Daily Kos

Credit Crunch vs. Central Banks - You Lose

Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:04:38 AM PDT

"If I had to be bold I’d say we began a recession in December."
   - Bill Gross, Pimco Funds founder

  The credit crunch that started in August is threatening to bring the economies of the entire 1st world to a grinding halt.
  To combat that the central banks of America and Europe are pumping cheap money into the markets at an unprecedented rate. These actions are not without consequences.

 YESTERDAY WE LEARNED that the British government's guarantee to bail out Northern Rock's creditors is worth a staggering £100 billion. That's £5,000 [$10,000] per British household. This week the European Central Bank made $500 billion available through money market operations. And only last week $110bn of new money was created by central bank loans with artificially low rates and reduced-quality security. This is money creation on an epic scale.

 I find it astounding how half a Trillion dollars could get pushed out into the markets over just two weeks, and yet get almost unnoticed by the press.
  What's more, this isn't the only cheap money injections that have been happening recently. The Federal Reserve has created an auction system (as opposed to the discount window) for banks to exchange bad loans for loans from the Federal Reserve. Thus by anonymous means, they are pumping $20 Billion of cash into the system every day, on a semi-permanent basis.

  These are enormous numbers, but what do they mean? Isn't this what the central banks are supposed to do?

 To understand the significance of this we need to look at the credit crunch side first. Then we can better understand what the central banks are doing and what it means.

Chickens Come Home To Roost

"Why do we have to think up all of these complicated new ways of losing money when the old ones still work so well?"
  - CNBC

  The first thing to remember is that Wall Street brought this upon themselves. You simply can't make a viable business plan out of loaning money to people who can't pay it back.
  Now that home prices are falling, people that put little or no money down on their homes owe more than their house is worth. Thus any bailout plan that the government dreams up won't work for these people because there is no incentive to keep throwing good money after bad.

"There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

 To make matters worse, many of these homeowners haven't come to grips with the fact that their largest investment has gone down in value. Until that happens the Real Estate Bust has not bottomed.

  Last year was the first nationwide decline in housing prices since the Great Depression.
 That should be a scary enough fact, until you realize that almost every industry insider is predicting next year to be worse.

 Existing home sales will drop 12 percent and existing home prices will fall 4.5 percent, Washington-based Fannie Mae says. Lehman analysts estimate almost 1 million mortgage loans will default in 2008, up from about 300,000 this year.

"Our customers (businesses) are having difficulty coming up with enough cash to pay their bills on time." - Daniel North, chief economist for Euler Hermes ACI

  So what does this have to do with the credit crunch?
The days of banks holding your mortgage deed is over. Now, thanks to the miracle of securitization, the person that wrote your mortgage packaged it up with a bunch of other mortgages and sold it on Wall Street as an Asset-Backed Security (ABS).
  In fact, ABS's got so popular that they became the primary vehicle for mortgages during the peak of the Real Estate Bubble.

  Common sense will tell you that loans made during the peak of a mania are the ones most likely to go bad. Those mortgage loans, packaged into ABS, found homes in pension funds, insurance company portfolios, foreign banks, hedge funds, and your 401k mutual fund.

  They also found a home in a previously unknown financial institution known as a Structured Investment Vehicle. These SIV's dealt heavily with short-term corporate debt, also known as commercial paper. When the level of defaults on ABS hit critical mass last August, the problem spilled over into commercial paper. Suddenly the market for commercial paper dried up and this forced SIVs to go bankrupt.

 "Some managers hold the view that the short-term debt market for SIV paper has been permanently disrupted and the SIV model will not survive in its current form," Moody's senior credit officer Paul Kerlogue said on a conference call.

  The collapse of the ABS market has been nothing less than breathtaking.

 Total Commercial Paper sank a remarkable $54.7bn to $1.784 TN. CP is now down $439bn over the past 19 weeks. Asset-backed CP dropped $27.5bn (19-wk drop of $432bn) last week to $764bn.

"Right now, the question is how bad it's going to get."
 - David Rosenberg, chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch

  With home prices falling, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack can no longer borrow on the equity in their home because there is none. And because they have no savings to fall back on, they turn to the worst possible alternative - credit cards.

 The value of credit card accounts at least 30 days late jumped 26 percent to $17.3 billion in October from a year earlier at 17 large credit card trusts examined by the AP.[...]

At the same time, defaults — when lenders essentially give up hope of ever being repaid and write off the debt — rose 18 percent to almost $961 million in October, according to filings made by the trusts with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Serious delinquencies also are up sharply: Some of the nation’s biggest lenders — including Advanta, GE Money Bank and HSBC — reported increases of 50 percent or more in the value of accounts that were at least 90 days delinquent when compared with the same period a year ago.

 So when you add all this up you get homeowners in dire financial straights. They have to cut back. They no longer have a choice.

"We are getting close to stall speed."
 - Alan Greenspan when asked about the slowing economy

  And while the worst is still ahead of us, it is starting to show up in falling Christmas sales.

 Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Sales at U.S. stores fell for the fourth straight week as rising fuel and food prices threatened to hand retailers their worst holiday shopping season in five years.

 Now while financial distress on working people doesn't even register on Wall Street's, or Washington's radar, weak sales by retailers does. This hurts profits, and that is not allowed.
  So Wall Street and Washington are going to react.
But what about this "rising fuel and food prices"? Rising prices and Wall Street's reaction are directly related. Which brings us to the second part of this diary.

Bernanke's Printing Press

"Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation."
 - Federal Reserve member Ben Bernanke, November 21, 2002

 This quote is proof that Ben Bernanke understands what price inflation really is - the falling value of a currency. It's also proof that he understands how the Federal Reserve can cause this to happen.
  What it doesn't show is whether Bernanke understands what the consequences of those actions are.

