Menu
Sister Sites

  • Should the Fed save Europe from disaster?

    From telegraph.co.uk

    The dam is breaking in Europe. Interbank lending has seized up. Much of the financial system is paralysed, setting off a credit crunch just as Euroland slides back into slump. The Euribor/OIS spread or`fear gauge’ is flashing red warning signals. Dollar funding costs in Europe have spiked to Lehman-crisis levels, leaving lenders struggling frantically to cover their $2 trillion (£1.3 trillion) funding gap. America’s money markets are no longer willing to lend to over-leveraged Euroland banks, or only on drastically short maturities below seven days. Exposure to French banks has been slashed by 69pc since May. ... (full story)

Not with my tax dollars thank you very friggen much.........
EURO crisis because them selve... there's no country or nation will help without any profitable case....if the FED help so many people in US not see where's the profit...but if you just see for a moment EURO crisis can be impact to any country or nation.....LOL
Fed probably already sent money. The problem is the market don't know and still sell Euro. Fed needs to make the world know that the Fed is here, stop selling Euro.
I can already feel the hate just from proposing a bailout from the Fed.
i thought fed was a private institution... what does that have to do with tax dollars?
Quoting tradestar1
Not with my tax dollars thank you very friggen much.........
Nihil Sine Deo.
Quoting Scrat
i thought fed was a private institution... what does that have to do with tax dollars?
I would presume he means the "inflation tax".
If the Europeans won't bother, why should the Fed? Let them burn.
the fed will not be saving anyone....printing money is cost free to them, the receivers of the funds will be the ones paying through inflation. this is just like saying "hey theres a fire" , "ok heres more fire to put it out". All banks must have no government backstop. The weakest must be allowed to fail in order for the system to be fixed. If there is no moral hazard, then the banks that will survive and flourish will be the ones who take on the least amount of risk. This will be the new alpha. Sure profits will naturally decrease, and this will in essence make banking industry smaller. A truly free market will solve the moral hazard problem. It will be painful adjustment and will take time, but this must happen.
  •  Guest
  • | IP XX.XX.41.228
The Federal Income Tax under the 16th Amendment to the constitution gives the authority to private bankers (the Federal Reserve ie: the Fed) to collect taxes from AMERICAN taxpayers to service the interest on the debt issued to the Treasury department. The interest paid goes to private bankers through a private banking intermediary. The taxes paid service no debt associated anything in the US, not Social Security, Not Pension plans, not highways, not farming subsidies, not Foreign Aid, etc
Quoting mfoste1
the fed will not be saving anyone....printing money is cost free to them, the receivers of the funds will be the ones paying through inflation. this is just like saying "hey theres a fire" , "ok heres more fire to put it out". All banks must have no government backstop. The weakest must be allowed to fail in order for the system to be fixed. If there is no moral hazard, then the banks that will survive and flourish will be the ones who take on the least amount of risk. This will be the new alpha. Sure profits will naturally decrease, and this...

true,

a stupid post from telegraph.co.uk
Quoting mfoste1
the fed will not be saving anyone....printing money is cost free to them, the receivers of the funds will be the ones paying through inflation. this is just like saying "hey theres a fire" , "ok heres more fire to put it out". All banks must have no government backstop. The weakest must be allowed to fail in order for the system to be fixed. If there is no moral hazard, then the banks that will survive and flourish will be the ones who take on the least amount of risk. This will be the new alpha. Sure profits will naturally decrease, and this...
Good point. Hard to believe considering the Chelsea flag. :-)
Quoting mfoste1
the fed will not be saving anyone....printing money is cost free to them, the receivers of the funds will be the ones paying through inflation. this is just like saying "hey theres a fire" , "ok heres more fire to put it out". All banks must have no government backstop. The weakest must be allowed to fail in order for the system to be fixed. If there is no moral hazard, then the banks that will survive and flourish will be the ones who take on the least amount of risk. This will be the new alpha. Sure profits will naturally decrease, and this...
True, but governments always save 'too big to fail'.
  •  Guest
  • | IP XX.XXX.172.64
we already gave them 16 trillion a year or so ago. if you look at the fed audit it shows a list of all the euro countries/companies/banks that we gave the money to.
Quoting Scrat
i thought fed was a private institution... what does that have to do with tax dollars?
You are right..... but the interest we owe the fed for them floating this gov. is still my tax dollars.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fed-now-largest-owner-us-gov-t-debt-surpassing-china
Quoting mfoste1
The weakest must be allowed to fail in order for the system to be fixed. If there is no moral hazard, then the banks that will survive and flourish will be the ones who take on the least amount of risk.
Amen. The system we have today is a totally distorted one, where it all boils down to this: Whole countries owe money to a few banks and at the same time they guarantee those banks' well-being with taxpayers' money. This is sick, it wouldn't even happen in totalitarian regiments. Either make all banks state institutions or let them fail like every other business.

