RE: So what's your plan?

RE: So what's your plan? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/5/2011 12:19:03 PM)
quote: No, nothing in your transactions following the deposit of $1k involves creation of new money, its the same money recirculating. For there to be new money there would have to be a transaction with the Fed, and you didnt need any to grow the $1K into $10k. The way is see it is that extra $9,000 of new money growth from the original $1,000 is all in the form of loans. Loans = debt = money. It's still debt that obligates repayment. Yes, the money is recirculating. These loans are typically taken out to purchase goods or services. The supplier then deposits such payments into their own bank accounts, and the process continues.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/5/2011 12:32:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever quote: No, nothing in your transactions following the deposit of $1k involves creation of new money, its the same money recirculating. For there to be new money there would have to be a transaction with the Fed, and you didnt need any to grow the $1K into $10k. The way is see it is that extra $9,000 of new money growth from the original $1,000 is all in the form of loans. Loans = debt = money. It's still debt that obligates repayment. Yes, the money is recirculating. These loans are typically taken out to purchase goods or services. The supplier then deposits such payments into their own bank accounts, and the process continues. Yes, but its two different debts you are talking about. One is the national debt, which is what you think cant be paid down with a given money supply. The other is personal/corporate debt, the creation of which is enabled by the fractional reserve system without any further change in the national debt or the money supply (and the economic activity that produces in fact accelerates the paydown of the national debt...or slows down its growth if we are still in a deficit spending mode).

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/5/2011 8:53:46 PM)
quote: Yes, but its two different debts you are talking about. One is the national debt, which is what you think cant be paid down with a given money supply. The other is personal/corporate debt, the creation of which is enabled by the fractional reserve system without any further change in the national debt or the money supply (and the economic activity that produces in fact accelerates the paydown of the national debt...or slows down its growth if we are still in a deficit spending mode). Yes, I know it's two different debts. In post 156, I did say if the United States government and its citizens collectively wanted to repay all debt. So then, I ask you, Muse, or anyone: How can we collectively repay the our debt without creating a monetary contraction that will collapse the economy?

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/6/2011 8:13:49 PM)
quote: When Congress passes a bill and appropriates a certain amount of money, the cost is advanced to the Department of Treasury. The Treasury does not create money, but instead borrows it from the Federal Reserve System. There's a lot here in the past few days, and I'm short on time. I'll pick at it gradually. First, the Treasury auctions securities to raise money. The Fed is certainly one of the buyers often, but just one of many. OK. Now. Economics is about the allocation of resources. We, like all economies, are in a resource-based economy. Money is not the resource itself, but rather, a system of accounting and a means to facilitate moving the resources around. As such, it reduces transaction costs, as well as promotes a healthy economy (resources are circulating). We don't have as much money as we do resources simply because we don't need that much--only the amount needed to facilitate the circulation. Currency isn't the same as money. We need only enough currency for the passing of it in day-to-day market activity. Consider--I'm building a new house on land I already own. The bank wants a downpayment--in this case, that's the value of the land. See what happened? I made a downpayment, but with neither money nor currency...I used a dollar denominated asset. What happens when the bank disperses the funds? They'll cut a check--no currency required. The checks will total less than the mortgage amount, as I go in with equity...we didn't need as much money as the house is now worth. Maybe wilbeur can help make this clear to you.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/6/2011 10:04:59 PM)
quote: There's a lot here in the past few days, and I'm short on time. I'll pick at it gradually. First, the Treasury auctions securities to raise money. The Fed is certainly one of the buyers often, but just one of many. OK. Now. Economics is about the allocation of resources. We, like all economies, are in a resource-based economy. Money is not the resource itself, but rather, a system of accounting and a means to facilitate moving the resources around. As such, it reduces transaction costs, as well as promotes a healthy economy (resources are circulating). We don't have as much money as we do resources simply because we don't need that much--only the amount needed to facilitate the circulation. Currency isn't the same as money. We need only enough currency for the passing of it in day-to-day market activity. Consider--I'm building a new house on land I already own. The bank wants a downpayment--in this case, that's the value of the land. See what happened? I made a