The Fed Invents $3 Trillion and That's OK (I Guess?)

This episode of the Planet Money podcast was really fun (as many of them are), but the first segment was particularly concerning. They talk about how the Fed (literally) conjured $3 trillion from the aether and banks didn't bother loaning it out. All this money is just sitting there, doing nothing. Hopefully, the banks won't loan it out all at once, which would seem, to me, like a reeeally bad idea (steroidal inflation!). In fact, the banks just sitting on it seems like a bad idea, too. I mean, the point was to stimulate the economy. However, according to the experts, it is recovering just fine.

$3 trillion just seems like a LOT of money to wish in from the Cornfield Bank. It's not as bad as that one time, but still. The fact that the Fed can invent money at all is irksome and with everything the USG, banks, and corporations have done over the last ten years, it's hard to trust them.
Just on principle, think about how the Fed works.

They help keep our economic system stable by creating money from nothing. But who benefits the most from our economic system? The 1%. And who runs the Fed? Members of the 1%. So, really, it's just the rich protecting the rich while making sure we get enough table scraps to survive, but not enough to get into a position of power so we can do something to stop this lop-sided system.

If you think about just how much money is in our economy, you realize that a ton of problems that America is dealing with could go away. Do you know how many homeless people that $3 trillion could house? How many it could feed? How many medical bills it could pay?

Ugh... I feel gross just thinking about it.

Yet, all this money exists and is moved around in circles you and I will never experience.
Then again, here is a segment of the Daily Show from January of 2015 that reports on how Salt Lake City, Utah, solved its homeless problem by giving the homeless homes. That's right, they gave them homes.

The Daily Show
Daily Show Full Episodes,  More Daily Show Videos,  Comedy Central Full Episodes

The clip is really funny, but the gist is this: it's cheaper to house everyone who can't house themselves. Between law enforcement costs, medical costs and other costs that occur thanks to people being homeless, it's cheaper to just put them in apartments. Meanwhile, the rest of the country still has this lopsided system.

So much emphasis is put on making money and spending money that we don't even think about the fact that there are other ways our system can work. Should we get away from Capitalism altogether? I don't think so. But the idea that some of us should suffer for not being able to play the game as well as some? Yeah, that's not right. We can certainly use a combination of both capitalism and socialism to the benefit of all citizens, except the 1%, of course. But I think they've gotten most of the benefits over the last 20 years.  I think they'll survive.

Help my personal economics and go buy a Ballpoint Adventures T-shirt or my novel from Amazon!

John Edwards and Poverty, the Lost Cause #bad08

So, it's Blog Action Day and so all of us bloggers taking part are supposed to be writing about poverty today. The thing is, I'm in politics-mode until November 4 (and probably after) so I've been wrestling with what to write. While pondering, I remembered John Edwards.

He was the first politician to make me feel like there was hope for the future. How did he do this?

By talking about poverty.

They always say that you can tell the moral strength of a nation by how they treat their prisoners. Well, I think they should change that saying to refer to poor people.

Our country hates the poor and strangely, John Edwards, back, during the 2004 presidential campaign was talking about poor folks and poverty. Yep--a rich, successful white man was talking about poverty. The thing is that he wasn't just talking about how poor people needed help, he was talking about how it was impossible for them to get it because there were two different Americas--one for the rich and the other for the poor.

Notice he didn't have a third America for the middle class. I think he understood that the middle class was dwindling and ultimately didn't account for anywhere near as many votes as the poor people did. Or it could have been that he just cared about people who lived every day below the poverty line. When ever I hear any leader (especially white leaders) talk about poverty I get excited because I know it's the biggest crime that continues to occur on our planet.

Just yesterday I read on CNN.com (here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/10/14/world.health.report/index.html ) about how the World Health Organization is freaking out because so many people are suffering, unable to get the health care they need. Just the article's summary points are scary enough:

# Health care disparities make world "neither stable nor secure," WHO director says
# Report: 43 percent of women giving birth this year will do so without medical help
# Tajikistan, Sierra Leone have 40-year gap in life expectancy despite expenditures
# Report applauds Iran, Cuba for finding ways to improve health care

It's disgusting how we let profit run everything because it's letting so many people suffer and die every day. Poverty isn't just a problem in other countries, either. It's a problem right here in the US. When I lived in the Carolinas back in the 90s, I discovered the existence of a community that lived inside a junk yard. Called The Blackmon Road Community, these people have had a generation be born and grow up there. APlaceForHope.Net is the website of a non-profit that delivers services to the people in this neighborhood and has done so for years. On the site's history page they explain more about the Blackmon Road Community:

The Blackmon Road Community is comprised of approximately 20 families (75-100 individuals) living along Archer Dr., Joe Louis Blvd., and Blackmon Rd., just off of SC 72.

