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.

 

Oh, nooooooo!!!

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by dooper
 


Yes, there is a finite amount of dollars in circulation, it is not infinite.

They burn money for this reason - thats why you do not see old bills floating around - of course this is also due to change in money for security


While you are right that there is a finite amount of dollar bills in existence, there is not a finite amount of dollars in existence. The estimate that I have read says that there is roughly 15% of the bills in existence as there are dollars currently counted electronically.




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stander

Originally posted by johnny2127
reply to post by stander
 


Can you explain to me how you came to the conclusion that investors taught Ron Paul a lesson yesterday? I am not asking that in jest, I am actually curious as to the logic. Thanks.

No. I won't explain anything to you. It's self-explanatory; it's right in the OP. All you have to do is to read it.


I watch and trade the markets all day long. So I am wondering how the market taught him a lesson yesterday. I have re-read your OP many times. I don't get what yesterdays trading action did to teach Ron Paul a lesson. Really, can you just explain it to me?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth
So let me see if I understand you. You are actually saying that the only way for investors to invest capital in a growing company ..... is for the Government to "give" tax payer dollars to a private investor, so he can make money off of it? And someone actually Starred that stupid post of yours? I don't know what is more scary.... the fact that you wrote that, or the fact that someone agrees with you...


You always put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Dude, don't start sh-t like that with me.

Can't you comprehend on a normal level? The Wall St. is afraid of the government withdrawing its financial aid prematurely and there is hard evidence of that. You can see it on the chart. Even today. Just read and try to understand the excerpt in the OP.

When some of the bankers started to run a virtual racket with subprime mortgages, Ron Paul kept silent not to compromise his buddies. He always sees faults with the government only. He's a source of inspiration for basket cases and other assorted nuts who feel better after their daily bitching about everything and nothing.

By the way, you don't take liberty with ellipses. Your usage of them in I don't know what is more scary.... the fact that you wrote that, or the fact that someone agrees with you... vouches for unfinished high school. The correct way is I don't know what is more scary: the fact that you wrote that, or the fact that someone agrees with you.

So the next time you start to complain about someone else's grammar, because you are in a dire need to bitch about everything and nothing, make sure that your scribble is free of punctuation mistakes. Otherwise you make a double-ass of yourself.







[edit on 9/24/2009 by stander]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 





There is a finite amount of dollar bills in existance, and there is a finite number of anything in reality.


I sure wish someone would inform Congress of that. They wanted more dollars and POOF this spring the money supply just doubled, didn't even need to print the dang things.


Actually I am very disappointed in you. The BANKERS ARE RESPONSIBLE.

First consider the roaring 20's followed by the crash of the thirties. All set up by the bankers who walked away with all the marbles at the end of the game. Link


Next look at our current situation.

First starting in the 70's we have a proliferation of regulations - OSHA, EPA, USDA, FDA, Child Day Care, Tax law on employees, - that raise the bar on new entries in business. The increase in lawsuits and changes in insurance did not help either

Second in the 80's, just like in the roaring twenties, we have banking law changes that encouraged "Leveraged Buyouts" "Hostile Takeovers" where debt free corporations are suddenly torn apart, shipped over seas or if the company stayed in the USA it had a high debt burden forcing a “value-enhancing effect”.of improved efficiency, eliminating wasteful corporate expenditure, encourages the sale of low-performing divisions. In effect removing employee benefits, firing older/high paid employees and replacing them with lower salary foreign born employees. Link

Third in the nineties we had the ratification of the World Trade Organization and NAFTA with the "Free Trade Agreements" The addition of China to the World Trade Agreement moved what was left of our industry overseas.

Was all of this organized?
Organized plans were developed in the forties by a highly powerful, unelected group of financial and industrial executives who wanted to drastically change agricultural practices in the US to serve their collective corporate financial agenda. The "Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation's foreign policies." Link

"They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking .s whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Rolds and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.” Perkins


What has been the result of the Bankers plans?
The Department of Homeland Security says 80% of our ports are operated by Foreigners and they are buying and running US bridges and toll roads. Link

Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990,before WTO was ratified, Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP. Link

An analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries shows the world's finances are in the hands of a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first report of global concentration of financial power .Link

The “Harmonization” of first world agriculture laws with WTO wishes resulted in a massive transfer of land ownership from private to corporate worldwide. Link

Source Watch gives a very long list of the industries with over 50% foreign ownership.

