The Obama Deception

[Gilder]

It's not loose change, it simply lays out all the actions Obama has taken so far, and postulates that he is merely a tool of corporate, especially financial corporate interests. Nothing like loose change, except that it is a conspiracy video.

Other members who took the time to watch it allege it has conspiracy theories like in Loose Change and other 'documentaries.' It's enough for me to discredit the source (not even talking about how some have already disregarded Alex Jones).

It isn't what he hasn't been able to do, it is what he has already done. I thought I made that clear to you the first time.

He hasn't done much. One, it's only been two months, and two, the bailout was put together by Congress, not so much Obama. He's done what he can with the power he has, the rest he has to work with a stubborn Republican minority.

Again, because you haven't even watched the movie, you are arguing with points I have not made, the movie has not made, nor have I or the movie tried to make.

This, and the movie, has barely anything to do with I've said. The point isn't the damn movie, it's the point that you're damning him before two months have passed.

Furthermore, I am within my rights of no longer thinking Obama is anything but a tool of the elite, because I was also watching him closely during the campaign, and saw his votes int he senate, and heard his rhetoric during the primaries on Iran, as well as his and Clinton's trip to AIPAC the day ofter his nomination was sealed.

I know what he is up to. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I am done. Like I said, the AIG faux outrage sealed the deal for me. Sorry.

Sure you are. I'm also within my own rights to think it's stupid to judge him barely two months in. Just 'cause you can say it doesn't mean I can't convince you otherwise.

 

[Neomega]

Other members who took the time to watch it allege it has conspiracy theories like in Loose Change and other 'documentaries.' It's enough for me to discredit the source (not even talking about how some have already disregarded Alex Jones).

I know AJ is not a good source, the reason why I posted the movie is he succinctly lays out the reasoning why I think Obama is owned!

He hasn't done much. One, it's only been two months, and two, the bailout was put together by Congress, not so much Obama. He's done what he can with the power he has, the rest he has to work with a stubborn Republican minority.

Can you not read? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

This, and the movie, has barely anything to do with I've said. The point isn't the damn movie, it's the point that you're damning him before two months have passed.

Seriously, can you not read? Is that all you can say? It's been two months? Do you think that is genius? It has been more than two months, if you read what I wrote.

Sure you are. I'm also within my own rights to think it's stupid to judge him barely two months in. Just 'cause you can say it doesn't mean I can't convince you otherwise.

Oh look, it's the two months argument!

Hey, if you aren't even going to bother to read what I am writing, and instead are just going to put your hands over your ears and yell two months, I am done talking with you.

I know Washington's all in a tizzy, and everybody is pointing fingers at each other, and saying it's their fault, the Democrats' fault, and the Republicans' fault. Listen: I'll take responsibility. I'm the President.

Which is exactly what the movie said Obama was built to do. They called him the fall guy.

 

[Rashiminos]

I'm guessing you've just recently lent your ear to AJ.

 

[Neomega]

I'm guessing you've just recently lent your ear to AJ.

Nope. I've known about him for at least 5 years.

 

[Rashiminos]

Was there some attitude change towards AJ within that time?

Edit: I'm guessing it happened recently then. If you gave AJ any credibility, then you would have known about his position on Obama.

 

[Bast]

AIPAC

Please just be honest and tell us who you're really angry at. I so hate it when people beat around the bush.

 

[Frank327]

What you aren't understanding is that what you are criticizing is the foundation that capitalism and modern prosperity is built on. You could get rid of it if you want, but the modern economy will go away with it.

The solution is so simple. When that next year the 105 dollars is asked back, the banker should create out of nothing that extra 5 dollars interest. He can then spend it. What follows is that there's as much money as debt in the system. You don't need to change everything. You just need to change that small detail, and it would be profitable for the bankers.

Besides, the human prosperity began long before this mechanic was in place. This system is in no way needed. It's thought up by bankers, for bankers. Of course those "experts of economy" will tell you it's needed.

 

[Cutlass]

The solution is so simple. When that next year the 105 dollars is asked back, the banker should create out of nothing that extra 5 dollars interest. He can then spend it. What follows is that there's as much money as debt in the system. You don't need to change everything. You just need to change that small detail, and it would be profitable for the bankers.

