Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[tokeprep]

They will....and people will keep quoting Fed stats from the Fed to justify the Fed as well....par for the course.

"We lost 2500 to FICA" nothing to do with you?

"We" is the fictional four person family I made up for the example.

 

[tokeprep]

$75/wk for groceries, for two?

You think that's implausible? What do I need to be buying to spend so much money at the grocery store? Most of what I buy is fresh food, not dirt cheap boxed crap, and I usually don't even hit $75 a week.

 

[tokeprep]

Also, 30k single or married with two dependents qualifies for EITC, I would get that cause its free money absorbed by the collective which, of course, adds to the surplus making us wealthier.

I intentionally avoided counting transfer payments because I don't think it's necessary to show that one earner could live the 1913 life in 2013.

 

[twostrokenut]

I intentionally avoided counting transfer payments because I don't think it's necessary to show that one earner could live the 1913 life in 2013.

I think you avoided it because you would have to factor subsidies in the plus side for 1913, making people wealthier than even I have shown they were back when their money had substance and people simply profited from saving.

 

[tokeprep]

I think you avoided it because you would have to factor subsidies in the plus side for 1913, making people wealthier than even I have shown they were back when their money had substance and people simply profited from saving.

What transfer payments existed in 1913?

 

[twostrokenut]

What transfer payments existed in 1913?

Lol oh hell no I aint riding this train no more.

 

[NoDrama]

For simplicity, let's say we just have one bank. If the reserve requirement is 10% and I deposit $1,000, the bank only needs to keep $100 on hand. The bank doesn't "borrow that money 10 times over," it loans the remaining $900 out. If the recipient of that $900 loan deposits it into the bank, it only needs to keep $90 on hand; it loans the other $810 out. This plays out until the bank ends up with $10,000 owed to depositors, $9,000 owed by borrowers, and $1,000 in reserve.

I never denied that the bank "come out ahead" (they wouldn't be in the business if they didn't), I said there is no "prime beneficiary." The depositor who wanted his interest payment benefits, the borrower who wanted the loan benefits, and the bank benefits.



Yes, when you make a bank deposit you no longer "own" the money, you just have a right to repayment; in the event of failure, you would be an unsecured creditor. But this legal reality doesn't really matter, does it? As a practical matter, the bank never refuses to repay you, and in the event of bank failure, deposit insurance pays you.



I think the term is actually pretty standard in deposit agreements. This is from Chase:

"7. Check cashing
If a person who is not our deposit or loan customer tries to cash your check at any of our branches, we
may charge them a fee or refuse to cash it. We may also require that they provide us identification we deem
acceptable, including fingerprints."



The banks are responsible for our national debt?



Is a bank really insolvent when asset valuations are totally irrational and just reflect temporary market panic? No. All those "toxic assets" are now worth far, far more than they were in 2008 because they're being more accurately valued in the market place. Notwithstanding that fact, I maintain that most banks would not have failed on that basis (although Citigroup certainly would have).



You know what I meant: the supply is fixed in the sense that it hasn't increased at the rate of population growth. If the world population was 2.5 billion in 1960 and 85,000 tons of gold had been mined, it should have been relatively less valuable in 1960 than it is now, with 7 billion people and something like 170,000 tons mined.



I think gold and silver made sense in an era when information was hard to come by and truth was difficult to discern. That's what separates past experience from the present and renders it incomparable.

Someone took the blue pill, woke up in their bed, and believed whatever they wanted to believe.

FDIC insurance, I laughed at that one.

 

[NoDrama]

The banks own the regional reserve banks. They don't get to make monetary policy with them. No one owns the Board of Governors or the FOMC.

The banks make up 7 of the 12 votes on the board. Just so ya know, all the members of the board who get those 7 votes are picked by the banks and congress gets to decide which bank pony gets the magical dust.

The congress only gets to choose 5 of the 12 people on the board from whomever they want.

7 is more than 5.

 

[tokeprep]

Lol oh hell no I aint riding this train no more.

