Poor in America? Shouldn't be in America-Toxic Waste Version

[swbluto]

so amazing how little people understand about the fed but seem to think they are experts. the federal reserve policy is there to keep the banking system solvent after hank paulsen pushed lehman into bankruptcy back then and precipitated the financial crisis. there was no need to do that since the fed had a plan to take control of lehman and unwind it over several years without damaging the credit markets. instead the commercial paper market dried up overnight and sent the banking system and the immense commercial paper market into a catatonic state.

if the federal reserve had not been able to talk bush into going to congress and getting help there would be untold millions still outa work.

all these rich people who think they are gonna make so much money with their gold stash because they wanna see all the poor people in the hole where they should be and the world is only for them and their gold. so they make sure they have their bushmaster rifles to kill everyone who gets in their way when society hits the wall of unemployment.

the federal reserve has clearly stated goals of restoring maximum employment, not maximum riches for all of you richy rich people. hope your gold collapses even more today. you deserve it.

I know how the federal reserve works, that's not the problem. We're only arguing over who it primarily is intended to benefit and doesn't benefit.

I take it you don't know how fractional reserve banking works? That's necessary to understand the money system, y'know. When you understand that, and you can see how it ensures the systematic increase in the concentration of wealth amongst the banksters, then you might be onto understanding the fed.

See, there's a problem with the theory "It's there simply for the people".

If it was there for the people, then surely stealing wealth via inflation and siphoning it off to the financial classes helps a lot, don't it? If it was there for the people, why would it show historical preference to the big bankers at the expense of the smaller ones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve

Many economists, following Milton Friedman, believe that the Federal Reserve inappropriately refused to lend money to small banks during the bank runs of 1929.

If it was there for the people, I can think of better ways to increase employment than shoveling money into the hands of the financial elite. Like, oh, employing people - that would be the Keynesian prescription (Or, might I say, common sense prescription) if employment was the sole goal.

A major goal of the fed is the systematically ensured longterm increase in the concentration of wealth amongst banksters, and they certainly did that in short order. When the economy was growing like it was during the greater part of the 20th century, sure they needed American society's help to exploit the resources and employment was (one of) their primary aim(s), but that's no longer necessary in an era of globalization (And automation and the highest productivity per worker the world has seen, thanks in part to technology.).

 

[spinningmagnets]

I think I understand what the OP is trying to say, and I respect his opinion. However...I have traveled some in my 53 years, and if I was poor, I would prefer to be poor in the US. Just my opinion...

 

[swbluto]

I think I understand what the OP is trying to say, and I respect his opinion. However...I have traveled some in my 53 years, and if I was poor, I would prefer to be poor in the US. Just my opinion...

Hehe, I'm not saying move to Malaysia. Somewhere where the wealth levels are comparable, unemployment rates are OK and the gini coefficient is lower (Like, Germany or Australia) would be fine with me.

Coincidentally, it seems unemployment rates tend to be lower in places where the gini coefficient is lower. Does that surprise anyone? (Does it surprise anyone how a culture of fairness would value the employment of people?)

Also, I'm not entirely sure if much of the older generation understands the current state of the economy... If there's anyone who doesn't realize that it's changed, I'll let everyone know. IT CHANGED! And, not for the 'better'.

 

[wineboyrider]

[youtube]i2AqGQirW1Y[/youtube]

 

[Dauntless]

I think I understand what the OP is trying to say, and I respect his opinion. However...I have traveled some in my 53 years, and if I was poor, I would prefer to be poor in the US. Just my opinion...

There's all kinds of "Poor," now isn't there?

(Does it surprise anyone how a culture of fairness would value the employment of people?)

Also, I'm not entirely sure if much of the older generation understands the current state of the economy... If there's anyone who doesn't realize that it's changed, I'll let everyone know. IT CHANGED! And, not for the 'better'.

The economy isn't what it used to be, but then, it NEVER WAS! Anyone who gets caught up in how it "Changed" is the one who doesn't understand the economy. Did the predictability of the sun rising this morning also shock you?

As for "Culture of fairness," the definition of fairness to those who insist on using that word is that the speaker gets HIS way, no matter how unfair to others. If you studied logic in school you'd know your statement about a "Culture of fairness would value the employment of people" is automatically false because it's an 'If/Then' statement with an unsupportable If, which of course makes it false. If someone is caught stealing and is fired, is this somehow "Unfair?????" Of course not. If the guy who is always doing something decides one day to suddenly ATTACK my brother and yank him down from the equipment literally sending flying through the air, is it "Fair" for the union to threaten a strike once he gets his overdue firing? No, it's not. This guy wound up in a shootout in the parking lot a few weeks later and at last there was no danger of him coming back.

And that fat sweaty banking system from the cartoon: It employs how many people? (Good paying jobs for pretty much anyone who work there, by the way.) How many more are able to buy a house, etc., because of it? HOW MUCH does a healthy banking system make possible for you personally? As with a lot of things targeted by the 'Us vs. Them' crowd, the truth of the matter is the banks are getting this because we do benefit when they get it. That there's better ways for us to benefit isn't something have tantrums about the banks over.

