It puts a little more blame on the consumers than it does to monopolies. It's a little biased that I would have thought.
They've pulled the video from YouTube. On a side note. In our little local paper here there was a letter to the editor from a retired doctor that ask an interesting question. If all this money has been lost in the stock market, where has it gone. It's was his experience that lost money usually ends up in other hands. And perhaps the solution is to find out who has the money today. Something to think about. I've thought about it all day. Where is all that money now?
I liked this “Credit comes from the Latin word Credo – to believe” If the masses don’t believe in the imaginary money it all falls apart. Ron Paul also has some pretty good speeches on youtube he breaks it down simple and true.
Ron Paul is the only person I have seen on TV so far even remotely speaking the truth, and even he doesn't go as far as he could and should.
On an interesting sidenote, the astrologer Robert Hand was warning us about the Bush administration's astrological tendencies towards war and crooked financial dealings as long ago as the year 2001. The following was written by Robert Hand (noted astrologer - astro.com) 3/17/2001 - "The Significance of Mercury I cannot rule out the possibility of violence or foreign war based on Bush’s inauguration chart, but relatively straightforward astrology suggests something quite different. Mercury, which is moving from 90 degrees to Mars to a conjunction with Uranus, tells us that the opposition to Bush’s presidency is going to become more militant (Mars) and lead to some Uranian (sudden) event in the status of this administration because of something ruled by Mercury. In this chart, Mercury rules the Second House (Gemini) and is a co-ruler of the Fifth House (Virgo is intercepted in the Fifth). The Second House is finance and the Fifth is markets in which stocks and commodities are traded. This leads me to think that Bush’s opposition will be fueled by financial problems and his fiscal policies. At this time, Bush is promoting a rather large tax cut that will result in more money being saved by the wealthy than the middle class. In Reagan’s era something like this also happened. At that time, spending was not reduced and the result was that we acquired the largest debt in the history of this country. The rich, instead of paying taxes, were allowed to lend money at interest to the government, and the payment of that debt was left to future administrations and generations. I think that the Bush regime is planning something of the same kind. But with current economic conditions he may not be able to get away with it. In conclusion, this combination of planets suggests that the Bush administration may experience a sudden loss of status resulting from increased domestic opposition due to fiscal and financial maneuvers that don’t quite work out. Bush’s own birth chart does not, I believe, support a more violent reading of this combination. In JFK’s birth chart there was also a combination of Mercury, Mars and Uranus, but it was in his birth chart, not the chart of his inauguration. Bush’s chart contains no such indication of violence." This is just another one of those things that makes you go hmmmmm....
lol there is no money "lost" in the stock market, you don't know anything about money do you? It's being hoarded instead of traded, that's the problem, the solution is to get to money moving again, the bailout plan is a proposition on how to get people to loosen their fearful grip on it by lessening their fears about the assets they are holding/trading by allowing them to unload it onto the federal governemnt ie taxpayers. less risk once the stuff is out of the market equals higher confidence equals more trading and investing instead of hoarding and saving. it's a terrible plan but thats the gist of it. everyome is trying to sell the crap and no one wants to buy it so its deadlocked the money markets. i never realized how little people understood about money and economics until this came about, everyone hating "rich people" and short sellers like that makes any sense.
The real answer is that the money was never there to begin with. It was a speculative bubble. The perception of wealth. Speculation. Of course, part of the money was there, the speculative margin composes only a portion of percieved value. OR if you had the sense to sell during the bubble you realized your gains. If you held on to the asset you lost a portion of that assets percieved value. Value is only what somebody else is going to pay for the thing and that can fluxuate.
The Cowardly Lion in The Wizzard of Oz is an allegory showing our finance market today. The Lion represents Banks and the financial sector. He a paralized with fear. The Scarecrow ( Agriculture ) and the Tinman ( Manufacturing ) join the Cowardly Lion in a lobbying pilgrimage to the Emrald City to petition The Wiz. In the movie, The Wiz fobs off the petitioners with some fancy words and a few trinkets and basicly tells Cowardly Lion to grow a pair. Seems real life is going a little diferently.
If your house goes down in value, did someone take money from you? No, the value of your asset just decreased. No money went to anyone else. Same with the stock market.
So why is it necessary to bail anyone out? The big problem is our economy is based on selling all that air in the bubble. When the bubble breaks and our creditors like China, Japan and the rest of the world are left hanging out to dry they get a little miffed. You guys should buy the latest edition of Time. There's an article in it that brought to my attention that the figure $700 billion is the amount that our economy has sold the world based on nothing more than debt, for the last five years. Amazing isn't it that this great power's economy is based on nothing more than a perceived wealth not actually assets or production.
Because they lost money. Got it? If you lose money, it doesn't necessarily go to someone else. But you still lost money.
It's my experience when I make a bad purchase, loan money to someone who can't pay me back, that money wasn't lost... someone else benefitted from my poor judgement. So are we to tell our international creditors they just flushed their wad down the toilet? That's exactly why this bailout is seen as urgent. But what are we putting up to stave off their anger, more debt. If they continue to buy that..what can I say. So that leads me to the opinion that the bailout may buy us some time, but I don't think the foreign money is going to be there in the future, which means there are harder times to come. Hell, would you continue to lend to someone that has no assets, no future production or asset growth except in debt? How is the US supposed to climb out of this hole through actual tangible assets/products or through some sort of new instrument like carbon offset markets, which are nothing more than selling someone the right to pollute. If pollution laws are actually laws and effective you have the responsibility to abide by them or be closed down, not create a market that promotes false companies formed that in essence produce nothing but carbon offset credits.
Then where does it go, you fraud?? Does it just evaporate into nothing?? Go deep throat Bush some more.
Don't let's us get into the Fed crap again guys. Let's really look at where all this supposed wealth and growth finally end up. If it really wasn't true growth then why were we told it was? What schools and subjects can our kids attend and take to make them part of all this global wealth?
Shouldn't we all be focussed on what we can do that will produce an actual tangible asset, rather than focussed on playing a market that is based on debt? Houses/homes were tangible assets what lead to their decline in value, or was the problem that speculators sought to play off them? Or were homes being built in areas that couldn't support their purchase. Were they overvalued before they were finished and moved into? And who funded the contractors that built in those areas, and moved to support their poor judgement by allowing iffy mortgages.
If you have a house worth $200,000 and it burns down and is worth zero, where did the $200,000 go? Is this really so complicated?
