Dan_hin the Banksters tell you that if they don’t get that $700 Billion, the sky will fall and the sun won’t rise in the morn. I say to you, call their bluff. This is nothing more than a fancy Poker game. And when you call their bluff, you too will see that the Sun will still rise in the morn. That same Sun who gives up his life so we all may live.
IMHO dan_hin is on the money.
While not exactly true, not too strange, either. The way I understand it, the US is in a unique position in that the world markets trade in the US dollar. This means the US can behave differently in times of crisis than other countries would.
What are you worried about Freen? Your flag has the Union Jack in it’s corner, which means you are own by the English Crown, which is different from the Queen. Ha, ha, ha.
“sham” is an inaccurate word. A “sham” is typically used to describe a situation where a mark is set up to be divorced from money where the basis or product does not exist. In this case, there is a real problem, real debt, and real issues that need to be solved. So, I would say that the 700Bn (and it is probably 10x that at least, 700bn is only the START, and built into the legislation is unlimited increases) is an attempted solution to a problem, not a sham.
In answer to the inflation issue, the question is, will increasing the money supply from xxx billion by an additional 700 bn cause a de-valuation of the dollar? That depends on the perceived value of the dollar both before and after the injection. The dollar is a note against the ability of the US to pay that much worth of goods and services. If a dollar is worth .5 big macs now, if we inject 700bn and actually have a functioning economy in the future, the argument goes, a dollar will still buy .5 BigMacs in the future, so inflation is zero. It is argued that if we do NOT inject 700bn into the economy, the economy will crash, McDonald’s franchises will not be able to get loans, stores and spending will dry up, and in order to cover fixed costs, McDonalds will have to increase their prices or go out of business. Rising prices for the same thing is inflation. The argument against that is the law of supply and demand, which says that when demand falls and supply remains constant or even decreases less than the drop in demaind, prices fall.
Here in ATL, the major car dealership chain closed today, laying off 2700 jobs, because cars were not selling, and banks were not giving easy car loans to people with bad credit, and GMAC was cutting back. Carmax announced a drop in sales. HP-EDS have laid off 34000 people in the last two months. This is the third scenario that is playing out: the economy grinds to a halt and contracts. Money stops flowing, and the guy left holding the bag (an inventory of large cars) loses big time. That “guy” is a car dealer, a restaurateur, a home owner, a small business owner…hmmm…have I left anyone out? Small businesses make up about 50% of the US economy. If they go under, we could be looking at 50% unemployment in this country.
… I also speak English. Do you?
A flag means nothing, chump. Look up granfalloons.
Meanwhile on the other side of the world…
The company a friend works for was bought out a couple of years ago by an American investment company. Now that things have gone sour, they are trying cut costs and that will mean layoffs.
This is big and has nothing to do with flags.
BTW, I was raised by hippies, and am consequently allergic to conspiracy theories, especially when they are used to mask ignorance.
" A hit! A most palpable hit!"
– Bill the Bard
It would be interesting to see what you would say after the end of the bankers puts the nail in the economy’s coffin (protip: they’re called bankers)
Either way though, after this is all over and we’re not under martial law, I personally guarantee I’m going to say I told you so. If your prediction is fulfilled, well… we’re screwed anyway. 
LOL! Freen and Chipmasque, I am flattered. Though, you give me too much credit. I swear to you on Jessica Alba’s sweet bosom, that I cannot speak 10 syllables per line like Richard the Third; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thz2EUizC9Q
Papa Smurf and Alden give me half an hour.
I respectfully disagree.
ManDingo dude take out a map and look at Africa it’s a continent not a country. what happens in one country in Africa does not extend to all regions. The staple crop that’s eaten in most countries in Africa is maize not wheat.
What angers me is that US government has billed out these banks, which mismanaged themselves into this position, with the reason that it will be bring great economical hardship if the fail and I believe this, if these banks do fail it will bring a great deal of hardship. But you see in Africa quiet a lot of the countries here have loans with the World Bank and IMF if we tried to bill out any one of our industries stating that it is for the greater good trust me it wouldn’t happen. IMF and World bank would use what leverage the have to block this.
Insolvency cannot be resolved by increasing liquidity. The bad debt will still exist until it is written off. The $700B will go to buy paper assets with a value close to $0.
On the other hand, higher liquidity will allow the banks to refinance bad debt giving the same shoddy loan agents the same fat commissions which broke the system in the first place. America will go even deeper in debt and the end when it comes will be even more disastrous.
From the beginning, there has been no debate about whether this should be fixed. This was the only debate ever worth having. The truth is, it cannot be fixed. The bad debt must be written off. Increasing liquidity onlty postpones the pain and will make matters worse for everyone but the financial elite.
PapaSmurf if that be case, then you don’t owe the banksters any loyalty. The Banks let those small businesses’ fall without a care, but yet when Banksters face collapse they want your full compassion.
Bush says, if the Banksters don’t get that $700 Billion the sun won’t shine in the morn. I say call his bluff and you will see the sun will still shine in the morning. 
Superx10, I know you believe the elite and the Banksters are not capable of such evil, but hypothetically, what if you’re wrong? You’re assuming they have the same level of morality. But lets say you were the sheep, do you know what they did with sheep in the old Testament?
You do not know that. I did not say that. What I am saying is that you hold an incorrect view of the way things like money work today. The old testament has nothing to do with that and I regret the fact that religious scripture has been brought into this argument. Please do not do that again.
I had written a long post, discussing how you own statments
were saying that the sun would not rise tomorrow, should the “banksters”
get what they wanted. It also discussed just how hard economics are,
how you seem quite confident that the banks own the entire world,
and that they manipulate the whole thing. Basicly that you seem
quite fond of conspiracies.
People all over the world, more USA than everywhere else,
are already touched by the financial crisis. Not just “banksters”.
But i figured you probably wouldn’t listen anyway.
So i’ll stick to:
I respectfully disagree
Ps.
I will not take sides in the argument of wether or not the banks
should get the money cause, again, economy is devilishly hard.
You’re leaving out the human element of greed and deception. The core of all of these economic maneuvars that you are referring too is soo complicated that it would take a render farm days to unravel the equation. It is under the dark of night of such immense complexity that those greedy imps felt like they could do whatever the hell they wanted to do. Knowing that the reality is that under worse case scenario they would always have the tax payers to bail them out for the sake of rescuing the capitalist economy.
Yes capitalism and market forces as we know it is all the artificial imagining of rocket scientists who get paid to make sure that things seem as though free market capitalism is based on common sense, when it isn’t. It’s quite literally all an arbitrary game. That works more for some than it does for others.
TobiasDN, that’s wicked! Attempting a 10 syllable Shakespearean line or even 11 female syllable line is very difficult. Good on you for attempting.:yes:
Bobg, I have to agree with you. I worked in the bank, buying other company’s debt, repo’s etc. Sometimes it was better and cheaper to let the businesses trade their way out of trouble, but of course you could turn on these businesses any time-nothing in writting.
But I say in this case buying the Bank’s debt is a bad idea, because I feel it will collapse the American Government. Similar to what happened to the Russian government 10 years ago, when one day the Russian government couldn’t repay the interest payments to the international Banksters. Which caused the Russian ruble loose 3/4 of it’s value overnight.
Yeah, you know, initially i was going for fifteen syllable, so I’m
not really satisfied anyway
Good point.
Woohoo double post - this time I’ll quote you again!
no, no, no.
they’re not printing more money, ffs. they’re buying the bad debt.