I take it you can't think of any then, otherwise this would be easy.

 

[tokeprep]

Someone took the blue pill, woke up in their bed, and believed whatever they wanted to believe.

FDIC insurance, I laughed at that one.

It's unfortunate that you're content to lead your life that way, but so be it...

Why are you laughing at FDIC insurance? Since the FDIC was created 80 years ago, how many depositors have lost money in failed banks?

 

[tokeprep]

The banks make up 7 of the 12 votes on the board. Just so ya know, all the members of the board who get those 7 votes are picked by the banks and congress gets to decide which bank pony gets the magical dust.

The congress only gets to choose 5 of the 12 people on the board from whomever they want.

7 is more than 5.

Except that's an outright lie. The Board of Governors has 7 members, all 7 on the FOMC, all 7 appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Board_of_Governors
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/frb.asp
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frseri.htm

Indeed, 7 is more than 5. If only you didn't have your numbers reversed.

 

[twostrokenut]

I take it you can't think of any then, otherwise this would be easy.

I can't think of any subsidies in 1913 was my point, you used an example of 30k today, pretended anyone today does not almost receive double that in subsidies....I merely pointed out the EITC as one that would double the "5k left" in your scenario...your point of "living the 1913 life in 2013" I no longer care to entertain, just as my and everyone else on here's view on that has basically been discounted as irrelevant by you......

We were talking numbers not how you think someone thought they told you how it was.....

not going to google transfer payment thats what I mean about getting off the train

 

[Harrekin]

It's unfortunate that you're content to lead your life that way, but so be it...

Why are you laughing at FDIC insurance? Since the FDIC was created 80 years ago, how many depositors have lost money in failed banks?

Probably whatever % of the American taxpayers who pay taxes?

Keep opening your mouth and proving what a fool you are.

$75 a week for two people? Good luck keeping the woman by your side...

 

[cannabineer]

$75 a week for two people is eminently doable if you buy beans and rice and flour in bulk, and don't mind spending much much time cooking. cn

 

[sunni]

i do 75$ a month, its doable and i dont eat poorly

 

[Harrekin]

i do 75$ a month, its doable and i dont eat poorly

I believe the term is "not optimal".

Do you eat insects and leaves and the sort?

Cos $2 a day for food is like an African persons food budget.

 

[sunni]

I believe the term is "not optimal".

Do you eat insects and leaves and the sort?

Cos $2 a day for food is like an African persons food budget.

i dunno maybe its a bit more? i dont think ive ever spent over 90$ a month on food,
but that being said you do need to beginning start up foods that are always in your pantry like grains and such (rice, quinoa, couscous, pasta , flour ect)

 

[Harrekin]

i dunno maybe its a bit more? i dont think ive ever spent over 90$ a month on food,
but that being said you do need to beginning start up foods that are always in your pantry like grains and such (rice, quinoa, couscous, pasta , flour ect)

Ahh ok, if you buy basics in bulk then just top up I can understand.

Tokenperv above wants us to believe he can live off 1913 equivalent wages now tho (which is ridiculous).

 

[NightOwlBono]

Growing a garden helps keep food bills down,small investment upfront(soil,amendments) big payout overtime.
also small hydro systems in parts of your house you don't use often,grow whatever food that's most expensive in the market.

 

[tokeprep]

I can't think of any subsidies in 1913 was my point, you used an example of 30k today, pretended anyone today does not almost receive double that in subsidies....I merely pointed out the EITC as one that would double the "5k left" in your scenario...your point of "living the 1913 life in 2013" I no longer care to entertain, just as my and everyone else on here's view on that has basically been discounted as irrelevant by you......

We were talking numbers not how you think someone thought they told you how it was.....

not going to google transfer payment thats what I mean about getting off the train

I pretended nothing. My point was that the earned income of one wage earner in the present is sufficient to live in the way a 1913 household would have, and that's true without any consideration of transfer payments, which didn't exist in 1913. The fact that transfer payments leave households with even more money today makes my case stronger, not weaker.