Reminds me of the guy who called the Larry King show and started screaming about 'The Trilateral Commission, the Trilateral Commission,' to which Larry King responded with the question "Can you tell me what exactly the Trilateral Commission DOES?"

The man said "Well, they get together and they TRILATERATE!"

The trademark Larry King closer with such a caller is "Have a good evening, sir!"

 

[swbluto]

The economy isn't what it used to be, but then, it NEVER WAS! Anyone who gets caught up in how it "Changed" is the one who doesn't understand the economy. Did the predictability of the sun rising this morning also shock you?

The change I was referring to wasn't an ordinary economic change. It was a tectonic shift precipitated by the illicit conduct of the entire financial system. Not really sure if you noticed the mortgage meltdown, or the effects that had on job opportunities, home ownership, the income distribution, etc. (it all increased or decreased substantially in whichever direction is worse.), but disregarding it as a simple change denies the criminality of the entire wall street financial and federal reserve system and the monumental impact it's had and is STILL HAVING.

As for "Culture of fairness," the definition of fairness to those who insist on using that word is that the speaker gets HIS way, no matter how unfair to others.

Rubbish. Sure, that's one popular everyday semantic variant of the word "fairness", but my usage had egalitarian rather than selfish connotations so that analysis here is irrelevant.

And that fat sweaty banking system from the cartoon: It employs how many people? (Good paying jobs for pretty much anyone who work there, by the way.) How many more are able to buy a house, etc., because of it? HOW MUCH does a healthy banking system make possible for you personally? As with a lot of things targeted by the 'Us vs. Them' crowd, the truth of the matter is the banks are getting this because we do benefit when they get it. That there's better ways for us to benefit isn't something have tantrums about the banks over.

I'm not arguing about the positive benefit that the banking system provides to society, but rather the criminal element underlying its modern manifestation that precipitated the recent real estate crash and the systemic effects on the economy (and justified the substantial money printing, at least in the thieves' minds).

And by the ways, just because the thieves pay well because they steal oh-so-well is a poor excuse for their behavior. Might as well legalize assassinations because the pay's pretty good, lol.

And I'm talking more about the investment banking system on wall street, not the mom-and-pop credit union or local bank. This was mostly enabled by the 1999's repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall act that was designed during the depression to protect the real estate industry, which is one of the biggest foundations of the American economy, from wall-street.

In the years that followed, look at how much money flowed into the real estate system, and then look at any of the modern economic indicators to see how the resulting bust screwed up our entire economy.

Shadow banking system's investment in the USA's real estate(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system):

You wonder where that money went?

Much of it went to the commodities!

Oil prices are now up at a hundred dollars! Used to be 20-30. Thanks to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, investors cannot only screw over the USA in real estate, but they can also screw them over in everyday commodities, like gasoline prices!

Gold went up quite a bit. Thank God that's not an *essential* commodity for everyday life.

Copper went up, iron went up, everything went up and stayed up. This is costing everybody, every day. Homebuilders, students who have to pay for their tuition which pays for the cost of materials for building all the luxury condos the colleges are building now, etc. (By the way, the average debt load of a graduate in 2012 is actually around 35k)

Also, quite a bit went to bonds, driving down bond prices.

So while incomes were driven downward by the real estate bust, prices for everything has increased and millenials are entering college in droves thinking that's the only way to make it in the current economy, pushing up prices and the average debt load and devaluing the worth of a degree. Thanks to Wall Street!

You know who the biggest student lender is for federal loans? It's Sallie Mae, a Wall Street company (I guarantee the wall-street banking establishment has majority ownership)! Thank God we have the wolves looking out for the sheep, the future is looking oh so promising.

 

[swbluto]

You know what's funny about this pic? It looks like the "black people" got a clue way before everyone else did. Coincidentally, the federal reserve system stopped publishing M3 money supply stats the same year... presumably stats that were heavily affected by the real estate crash...

Let's find out who the RMBS people are. Anyone want to guess? (My guess is on the investment banks)

 

[Dauntless]

The economy isn't what it used to be, but then, it NEVER WAS! Anyone who gets caught up in how it "Changed" is the one who doesn't understand the economy. Did the predictability of the sun rising this morning also shock you?

The change I was referring to wasn't an ordinary economic change. It was a tectonic shift precipitated by the illicit conduct of the entire financial system. Not really sure if you noticed the mortgage meltdown, or the effects that had on job opportunities, home ownership, the income distribution, etc. (it all increased or decreased substantially in whichever direction is worse.), but disregarding it as a simple change denies the criminality of the entire wall street financial and federal reserve system and the monumental impact it's had and is STILL HAVING.

Like the 1950's? The 1920's? The Panic of 1898? Which time that it was like that are you saying it's identical to? Oh, wait, you saying it's DIFFERENT than all those other times that were different from all those other times. . . .

