It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kucinich: 'Is the Fed paying banks not to loan money?'

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole

Originally posted by 1 4M 7H3 1
I am sorry to say that the TARP bailout was necessary...If we did allow all of those banks to fail, complete chaos and extreme catastrophe would have ensued.


I understand we actually couldn't let them fail, but why the rush to give them soooo much money that THEY can't even use?

There's the problem I have with this!

Why did TARP have to give them so much money that these banks now have "a record $877.1 billion" in reserve at the Fed Res?

Seems a little "over the top" to me!

Now they just get to collect interest on this money while it sits there!

Also, doesn't the Fed Res make "investments" with this money?

Seems like a win, win situation for them!

They got to print the money, it all is supposedly going to be paid back, then the Fed Res gets to keep this money "in reserve" for these banks who got these TARP funds, and invest it as they see fit, making tons of money!

Pretty sweet deal if you ask me!

[edit on 7/22/2009 by Keyhole]


I completely agree with you. As Protoplasmic said, there will be inflation if that money is released. Why that money is there, and why they are getting interest on that money is beyond me. As far as I can tell, it is just another back-door way for them to profit. There have already been like 35 criminal investigations opened with regards to illicit use of TARP money...I doubt anything will come of them, though.

To Solomons:


Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by 1 4M 7H3 1
 


And thats exactly what they wanted you to think,so they could monopolize the market and buy up financial institutions and force though a more central world bank ie the IMF that have killed tens of millions of Africans through their actions and have them in a grip of perpetual debt.Its nothing but a giant scam run by gangsters when you strip away all the layers.All you need to do is look at the source of the monetary system,forget all the financial *talk*.If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS.


[edit on 22-7-2009 by Solomons]


"They" did not want me to think anything...What I said was fact, and was not influenced by "them." My post was based on experience in the field. Also, if that were what they want us to think, how is that I am one of the few people who understands why they averted financial disaster? You seem to think financial jargon is garbage just because you don't understand all of it. If I am wrong about anything I have claimed thus far, please identify the flaw in my logic and clearly explain why it is illogical.

Edit: added quotation by Solomons

[edit on 22-7-2009 by 1 4M 7H3 1]




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 1 4M 7H3 1
 


are saying that the original Paulson engineered TARP plan did indeed prevent a massive meltdown but that that was done by transferring money from the treasury to the banks with no intention of it going into circulation? so it was a more david copperfield type of illusion than repair job?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by 1 4M 7H3 1
 


are saying that the original Paulson engineered TARP plan did indeed prevent a massive meltdown but that that was done by transferring money from the treasury to the banks with no intention of it going into circulation? so it was a more david copperfield type of illusion than repair job?


The initial bailout was designed to shore up investor confidence and end an Electronic Funds Transfer run of big money from overseas being pulled out of American Banks.

The idea really was that if the foreigners making a run on the banks saw that the FDIC Insurance went up (it did they doubled it) and that the Fed would keep the banks from collapsing by pumping government money into them there would be no need for foreigners to keep pulling their cash out of U.S. Banks.

What really isn't known and hasn't been revealed is whether the Billions and Billions of dollars of EFTs that were being sucked out in hours were the result of jittery investors, an actual well coordinated economic attack on the U.S. or other big money interests just laying the cover down to panic Congress into the first Bailout.

According to Rep Dan Kanjorwski of the House Committee on Capital Markets the Banks and the Fed were within an hour or two of being completely wiped out when the Fed Chairman called an Emergency Meeting to empty out the few pitiful Billion in the actual Treasury at that time to give to the Fed to have on hand to give to the banks.

The way the Fed Chairman sold it on that day is if we don't stop this EFT Run the United States Financial System will collapse within hours and the World Economy will collapse the next day.

That's what was really happening behind the scenes when Bush came out asking for the first 700 Billion and there were real threats that a Banking Holiday and Marshall Law would have to be declared if something wasn't immeadiately done.

The Economy was and is in a lot worse shape than they really want you or anyone to know...like you might not notice...what a government we have...I swear.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
The real chilling aspect of the apparent stratagem (I dare confess some awe) is the mathematics necessary to control this development.

I mean, we still have a tremendous unresolved derivative problem, and the Fed, while essentially serving only the board members' interest, does not operate in a vacuum.

I would be very interested in knowing how much control each of the constituent 'owners' is exercising, and to what effect.