I have spent a couple of years tracing the manipulation of the World Wide Food Supply that is what convinced me there really was a pattern and a plan. The manipulation is very obvious but I really do not want to post 19 pages of references so just take my word for it it goes back to Rockefeller, the bankers, World Bank the UN and the Ag Cartel Here are a few references

The WTO and the Politics of GMO By F. William Engdahl

Food Safety Bills

History,HACCP and The food Safey Con Job

National Animal Identification Information Central



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by stander


When some of the bankers started to run a virtual racket with subprime mortgages, Ron Paul kept silent not to compromise his buddies. He always sees faults with the government only. He's a source of inspiration for basket cases and other assorted nuts who feel better after their daily bitching about everything and nothing.



Ron Paul spoke out loud and clear througout his entire career, against the Banking system.

Those subprime mortgages where made possible by the government, and by the FED. Nothing you say makes sense. You are attributing the collapse of an artifically inflated market to the one guy that warned everyone, decades ago, that the market was artificially inflated?

You are confused.......



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by stander


When some of the bankers started to run a virtual racket with subprime mortgages, Ron Paul kept silent not to compromise his buddies. He always sees faults with the government only. He's a source of inspiration for basket cases and other assorted nuts who feel better after their daily bitching about everything and nothing.



Ron Paul spoke out loud and clear througout his entire career, against the Banking system.

Those subprime mortgages where made possible by the government, and by the FED. Nothing you say makes sense. You are attributing the collapse of an artifically inflated market to the one guy that warned everyone, decades ago, that the market was artificially inflated?

You are confused.......

How about sneaking in a dated citation? I would love to hear the sound of the alarm bell put into motion by Ron Paul back in 2007 regarding the dangerous subprime mortgages game.

You think that Ron Paul is some kind of savior blessed with insight into the way the clock is ticking. There are many others who see the same thing, but Paul is remarkable by his unrealistic remedies -- if he cares to mention one.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by stander


Can't you comprehend on a normal level? The Wall St. is afraid of the government withdrawing its financial aid prematurely and there is hard evidence of that. You can see it on the chart. Even today. Just read and try to understand the excerpt in the OP.

When some of the bankers started to run a virtual racket with subprime mortgages, Ron Paul kept silent not to compromise his buddies. He always sees faults with the government only. He's a source of inspiration for basket cases and other assorted nuts who feel better after their daily bitching about everything and nothing.




[edit on 9/24/2009 by stander]


Ok ok, I think from this post I get what you were trying to say. Were you trying to say that since Ron Paul is against govt interference in the free markets and banking system, and the fact that the market went down on concerns that the govt will withdraw stimulus, as proof of Ron Paul being taught a lesson?

If thats it, I feel like you aren't seeing part of the picture. An economy that is dependent on govt money for prosperity is neither healthy, nor a free market or capitalistic. Keep in mind, one of the main arguments against the stimulus was the fact that govt money pushing private sector money out of the way. When private money enters the system, it gets turned over, reinvested, and it rolls many times over years. When govt puts money in where private money would be, and then takes it away, there is a void without money to fill it. Why? Because that private capital has found new homes, and the cycle they wanted to invest in, is the one the govt piled into. This is how govt can take a problem, make things feel a bit better, and then in the end actually make it worse.

Oh, and you trying to make the point that Ron Paul is a friend of the banks, and bankers are his cronnies, shows you don't know much about Ron Paul. He has been against the banking system for years. He views them as corrupt, evil, and anti-capitalistic.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I dont believe so, no one made anyone sign on the dotted line.

Take for instance my aunt and uncle. Sunk in a 50,000 pool, 2-$25,000 trucks and when things started to tank and they couldnt keep up with all their enormous spending habits the S started to hit the fan.

This was in FL by the way, one of the hotspots for this to happen. Trust me, it was 99% people spending over their means, its the "american" way, and it will not be too long where we revert back to that, historically it takes about 10 years for the consumer to forgive and forget.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by stander


Originally posted by stander
How about sneaking in a dated citation? I would love to hear the sound of the alarm bell put into motion by Ron Paul back in 2007 regarding the dangerous subprime mortgages game.


