The 2007 Subprime Mortgage crisis

embarrassed yet???

2020 poll: 77 percent of Democrats back socialism, but most voters don't

tps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../2020-poll-77-dems-back-socialism-but-most...
Feb 25, 2019 - The Democratic Party’s lurch left to socialism has the strong support of liberal voters, but it’s a loser of an issue in the 2020 election, according to a new survey. While 77 percent of Democrats believe that the country would be “better off” if it were more socialist ...

 

No democrat leaning toward that much socialism has any chance of being the candidate in 2020. Stop believing batshit crazy nonsense. That will stop you from being wrong as often as you are.

 

lowering taxes shrinks govt in long run while Democrats have $100 trillion in new programs planned. A child knows this just not a liberal. See why we say pure ignorance? Is any other conclusion possible?

 

I don't recall any of your posts explaining how I was wrong.

No, just the reverse. You have no idea what I am talking about.​

 

Dear, Sanders is best fund raiser among small donors and second in polls, all other candidates are for single payer communism. Perfect liberal ignorance!!!

 

I know you are talking about foolish gibberish!!

 

It seems unfair to ask for elaboration about an under reported issue.... lol

 

No it doesn’t. We know this because republicans always cut taxes, then EXPLODE the deficit and grow government.

No, I can’t find a better word for the nonsense you post other than pure ignorance.

 

And he has no chance of being the nominee in 2020.

 

james M, the Fed being "profitable" doesn't mean the same thing as it does in a normal business context.
Since they're the ones issuing the money, it's almost like they're forcing the economy to invest in them.
If you borrow money from me by force, you better be able to make profit on that money and pay me at least the normal rate of investment return back, otherwise I am worse off than I was before and you have incurred a cost to me.

 

Republicans since Jefferson were/are for smaller govt and have no big new programs planned while Democrats are
libcommies who have $100 trillion in new programs planned. See why we say liberalism is based on pure ignorance?


Thomas Jefferson:
"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

 

Sanders or Biden are same. Biden loved Obama who voted to left of Sanders. and all 3 support single payer communism and all will endorse Sanders if he is nominated! 1+1=2

trying to pretend your party is not libcommie is a losing battle. Trump flushed them out for what they always were even back to the days when the spied for Stalin and Hitler!

 

insanity of course, if Biden drops dead or is cut out by scandal he is front runner in field of 24. what does that teach you about your libcommie party?? You should be proud to be a libcommie. Why run from it??

Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

 

total ignorant liberal insanity as always.
1) You said the Fed loses money when in fact they make a huge profit
2) they buy MBS's for example, collect interest, and sell them for more than they bought them making a profit much like any business.

 

mad dog liberal insanity!! Show me one economist who agrees with pure lunacy.

 

No they aren’t. Which is why they always explode the deficit, and expand government. Including Jefferson.

 

No they aren’t.

 

Sanders has no chance of winning the nomination.

 

They are effectively losing money if they don't make a profit. The Fed is huge, so "huge profits" don't mean they're not "losing money".

"Losing money" really means they're not managing their Reserve Assets like a proper investment bank would. If an investment bank doesn't meet a certain minimum rate of return, all the investors are losing out, because they could have got a better rate of return somewhere else.
Everyone who holds a dollar is sort of like an investor, in this situation.

The burden of inflation primarily falls on the Treasury (don't have time to explain all that to you right now), cutting into their purchasing power. So, in some sense, it's like the Fed is forcing the treasury to be an investor in their bank. (That's just an analogy)

If the Fed decides to bail out the economy and do things that a private bank wouldn't do, that ultimately gets paid for by the taxpayer, in a very indirect sort of way.

It's very expensive to try to alter interest rates in the economy.
Someone is paying for that. That ends up being the government.
There's no magical way for the Fed to just "decide" what the interest rates will be.

 

even one sentence shows your utter confusion about English. You cant show huge profits and be losing money in normal English. Imagine what entire paragraphs from you are like??

 

I just explained that to you. Maybe you should reread the post.
You might have replied before I was finished typing.

If you understood how the Fed actually worked, you would understand why they need to make a certain level of profit just to avoid inflation.
When they expand the money supply, buying up assets (let's view this as temporary, as if it would eventually be sold back), they essentially have to pay a premium on those assets to compensate the seller for the profits on that asset he will be losing out on.

You can't just pump money out there to buy up assets and then collect all the interest on those assets for yourself, without that leading to that money being devalued and causing inflation.
That should be pretty obvious and common sense.

When the Fed is being "profitable", it's not for themselves.
In a theoretical sense, the Fed doesn't really own those Reserve Assets they manage, it is accounted for as assets to offset their liabilities (dollars).
Overall, the Fed basically has zero net equity in and of itself.

If somehow the Fed was able to achieve a profit beyond the standard rate of return (in a theoretically free market, not necessarily an easy thing to do), then it might be possible for them to actually make a profit for themselves.

 

it really means that only to you in your insane world. Why not learn English and speak like others who know English so you can communicate? Ever hear guys speaking gibberish in an asylum??

 

Treasury is a dept of govt it has no burden in normal English. Burden falls on 330 million Americans who see their money worth less. Notice what real English looks like??

 

It means the spending power of the government will be reduced, in proportion to how much the Fed was bailing out the economy.

Some burden falls on Americans who hold money, but the burden primarily falls on the spending power of the government.
Not going to waste my time explaining that to you here.

If the spending power of the government gets reduced, it's likely taxes will have to be raised to compensate.

(Or to state it another way, taxes could be reduced if there was no inflation)

 

it??? what is it???? it is your subject and you forget to say what it is!!!!!!!!!!!!