You really are not understanding how banking works. Bankers are not creating something out of thin air in quite the way you think they are. Before there were central banks, banks could issue their own promissory notes. And if the bank was trusted, then that would function to all intents and purposes as a fiat currency. What having a central bank taking over that function meant was that the information needed to judge what someone else's promissory notes were worth just became a whole lot simpler. Lower risk and lower information costs allows people to more rationally plan economic activity. Without it, people are only guessing that when a bank A and a bank B both issue notes that they claim are worth X amount of silver or gold, then you could in fact go to the relevant bank and redeem the note for that amount of metal (and that the metal would be pure). The central banks also have the ability to regulate the banks in a number of ways. One of those is the reserve requirement. What that means is that a bank can't issue 30 or even 100 times what they take in in deposits. Because banks have to maintain a set reserve, they have less ability to pump up the fiat currency, and at the same time are less likely to become insolvent through taking too much risk. And that works pretty well to keep the average bank out of trouble while maintaining some controls on how much money is really out there.

There is no advantage to a bank in loaning at 0% interest and then inventing it's profit with an accounting gimmick. No one would trust the bank, and it would get no depositors.

Besides, the human prosperity began long before this mechanic was in place. This system is in no way needed. It's thought up by bankers, for bankers. Of course those "experts of economy" will tell you it's needed.

But industrialization required huge projects. And huge projects required huge financing. And huge financing requires banking.

 

[Neomega]

But industrialization required huge projects. And huge projects required huge financing. And huge financing requires banking.

requires corporations, nto banking.

And yes, banks are needed, the federal reserve is not.

 

[Frank327]

You really are not understanding how banking works. Bankers are not creating something out of thin air in quite the way you think they are. Before there were central banks, banks could issue their own promissory notes. And if the bank was trusted, then that would function to all intents and purposes as a fiat currency. What having a central bank taking over that function meant was that the information needed to judge what someone else's promissory notes were worth just became a whole lot simpler. Lower risk and lower information costs allows people to more rationally plan economic activity. Without it, people are only guessing that when a bank A and a bank B both issue notes that they claim are worth X amount of silver or gold, then you could in fact go to the relevant bank and redeem the note for that amount of metal (and that the metal would be pure). The central banks also have the ability to regulate the banks in a number of ways. One of those is the reserve requirement. What that means is that a bank can't issue 30 or even 100 times what they take in in deposits. Because banks have to maintain a set reserve, they have less ability to pump up the fiat currency, and at the same time are less likely to become insolvent through taking too much risk. And that works pretty well to keep the average bank out of trouble while maintaining some controls on how much money is really out there.

My problem is not with banks making money out of thin air. It is that when this money is created, even more debt is created. Basically, there's more debt than money, and because interest continues, debt is created faster than money. That means no matter how well you do individually, there's always a majority of people in debt to the banks.

Besides, this system is one that can never be sustained, just by how it's designed. It relies on an exponential growth of credit. The money supply can't stop growing for a decent amount of time, because then the debts will catch up with the money, and the system collapses. It's an eternal race to print money to make sure debt doesn't catch up.

From your answer to my problem, I'm wondering if you know what I was talking about.

 

[civ_king]

Ponzi Scheme...

 

[Cutlass]

My problem is not with banks making money out of thin air. It is that when this money is created, even more debt is created. Basically, there's more debt than money, and because interest continues, debt is created faster than money. That means no matter how well you do individually, there's always a majority of people in debt to the banks.

Besides, this system is one that can never be sustained, just by how it's designed. It relies on an exponential growth of credit. The money supply can't stop growing for a decent amount of time, because then the debts will catch up with the money, and the system collapses. It's an eternal race to print money to make sure debt doesn't catch up.

From your answer to my problem, I'm wondering if you know what I was talking about.

To be honest, I think I do understand what you are saying, but I don't take it seriously. I don't see how what you are calling a disaster is in any way a problem.

A bank takes in a deposit. They pay the depositor interest. They hold a piece of that deposit as a reserve, and they loan out the rest. They earn interest on the portion they loan, and that interest covers the interest they pay on the deposits, plus cover their operating costs, plus make some profits. The rate of interest they pay depositors depends on the market conditions and how much they have to pay in order to attract deposits. The interest rate they charge on loans is determined by what is needed to cover their costs and have some profit. Rates are also higher if the risk of the loan is seen to be higher, because part of their costs includes those loans that are not repaid.