Perhaps I'll never know... but therein, lies the crux of the problem... and most certainly nowhere else.

What is certain is they are NOT living up to the spirit of the contract they hold with the US. As a result, we should have the right; as American citizens, to plead to the government for a public redress of the issue.

Knowing that the body politic would never allow it to occur is troubling and somewhat distressing. I do find some comfort in knowing that some of us generally agree that the execution of the Fed's authority has become problematic to the economic health of the nation, and as such, should be terminated.... (boy it is so tempting to end this sentence "...with extreme prejudice!"
)



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Amigo, The lady is no liar and nether am I. The story is absolutely true. Since she's sitting right her next to me as I post this she's a bit put out.

Zindo



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Amigo, The lady is no liar and nether am I. The story is absolutely true. Since she's sitting right her next to me as I post this she's a bit put out.

Zindo


As someone who works closely with the Automotive Retail sector I can tell you that both you and the other poster are more or less correct.

There are several niches in the retail automotive market for both dealers and lenders.

Some lenders specialize in high risk loans with little or no money down to borrowers with marginal and even poor credit. They also charge the maximum allowable interest rate by State's Laws for that service.

Your neighbor who is a prime credit customer and deserving of a low interest rate because of her good history is dealing with a whole different set of lenders.

The same lenders that turned down your neighbor would also turndown the other posters friend.

They would of course offer to finance your neighbor too if she went to an automotive retailer that used those lenders...but, with someone with excellent credit those secondary finance lenders don't have low interest rate programs to offer your neighbor and she would have been looking at anywhere from 17.2 to 28% interest depending on the State and Lender to get the financing.

Lenders like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi, Whacovia, Chase, GMAC, Ford Motor Credit, Toyota Motor Credit, and Honda Motor Credit are hardly approving anyone even with A-1 Credit and money down.

Much of the distress in the Automotive Retailing Market and not just General Motors and Chrysler but Toyota and Honda who are posting record and unheard of losses are in fact because Prime Lenders are not loaning Prime Borrowers money right now.

The Secondary Finance (Sub Prime) Auto Lenders are lending with more stringent standards and requirements and stipulations than they were before the Financial Crisis but not nearly as aggressively in volume as they were prior to the Financial Crisis.

You actually have a better chance at getting financing with bad credit right now than you do good credit, but you are going to pay a very high interest rate and of course with those kinds of profits to be made (often twice the entire cost of the car itself over a 72 or 84 month loan) they are very much in business and willing to take the risk.

Your both right...see !



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
the feds role in enslaving us is painted quite nicely in Zeitgeist



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Okay, I have been reading this blog for a while now with the advice from GetReadyAlready and him and I have disagreed on a few things. Well, finally I have joined so here I am.

First, Money deposited with the FED does not earn interest. Plus, any profits after expenses the FED gets go directly to the U.S. Treasury. So the FED cannot be paying banks to not loan money.

Second, it makes sense for the excess reserves to increase, I don't know how much they should have gone up but the fact is that the banks have more money and thus if demand doesn't increase proportionately then the excess reserves will increase. So, while I agree that the banks are hoarding the money out of fear, maybe the amount of the bailout was close to correct, or maybe even a bit too big. Obviously supply is exceeding demand right now. Plus, since people are getting foreclosed on and such and losing their jobs, they don't qualify as easily as they could have last year, making demand less than before.

To recap, banks are scared so loaning requirements are higher, foreclosures and unemployment are high so less people qualify. All of this makes perfect sense in the Supply and Demand framework. But, there is no conspiracy on this one.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by memarf1
Okay, I have been reading this blog for a while now with the advice from GetReadyAlready and him and I have disagreed on a few things. Well, finally I have joined so here I am.

First, Money deposited with the FED does not earn interest. Plus, any profits after expenses the FED gets go directly to the U.S. Treasury. So the FED cannot be paying banks to not loan money.

Second, it makes sense for the excess reserves to increase, I don't know how much they should have gone up but the fact is that the banks have more money and thus if demand doesn't increase proportionately then the excess reserves will increase. So, while I agree that the banks are hoarding the money out of fear, maybe the amount of the bailout was close to correct, or maybe even a bit too big. Obviously supply is exceeding demand right now. Plus, since people are getting foreclosed on and such and losing their jobs, they don't qualify as easily as they could have last year, making demand less than before.

