PREPARE TO DIE!!!!!
SIMPLY SPEAKING ECONOMICALLY......because what is good for America is not necessarily good for Americans. If you were on an Amphibeous landing craft storming Normandy....what you were doing was good for America but not necessarily good for you.
Leaders make arbitrary decisions about life and death all the time.....and right now tens of millions of Americans will economically die so we can save the banks.....it has been chosen to destroy the American economy as you know it in favor of allowing a few bankers to thrive.
SOON AMERICANS WILL REALIZE THAT THEY WERE SACRIFICED TO SAVE THE BANKERS....AND OUR LEADERS THOUGHT THAT WAS GOOD FOR AMERICA. Please note, when you hear leaders speak, they talk about what is good for America and making bets on America.....FEW ARE MAKING BETS ON MOST AMERICANS!!!!!!!!
Why do you think politicians are giving bankers bonuses and not cutting their own salaries despite an imploding economy and declining tax receipts. You my friends are about to learn that Zombulation is the policy of our nation.
By cutting off a leveraged credit dependent economy from credit.....you DESTROY the economy....plain and simple and the evidence is now replete with 1 in 4 children receiving food stamps and 1 in six Americans now living in poverty.
From George Washington's Blog:
Tim Duy - Director of Undergraduate Studies of the Department of Economics at the University of Oregon and the Director of the Oregon Economic Forum - noticed an amazing sentence in the minutes of the most recent meeting of the Fed Open Market Committee:
As has already been widely noted, the minutes of the most recent FOMC meeting reiterated the Fed’s eagerness to reverse, not extend, policy:
Overall, many participants viewed the risks to their inflation outlooks over the next few quarters as being roughly balanced. Some saw the risks as tilted to the downside in the near term, reflecting the quite elevated level of economic slack and the possibility that inflation expectations could begin to decline in response to the low level of actual inflation. But others felt that risks were tilted to the upside over a longer horizon, because of the possibility that inflation expectations could rise as a result of the public’s concerns about extraordinary monetary policy stimulus and large federal budget deficits. Moreover, these participants noted that banks might seek to reduce appreciably their excess reserves as the economy improves by purchasing securities or by easing credit standards and expanding their lending substantially. Such a development, if not offset by Federal Reserve actions, could give additional impetus to spending and, potentially, to actual and expected inflation. To keep inflation expectations anchored, all participants agreed that it was important for policy to be responsive to changes in the economic outlook and for the Federal Reserve to continue to clearly communicate its ability and intent to begin withdrawing monetary policy accommodation at the appropriate time and pace.
Read that carefully and realize this: An apparently not insignificant portion of the FOMC believes that there is a terrible risk that banks loosen their credit standards and increase lending at a time when, even if the economy posts expected gain, unemployment remains at unacceptably high levels. Silly me, I thought increased lending was the whole point of the exercise to lower interest and expand the balance sheet. That whole credit channel thing. If not to expand lending during a credit crunch, then what else are they expecting?
I am in shock that this sentence made it into the minutes. One can only conclude that a significant portion of policymakers are simply clueless. Or, more disconcerting, they have lost all faith in the ability of financial institutions to channel capital into activities with any hope of financial returns. Has the Fed now embraced the view that they manage the economy through little else then fueling and extinguishing bubbles?
Yves Smith has the definitive last word on the issue:
These statement is an indication of intellectual bankruptcy at the Fed, that they have learned nothing from the crisis. But that isn’t surprising. CEOs usually need to be fired after they have presided over a disaster. They are incapable of seeing and remedying their errors. Why should senior bureaucrats be any different?
SILLY FOOLS......AND YOU GUYS GET UPSET AT ALSTRY......YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET. JUST WAIT UNTIL EVERYTHING YOU OWN GETS TAXED.....AS THAT WILL BE THOUGHT OF AS BEING GOOD FOR AMERICA.....