 In early September the world price of wheat rose to over $400 a tonne, the highest ever recorded. In May it had been around $200. Though in real terms its price is far below the heights it scaled in 1974, it is still twice the average of the past 25 years. Earlier this year the price of maize (corn) exceeded $175 a tonne, again a world record. It has fallen from its peak, as has that of wheat, but at $150 a tonne is still 50% above the average for 2006.
  Rice prices have hit records this year, although their rise has been slower. The Economist's food-price index is now at its highest since it began in 1845, having risen by one-third in the past year.

 Food prices are spiking higher. Energy prices hit all-time record highs earlier this year. Health insurance costs rising twice as fast as your paycheck.
  The only things that aren't rising in price faster than you can afford them is stuff made in east Asia, where those countries have pegged their currency to the dollar.

 Meanwhile, the dollar is near all-time lows.
  Is there a connection between the price of things you need rising out of control, and the falling dollar?

YES! Just look at Ben Bernanke's quote above.
This is his plan. It is happening just like he said it would.
  Why would he do something like that, you ask? Why would he make it so hard on working people like you and me?

 I refer back to part 1 of this diary - the credit crunch and hard times on Wall Street.

The rich get richer and the poor get screwed

  The important thing to remember with monetary inflation is that there is a delay between the introduction of the new money and the inevitable price inflation that follows. How long the delay is depends on many things, including the size of the market.
  But one thing is for certain: the nearer you are to the source of monetary inflation the more you benefit because you can take advantage of the new money before its effects get diluted by the trailing price inflation.
 To look at it another way, Wall Street investment bankers are next door to the primary source of monetary inflation at the Federal Reserve, while wage earners in Detroit and Dallas are the furthest away. Thus wealth is being sucked from the poor and middle class to the rich every time the Federal Reserve and government inject cheap money into the financial system.

  The reason for these massive loans to troubled private banks is to avoid a complete seizing up of the world's financial system. It doesn't appear to be working.

 "Liquidity doesn't do anything in this situation," says Anna Schwartz, the doyenne of US monetarism and life-time student (with Milton Friedman) of the Great Depression.
  "It cannot deal with the underlying fear that lots of firms are going bankrupt. The banks and the hedge funds have not fully acknowledged who is in trouble. That is the critical issue," she adds.

York professor Peter Spencer, chief economist for the ITEM Club, says the global authorities have just weeks to get this right, or trigger disaster.
  "They still have another couple of months before this starts imploding. Things are very unstable and can move incredibly fast. I don't think the central banks are going to make a major policy error, but if they do, this could make 1929 look like a walk in the park," he adds.

 Normally comparisons to 1929 are as worthless and overused as references to Hitler in political debates. But this time there is an element of weight behind the comparison.
  That element is reflected in the size of monetary injections by the central banks. Only in times of extreme financial stress do central banks go to measures such as these. The difference this time is that those measures aren't reducing the level of stress in the system.

 Not a single junk bond has been issued in Europe since August. Every attempt failed.
  Europe's corporate bond issuance fell 66pc in the third quarter to $396bn (BIS data). Emerging market bonds plummeted 75pc.
  "The kind of upheaval observed in the international money markets over the past few months has never been witnessed in history," says Thomas Jordan, a Swiss central bank governor.

"We're all going long apples and boxes to sell them in."
  - Richard F. Syron, Freddie Mac CEO

 Cheap credit is what got us into this mess. If it wasn't for cheap credit/money then all these bad loans would never have been made.
I don't know where this is all headed, nor what the correct solution is. But I do remember a wise old saying: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Poll

Should we...?

1%9 votes
3%24 votes
0%0 votes
2%18 votes
18%123 votes
74%502 votes

| 676 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: economy, economics, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 59 comments

    •  Waaaiiit a minute. I think I missed the beer. :) (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      LondonYank, vgranucci

      Shakespeare got it wrong: the world is not a stage, it is a lunatic asylum.

      by coloradocomet on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:13:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Inflation or deflation? Hard to know . . . (5+ / 0-)

      If the central banks succeed in staving off financial collapse by massive new debt creation, then we can expect a huge upsurge in inflation.  But if the massive injections of central bank liquidity never get converted to lending to other non-bank players, consumers and businesses, then the steady erosion of bankruptcies, defaults and foreclosures will cause deflation and the rapid shrinking of the economy.

      What most economists are now struggling with is trying to devine which one to expect.  Collapsing real estate prices have never coincided with inflation, and certainly collapsing wages haven't either.  So long as pressure from Asia keeps wages stagnant to falling, and the imploding housing bubble keeps house prices falling, there appears to be no way for consumers to gain enough new cash to spend their way back toward an inflating economy.

      Deflation, however, terrifies the central bankers and the rich because it is the one sure way of robbing them of their ill-gotten gains of the past twenty years.  Deflation will leave the middle class and the poor worse off through unemployment and erosion of their meagre wealth (mostly their house values in the USA), but deflation can turn the rich into new poor.

      This is going to be interesting.  I'm diversifying my portfolio into canned goods.

      "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

      by LondonYank on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:16:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm up for that (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        LondonYank, StrayCat, JG in MD

        Deflation, however, terrifies the central bankers and the rich because it is the one sure way of robbing them of their ill-gotten gains of the past twenty years.  Deflation will leave the middle class and the poor worse off through unemployment and erosion of their meagre wealth (mostly their house values in the USA), but deflation can turn the rich into new poor.

        Now THAT is what I'd pay what's left of my money to watch!

        I've been staring at this ghastly monetary shell game for six years now just waiting for the whole thing to start folding in on itself. And if I knew it wasn't sustainable, why didn't the so-called experts? I'm just a hillbilly house frau fer crissakes.

        Obviously The Smirk in Chief and his gang manufactured this phoney economy with a sweeping finalé in mind. What I'm uncertain of is whether it's still on track and we simply haven't seen the final brilliant move, or they've just begun to realize they majorly effed up somewhere along the line.

        I'm truly hoping for majorly effed up. Either way, we'll get to bear the biggest burden, the least we're entitled to is the fun of watching the thieves sharing the streets with us.