downpayment, but with neither money nor currency...I used a dollar denominated asset. What happens when the bank disperses the funds? They'll cut a check--no currency required. The checks will total less than the mortgage amount, as I go in with equity...we didn't need as much money as the house is now worth. Maybe wilbeur can help make this clear to you. I recall reading not all too long ago that only about 3% of our money supply is in the form of currency. The remainder exists in electronic entry form. Though I can't recall the source now, I must have trusted it since I accepted it as true and moved forward. This being the case, I certainly didn't intend to convey any confusion about currency vs money. Sorry if I managed to do this. Your land-as-down-payment example is interesting. Yes, in terms of a construction loan, the LTV (loan-to-value) is certainly a key component of loan underwriting. So yes, they will give you monetary credit for the value of the land towards their LTV calculation. However, if you didn't want to build a house on the land, but instead wanted to use the value of your land to pay off other traditional consumer or mortgage debt, you would first need to convert your land into cash by way of sale. Your creditors are not going to accept the deed to your land as repayment of debt. Debt repayment is most relevant to my course of discussion. In terms of responding to all my points posted during your absence, they all really boil down to this key question: How can we, meaning both public and private, collectively repay our debt without creating a monetary contraction that will collapse the economy?

BitaTruble -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/6/2011 11:52:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery What's your plan? Let's get started. I would start with adjusting zoning laws so we can get vertical. We build massive housing tracts that are miles away from places of employment thus forcing the citizens into their cars to get to their jobs and the local mall. We can be smart about it. I don't want bars next to parks or peep shows next to schools but a little common sense can go a long way here. How much fuel is used to get from point A to point B? As a country, we once had the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. We used up 1/2 of that resource in the span of 25 years. Billions of dollars worth of fuel have been wasted simply by sitting in traffic. By going vertical we can solve several problems in one fell swoop and avoid the prediction that we will increase our fuel consumption by 58% by the year 2025. We are the determiners of our future. Vertical - First two floors, small businesses, next 10 floors for housing, next 5 for manufacturing and so on. I'll let the experts work out the logistics but again common sense says that if you can walk downstairs to shop, walk upstairs and go to work you will save time and money and saving big bux every month can be used for other needful things since you won't need to make car payments, insurance payments or pay for gas, new tires etc. This also will cut down on our need for foreign oil. It needn't be mandatory because some people will die with their car keys in their hands, but given the option I believe enough people will make up for those who still want to drive. Along with new zoning laws, we need to get serious about public transportation and we can look over the pond to the amazing systems which are already in place in Europe and working well. Good ideas come from all over and we should not hesitate to cannibalize good ideas regardless of their origin. We need to go green and get into the hemp of things. Hemp can be made into thousands of products and this is an untapped market just dying to be utilized. We could create hundreds of thousands of jobs just by going green with hemp. (We can plant fields on all the space we just saved by going vertical!) Palin may think the answer is drill, baby, drill but I'm more a grow, baby, grow sorta gal. Fossil fuels are finite and drill, baby, drill is short-sighted at best.. a temporary solution when we have long term problems with fossil fuel consumption. Along with the hemp, legalize marijuana and decriminalize most other soft drugs and then tax the hell out of it. That will get people out of jail and put them back into the work force as tax paying citizens. No one should go to jail for lighting a blunt. This one is going to make me unpopular, but we need to socialize certain segements of business which should be non-profit. Schools, fire departments, police departments are all non-profit. Why aren't hospitals? Companies don't need to make a profit off someone's lung transplant or broken leg. Not all medicine needs to be socialized. There will be plenty of procedures left so that medico's can charge up the ying-yang for things like elective cosmetic surgery, braces on your teeth and lazik plus a myriad of others. There is more than enough vanity out there to give incentive for people to continue going to medical school. I'd cut defence spending.. a lot. We really don't need to ability to destroy the world six times over. Once is sufficient. Even if the entire world suddenly went to war against the USA, we could blow any country off the face of the Earth (and ourselves along with it) and I doubt there is anyone within shouting distance of a television who isn't aware of that already. "Dolly, that A bomb is so last summer." "Yes, Gertie, but it still works." Get it? Basic black is always in fashion. We can keep a smallish