The Senate Banking committee voted to bring the financial regulation bill to the floor for debate. This was a necessary step toward becoming law. They held out for a lousy three days. Now the president says that he wants the bill passed as soon as possible, just as he has wanted every other major restructuring of our country done. Conservatives do not want it done at all, if we can stop it. If we can't stop it, then why not delay as much as possible?
"It is time for this debate to begin," said Democrat chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Chris J. Dodd of Connecticut. “And it must be a serious, vigorous debate."
“Now that those bipartisan negotiations have ended, it is my hope that the majority’s avowed interest in improving this legislation on the Senate floor is genuine and the partisan gamesmanship is over," said Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell.
And if it is't over, just exactly what will you do about it, Senator McConnell? So we will have a debate like we had for global warming that was over before it began. The Democrats and the media will call the Republicans a few names and make some threats. They will find a few Republicans to cave in and end debate. They will insert pay-offs to reluctant Democrats and deem it finished. If need be, they will find a procedural means of passing the bill over a threatened filibuster. The bottom line is that BHO and the Democrats have managed to have their way with everything so far, by hook or by crook. The Republicans may demand a few meaningless minor amendments and probably not even get those. They will cave as usual. They won't even save face. They are chickenshits.
With the possible exception of Cap-and-Trade, as has been said here before, this proposed bill purporting to be "common sense" rules of fair play, is the most destructive of our freedom of any of their schemes so far.
Will the bill have 4,000 pages or 10,000? Whether it is called a consumer protection law or a preventive measure to avoid bailouts, what it will be is a take-over of financial institutions by the federal government. Yes, this is fascism by definition. Yes it is corruption. Bureaucrats answering to the president will be able to control and channel money for their progressive and political ends. Some will also go to building their dachas of course.
Showing posts with label banks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label banks. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Exploitation: By the Rich or the Government?
Newscasters of the mainstream press (or lamestream press, as Sarah calls it) never tire of reminding us of the multimillion dollar bonuses paid to wall street executives. They thereby gain a lot of public support for their favored policies and politicians. It is hard to argue that those bonuses are legitimately earned and good for their companies or for the economy as a whole. However, economic and business realities explain those sky-high payments. Without knowing many details about the operations of investment banking and other high level financial firms, such payments must also result from some form of government intervention in the market place. That is usually the case with seemingly inexplicable market phenomena.
Regarding the business explanations, there was a recent article in Atlantic Magazine that offered some insight. (Why Goldman Always Wins by Megan McArdle) The author, who had served as an intern at a large firm while a business student at an Ivy League school, stated that even the interns seemed to be paid much more than market forces justified. The fact of the matter is that businesses that make a large stock offering to the public are willing to pay top price because they have so much at stake. Multimillion share sales of stock, such as an initial public offerings, are one-time, make it or break it shots. An executive with experience, contacts, and a track record can bring in the business and a large salary is not only justified, but necessary to obtain his services. The market, as always, tries to find ways to do things for less. Google for example, did their initial public offering via the web. They met with only limited success, partly because the large investment banks, wanting to discredit the completion, did not participate. With a wall street deal of this type, presumably the bankers have plenty of contacts who they can place large chunks of stock with. Without those deals, Google got a lower price than they would have with the banks' help. The market did push the price way up later, but those gains went to the on-line investors, not to the original owners.
The high premium paid for the services of top wall street players can be understood by this sort of explanation. The second rate bankers, who charge lower fees, are just not worth the gamble with a high stakes deal. How did they ever come to dominate the market to such an extent that other firms cannot compete? It seems that government regulation must have made it difficult for others to enter the market and build a competing business. It should be noted that size is not the only factor, or even the most important factor. Of course, a large bank can prop-up a market itself when they buy with their own and with customers funds, but it seems that it is the individual with the contacts who is the indispensable deal maker. Therefore, government limitations on the size of a bank would, if anything, increase the value of key players.
This is a matter of economics, not of class warfare, as the Congressional Democrats and BHO tell us. Marx tried to blame our economic woes on class exploitation and he failed. The true liberals, the free market thinkers, explained that exploitation can only take place with government help and they proved it.
