Skip to content
thepete.com - » FR$ thepete.com

TheAdvertising:
:gnisitrevdAehT

Senate Passes the Bailout Bill After All

by ThePete 6:00 am 2008-10-02

You knew they were going to do it.

If you read this blog you know I knew they were going to do it.

Forget that the Federal Reserve already sunk $630 billion into our economy. I was shocked when I saw a Twitter post from thePuck Tuesday that the Fed had decided to move on its own. Earlier in the day, I saw another socnetizen in my circle microblog something like “what difference does $70 billion make? Apparently a lot.”

He was referring to the $70 billion less the Fed was borrowing from other central banks.

While I was shocked, it wasn’t shocked because the Fed went ahead and did it. I was shocked because the Federal Reserve is usually pretty low key. They speak in riddles and hide in the shadows. Don’t believe me? Check out FederalReserveEducation.org and see how long it takes for your ADD to kick in. These guys do not want us to know what they’re up to, or else we already would.

So, the idea that these guys would make a move like this and draw all sorts of attention to them, is very surprising. Why should they not want to draw attention to themselves?

Simple, they’re the real power in our country. But I’m digressing. This post is about the USG passing a bailout bill anyway.

This is what baffles me. How can the media not cover this in any serious way? Did a single person on TV or in print ask the question of anyone in congress: “WHY do we need the bailout now??”

Yet, yesterday, a bailout bill passed the Senate.

The good news is that now the House needs to vote on it. Hopefully, they will say no.

The idea of bailing the water out of the sinking ship that is the American economy pisses me off.

A bailout is stealing money from our future pockets and putting it in the hands of the rich. Hell, it’s stealing from our pockets now, too. All that money ($630 + $700 billion= $1.33 TRILLION) will drive the value of the dollar straight down. Of course, if you’re disgustingly rich, you’ll hardly feel it.

That’s what this ultimately comes down to. The fucking rich and their rich pals in government.

This is no democracy. Its a corporatocracy. It’s the feudal system all over again.

We all work for corporations/feuds that kiss the ass of the king/George. The king/George keeps the military working for the good of the corporations/feuds keep the peasants (us) in line.

Man, it sounds so extreme, but with the shrinking middle class and the ever-present corporation, I feel like the metaphor fits.

UPDATE: My original post-title was “USG Passes Bailout After All” I realized that was inaccurate so I changed it.

Socialism and the Federal Reserve

by ThePete 3:58 pm 2008-10-01
utterli-image
In 1913, Woodrow Wilson (see portrait above) signed into law the Federal Reserve Act. The new law allowed for the creation of a central banking system. What does this have to do with socialism and why would I be writing about this in the middle of the current economic strife here in the US?

Not surprisingly, there has been a lot of writing (and blogging) about our economy. I’ve written about it a lot over the years, but most recently I blogged (here: http://thepete.com/…he-bailout ) about why I’m against the bailout, mainly because it breaks our own rules. After that, I blogged about why it’s bad to break our own rules (here: http://thepete.com/…onable-man ), basically explaining that breaking our own rules makes us look like untrustworthy liars and it makes our laws look like jokes.

But in that last post I just linked to, I commented about socialism. People are accusing the USG of practicing the "S" word in bailing out Wall Street. I said that those accusers are both right and wrong. Effectively, they’re right, but literally, not exactly.

Here’s where the Federal Reserve comes into it.

The $700 billion the USG wants to give Wall Street will need to be borrowed before it can be gotten from We The People in the form of taxes. All banks and the USG borrow money directly from the central bank–the Fed. Now, the Fed is under no effective control of the USG. We don’t vote for a single person who works for the Federal Reserve and the Fed’s chairman is appointed the president for 14 years. (!)

In any practical sense the Fed is not a government agency. As a result, we can consider them a private organization. I’ve heard some say they are a legal corporation, but I haven’t seen proof of this.

So, since the Fed is private and the USG is borrowing money from them, effectively, the Fed is bailing out Wall Street, not the USG. So, really, it’s corporatism, not socialism.

But it sure feels like it’s socialism, doesn’t it?

Now, that’s the nutshell. Not surprisingly, I have a lot more on the Federal Reserve loaning us money to bail out Wall Street and how the Fed is private. If you’re interested, keep reading.

Effectively, though, I’ve made my point.

Isn’t that funny? I keep having to use the word "effectively" because all this money stuff is so stupid and vague there’s nothing tangible about it–just like our currency. If only we had a gold reserve… :(

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterlireply-count Replies.

More…

The Federal Reserve Waits for No Government

by ThePete 6:57 pm 2008-09-30
utterli-image
So, remember how there was all that funny hubbub regarding the US Congress trying to spend all this time working on a bailout bill for Wall Street? Remember how Bush, this morning, gave another bit of speechification (here: http://is.gd/3lH2 ) on how we really, really, really need to pass a bill to help Wall Street? Perhaps you remember that other time he talked about the economy where he said that if we didn’t do something the entire economy was in danger?