group of experts; machinists, scientists .. etc.. whatever it takes to maintain or upgrade our ability to blow ourselves up and take the rest of the dough and put that money to work for us rather than have it work against everyone else in the form of more weapons of mass destruction, armor that doesn't actually stop bullets and tanks which constantly break down and put our soldiers at risk. We are running out of places to put our shit so we need to make recycling mandatory. It works so we should be doing it. We need to get rid of pork. $50,000 dollars to run a study about ketchup running rates is just stupid. We may not have much, but stupid we gots by the truck load. This post is getting a little long in the tooth so I'll stop for now but I do have other ideas, some more viable than others, and perhaps will have an opportunity to express them at a later date. I ain't running for office or anything, so this is what yer average Josephine the Plumber came up with for your thread. :D

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/7/2011 6:05:24 AM)
quote: However, if you didn't want to build a house on the land, but instead wanted to use the value of your land to pay off other traditional consumer or mortgage debt, you would first need to convert your land into cash by way of sale. Your creditors are not going to accept the deed to your land as repayment of debt. Debt repayment is most relevant to my course of discussion. In terms of responding to all my points posted during your absence, they all really boil down to this key question: How can we, meaning both public and private, collectively repay our debt without creating a monetary contraction that will collapse the economy? subfever, I confess this is very frustrating. The quoted portion above shows the answer and the point to which you remain blind. Wealth is denominated in dollars, but those "dollars" are an accounting feature, not money. If you wanted to use that wealth to not merely pay a debt but to exchange for other assets/resources, you could in fact arrange a deal without exchanging money, but yes, you'd more likely sell it for money (probably NOT "cash"/currency), and then exchange the money for the new assets/resources (hence, money as a medium of exchange, lowering transaction costs). Or, you could "store" your money in a number of financial instruments (money as store of value--but certainly NOT the only one). But it's about the resources. We only need as much money as we have resources being exchanged. That's why we have FAR more wealth than money. Your debt question makes no sense at all. As you define it, just getting paid at the end of the week creates debt. And OK, but it also creates a credit simultaneously. Second, paying debt doesn't contract the money supply--it just moves the money around. Third, there are more common options for payment that you're ignoring--I'm not going to sell anything to pay the bank the mortgage balance (unless I choose to from my retirement later), but rather, with the productivity of my work as I create new value added and receive that in pay. And further, that "creation of debt" EXPANDS the economy. A resource is created. My architect, surveyor, builder, etc. all get work. Their purchases continue to circulate in the economy as well. And so on. It's just not the way you've got it fixed in your mind.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/7/2011 8:12:32 AM)
quote: And further, that "creation of debt" EXPANDS the economy. A resource is created. My architect, surveyor, builder, etc. all get work. Their purchases continue to circulate in the economy as well. And so on. At the risk of further frustrating you, I ask you to please explain how it is that the creation of debt expands the economy (of which I agree), while the repayment of debt doesn't contract the economy along with the money supply. And if debt repayment doesn't cause monetary contraction, what does cause monetary contraction? I realize your a busy guy, so take your time. No hurry.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/7/2011 10:44:07 AM)
But I've told you this, and you've said so yourself, but don't recognize it. Production happens. That's expanding the economy, is it not? New productivity covers the financial obligation. That was the point of the loan--it's not something for nothing, but a security balanced against a realistic ability to make good. That's ALSO an expansion of the economy. Tell you what. You explain how repayment contracts the money supply, i.e., when you pay your bills, the money supply drops. Because it simply doesn't--the money just moves from your pocket to the ones you paid.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/7/2011 2:43:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Second, paying debt doesn't contract the money supply--it just moves the money around. In fact when the government pays its debt it expands the money supply if it doesnt reborrow via another Treasury bond.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/7/2011 6:28:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Production happens. That's expanding the economy, is it not? Yes, if one produces consumer goods or services and sells them, he is expanding the economy. quote: New productivity covers the financial obligation. That was the point of the loan--it's not something for nothing, but a security balanced against a realistic ability to make good. Yes, our producer who sold the goods or services uses this income to repay his debt. quote: That's ALSO an expansion of the economy. Yes, a new loan is an expansion of the economy and money supply. quote: Tell you what. You explain how repayment contracts the money supply, i.e., when you pay your bills, the money supply drops. Because it simply doesn't--the money just moves from your pocket to the ones you paid. I never said anything about paying bills, other then repaying loan debt obligation. 