See the Ludvig von Mises Institute article of yesterday, from which the following is a quote:
"The implications of this insight are profound. The only way to make money on the free market is to produce what others want. The better one serves others, the more profit he earns; thus the market is grounded in mutual benefit and harmony of interests. This harmony, however, is transformed into conflict whenever government intervenes. If a business can get the government to keep out competitors, customers no longer have the ability to take their dollars elsewhere. Then, and only then, are companies in a position to raise prices or turn out shoddy products." -- David Osterfeld http://mises.org/daily/4062
Regarding the business explanations, there was a recent article in Atlantic Magazine that offered some insight. (Why Goldman Always Wins by Megan McArdle) The author, who had served as an intern at a large firm while a business student at an Ivy League school, stated that even the interns seemed to be paid much more than market forces justified. The fact of the matter is that businesses that make a large stock offering to the public are willing to pay top price because they have so much at stake. Multimillion share sales of stock, such as an initial public offerings, are one-time, make it or break it shots. An executive with experience, contacts, and a track record can bring in the business and a large salary is not only justified, but necessary to obtain his services. The market, as always, tries to find ways to do things for less. Google for example, did their initial public offering via the web. They met with only limited success, partly because the large investment banks, wanting to discredit the completion, did not participate. With a wall street deal of this type, presumably the bankers have plenty of contacts who they can place large chunks of stock with. Without those deals, Google got a lower price than they would have with the banks' help. The market did push the price way up later, but those gains went to the on-line investors, not to the original owners.
The high premium paid for the services of top wall street players can be understood by this sort of explanation. The second rate bankers, who charge lower fees, are just not worth the gamble with a high stakes deal. How did they ever come to dominate the market to such an extent that other firms cannot compete? It seems that government regulation must have made it difficult for others to enter the market and build a competing business. It should be noted that size is not the only factor, or even the most important factor. Of course, a large bank can prop-up a market itself when they buy with their own and with customers funds, but it seems that it is the individual with the contacts who is the indispensable deal maker. Therefore, government limitations on the size of a bank would, if anything, increase the value of key players.
This is a matter of economics, not of class warfare, as the Congressional Democrats and BHO tell us. Marx tried to blame our economic woes on class exploitation and he failed. The true liberals, the free market thinkers, explained that exploitation can only take place with government help and they proved it.
See the Ludvig von Mises Institute article of yesterday, from which the following is a quote:
"The implications of this insight are profound. The only way to make money on the free market is to produce what others want. The better one serves others, the more profit he earns; thus the market is grounded in mutual benefit and harmony of interests. This harmony, however, is transformed into conflict whenever government intervenes. If a business can get the government to keep out competitors, customers no longer have the ability to take their dollars elsewhere. Then, and only then, are companies in a position to raise prices or turn out shoddy products." -- David Osterfeld http://mises.org/daily/4062
Monday, February 8, 2010
Can Obama Kill the Economy? Only Time Will Tell
It is no wonder that the stock market has been going down. It is in the red for the year, loosing maybe a third of the uphill gains it had made since the big bust in the fall of 2008. It is not a coincidence that the biggest losses have come days after the president announced his new budget. BHO proposes spending that will vastly increase the current annual deficits, and therefore borrowing. He also wants congress to increase taxes, especially business taxes. This is the first pay-off of his blitzkrieg propaganda campaign against banks and big business. By the way, US business is already taxed at rates near the top for all industrialized nation. The new taxes also include an increase in taxes on corporate dividends. Dividends are only paid by successful corporations. Conservative mutual funds often concentrate their investments among these usually slower growing, yet dependable companies. So investments in these companies will be targeted, along with struggling growth and value investments. Investment in bonds is risky too, because if interest rates go up to keep up with the lowering value of the dollar (i. e. inflation), then the value of the current bonds will go down, because new bond will be paying higher rates.
Of course, higher business taxes are not only bad for investors but they are bad for workers. With profits being taxed away, how can companies expand and hire? Most of us are both workers and investors so we get a double whammy. This could help social security, since no one will be able to afford to retire. (If they have a job to retire from, that is.)