        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and good with ketchup.

        by Pariah Dog on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:42:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I can attest to the bankruptcy figures (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        LondonYank, porsupah, StrayCat

        In my district, the number of bankruptcies has quadrupled in the second half of 2007 over the number filed during the first six months of the year.  Historically, February and March are the heaviest filing months.  Still seeing many precipitated by situations attendant to medical costs, but the number prompted by foreclosure is starting to outpace that.

        Thank you, Howard Dean

        by dharmafarmer on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:47:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You forgot one scenario (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, StrayCat

        But if the massive injections of central bank liquidity never get converted to lending to other non-bank players, consumers and businesses, then the steady erosion of bankruptcies, defaults and foreclosures will cause deflation and the rapid shrinking of the economy.

         That scenario is direct monetization of debt by the Fed.
         Hell, it's already happening on a minor level right now. If it goes to a large level then any possible deflation is dead.

        "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

        by gjohnsit on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:22:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks to gjohnsit (7+ / 0-)

    I look forward to your diaries with an almost embarrassing level of anticipation.

  •  Great info - I have a question (4+ / 0-)

     What I don't understand is how our systems of accountability seem to have evaporated.  If I understand what you wrote accurately - at some point some finanancial gurus were able to package a bunch of over valued (or under collateralized) mortgages into Asset Backed Securities and pass them off as having value independent of the asset underlying the obligation - but that value was all hype - don't rating companies, or accountants or some of them smart fellers have to pass some rigid tests before they assign a value to these assets?

    •  Rating agencies are under the gun (14+ / 0-)

      Remember, these are the same rating agencies that told us that Enron was a "buy" until two weeks before they went bankrupt.
         Now the rating agencies are guilty yet again.

       The problem is their financial model. They get their fees from the same people who are selling these ABS. Therefore, if they don't rate the securities high enough, the people selling them will go to their competitor rating agency and see if they can get a better rating.
        With that in mind, is it any wonder that this blew up? And will it be any surprise when the next bubble blows up?

      "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

      by gjohnsit on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:26:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Got it - thanks - (5+ / 0-)

         it all sounds very you scratch my back I will scratch yours and the assets get tossed into a big game of musical chairs and the music is about to stop and we are going to see who gets screwed.

      •  Not exactly (0+ / 0-)

        First, rating agencies don't rate anything as a "buy" or a "sell."  Their investmant grade ratings are AAA, AA, A and BBB (in the case of Standard & Poors) and non-investment grade ratings are BB, B, CCC, CC, C and D (for Default).

        Asset-backeds are rated based on the level of "credit enhancement" (e.g., the amount of equity in the deal below the rated bonds) in the deal.  Every loan portfolio has some expected defaults and losses.  To get a AAA rating, the bonds need to have enough credit enhancement to protect against multiples of historical losses.  While there is some truth to the fact that issuers will go to competitors (Moody's, Fitch or DBRS) if they don't like a the enhancement levels required by a rating agency, in practice these levels generally are pretty consistent across rating agencies.  

        The real problem is that the rating agencies overemphasized past history as a predictor of the future.  They understood that many subprime mortgages would become defaulted and would result in foreclosures.  They even understood that many adjustable mortgages would face their adjustments at the same time, but they never factored into their models that this would cause an unprecedented decline in the home prices that would dramatically increase the severity of the losses.

        The rating agencies deserve some criticism, but a lot of smart people who get it lost a lot of money for this same reason.

  •  Out of 5 kids in my family (6+ / 0-)

    two are in the process of losing their houses.  Both of them are simply sitting there until evicted.

    Now neither one should have been given a loan, to tell the truth.  

    We've chosen the low pay/ tenure route and friends who used to laugh at us are now going without health insurance, or a retirement plan and we don't look nearly as shabby as they thought.  

  •  You missed the only real option in your poll (6+ / 0-)

    We have to give money, and lots of it, to the middle class (i.e., the bottom 99% of America). That is the only way these loans get repaid, and the housing bubble doesn't drag down the rest of the economy.

    If I were running the ship, I'd allow the Fed to buy mortgages at rock bottom prices, then restructure them so that people could stay in their homes. I do not see another way.

    Then, we need to get more income into the hands of the bottom 99%, so that they can pay their bills, and dig their way out of debt.

    •  Middle class (10+ / 0-)

      jobs would be nice.  I remember something my grandpa said about a "manufacturing base".  

    •  I think you missed an important point (11+ / 0-)

      Let's say we give cheap money to 99% of the population.

      For starters, how would we do that? Drop it from helicopters over Manhatten? (No joke. Bernanke actually mentioned this method.)
       
      More importantly, you missed the main point of this diary. Cheap money got us into this mess. Will cheaper money get us out of it?
        That kind of thinking reminds me of the Republican belief in supply-side economics - that bigger tax cuts will bring in more tax money.
        It's something-for-nothing-thinking, and taking short cuts seems to be getting us nowhere.

       Lastly, what does this do to all the savers in the country? You know, those rare exceptions that instead of taking on more debt than they could handle, actually put off purchases and saved money. You know, like our parents taught us to do?
        All that cheap money for nothing will punish those savers by making their savings be less. Besides literally robbing from the savers, its a huge moral hazard.

      "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

      by gjohnsit on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:41:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's always the old standby (4+ / 0-)

        Pretend none of it is happening, and if that doesn't work -- pretend none of it really matters anyway -- and then go shopping for the day.

        If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

        by superscalar on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:01:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  give cheap money to borrowers (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, object16, vgranucci

        that took on too much debt...
        I didn't vote for this one, but a case could be made for this point on the amount of actual defaults you quote vs. the amount of money the fed is pumping into the system. A Brazillion (sorry, joke reference) divided by 300,000, or even a couple of million defaulted loans equals more than the purported defaulted loans. Methinks the government is slipping some of that Iraq war debt into the system somehow and blaming it on the poor...as usual.

      •  Cheap money did not get us into this mess. (0+ / 0-)

        Cheap money has always been an ideal way to transfer wealth in this nation from the RICH to the middle class.
        When interest rates are low, debt always works to transfer the parked assets of the past (rich folks who've made their millions) for working assets toward the future (mortgages).
        The system of money works on Credit not average savings rates.  Savings is the slacker.  Credit works hard.  Counter intuitive I know but true.