1) You agreed earlier that money is created as debt. 2) You also agreed that the money supply is far less than the total public and private debt. 3) You further agreed that for the most part, both paper-denominated securities and tangible assets need to be converted to cash prior to using them to repay debt. The above being the case, I still cannot see how the money supply wouldn't contract if a collective attempt were made to repay public and private debt. If we tried to do this, the banks and the Federal Reserve would receive the debt repayments until the money supply ran out. Unless new borrowers stepped to the plate and the banks/FR issued new loans, how would any more money get into the system?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/7/2011 6:54:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever The above being the case, I still cannot see how the money supply wouldn't contract if a collective attempt were made to repay public and private debt. If we tried to do this, the banks and the Federal Reserve would receive the debt repayments until the money supply ran out. Unless new borrowers stepped to the plate and the banks/FR issued new loans, how would any more money get into the system? If by "public debt" you mean the National Debt, and by "private debt" you mean loans that individuals and companies have taken from banks, other individuals/funds etc, they have different impact. I think you are still confusing "money supply" with "currency". A loan is an expansion of the "money supply" because of fractional reserve banking, but it is not an expansion of currency. Repayment of a loan to a bank does nothing to reduce the money supply. It takes one component of money supply (physical currency) and puts it into the bank, increasing its reserves, and allowing it to relend that money. The physical currency stays a part of money supply and the additional reserves are subject to the fractional reserve multiplier so it can eventually EXPAND the money supply. While all of this is going on the balancing item in the equation is the velocity of money...how the "fixed" supply of currency turns over in transactions. When public debt is permanently retired it means that a Treasury bond has been paid off IN CASH by the government and not replaced. Again that would be an INCREASE in the cash in circulation, not a decrease.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/8/2011 5:03:27 AM)
quote: I never said anything about paying bills, other then repaying loan debt obligation. Subfever, paying bills IS a debt obligation. wilbeur answered your other question. OK?

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/8/2011 2:04:29 PM)
quote: If by "public debt" you mean the National Debt, and by "private debt" you mean loans that individuals and companies have taken from banks, other individuals/funds etc, Yes, that's what I meant. quote: I think you are still confusing "money supply" with "currency". A loan is an expansion of the "money supply" because of fractional reserve banking, but it is not an expansion of currency. Yes, I agree. quote: Repayment of a loan to a bank does nothing to reduce the money supply. It takes one component of money supply (physical currency) and puts it into the bank, increasing its reserves, and allowing it to relend that money. Yes, I understand this. But if we're collectively attempting to retire all debt, there would be no new borrowers stepping up to the plate, and therefore no new loans. quote: The physical currency stays a part of money supply and the additional reserves are subject to the fractional reserve multiplier so it can eventually EXPAND the money supply. Yes... if new borrowers take new loans. quote: While all of this is going on, the balancing item in the equation is the velocity of money... how the "fixed" supply of currency turns over in transactions. Okay, I may not understand exactly what you're saying here, but this may not be directly related to the main point I've been trying to get across anyway. And that is, if we collectively tried to get out of debt, we couldn't do it. For when we repay loans, the money goes back to the banks. The money would dry up long before all the loans were collectively paid back. And, to get new money into circulation, new loans would have to be taken out. quote: When public debt is permanently retired it means that a Treasury bond has been paid off IN CASH by the government and not replaced. Again that would be an INCREASE in the cash in circulation, not a decrease. If these Treasury bonds were held by the Federal Reserve, and the government or other banks don't borrow any more money from them, how does this increase the cash in circulation? If they were held by China or Japan, and our government retired them, unless they spend the money here in the US, how would that increase our cash in circulation? I agree that if a Treasury bond were held by you or me, and the government retired it, then it would increase the cash in circulation. I suppose we could, if preferred, just cut to the chase if I presented the question from a different angle: Besides loans, how do you get money into circulation?