To recap, banks are scared so loaning requirements are higher, foreclosures and unemployment are high so less people qualify. All of this makes perfect sense in the Supply and Demand framework. But, there is no conspiracy on this one.


You are correct on most of that; however, it is simply detrimental to the economy for the amount of excess reserves to surge in this manner. There is no reason for the reserves to be there. Also, does anyone know where these reserves came from? Was it from TARP?

If supply were exceeding true demand, we wouldn't be in a credit crunch...Since those reserves are not a contributing factor in resolving this, what kind of benefit can those reserves provide? Yes, you can make the argument that they exist for precautionary reasons; nevertheless, we know the banks won't be allowed to fail. If they are in desperate need of money we can just loan it to them, i.e. we can COMMITT to bail them out, but is it justifiable to pre-emptively fund them when the only result that come of it is inflation?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Oops. I take some of that back. The FED is, in fact, paying interest on those reserves, as authorized by Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. According to wikipedia:


The Congressional Budget Office estimated that payment of interest on reserve balances would cost the American taxpayers about one tenth of the present 0.25% interest rate on $800 billion in deposits.


And yes these reserves are hindering efforts to improve lending:


Also on January 13, Financial Week said Mr. Bernanke admitted that a huge increase in banks' excess reserves is stifling the Fed's monetary policy moves and its efforts to revive private sector lending.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Amigo, The lady is no liar and nether am I. The story is absolutely true. Since she's sitting right her next to me as I post this she's a bit put out.

Zindo

Well, tell her I'm sorry! I see the other poster's point about not wanting to loan on low interest rates, but why not just offer a little higher rate. I still don't see how she would get flat turned away?

If that is true, then the banking and auto industry are going down in flames! OK, we already knew that part.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by memarf1
First, Money deposited with the FED does not earn interest. Plus, any profits after expenses the FED gets go directly to the U.S. Treasury. So the FED cannot be paying banks to not loan money.


Au contraire, mon frère, ...

I guess you missed this article I posted on the first page of this thread, ...

Bernanke May Hold Rates Down by Showing He Can Reverse Course

While policy makers would like credit markets to recover, they don’t want banks to lend that cash out all at once as the economy improves, because that could unleash inflation, said William Poole, former president of the St. Louis Fed. So the central bank is counting on its ability to pay interest on those reserves to help keep a lid on prices.

And here's a press release straight from the horses mouth, The Federal Reserve themselves!

www.federalreserve.gov...

Release Date: October 6, 2008
For release at 8:15 a.m. EDT

The Federal Reserve Board on Monday announced that it will begin to pay interest on depository institutions' required and excess reserve balances. The payment of interest on excess reserve balances will give the Federal Reserve greater scope to use its lending programs to address conditions in credit markets while also maintaining the federal funds rate close to the target established by the Federal Open Market Committee.


[edit on 7/23/2009 by Keyhole]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Amigo, The lady is no liar and nether am I. The story is absolutely true. Since she's sitting right her next to me as I post this she's a bit put out.

Zindo

Well, tell her I'm sorry! I see the other poster's point about not wanting to loan on low interest rates, but why not just offer a little higher rate. I still don't see how she would get flat turned away?

If that is true, then the banking and auto industry are going down in flames! OK, we already knew that part.


For the prime main line lenders like I mentioned it's not about the interest rate it's about their liquid position and ability to loan, not the potential profit available off of loaning.

To give you an example one of my friends handles repossessions for GMAC. I live in Miami and her area is Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Monroe County (the Florida Keys). That's about a 5,000,000 person market throughout the metro plex so you get an idea for the numbers.

Before the financial crisis on any given day over that 100 some odd mile swath of terain she would be looking to reposess about 300 cars.

Since the financial crisis hit she juggles at any one time, 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles that are in default.

Now lets look at the logistical challenges here, in a weeks time getting half of 300 cars isn't too hard, you snatch 150-175 of them, store them briefly at a holding facility that can hold a 200 cars, ship them off to the nearest wholesale auction, sell the bulk of them on their first run through the acution at around close to NADA Black Book Wholesale Value give or take a few dollars depending on the actual condition, equipment and desirability of the car. The cars are bought by car dealers for their used car lots and sold ideally for more than their wholesale price plus the cost of any reconditioning and needed repairs to retail customers.