As for "Culture of fairness," the definition of fairness to those who insist on using that word is that the speaker gets HIS way, no matter how unfair to others.

Rubbish. Sure, that's one popular everyday semantic variant of the word "fairness", but my usage had egalitarian rather than selfish connotations so that analysis here is irrelevant.

Oh, your usage proves you should have YOUR way. . . . (This is too easy.)

Did you know that in the 1950's then vice president Nixon told Nikita Khrushchev that there were over 60 million cars in the U.S., to which Khrushchev laughed and said he didn't believe it. When he came to the U.S. Nixon arranged for a helicopter to fly over freeways so he could SEE we had a lot of cars. So Khrushchev was cowed into shutting up about the argument that the U.S. didn't have such abundance, but did he still try to contend that he was actually somehow RIGHT?

And that fat sweaty banking system from the cartoon: It employs how many people? (Good paying jobs for pretty much anyone who work there, by the way.) How many more are able to buy a house, etc., because of it? HOW MUCH does a healthy banking system make possible for you personally? As with a lot of things targeted by the 'Us vs. Them' crowd, the truth of the matter is the banks are getting this because we do benefit when they get it. That there's better ways for us to benefit isn't something have tantrums about the banks over.

I'm not arguing about the positive benefit that the banking system provides to society, but rather the criminal element underlying its modern manifestation that precipitated the recent real estate crash and the systemic effects on the economy (and justified the substantial money printing, at least in the thieves' minds).

And by the ways, just because the thieves pay well because they steal oh-so-well is a poor excuse for their behavior. Might as well legalize assassinations because the pay's pretty good, lol.

And I'm talking more about the investment banking system on wall street, not the mom-and-pop credit union or local bank. This was mostly enabled by the 1999's repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall act that was designed during the depression to protect the real estate industry, which is one of the biggest foundations of the American economy, from wall-street.

In the years that followed, look at how much money flowed into the real estate system, and then look at any of the modern economic indicators to see how the resulting bust screwed up our entire economy.

Knowledge without wisdom, passion without compassion. To call them 'Thieves,' first you have to prove something was stolen. Then that 'They' took it. Do you really expect everyone to simply believe the accusations just because you're accusing THEM. . . .

[quote}You wonder where that money went?[/quote]

Ummm, no.

Much of it went to the commodities!

Umm, no. How come when it shows up it's not real money, but then when it proves not to be real people act like it disappeared?

http://jezebel.com/293780/erin-burnett-teaches-us-to-use-terrible-world-events-to-our-advantage-an-inspiring-story-of-a-blogger-and-her-collection-agent

 

[swbluto]

Do you not really see the connection between the money flows between real estate and other parts of the economy? The flow of investment capital and how that affects prices?

Please tell me you're joshing me.

If you don't, and you don't see how it could ever possibly be the case, then I can definitely tell you don't have the same investor-grade mindset that I have. In which case, arguing about any part of the economy seems to be an intrinsically futile exercise.

Btw, there was one similar time in history in the last 100 years and that was the great depression. We set up laws to prevent that from happening again, but they were repealed in 1999 and 2000, and then a crash commenced 7 years later. If people don't learn from history, they're doomed to repeat it, and repeat it they did. This time, it's different because the Federal Reserve is running the printing presses full steam ahead!

Btw, money never disappears from the money supply. There's only one way for money to "disappear" and that's if people pay back their loans (Well, okay, there's two ways - you can light cash on fire and cut up some quarters, lol.). Even if people default on their loans, the money doesn't disappear. So, with that knowledge, it becomes immediately evident if money "leaves one market", it has to go somewhere else.

 

[swbluto]

I'm going to show some graphs so that it'll help everyone understand how everything relates. But, not now. Brushing teeth.

 

[swbluto]

Hmmm, I'm not really sure if there's any one who's actually interested in learning about the money system and economics here, so I'm going to minimize my efforts and keep this pretty simple.

Here's a primer.

Fractional reserve banking tutorial:
[youtube]Ov2Sd-QRi_g[/youtube]

Here's a good more-comprehensive explanation of the system:

[youtube]k6zpfE7WjHI[/youtube]

The salient points are.
-New money is created by issuing debt. Whenever a bank makes a loan (mortgage, student, credit card,etc.), the money is printed out of thin air. There are limits to this of course (They can only issue out debt up to 90% of the deposits, that coming from savings accounts, checking accounts and CDs, mainly.).
-Money is "destroyed" when debt is paid back.
-Defaulting on the debt doesn't destroy the money
created. Instead, the debt is written off
and assuming the debt is secured, repossession of the security happens (whether that be a house, car, business equipment,etc.). Notice, since the money was created out of thin air to begin with, the bank doesn't lose money when the default happens. Instead it loses an "income opportunity" from the interest that would've been generated on the debt that was defaulted on. Of course, when the bank sells the property, it generates cash that can be used to create more money out of thin air from whatever is in excess of the principal.