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/8/2011 7:38:49 PM)
There are so many misconceptions here, building. U.S. citizens buy Treasury bonds--in fact, they hold the majority of the national debt. Foreign governments use U.S. currency to balance their current accounts (as we do theirs). And you're discussing money as if it were the sole asset. Hell, just personally, money is less than 1% of my financial assets, currency less than .01%, and that doesn't start to cover other assets (land, orchard, timber, house, car, possessions, etc.). And buying Treasury securities is only one of the tools the Fed can use to affect the money supply. Look, when debt is created, so is the asset the loan was made to purchase; i.e., the resource to cover it is there at the moment of debt. Your question (and assumption) makes no sense. Accounting 101. Repayment is just a transfer of funds. As I mentioned earlier, there's $54 trillion in wealth in the U.S. The national debt is $14 trillion. Private debt is around $36 trillion. So we've got it covered, if you really want to pay it off. But there's good reason not to do so. I'm taking a mortgage on my new house, even though I can pay for it multiple times. Why? Other assets are tied up, and when I can borrow at 4%, makes no sense to take the funding from better performing assets. Hell, I used to borrow to expand my orchard, until the banks got nutso with credit rates, and then turned to my savings instead. Bottom line, where you originally started--this IS a resource-based economy, and all the resources for all of this not only exist, but have so since day one. Money is what we use to grease the circulation of assets. We don't want any more than needed to do that, or it will simply be absorbed as inflation. And that availability of credit adds value--e.g., my house is worth more than the resources used to create it. Value added--so the loan actually increased total assets.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/9/2011 10:14:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery There are so many misconceptions here, building. U.S. citizens buy Treasury bonds--in fact, they hold the majority of the national debt. Foreign governments use U.S. currency to balance their current accounts (as we do theirs). And you're discussing money as if it were the sole asset. Hell, just personally, money is less than 1% of my financial assets, currency less than .01%, and that doesn't start to cover other assets (land, orchard, timber, house, car, possessions, etc.). And buying Treasury securities is only one of the tools the Fed can use to affect the money supply. Look, when debt is created, so is the asset the loan was made to purchase; i.e., the resource to cover it is there at the moment of debt. Your question (and assumption) makes no sense. Accounting 101. Repayment is just a transfer of funds. As I mentioned earlier, there's $54 trillion in wealth in the U.S. The national debt is $14 trillion. Private debt is around $36 trillion. So we've got it covered, if you really want to pay it off. But there's good reason not to do so. I'm taking a mortgage on my new house, even though I can pay for it multiple times. Why? Other assets are tied up, and when I can borrow at 4%, makes no sense to take the funding from better performing assets. Hell, I used to borrow to expand my orchard, until the banks got nutso with credit rates, and then turned to my savings instead. Bottom line, where you originally started--this IS a resource-based economy, and all the resources for all of this not only exist, but have so since day one. Money is what we use to grease the circulation of assets. We don't want any more than needed to do that, or it will simply be absorbed as inflation. And that availability of credit adds value--e.g., my house is worth more than the resources used to create it. Value added--so the loan actually increased total assets. No, this isn't a resource-based economy. There are actually two schools of thought regarding resource-based economies. See here for both the Directivist and Mechnocratic theories. Neither come even close to our capitalist system which requires scarcity to function. In regards to the repayment of debt, then what you're saying is that we can collectively retire all debt without triggering a monetary contraction that would collapse the economy. Is this your position?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/9/2011 10:30:50 AM)
"Yes, I understand this. But if we're collectively attempting to retire all debt, there would be no new borrowers stepping up to the plate, and therefore no new loans. " Again you need to clarify. I dont think anyone is attempting to retire all debt, just all or most of the National debt. New loans dont matter in that regard. "The physical currency stays a part of money supply and the additional reserves are subject to the fractional reserve multiplier so it can eventually EXPAND the money supply. " "Yes... if new borrowers take new loans." It sounds like youre talking about private debt again. Your original concern was that there isnt enough money supply to retire debt. But even if there are no new loans, repayment of those loans doesnt REDUCE the money supply. The lack of expansion of the money supply just means the velocity of money has to be somewhat higher, and that happens automatically, unless you ran into technological problems with the speed of transactions themselves, obviously no longer an issue. The money would dry up long before all the loans were collectively paid back. And, to get new money into circulation, new loans would have to be taken out. No, the money wouldnt dry up! Paying off public debt INCREASES the money supply youve got that side totally backwards. And paying off private debt either expands the money supply or leaves it the same, it doesnt reduce it. We've been through the transactions and their impact on money supply. Im not sure what youre missing here.

