And all that two million in back taxes pays for how much of George W's war? 2 Days? Less?

Maybe if all these people were not already paying for executive bonuses at Citibank, then fewer of them would be behind in their tax payments.

Citibank you can go fuck yourself... thanks for stopping universal default a few years ago. Suck my usury legislation bitches.

>> ^hawkinson:
Okay, this just pisses me off. the free market alternative is to have citi bank (and the rest of the financial industry) simply collapse into dust. then you wouldn't have any lines to bitch about. or any savings.


but watching those cunts "collapse into dust" with the rest of us would be amusing. I don't have any savings so I would be particularly entertained by that spectacle. Then we can all go mano a mano in the streets, as nature intended.

>> ^hawkinson:
Okay, this just pisses me off. the free market alternative is to have citi bank (and the rest of the financial industry) simply collapse into dust. then you wouldn't have any lines to bitch about. or any savings.


Yeah, I think that was kinda "glossed" over (lol).

Nationalised might end up being slower (debateable), but their customers would wait a lot longer if it were shut down... X D

>>I don't get the whole 1 Trillion for killing Iraqis is fine, 1 Trillion for corrupt failing banks is fine, but 1 Trillion for rebuilding the infrastructure of the US or helping the National Parks is "Socialism"

Actually, the $1T for banks was socialism. As in state-run government, etc. Our government is now the biggest shareholder of Citibank, for example.

Don't confuse Bush and Paulson with standard conservative ideology.

The neo- part of neo-con meant they were big-government conservatives. I.e., liberal on expansion of government spending, conservative on things like defense.

In a weird twist of fate, it was the Republicans that tried to increase regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Democrats (including Barney Frank, who was literally in bed with their leadership while chairing the house finance committee) that blocked it.

Obama sued banks to get them to increase subprime loans.

But something tells me all this will be cleverly rebutted by liberals by having them stuff their fingers in their ears and yelling loudly...

>> ^NordlichReiter:
you are not advocating what I think you are advocating are you? ....

its crazy... but....


My girlfriend got a letter in the mail today from CITIbank offering her a $10,000 "pre-approved" loan. Neither she, nor I, have any dealings with this bank. They somehow got our address and sent out this offer, which at (reading the fine print) 29.9% interest would ONLY cost $1200 a year! Now she and I both know that that interest would be a terrible to try to deal with, but how many people might get just desperate enough to agree to the terms to try to stay afloat? And how many people who get that desperate might not actually be any better off with even more debt.

I am increasingly feeling like the industry that exists and sustains itself by usury should be accountable for its actions. If they make a bad loan, and grant money to people who are never able to repay it, then maybe they don't deserve to get that money back?

"A fool and his money are easily parted" says an old proverb. In my opinion, there have been some mighty foolish banks over the last few years.

Check out what Rachel Maddows has to say about the bailout.

And if you have time, you might like this 2006 doc: In Debt We Trust: America Before The Bubble Burst

I am increasingly feeling like the industry that exists and sustains itself by usury should be accountable for its actions. If they make a bad loan, and grant money to people who are never able to repay it, then maybe they don't deserve to get that money back?

My girlfriend got a letter in the mail today from CITIbank offering her a $10,000 "pre-approved" loan. Neither she, nor I, have any dealings with this bank. They somehow got our address and sent out this offer, which at (reading the fine print) 29.9% interest would ONLY cost $1200 a year! Now she and I both know that that interest would be a terrible to try to deal with, but how many people might get just desperate enough to agree to the terms to try to stay afloat? And how many people who get that desperate might not actually be any better off with even more debt.

"A fool and his money are easily parted" says an old proverb. In my opinion, there have been some mighty foolish banks over the last few years.

Check out what Rachel Maddows has to say about the bailout.

And if you have time, you might like this 2006 doc: http://www.videosift.com/video/In-Debt-We-Trust-America-Before-The-Bubble-Burst


In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
you are not advocating what I think you are advocating are you? ....


its crazy... but....

I think this guy sells the slap-chop better than Jack Black sells va-poo-rizer.

here's a PSA though - if you ever order anything from an infomercial, use one of those online credit-card number generators (citibank has it, and several others) to make a 1-time CC#. These infomercial companies sell your information to parent/sister/brother/cousin companies who also call you up to ask if you want useless crap.

Graty FTW.

>> ^J-Rova:
> Cartel? Like drugs? Oil? :-P And of course it's a bunch of banks! They have all the information! Would you rather it be a collection of... say, hospitals, making all the same decisions? I can picture that - "Well, Mr. Bernanke, there were an unusually high number of influenza cases this year, sooo ahh, let's see.... ahh, fuck it - we recommend contracting the money supply to prevent inflation." ???? HAH!

It's a bunch of private banks. This is akin to having wolves guarding a hen house.

>> Since mid-2007, Bernanke has been hiking rates for people who were solvent, and lowering for the ones who were not.
> Hiking and lowering rates at the same time, for specific people? I'm not sure where you got that.

