How much money did these lend out and for how many houses as it seems a hell of a lot to give away as bad debt to me. ?

 

I know it's over a trillion in sub prime loans given out. In 1994 it was 34 billion, in 14 years it jumped to over a trillion.....so were in for a lot of economic trouble.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WZDVzZTZzY]YouTube - Economy Crisis - US Stock Market Crash - Predicted[/ame]

 

people should go on youtube and look up Ron Paul in the debats and see how well he understand this economic crisis.

 

And the stock market keeps going down.....its probably won't stop either...expect more losses this week.

heck so those credit systems don't work... I've gotta admit I'm quite scared

I'm scared too...haha I wish I'd saved my money and was intelligent about this.]

 

I'm also scared by what our government will do with it's military in the next few years. Were spending the most ever on our military this year, and our government seems to think having an empire and wars creates wealth and prosperity, which is not true. So with AMerica backed into a corner, our corrupt leaders might do something crazy with our military.

well once again thanks to the biggest idiot in the world :rolleyes: (of course we all know who he is)... but I don't know how can the world handle this, because if USA goes down, we all go down. (yes even China)

You mean Idiots. Clinton, Bush, and congress for the last 20-30 years are just as guilty. One side is not to blame, the neo-libs and Neo-cons are.

And the democrats and some republicans blocked every bill to fix it.

 

He's to blame along with Clinton and most our politicians. The events that started the crisis started in the mid 90's under democrats. Both parties started this and failed to fix it. Clinton is just as much to blame for starting it, and Bush for spending our surplus and wasting most our money.

 

To blame one side is beyond stupid when the policy that initiated this mess was enacted over 10 years ago by a different administration. Sorry but this one does not fall under blame Bush for everything.

 

I've been a student of US politics for approaching twenty years. I majored in it at uni, etc etc etc. But that aside even a scarecrow (well, alright, a politically astute scarecrow) can see who is most to blame for this. Bush.

I've been a student of US politics for approaching twenty years. I majored in it at uni, etc etc etc. But that aside even a scarecrow (well, alright, a politically astute scarecrow) can see who is most to blame for this. Bush.

 

Bush has very little power overall....it took A Republican Congress and a Democratic Congress to pass his horrible Bills. Don't get me wrong, Bush is the worst US president in History, but the blame is spread to both sides.

 

And some of the key bills and people who caused this were democrats and republican in congress who passed horrible housing Bills, took huge donations from corrupt groups like Fannie and Freddie and when things were starting to get bad told everyone it was ok, to invest more and give more subprime loans. Corrupt Businessmen bought off both corrupt democrats and republican in office to make this mess happen.

 

I think your letting your political leanings influence your views on this like most. I used back a long time ago when I was a fan of Bush( I hate myself for ever liking him), but i've learned to look at the facts, not my partisan politics. I try to keep out my personal views as much as possible.

mend

 

All blame aside, the process is the problem. It's the Mac Beth effect, so-to-speak that's at the heart of the matter, in my mind. Honest government is possible, but we need to open up the process for more participants, and more honest participants, by taking as much of the excesses of legalized bribes out of the political process that we can. I've written a letter, which I am sending to my representatives asking for reform - and anyone can do the same - at the times we are in, the pressure applied on reform would have greater salience than at any other time in recent history, save for Nixon's corrupt administration. Here's the gist of it, for anyone interested: Constructive comments welcome!

 

Reform List for 2008 and beyond:

1. Limit congressional terms to 18 years max. (too much? too little?) (giving enough time for a representative to be in office and become acquainted with government, but not a power hog on key committee seats)

 

2. Make both the House and the Senate 6-year terms (giving more stabilizing time for House members between races, so the office is more important than constant contests)

 

3. Cap the maximum allowable donation for individuals to a candidate's race, limited to 2/365th of the median income (in essence, 2 days pay, all days being equal, which would come to around $260 tops). Same cap applies to party fund raising (in essence to make campaigns and parties responsive to the needs of the whole nation/state/district/world, rather than the desires of a few for special treatment

 

4. Only real people can donate. No donations from corporations, unions, wall-street firms, law firms, etc.

 

5. Equal, substantial, and free access for all viable candidates on the broadcast networks, including radio & TV time. This is in return for broadcaster's privileged use of the airwaves - our public commons.

