person who borrowed that money will deposit that $90 at Bank B.

So now if you look at the balance sheet of banks, there is a total of $190. This $90 was created out of thin air. But that extra $90 does not exist. It only exists on paper.

Because as soon as the person who deposited that original $100 at Bank A writes a check, the mythical extra $90 will disappear from the bank balance sheets.

Let's say he writes a check for $50. Now Bank A has loaned out $90 but only has $50 on deposit. Bank A is now forced to borrow $50 from Bank B to meet their 10% reserve requirement. The extra money produced through this multiplier effect will completely disappear as the money is spent.

So even though a $100 deposit could increase total bank deposits on paper to $1000, that $1000 will never be spent in the economy. Only $100 will ever be spent in the economy.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Well ,thanks again. I see now the bank does not print money out of thin air , but I have to question their balance sheet calculations..? Bank A with $100 , once borrowed out $90 has only $10 left on their balance sheet , not $100 ..and bank B would have $90 .. I don't believe Bank A should include the $ 90 borrowed out as part of their balance sheet .. because obviosly this ends in a false total of $190..

please understand .. I am just pointing out my opinion hear .. and highly appreciate your explanation.

If person A borrowed $250 , 000 to buy a house , and has paid off $50,000 still owing $200,000. How much "net worth would person A have? would it be $50,000 , or $250,000 ? assuming just the house involved of course.

When calculating net worth do we subtract the amount owing ? If so than bank B with the $90 which was borrowed from bank A , should not include the $90 on it's balance sheets neither.

makes me wonder about the 15 trillion debt ..? is that real debt or is some of it non existent multiplier debt ? ..or perhaps it is forcast debt .. over next ten years ??

Banks should only include what they have in their banks on their balance sheets , and not include the money borrowed out .. if other banks that borrowed the money are including that borrowed money on their balance sheets .. they both cant include the same money.. that would be like you borrowing me $100 and now you and I together have $200 ! because I have the hundred you borrowed to me and you have the hundred that is owed to you .. I thought banks were smarter than this ..

thanks again .. great explanation..

now the fed ..

"it is locked in a guaranteed treasury and will not be back in circulation until the treasury security is cashed in"

I'm not sure I follow. If the govt borrows from the market like it does now, it is borrowing money that is already in circulation. So it has no effect on the money supply.

If it borrows from the fed, the fed has to create new money. That would increase the money supply and potentially increase inflation

-What I am getting at here is like a " double-debt" ..this will be hard to explain.

Double-debt ...

The Federal government borrows money and spends it on the economy.. This money has an interest payment owing on it .. and as it circulates through the economy taxes are recollected and a portion of those taxes pay off the interest on the debt. But, some of that money is also taken out of the economy as profit.. this profit is than reborrowed to the federal government and put in circulation again .. causing a double interest owing on that money.. it's a " double -debt"

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It was hard to understand what you were trying to say. I think you might be confusing the Fed and the Federal Government.

When the federal government spends more than it takes in, it must borrow the difference. Anyone can lend the government the money it needs by buying a treasury security. The govt currently owes about $10 trillion in marketable securities.

China has bought a lot of these securities. The fed also bought some. But this has nothing to do with fed monetary policy. This is only done so the government can pay its bills. It is not done to affect the money supply or rate of inflation.

The fed's monetary policy is something different.

The fed mandates how much a bank can lend. It is currently about 90% of its deposits. This rarely changes but it is one way the fed affects the money supply.

If the fed lowered the reserve requirement to 5%, banks would lend more and that would increase the money supply.

At the end of the day, the banks that have lent out more than 90% of its deposits are required by law to increase their reserves so that they are compliant by borrowing money overnight from other banks who have excess reserves.

The amount of interest the banks have to pay to borrow this money is called the fed funds rate. It depends on how many banks have excess reserves. Obviously, if a lot of banks have a lot of excess reserves, the lending banks won't be able to charge much interest. If there is little excess reserves, interest rates would be higher.

So what the fed primarily does is try to raise or lower this fed funds rate. If they want to lower the rate, they buy treasury securities from banks. This will increase the amount of excess reserves the banks have. And when banks have a lot of excess reserves, the fed funds rate goes down.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) (the heads of all the fed banks) meets a few times per year and they set a target fed funds rate. Then the new york fed buys or sells treasuries with banks to try to move the fed funds rate to that target.

This is called the open market operations and is the primary tool of the fed.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

hello again -

the tresury security is like a bond , an IOU correct ? and any one can buy from the government when they are selling tresury securities .. okay ..