Now we aren't looking at a pool of 300 anymore but 10,000. There aren't 10,000 repo men, and you aren't the only lender calling them. You don't have storage facilities for 10,000 cars, but so you can understand how challenging this gets lets pretend you have 10,000 repo men, and a storage facility for 10,000 cars. You now have them back in your possession.

Most of them are GM cars of course since this is GMAC, which is General Motors lending arm.

So now you have 10,000 GM cars to run through the local auction.

First thing you have to do is now throw the NADA Black Wholesale Book away because why the heck would you even pay wholesale for something the market is now flooded with. Instead of 20 Impallas at the acution to bid on their are now 2,000 Impallas at the auction to bid on.

This makes it a complete buyers market, but here is the problem if you start dumping them below wholesale value, there retail value goes down as well, so if you were a deal who bought one of 20 Impallas at wholesale a few months before and it's still sitting on your lot, guess what, the people buying them at auction today can buy them for half of that because of the huge supply and excess of them, and then sell them Retail at a profit for far less than you own yours wholesale.

The whole market is destroyed and now the dealers have to default too because they own their cars wrong which is to say for a lot more money than they should have in them because of current market conditions so they can't sell them retail.

So what GMAC now has to do is beg people in default to make any payment no matter how small to keep their financing contract going with them and try to recoup money, only repossess those cars from those people who won't pay a dime and I mean a dime no matter what, and then once they have taken the car back, they have to very judiciously run them through auction knowing if they run too many it will deflate the wholesale value and the retail value, all the while knowing that every day they hold on to the car and don't sell it, that it too depreciates natuarlly in it's value. Sell to many you wreck your own market, sell to few you have no money to lend.

It really is about not having money to lend, the lenders toxic assets aren't performing, so they don't have that money coming in to relend. The lenders can't dump their toxic assetts on the open market without taking a tremendous bath themselves on the assetts and at the same time worsening conditions for those who are trying to hold on to assetts and keep them from becoming toxic by not allowing them to depreciate to the point in a floating market that the assett is no longer an assett to the borrower but a liabilty who simply stops paying for it because it's value has plummeted and just gives it back to the lender.

It's a logistical balancing act of monumental proportions with staggering numbers and logistics and what money is coming in off of the assetts that aren't toxic you really have to reserve for whethering the cost of dealing with the disposition of even more toxic assetts that are likely to follow in an economy where Wall Street might go up and down to give the Talking Heads something to smile and talk about but unemployment and wages keep going down no matter what happend on Wall Street.

Prime lenders lend on tiers, Zindo's neigbor would get a top tier lowest rate and then they usually offer another 3 or 4 tiers that go up 1 to 2 percent with each tier.

Lets say you were a C tier customer in GMAC's eyes, someone with around a 650 beacon score and they made the loan to you at 11.5% on the same car and amount Zindo's neighbor would get for 5.95%.

After that C tier customer made 3 or 4 payments on time, they would package that loan up with a bundle of others like it and sell it on Wall Street to a 401K or Investment firm for a discounted rate, get all their initial investment right back, plus a small profit and let those other investors administer the loan and make most of the profit. Now they can relend that money to someone else with marginal credit or someone with excellent credit.

Wall Street is no longer buying those bundles of loans any more because so many of the loans have turned out to be toxic. You can't simply recapitalize your loan funds that way anymore, so you are hostage to the actual loans you have made performing over the course of years now instead of months and in an economy where a very high percentage of the loans you depend on to pay to recapitalize and profit are going to go toxic on you.

The Fed has given a lot of money to the banks to keep in the Fed if they have to have to have it, and what the banks really have to have it for the little bit that they are taking is to pay down their own foriegn lines of credit and to keep from defaulting on those to maintain their good standing on the international market, but also to protect foreign investors and countries from having their own recessions get out of hand because money invested in U.S. Banks and U.S. Bank products went toxic on them and they no longer have access to that money or cash flow.

If the Domestic Banks can keep their relations with International Banks good and working, eventually they can get more capital from foreign investors and banks that have dollars that have already been monetized and that money won't cause inflation. If they touch the TARP money and spend it by loaning it domestically each dollar they monetize in that process increases the money supply and inflation.

That's why most of the money is in the Fed, and not in the Banks to keep it from being monetized, it's been given to the banks so that foreign investors know it's available and instead of liquidating U.S. Banking Products to just keep taking the normal profits off of them, which keeps a run from happening on our banks.

