Sen. Sanders goes off on Bernanke 03/03/09

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>"> name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

 

Posted for those who are interested.. I thought it was just Ron Paul asking all the important questions. Does anyone feel that revealing which banks received some of the bailout money is a good thing to do for the sake of transparency?

I love Ben Bernanke

godamn that comment about the interest rates, SO FUCKING TRUE. cunts.

Mr. Sanders comes off as pretty thick.

enh... I thought Bernanke came out pretty well.

I was merely grabbing the title of the youtube video and adding it to this topic name.

 

It's not really a case of who came out on top, it's whether or not the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has done all that he can to provide full transparency concerning where the money from the bailout out is being spread. I hope one day, just one day, the Fed become audited by an independent body.. but that seems like patchwork in the grand scheme of things to be honest.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Bread

but they were talking about short term loans right? money that only exists to temporary tighten up the balance of a bank. it's only air. trillions of air. one minute it's there, and the next minute it's all gone again.

and poof! there goes another generation of americans' social security. no one under 35 is going to see a penny of that shit.

  Bread said:

I was merely grabbing the title of the youtube video and adding it to this topic name.

 

It's not really a case of who came out on top, it's whether or not the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has done all that he can to provide full transparency concerning where the money from the bailout out is being spread. I hope one day, just one day, the Fed become audited by an independent body.. but that seems like patchwork in the grand scheme of things to be honest.

Of course he didn't... why should he???

  goDel said:

but they were talking about short term loans right? money that only exists to temporary tighten up the balance of a bank. it's only air. trillions of air. one minute it's there, and the next minute it's all gone again.

Yes, exactly. Money created out of thin air, typed digitally into a computer system and allows this theoretical money to appear one minute and vanish the next minute into the pockets of the bankers.

 

The creation of money allows an inevitable fuck up of the system straight from the outset of the situation. Legal tender are the words politicans use with excitement.

 

(Here is a person trying to make sense of it all) - I'm sorry Sir.. so money isn't backed by anything tangible, no mr politician? To which the rather uninformed politican spouts out "PRINT THE MONEY!", or nowadays, I believe it is referred to as "TYPE THE MONEY!", so to speak.

Will it not increase the money supply, devaluing the currency which could then potentially give rise to inflation? A great outcome?

 

Just imagine if monetary theory was taught in schools all across America. Students would not stand for the system when taking into account that a crash is inevitable, they'll see it as so corrupt and unbelievably contrived, for they would see the shortcomings of it all. Boom and bust cycle.. enjoy the boom, hate the busts.

 

  dese manz hatin said:

  Bread said:

I was merely grabbing the title of the youtube video and adding it to this topic name.

 

It's not really a case of who came out on top, it's whether or not the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has done all that he can to provide full transparency concerning where the money from the bailout out is being spread..

Of course he can't - Bernanke is a puppet.

I fixed your quote.

  Bread said:

Money created out of thin air, typed digitally into a computer system and allows this theoretical money to appear one minute and vanish the next minute into the pockets of the bankers.

 

no not really. that's the whole point of these short term loans. it doesn't actually go into the pockets of the bankers. they can't do anything with it, other than 'proving' they're solvable. the only thing it does, is telling other parties they're still triple-A rated and trustworthy (whatever that means nowadays). and that's the whole point, really. it makes the balance-sheets of banks looks better than they actually are and the idea is that because no-one really knows which banks got these 'loans', the banking-world looks a bit better and banks possibly trust each other more than they should. in practice they don't of course, and the only thing these short-term loans achieved, is making the accountants believe the sheets were balanced and healthy. and it's this point which makes sander's point actually pretty weak. he basically asks to know which banks made use of these short-term loans. this essentially contradicts with the goals these loans were there in the first place: creating trust. because the minute it becomes clear which banks got these loans, these banks would lose their credibility. and than we'd have a whole lot more lehman brothers, so to speak.

  goDel said:

  Bread said:

Money created out of thin air, typed digitally into a computer system and allows this theoretical money to appear one minute and vanish the next minute into the pockets of the bankers.

 

no not really. that's the whole point of these short term loans. it doesn't actually go into the pockets of the bankers. they can't do anything with it, other than 'proving' they're solvable. the only thing it does, is telling other parties they're still triple-A rated and trustworthy (whatever that means nowadays). and that's the whole point, really. it makes the balance-sheets of banks looks better than they actually are and the idea is that because no-one really knows which banks got these 'loans', the banking-world looks a bit better and banks possibly trust each other more than they should. in practice they don't of course, and the only thing these short-term loans achieved, is making the accountants believe the sheets were balanced and healthy. and it's this point which makes sander's point actually pretty weak. he basically asks to know which banks made use of these short-term loans. this essentially contradicts with the goals these loans were there in the first place: creating trust. because the minute it becomes clear which banks got these loans, these banks would lose their credibility. and than we'd have a whole lot more lehman brothers, so to speak.

I highlighted in bold the very problem.. you explain why the banks can not be revealed yet you seem unsure about the trust involved. What does trustworthy mean when money is involved anyway? Is this a stable system to live by then.. seems like it isn't if we are faced with the Fed lending more money to "heal" the wounds of the problem. It's just a short term treatment for the symptoms of an unstable system to live by and never really finding a curable solution.

  Bread said:

  goDel said:

  Bread said:

Money created out of thin air, typed digitally into a computer system and allows this theoretical money to appear one minute and vanish the next minute into the pockets of the bankers.

 

no not really. that's the whole point of these short term loans. it doesn't actually go into the pockets of the bankers. they can't do anything with it, other than 'proving' they're solvable. the only thing it does, is telling other parties they're still triple-A rated and trustworthy (whatever that means nowadays). and that's the whole point, really. it makes the balance-sheets of banks looks better than they actually are and the idea is that because no-one really knows which banks got these 'loans', the banking-world looks a bit better and banks possibly trust each other more than they should. in practice they don't of course, and the only thing these short-term loans achieved, is making the accountants believe the sheets were balanced and healthy. and it's this point which makes sander's point actually pretty weak. he basically asks to know which banks made use of these short-term loans. this essentially contradicts with the goals these loans were there in the first place: creating trust. because the minute it becomes clear which banks got these loans, these banks would lose their credibility. and than we'd have a whole lot more lehman brothers, so to speak.

I highlighted in bold the very problem.. you explain why the banks can not be revealed yet you seem unsure about the trust involved. What does trustworthy mean when money is involved anyway? Is this a stable system to live by then.. seems like it isn't if we are faced with the Fed lending more money to "heal" the wounds of the problem. It's just a short term treatment for the symptoms of an unstable system to live by and never really finding a curable solution.

it's because the alternative is even worse. in the alternative scenario there would hardly be any banks left. it's true what you say though, these short term loans are not a real solution in restoring trust. the idea is though, that with these loans time is bought to find real solutions. although the only solution at this moment seems to be "hoping the markets show some growth again, so the whole investment-pyramid game can continue again like it used to". the only thing the fed can do at this moment is keeping the financial system going from bad to worse. and as strange as it may seem they actually are succeeding in that. at least to a certain extent. but there's not much more the fed can do.