The American economy was showing signs of recovery in spite of the disastrous policies of the last 12 months. The American economy is like an old war elephant. Although it has been shot full of arrows, it keeps plodding along. But for how long? Barrack Obama is shooting those arrows from his quiver of economic 'stimulus' programs. One is labeled 'Cash for Clunkers.' There is another arrow called 'Shovel Ready Projects.' Two or three really big arrows are the 'Jobs Bills.' 'Health Care' and 'Carbon Tax' are still in his quiver. He has let fly the new 'Big Bank Busters' and 'Business Tax' arrows. You can see the elephant shudder. (Incidentally,Obama does not want individual tax decreases to remain in place either. Those arrows are at the ready.) He has now notched the great 'Deficit Arrow;' that should bring the beast down.
Of course, higher business taxes are not only bad for investors but they are bad for workers. With profits being taxed away, how can companies expand and hire? Most of us are both workers and investors so we get a double whammy. This could help social security, since no one will be able to afford to retire. (If they have a job to retire from, that is.)
The American economy was showing signs of recovery in spite of the disastrous policies of the last 12 months. The American economy is like an old war elephant. Although it has been shot full of arrows, it keeps plodding along. But for how long? Barrack Obama is shooting those arrows from his quiver of economic 'stimulus' programs. One is labeled 'Cash for Clunkers.' There is another arrow called 'Shovel Ready Projects.' Two or three really big arrows are the 'Jobs Bills.' 'Health Care' and 'Carbon Tax' are still in his quiver. He has let fly the new 'Big Bank Busters' and 'Business Tax' arrows. You can see the elephant shudder. (Incidentally,Obama does not want individual tax decreases to remain in place either. Those arrows are at the ready.) He has now notched the great 'Deficit Arrow;' that should bring the beast down.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Back Bencher Department
Today, to thunderous applause, BHO tells the banks, "we want our money back." Mark Levin says, "Mr. Obama, we want our children's future back. What did you do with that?" After spending our money up to his eyeballs, Mr. Obama says that we spent too much and borrowed too much over the last ten years and that's the problem. Mr. Levin says, "Mr. Obama, you are full of crap." Mr. Levin has a radio show in which he spends three hours presenting historical facts and making arguments in support of his position. Mr. Obama makes another rambling, incoherent speech reminiscent of the diatribes of Adolph Hitler.
Like Hitler, BHO blames all of his enemies. Like Hitler, his favorite enemies are the bankers. Mr. Obama does not seem to recall what happened or what was said last year. Government agencies Freddy Mack and Fannie May, the biggest players in the mortgage industry, went bankrupt. Conservatives explained that government agencies and federal regulations forced banks to make very risky loans. One year ago, the Democrats replied, "There is plenty of blame to go around." Mr. Limbaugh pointed out that when a Democrat admits that there is blame to go around, we can be pretty sure that the blame is divided about 95% Democrats and 5% everyone else. Now Mr. Obama says that all the blame belongs to the people who took out mortgages and to the banks. Mr. Levin points out that Mr. Obama, as an ACORN attorney, took banks to court to force them to make loans under the Community Investment Act. Loans he now says they should not have made. Now Mr. Obama absolves himself and Democrats from any blame. This is an obvious misinterpretation of very recent history. (Mark Levin, The Great One has clearly documented the series of government actions that led to the recent bank problems. He has spelled these out in detail, giving references, three or four times on his show. Ludvig von Mises Institute has dozens of articles and links on this subject also, as does chickenshitnewworld.blogspot.com)
This blog proudly admits to being a back bencher of the conservative talk shows. Mr. Levin calls those who get their ideas from him, back benchers. The best radio talk show hosts have been playing Mr. Obama's speeches and those of other political figures and taking them apart word by word. They look behind the rhetoric and expose the dramatically inconsistent and disingenuous statements. The best talk show hosts are uncompromising proponents of policies that are 180 degrees from the course currently set by BHO. If Mr. Obama chooses to interpret this as being against him, so be it. He is obviously not going to change course, so we are against him.
Some of the best talk shows that are broadcast in the Seattle-Tacoma area are, in order of their vehement uncompromising pursuit of truth: Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Billy Cunningham, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Peter Weisbach, and Brian and the Judge. Honorable Mention goes to George Noory of Coast to Coast. (Tonight the judge says that the democrats are on a "strident march toward collectivity," so even the last on this list is great.) Actually it is unfair to say that they are not all totally devoted to the truth, some are just better at discerning the truth.