As Jon Stewart might say:

Funny story!

Turns out the Federal Reserve decided to go on and bail out Wall Street all on it’s own!

Yesterday, the Fed took it upon itself to borrow more money from other central banks around the world. Europe, the UK and Japan all took part in the fun, allowing the Fed to inject $630 billion into our economy, via loans to banks.

Now, the above screencap comes from Bloomberg.com (here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news ) but neither CNN.com nor Money.CNN.com had any headlines about this. I did a quick search through Google News and it looks like the hardcore money sites are covering this, but I didn’t see any of the mainstream news sites with headlines about it.

So, this means, once again, America doesn’t know what the heck is going on with it’s own money.

Not only that, but the Bloomberg article I cite above doesn’t mention a damn thing about how $630 billion will impact inflation.

In fact, I haven’t stumbled across anything mainstream newsish that even talks about inflation in the context of today’s economy or the bailout or now, the Fed’s bailout.

So, what the heck happens now?

Damned if I know.

Can’t imagine why the tax-payers need to pay for anything now. But watch the media ignore the Fed deal and the Congress push through a bill just the same.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterlireply-count Replies.

Kucinich Reminds Us of Our Debt-Based Economy

by ThePete 2:32 pm 2008-09-29
utterli-image
I’m no economist but I do find physics interesting. Laws of physics are immutable, generally speaking. One of those laws is that neither energy nor matter can be destroyed or created–just transferred.

A truly stable economy should work the same way, in my estimation. The economic law of "supply and demand" is pretty similar to that physical law I mentioned above, when you think about it.

The economic law of "supply and demand" says that prices are determined based on those to things, supply and demand. High supply means low prices (to make sure you sell as many as you can) and low supply means high prices (to make sure you make as much money as you can). Demand works similarly but is inverted, with high demand making prices high and low demand making them low. In short, if you create more supply, the price goes down.

When it comes to money, the physical laws should apply here, too. After all, paper money used to represent gold. When new deposits of gold were found, the value of all gold would drop. However, back in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed and our current system of banking was created. Any kind of precious metals were cast aside and money stopped being based on the value of gold and started being based on the "good credit of the United States of America."

In other words, the US dollar came to represent the productivity of the American economy.

Now, you can’t just create money any more than you can just create matter or energy. The latter can’t be done because the universe won’t let us. However, because the concepts of money and economy are entirely man-made, the universe has no such regulations over our monetary system.

As a result, new money can be, and often is, injected into our economy. This money is either effectively created from nothing (lended/borrowed) or is literally newly created money (when banks or the USG borrow from the Fed). Either way, the result is inflation and, finally, a weak dollar.

And when the US dollar starts getting compared to the Canadian dollar (as it has been for about a year now), you know things are bad.

This morning on Democracy Now, Dennis Kucinich reminded us that our entire financial system is based on debt. The below is an excerpt that comes from a transcript (here: http://www.democracynow.org/…s_congress ) of an interview Dem Representative Dennis Kucinich gave to Amy Goodman this morning:

AMY GOODMAN: The issue of corporate compensation? According to the Institute for Policy Studies, chief executives of large US companies made an average of $10.5 million last year, 344 times the pay of the average worker.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, this is really a fundamental issue in our society. Again, it’s all about how the wealth accelerates to the top and how work is not respected or rewarded for its own intrinsic value. We’ve really moved, you know. We’ve made a transition in our economy from industrial capitalism to finance capitalism. And with this debt-based economy that we have, where we keep—this public and private debt keeps exploding, as it has under—as it did under Alan Greenspan, quadrupling in a period of twenty years, we see ourselves in a position where the debt just keeps building and building and building, and we’re calling that economic progress. It is not.

We need to challenge again the underlying assumptions about a debt-based economy, about whether or not we should revisit the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which has an unfortunately privatized monetary system and created a system which includes banks having the ability to create money almost out of thin air with a fractional reserve. We have to look at the implications of that, maybe put the Federal Reserve under the Treasury and have the Treasury really be responsive to the interests of the American people and keeping the economy going.

Yep, the Federal Reserve is a private entity. We don’t vote for anyone who runs it, though we do vote for the guy who appoints the guy who runs it (aka, the president appoints the Fed Chairman). But considering how much control the Fed has over our lives and our money, it seems like we should have a bit more control over them. I really wish Kucinich had a real chance of ever winning the White House. I think it’s his honesty that prohibits this.

Wow, just read that the bill didn’t pass in the House. Kucinich got his way and Wall Street is totally panicking. Looks like that chant I heard down on Wall Street last Thursday was right: "You break it! You bought it!"

Dig that CRAZY irony!!

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterlireply-count Replies.

TheBlurb: "Happy new year, but keep your fingers crossed." -Bill Moyers
updated on 01/07/09 11:34:14 Change it! Archives