 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
That above is from this:
The Fed is abandoning the printing presses (presumably) because China told Geithner to stop printing money or they'd sell their US Treasuries. It's a wake-up call to Bernanke that the power is shifting from Washington to Beijing.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23231.htm
The next quote from that source could inspire discussion, as it does inspire me to comment.
What is being reported in that message?
The Fed is abandoning the printing presses (presumably) because China told Geithner to stop printing money or they'd sell their US Treasuries. It's a wake-up call to Bernanke that the power is shifting from Washington to Beijing.
That puts Bernanke in a pickle. If he stops printing; interest rates will skyrocket, stocks will crash and housing prices will tumble. But if he continues QE, China will dump their Treasuries and the greenback will vanish in a poof of smoke. Either way, the malaise in the credit markets will persist and personal consumption will continue to sputter.
What does the following (specifically) mean?
Why will interest rates skyrocket? What prevents someone from buying money from another source of money, at a discount, while the "dollar" price skyrockets?
If he stops printing; interest rates will skyrocket, stocks will crash and housing prices will tumble.
That is my comment, and I will now return to reading the message concerning the future of mankind, from a monetary (interesting) perspective.
I didn't get very far in reading before being inspired to comment again. What does that mean, exactly, as that above reports to anyone who will listen, those words? What does that mean?
The basic problem is that consumers are buried beneath a mountain of debt and have no choice except to curtail their spending and begin to save.
What happened to the choice, the freedom of choice, to purchase money, at a discount, while the "dollar" price sours into the stratosphere, as the "dollar" becomes even scarcer to everyone except the recipients of "bail-outs" and "subsidies" (amounting to trillions of dollar units of legal currency)?
Where did all that money go, and what did it buy, exactly?
How can all that money be "in circulation" at the same time as the dollar becomes so scarce, so hard to find, as to drive interest rates up into the sky?
What is missing from this equation?
What is missing in addition to the choice afforded by competition? What did all that money buy, exactly?
Who has all that money, those trillions, and what did they buy, and what will they buy, and will all those trillions of bail-out subsidies flow rapidly through "the economy" soon, or later?
How can the money supply double (since September 2008), and at the same time, how can money be scarce enough to drive the price of money to the ceiling?
This:
If he stops printing, (god forbid), why will consumers of money be left without a competitive supply of discounted legal purchasing power?
If he stops printing; interest rates will skyrocket, stocks will crash and housing prices will tumble.
Could it be another case of mal-investment? Is that an interesting possibility or nothing to worry about and nothing to be concerned about, and nothing worth thinking about, in reality?
Remember this:
How good does it sound, if you don't mind listening, to hear how your wealth subsidizes a build up of power in the hands of the Chinese State (not the Chinese government "by the people" and "for the people", rather, your power to purchase is spent on increasing the power of the Chinese "State")?
The Fed is abandoning the printing presses (presumably) because China told Geithner to stop printing money or they'd sell their US Treasuries. It's a wake-up call to Bernanke that the power is shifting from Washington to Beijing.
How do you like that sound?
Will you like that sound when, not if, the Chinese State begins to dictate to you how you will think, how you will act, and how much you will earn by your labor?
I think you may then be left without the power or the affordability to ignore that sound.
That may be just me thinking, a distant thought, hearing a distant sound, but why is that ever so distant sound so deafening to my ears? Am I as crazy as people like to think I am, for some reason?
I'll read on.
Is that the same thing as saying "The rate of wealth being transferred from producers of wealth to the legal criminals who control the legal money monopoly pyramid scheme is beyond a sustainable rate as the producers of wealth are being sucked dry and left to feed upon them-selves in a torturous and slow death"?
The combination of higher debt and lower saving enabled personal consumption expenditures to grow faster than disposable income, providing a significant boost to U.S. economic growth over the period. In the long-run, however, consumption cannot grow faster than income because there is an upper limit to how much debt households can service, based on their incomes. For many U.S. households, current debt levels appear too high, as evidenced by the sharp rise in delinquencies and foreclosures in recent years. To achieve a sustainable level of debt relative to income, households may need to undergo a prolonged period of deleveraging, whereby debt is reduced and saving is increased.
That rate of wealth transfer (by monopoly banking interest) is now being flown into China, to subsidize the competition, at the expense of both American and Chinese laborers (the producers of wealth).
And I have this all backwards? I'm the stupid one?
As I have learned recently, during a viewing of a video documentary on money linked on this forum (thanks for that lesson), the pre-occupation with "savings" (instead of investing) is a part of the whole banking scam. The way that works, according to the data on the video, the banksters are "legally" able to loan out "savings" in bank accounts on a reverse ratio compared to the reserve requirements. It is fairly complicated, but not too complicated. The end result is an increase in the flow of wealth from producers to they banksters by that devise called: "interest".
Going forward, it seems probable that many U.S. households will reduce their debt. If accomplished through increased saving, the deleveraging process could result in a substantial and prolonged slowdown in consumer spending relative to pre-recession growth rates." ("U.S. Household Deleveraging and Future Consumption Growth, by Reuven Glick and Kevin J. Lansing, FRBSF Economic Letter")
It is interesting if not moral. It is fact. Wealth (in the form of legal purchasing power or "dollars") transfers from producers of wealth to people collecting "interest". The fact that some "interest" (much less of a percent) goes to "savers" is cause for something. Should the "savers" rejoice since they get a piece of the action?
If, for example, the rate of "price" inflation (due to the combination of monetary inflation and malinvestment) is 10% per year and the "savings" account interest rate is 3%, if that is a fact, not a guess, an actual fact, not a form of smoke and mirrors, if that is a mathematical accounting fact, then you can do some math, and see the light - or not.
What do I care?
3 - 10 = -7
A negative 7 is better than a negative 10: WOOOHOOOO!
I'M RICH!
I am also out of time.