It's true, most of our money is not there. It's just imaginary, numbers on a piece of paper. Not like with Scrooge McDuck, who swims in his own. The money isn't stored in the banks dungeons, and there's no point in robbing them anymore. Banks only have little cash physically placed in them. When you make a deposit and leave your cash in the bank, it is immediately transferred to global stockmarket, where it will be invested in order to make more money, firstly to the bank itself and then to you as what they call the interest.

It's a tough decision. 7 billion could as far as I know save the state of affairs or it could double the inflation. No such measure has taken place in the history, so this would be the first one, thoguh HUGE. we know already, that what money loses its value, as it is going to now, banks will go corrupt. And in the early 90s in Finland for example, a lot of companies/corporations that had their money invested in certain banks survived. A lot of banks went corrupt and along them a lot of people and businesses, all lost their savings. And the state could only help those that it could with a low budget, because at that point there was no money to be collected. So a few survived. One or two banks, some big corporations and the rich because they had so much to begin with.

So with inflation the value of the currency decreases, meaning, that there's a lot of money about, but it's not worth anything. We all know what happened in Germany in the early 20th century, or what's going on in Zimbabwe right now, where inflation is at 100000%. Drawing physical money from the people is an inevitable measure. As long as everyone still has that money, there's no possibility the value of it would grow back to where it was a few years back. Otherwise everyone would be rich, and the prices would go up again, and... wait, that's just what's happening now. I think paying the sum is inevitable, but I'm not sure if 7 billion is the right amount. I'd like to hear some arguments behind it, but I for one can't make better suggestions. They've got professional economists counting the amount, and I believe in them more than in the average Joe Public who only knows the name of his dog.

One option, of course would be to close the international/national stock market and prevent income from all the corporations that are part of this cycle. And in the end, it's only 20 bucks per person.

BroSpence wrote: Isn't it interesting that the Fed. Reserve was partially created to help prevent our banks from failing and all that, then the great depression happened a few years later. Anyways, I just sent a bunch of Emails to representatives.

"William Greider: The Fed is the problem, not the solution

Economic Free-Fall?

By William Greider
The Nation magazine, New York
Wednesday, July 30, 2008

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080818/greider - http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080818/greider

Washington can act with breathtaking urgency when the right people want something done. In this case, the people are Wall Street's titans, who are scared witless at the prospect of their historic implosion. Congress quickly agreed to enact a gargantuan bailout, with more to come, to calm the anxieties and halt the deflation of Wall Street giants. Put aside partisan bickering, no time for hearings, no need to think through the deeper implications. We haven't seen "bipartisan cooperation" like this since Washington decided to invade Iraq.

In their haste to do anything the financial guys seem to want, Congress and the lame-duck President are, I fear, sowing far more profound troubles for the country. First, while throwing our money at Wall Street, government is neglecting the grave risk of a deeper catastrophe for the real economy of producers and consumers. Second, Washington's selective generosity for influential financial losers is deforming democracy and opening the path to an awesomely powerful corporate state. Third, the rescue has not succeeded, not yet. Banking faces huge losses ahead, and informed insiders assume a far larger federal bailout will be needed -- after the election. No one wants to upset voters by talking about it now. The next President, once in office, can break the bad news..."

and this:

"

Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (Paperback)

What was the name of Metallica's first album?

"I don't know what I'd do if I hadn't spent my career paying myself millions of dollars and accruing a vast personal fortune while taking pointless risks with people's hard earned savings.

The credit crunch came about because banks loaned money to people who couldn’t pay it back. That’s right, the upstanding guardians of our finances, the people we entrust with our savings and pensions, the people into whose system most of our paychecks are fed directly every month, effectively walked into a bookmaker’s with all our money and lost it betting on a 3 legged donkey. Then governments use taxpayer’s money – our money – to bail them out. There was really no need to throw that money away in the first place. The banks were profitable and operating in a time of remarkable prosperity and security, so the only real motive for behaving so irresponsibly was the temptation of a fast profit. Or, to put it another way, uncontrolled greed.

And what of the irresponsible borrowers? Vast hordes of the financially disadvantaged did not storm the City brandishing pitchforks and flaming torches, demanding unlimited credit. No, highly paid experts dreamed up a range of financial products and services aimed specifically at that sector of the market, and then spent huge amounts money aggressively targeting them. People who previously could never have got near a mortgage were actively encouraged to borrow way above their ability to pay back if there was even a minor financial hiccup solely so they could get a toe onto the bottom rung of the property ladder.