Of course this may be sick but is hardly unexplainable: It's the bankers who appoint the politicians, so what do you expect...
To answer the question , no , simply because they will need every last penny they have to save the US$ , when the shit hits the fan the moment their debt ceiling is reached again , which if it happens before elections , will pretty much seal the fate of the US$ as the worlds reserve currency, and thus the US$ itself
Officer ... I swear to drunk I am not God
Quoting Scrat
i thought fed was a private institution... what does that have to do with tax dollars?
You do realize the government borrows money from the FED, which in turn taxes the people in order to pay off the FED, right?
Quoting Larseg
true,

a stupid post from telegraph.co.uk
I read this article yesterday. I would not call it stoopid, merely designed to sell papers.

HOWEVER if you read the last paragraphs (apologies if you did already) the spectre that is raised is not that the Fed might not bail anyone - it is that no lenders outside of euro area want to buy ANY of the eurozone bonds; not even the German ones.

.....so how are they going to roll over their debts? Maybe Frau Merkel will have to resort to the presses after all!
Minesweeper target: 284
So many months (years) discussing the financial aspects of this crisis, and the financial measures to (un)solve it... While missing the entire point altogether (or avoid talking about it). Someone wanted globalization, someone let the jobs flee to slave labor countries, and now... Someone pays the price... (I only wish that the same "someone" who let the jobs go, would be the "someone" who'd pay the price).
Quoting mfoste1
A truly free market will solve the moral hazard problem. It will be painful adjustment and will take time, but this must happen.
OHHH, it is sooooooo pain free if you are not a moocher. So painless it's freaking hilarious.
Quoting micmic
Amen. The system we have today is a totally distorted one, where it all boils down to this: Whole countries owe money to a few banks and at the same time they guarantee those banks' well-being with taxpayers' money. This is sick, it wouldn't even happen in totalitarian regiments. Either make all banks state institutions or let them fail like every other business.

Of course this may be sick but is hardly unexplainable: It's the bankers who appoint the politicians, so what do you expect...
Or, keep the banks private and return the issuance of currency to governments whereby it would originate interest free. Private banks could charge interest on loans they make to private individuals and businesses, but the issuance of new currency would be out of their slimy claws. The way it should be in a rational society.
not only NO, but FUCK NO!!! my tax dollars should not save EU....
Quoting SerpentDove
Or, keep the banks private and return the issuance of currency to governments whereby it would originate interest free. Private banks could charge interest on loans they make to private individuals and businesses, but the issuance of new currency would be out of their slimy claws. The way it should be in a rational society.
The trouble is that you don't want the slimy politicians with their hands on the money either.
Minesweeper target: 284
Quoting Primate
The trouble is that you don't want the slimy politicians with their hands on the money either.
That leads us to the logical conclusion that the only answer is to just shoot 'em all every four years instead of voting. Back in the real world, the money is going to go through those slimy paws one way or another, at least it's one level of vampiric interest taken out of the system. With the current system, interest is charged on the money that is issued to cover the interest... perpetual debt slavery even if the Government doesn't spend a single penny from now to eternity, and continues to collect taxes to pay down the debt, the debt can never be repaid because the money issued to pay the debt is issued as debt, carrying interest from the source. Ok, I'm dizzy now.
  •  Guest
  • | IP XX.XXX.34.145
I wouldn't put it past them to dump another bill on taxpayers.
well i see it a little bit different. actually that money is not yours and fed can do whatever they want with it (and they are). it's their profit. you can't tell fed how to spend it.