        If the credit crunch gets worse than it already is, and working folks don't get access to it, the Rich will definitely get much much richer than even the past twenty obscene years when the price of money skyrockets.

        You see, then they get all that interest on their parked money just sitting there.

        It was not cheap money.  Look at the low inflation figures if money was so out of balance in those years.  Hardly existed 'til oil and food shot up.

        No, it was simply bad oversight over the mechanisms that caused this panic between bankers.  Speculation through hedge funds that magnified these SIV's
        exposure and total values throughout the market.  In one word - Greed led to this debacle.

        The best thing the Fed could do is do all its best to keep interest rates down.  If it takes massive infusions, so be it.  Even the Fed can only do so much - that's why they're on pins and needle over this.

        The more auctions they have, the more treasury bills they have to sell off which means they have to be careful how much money they suck out of the system on the demand end to help the liquidity on the supply end.  A real balancing act to say the least.

        It is too late for any meaningful action on the part of the Federal Government.  Almost no action in Congress.

        I think Bernanke is actually handling the situation as well as can be expected with all the panic.

        •  Respectfully disagree (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, gjohnsit

          If cheap money transfered wealth away from the RICH, there would be NO SUCH THING.

          You use the example of a loan of the "excess" wealth of a rich person into a working asset (mortgage).  However, you realize that the money is working FOR the rich person who lent it (interest).  When buying a home on a 30 year fixed mortgage, the average person pays for that house THREE times over before they are done.

          People accept "getting soaked" by the rich because they believe that the house will appreciate in value and offset the interest they are paying.  What happens when the house stops appreciating?

          I think you may have missed the main point of the post in any case.  The world financial system is at risk for collapse due to a lack of trust between financial institutions.  They are all tightly interdependent on each ohter, but have all been up to pulling the same "games."  So, now that they don't know who to trust, they have stopped cooperating (like an engine siezing up).

          The silent bid money auctions of the Fed are designed to lubricate the system without forcing banks to reveal how much trouble they are in.

          It IS the inflationary monetary policy of the Federal Reserve that is the ROOT cause of this problem.  It was only compounded by human nature (greed) of both lenders and borrowers.

          I'd like my Bartle Doo with extra Chizzle please.

          by jokertim777 on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:26:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whether homes appreciate or not (0+ / 0-)

            folks still need loans.  There is still a mortgage market for first time buyers.
            Businesses still need corporate paper to manage their financial needs from quarter to quarter.
            Without cheap money (or reasonable interest rates - because the definition of "cheap" will change relative to how deep we sink into a recession) the demand end of the economy stalls.

            The diarist mentions "supply side" of the Reagan years as the grandfather of all of this.  But that was 180 degrees from what we've seen with this last boom.  Supply side is exactly what you get if you tighten up on money and continue with huge tax breaks for those with interest income.  The rich have no need to invest or "trickle down" their interest windfalls in savings.  The demand end (the desperate need for loans) is what keeps the economy out of recession or can re start it out of recession.

            An obsession with inflation (presently hovering around 4.5%) is usually an obsession to insure that those with interest bearing assets get a decent return - "real interest" rates after the subtraction of the inflation rate).  Tight money restriction and high interest rates are sold as the painful cure to keep the common man free of high inflation.  The old lady on fixed income etc.  But in fact it is with the banks in mind that interest rates stay high.  With the investor class in mind that they keep inflation down and the price of money high.

            The absolute worst thing Bernanke could do is compound an economic shrinking by attacking inflation. It would throw our economy into the depths of a spiral.  Kind of like spinning your car on ice and instead of powering out of the fishtail, locking your brakes instead.

        •  I disagree on so many levels (0+ / 0-)

          that I really don't even know where to start.
           So I'm simply going to let my diary speak for itself.

          "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

          by gjohnsit on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:26:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Read William Greider's (0+ / 0-)

            Secrets of the Temple - How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country

            He breaks your myths down about interest rates and inflation through the crucible of what happened in the late '70's through the Reagan years.

            And his portrait on how Volker, by going the monetarist approach, kept interest rates artificially high for years and crushed the working people of this country to aid the investor class was all the convincing I need.

            It's all about CREDIT.  That's what money really is.

            •  Once again, I disagree on so many levels (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Odysseus

              Real money is not credit, and your explanations are not helping to convince me at all.
                Sure, there is always someone in economics that will tell you both sides of any scenario and sound convincing.

               I use Occam's Razor, and your convictions don't pass the muster.
                You want to know what real money is? It isn't what the Federal Reserve is printing. To think that you are probably confusing money with wealth.

               But I'm not prepared to debate that in the comments section.
                So good day to you sir.

              "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

              by gjohnsit on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:18:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Excuse me then. (0+ / 0-)

                You are probably right that we diverge on the difference between wealth and money.

                I don't believe there is such a thing as "real money".  In my word view money is all about access.  Who has access to those zero's on the screen and who doesn't.

                And we are probably in agreement that the wealth situation is totally out of whack in this country.

                But as a working class tradesman I'll go with the risks of higher inflation any day over the nightmare of what happens when interest rates skyrocket.

                My pension investments, my retirement may well suffer but at least I'll have some hope of employment, some hope that opportunities to leverage through debt can bridge me through.

    •  A point you overlooked (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      object16, vgranucci, Unduna, Cliss

      Giving cheap money to 99% of the population creates the inflation in asset prices that will effect everyone (see food, energy).

      It is that cheap money that created the inflation in housing to the point that nobody can purchase houses anywhere near what their actual salary can afford.

      Essentially you are looking at more of the same. QUANTITY of money versus QUALITY of money.

      We don't neeed, no mor troubles - Bob Marley

      by joeshwingding on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:45:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary (11+ / 0-)

    but, then again, I always look forward to your well-written diaries.  You spent a lot of time on this!  I do hope people will rec it up so more folks can see it.