Check out what happened to the M2 money supply (Includes cash, deposits and loans) when massive amounts of defaults happened thru 2007-2011:



That's right, nothing. The money just went somewhere else. Conversely, as the fed started printing money, the pace in the increase of the money supply begins to increase a little...

The bullet points above have interesting implications.

In an everyday situation were Sally loans $50 to Billy, if Billy doesn't pay Sally back, Sally loses $50. But if Billy were to borrow $50 from a bank and not pay it back, the bank doesn't lose money because it was printed to begin with, but it does lose a money earning opportunity as it has to maintain a reserve ratio between its liabilities(Loans, including outstanding and defaulted loans) and deposits. So, this generates an interesting question, who's taking the "risk"/"potential cost" of default? It's not the bank, it's everyone as money creation expands the money supply creating inflation. That is, fractional reserve banking is a way of transferring the risk/cost of loan making from the bank to greater society at large via inflation, but yet the bank earns money back on the interest.

Assuming that defaults never happened and banks paid back no interest on savings accounts, bonds and CDs, 100% of all money in existence (including cash and one & zeros in people's accounts) would belong to a debt somewhere.

However, when defaults happen, the money associated with the principal is no longer tied to a debt. That money is essentially "free from the debt system" in the money supply. Of course, for most loans, the banks try to repossess the property used to secure the loan, sell it and get the money back under their control so they can continue making money on the interest associated with that money.

When too much of that happens, the banking system gets pretty irritated by that as much of the money in the system no longer belongs "to the banks" and when the housing prices plummeted, there was no way the banking system could begin to reclaim their share of the money supply (selling a house with a $300,000 mortgage for $100,000 still leaves $200,000 free-floating in the money supply; this is a major reason why a good percentage of underwater mortgages didn't immediately get foreclosed on and the banks instead waited until housing demand picked up; if you research online, you'll see that foreclosure rates have recently been picking up in lockstep with higher housing demand). So, what they did this time to remedy that was to print up a bunch of money and give it to the financial elites, including the big Wall Street banks who own ~25% of the stock market, to regain their concentration of wealth in the money supply. There is no way that they can actually control 100% of the money that they lost, but at least they could get back their percentage of the money supply that was under their control. Of course, this printing of money transfers the loss on to the people via inflation. Notice how they use this money printing technique in both quantitative easing and ordinary fractional reserve banking to transfer the risk/cost to greater society at large via inflation? That's no accident. That's the way the financial system was engineered.

Now, if people actually understood this... Here's what Henry Ford thought would happen...

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

Now onto economics.

A simple way to think about industries/markets is that when there is more money in a market, things in that market become pricier.

-When there was more federal loan money in the college market, tuition became pricier and increased the average student debt load.
-When there was more money in the technology stocks during the dot-com bubble, tech stocks were really pricey.
-When there was more investment money in the real state industry around 2000-2006, real estate prices were pricier. When the investment money left, real estate crashed and housing prices significantly deflated. (The average decline in value was 60% on the coasts; the losses were less pronounced in non-coastal regions, presumably because housing demand is higher on the coasts. Better climate, better scenery, etc.)
-when the money from real estate left and flowed into the commodities, commodity prices became pretty pricey.

Investment money significantly influences the prices in markets. When money flows in, assets become pricier. When it flows out, assets become less costly.

US real estate prices:

Real estate investment money in the shadow banking system:

Notice how the two coincide in the freefall of 2006-2007? As the investment money flows out, prices fall...

Now let's look at some commodities.

Weird, huh? The money flows out of real estate in 2006 and money flows into copper the same year, 2006.

That can't be the case for other commodities can it?

Now it's a little less clearcut here (oil is a special commodity, as there are peak oil fears and the such around it, so there's going to be market panics to go along with it) but notice how the price stays consistently high after the temporary crash to "only 40 dollars" in 2008?

Seems like iron commodities have the same trend...

Isn't it weird how these different markets seem to significantly change in price right about the same time?

That's right, investment money flowing out from one market flows into others, and you can see this in the price trends. That is, just by looking at prices, you can get a good idea of how much money is in the market.

 

[swbluto]

Based on the understanding above, a good market to be investing in right now for long-term investments would be coastal rental properties, and of course I would make sure they were positive cash flow properties. If you can, investing in "good" rental properties of countries with long-term growth trends (like say China and India) would be a good strategy assuming that there is minimal risk of nationalization. (Don't know if that's the case with China...)

I also prefer investing in long-term growth markets, especially technology markets underlied with a moore's-law related product (as Moore's law implies corresponding near-exponential economic growth as functionality grows exponentially), and I like to spread my investments among the leaders in each respective industry. For example, with this strategy, investing in both Apple and Microsoft proportionate to their respective market shares in the year 1987 would've been a pretty good bet.