You don't understand what I'm saying because you're in over your head. Starting in December 2007 the Fed started auctioning huge short-term loans at the 3% rate, available only to the big banks. This brand new loan mechanism is called the TAF: (Temporary) Term Auction Facility. It has allowed institutions like Citibank and Bank of America to stay afloat despite having no reserves of their own. They will carry on renewing these loans indefinitely as long as they can provide the collateral.

It just so happens that for everyone else, interest rates are determined by the market and not by the Fed, and are a function of risk. No one but the big banks get loans at 3%. Last week, municipalities were forced to raise rates from 4% to 20%, and even at this rate they can't get buyers for their bonds. These finance basic services such as hospitals. Now there are about $265 billion in outstanding municipal bonds (i.e., bonds that haven't found buyers). Mortgage rates have skyrocketed, meaning people can't refinance their houses at acceptable rates. Even prime mortgages are at risk now, and the crisis will spread.

The Fed has provided extremely low rate loans only to big banks -- precisely the ones who caused this crisis and shouldn't be artificially kept afloat. Meanwhile, the market has screwed over the parties who were still solvent by giving them huge rates due to the perceived high risks. By not forcing the exposure and liquidation of bad debt tied to banks, the Fed is creating the conditions for a domino effect. If conditions continue to deteriorate, Americans will have a deflationary credit crisis similar to the one seen in the 1930's.

People borrowed money they couldn't afford to borrow, and lenders allowed them to do it. They all miscalculated some of the risks involved, and it finally started biting some people in the ass. This is NOT the Fed's fault!

The Fed is partly responsible by keeping artificially low interest rates, which gave rise to the credit bubble. Today the Fed is accountable for providing liquidity to float junk assets owned by big depositary institutions, temporarily favoring them and creating the conditions for a widespread credit collapse.

>> Everything connected to the Fed is secretive, and not even members of Congress with the highest clearance can find out what's going on.
> Is this bad?

It's bad because it lets bankers manipulate the market. The President's Working Group on Financial Markets (a.k.a. Plunge Protection Team) is the prime example.

I'm all for having educated discussions about the economy. but I sense that you're the kind of person who first makes his mind and then tries to find arguments to back up your claims. Quoting a few paragraphs from Wikipedia doesn't show the Fed's integrity. If you want to find the truth, look at the market. It can be temporarily manipulated, but in the end it never lies.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
>> ^J-Rova:
He's questioning why the government gave up the ability to control the money supply. And if you want "checks and balances," The Federal Reserve consists of an entire board - not just Ben Bernanke.
Do you know who controls the Fed? The Fed is not a public institution. It's a cartel of private banks.


We shall consult the omnipotent Wikipedia:
"'The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects."

Cartel? Like drugs? Oil? :-P And of course it's a bunch of banks! They have all the information! Would you rather it be a collection of... say, hospitals, making all the same decisions? I can picture that - "Well, Mr. Bernanke, there were an unusually high number of influenza cases this year, sooo ahh, let's see.... ahh, fuck it - we recommend contracting the money supply to prevent inflation." ???? HAH!

Since mid-2007, Bernanke has been hiking rates for people who were solvent, and lowering for the ones who were not.

Hiking and lowering rates at the same time, for specific people? I'm not sure where you got that.

Just recently Citibank had to borrow billions from Abu Dhabi at a 14% interest rate because they needed long term funds so desperately that borrowing from the Fed wasn't an option. Yesterday (Feb 14th) the Fed received a request of $268 BILLION dollars in TOMO/TAF (read: short-term) loans from depository institutions (source). That's more than 1/3 of the Fed's whole open market reserves, so only $66 billion were given out. Since the beginning of January, the big banks no longer have their own reserves. Their current reserves are composed of cash borrowed from the Fed.

People borrowed money they couldn't afford to borrow, and lenders allowed them to do it. They all miscalculated some of the risks involved, and it finally started biting some people in the ass. This is NOT the Fed's fault! The part about the reserves is one of the mechanisms the Fed has at its disposal to manage the problem.
I'm not denying that there is indeed a problem (housing market bubble, etc). I'm only denying that the Fed is to be held accountable for the problem; however, they have the means to fix it. Hence, the drastic interest rate cuts somewhat recently, etc.

Everything connected to the Fed is secretive, and not even members of Congress with the highest clearance can find out what's going on.
Is this bad?

I must admit, I wasn't prepared for the amount of scrutiny drawn from a rant on the absurdity of the ideas in this video.

>> ^J-Rova:
He's questioning why the government gave up the ability to control the money supply. And if you want "checks and balances," The Federal Reserve consists of an entire board - not just Ben Bernanke.

Do you know who controls the Fed? The Fed is not a public institution. It's a cartel of private banks.

Despite the fact that the economy is beyond complex (every action has both good & bad consequences, which are incredibly far-reaching), the Fed knows what it's doing.