    Thank you, Howard Dean

    by dharmafarmer on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:46:05 AM PDT

  •  We need a Sweeny Todd of Wall Street (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    porsupah, Cliss

    to make some nice pies for us!

    ...only half kidding. :-P

  •  '08 The Year of Repricing Risk (8+ / 0-)

    The previous several years have seen the underpricing of risk, manifesting as historically low interest rates -- one might say artificially low -- and lax to non-existent lending standards and practices. Along with this there was a failure of rating agencies to properly appraise risk, and regulators, well, they went on holiday too.

    Now that is over. The public is being fooled into thinking this is a "supbprime" crisis, and unsophisticated market-folk are being told that this is a credit crunch due to a crisis in liquidity that the Fed can handle by loosening. But this is a full-blown solvency crisis.

    Because of loose lending practices, lots of loans are going south because the collateral on which they are based is overinflated in value. As this gets marked down, assets to loan ratios shrink and further lending is impossible. The real bomb, however, is that many large institutions are technically insolvent but haven't reported it.

    This is spooking other lenders, and lenders aren't lending to each other at any price even though the CB's are flooding them with liquidity. When that happens, everything grinds to a halt.

    The only way that this can be fixed is to let the markets correct excesses, which is painful for the wealthy because asset prices decline, but that's what free market capitalism is all about. On the excesses is, of course, interest rates that are too low because the inflation and risk premiums are unrealistic. The other is that best practices were disregarded wholesale in the lending industry in the rush for profit in a bubble economy.

    The only other solution is for the Fed and other CB's to try to increase liquidity yet again to avert a disaster, thereby only postponing it and making it worse when it finally arrives. Moreover, increasing liquidity again will feed inflation in the asset bubble -- commodities, which will furter pinch the consumer. Lenders will only loan to the most credit-worthy, and so the liquidity will flow into leveraged market bets, this time in heavily discounted assets of real value and things of tangible value like energy and other commodities. Now we will also see many of the dollars held by the rest of world repatriated in the form of discounted asset purchases, such as Dubai's and China's recent purchases of pieces of some of Wall Street's jewels (Citi, Merrill).

    Looks like the jig is up. Risk is going to be repriced and the inflation and risk premiums on rates will increase, causing rates to rise. Rising rates will further exacerbate the fall of housing prices. Moreover, the next bubble to burst is going to be consumer loans (auto) and credit card debt, much of which is also securitized.

    The Fed will try to counter this by "dropping money from helicopters" as Bernanke joked some time ago, figuratively. The CB's are already doing this behind the scenes through financial maneuvers that most people don't understand and John has illuminated in this diary. But, as he points out, there will be a huge increase in inflation.

    Not only that, but also there may also be a dollar crisis if it continues, perhaps leading to the breakdown of the architecture of the international monetary system. For example, the oil-producers aren't going to take funny money forever for their dwindling resources just because they are good guys and don't want to see Americans lose their lavish lifestyle.

    The only hope that his point is bluff, and the situation looks to be beyond the point that the financiers of the world can bluff their way out of this. But stranger things have happened. they might ust get away with it, which means that a huge percentage of wealth will be transferred to the top.

    Live unity, celebrate diversity.

    by tjfxh on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:18:13 PM PDT

    •  I agree with almost all you say (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      side pocket, vgranucci

      except for two things.

      1. "Moreover, the next bubble to burst is going to be consumer loans (auto) and credit card debt, much of which is also securitized."

       While I totally agree with auto loans and credit card debt (along with commercial real estate) as being the next dominoes to fall, I've read that most credit card debt is actually UNsecured. Thus it is even more dangerous to be trading in.

      1. "Moreover, increasing liquidity again will feed inflation in the asset bubble -- commodities"

       I've heard the bull market in commodities as being a bubble before, but I don't see it.
        Commodity prices literally hit a worldwide all-time low in 1998. The rise since then has exceeded the growth in the money supply, but not by all that much. In nominal terms commodity prices are outrageous. But in inflation-adjusted terms, the commodity bull market is still years away from being a bubble.

      "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

      by gjohnsit on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:24:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clarification (5+ / 0-)

        While I totally agree with auto loans and credit card debt (along with commercial real estate) as being the next dominoes to fall, I've read that most credit card debt is actually UNsecured. Thus it is even more dangerous to be trading in.

        Yes, the debt is unsecured (no specific collateral tied to it) but much of it has been moved off the issuing banks books in the form of structured finance, just as mortgages were. What this means is that a lot of folks get hurt when things go bad, not just the issuing banks who were sending out credit cards to anyone with a pulse.

        I've heard the bull market in commodities as being a bubble before, but I don't see it.
         Commodity prices literally hit a worldwide all-time low in 1998. The rise since then has exceeded the growth in the money supply, but not by all that much. In nominal terms commodity prices are outrageous. But in inflation-adjusted terms, the commodity bull market is still years away from being a bubble.

        What you say is correct, but as far as the consumer is concerned, the nominal value is what counts because that's the value they see when the bill comes. For instance, gas is still relatively inexpensive in real terms but the consumers see it going through the roof in nominal terms, which seems very real to them because incomes have not improved relative to inflation (nominally) for some decades. Nominal wages are pretty flat and when adjusted for inflation they are declining. It was the housing bubble that was masking this until recently, and now that is over in spades as housing declines in value, forcing many people to live on the cards with no prospects for income increasing to pay down the debt. Here's where it gets ugly. A friend called me tonight and told me that he was a day late on a payment and his monthly went from $450 t0 $950. This is going to be an increasingly common tale of woe.

        What I mean by saying that there will be a commodity bubble is that the Fed's injecting liquidity into the markets is not going to soak up the bad debt because no one is going buy that unless it is deeply discounted no matter how much liquidity is available. Moreover, banks are going to be shy of lending to any but the best of borrowers. People with deep pickets who can get loans will do so if they can profit from leveraged speculation more than the cost of the loan if there is a favorable risk reward ratio. If liquidity increases, it will be borrowed and spent, but not as the Fed hopes and expects.