Like Hitler, BHO blames all of his enemies. Like Hitler, his favorite enemies are the bankers. Mr. Obama does not seem to recall what happened or what was said last year. Government agencies Freddy Mack and Fannie May, the biggest players in the mortgage industry, went bankrupt. Conservatives explained that government agencies and federal regulations forced banks to make very risky loans. One year ago, the Democrats replied, "There is plenty of blame to go around." Mr. Limbaugh pointed out that when a Democrat admits that there is blame to go around, we can be pretty sure that the blame is divided about 95% Democrats and 5% everyone else. Now Mr. Obama says that all the blame belongs to the people who took out mortgages and to the banks. Mr. Levin points out that Mr. Obama, as an ACORN attorney, took banks to court to force them to make loans under the Community Investment Act. Loans he now says they should not have made. Now Mr. Obama absolves himself and Democrats from any blame. This is an obvious misinterpretation of very recent history. (Mark Levin, The Great One has clearly documented the series of government actions that led to the recent bank problems. He has spelled these out in detail, giving references, three or four times on his show. Ludvig von Mises Institute has dozens of articles and links on this subject also, as does chickenshitnewworld.blogspot.com)
This blog proudly admits to being a back bencher of the conservative talk shows. Mr. Levin calls those who get their ideas from him, back benchers. The best radio talk show hosts have been playing Mr. Obama's speeches and those of other political figures and taking them apart word by word. They look behind the rhetoric and expose the dramatically inconsistent and disingenuous statements. The best talk show hosts are uncompromising proponents of policies that are 180 degrees from the course currently set by BHO. If Mr. Obama chooses to interpret this as being against him, so be it. He is obviously not going to change course, so we are against him.
Some of the best talk shows that are broadcast in the Seattle-Tacoma area are, in order of their vehement uncompromising pursuit of truth: Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Billy Cunningham, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Peter Weisbach, and Brian and the Judge. Honorable Mention goes to George Noory of Coast to Coast. (Tonight the judge says that the democrats are on a "strident march toward collectivity," so even the last on this list is great.) Actually it is unfair to say that they are not all totally devoted to the truth, some are just better at discerning the truth.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Blame It on the Bankers
Nothing new but I spoke to someone yesterday who explained that the bank/economy melt down was all brought on by greed. I spoke to him at the gym. He's a doctor so you would think that he would know better. This time he is saying it is the greed of Lehman Brothers executives that started it all. He saw it on a Canadian Broadcasting program. I asked him a few questions but I am not up for such arguments as I have had them so often. I thought later that I should have asked him when they will be broadcasting the rebuttal. Surely they should give both sides a fair chance. If Canadian Broadcasting is anything like Public Broadcasting in the USA, there's not a chance. I am sure my friend would not care and understand. He would say that there can be no rebuttal. (See my W. F. Buckley quotation.)
I wanted to tell him that Lehman Brothers and the mortgage bankers were just doing what congress told them to do. They were supplying mortgages and securities to the public, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and to other banks that the regulators in government wanted them to provide. Everyone knew they were junk. That's why everyone wanted default swaps as insurance. (The guru's computer models said there wasn't much risk in those derivatives and the rating agencies gave them triple A's) It had nothing to do with Glass Steigal or the free market run amuck, or greedy executives. The free market was not free; it was confused and mislead by government mandates to reduce lending standards and other rules. Glass Steigal was irrelevant, since Lehman and other firms were making deals that would not have been disallowed with or without the regulations under Glass Steigal. Lastly, the executives were no more greedy than they had ever been or ever will be.
By the way, they are doing it again. They are making too many low interest mortgage loans and selling them to Fannie May and Freddy Mack just as BHO tells them to do. They would make more business loans as he asks too, if business wanted any loans right now. (What happens when rates go up and banks are caught holding 30 year 5% loans and their cost of funds is more like 10%? They will need to be bailed out and they will be told they were greedy.)
My rebuttal to him was necessarily brief. I told him that the problem was government involvement in the economy. That is what I firmly believe but how can that be explained in a few minutes to a thoroughly indoctrinated drone? I told him to look at Von Mises Institute.com and chickenshitnewworld. He accused me of being a Republican.
When will they ever learn?