Recent events clearly show that the Fed either does NOT know what it's doing, or knows and is acting contrary to the United States' best interest by following a political agenda. The Fed's policy of low interest rates created the current housing bubble, and it's laughable to claim that this was good planning.

Since mid-2007, Bernanke has been hiking rates for people who were solvent, and lowering for the ones who were not. He's made the problems worse by breaking the people who actually could pay their bills, which in turn caused more trouble for the ones who were insolvent to begin with. We have a huge amount of foreclosures and still no one knows what the hell is going on with the big depository institutions.

Just recently Citibank had to borrow billions from Abu Dhabi at a 14% interest rate because they needed long term funds so desperately that borrowing from the Fed wasn't an option. Yesterday (Feb 14th) the Fed received a request of $268 BILLION dollars in TOMO/TAF (read: short-term) loans from depository institutions (source). That's more than 1/3 of the Fed's whole open market reserves, so only $66 billion were given out. Since the beginning of January, the big banks no longer have their own reserves. Their current reserves are composed of cash borrowed from the Fed.

All this shows that there are very big players in trouble out there, but we have no way of knowing who they are. Everything connected to the Fed is secretive, and not even members of Congress with the highest clearance can find out what's going on.

I could go on for hours about the amount of BULLSHIT that Bernanke puts forth, but I won't. The information is out there, so I suggest you use your "background in economics" to find it.

Any politician who tries to challenge the independence of the Federal Reserve loses whatever he was running for. It is believed that this is why Bush Sr. lost to Clinton, because he pressured the Fed for lower interest rates (which is a BIG NO-NO), as you can see in the following link.

This is ridiculous once you consider that Greenspan helped implement GWB's policy of artificially low interest rates and deficit spending which ultimately led to the mess we're in.

The World Bank is not causing it - they have recommended it, and it's not out of thin air, either - it is a devaluation that has been needed for quite a while.

As the corporations in the United States vie for cheaper labor and cheaper goods, brought on by many things including, but not limited to, a retailer-based competitive market(where retailers make demands upon the manufacturers of the goods consumed in the U.S.), labor and manufacturing go elsewhere. Currently, much of the manufactured consumer products sold in the United States are made in countries like China, where the workforce is incredibly larger than here in the United States.

As such, the cost of labor in the United States must balance out with that of the rest of the world, as should the cost of goods sold here - I've actually been thinking about moving to India for that very reason. For what I currently make, here in the United States, I do not make enough to purchase land, or a house - if I had a family, I would most certainly not be able to feed them without taking on a second job. But, many of my employers hire outsourced individuals from India that I work with quite directly.

A group of 6 people to do my job in India, makes, total, a little less than what I make per year, and with that amount, they can afford to feed their families, and even afford to buy a house. Much outsourcing is going to countries where there are higher populations, because the labor force is much cheaper.

For this reason, the American economy must either lower it's cost of living, as well as the value of it's currency(as, if it does not devalue it's currency, it faces stark competition on the global market), or be subject to having most of it's productive workforce go unutilized, as the jobs go to other countries. Thus, the World Bank made their recommendation.

The global currency market will balance out on population, if anything, now.

I'm sure that you are aware that the majority of banks within the United States are not as invested in companies within the United States as they have been, in prior years - if anything, the amount they make from their foreign investments will balance out what they lose from their domestic investments, or as Citibank, and two other well known banks from England have shown(sadly, I do not remember their names right now, but all three banks were recently in a quite-underpublished article on AP), they will just move their headquarters to China, as they have now done.

My guess is that those internationally-recognized banks will more than make up for their losses, no matter what happens - or they wouldn't be moving HQ to China...but that's just me.

In perspective, sure - in 1993, even until today(before the 50% devaluation has taken place), the United States has done relatively well, and will continue to do so, even after devaluation. If the Federal Reserve plays their cards right, most Americans won't even know that the devaluation has happened, but if you want some evidence for it happening right now, just look at the price of the Silver commodity.

In December of 2006, the price of the Silver commodity was around $9 per troy ounce. Last I checked, it had raised to $13 to $15 per troy ounce. That most certainly shows something quite difficult to ignore happening, just by itself.

(p.s. - the government does not manage the money supply in this country - I urge you to look up the history and organization of the Federal Reserve, but I will tell you the same as the Federal Reserve itself will - The Federal Reserve is a group of 12 corporations who report to 8 individuals - the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and 7 members of the Board of the Federal Reserve. What's interesting is that, in the history of it's existence, it has never ONCE been audited.

And I quote, taken directly from the Cleveland branch of the Fed[ http://www.clevelandfed.org/about/historyfrs.cfm ]:

"The Federal Reserve System has four major components:

* 12 individually chartered corporations called Federal Reserve Banks
* Member commercial banks in each District that contribute capital to the Reserve Banks and receive dividends
* The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, a federal government agency that exercises general supervision over the Reserve Banks
* The Federal Open Market Committee, the main body for carrying out monetary policy."
)