Quoting tradestar1
You are right..... but the interest we owe the fed for them floating this gov. is still my tax dollars.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fed-...rpassing-china
Nihil Sine Deo.
Quoting Scrat
well i see it a little bit different. actually that money is not yours and fed can do whatever they want with it (and they are). it's their profit. you can't tell fed how to spend it.
Yes, comrade, we must all work for the collective good. Just kidding, but actually no it's not "their" money, at least not according to the supreme law of the land.
Quoting SerpentDove
Or, keep the banks private and return the issuance of currency to governments whereby it would originate interest free. Private banks could charge interest on loans they make to private individuals and businesses, but the issuance of new currency would be out of their slimy claws. The way it should be in a rational society.
In the system you propose, the banks could still control money supply, although to a lesser degree. Currently, the Fed's control of money supply is not absolute, as a large part of it depends on what the banks do with any freshly issued Benny Bucks. If the government were to issue new money to the banks instead of the Fed doing so, any loans they make or don't make would still affect the money supply. At the end of the day, the banks would still be partially in control of the money supply. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that politicians would do a better job of managing the supply of money. In any case, this would probably be a better system overall, but still far from good.
Who says the coming EU collapse will be a desaster? Why wasnt it a disaster getting into the EU in the first place?
oh you mean the constitution? how's that?

Quoting fierceman
Yes, comrade, we must all work for the collective good. Just kidding, but actually no it's not "their" money, at least not according to the supreme law of the land.
Nihil Sine Deo.
Quoting SerpentDove
That leads us to the logical conclusion that the only answer is to just shoot 'em all every four years instead of voting.
All kidding aside, this is exactly where it will all come down to. What's happening today worldwide is just a form of economic dictatorship and slavery where the people have no actual saying in what happens. Elections are a joke because all choices are alike, you can't even become a candidate with any chance of election if you haven't proven that you can serve well those who control the cash. And history shows that the only way out of such situations is pure violence. It may not happen quickly, it may take 100 years or more. But it won't resolve peacefully, that's for sure.
Quoting micmic
All kidding aside, this is exactly where it will all come down to. What's happening today worldwide is just a form of economic dictatorship and slavery where the people have no actual saying in what happens. Elections are a joke because all choices are alike, you can't even become a candidate with any chance of election if you haven't proven that you can serve well those who control the cash. And history shows that the only way out of such situations is pure violence. It may not happen quickly, it may take 100 years or more. But it won't resolve...
Today I was discussing the fact that Italy is now paying nearly 8% to issue bonds with an Italian at work. His opinion is that our whole system has been doomed ever since the first bond was issued (by an English King to build a Navy fleet).

We eventually concurred on the final solution, which unfortunately aligns with yours micmic. The part we could not decide was how long we have got - so we split it at ten years. That is, of course, unless Nostradamus was right!
Minesweeper target: 284
Quoting Primate
Today I was discussing the fact that Italy is now paying nearly 8% to issue bonds with an Italian at work. His opinion is that our whole system has been doomed ever since the first bond was issued (by an English King to build a Navy fleet). We eventually concurred on the final solution, which unfortunately aligns with yours micmic. The part we could not decide was how long we have got - so we split it at ten years. That is, of course, unless Nostradamus was right!
10 years would be extremely optimistic I think. As much as violence would be terrible, it would also signal the beginning of a new socioeconomical progress period, so the paradox is that we should welcome it. But I think that we are just unlucky to have been born at the beginning of one of humanity's darkest periods, something that the future history books may refer to as "the economical dark ages". We may think that the people have had enough and that they will take no more of this crap, but the truth is that they can take a lot more of it. Before violence breaks out, we may have to experience conditions that now are only present in what we call "3rd world countries". Alas, the bankers and the politicians are more clever now. They are very effective in dividing and conquering. You don't have to look any further from this page to see that people are actually eager to fight against each other. Each country against its neighbours, the European South against the European North, USA blaming Europe and vice versa, China against everybody else, and so on. Unfortunately people are very easy to manipulate and, like always, the poorer ones will be suffering irrespectively of country while those who have the power will continue enjoying their well-being.
Quoting Scrat
oh you mean the constitution? how's that?
There is no authority given in the Constitution, that anything like the Federal Reserve should ever be given unchecked power of issuing fiat currency. I believe also, that since the government is of, by, and for the people, then tax revenue is in fact the people's, hence the statement "not with my tax dollars" is perfectly ok - only problem is enforcing the statement might be difficult...
  • New Comment
  •  Guest
  • | IP XX.XXX.191.46
Join FF
  • Story Stats
  • Posted: Nov 27, 2011 11:33pm
  • Submitted by:
     Newsstand
    Category: Fundamental Analysis
    Comments: 33  /  Views: 5,428