lockedaway -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/9/2011 10:34:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy "Yes, I understand this. But if we're collectively attempting to retire all debt, there would be no new borrowers stepping up to the plate, and therefore no new loans. " Again you need to clarify. I dont think anyone is attempting to retire all debt, just all or most of the National debt. New loans dont matter in that regard. "The physical currency stays a part of money supply and the additional reserves are subject to the fractional reserve multiplier so it can eventually EXPAND the money supply. " "Yes... if new borrowers take new loans." It sounds like youre talking about private debt again. Your original concern was that there isnt enough money supply to retire debt. But even if there are no new loans, repayment of those loans doesnt REDUCE the money supply. The lack of expansion of the money supply just means the velocity of money has to be somewhat higher, and that happens automatically, unless you ran into technological problems with the speed of transactions themselves, obviously no longer an issue. The money would dry up long before all the loans were collectively paid back. And, to get new money into circulation, new loans would have to be taken out. No, the money wouldnt dry up! Paying off public debt INCREASES the money supply youve got that side totally backwards. And paying off private debt either expands the money supply or leaves it the same, it doesnt reduce it. We've been through the transactions and their impact on money supply. Im not sure what youre missing here. There is a new book out called "Reckless Endangerment". It is an analysis of how the democrat party and their patsies on Wall St. caused the financial meltdown in the past decade or more. The book allegedly goes into very specific detail and names names.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/9/2011 10:55:01 AM)
quote: No, this isn't a resource-based economy. So you repeat, but you do so ignoring the explanation for why it is, and at a very basic level at that. Money greases transaction and facilitates accounting and portability of value, but you are mistaking this for the resource economy it reflects. In fact, ALL economies are resource economies. Now, whether resources are scarce is another discussion. Economically, "scarce" really means "finite." I'd be willing to entertain at an idealistic level that this is not strictly true, but that's a philosophical musing other than the point at hand.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/9/2011 10:56:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy "Yes, I understand this. But if we're collectively attempting to retire all debt, there would be no new borrowers stepping up to the plate, and therefore no new loans. " Again you need to clarify. I dont think anyone is attempting to retire all debt, just all or most of the National debt. New loans dont matter in that regard. "The physical currency stays a part of money supply and the additional reserves are subject to the fractional reserve multiplier so it can eventually EXPAND the money supply. " "Yes... if new borrowers take new loans." It sounds like youre talking about private debt again. Your original concern was that there isnt enough money supply to retire debt. But even if there are no new loans, repayment of those loans doesnt REDUCE the money supply. The lack of expansion of the money supply just means the velocity of money has to be somewhat higher, and that happens automatically, unless you ran into technological problems with the speed of transactions themselves, obviously no longer an issue. The money would dry up long before all the loans were collectively paid back. And, to get new money into circulation, new loans would have to be taken out. No, the money wouldnt dry up! Paying off public debt INCREASES the money supply youve got that side totally backwards. And paying off private debt either expands the money supply or leaves it the same, it doesnt reduce it. We've been through the transactions and their impact on money supply. Im not sure what youre missing here. There is a new book out called "Reckless Endangerment". It is an analysis of how the democrat party and their patsies on Wall St. caused the financial meltdown in the past decade or more. The book allegedly goes into very specific detail and names names. I doubt there are any revelations here for anyone who bothered to critically read the news. And it will fall on deaf ears for those who want to blame everything on the GOP.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875