I wanted to tell him that Lehman Brothers and the mortgage bankers were just doing what congress told them to do. They were supplying mortgages and securities to the public, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and to other banks that the regulators in government wanted them to provide. Everyone knew they were junk. That's why everyone wanted default swaps as insurance. (The guru's computer models said there wasn't much risk in those derivatives and the rating agencies gave them triple A's) It had nothing to do with Glass Steigal or the free market run amuck, or greedy executives. The free market was not free; it was confused and mislead by government mandates to reduce lending standards and other rules. Glass Steigal was irrelevant, since Lehman and other firms were making deals that would not have been disallowed with or without the regulations under Glass Steigal. Lastly, the executives were no more greedy than they had ever been or ever will be.
By the way, they are doing it again. They are making too many low interest mortgage loans and selling them to Fannie May and Freddy Mack just as BHO tells them to do. They would make more business loans as he asks too, if business wanted any loans right now. (What happens when rates go up and banks are caught holding 30 year 5% loans and their cost of funds is more like 10%? They will need to be bailed out and they will be told they were greedy.)
My rebuttal to him was necessarily brief. I told him that the problem was government involvement in the economy. That is what I firmly believe but how can that be explained in a few minutes to a thoroughly indoctrinated drone? I told him to look at Von Mises Institute.com and chickenshitnewworld. He accused me of being a Republican.
When will they ever learn?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Hidden Inflation
Because our central bank is pursuing a price stabilization policy, we are not seeing the deflation that we would otherwise. So-called financial experts are saying, "steady as she goes," prices aren't rising, therefore inflation is not a concern. With the current low interest rates and government spending, there is a lot of money flowing into the economy. This is countering the current tendency of people and businesses to be cautious with spending. Lowering price levels is the mechanism by which we get out of a recession. The government is not helping by fighting the flow and intentionally keeping prices fairly level. They are doing this mainly to help the banks, which would continue to lose on real estate if prices fell. (Which would mean more Federal Deposit 'Insurance' payments.)
This is a good example of how government pursues a bad policy to mitigate the results of their past policy of interference. If there were no government deposit insurance, banks would have had to slow down long ago, or else lose deposits. The government could afford to leave them alone if it didn't have to make good the depositor's losses. Now they are just digging a deeper hole. As they say, the first step to getting out of the hole is to stop digging. Loose money leads to business (and local governments) investing in long term capital improvement. That creates the proverbial bridges to nowhere. If the economy can not currently support growth, that investment will not be needed and will be wasted.
The result will probably be a harder landing when we hit bottom. If they shift gears to support the dollar, which they will have to do, interests rates and prices may start to spiral up and BHO and his Fed chief won't be able to do anything about it. If they would have cut taxes and spending a year ago and stuck to it, things would look better by now. At this point, that would still be a good policy. Unfortunately, HBO is still on a spending spree and talking about who to tax to pay for some of it. On top of that, he wants banks to lend more, especially to home buyers. He's like a gambler who wants to keep doubling his bet in the hopes of getting even.
It's time that the Republicans in Congress take every opportunity to say "no more."
This is a good example of how government pursues a bad policy to mitigate the results of their past policy of interference. If there were no government deposit insurance, banks would have had to slow down long ago, or else lose deposits. The government could afford to leave them alone if it didn't have to make good the depositor's losses. Now they are just digging a deeper hole. As they say, the first step to getting out of the hole is to stop digging. Loose money leads to business (and local governments) investing in long term capital improvement. That creates the proverbial bridges to nowhere. If the economy can not currently support growth, that investment will not be needed and will be wasted.
The result will probably be a harder landing when we hit bottom. If they shift gears to support the dollar, which they will have to do, interests rates and prices may start to spiral up and BHO and his Fed chief won't be able to do anything about it. If they would have cut taxes and spending a year ago and stuck to it, things would look better by now. At this point, that would still be a good policy. Unfortunately, HBO is still on a spending spree and talking about who to tax to pay for some of it. On top of that, he wants banks to lend more, especially to home buyers. He's like a gambler who wants to keep doubling his bet in the hopes of getting even.
It's time that the Republicans in Congress take every opportunity to say "no more."
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Lyndon LaRouche Youth Activists Have a Plan Too
I talked to one of them and received a DVD and two magazines for a contribution. The DVD stopped working after about an hour just when the narrative got up to the present and I was wondering what happens next. I do not know but will find out one way or the other.