If you were to do this now, investing in the 3d printer market might be a good idea. It depends on what the P/E ratio in determining whether or not the stock is "currently" overpriced (As earnings increase overtime, so does the stock price...), but it would be a pretty good industry in the long-term to invest in, I think.

I'd personally wait until the next stock market crash before making a major stock investment...

 

[Harold in CR]

Very interesting info, Bluto. Thanks for posting that. 8)

 

[Sancho's Horse]

Much of the entire world...not just China...were developing pretty significantly prior to the "correction." If you look at charts from various parts of the world at the same time, they look a lot like these charts. Profits were being created everywhere. What do you invest your profits in securely? America. At least, that is what our government wanted everyone to believe. That is why Glass-Steagall was repealed. There were massive amounts of outside money coming into the American real estate market. Not actual properties, usually financial instruments. Politicians and bankers were hoping to bring in more of these easy profits, and exploit a traditional banking device. If America and the west were made richer without confronting underlying problems, cool. At some point it seems so much convolution of these financial instruments was accepted without outside actors balking, why not shoot for the holy grail...America's problems paved over because it is too big to fail without taking out too much of the world's hard earned profits. Almost got there, but someone blinked. Since that time, more of the world is looking to avoid too much of their profits tied into a too big to fail American quasi-stability.

So, the bankers are prepping for the true underlying numbers. Poor be damned at this point. So, you are right that some things have changed...but not because bankers are suddenly more evil or are pushing a big agenda. They would have loved to have rode the B.S. to a too big to fail status, and secured more for the poor...because really these programs for the poor ultimately end up in the pockets of doctors, lawyers, insurance guys, politicians, bankers,...etc. the guys who helped get these laws passed. But...they failed...so, unless superman steps up, and restores belief...the things which don't require belief will begin working through.

 

[Dauntless]

What are you talking about, people not interested in learning about "The money system and economics?" Are you fantasizing that your coercive indoctrination to YOUR way of thinking would somehow be educational if it was working? Do you always try to blame some failing of others when you're too prickly to connect with them? You're so out of touch it's like you must work for Obama.

Oh, big report on CBS Radio News today about the pollution in China and some communities have as much as 10% of the population developing cancer. These are towns where the water has become tinted red, etc. The Chinese Government has decided to formally recognize that such places exist. Ummm, maybe there are REAL horrors you could take an interest in, rather than trying to whip people up over perfidy.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2010/04/cnbcs-erin-burnett-doesnt-think-all-rich-people-are-evil

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq070d_make-it-count-by-casey-neistat_travel#.UcaG7Pfn-po

 

[swbluto]

What are you talking about, people not interested in learning about "The money system and economics?" Are you fantasizing that your coercive indoctrination to YOUR way of thinking would somehow be educational if it was working? Do you always try to blame some failing of others when you're too prickly to connect with them? You're so out of touch it's like you must work for Obama.

I'm going to agree with you. It's a part of my 'diagnosed personality' if you will. :wink:

Btw, I'm going to take a wild guess here, but I'm going to guess Geithner is probably the most similar personality to mine in Obama's crew. He's the head of the treasury, I think. He seems to be pretty commonly blamed, teased, etc. which is not uncommon for the mathematically inclined, socially oblivious personality types, especially in intrinsically NT-centric atmospheres like politics (Well, at least I think - I'm not entirely sure about that since it seems like Romney lacked charisma and skilled sophistry, unlike Obama.). At least that's my experience, lol.

Btw, I definitely don't think Obama's crew is "out of touch". I think downplaying the horrible truth and cranking up the optimistic lies is more like it.

 

[swbluto]

but not because bankers are suddenly more evil or are pushing a big agenda

This isn't necessarily true across the board, but fields that have a lot of money tend to attract the psychopathic and avaricious. Of course there are good bankers and evil bankers, but I guarantee there's a lot more evil bankers than "good ones" on Wall Street. Keep a smile on your face and a dagger behind your back is the Wall-Street way. I'm quite sure there's been quite a few studies on the personality types that tend to gravitate towards those positions.

 

[wineboyrider]

OMG my drunk wine ass can't follow all this, but swbluto you are spot on mostly.....Time to wake up the leftist Keynesians on sound money....

 

[swbluto]

Oh, big report on CBS Radio News today about the pollution in China and some communities have as much as 10% of the population developing cancer. These are towns where the water has become tinted red, etc. The Chinese Government has decided to formally recognize that such places exist. Ummm, maybe there are REAL horrors you could take an interest in, rather than trying to whip people up over perfidy.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2010/04/cnbcs-erin-burnett-doesnt-think-all-rich-people-are-evil

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq070d_make-it-count-by-casey-neistat_travel#.UcaG7Pfn-po

I'm concerned about the chinese, too. Don't get me wrong. I think it's evil how western society basically shifts the polluting economic activites to China because it can't get away with it that easily/cheaply in the Western World. Of course, it's not *just* the western world's fault - there are polluting enterprises that originated from China, too, I'm sure. Didn't know about the cancer rates, assumed it mostly affected longterm cardiovascular and respiratory problems. That's definitely awful.