        If the Fed and other CB's flood the market with money, then the purchasing power goes down relative to tangible value. Tangible value only changes in real terms on the basis of supply/demand ratio, but goes up nominally as currency loses purchasing power. Most people think of inflation as (nominal) prices rising rising, but what is actually happening is that the currency is losing purchasing power relative to real value, which stays the same ceteris paribus.

        Knowing this, the wealthy will look to profit from this dislocation, and another bubble will form in tangible value. Some of the pressure will also be relieved by heavy discounting of assets. Even merely well-to-do foreigners whose currencies are up against the dollar are already swooping in to pick up choice real estate as the market tumbles and there are fire sales. Of course, the former owners will now become renters instead, and those rents will be not be the pockets of US consumers.

        What the gloom and doomers were saying a couple of years ago is now coming to pass.

        Live unity, celebrate diversity.

        by tjfxh on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:37:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  My best guess is that around (10+ / 0-)

    March of 2008, the Perfect Storm will arrive.  The number of foreclosures is going to go up by quite a bit.  Gjohnsit's previous diaries show the ominous figures.  For anyone who hasn't seen the dire stuff, I recommend that the reader utilize the 'search' function and go take a look.  

    March looks like it's going to be the beginning of a serious breakdown.  There will be an enormous amount of homes for sale, with very little buyers.  This will have a 'vicious circle' effect.  As the value of homes keeps going down, more & more home owners will walk away from their homes.

    The Fed, which always makes the wrong decisions, will jump in and lower interest rates.  I believe that because they are so dense, they won't just do it once.  They'll do it several times since it worked in the past.  The net effect is that it will cause OIL prices to skyrocket.  Food prices are expected to go up at the same rate.  I expect Washington Mutual to fold fairly soon.  Morgan Stanley is currently looting the coffers (exec bonuses) before it goes underwater.

    Is it true that it's coming?  How can we tell?  Look at what's happening right now.  The Fed is constantly injecting money into the system.  Every week, we hear about new "injections of cash" into the economy.  If this was a minor problem, it would have been solved by now.  

    Over the Xmas holiday, I listened to a lot of ideas being thrown around, about the "mortgage problem".  Most people seemed unanimous in that THE GOVERNMENT or THE FED needs to do something.  The mortage FIX is a good start, they all agreed.  Now do more and things should be OK.
    I just sat quietly, and listened to the speculation.  Didn't contribute to the lively conversation.  Just thought to myself, "God do you people REALLY know what's coming?".  There is no Fed or government that can fix this situation.  It's too big.

    •  One question. Where are all those walking away (0+ / 0-)

      going to live?

      Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

      by StrayCat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:34:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suspect (0+ / 0-)

        a lot of families will just stay in their homes, until they are not allowed to stay there any longer.  I know of several which have done that.  They just stayed until they got their eviction notice.  I'm assuming that the banks lending institutions will be very backlogged early next year, so maybe the families can buy themselves a few extra weeksmonths until the gavel falls.

        Once that option is exhausted, I'm assuming people will find apartments, reasonable housing.  They will probably move together, as several people I know currently.  Grown kids will move back with mom & dad.

        I've read predictions that once this starts happening, rents are expected to come down.  There will be lots of houses standing empty.  Banks lenders will prefer to rent the houses, rather than having them just stand there.  So there will be some kind of adjustment in the next few months.  Again, owners will have to show some flexibility in terms of credit history foreclosure.  With thousands of houses expected to be standing empty, they will most probably be happy to rent / GET INCOME from the house, rather than nothing at all.

        What do you think?

  •  Holy Crap (7+ / 0-)

    Look at that commercial paper graph.

    A mortgage broker friend of mine, Ken, said at the beginning if the Bush Administration that this would happen.

    I got into a hole by borrowing the equity - a lot of it to fix the place up. Now I owe more than it's worth. He said that's what everyone was doing. And it would come back to bite us big time. He tried to warn me...

    Now the place won't sell. No buyers. None.

    Of course, that's when I get disabled.

    When it rains...

    Glad this got rescued. More great reading from the rescue rangers...

  •  Great diary (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    vgranucci, Unduna, dharmafarmer, StrayCat

    The average person has NO idea what is about to happen next year.

  •  I thought I was oversimplifying. Guess not. (7+ / 0-)

    When I was a little girl and my father was trying to explain poverty to me (I was extremely alarmed, still am...), I asked him why we couldn't just make more money.

    Given that I was all of about six, he did a good job explaining, but then at his earliest chance he sat me down with my grandpa, who was an economist and great with the minds of children. He used an old fashioned egg beater to explain it all to me - I can't remember how he did that, but it made sense to me, it stuck. You don't make money, you use what you've got or you make poverty worse. Period. I was still left very worried about poverty, but I did get why you didn't just make more money.

    So this month I've been listening to NPR stories about money getting poured in and I was alarmed. But I told myself, nah, you're just economics naive and don't understand the complexities here. I told myself that my understanding was still that of a child, that I was being simplistic. But I really wondered...

    And so. My alarm has been justified all along. Sometimes the most simple rules are the most important ones, eh?

    Thanks, gjohnsit. It's great to have economics diaries for laymen. Much appreciated.

    "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

    by Unduna on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:21:03 PM PDT

  •  Wise investors are sitting this out. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    StrayCat, yoduuuh do or do not

    Only £36mln new money went into stocks in 2 months during which space of time one usually sees bi££ions, even in traditionally quiet, off-peak trading.

    What could that mean? How about: Central banks are giving Mr Mickey McMarket away to the hedge funds and Chicago futures/Options traders free of charge.

    Just a mo! Aren't they supposed to be minding The Shop?

    What should Central Banks be doing? The very opposite! Why aren't the FED and Central Banks getting something in return for all the money they are pouring into this Bucanero?
    Like what?
    Prescriptions for the Redistribution of Wealth and Responsibility In the 21st Century.

