by kbal, Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:17:46 AM EDT
So to recap. The banks screw homeowners over by giving out cheap risky loans that jack up the housing price. Then once the bubble burst they screw over homeowners who can't make their payments and repo their houses. Then george bush in his wisdom refuses to do anything to help the homeowners out for whatever reason that disagrees with their republican doctrine, instead giving everybody 800 dollars which is not at all focused on the problem but is ok because fits into their philosphy of not taxing. Then when the bankers get into trouble they bail them out. Why not just bail out the homeowner so all these real estate holdings don't become worthless. Instead they give the home owners tax money to the banks to bail them out of trouble. And how much money are we talking about?? Close to a trillion dollars. Good lord. I feel violated.
by Bob Sackamento, Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM EDT
McCain is a proven and unacceptable risk. Only an Obama presidency can save this sinking ship.
I'm witnessing striking parallels between the corporate world and the candidates' responses to the exploding economic crisis. In my offline corporate life, medical devices are the product. For those seeking the Presidency, the product is our government. Based on my observations as a corporate tool, Obama and McCain represent two different types of people: the firefighter and the process guru.
by johnny venom, Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:02:58 AM EDT
Greetings folks, the start of new week and thus we kick off another episode of Manufacturing Monday! Never a dull moment when it comes to covering stuff that either goes into the products you buy, or the impact that that consumption leads to. Now originally, I had these other items on bio-fuels, hydrogen cars, China and oil, and a few other things. But I see now that my section on the bailout of the US automakers is so big, that the whole thing is too long. So, if it is OK with you, I will post those items tomorrow.
by Shaun Appleby,
<img src="http://www.thefutureschannel.com/img/pics/printingmoney/printing_money04.jpg" height="220" hspace="12" align="right">It would have probably been fair to say of Sarah Palin that until a few days ago 'policy wonk' would have been an unlikely description, love her or loathe her, of any facet of her complex relationship with American politics.
But now this:
I’m deeply concerned about the Federal Reserve’s plans to buy up anywhere from $600 billion to as much as $1 trillion of government securities. The technical term for it is “quantitative easing.” It means our government is pumping money into the banking system by buying up treasury bonds. And where, you may ask, are we getting the money to pay for all this? We’re printing it out of thin air.
Sarah Palin via Robert Costa- <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252715/palin-bernanke-cease-and-desist-robert-costa"><i>Palin to Bernanke: ‘Cease and Desist’</i></a> National Review 7 Nov 10
That's very interesting on a lot of levels. The piece is coherent and sober and, more importantly, it is aimed directly at a weak point in the current administration's monetary policy and an electoral vulnerability in the allegiances of establishment Republicans in the newly constituted House of Representatives. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the champion of this recently announced second round of '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing">quantitative easing</a>,' promised Congress on 3 June 2009 that the Federal Reserve would not '<a href="http://prudentinvestor.blogspot.com/2009/05/monetizing-debt-explanation-for-non.html">monetise the debt</a>' of the US government, in other words just print money "out of thin air." But that seems to be exactly what we are now proposing to do and there are dissenting opinions within the Federal Reserve system itself:
For the next eight months, the nation’s central bank will be monetizing the federal debt.
This is risky business. We know that history is littered with the economic carcasses of nations that incorporated this as a regular central bank practice. So how can the ['quantitative easing'] decision made last Wednesday be justified?
Richard W Fischer - <a href="http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2010/fs101108.cfm"><i>Recent Decisions of the Federal Open Market Committee: A Bridge to Fiscal Sanity?</i></a> Federal Reserve of Dallas 8 Nov 10
So which is it? Well, that all depends on whose telling the story. But it's already a done deal.