It's just that what's happening in the USA seems far more pertinent to my daily life. I remember back in 2006, I could go job hunting and get two full-time job offers in my city within a week. Now, I'm lucky to find two employers with available job applications - most of the more honest/upfront managers just admit to me they're reserving an open position 3 months in the future for a close friend. And, for those who are lucky enough to have jobs, 20 hours a week at minimum wage is the norm.

It doesn't take me long to figure out the going wage levels... 1000hours a year*$8/hour = $8000/year. It's like a freaking third world country in my city. Loose dogs *everywhere*, beggars knocking on the door every other day, people in the poor neighborhoods were ballyhooing at me as I road by on a recumbent, the newly suburban homeless are camping in the nearby forest along with their dogs that terrorize anyone who walks through (It's a popular neigbhorhood shortcut and has a lot of often used walking trails), etc.

(I come from a fairly well-to-do family in a fairly nice house, so it seems we get 'targeted' in more ways than one. However, *I'm* not exactly "well to do" at the moment.)

And, yes, I know... I need to go somewhere more plentiful. I drew an unemployment rate map and it seems the upper plains and midwest areas of the United States are most promising. Apparently the gas fields and oil pockets are powering their local economies with the high oil prices and the expanding gas supply. Still quite curious what the income distributions look like, however, in all these different places. I know Austin,Texas seems to be popular with its low unemployment rate, but Texas's minimum wage is like $7.25 and I understand most of the positions are minimum wage? And the poverty rate is like 19%, 9% higher than normal?

I haven't figured out a way to figure out the RIGHT-NOW income distributions. Based on observations of the recent housing developments, though (And the kind of projects members on here have.), The upper plains, Salt Lake City and Boston look promising. It'd be nice to get some hard numbers...

Given that uncertainty, still not confident I'd be capable of paying down student loans. Living expenses are like, at minimum, 14,000/year with a car or 10,000/year without. Interest on the loans are currently accumulating at ~$4000/year, majority of it to Sallie Mae. Didn't really have much of a choice, there. Apparently they don't tell you that your federal loans get sold to Sallie Mae after graduating. It's kind of like how many of the bankers were selling mortgages to the Wall Street Investment banks, regardless if the home-owner agreed to owe their loan to a wall-street bank. (And the abusive practices associated with wall-street banks)

[Do you see that? The US government sells their loans to the financial industry on wall street; they're selling nearly half the generation into debt slavery to wall-street. They're tied at the hip, I tell you! They're not operating independently, they work in cooperation with each other. With the money printing, the financial elites regained their concentration of the money supply, while government gets to monetize its debt by increasing the average IRS taxes with the newly inflated salaries - I also believe it suppresses its debt payments by way of the lowered interest rate on the treasury bonds, plus it's buying back treasury bonds (One part of the national debt, I believe). Of course, the losers are savers, fixed income people, minimum wage people, and just about everyone whose wages and/or 'investments'/assets don't keep up with 6-7% true inflation. In other words, almost everyone...]

I almost feel like I'll have to leave the country to live a reasonable lifestyle without a student debt death-spiral and the corresponding slavery to the financial system. Apparently 5% of millennials are leaving the country, up from 1% before the recession, some undoubtedly motivated by similar reasons. And, yeah, Hello NSA!!! I sure hope you don't care that I said that and I sure hope you don't track me down if I do.

 

[dnmun]

did you take any economics courses in college? did you pursue any specialty where there are jobs available? the purpose of the federal reserve is to maintain the lowest possible rate of unemployment that the economy can provide. it has nothing to do with all this other stuff. just one thing unemployment. you can't blame the chinese for workijg harder for less money, that is part of capitalism. that's the way it works, and that is why the mexicans get the jobs, because they do the work cheaper.

so the richy rich people who don't have to work will tell you how the fed is there printing money outa thin air and all this other bull.

the money goes for all these old people on social security and medicare and the army and navy and air force and marines. the military needs to be cut down to normal size and then they need to stop making wars on people who never did anything to us. none of the iraqis ever attacked us and none of the afghans attacked us, but we killed millions of them for no reason except that we had another ignorant redneck running the country who thought it was better to bankrupt lehman brothers than let the fed unwind it slowly.

 

[swbluto]

did you take any economics courses in college? did you pursue any specialty where there are jobs available? the purpose of the federal reserve is to maintain the lowest possible rate of unemployment that the economy can provide. it has nothing to do with all this other stuff. just one thing unemployment. you can't blame the chinese for workijg harder for less money, that is part of capitalism. that's the way it works, and that is why the mexicans get the jobs, because they do the work cheaper.