Now the bank buys some of these treasuries , but the fed buys them back when it is needed to decrease the fed fund rate. understood.

question : where does the fed get the money to buy back theses treasuries? I assume they print the money? or do they have accumulated interest that they can only use?

assumingthe fed can print money, why doesn't the fed buy all the tresury securities from the federal government in the first place ?

partly what I believe I was trying to say was this: We should not allow any one to buy federal government tresuries except the fed. the reason being , when money is used to buy treasuries it is no longer available to eliminate they debt where it came from .. it is locked in a gauranteed treasury and will not be back in circulation until the treasury security is cashed in .. and only than will it become available to be recirculated within the system it originated ..

also , if banks are allowed to print 90% of what they have in deposits.. than they are not actually printing money out of thin air .. they are borrowing money out that they had as deposited funds .. ? I believe my understanding on another thread was slightly different with this , as I understood banks could print out of thin air up to ten times as nuch as they have in deposit .. now it may sound like the same thing in percentage wise , butone is out of thin air the other is real money .. in your information it is real money.

so I guess to ask a simple question , can the fed print money out of thin air and buy all the treasury securities ?

thanks for now

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Do you feel that the lever, the Fed's ability to effect interest rates, is broken because of the high debt/GDP ratio of the federal gov't? I believe it is almost impossible for the fed to do anything but flood the market with cheap cash through the act of selling Bonds. If they allow interest rates to rise, wouldn't that raise the interest rate on the national debt?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The fed must fund the treasury's debt. They do not have a say in that. But flooding the market with bonds lowers the interest rates.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

so it would not be in the nation's interest to raise interest rates. no?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The fed does not have direct control over interest rates. Rates are set by the market. They only hope to affect market interest rates through their buying and selling of securities.

They would want to increase rates if there was inflation. However, the last I saw, inflation was low, so they are not going to want to increase rates.

[-] -1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Well when you have a cluster of data in the in a certian range lets say from 10-40 then you have one or two in the 100's you get rid of those because it is an outlier and is a bad manipulation of the average it could raise the average so high that the data doesn't make sense. This is the principle of statistical ethics and keeping those numbers in the data provides false averages. So things like salary housing prices and so on should be done with the median since it gives a more realistic answer to the actual problem. If done with the mean or average you get corrupted data that leads to misguidance and errors.

I enjoy my studies here and considering it is one of the best places to be and the best in the world for my major im happy to be here. Kicks my ass everyday but i still make it

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

When you are dealing with wealth disparity, the outliers are just as important as the rest. The mean is too obtuse. The median shows exactly what half of the populous makes and is a more informative. Who cares what the average is if it does not tell us what the majority makes? Also if we were to look at the mode, we'd be even more appalled at the state of affairs. The mean is used by those who want to sell the American Lie.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes in a wealth you should take note of those numbers but you should also realize that it falsifies the average and not use it in any public setting.

[-] 3 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

your advocating a double standard . why not just say , an average for the rich and an average for the poor .. divide us by class already .. and segregate us in the lunchrooms. oh wait you already do..

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

And you should learn statistic ethics take a class you would understand that using the average in a case of wealth leads to a wrong number that is not true. Using the Median finds the real "average" and is what should be used when calculating wealth. I don't have double standards and hold no one to any. I am trying to get an Ethics issues addressed to liars and people who are looking to misguide others with false information.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

you preach ethics but your actions say otherwise.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

You never seen me do anything so you can not judge me. also i can tell you about to confuse morals and ethics

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22310) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Love it BW you are very good.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

tell him bw

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

And you are..gods gift to the economy presumably?? Don't make us laugh.....we are all in this boat of shyt together my friend! If all 99% were to leave, who would be there to hold up you alls bull shyt oracles? We know you need us 1000x more than we need you with your fake ticker tapes you all hide behind!

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Are u angry because retail investors won't give u any money to play with? How's the 2012 stock market looking? Bad. Yeah. Maybe it might be in your interest to consider what we are talking about.

[-] -1 points by BullsAndBears (-36) 2 years ago

I can make money in a good market, I can make money in a bad market.

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

How about when the grid goes down and there is NO MARKET? Are you sure you all know what you are doing?

You are forgetting the reality of this planet...Civilizations rise and civilizations fall. What in god's name makes you think this one is any different? Don't pretend...is your skull is really that thick?
After all isn't this what the shoring up is for across the globe?

[-] 1 points by iamausername (119) 2 years ago

how do you dislike an original post?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yes, we'll leave it all to low IQ idiots like the OP ... then you fucktards can shoot each other all you like, and speak in tongues/play with snakes on Sunday in the swamps, without worrying about us mocking you .... duh :)

Did you say evoluuution jimmy bob, is that what rises in my pants when cousin viluuulua visits.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Where's the stuff on the clowns of the GOP??