This group does not like BHO policies, especially health care at the moment. I have to like that. They say that the HMO's were the beginning of the problems for health care. The bankers' main ploy apparently, is to entice us and government to spend beyond our means. That makes sense to me too, but I didn't know it was an organized conspiracy. They do not like England because the global elite bankers are mostly from there. I do not know about that and do not think I will ever find out; it's got to be quite secret. It appears that Kaiser Wilhelm caught on but too late. They tricked him into WWI to destroy the German competition. I agree that Germany had a good thing going at the time (although starting down the road to socialism since Bismark), too bad things went wrong. I liked the Czar too, and certainly even the Brits don't trust the Brits. Anyway, they put in Hitler and after many steps and missteps, they arrived at today where they are behind President Obama's plans (the elite bankers that is, not LaRouchites). LaRouche is definitely against those plans and draws a Hitler mustache on Obama's picture to show what he thinks of him. I guess I agree with most of that. By definition, BHO policies are fascist and getting worse.
However, Obama's policies also are communistic, and THAT the LaRouchites do not seem to mind. (I could be wrong.) They think that FDR's policies were putting the bankers in their place until Trueman came along and put them back in charge. (Actually, under this conspiracy model, wasn't FDR's spending spree creating more debt for the global bankers to finance?) Mr. LaRouche seems to be pro organized labor too. Going along with Mr. LaRouche sounds a little bit like out of the frying pan into the fire. After JFK, whose contribution to the plot was to get assassinated,which was such a bummer it put the 60's generation into a suicidal death spiral, came a lot of financial schemes that robbed us more and more. Nixon took our gold, then finally we collapsed, but we do not quite know it yet.
I guess what they say we get next is Weimar style hyperinflation. I guess I should take what is left of my IRA out of stock mutual funds and put it into gold. (There isn't much else that would escape, right?) Mr. LaRouche's current plan of survival is to grant bankruptcy like protection to banks (only "legitimate" banks, apparently not the international elite ones) and mortgage holders. We could stop paying our mortgage payments to the banks but the banks would be OK since they would not have to pay anyone either. If only I could call Glenn Beck, maybe he could explain all this.
This group does not like BHO policies, especially health care at the moment. I have to like that. They say that the HMO's were the beginning of the problems for health care. The bankers' main ploy apparently, is to entice us and government to spend beyond our means. That makes sense to me too, but I didn't know it was an organized conspiracy. They do not like England because the global elite bankers are mostly from there. I do not know about that and do not think I will ever find out; it's got to be quite secret. It appears that Kaiser Wilhelm caught on but too late. They tricked him into WWI to destroy the German competition. I agree that Germany had a good thing going at the time (although starting down the road to socialism since Bismark), too bad things went wrong. I liked the Czar too, and certainly even the Brits don't trust the Brits. Anyway, they put in Hitler and after many steps and missteps, they arrived at today where they are behind President Obama's plans (the elite bankers that is, not LaRouchites). LaRouche is definitely against those plans and draws a Hitler mustache on Obama's picture to show what he thinks of him. I guess I agree with most of that. By definition, BHO policies are fascist and getting worse.
However, Obama's policies also are communistic, and THAT the LaRouchites do not seem to mind. (I could be wrong.) They think that FDR's policies were putting the bankers in their place until Trueman came along and put them back in charge. (Actually, under this conspiracy model, wasn't FDR's spending spree creating more debt for the global bankers to finance?) Mr. LaRouche seems to be pro organized labor too. Going along with Mr. LaRouche sounds a little bit like out of the frying pan into the fire. After JFK, whose contribution to the plot was to get assassinated,which was such a bummer it put the 60's generation into a suicidal death spiral, came a lot of financial schemes that robbed us more and more. Nixon took our gold, then finally we collapsed, but we do not quite know it yet.
I guess what they say we get next is Weimar style hyperinflation. I guess I should take what is left of my IRA out of stock mutual funds and put it into gold. (There isn't much else that would escape, right?) Mr. LaRouche's current plan of survival is to grant bankruptcy like protection to banks (only "legitimate" banks, apparently not the international elite ones) and mortgage holders. We could stop paying our mortgage payments to the banks but the banks would be OK since they would not have to pay anyone either. If only I could call Glenn Beck, maybe he could explain all this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)