do you think the FED will do QE3 sometime this year?

Your concerns are legitimate. There is no doubt that if and when our system is revised or replaced, the persons in charge of revisions will have their own personal gains in mind. Then we'll let the same group regulate it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The point is that your suggestion that what happened in Iceland is somehow comparable to what would occur in the US if the entire financial system was permitted to collapse is fantasy. The US is a major source of corporate finance. Iceland is not a major finance center for either European banking or global finance. So it's up to the readers here to decide whether your proposal to let the US banking sector collapse is better or worse than what was actually done. I don't expect you to address this. I expect you to dodge it as you always do when called out for your errors.

 

I believe the sytem can be saved. I don't know if the political will exists to do it. It is possible that the present course will end in collapse. If it does, the people who believe this is a good outcome are going to be horrified by the result. So be careful what you wish for.

 

Not at all. You brought up the false argument that implied I was stating that a currency collapse is painless. I said nothing of the kind. I did say that it was necessary, at this point, to fix the fundamental issues that are spinning out of control with the US finance system. How that will happen is anyone's guess and in the case of the US $, collapse can mean several things.

Your continued accusations and insults are pointless.

 

ok I see your point...but could what's happening be a little more simpler then that? as in the fed only buys up what others fail to do cause said buyers are worried about our overspending and think we might just screw them over like the bond holders in greece? it seems plausible that to keep the federal government going and solvent that the fed could come in and buy up debt no one else wants...I still think if the government stopped the deficit spending and then was on a road to paying off the debt the USA would be 100% better...and then if all the conspiracies of banksters was true that you say the fed wouldn't have any real excuses assuming the economy is improving but that also would involve the government not having it's hands in 70%+ of the economy...

key point the problem is over regulating and over spending on worthless cronies...

 

Let's review your exact comment in reply to my post....

Originally Posted by Cloudsweeper99
It's complete nonsense to believe that permitting the stock market and banking sector to collapse will benefit the common person. to them to keep the system together against this insanity. They aren't perfect. But they are the only adults in the room.

Reply by fatima
It did in Iceland. They are debt free and experiencing real growth too. While you have your opinion (interesting you don't consider yourself an adult), there is a real world example.

I am a believer in letting the free market, i.e. capitalism, deal with failures. Whenever a central authority tries to replace capitalism with cronyism, disaster strikes as we see now.

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t203363-2/#ixzz1qjLCA5SV

Bolding added to relevant comments. So you absolutely stated that an economic collapse would benefit the common person because it did in Iceland. You can't get around it. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

I don't deny saying this. Your interpretation of it is incorrect. A benefit might very well be very painful. A colonoscopy is beneficial, but I don't think anyone would say the process is enjoyable. It's you who made this bad assumption. As I said however, you just created another false argument to distract from the topic because you really don't have a point to make.

 

Only problem with all of this is no one has touched on the two key issue for me at least and one minor one. All our progress or failures or fixing or M2 or QE3 won't really matter if the last bubble bursts...the commercial real estate market. This is one reason I feel that we can't let the banking system or stock market be left to die. It would burst the commercial bubble as all corporate and business function would cease to exist and we would be back to at least 08/09 and maybe even sent back to the barter system and primeval survival for basic necessities.
The second thing no one has really mentioned although before the france and iceland side tracks it was alluded to when someone said when everyone realizes to make a grab at gold and silver. Only problem is what happens when electronics and alternative energy is gobbling up more than what central banks and you and I are? The mining industry has already said and shown it can't keep up with current demand in both the industrial and financial/investment sector. What happens when the demand become terminal and/or we over mine silver like we have oil? The other minor thing to look to is what is happening globally. I somehow doubt Iceland is going to be a major trading partner with the U.S. no matter their growth. What happens when so many countries default and start to fall like dominos? Something needs to be done or we are potentially looking at global collapse. For those fearing the new system that would replace the whispers and rumors are of a global economy and currency. That's my take on it all.

 

I'll leave it to the readers of this forum to decide whether or not your recommendation of permitting the financial system to collaspe will be a net positive or negative for them. Whether or not they think it's okay for every American to lose their jobs, savings, credit cards, insurance, access to borrowing, pensions, and to do without the goods and services of every business that relies on access to capital or credit from the US financial system. I don't think any intelligent person would prefer this to the outcome we had. Yes, unemployment is too high and economic growth is too slow, but this isn't a problem that is even comparable to requiring everyone to "start over" to satisfy some economic theory.

