BF2S Forums 3.6 Trillion in the red

Parra's job will be to coordinate economic development in the Central Valley in economically underserved regions, said Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Rachel Cameron.

"The only thing I can say is I'm honored the governor would appoint me to this position, and I look forward to assisting in this economic development initiative," Parra said.

She already Fails? When your state is going bankrupt and you pay someone 100k+ to fix that, it just seems really counter productive..

On a side note to ATG's post, look at the stars talking about helping out everyone and doing there part to make the world better.. Then look at the state Cali is in, it makes no sense.

The one thing I don't get is where all this debt magically came from. 3.6 trillion doesn't just happen, it takes time to happen. What the hell were all the banks doing all this time? They might not have declared their debt yet, but they knew it was happening.

Turquoise wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Money is not like energy, it is created and its value can devaluate quickly when the treasury trys to buy its way out of the paramid scheme it uses for a monetary system.  My parents $130k home loan in the late '70s was a lot then, but it isn't squat now because the same house goes for $450K.  The $180K I owe from my house in 2004 could be next to nothing in 2011 after the US floods the market with " hollow " dollars being infused in the banking system.

If the US government was smart, and it is not, then the US would just buy all the US banks up and control the banking industry.  They could use interest payment to finance the US debt and control the US economy with interest rates to speed up or slow down inflation.  The US lost ownership of its own currency years ago and that is what destroyed the monetary system.

The Federal Reserve almost functions the way you're describing things in the second paragraph.  It is a governmental institution run by a consortium of banks.

For the most part, the more the government gets involved, the messier it becomes.  What we ought to do is actually move in the opposite direction by disbanding the Federal Reserve and letting the market clear itself.

In the short run, it would be very painful, but it would prevent even bigger problems from happening later.

Are you suggesting that the banks pay interest to the government on the money they create when doing a home loan?

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Money is not like energy, it is created and its value can devaluate quickly when the treasury trys to buy its way out of the paramid scheme it uses for a monetary system.  My parents $130k home loan in the late '70s was a lot then, but it isn't squat now because the same house goes for $450K.  The $180K I owe from my house in 2004 could be next to nothing in 2011 after the US floods the market with " hollow " dollars being infused in the banking system.

If the US government was smart, and it is not, then the US would just buy all the US banks up and control the banking industry.  They could use interest payment to finance the US debt and control the US economy with interest rates to speed up or slow down inflation.  The US lost ownership of its own currency years ago and that is what destroyed the monetary system.

The Federal Reserve almost functions the way you're describing things in the second paragraph.  It is a governmental institution run by a consortium of banks.

For the most part, the more the government gets involved, the messier it becomes.  What we ought to do is actually move in the opposite direction by disbanding the Federal Reserve and letting the market clear itself.

In the short run, it would be very painful, but it would prevent even bigger problems from happening later.

Are you suggesting that the banks pay interest to the government on the money they create when doing a home loan?

Um...  nope.  Although, now that several of them have been bailed out by tax money, I think the ones who have should pay the government back ASAP with interest.

EDIT: after re-reading your question, let me clarify.  The Fed Reserve is basically an institution where the banks act like a governing body.  If the government instead bought these banks, that might bring some accountability to the equation, but...  that would involve probably spending even more than the bailouts have cost.

At this point, a much more solvent plan would involve only the second part of what you're suggesting, which is not quite what I meant in mentioning the similarities between your plan and the Fed Reserve.

So yes, I could sort of agree with you on getting the banks to pay interest to the government more specifically from home loans.  I just don't support getting the government to buy these companies.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-01-23 16:40:46)