Now over the long term there are a lot of loans out there, but so what? If the system is properly regulated, then only those loans which make sense in and of themselves are made. So as long as there is no deflation the system keeps chugging along just fine indefinitely.

The problem now is not that a lot of loans were made, but that evasion of regulation, deregulation, and mismanagement led to the issuing of a huge slew of credit that simply a lot riskier than what should have been allowed by law. Mortgages for an inflated housing bubble so that the value of the mortgage exceed the value of the house, too many second mortgages, mortgages without sane down payments or collateral... In short, all things that can and should have been regulated.

With proper regulation we just are not on the slippery slope to disaster that you seem to think we are.

 

[Cutlass]

requires corporations, nto banking.

And yes, banks are needed, the federal reserve is not.

So you would rather have an economy that simply crashed and burned and was completely unstable at the best of time and ended up in a commie revolution simply because communism offers more freedom and prosperity than you are willing to tolerate?

 

[potatokiosk]

requires corporations, nto banking.

And yes, banks are needed, the federal reserve is not.

Not needed, no, but it's nice if some central authority is able to influence the size of the money supply. If the federal reserve does its job properly it makes the economy more stable.

 

[Neomega]

So you would rather have an economy that simply crashed and burned and was completely unstable at the best of time and ended up in a commie revolution simply because communism offers more freedom and prosperity than you are willing to tolerate?

I would rather money were created by the United States government at pre-set formulas, unmanipulable, and completely public knowledge, so that one could know exactly how much more money will be available next year. I further would rather if money had to be lent out, it be lent out by the government, not by banks, because it is highly unfair the rich get to get the new money first, and it is highly unfair simply by being rich, a bank can loan out $10 for every $1 it has in reality. If credit is so important to our economy, than it should be treated as a utility, not a money making scheme.

Furthermore, I don't think investment banks etc should be allowed credit by this pie in the sky government utility, because investing / shorting / cds are not essential to our economy. If they want to invest or make loans, they should be forced to use the real cash of their customers.

What we have right now is an association by the bankers run for the bankers.

 

[potatokiosk]

I further would rather if money had to be lent out, it be lent out by the government, not by banks, because it is highly unfair the rich get to get the new money first, and it is highly unfair simply by being rich, a bank can loan out $10 for every $1 it has in reality. If credit is so important to our economy, than it should be treated as a utility, not a money making scheme.

I kind of agree, or at least I wonder why nobody ever suggests creating a government bank to give out loans to keep the economy running instead of bailing out banks.

 

[Cutlass]

I would rather money were created by the United States government at pre-set formulas, unmanipulable, and completely public knowledge, so that one could know exactly how much more money will be available next year. I further would rather if money had to be lent out, it be lent out by the government, not by banks, because it is highly unfair the rich get to get the new money first, and it is highly unfair simply by being rich, a bank can loan out $10 for every $1 it has in reality. If credit is so important to our economy, than it should be treated as a utility, not a money making scheme.

Furthermore, I don't think investment banks etc should be allowed credit by this pie in the sky government utility, because investing / shorting / cds are not essential to our economy. If they want to invest or make loans, they should be forced to use the real cash of their customers.

What we have right now is an association by the bankers run for the bankers.

Bolded portion tells me you want very low growth and high instability.

 

[Neomega]

Bolded portion tells me you want very low growth and high instability.

No, I want a strong dollar. I do not like inflation, and I do not believe it is essential. I consider those lies of certain economic schools. I also think that attempts at controlling the economy only make things worse, and more unjust. In other words, I want the job of the money printers to simply be to give us the tool of paper exchange certificates, and let the economy suss itself out.

 

[potatokiosk]

Bolded portion tells me you want very low growth and high instability.

Maybe you could explain why, in your opinion, what he advocates would lead to instability and slow growth? It might be a better argument strategy than telling him what he wants.

 

[Cutlass]

Maybe you could explain why, in your opinion, what he advocates would lead to instability and slow growth? It might be a better argument strategy than telling him what he wants.

True. But I wouldn't expect it to be effective.

The economy grows at varying rates for varying reasons. If the money supply does not match the needs of the economy, then the economy is disrupted.