I guess they miss Bachmann.

[-] 0 points by BullsAndBears (-36) 2 years ago

A few GOP clowns are heavily outnumbered by the swarms of clowns and hippies in the occupy movement.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Dat's funny sonny.

The entire (R)epelican't party is made up of clowns.

Most need to have someone else write legislation for them, because they are too dumb.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

How about you make an point, or a constructiveness criticism? do you have anything to add, or are you already spent by just dropping in and calling a bunch of people you know nothing about clowns?

The cry of 'love it or leave it' is a sad pathetic slave mentality, good luck with it!

[-] -1 points by BullsAndBears (-36) 2 years ago

In the words of the great Dick Stanzi, "America, #1, Love it or Leave it!"

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

You're pretty infantile. Makes me think that anybody can play the market. I swear the money is going to the wrong people in America and we need to change that.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Yes, but what are we still number one in?

Marketing penetration!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by snowcat765 (14) from Long Island City, NY 2 years ago

LEAVE, yes and go to cuba, n korea, venezuela, any of the 'communist utopias' -the problem is they never leave and when they do they cry to come back-their mostly scumbags

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Who is they? The only people I see who are concerned with those countries are the 1% and the so-called elitist here in the United States. So, in reality aren't they the ones trying to go elsewhere, like, you know, yours and their private hideaways? This land has our forefathers blood in it...so in reality... THIS IS OUR COUNTRY!! So, on that note...who should really leave?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Here I thought this would be a poignant observation on the state of the (R)epelican't party.

Instead it's just troll dribble.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What conspiracy theory are you talking about?

Most that I've seen in here were started by "wrong wingers" and "opposition".

It took decades for the country to get in the shape it's in.

It may take decades, to pull out of it.

This movement is one of the very few who are at least attempting to start the process.

[-] 2 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Eminem - Mosh MUSIC VIDEO HQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8M9MTle-8AM#! at least these two are crazy conspiracy looniez. Throw up the fingers if you feel the same way!

[-] 1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago
[-] -1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

Nice jam. RIP 2 Pac.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Yep, that is something of a conspiracy theory.

Lots and lots of rumors.

[-] 2 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

That sure is one well crafted rumor. Whoever created it must have convinced hundreds of occupiers to destroy a grocery store and a bank where the 99% work.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Well crafted are the best kind..........:)

The question to ask yourself is, where you there?

Even then, perceptions can mean everything.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

Yes. The safe haven for the occupier's conscience. "We aren't causing these people to commit violent acts. An organization that is out to kill our movement is." Now THAT'S a conspiracy theory.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Isn't it though?

In case you haven't figured it out yet?

It's all a conspiracy theory, even you.

[-] 2 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

Is that how you really think? Of course everything isn't a conspiracy theory. There are things in life that are obviously true. I love my child. That is true. I live in the United States. That is true. Your mind is clouded. That is true.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You've been a bit of a cloudy day since you got here.

The rest of what you said? Conspiracy theory.

Nothing more.

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

Hmm. You seem to have misunderstood me. I didn't mean cloudy in the sense of being a downer. I meant clouded as in not transparent, muddy or obscured. You can dismiss my comments if you want. That's your choice. I've gotten used to occupiers denying the truth. It seems to be part of the OWS modus operandi.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

ows people have their own "facts".

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

That's no joke.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

people are entitled to their own opinons but not their own facts.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I agree.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

lol, that was cute. the factless agree that not knowing is better.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You've also been denying truth since you got here. That's very cloudy.

I was being polite. You are a gloomy Gus.

You're responses have smacked of cowardice and hypocrisy.

Your only clarity, rooted in hatred.

Will you also deny those truths?

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I see a bunch of opinions. Not one single truth.

Truth - the property of being in accord with fact.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's why it's all a conspiracy theory, including you. How's that for clarity?

I swear, this must be your first time on the net.

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I provide a link to a video and you say it's a conspiracy theory. It's a video. You take from it what you want. There ARE people destroying a grocery store in the video. Those people ARE involved in the OWS protests. They may not agree with OWS doctrine, but they are there none the less. Most everyone I've encountered on OWS websites and witnessed in OWS videos don't abide by OWS doctrine. That's why I say I don't necessarily disagree with OWS's principles, I disagree with their tactics.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I've seen worse after a football game.

The incident you're citing was dealt with here some time ago.

You could try and find it.

I know everyone is infatuated with youtube, but it's hardly the final arbiter of truth justice and the American way.

Like FLAKESnews, it's to be taken with a large grain of salt.......:)