Bernanke: Fed Is Preparing For A Third Round of Stimulus

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Wednesday that a new stimulus program is in the works that will entail more asset purchases, the clearest sign yet the central bank is weighing another round of monetary easing.

www.cnbc.com...

This news accompanied by the spike in metals and easy money in stocks...

Gold Hits Record High as Euro Zone Crisis Worsens

Gold prices hit a record $1,580.70 an ounce on Wednesday as concerns over the euro zone debt crisis deepened, and after minutes to the Federal Reserve's June meeting suggested some members were pondering the need for additional monetary easing.

www.cnbc.com...


Stocks Extend Gains Amid Bernanke Speech

Stocks advanced Wednesday, after Ben Bernanke said the Federal Reserve is ready to provide additional stimulus if the economy continues to weaken.

www.cnbc.com...

At the time of this posting silver is up $1.72. If anyone was concerned about losing money in silver, that concern is now over. If you thought that $50 was the high for silver for the year, think again. This will have silver pushing highs never thought achievable before!

ETA:

“The possibility remains that the recent economic weakness may prove more persistent than expected and that deflationary risks might reemerge, implying a need for additional policy support,” Bernanke said in prepared testimony before the House Financial Services Committee in Washington today. “The Federal Reserve remains prepared to respond should economic developments indicate that an adjustment of monetary policy would be appropriate.”

Source

I think this quote should be interpreted to say "Nothing has changed, and we know we are screwed"

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over; and expecting different results.

Bernanke needs some therapy.

reply to post by beezzer


Looks as though we'll reach the height of insanity in roughly a week...


US Default Inevitable: Fund Manager

A U.S. default isn't a matter of "if" but "when," David Murrin, chief investment officer at Emergent Asset Management, told CNBC.

"It's inevitable that the U.S. will default—it's essentially an empire which is overextended and in decline—and that its financial system will go with it," he said. The question is: Does the U.S. default when it is forced to by the outside world, probably the Chinese, or does it take the option to default on its own terms in such a way that it may have a strategic advantage, Murrin said.

www.cnbc.com...

What did you expect? The moron spent his entire academic career studying the deflation bogeyman, of course he's going to keep printing money.

reply to post by beezzer


I completely agree.

The alternative to insanity, however, is that the results are intentional and sought after. I guess that's kind of insane too.

reply to post by Americanist


Crazy. On the heels of cutting social security, they want to place fear into the American public so that we will allow further degradation to the monetary supply giving the money to banks and large multinational corporations. Why are the priorities and government handouts always focused on the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class? If we must degrade our currency then give the damn money to the people who will use it to live, not those that use it to keep.

Originally posted by beezzer
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over; and expecting different results.

Bernanke needs some therapy.

No thats the myth of the definition, its just an incorrect saying.

We will get different results this time, stuff will get much worse because of this.

when will the fools in power realize the monetary capitalist system has failed. How many holes in the dike can be plugged? they are only delaying the inevitable total financial meltdown. the only cure to the disease of big business is a people first policy. it's time for the so-called leaders to either step up or step out. my personal financial fix is everyone has value everyone must contribute to the betterment of our society. and I don't mean more taxes. no more high middle low class everyone must help everyone else. that should be law and for the ones with more than enough (the so called wealthy) they should be taxed more not less they can afford it. the ones with not enough (the so called poor) no more welfare as it currently is. they should be forced to work. if they are taking money from the govt they are basicly working for the govt and should be forced to work or no money. any govt officer should be held accountable for there actions tsa police feds etc......this world of ours could be a utopia only if we want it to be
what is the alternative a living hell oh sorry we already have that. lets try something else if anyone has a better idea to fix the financial mess by all means step up because our govt will not. they only seem to cater to the ones who pay them not the ones who voted for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Americanist

 

Crazy. On the heels of cutting social security, they want to place fear into the American public so that we will allow further degradation to the monetary supply giving the money to banks and large multinational corporations. Why are the priorities and government handouts always focused on the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class? If we must degrade our currency then give the damn money to the people who will use it to live, not those that use it to keep.

When something like the top one percent owns 40% of the World's resources I assure you this is by no mistake. Now their play is to privatize the rest of infrastructure from what you fly out of to the water you're going to be drinking.