"The economic situation today is reminiscent of the 1970s. The economic malaise of that era resulted from the profligacy of the 1960s, when Congress wildly expanded the welfare state and fought an expensive war in southeast Asia. Large federal deficits led to stagflation – a combination of high price inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment, and stagnant economic growth. I fear that today’s economic fundamentals are worse than the 1970s: federal deficits are higher, the supply of fiat dollars is much greater, and personal savings rates are much lower. If the federal government won’t stop spending, borrowing, printing, and taxing, we may find ourselves in far worse shape than 30 years ago."

Ron Paul - March 15, 2005

Soure:www.lewrockwell.com...

"In essence, paper currencies like the US dollar operate as articles of faith – faith in the policies of the governments and central banks that issue them. When it comes to a government as deeply indebted as our own, that faith is sorely lacking among investors worldwide. Politicians often manage to fool voters and the media, but they rarely fool financial markets over time. The precipitous drop in the US dollar over the past few years is proof that investors around the globe are very concerned about American deficits and debt. When investors lack faith in the U.S. dollar, they really lack faith in the economic policies of the U.S. government."

Ron Paul - May 24, 2005

Source:www.lewrockwell.com...

"We face a coming financial crisis. Our current account deficit is more than $600 billion annually. Our foreign debt is more than $3 trillion. Foreigners now own over $1.4 trillion of our Treasury and mortgage debt. We must borrow $3 billion from foreigners every business day to maintain our extravagant spending. Our national debt now is increasing $600 billion per year, and guess what, we print over $600 billion per year to keep the charade going. But there is a limit and I’m fearful we’re fast approaching it."

"If Congress does not show some sense of financial restraint soon, we can expect the poor to become poorer; the middle class to become smaller; and the government to get bigger and more authoritarian – while the liberty of the people is diminished. The illusion that deficits, printing money, and expanding the welfare and warfare states serves the people must come to an end."

Ron Paul - September 17, 2005

source:www.lewrockwell.com...

"Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital into housing creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."

"HR 1461 further distorts the housing market by artificially inflating the demand for housing through the creation of a national housing trust fund. This fund further diverts capital to housing that, absent government intervention, would be put to a use more closely matching the demands of consumers. Thus, this new housing program will reduce efficacy and create yet another unconstitutional redistribution program."

"Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSEs' debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary and painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people are invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts."

"In conclusion, HR 1461 compounds the problems with the GSEs and may increase the damage that will be inflicted by a bursting of the housing bubble. This is because this bill creates a new unaccountable regulator and introduces further distortions into the housing market via increased regulatory power. HR 1461 also violates the Constitution by creating yet another unaccountable regulator with quasi-executive, judicial, and legislative powers. Instead of expanding unconstitutional and market distorting government bureaucracies, Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market."


Ron Paul - October 27, 2005

Source:www.lewrockwell.com...



Any other Brain Busters?









[edit on 24-9-2009 by aravoth]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 

That's not what I asked for. See if you can dig out an article published in or before 2007 where Ron Paul joins the group of people who pointed toward the sub-prime mortgages bubble as something that could set off a nasty domino effect upon bursting, as it happened in September 2008.

Ron Paul doesn't like the way the Federal Reserve operates, but others like it very much. The absence of the Fed intervention can even cause the market to collapse:


Stocks fell for a second day Thursday after the Federal Reserve announced plans to start unwinding some stimulus measures and a report showed existing-home sales fell last month.

www.cnbc.com...

See. For the second day, the capitalists worry that the Fed stops delivering free lunch to Wall St. Ron Paul should discipline the investors and tell them to use the American Libertarian Spirit and learn to live on their own. But he won't.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
This is a smoke and mirrors economy. Trillions were poured into banks and banks invested the money instead of loaning it out. Bank money inflated the stock market and cushioned the collapse of 401Ks preventing a revolt by the people.

Stocks are at their most expensive PE ratio in recent history, which makes no sense given companies are at lower revenues than ever before.
seekingalpha.com...

When was the last time you saw Gold, Stocks, and Bonds move in the same direction? Probably never. We're seeing it daily now, the market does not make sense.

Ninety four banks failed so far this year, and 2008 was the year of the crash. By this time last year only 12 banks had failed at a cost to the FDIC of $25B, today the total losses is closer to $90B. Only 28 banks failed last year, 150-200 bank failures are expected this year. Up to 1,000 bank failures are expected in the next two years.

It's smoke and mirrors I'm telling you. Economists keep hammering on the point that the fundamentals have NOT been fixed. The Real estate value plummet that started this mess continues to plummet and property values are far less than last year. Joining the plunge is commercial real estate values. These plummeting values are undermining market securities and the financial institutions that own them.