 

6. No outside money allowed. Meaning only district residents can donate to campaigns within that district, for offices representing that district.

 

7. No direct paid endorsements on TV or radio by groups other than the candidate's election committee.

 

8. Groups or individuals can advocate for a point-of-view all they want for an issue on TV and radio, but they cannot mention the candidates, their names, faces, etc. within their paid advertisements.

 

9. No revolving door. Officeholders leaving office cannot work for or be influenced through incentives by organizations for which they were overseeing while in office. No more business-as-usual.

 

10. No staffing of agencies with individuals from companies or groups normally regulated by that agency.

 

11. Limit the power of the Presidency to only those powers delegated to the office in the US Constitution. No more signing statements, no more executive privileges.

 

Chuck, that's a nice list. I would de-fang the government by forcing it to work within budget. They would complain about threats from other states, but the fact is America has been paying for the defense of the entire West for years now. It's time Europe and other states begin to contribute more in terms of defense tech.

 

Another thing I'd enact is granting the President a "line item veto". This would put the burden of public scrutiny on him when he had the ability to disregard pork, but decides to let it pass anyway.

Thanks for the input, Jay!;) The idea of government working within their projected revenue budget would be good, although there are those who argue that when the economy is in recession, the government boosts the economy by spending more and holding a deficit to get the economy going, and then gets replenished with the surplus during subsequent strong economic years. What sayest thou to that? I like the idea, though.. It's a little more than ridiculous to have such a bloated defense budget as we have, and yes I agree - Europeans don't need our military within their borders as they rebuild their native defenses. They could just as well patrol the Gulf, as the oil is headed mostly to Europe and Asia(?).. With roughly 50% of our budget going to defense, that's a heavy burden on taxpayers. Plus, I've begun to believe what someone once mentioned to me - if you have a strong military, the temptation to use it is too easy as a solution to every problem..

 

I'm favoring a 'only related items per bill' law over a line-item veto. Otherwise, the President would have powers to pick and choose parts of a bill, leading to more of "Kingship", and less of "Citizenship" in the office of the President. Although, Congress could make bills that have only one main purposes, and then the line-item would be un-necessary. Kagen says the government would grind to a halt if we have only 1-item per bill, but that might not be all bad either.:laugh3:. Perhaps a citizen's oversight board to determine if bill items are related..? I'm in favor of more power going to the citizens, as I think since jurists take their roles seriously, so might a citizens' board..:cool:

 

Not sure if there's a way of keeping corporate donations out and enforcing the whole "real people" thing.

 

But i do like the idea of extending congressional terms in between elections. In fact, It wouldn't be a bad idea if congressmen and senators are only allowed to serve one term. That way they wouldn't be constantly worrying about being reelected.

$ 55, 000 000 000 000 is a lot of money ( I think we should just now make some more money and pretend it never happend its the only solution )

It took me even a while to write the figure that is about $ 100 dollors person

( I think we should just now make some more money and pretend it never happend its the only solution )

 

You're joking right? Because Thats what Federal Reserve likes to do.

 

In Fact China has a very intelligent thing to say about the mess that is going on now.

 

"Paul Joseph Watson & Yihan Dai

Propaganda Matrix

Friday, September 19, 2008

 

"Saving financial institutions at cost of taxpayer part of wider agenda to increase control over global economy, says Communist state media".

 

China's state media today reports on the real reason behind the Wall Street meltdown and a subject that the mainstream US media dare not mention - the Federal Reserve's overissuance of currency - which the Chinese say is part of a wider agenda to justify increased control over the global economy.

 

The Bush administration today announced a plan to use hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to buy up up bad mortgages and other debts. The process of injecting more fiat money into an already over-inflated system had the desired effect - the Dow Jones shot up 450 points - but the dollar, following a brief jump, began to plummet.