    •  Wise investors? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Heteraetcaetera, gjohnsit

      Isn't investing just giving money to the wealthy with MINIMAL returns?
      And isn't investing(stock market) really gambling?
      I never understood the value of anything but C.D.s , T-Bills and Savings Bonds.
      I am slow, but I get sick at the thought of losing money.
      Even safe gambling . I was one of those morons who had a shit load of his I.R.A. invested in Enron. At the time it was considered safe, then we all know what Bush's buddy did.
      I still don't understand much of the market. Why pretend. I still don't understand the basis of our economy-CREDIT.
      people my age are often overloaded in debt . All it takes is a divorce, injury or a layoff and everything is lost.
      I don't get it. Why is our economy seemingly based on something so NOT sustainable? Seriously, credit isn't worth, but unfortunately  most people in their late 30's early 40's are in love with debt.
      From leasing to buying big screen tv's for astronomical amounts, my generation is setting itself up for collapse.

      Maybe it is time for a credit crunch, so we can get back to an economy of sustainable value?
      I was baked during Micro and Macro economics and neither of the professors spoke good English-so I am really lost.
      Past understanding how it affects me and the wrong way of doing PERSONAL finances, I have no real understanding.
      Can you explain to a complete moron, or is it a waste of time?

      •  Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Heteraetcaetera, StrayCat

        I still don't understand much of the market. Why pretend. I still don't understand the basis of our economy-CREDIT.

         The fact that you asked that question shows that you are no moron. That is the right question to ask.
          I have an old diary that might help to start explaining the situation. This follow-up diary should help too.

          I first started getting interested in economics in 1997, when the financial media tried to explain the Asian currency crisis by simply saying the buzz phrase "crony capitalism".
          Well, I was born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday. I realized I was being lied to, but I didn't know what the truth was. So I started looking into it. The more I looked into it the more I realized I needed to get down to the basics.
          Eventually I had to put everything else aside and find the answer to the question: what is a dollar?
          Once you answer that question then you can work your way back up.

        "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

        by gjohnsit on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:44:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

          I understand history. Understanding what a dollar is since the gold standard was tossed out is understanding what paper is, I think.

          Economics interests me ,well, not at all. I get to easily infuriated . Like when I see a pair of Air Jordan's for $125 : the company claims to make $7 profit per pair-of course the super stars wearing them get 2 million a year or better to wear them AND THE CHILDREN MAKING THEM make $200 a year MAYBE.
          I understand that when one sees Nike's corporate headquarters what dawns on me is they are either selling way to many sneakers for a ridiculous amount or they got a really good deal on rent-or maybe I am over estimating labor costs.

          I guess, when I consider places like Saipan I lose friends-since we all know how much Hillary supports that Wal Mart HEAVEN !
          Yeah, economics gets me going, mostly because of a lack of understanding past the class I belong to-the working class.
          Thanks , I'll read your diaries and try to catch up-I like people who put a lot of effort into explaining stuff.
          My limited knowledge of economics comes from travel , Democracy Now, various documentaries.
          Anyway, thanks

      •  Clue number one (0+ / 0-)

        Economics doesn't work in Theory. Only best practice can run your personal current account. You can extrapolate that rule from the personal/specific to the general interest.

        For example, just before the great 1929 crash which ushered in the economic depression, people were able to sell stock in companies formed to "..invest in industries with growth potential and blah blah blah..."! Those who enquired were told that Finance (also spelled Phynance by Alfred Jarry) had become too complicated for them to understand and they were best advised to trust the specialists....so they did. Whammo.

        Rule one? buy a car you can afford: pay cash. No-one can float a credit derivative on that. What's more, if you can tinker with it to make it go better, you have a hobby which doesn't involve your bank.

  •  Masterfully done! (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    gjohnsit, StrayCat

    I really appreciate your efforts and intellect.

    What we are experiencing is the failure of a balancing act that has been occuring for years with ever more desperate and frantic attempts to continue a "shell game" of money creation and debt bubbles.

    It is time we began to rethink the Federal Reserve System.  It was doomed to failure from the start, we just couldn't see it because of the long time horizon involved.

    I'd like my Bartle Doo with extra Chizzle please.

    by jokertim777 on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:40:46 AM PDT

  •  This was a great intro (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JG in MD

    I liked this diary as an intro to how the system works. There are a few things I would add.

    The rating agencies aren't all to blame for this. A lot of people think the rating agencies are like auditors. They aren't--they only can work with the information investment banks give them. One can (and should) argue with their models, but they are actually rather conservative as these things go. Problem was, garbage in, garbage out. The rating agency isn't in a position to behave as an auditor would because they just don't have the staff.

    The Fed is in a bit of a bind. One reason that inflation was such a big economic bugaboo was the move away from manufacturing as a base for the economy. If you are making cars, for example, inflation is a problem but not a huge one--your car gets repriced to reflect the fact that there are fewer dollars to go around (that's why during the Depression a car could be had for $100). No problem--money is worth more to you because there isn't much of it around.

    But if your assets are money itself, or financial instruments, inflation is a nasty thing, as it cuts into the value of your assets. In a FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) economy, inflation is to be avoided at all costs, or at least kept under some control. Problem is, of course, that you will always get a little inflation if the economy grows at all.

    This is no way an argument for getting rid of the Fed, by the way. If our currency were still gold-based (as it was in the Depression) we would be in even more trouble. The price of gold has gone up (though in real terms it's actually not too far off historical norms) and that would create a huge deflation if we were still carrying around the old double-eagles. THAT would be bad. Really. (There are reasons, and not all of them bad, that countries use paper money, or that the old Progressive Party actually came down on the side of paper currency).

    Another thing: as one fund manager put it to me, the right thing for the Fed to do is hold the line on interest rates. But, "Do you want to be the guy remembered as the one who put us into recession?" For the answer ask Paul Volcker. (On the other hand if you bought those non-call New York City bonds in 1979 or so you'd be sitting on a lot of money right about now).