Anyone who believes we're recovering is either smoking dope or snorting from mirrors. Smoke and mirrors.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Dbriefed]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by stander
 


Stander, read the last qoute I posted. It speaks all about the housing bubble, and it was from 2005, I'd say that fits into your criteria.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 





I dont believe so, no one made anyone sign on the dotted line.

You are looking at a very narrow view. Obtaining a mortgage to buy a house. But the "money you borrowed" does not really exist yet you pay the banker thousands of hours of your labor a year for a ten second computer entry. This is not my definition of "capital" in reality it is legalized theft because there is no real "wealth" involved in the bankers side of the transaction

Here is a worse case of banker theft.
Gillette was a super company to work for, no debt, self insured health insurance, they had their own power plant, well run, treated their employees well. Change in banking rules, hostile take over using pixie dust and a great company is no more with thousands of employees (including me) out of a job.

These little senarios illustrates what Griffin is talking about The Bankers intentions of pushing people and corporations into debt.


Objective number two was to reverse the trend of what is called private capital formation. That's banker language for a process in which an individual or a corporation uses their own savings to pay for something instead of going to the bank and borrowing it, if you can imagine that happening. It was happening at the turn of the century. The trend was that businesses in particular were withholding some of their dividends each quarter and putting that money into a sinking fund and then as the money accumulated or as the capital formed, then they finally had enough that they could use their own money to build that new factory or to launch a research & development project or whatever instead of going to the banks and borrowing for it. The banks were very concerned over this trend because this is their life-blood. is loans



The more damaging problem is the draining away of trillions of dollars in wealth (our labor) in exchange for the pixie dust. Also thanks to inflation the real tax we pay is close to 90% of our wealth (labor)
When I started work:
In 1968  the minimum wage was $1.60 an hour gold was 39.31/oz and minimum wage in gold was .0.041 oz/hr (money supply was 54 billion in 1964)
In 2008 the minimum wage was $5.85 per hour..gold was 871.96/oz and minimum wage in gold was .0.0067 oz/hr (money supply was $831 billion in 2008)

In 1976  A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker.
In 2008 A typical American CEO earned 369 times that of the average worker.

Both of these show our current minimum wage is some where around 10% to 20% of where it was in 1968 And I can tell you from personal experience I had a lot more purchasing power in 1968 on minimum wage than I did on a "professional salary" from the late eighties on. The difference between the real 1968 and 2008 minimum wages is the inflation tax. Somewhere about 90% for the poor!

"Money being taken from people who are working hard providing the material and the labor. They don't even know that this is being taken from them and it's in this huge river of wealth flowing into the banking cartel."




Thomas Edison said, "People who will not turn a shovel-full of dirt on the project nor contribute a pound of materials will collect more money than will the people who will supply all the materials and do all the work." I wondered when I read that if Tom was exaggerating so I got my calculator out. I assumed that there was going to be a $100,000 house built. I assumed that $30,000 would have to go for land, architect's fees and permits and that kind of thing. $70,000 would go for the actual construction of the house, building materials and labor. I assumed that the buyer would go to the bank and put 20% down and then borrow the balance at 10% over 30 years. I punched in the numbers and discovered that the borrower will pay to the bank in interest $172,741 compared to $70,000 paid for the construction of the house. In other words, about 2 1/2 times as much money will be paid to the bank in interest than will be paid to those who provide all the labor and all the materials. And you may say to yourself, yes but that's fair, after all a 30 year loan is a long loan and people work for their money and sacrifice its use and loan it and so forth and deserve to be compensated. No. Not this money. Nobody worked for this money, nobody saved this money. There was no sacrifice of any kind for this money. This money was created out of nothing and I suggest that $172,741 interest on nothing is excessive!

This example of a $100,000 home, as shocking as it is, producing $172,741 unearned interest, this is just a grain of sand in the Sahara. You have to multiply that by all the homes in America, by all of these hotels in America, all the high-rise buildings, all the factories, all the airplanes, automobiles, farm equipment, schools, everything, all the physical assets of America. You apply this same ratio and can you see it in your mind? We're talking about a river of unearned wealth that is so wide you can't even think of crossing it, flowing perpetually into the banking cartel. A dead short across the productive element of society. Money being taken from people who are working hard providing the material and the labor. They don't even know that this is being taken from them and it's in this huge river of wealth flowing into the banking cartel. It's a staggering thought.
Griffin






posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


It's not narrow my friend, it's on target.