 

I didn't say this either. I said let the "free market" i.e. capitalism deal with it instead of the constant intervention to prevent failures due to bad management, corrupt practices, and outright ignoring corporate and financial law. Because the Federal Reserve is intervening at any costs to the public to prevent the TBTF banks and Wall Street from having to deal with bankruptcy (we have bankruptcy laws for a reason) and because the government are also preventing similar on the backs of the taxpayers, they have guaranteed that collapse will be the result. Central Economic Planning at the hands of a few does not work.

Try responding to what was posted, instead of making up these false arguments and you might find that you get more respect on this forum.

 

You absolutely recommended that the banking sector should have been permitted to collapse, and cited Iceland as your example. So at least man-up to your recommendation. It's in print.

 

No, Iceland was in response to your false argument that currency collapse is a disaster. Iceland was an example of one that wasn't. When presented with that, you then started the current tap dance.

 

Whatever. Everyone here knows that you said a collaspe of the banking system would benefit the common person. And I know it isn't in your psychological makup to admit to a mistake. And everyone knows that you will post a thousand messages twisting and turning in every direction rather than admit an error. But this time you've gone off the deep end and everyone knows it.

 

Yeah this is what someone says who got tripped up with their own nonsense.

No matter how you spin it, and spin it is, you are arguing for the system of government & bankster intervention that prevents the free market and capitalism from doing its job. Sorry son, nobody, except for a few simpletons, buys that anymore. They have guaranteed a collapse is coming and when that happens a real economic recovery can take place.

You can disagree with this concept, I don't mind. But at least man up and just state that you are anti-capitalist and think socializing bad business management is your preference.

 

More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450004577279754275393064.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

As expected, twisting again. In the previous post you tried to turn this into a debate about currency, which it never was. Now you are trying to turn it into a debate about my being anti-capitalist. Everyone here should take note of this. You were caught stating that a collapse of the stock market and banking system would benefit people. That's pretty obvious. You can't cover your error by trying to change the topic or attacking me. You have been exposed, and your inability to admit an error has been exposed. Name calling can't save you and you further discredit yourself by trying. So keep it up.

 

I agree this is a huge concern. Basically the politicians are mortgaging the Fed.

About the only thing we can hope for is economic growth worldwide for any other scenario but bad ones. However, I just don't know if we have a bad outcome how much PM can help. Remember 1933, if the Federal government wishes to simply tax and confiscate wealth to get out of this hole, they could pass a similar law tomorrow saying all PM has to be sold to the US at a cheap, (official), rate. People say they would just not sell at the official rate, but then what good would the PM be? If ownership was illegal, and anyone you are thinking of selling to could be an agent waiting to arrest you, how much security do you really have in PM?

Just a thought. I still am a believer in PM for asset diversification and inflation insurance.

 

Yep. Glad you put it this way. Otherwise known as socializing the failures resulting from bad business management. It's exactly what I described here. Many get duped into believing in it and will say anything to justify it, others see it for what it is.

 

Sometimes society would rather absorb some business problems rather than have tons of people left behind because of corporate malpractice (that totally free markets encourage). If citizens would rather do something to avoid a full collapse of an industry that would have a severe ripple effect across the economy, then what is wrong with that?

Look at the auto industry today, posting big big gains yet again. Government acted as lender of last resort and saved jobs and the industry (and yes, as a result covering some business inefficiencies and poor corporate decision-making), allowing the companies to restructure and come out now with those kinds of results. Was it totally laissez faire free market? No, but the alternative was not acceptable to the majority of US society, so what's the problem?

 

The government saved General Motors and Chrysler, not the auto industry. Ford, Hyundai, VW, Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, BMW, Honda, etc got no subsidies though they do benefit greatly from 0% money.

Take that huge amount of money used to save GM & Chrysler and give it back to the people and IMO, a lot more jobs would have been created. The US government is simply repeating the exact same mistakes with the exact same arguments the UK used when it nationalized its automobile industry in the 1970s via British Leyland. How did that end up? The Germans own Bentley & Rolls Royce, the Indians own Jag & Land Rover, Austin is a Chinese brand, and the rest? Who cares. The British taxpayer got rooked out of generational amounts of money and still suffer from very high taxation.

I dont believe in socialism and central planning of the economy. The economic demise of the 20th century's other superpower, the Soviet Union, is example enough of that. All the rhetoric about it's benefits never pass scrutiny. However the following, which I copied from another website I participate in, are proven again and again.

----------------------------

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

-----------------------------------------