  •  Great diary! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Nerdsie

    I wrote one in August, not as elegant as yours, and it sank without trace. At least it got eight comments & tips, LOL. But I was glad to be early seeing past the smoke & mirrors to the reality that matters were way beyond sub-prime.

    Even now, a lot of the MSM still uses that label. Somehow, I think it's deliberate -- kind of a variation of "Look over here, shiny!"

    As far as the Fed, I often wonder why progressives rail about privatization yet take no notice of that damn private corporation.

    One thing you cay about gold, the trust factor. When Tricky Dick trashed Bretton Woods and uncoupled the dollar to float, nothing changed as the link to oil existed. Now, with inflation soaring in the Gulf states, even Saudi Arabia is having second thoughts about the dollar peg. Who can trust a fiat dollar? Some ships float; others sink.

    What is past, is prologue

    by US2oz on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:09:33 AM PDT

  •  Nice diary- some clarifications? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    StrayCat

    Side note first: In 1968 , when they first measured revolving debt (credit cards etc) it came to 1.3 Billion dollars. Adjust for population and inflation and that's equivalent to 7 Billion today compared to 918 Billion just in Credit card debt.

    On your Household Debt/Disposable income: Is that Debt plus income or straight debt? If not,  I would have like to have seen straight debt to savings. When and if the savings rate went below the debt level.

    In business the ratio is debt to equity. If your debt is greater than equity you could have say 2x debt to equity but still be positive. I wonder how many households have a negative net worth? Has anyone developed a way to measure it?    

    Support Col Hackworth's because tomorrow is just a promise, not a guarantee

    by Dburn on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:34:34 AM PDT

    •  I believe its straight debt (0+ / 0-)

      I've been using that chart for a couple months, so I don't remember exactly what the qualifications for it was. But if I remember correctly it was straight debt (largely mortgage debt, of course), but not including investments such as 401k's.

      "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

      by gjohnsit on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:52:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So in essence... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        gjohnsit

        The 70% Consumer GDP is driven almost entirely by debt with the exception of the very rich who probably shop overseas and have it imported, adding to our trade deficit?

        Yeah that's a firm foundation for growth if you like climbing ladders on a tight rope over an active volcano complete with flowing lava and buffeting winds.

        I wonder if any of the economists will ever do an economizing or just read other people's shit and write some variation of it so as not to be ostracized by their peers and called a left wing lunatic by right wing talk radio.

        About the time the soup lines are 10,000 people long and we are getting air drops from foreign countries of emergency supplies, some brave economist will proclaim, "debt without equity is not the way to a solid foundation for long lasting  economic growth."

        "Holy Shit- Did you hear what he said?" "Yeah, what can it mean? I don't know. But check out the chocolates from the Belgium supply drop"

        Support Col Hackworth's because tomorrow is just a promise, not a guarantee

        by Dburn on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:42:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What I don't understand (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, gjohnsit, bittergirl

    OK, the value of the dollar has decreased DRAMATICALLY since Clinton left office.  I only know that because we visit in-laws every year and when I got married I spent a ton ,but Christ it was a wedding for 400(don't be so impressed food only cost about $200).
    Now, the dollar goes nowhere as far.
    I think it all started to fall apart when a president gave a speech and told us to go shopping or to Disneyland. All we had to do was shop and it would all go away.

    But, we have digressed. What I truly don't understand is how people have come to think credit equals worth?
    My generation, who grew up under Satan( you call him Reagan) really does believe that the more credit they have ,the more they are worth.

    Why has it come to the point that people are happy being in debt? Maybe I am lucky , I couldn't get a credit card until I was like 28. I remember the first big purchase- a stereo ,an awesome stereo. I remember looking at the bill and eventually figuring out how much I ACTUALLY PAID FOR IT. That was the end of my credit free for all.
    I truly can't comprehend how credit has gotten so out of control. At some point it is the consumer.
    Mortgages are different. I had a chance at one of those variable rate loans, I decided against it. Rate's were at record lows, they could realistically only go up-so why not lock in?
    Are lenders really that predatory? I said no and was never asked again.
    Bankers are in my own estimation, evil. Credit card companies are just legalized loan sharks-Jesus,12%? Any more than 4% should be illegal.

    But, my personal philosophy aside, why have we become so conditioned to believe if we can put it on a credit card then we can afford it?

    It is not sustainable. As we ship jobs overseas, allow corporations to use P.O. Box's to avoid taxes and the populous borrows everything never thinking of the worse case scenario for THEMSELVES it only stands to reason we will collapse individually.

    I just don't get it. I waked and baked during Micro Economics-so I need very simple explanations, which is more than likely obvious when my rant is read.

    At some point WE THE PEOPLE have to take responsibility for ourselves-weather it be standing together to fight banks for debt forgiveness(and I mean all debt) or just simply controlling ourselves.

    Henry Ford once said " If Americans realized how the Banking System worked, there would be revolution by daybreak."

    •  Occam's Razor (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      bittergirl

      But, my personal philosophy aside, why have we become so conditioned to believe if we can put it on a credit card then we can afford it?

       Just turn on the TV and you'll see for yourself. Or better yet, check out this clip from that classic movie Network.

       We've been conditioned by the TV to be this way for the benefit of large corporations and the wealthy.

       As for how the system works, I refer to two old diaries of mine, here and here.
        They got very little attention when I posted them.

      "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

      by gjohnsit on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:02:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What do you think about transitioning from the (0+ / 0-)

    Federal Reserve System to a return to the US Government once again printing its own money?  It worked with Lincoln's Greenbacks and Kennedy was moving us in that direction before his assassination.    

    Find a local farmers market near you. http://www.localharvest.org/

    by bittergirl on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:58:43 PM PDT

  •  Sorry I missed this earlier. (0+ / 0-)

    Holiday activities interfered greatly with my D Kossing activities.  Again, another very valuable look into what is happening in today's financial markets.  I can not understand how pumping more money into the system is going to solve the problem.  IMO, the longer it takes banks to start acting/performing like banks instead of money changers, the faster and greater will be the consequences.  

Permalink | 59 comments