Sounds to me like the third and last step in transfering the wealth and infastructure of America.

All the while we the commoners complain and watch as in one generation this country went from a superior technological country with opportunites for all, too homelessness, depression, and outsourcing of american jobs.

Amazing what a handfull of old soggy, ugly, diaper-wearing grandpa's can do, is it not

The Euro has made up most of the lost ground over the Italian concerns. Silver is up 5.86%. I posted this on another thread, but it is interesting.
Link

"The Pan Asia Gold Exchange is going to send shockwaves through the mechanisms for the price discovery for both gold and silver. It's backed by China's state administration for foreign exchange and also the Chinese security regulatory commision. But the biggest bombshell is the offer of an RMB gold contracts for international investors.

"This is concrete evidence that China plans to bring the Remninbi to the world stage. It's going to provide access to a much more physical market and I know it's going to attract a lot of the world's precious metal business, providing much more of the Chinese and the international customers an alternative platform on which they can buy and sell buy and sell physical gold and silver.

"Now the first contract is actually going alive this month and its a 10-ounce gold mini-contract for the domestic Chinese retail market, which really until now has been restricted to physical purchases, so this domestic contract should be fully operational this month.

"It's going to have a major impact on the demand side of precious metals equation. Especially as there are 320 million customers of Ag bank of China, who going to be plugged into this exchange platform from the off... If just 1% of their customers bought a single 10-oz contract, that would require new physical demand of 1,000 tons.

"Now this is welcome competition. And it should improve price discovery and dilute the effect of short side concentration."

"The impact on silver is going to be much more pronounced. We know silver is a much small market and it's already in tight supply. This is the tinder box."

Bottom line: "The shorts are going to looking for a quick exit as they're factoring in this unforeseen demand in the physical market," says Maguire.

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

Silver
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a15079475b3a.jpg[/atsimg]

thats why i got my silver and gold Bezzeys

Originally posted by gaurdian2012
when will the fools in power realize the monetary capitalist system has failed. How many holes in the dike can be plugged? they are only delaying the inevitable total financial meltdown. the only cure to the disease of big business is a people first policy. it's time for the so-called leaders to either step up or step out. my personal financial fix is everyone has value everyone must contribute to the betterment of our society. and I don't mean more taxes. no more high middle low class everyone must help everyone else. that should be law and for the ones with more than enough (the so called wealthy) they should be taxed more not less they can afford it. the ones with not enough (the so called poor) no more welfare as it currently is. they should be forced to work. if they are taking money from the govt they are basicly working for the govt and should be forced to work or no money. any govt officer should be held accountable for there actions tsa police feds etc......this world of ours could be a utopia only if we want it to be
what is the alternative a living hell oh sorry we already have that. lets try something else if anyone has a better idea to fix the financial mess by all means step up because our govt will not. they only seem to cater to the ones who pay them not the ones who voted for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You cannot legislate "help[ing] everyone else". However, you may be my guest, and feel free to help everyone you'd like to.

We already live in a country where the top 5% of taxpayers pay over HALF of the tax burden, while only earning about 1/3 of the income. The top 50% pay almost 100% of the taxes. I can't see how taking more from the earners would help. Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

We don't have an income problem...we have a SPENDING problem. Also, many people who would consider themselves to be "taxpayers" actually don't pay ANY income taxes...they actually get a "refund" equal to MORE than they actually put in. That is income redistribution.

We are so far on the wrong track. I agree that what the Fed is doing is NOT the answer. I'm a fan of the Fair Tax, which would make the United States into a global competitor once again.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

You cannot legislate "help[ing] everyone else". However, you may be my guest, and feel free to help everyone you'd like to.

We already live in a country where the top 5% of taxpayers pay over HALF of the tax burden, while only earning about 1/3 of the income. The top 50% pay almost 100% of the taxes. I can't see how taking more from the earners would help. Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

We don't have an income problem...we have a SPENDING problem. Also, many people who would consider themselves to be "taxpayers" actually don't pay ANY income taxes...they actually get a "refund" equal to MORE than they actually put in. That is income redistribution.

