Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-31-2015, 01:45 PM
 
1,820 posts, read 1,655,355 times
Reputation: 1091

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
You're still learning!
There's nothing new here to learn . FICA taxes are paid by EMPLOYERS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Actually there are other reasons for Federal taxes beyond simply receiving revenue.
Who cares? If you don't want taxes, we can borrow everything, or just create money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2015, 01:51 PM
 
18,802 posts, read 8,474,425 times
Reputation: 4130
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire View Post
By creating new money, you are devaluing old money. You are throwing the savers under the bus (once again), for the benefit of the reckless and stupid. It is not the new money that scares me. It's the lessons that went unlearned.
There are many factors that influence the value of our money. New money creation is one. But that also depends on when and why in any economic cycle the new money was created and where it went.

50 Factors that Affect the Value of the US Dollar – Currency Trading.net

A few $T of money created by the Fed for QE mostly sits as excess bank reserves. As the Fed pays the banks interest simply to sit on those reserves, they have not been substantially loaned out. Thus the QE scheme has not been so good for the general economy, and also not very inflationary.

A huge amount of new money was created by the Fed in 2009 in response to the crash. Just Google '29 trillion' and see for yourself why all newly created moneys are not necessarily inflationary. Especially in a weak economy with less than full employment, and/or the new money sits as balances, here or abroad. The USD is a world reserve not just a US currency. So consider that tempering effect with any ongoing money debasement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2015, 01:58 PM
 
1,820 posts, read 1,655,355 times
Reputation: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire View Post
By creating new money, you are devaluing old money. You are throwing the savers under the bus (once again), for the benefit of the reckless and stupid. It is not the new money that scares me. It's the lessons that went unlearned.
A random walk not in any way relevant to the fact that we will never repay the public debt, nor does it relate to the fact that household rules are not the ones that national governments play by.

It is meanwhile one of the responsibilities of a central bank (all functional economies either have or use one of those) to increase or decrease the money supply as economic circumstances may call for.

I couldn't imagine what these "unlearned lessons" would be. It has not been my experience to come across internet posters who are out front of the Fed on monetary matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2015, 01:59 PM
 
18,802 posts, read 8,474,425 times
Reputation: 4130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Barbara View Post
All TARP, no taxes. Covered Chrysler as well. Ford didn't need the help, so didn't get any.


Sounds like a phony number for gross outflows not adjusted for inflows. Maturities of 24 hours were common enough on these loans, meaning that $1 billion for a month would end up looking like $30 billion instead. Total outstanding loans from all facilities inched past $1 trillion briefly at the height of the crisis. That would be the more realistic number.
Numbers as presented somewhat headline hyperbolic, but not phony.

The number represents the total commitment over time. Almost all, if not all paid off/back. And the bulk as you mention were very short term obligations. As I recall at one point the max was in the $7T range.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2015, 02:17 PM
 
1,820 posts, read 1,655,355 times
Reputation: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Numbers as presented somewhat headline hyperbolic, but not phony.
$29 trillion when the real number is barely went beyond $1 trillion in phony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
The number represents the total commitment over time.
Which is guaranteed to yield a totally phony result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Almost all, if not all paid off/back. And the bulk as you mention were very short term obligations. As I recall at one point the max was in the $7T range.
Not $7 trillion either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2015, 03:53 PM
 
18,802 posts, read 8,474,425 times
Reputation: 4130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Barbara View Post
$29 trillion when the real number is barely went beyond $1 trillion in phony.


Which is guaranteed to yield a totally phony result.


Not $7 trillion either.
If I lend you $B overnight, that is a $B short term risk. If I have to do it over and again, and to dozens of institutions nightly, then that is more risk. Maybe these numbers are better represented by amount/days.

But the risks were enormous enough. Another take on magnitude:

Temp bailout table - SourceWatch

It may well be that the total at risk on any one day was 'only' $500B or so as my previous link suggested.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2015, 04:17 PM
 
1,820 posts, read 1,655,355 times
Reputation: 1091
So $29 trillion became $7 trillion which became $500 billion. If we stand across from each other and keep passing a dollar bill back and forth, it will still be only a dollar that was ever involved no matter how many times we manage to exchange it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2015, 04:53 PM
 
18,802 posts, read 8,474,425 times
Reputation: 4130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Barbara View Post
So $29 trillion became $7 trillion which became $500 billion. If we stand across from each other and keep passing a dollar bill back and forth, it will still be only a dollar that was ever involved no matter how many times we manage to exchange it.
If I buy and sell 40 different artworks, I might do millions of dollars of business yet have at risk only tens of thousands at any one time. The $29T is total transactions.

Any short term loan, repeated is more risk. Each overnight loan or guarantee from the Fed to each institution was a separate risk. Maybe not double or triple or per diem per institution, but higher risk.

If one or more of the receiving institutions crumped overnight, the $29T might have been a smaller number, yet the outcome of course much worse.

If you die at midnight, I lose my dollar, yet my risk tomorrow lower.

<LOL>
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2015, 07:01 PM
 
687 posts, read 916,021 times
Reputation: 2243
If they're reporting -0.7% then the real numbers are surely much worse than that. We've been lied to for so long, the numbers fudged for so long, that it's getting impossible to hide. They've just accumulated to the point where "white lie" after white lie after grey lie isn't even believable anymore.

And you can expect that -0.7% to be further revised "officially" downward, possibly twice. And even at that point the real status of the economy even after those "official" revisions it is likely to be lower in reality.

Does anyone have faith in this Federal Reserve (note: not actually federal, absolutely nothing reserved) doing the right thing by the American public? Why would they when they are beholden to the large private banking institutions of this country which are the known and official shareholders of the FedRes? Nothing hidden there, that's what in plain sight.

Need we get started on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) numbers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2015, 08:19 AM
 
1,820 posts, read 1,655,355 times
Reputation: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
If I buy and sell 40 different artworks, I might do millions of dollars of business yet have at risk only tens of thousands at any one time. The $29T is total transactions.
And public debt redemptions through the first seven months of FY 2015 have been $42.4 trillion. But if left to stand alone, that number -- like yours -- is deceptive and misleading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:31 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top