"Let's look at the timeline that led McCain to Washington.

It starts Wednesday at 8 a.m., when Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma calls Barack Obama and suggests that Obama and McCain put out a joint statement supporting the congressional effort since so many of the positions the two candidates have on this issue are the same.

Coburn and Obama have worked together before. Coburn says this could be helpful. Obama agrees.

He phones McCain with the idea. McCain says: Not a bad idea, let me get back to you.

In the meantime, McCain phones the White House. He suggests that Bush call a summit of congressional leaders, as well as Obama and McCain, to add support to the legislative effort. Oh, and allow me, Mr. President, to make the suggestion public. It could help my image, one presumes he suggests. Bush agrees.

McCain then calls Obama, six hours after Obama's morning call and agrees to a joint statement.

Within minutes, McCain has called a press conference, suspended his campaign, tried to delay the debate, announced a White House summit. In Florida, Obama is floored.

Senior Democrats are furious as well. Banking committee chairman Chris Dodd calls this effort an "unwarranted three-hour distraction."

Bailout plan will succeed

Thursday, McCain arrives in Washington but never joins the deliberations. Senate majority leader Harry Reid asks for, but never receives, a statement on where McCain wants to go on the issues. Reid later says: "I have asked John McCain where he stands and the only stand I've seen is when McCain is in front of a microphone."

Reporters ask the principals how often over the last days McCain been in contact with them. "Never" and "seldom" are the answers.

McCain does meet with dissident House Republicans, but neither supports or rejects their position. What those Republicans do figure out, though, is that cover has arrived.

They go to the White House and say they will vote no on any package. This package is dead, they tell the media.

Earlier, we mentioned sausage-making. There is no chance this bailout package will be ditched. But its final form is yet to be determined.

Now it's Friday afternoon. Guess what? The debate is back on. Press conferences are indicating that progress is being made.

Recently, polls have steadily showed Obama inching ahead and the issue propelling him is the economy. That fact may have unsettled McCain, caused him to give in to his known risk-taking side. He did get a photo at the White House.

He did make a difference in the process.

It was a negative one."

As far as giving up, the point was to say " let's just hand over the money again and again until they learn their lesson; 'cause we sure don't seem to learn ours!"

Add to this, that Bush seems insistent that taking any time to think things out will cause more damage than good. IF my government is going to throw $700 billion (estimates are that it will eventually come in at a trillion) at a problem not of its' making, then they better take the time and do it right. Haste makes waste, and IV, you said that governments have a tendency to do so.

And Bush saying that he doesn't believe that regulations should be to strict so as not to impede the free market ... well, as the Republican Conservatives are telling him - free markets mean winners and losers. The losers shouldn't be entitled to bailouts because of greed and bad planning.

If the free market needs government bailouts and subsidies, then the government is well withing its' rights to impose regulations to hopefully avoid the same thing happening again. Self regulation didn't work in the S & L scandal, it didn't do a damn thing to stop the Long Term Mgmt hedge fund from blowing up, and the financial and investment industry proved once more this time that they have no clue how to so.

Let's try something new.

Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It

 BY TERRY JONES

"How to Bail Out Wall St. at No Cost to the Taxpayers

Thom Hartmann wrote an interesting piece on how to bail out Wall St. without costing the taxpayers a dime. The idea is to create a new government agency to manage the bailout. The treasury would then loan it money to bail out Wall St. firms that are in trouble. The government would then institute a http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/26 - Securities Turnover Excise Tax of 0.25% on stock trades with revenues going to the new agency. For long-term investors who buy stock in companies they believe in and keep it for years adding a quarter of 1% to the cost hardly matters, and even to speculators it is not huge. It is estimated that such a tax would generate at least $150 billion a year, so the $700 billion load would be paid off in 5 years. The US has had such a tax in the past and used it to finance the Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII. Many other countries have a similar tax. This proposal is clearly a viable alternative to either giving Wall St. $700 billion as a freebie or even getting stock in return for the money. Wall St. managers might even prefer it to a plan that limited their future compensation. Mother Jones lists yet five more http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9955_five_alternative_different_bailout_plans.html - alternative bailout plans ."

The Votemaster

But the president's on TV right now.  They've apparently come to an agreement on the bailout.  That can only mean one thing.  We're going to get screwed again.