Greater competition for jobs, globally, is a part of it. Yes. But that's not the full story. Severe real estate busts have a way of freezing the credit markets and bringing down the income scale a couple of notches and drying up the jobs and the movement of investors money in and out of the real estate market in the process caused it. You don't need to look any further than America or Europe to see that. I don't know if you guys are drawing retirement or sitting back in well-paying jobs you got a decade ago or what, but things have changed quite a bit at the street level, especially those entering the job markets now.

Btw, don't be so naive to believe the government is "for you". Initially it started out that way in America, but as the concentration of wealth increases overtime, democracies tend to morph into plutocracies perverting the political power structure with it. I'm not entirely sure if you've noticed how all these really unpopular special-interest megacorp laws seem to be passing recently, such as the "Monsanto Protection Act" and "The Bankruptcy Protection act"(Ensures a life of debt servitude among student debtors; remember what debt is, it's money created out of thin air... a lifetime tax on the students, passed on as a tax to the people via inflation. The banks/government definitely don't take any risks with "real money".). You can tell who/what an institution serves by its behavior, and actions speak far louder than words. That's especially, and I mean especially, true of the Federal Reserve.

Sure, they might seem like buffoons, but I guarantee the think-tanks they hire on Capitol Hill that guide public law are not stupid. They're there to serve their paying masters. Monkeys don't write 2000-page laws.

 

[swbluto]

Okay, so if you guys want to know anything about me...

I come from an Ashkenazim Jewish family line based from Germany, and my immediate family tree has a lot of engineers, inventors, investors, businessmen and landlords. This group has an average IQ of 115 and it's the group that Albert Einstein came from, and it's also the ethnic group where a lot of immigrants came into the United States via New York during the mid 1800's fleeing from Germany's revolutions of the time (that's right, it didn't start with Hitler.), and many of them were attracted to the financial industry on Wall Street. Jews were the bean-counters of the medieval ages, so finances are pretty much in their blood. This is the group whose families founded Goldman Sachs and Chase bank among others and this is the group that the last two federal reserve chairmans come from, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernarnke.

Some claim there's a zionist conspiracy among the financial elite in the USA, but my research suggests that they simply have a large majority ownership. How large? Don't know. But it's not small potatoes.

I personally test at an IQ between 137 and 145 and typically get first-place in statewide academic competitions, math, science and chess.

(But, I typically get 93-95% on school tests, so I'm not one of those "gets a 100%" every time kind of people. Geez, those people are like a rare unicorn.)

One of my great great great great uncles that you might know of is Rudolf Hess. He was Adolf Hitler's right-hand man and his official title was Deputy Fuhrer, he was the second most powerful man in the Nazi party up until the rise in the power of the military leaders Goebbels, Goring and whoever else in the late 1930s. And, yes, my extended family doesn't like bringing him up.... He was that crazy guy flying to Britain on a solo plane to offer a peace treaty, but he was captured by the brits and imprisoned for life in Spandau prison and Hitler dismissed him. (Note: I personally would never do that. I'm not *exactly* like him, I swear.)

When I went to college, based on my SAT scores and academic background as a National AP scholar, I was invited into becoming an actuary where I would've worked for the financial industry (insurance, investment banks,etc.), but I decided to study computer science instead at UW. I very recently graduated with a bachelors degree with a minor in economics.

So, theoretically, I should be doing fine in the longterm.

But, yet, I still have a moralous conviction about how American society and, my generation in particular, is getting really screwed, and it's woven deep into the system and people don't know it. And I'm getting screwed too being apart of the scholastically indebted generation amid a investor-induced real-estate busting, credit market freezing, business-disrupting, pretty poor job market, so yes. If you look at 1994-1999 when real estate prices were exactly the same as they are now, the employment stats were much better - incomes were what, double, triple(?), and the unemployment rate was south of 6%. It's not real estate *itself* that's causing the problem, it's the credit markets that were deeply wounded and how that affects businesses. Many businesses depend on unsecured credit to float them through the month-to-month cashflow cycle, when credit dries up, that becomes far harder to sustain. So, quite a few businesses had to fire people to keep a positive cashflow, and there hasn't be a substantial growth in hiring in most parts of the country, especially not my city, because of fear and the realization among business owners that all those employees weren't *really* necessary.

 

[Dauntless]

did you take any economics courses in college?

Nah, you don't need no college to be ixpirt. In fact college'll make you too smart fer yer own good. What about when they try to teach you something you already decided is wrong? The black swan thingee.

. . . . that is why the mexicans get the jobs, because they do the work cheaper.

Oh gee, which I could remember the names of some of these reports, one by my old school UCLA. The illegals on average not only make plenty, they do it without paying taxes. Not that they don't use the services taxes pay for.

so the richy rich people who don't have to work will tell you how the fed is there printing money outa thin air and all this other bull.

Don't even think it. That's the fact, also the prevailing understanding of the non richy rich.

.. . . "The Bankruptcy Protection act"(Ensures a life of debt servitude among student debtors; remember what debt is, it's money created out of thin air...

