[Samseau]

(09-30-2014 03:06 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 12:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The key turning point on this graph was when the dollar was taken off the gold standard. Once gold was thrown out, everything becomes fiat and money just gets printed via debt and the FED, allowing those with connections to the gov to make the most money (which are usually giant mega-corporations). For example, huge banks have "special discount lending windows" where they can borrow from the FED at firesale prices (like .5% interest rate) us normal plebs cannot. This has been going on for decades.

Also, iknowexactly really looks foolish, because it has been under our precious democrat, "spread the wealth around," socialist Obama that the wealth gap has grown the highest.

I read somewhere that about 2,300 families own half of the USA's net worth. It's pretty obvious that Obama is one of the worst failures in USA history, just from judging by Obama's own standards.

You have a good point about the divergence beginning with the loss of the gold standard, which also began a big round of inflation in the late 70's. In the current depression, the largely unaccountable Fed chose the route of printing money to give to the banks, rather than printing it and "dropping it from helicopters" as Milton Friedman once said was a remedy for deflation.

Somehow it was seen as more morally acceptable to pump money into Big Finance without accountability than just give a few thousand dollars to every American. Because that would be, like socialism. That wouldn't have expanded the Fed's balance sheet or the money supply any more than QE and the series of asset bubbles we've seen since 2008 and the large skimming of Goldman Sachs, B of A, JPM, Citigroup, et al out of all of these transactions. It might have meant people would have bought things. "Cash for clunkers" was the only real distribution to ordinary people, and it wasn't from the Fed, it was fiscal from the government and tiny in comparison to the money printing.

IKE can speak for himself, but I don't think he was endorsing Obama's policies, so there's nothing foolish about what he posted.

I've said that I think Obama was a Manchurian Candidate for Wall Street. How else can you explain the lack of prosecutions for the huge frauds from mortgage securitization?

"Obama the socialist" is a big straw man. The guy never did a program - Obamacare included - that wasn't a big bonanza for the oligarchy (e.g. insurance companies and health care industry).

Don't forget Eric Holder. As the Attorney General that guy should have been all over Wall Street post 2008 crashes and market scams that were going on. He didn't do a damn thing. America has a long history of throwing bankers in jail, and when the biggest fiasco in the last 100 years happens not a single man is held responsible despite causing trillions in damage? Pathetic.

And yes, it would have been better to pump money directly into the hands of the people instead of big banks, although that would have caused serious inflation, but the problem with that there would be nothing to tax, or collect interest on! Our overlords aren't happy with half the country's wealth they need more.