Basically the Fed is hoping to not have to monetize most of the Tarp money and many of the banks that have had it made available to them are returning it to the Fed or not taking it at all, as they try to maintain their foreign lines of credit, tighten their belts, dispose of toxic assetts as sensibly as they can and when they can with an eye to not further distressing market value in the process.

Because of all this they really have no money to loan, and loaning money would cause inflation if they use TARP funds to do it, which of course just leads to more toxic assetts as spending power goes down defaults go up.

It's a real mess, welcome to the 21st Century...the bus out has been cancelled, sadly it got reposessed!



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I stand corrected since my sources were economics books that were at least 2 years old. I would like to say that it is pretty stupid to combat inflation by paying interest from the FED which is responsible for creating money. Wow, what a great policy.

That said, it still makes sense that the excess reserves are increasing. As I said before, policies have strengthened lending requirements, and people's credit scores and employment levels have dropped in general. To top it off, we essentially have a risk free place to deposit money since the FED is paying interest.

Its not a good thing, but I still say it's not a conspiracy. Put yourself in their posiiton, wouldn't you like to get free money with 0 risk?? So, they are only making loans to very secure clients, and the FED. If they want to get the banks to lend then they have enacted the opposite policies to do so. They should have stuck with decreasing the discount rate and should charge them for too many excess reserves not offer interest for those deposits.

They are combating inflation by creating money from thin air and paying it to the banks. REDICULOUS!!



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Car salespeople are literally walking off car lots because they spend time trying to put together a good deal for both customer and the dealer and the banks tank the deal for no good reason. Some dealers that actually got to keep their franchises are about to go belly up with the credit problem they are having. Banks have the money in off shore accounts making money on the interest and doing nothing to help the citizens or the country out of this dilemma!

Zindo



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 



They should have stuck with decreasing the discount rate and should charge them for too many excess reserves not offer interest for those deposits.

I remember seeing where one of the Fed Rates (I think discount rate) would have needed to be at -8.0% to be effective!! I don't think they can do that!

Yes, if I were a bank, I would be happy to get $800B from you, then give it back to you and collect interest on it!! You don't have to come up with any money, and neither do I, but the taxpayers can go ahead and pay interest on all that money that never actually moved!!!!!!!


As for the lending, the other posts about why they are not making car loans makes sense to me....to an extent. I would be walking off car lots also, if I were confined to cash sales only!

Memarf, one of the other posters talked about his neighbor with 50% down and 750 credit and could not get a loan. I didn't believe it, but a different poster has a friend at GMAC, and explained that the auction/repo market went from 300 per day to 10,000 per day! With that flood of cars coming back the prices have bottomed, plus no one on Wall Street is buying the bundled loans, so they are not getting their liquidity back like they used to. They are forced to ride out the loan long-term, and this is damaging their lending ability!

In light of that, the $800B will never work! It wouldn't matter if it was $800Trillion, if the market cannot handle more vehicles on the streets, then they aren't going to make more loans!

The bailout should never have happened! It was the wrong fix! If they were going to bail anything out, it should have been the likes of CIT (who they decided to let fail!). It should have been in the form of easier SBA loans. It should have been in the form of "debt forgiveness." It should have started from the bottom up!

The current plan is a band-aid! It is exactly what we all expected it to be, and it is buying us some time to stock up and make emergency plans, but the artery will still rupture! Everybody should be taking this reprieve to get prepared. The band-aid won't last forever!



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I disagree. While I agree the bailout should have been from the bottom up, enabling the American people to recover as well as the banks, the bailout still needed to occur. They did do it wrong, as far as efficiency goes, and yes, 800 billion vs trillion doesn't matter, if you have excess funds at 800 billion you are sure to have them at 800 trillion. Except however, at higher amounts the banks wouldn't be as scared to loan any more because they could lower the price of the loans, and thus the borrowers are taking less risk and have an easier time not defaulting.

The fact remains that the banks are simply still too scared to loan and thus for another 6 or 8 months won't begin to take risks again. This is a cyclical thing, recessions come and go for different reasons, usually because of some stupid government policy deregulating something that was working just fine before, about every 7 - 10 years.