No. Debt is money you spent before you earned it. Nothing ensures a lifetime of debt for students, spend some time teaching and you DON'T HAVE TO PAY BACK STUDENT LOANS.

Sure, they might seem like buffoons, but I guarantee the think-tanks they hire on Capitol Hill that guide public law are not stupid. They're there to serve their paying masters. Monkeys don't write 2000-page laws.

Oh yes they do, they just don't understand them. All you have to do is set the criteria so that the dumbest people in world will get the job and VOILA!

 

[swbluto]

No. Debt is money you spent before you earned it.

Though pithy, it's not that simple.

In fractional reserve banking, debt is money borrowed from everyone through inflation (Money is created), money they're never going to get back (The powers that be won't let deflation happen), and a mechanism to impose a financial power relationship between the financial classes and the debtor.

In essence, a loan is wealth borrowed from the entire money system (i.e, everyone) and they're *never* getting it back. Essentially, it's money *stolen* from everyone and lent out to enslave the debtor.

I'm not saying go borrow as much money as possible and go default on it to stick it to the man (Obviously, that doesn't matter anyways... the feds will just print more money to mollify the banksters.), it would be much better to avoid it to begin with. However, when colleges are priced far beyond what a student's wages can afford (Federal loans being a very big reason why to begin with), debt is a necessity for many, and with the government selling federal loans to wall-street (Sallie Mae was privatized in the early 2000s), government is essentially turning college into a generation-wide debt factory, selling the young into slavery to their Wall-Street masters. You know, the "Too big to fail" banks and all them.

I mean, it's totally fine with me if the World Bank indebts all those BRIC countries and steals their natural resources via interest, but it's whole another story when it's happening to America.

Nothing ensures a lifetime of debt for students, spend some time teaching and you DON'T HAVE TO PAY BACK STUDENT LOANS.

The times, they are a changin'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Criticisms

BAPCPA amended § 523(a)(8) to broaden the types of educational ("student") loans that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy absent proof of “undue hardship.” The nature of the lender is no longer relevant. Thus, even loans from “for-profit” or “non-governmental” entities are not dischargeable.

Also, teaching is reserved for those with ME's, mostly. And, the debt-forgiveness plans have their own gotchas.

Btw, I'm getting an inkling you have a 401k or similar. I understand you've got skin in the game.

I'm fine with the stock market and Laissez-faire capitalism (I trade every now and then, mostly shorts. I don't have enough capital hanging around long enough for "longs", lol.), but America going forward is anything but.

 

[swbluto]

Also, to dnmun:

As far as your "unemployment theory" as to why they're printing money and giving it to the financial elites, they said they would taper that when the unemployment rate was below 6.5%. However, they're planning on tapering it around the end of this year and the unemployment rate is still 7.5%. Weird, huh?

Yeah, I hope you figure it out. It has nothing to do with unemployment. The national bank is owned by the banksters. Created by the banksters for the banksters.

Andrew Jackson already dealt with a similar institution back in his day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Opposition_to_the_National_Bank

The Second Bank of the United States was authorized for a 20-year period during James Madison's tenure in 1816. As President, Jackson worked to rescind the bank's federal charter. In Jackson's veto message, the bank needed to be abolished because:

It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution,
It exposed the government to control by foreign interests,
It served mainly to make the rich richer,
It exercised too much control over members of Congress,
It favored northeastern states over southern and western states,
Banks are controlled by a few select families.

Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it? Of course, the third time around, they decided to call it the "federal reserve" and they decided secrecy was the best way to minimize attracting attention and risking abolishment.

But, every now and then, their actions expose who they're working for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve

Many economists, following Milton Friedman, believe that the Federal Reserve inappropriately refused to lend money to small banks during the bank runs of 1929.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing#Increase_income_and_wealth_inequality

Economist Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation wrote that QE “is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality”.[79]

In September 2012 Donald Trump said on CNBC that "People like me will benefit from this."[79]

In May 2013 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said that cheap money has made rich people richer, but hasn't done quite as much for working Americans.[80] Most of the financial assets in America are owned by the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans. According to Fed data, the top 5 percent own 60 percent of the nation’s individually held financial assets. They own 82 percent of the individually held stocks and more than 90 percent of the individually held bonds.[79]

Now who owns the most stocks on the stock market?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-says-six-bank-companies-have-assets/

Here are the top six and their total assets:

1. Bank of America Corp., $2.264 trillion
2. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., $2.246 trillion
3. Citigroup Inc., $1.957 trillion
4. Wells Fargo & Co., $1.260 trillion
5. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., $937 billion
6. Morgan Stanley, $831 billion

Together, the top six companies’ assets were $9.495 trillion.

What's the stock market cap?

The biggest measure, Russell 3000, is at $12.6 trillion.

http://us.ishares.com/content/strea...et_indexes_laminate.pdf&mimeType=application/

You can't actually find out how much of their holdings are in the stock market (Private info), but you can bet they have at least a couple of trillion collectively. They are biggest stock holders, by far.