We are so far on the wrong track. I agree that what the Fed is doing is NOT the answer. I'm a fan of the Fair Tax, which would make the United States into a global competitor once again.

Well said and welcome. A great 1st post. Like I stated in another thread, progessives hate tax cuts because they aren't benefitting from it. And if they can't benefit, they must punish.
Hence, the class-war we see now.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


I'm a huge fan of fair tax, but here's the kicker... The 1/10th of 1 percent eats up 12 cents on every dollar. Assets are monopolized even further as consumers follow down this path. There is no way to balance the scales... Central banks instituted a pyramid scheme for our monetary system.

Concerning tax revenues... It's no secret lowly people get hit the hardest. Sales Tax, Gasoline Tax, Property Tax, School Tax, etc., etc. In stark contrast you have big profits being made as cheap manufacturing overseas generates zero tax burdens.

As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do--that is, if they pay taxes at all. The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

www.forbes.com...


Moreover, corporations partake in accounting maneuvers and overhangs year over year.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirlYou cannot legislate "help[ing] everyone else". However, you may be my guest, and feel free to help everyone you'd like to.

We already live in a country where the top 5% of taxpayers pay over HALF of the tax burden, while only earning about 1/3 of the income. The top 50% pay almost 100% of the taxes. I can't see how taking more from the earners would help. Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

We don't have an income problem...we have a SPENDING problem. Also, many people who would consider themselves to be "taxpayers" actually don't pay ANY income taxes...they actually get a "refund" equal to MORE than they actually put in. That is income redistribution.

This is a reductionist, naive argument, albeit a very common one.

First of all, top earners pay a higher percentage of taxes because they can afford it. Let's say everybody pays a flat rate of 30%. People making $250,000 net $175,000, but people making $25,000 net $17,500. The difference in quality of life that 30% makes to the people in the latter part of my example is quite severe, while those in the former still generally enjoy a quality of life similar to if no taxes at all had been taken. It's the price of admission to live in a first-world country. There are plenty of places where this 'rich tax' thing isn't an issue, but I imagine you wouldn't like it those places all that much.

The response to this is often "Well, those people should get better jobs!" Guess what? Horatio Alger lied to you. Not everybody gets to be a millionaire, including you, so quit trying to tell yourself that you're actually protecting your interests by feigning concern for a couple of percentage points for people with more money than you can conceptualize. The system depends on people willing to work for $25k/yr in order to sweep your floors, clean your toilets, make your widgets, and cook your restaurant food. The primary fallacy with statements like yours is that income level in no way parallels how 'hard' somebody works. It's often tied to the kinds of work people do, but how 'hard' somebody is working is not related to that at all. If everybody made $80,000 year, bread would cost $20/loaf, Chevy Cobalts $100,000, and a Happy Meal $50. If there is any positive byproduct of capitalism, the market driven price controls are it.

But, it's not all sunshine and rainbows. We still have to make sure some floor is there; some safety net for the people at the bottom, lest we're no better than so many of the social systems around the world we love to demonize. We HAVE to legislate 'helping other people' because there are three groups in this country that would steer us off a cliff: those who benefit from as many people as possible being as poor as possible, those who simply don't care, and those who are only a couple of rungs from the bottom of the ladder themselves but have been convinced by the other two groups that they should support the system that actually pushes them towards that bottom rung.

Finally, why 'FairTax' even gets discussed outside of joke punchlines is beyond me. It drastically discourages consumption, which is the life blood of any economy. People don't buy as much (this has been studied and proven time and time again), thus causing a drop in money in the market, thus inhibiting business growth, thus causing less money to be earned, and then it spirals into an abyss of money hoarding, non-purchasing except for bare essentials, and a class division like none that we've seen before in this country. There is a reason that no country ever has attempted to raise its revenue solely based on sales tax. It won't work. The 'Fair Tax' is anything but 'fair,' and if an economist tells you it will, run, don't walk, away, because he/she isn't cable of telling you if the sky is blue.

