31–40 of 47 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Government does not need to have it's own currency for exist or to do it's job. Please provide evidence for this. It seems like most successful governments disagree.
A lot of successful governments use the euro, a currency which they neither own nor control?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Government does not need to have it's own currency for exist or to do it's job. Please provide evidence for this. It seems like most successful governments disagree.
A lot of successful governments use the euro, a currency which they neither own nor control?
The interview with the ex kite surfer and trauma surgeon is his opinions based on his ICO
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Government does not need to have it's own currency for exist or to do it's job. Please provide evidence for this. It seems like most successful governments disagree.
A lot of successful governments use the euro, a currency which they neither own nor control?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"practically giving one group of people money, under the guise of stimulating AN economy." It wasn't under the guise of anything but saving the US economy from a wicked meltdown of epic proportions. The dominos were set to all go down, the Fed kept a few of them up by rebalancing wealth. As you point out - viciously unfair - but better in the long run. FYI - a 'strict currency' is perhaps worse; crisis will happen .…
> As you point out - viciously unfair - but better in the long run. That's your opinion, not fact. Banks are larger than ever. Inequality higher than ever. Housing more expensive than ever. The world is more unstable now than it was in 2008. Your definition of "better in the long run" is quite odd.
The economy is very intertwined, with the banks at the centre.
If they start to go down - everything starts to do down.
It's as factual as saying if you choke and engine of oxygen, that it will stop burning.
It's simple cause and effect.
Yes - we understand very well the long-long term moral dilemma of 'too big to fail' - this is a well known issue.
And as I mentioned it was 'viciously unfair' - by the way - when the Fed absorbed those mortgages, they were saving millions of American homeowners as well.
A 'market correction' would have implied massive foreclosure across the US.
The 'winners' of the bailout were Banks AND those who owned homes. ALL American home values were propped up.
the 'losers' of the action were non-property owners.
'The more debt' people were carrying, specifically, 'mortgage debt' - the 'more free money' got from the Feds actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As you point out - viciously unfair - but better in the long run. That's your opinion, not fact. Banks are larger than ever. Inequality higher than ever. Housing more expensive than ever. The world is more unstable now than it was in 2008. Your definition of "better in the long run" is quite odd.
No, it's a fact, and a very simple one. The economy is very intertwined, with the banks at the centre. If they start to go down - everything starts to do down. It's as factual as saying if you choke and engine of oxygen, that it will stop burning. It's simple cause and effect. Yes - we understand very well the long-long term moral dilemma of 'too big to fail' - this is a well known issue. And as I mentioned it was 'v…
The fact that you think the impacts of the financial crisis are behind us is hilarious. Just wait till the municipal debt starts to crumble. Places like Chicago and Puerto Rico have only been able to sustain themselves because of the low interest rates on debt. The actions of the Fed didn't fix anything, they just kicked the can down the road.
IMO cryptocurrency is perfectly poised to be the global currency, transcending nation state central banks and leveraging fiat currency foundations via the bank for international settlements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlem... The interview with the ex kite surfer and trauma surgeon is his opinions based on his ICO
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As you point out - viciously unfair - but better in the long run. That's your opinion, not fact. Banks are larger than ever. Inequality higher than ever. Housing more expensive than ever. The world is more unstable now than it was in 2008. Your definition of "better in the long run" is quite odd.
No, it's a fact, and a very simple one. The economy is very intertwined, with the banks at the centre. If they start to go down - everything starts to do down. It's as factual as saying if you choke and engine of oxygen, that it will stop burning. It's simple cause and effect. Yes - we understand very well the long-long term moral dilemma of 'too big to fail' - this is a well known issue. And as I mentioned it was 'v…