 

According to numerous Chinese state media news sources today, the Federal Reserve's continued zeal for propping up the market by injecting illusory liquidity is part of an agenda to gain trust and grease the skids for increased government intervention in financial markets.

 

China Finance , China News and Chaobao Financial News, all state owned media outlets, slammed the Fed for taking action that will only make long term economic conditions worse and devalue the dollar by "creating money that does not exist which leads to the inflation of liquidity," a policy contrary to China's position as a holder of vast reserves of US dollars.

 

The analyst quoted by Chaobao Financial News highlighted "that when there is market failure, the paramount purpose of government intervention should be saving the market for the benefit of the people: Relief, Recovery and then Reform," and that "Protecting the rights of people who are suffering in the housing market and as a result of high oil prices should be treated as a priority."

 

The analyst added that by concentrating on saving just a few large financial companies, the Fed is creating wider financial chaos while arousing anger and suspicion by "only protecting and encouraging large companies' wrong doing."

 

CEIBS Professor of Economics and Finance Xu Xiaonian told a conference yesterday that "The fundamental source of Wall Street's meltdown is caused by Federal Reserve overissuing currency." He cautioned that the US government has already exceeded its scope in terms of intervention compared with their usual policy.

 

Similar sentiments were echoed by economist Zuo Xiaolie, who said that the amount of money injected into the market will have little real impact, but that such measures are a "Narrow minded way that the Federal Reserve uses to diversify the pressure of currency adjustment to other countries, which leads to the devaluation of the dollar, causing imbalance in the global economy."

 

"The amount of money that has been put into the market can not fundamentally save the market," said Xiaolie, adding that the move was merely part of an agenda to "regain the trust and justify future further intervention in the economy."

 

On Wednesday, China's official People’s Daily newspaper, the voice of the ruling Communist party, said that the US had unleashed economic "weapons of mass destruction" and set off a "financial tsunami" by allowing Wall Street lenders to trade in subprime debts and unstable financial derivatives, according to a Press TV report.

 

China has previously threatened to liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries, amounting to $1.33 trillion, if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation. The Communist power has also repeatedly expressed its anger at the Fed's indifference to the weakening dollar. If China were to dump the dollar it would likely set in motion a chain of events that would lead to a collapse of the greenback.

 

We know we are in trouble when the Chinese Communist Party sound like bastions of sound money policy and fiscal conservatism in comparison to the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve, who in creating more money out of thin air continue to bail out their friends on Wall Street while the economic future of hundreds of millions of American citizens is sold down the river."

 

 

Translations provided by Yihan Dai.

Thats pretty bad.. ! Ido think the worlds currencie markets will be next. One day you will pay $2 dollars for a litre ( quart) I think the americans call it of milk and the next you will pay $6 then on another you will pay $1.

 

This will be all around the world !

I think we about a year away from total doom

 

All the problems with the Nato expansion, concerns over Iran the global war on terrorism seem to like problems of a 100 years ago now

 

Does not anyone think ?

 

I think the report is a little unfair though, this is not one person or group of peoples fault. I think we all have a little bit of the blame to share..

 

 

You're joking right? Because Thats what Federal Reserve likes to do.

 

yes I am, but it could be a idea...Calling Mr Browns PM office now to suggest the idea !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage

 

Everybody read this and understand it.

 

The reason China is so capitalist today is because they know firsthand what socialism and communism do to a country. China is preparing to be the next superpower, and rightfully so.

I feel bad for telling people to put their money in Iceland banks :(

 

It was the best deal in terms of interest rates

I really want to move to China or Luxemburg's.

I really want to move to China or Luxemburg's.

 

My top places to check out right now are Singapore and Hong Kong. There's no way I'm letting my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's overpriced mortgage. Or an unnecessary war-culture. Bye Bye America! It was nice knowing you.

Come with me to the Channel Islands ;)

My top places to check out right now are Singapore and Hong Kong. There's no way I'm letting my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's overpriced mortgage. Or an unnecessary war-culture. Bye Bye America! It was nice knowing you.

 

Hong Kong sounds nice. Too bad after puberty it's very hard to learn a foreign language. I'm going to try to learn Chinese but doubt I'll be able too.