Originally posted by samcrow

Finally, why 'FairTax' even gets discussed outside of joke punchlines is beyond me. It drastically discourages consumption, which is the life blood of any economy. People don't buy as much (this has been studied and proven time and time again), thus causing a drop in money in the market, thus inhibiting business growth, thus causing less money to be earned, and then it spirals into an abyss of money hoarding, non-purchasing except for bare essentials, and a class division like none that we've seen before in this country. There is a reason that no country ever has attempted to raise its revenue solely based on sales tax. It won't work. The 'Fair Tax' is anything but 'fair,' and if an economist tells you it will, run, don't walk, away, because he/she isn't cable of telling you if the sky is blue.

The America I live in loves consumption far too much to stop consuming because of a consumption tax. We already have sales taxes, and the last time I checked, consumption is still occurring.

Have you read about the Fair Tax (other than arguments against it made by those who have not studied the proposal thoroughly)? Did you know it was developed by economists who were charged with developing a better system than what we have now? Based upon analyses I have read, it does more for our economy than trying to patch or repair the current system.

The creators of the Fair Tax have estimated that costs to the consumer (after the tax was included into the price of goods) would not rise (by much, if at all) because of the changes in the tax structure. Currently, when corporations are taxed on their income, these costs are passed on to the consumer anyway. This is why all of the cries to "tax the corporations" makes me laugh. And you call ME naive.

Read Neal Boortz's books about the Fair Tax, and then come back and tell me where he is wrong, because his arguments make sense to me.

I'm not an economist, but I AM tired of having my income taken at the whim of politicians. I recently had the opportunity for a job with more responsibilities and a raise in pay. It would require me to work more days, but the higher pay would make it worth it, right? WRONG. After taxes, I would be working more days for LESS take home pay. So I declined. The punitive tax system at work.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirlThe America I live in loves consumption far too much to stop consuming because of a consumption tax. We already have sales taxes, and the last time I checked, consumption is still occurring.

That's not entirely true. For example, watch what happens in border areas where one state has a higher sales tax than the other: people go to the lower tax area. In non-border areas, people shift to internet or other tax-free ways to buy things. If you spent any time in big-ticket retail sectors (automobiles, real estate, etc.), sales tax is a major factor in what people purchase or don't purchase.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirlHave you read about the Fair Tax (other than arguments against it made by those who have not studied the proposal thoroughly)? Did you know it was developed by economists who were charged with developing a better system than what we have now? Based upon analyses I have read, it does more for our economy than trying to patch or repair the current system.

Yes, I have read it, along with many of the critiques and supporting arguments. Boortz is a loud-mouth pseudo-intellectual that uses convoluted statements and big words (a page out of Ayn Rand's playbook, I might add) to muddle a rather fundamental problem: He has no idea what the heck he's talking about. Additionally, just because somebody is an economist doesn't mean he or she is a GOOD economist. Alan Greenspan, for example, is a terrible economist that was wrong about essentially everything his entire career yet reached a position of great prominence. The loudest voice is often not the most qualified one.

Currently, when corporations are taxed on their income, these costs are passed on to the consumer anyway. This is why all of the cries to "tax the corporations" makes me laugh. And you call ME naive.

That is often not true, and is also very reductionist and simplistic. Where that 'extra cost' falls is dependent on the elasticity of the supply/demand curve. Therefore, it depends on the market, the product, the supply/delivery chain, and a whole host of other things. In a lot of markets, the product is already at the price ceiling, so passing along those costs to a consumer will result in drastically reduced demand. Some markets that's not the case, but in many it is. To say absolutely that A = B where tax increase is A and B is increase in price to consumer completely denies just about every factor that makes a market work.

I recently had the opportunity for a job with more responsibilities and a raise in pay. It would require me to work more days, but the higher pay would make it worth it, right? WRONG. After taxes, I would be working more days for LESS take home pay. So I declined. The punitive tax system at work.

If you're in the United States, this statement right here destroys your credibility altogether. We have a graduated tax bracket. It's very nearly mathematically impossible for higher pay to equate to less take home. The only way this would be true is if you went from, say, a 40hr work week at an hourly pay scale to a salaried position requiring you to work more hours for a set amount. In that case, it's not the taxes that is the issue, but the average hourly rate, which would decrease. So you could potentially see less take home, but that's because you're actually getting paid less on an hourly basis and has nothing whatsoever to do with your realized tax rate.