1. The bank gives you $200,000

2. You pay back $1500 month

3. You maybe put a very minimal down to obtain this sum of money.

The bank was being too generous most likely, but you (not you, but maybe you) had to have the 300z and the new power drill etc. and the average american has no idea how to save or budget in reality. So I guess its the banks fault, somehow, which is a total copout mang'

Securitzing these loans and such and pawning them off was quite dangerous and they did pay. Well so did avg. americans, and unfortunately, the average american does not save for a rainy day or have the backing of Uncle Ben to save them

Perhaps most people now will realize they cannot afford a new car every 5 years and cannot buy $100 of liquor at the start of every NFL Sunday. Or they can, they just will not last for long though. That is the game, and you have to play it.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
There is a finite amount of dollar bills in existance, and there is a finite number of anything in reality. The only infintite thing in existance may be space (debatable).


and

the Fed's ability to "print" $$$$$ (not debatable).


Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.

Ben Bernanke - 2002


Operative: as many U.S. dollars as it wishes.


*********


Beginning with subprime mortgages and related derivatives defaults , the housing bubble popped in 2006 , but the economic term "subprime" didn't enter the public lexicon until 2007.

Rep Paul predicted both the bust and the bailout with his early admonitions regarding GSE giants FNM/FM....


U.S. House of Representatives
July 16, 2002

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.....

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

Full Text


If only they had listened.

Six years later , on September 7 , 2008 the government seized control of a bankrupt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The effect of these failures on the financial system was immediate. FNM/FM derivatives counterparties began to fall like dominoes....

September 15:

Lehman Brothers investment bank declares a $600-billion bankruptcy.

Merrill Lynch is acquired by Bank of America.

September 17:

The U.S. Government bails out AIG insurance giant for $85 billion.

September 26:

The Federal government seizes Washington Mutual (WAMU) in America's largest-ever U.S. bank failure.

September 30:

Wachovia Bank nears collapse.


Sept 08 was a busy month. Unfortunately congress rejected RP's call to stand up for American taxpayers back in 2002. They weren't listening then....obviously they aren't listening now. On September 19 , Paulson/Bernanke requested [ultimately received] congressional approval for their $700-billion bailout plan.


Ron Paul on loose lending....


Zero Down for the American Dream
2004

The Zero Downpayment Act, as its names suggests, creates a federal program that allows some homebuyers to obtain federally-insured mortgages without making a down payment. “Federally-insured” really means taxpayer-insured, as taxpayers like you foot the bill for defaults. So while Congress congratulates itself on yet another program that supposedly helps the poor, it is taxpayers who pay for the inevitable defaults....

Despite the congressional rhetoric about helping the poor, federal housing policies often harm poor people by pushing them into houses they may not be ready to buy. Given the realities of insurance, property taxes, maintenance, and repairs, many low-income buyers lose their homes and destroy their credit ratings. Easy credit and low interest rates, courtesy of the Federal Reserve, have dramatically increased housing demand and artificially increased prices. Zero down payment schemes do the same thing by pushing renters into the housing market. This increased demand actually serves to price many poor Americans out of the housing market indefinitely.

Full Text



aravoth


[edit on 24-9-2009 by OBE1]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


No, there is not a finite number of dollars.

Yes, they periodically burn old bills, but they are printing a hell of a lot faster than they're burning.

That makes what's out there increasingly worthless.

Anyone who's had macroeconomics knows what M1 is, and understands that paper money is not finite, especially when compared to a rare metal such as gold, which is very close to being finite.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OBE1
 


I do not doubt my friend that they can print as much as they wish, but they do not have infinite dollars in circulation. I do not care as much for the other arguments presented on this thread, this was my only point. That, and the average consumer is mostly to blame for this, while they point the finger.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Did you see my post showing the link to the FED for the M1 money supply?

It does not show ∞



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


Infinite $ in circulation would be an impossible claim to begin with....no? Better put: The Fed has the capacity to print ad-infinitum , perhaps in the manner that the market short assumes infinite risk (theoretical).

For sake of clarity , the rest of my post wasn't directed at you.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OBE1
 


I used to think that way as well in late 1999

Although everything has a glass ceiling I suppose minus BRK.A

I am just not sure where people are getting the idea of infinite money supply, unless I am just misunderstanding, which would def. not be the first time



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join