Yeah, the reports on that -8% for the discount rate are simply wrong. The banks, even on risky loans aren't getting much more than 8% so why would they take a risk if they can simply borrow from the FED and then redeposit with the FED to get a RISKLESS return on their money? Essentially offering interest on FED deposits has created this problem. Luckily the interest on those deposits has not yet become larger than the discount rate, but the discount rate only affects money that is borrowed from the FED. To make the banks start loaning again they need to stop offering incentives for hoarding their cash at the reserve, that is just REDICULOUS!!! Just as I said before.

Still, I do not believe this is some kind of conspiracy for the FED to enslave the American people. This is simply stupid governing that would never have happened under Mr. Greenspan. haha.

I don't know about the car loan with the 750 credit score and 50% down. If that happened I think that person just needs to go to another bank, because I would say there was something fishy going on there. I understand the GMAC argument, but it still doesn't make sense for banks to prefer risky to non-risky borrowers. I suppose you could make the argument that this is just stupid business practice just like the rest of this problem.

The signs are here, as long as Obama doesn't screw anything else up the recession should slowly begin to recover between now and December. We still have a ways to go, so at this point avoiding inflation should be the goal.

The Dollar was getting stronger vs. the Euro(although for 7 weeks the Euro has gained strength meaning European banks are probably lending less than ours, haha), which also makes sense since the banks aren't lending the money supply is becoming more and more depleted, thus dollar = stronger. Even when comparing it to the Yen, the dollar is recovering. Unfortunately when the dollar gets stronger we import more and this does not help us create jobs, and with our current unemployment problem we should focus here too.

www.reuters.com...



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 


No, I disagree, lol!

We didn't need bailout. Rich people needed the bailout. Corporations needed the bailout. The majority of the fast-declining middle class did not benefit from the bailout, and would have preferred to endure a short, deep depression, than a long, drawn-out quasi-depression.

My 401-K would've taken a big hit, but it would have recovered in a year or two. Now my grandkids will be fighting to repay it!

The banks are not scared to loan. They may be scared of a Socialist takeover (i.e. BofA, AIG, GM), but they are not scared of their customers. They know a good credit risk vs. a bad credit risk.

Allowing CIT to fail was more evidence of the overall agenda and "conspiracy" that we are facing. Lets not allow small and middle sized businesses to extend their equipment loans, or get new loans, or expand, but we need to be sure that our International Conglomerates have plenty of RESERVE money!!



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Ex_MislTech said it better in another thread than I could ever hope to! Here is the post and a link to the other thread. This is the stuff we all "feel" and "know" but he has some great links to back up what we are feeling!


Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Please forgive the ignorance, but what does that mean for us? "We the Peons..."

I do know it isn't good, but in basic nut and bolts, how will the average american be affected?


Let me illuminate the things going on in the back ground.

The end result will hyperinflation, a crashed stock market,
and crashed bond market, and no one accepting dollars
for the many things we used to import.

Now I present the evidence for these statements.

It has been confirmed by other news sources now that the
$134 billion in US bonds were likely real, and the japanese
men sneaking them around were likely japanese ministry of finance.

If that is true and they are trying to quietly dump them on the
market and other countries start doing it, we don't have long and
it is likely the trigger event for the Wall street journals mentioned
upcoming nationwide bank shutdown.

*** The two below say that the two japanese men stopped
with supposedly fake bonds were released...And if they
had been fake they would have broken the law and be
held on counterfeiting charges.
This says the japanese are dumping US bonds secretly
to get off the ship before it goes beneath the waves...

www.freerepublic.com...

market-ticker.denninger.net...

*** Below says US foreign Embassys are being told to horde
1 years worth of non-US currency due to a possible
lengthy banking shutdown.

www.marketwatch.com...

Speaking of shutdown, 7 banks in one day went poof...

www.fdic.gov...

FDIC top level official says bank closures to increase 10 fold.

moneynews.newsmax.com...

The unofficial troubled bank list as of 30 march 2009 ( 4 months old )
It is worse now than the march list shows.

bankimplode.com...

Over 1,000 Trillion in derivatives are set to implode.

theinternationalforecaster.com...

There is more going on, but with this Triumvirate of Destruction
the rest just becomes piling on.

Prepare accordingly !

Good Luck to you all !


www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=6779309#pid6779309



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Why should they lend any money to anybody? After all they are slowly losing theirs, too. The banks are going under, look at all the news we've seen on this.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join