Japan Markets are about to open, the spread on the percentage loss today is - 5 % down.

I think today there is going to be another move in the Markets a crash may happen we will have a average of 10 % loss on all markets and at the end of the week they will be down by around 30 % in total !

I agree with you on this....we agree on something lol.

I'm a member of the Garden Party!

 

Here's something that's got me confused - or amazed and dazed?:

We have something like a 12-Trillion Dollar economy here in the U.S. (this is based on vague recollection - am I correct on this or not?)

And the derivatives market here is something like 63 Trillion dollars. This is essentially the side-bets that are being placed on whether stocks will rise or fall, and at what rate. (Y/N?)

 

But that's not sensible to me - I always thought a share of stock should be worth what that company is really worth, as a percentage of the total assets and profitability, divided by the number of shares. (or, at least that's what I thought a share was supposed to represent?)

Now after some searching, it looks like shares are all over-valued, and the derivatives market is like the fluffy topping on top of the pie - mostly air, and made extra-sweet so everyone wants some.

But it would suggest that derivative part (pure fluff) is 84%, and the "real" filling part (half-fluff) is 16% of the total market here. (Y/N?)

What's troubling me is that - this is mostly imaginary. How do we being it down to earth in a soft landing? Or, how do we make the derivative market more real, if that's even possible??

 

We need a complete overhaul of the system, but our government is standing in the way. The bail out is them trying to kickstart a dead horse.

I'm a member of the Garden Party!

 

Here's something that's got me confused - or amazed and dazed?:

We have something like a 12-Trillion Dollar economy here in the U.S. (this is based on vague recollection - am I correct on this or not?)

And the derivatives market here is something like 63 Trillion dollars. This is essentially the side-bets that are being placed on whether stocks will rise or fall, and at what rate. (Y/N?)

 

But that's not sensible to me - I always thought a share of stock should be worth what that company is really worth, as a percentage of the total assets and profitability, divided by the number of shares. (or, at least that's what I thought a share was supposed to represent?)

Now after some searching, it looks like shares are all over-valued, and the derivatives market is like the fluffy topping on top of the pie - mostly air, and made extra-sweet so everyone wants some.

But it would suggest that derivative part (pure fluff) is 84%, and the "real" filling part (half-fluff) is 16% of the total market here. (Y/N?)

What's troubling me is that - this is mostly imaginary. How do we being it down to earth in a soft landing? Or, how do we make the derivative market more real, if that's even possible??

 

 

Stocks are valued based on expectations of future performance in the company (ie growth), not what the company is currently valued at according to accountants. I buy shares of a company because I expect those shares to increase in value at some point in the near future... I short shares of a company because I expect it to become worth less in the future. Long and short are entirely necessary aspects of the market... so when the government banned short-selling, they were basically saying "you can only buy shares of these companies, not sell them". Which is silly, because it's a denial of reality.

 

Derivatives (particularly credit default swaps) are meant to be a way for businesses to spread risk to other people who can better afford to take it on. So the banks that can afford to insure your bonds are the ones writing the CDS contracts and selling them. The problem comes when the people writing these contracts AREN'T capable of holding their end of the bargain.

 

The reason they weren't able to pay out is because they didn't foresee a situation where ALL banks would become potentially insolvent due to their mortgage backed securities holdings.

 

It's like if I were to insure all the homes in my neighborhood. I'd be making a pretty decent amount of money every year, and I wouldn't actually be working for it! I'd have enough to pay for a couple of disasters. But one day, there's a fire that burns down EVERY home in my neighborhood. I don't have the money to pay for it, and I just declare bankruptcy.

 

Well, normally I'd declare bankruptcy. But in this case I'll go begging the government for money to keep me in business.

 

In an ideal scenario, derivatives aren't "fluff", they're actually useful contracts designed to reduce overexposure risk. But this was a "black swan event" (in finance lingo). Nobody expected normally safe mortgage backed securities to be as risky as they were. And that's where the financial system is at fault in the same way the government is - the ratings agencies (Moody's) were telling everyone these MBS's are safe to own. That wasn't true.