The neighborhood area has drawn York County’s poor and destitute for several decades, harboring those unable to find affordable housing, as well as those suffering from the afflictions of alcohol and drug addiction. Many of the residents today live without electricity or indoor plumbing, and in a number of cases, are literally homeless squatters. The past efforts of the county to address the extreme poverty of the community have been hindered by complicated property ownership issues, and have ultimately resulted in little significant support for the area. Residents of the community have depended upon the compassion of churches and faith based initiatives, concerned individuals, and community organizations to help them meet their most immediate needs.

So, having been touched by the plight of these people, hearing John Edwards run for president on a platform that would address the issues facing these people made me very happy. I saw him talk at an event televised on C-SPAN (yay C-SPAN!) and immediate went to Edward's campaign site and donated $20.

To this day, that is the only money I've ever donated to any campaign ever.

When he announced he was running again in 2008 I was excited. I was really pulling for him again. Sure, I didn't agree with him on a lot of fronts (and he is a YAWG - Yet Another White Guy), but he cared about poor people!! This was huge! Hell, the last guy who did that and ran for president was Bobby Kennedy. We all know what happened to him.

Lucky for Edwards, no one assassinated him. Though you could easily argue that he assassinated himself.

When he dropped out of the race for president, I was disappointed. However, for a while there, it looked like Obama might pick Edwards as his running mate. This got me excited all over again. But as it turned out, there was already something in Edwards' past that would assassinate his career.

We all know how that story ended now.

But flashback to when Edwards dropped out of the race--he spoke with Obama and Clinton and then assured his followers that both had promised to pursue poverty in their platforms.

Since then, I haven't heard anything about poverty from either Clinton or Obama.

So, with Edwards' lost political career so is his favorite cause lost in the shuffle--poverty.

What's so wrong with helping people out? I don't get it.

It kills me every time I hear the phrase "get a job" because not only does it mean that someone has no compassion for their fellow human, but it means there's another person who buys into the system and the idea that everything is equal and that everyone's on their own (and that this is OK).

We're NOT on our own. None of us are--we're on a planet with 6 billion other people, yet too many of us starve every night. Too many of us are homeless. Too many of us feel alone.

And for what? For an ideology--capitalism is best! The free market rules!

Well, the free market left 90,000 people homeless in Los Angeles according to statistics I remember hearing a few years back. Those numbers are disgusting.

Where do 90,000 people "get a job"?

Where do wages for 90,000 people come from?

Government programs (if properly funded) could help these people train for jobs (if any can be found). But oooh, no! We can't have government programs! They'd be too expensive!

Instead, what do we spend our tax dollars on?

Two failed wars.

A monstrous bailout of companies that violated the rules of the free market in order to get rich.

Ah well, Happy Blog Action Day '08!

Got a poverty post? Link to it in the comments. I'd love to check it out!



OH yeah and one least thing: If you're a good person and you think you're a good leader (or if people tell you that you are) don't cheat on your spouse. Just don't.

Thanks.

Socialism and the Federal Reserve

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson (see portrait above) signed into law the Federal Reserve Act. The new law allowed for the creation of a central banking system. What does this have to do with socialism and why would I be writing about this in the middle of the current economic strife here in the US?

Not surprisingly, there has been a lot of writing (and blogging) about our economy. I've written about it a lot over the years, but most recently I blogged (here: http://thepete.com/…he-bailout ) about why I'm against the bailout, mainly because it breaks our own rules. After that, I blogged about why it's bad to break our own rules (here: http://thepete.com/…onable-man ), basically explaining that breaking our own rules makes us look like untrustworthy liars and it makes our laws look like jokes.

But in that last post I just linked to, I commented about socialism. People are accusing the USG of practicing the "S" word in bailing out Wall Street. I said that those accusers are both right and wrong. Effectively, they're right, but literally, not exactly.

Here's where the Federal Reserve comes into it.

The $700 billion the USG wants to give Wall Street will need to be borrowed before it can be gotten from We The People in the form of taxes. All banks and the USG borrow money directly from the central bank--the Fed. Now, the Fed is under no effective control of the USG. We don't vote for a single person who works for the Federal Reserve and the Fed's chairman is appointed the president for 14 years. (!)

In any practical sense the Fed is not a government agency. As a result, we can consider them a private organization. I've heard some say they are a legal corporation, but I haven't seen proof of this.

So, since the Fed is private and the USG is borrowing money from them, effectively, the Fed is bailing out Wall Street, not the USG. So, really, it's corporatism, not socialism.

But it sure feels like it's socialism, doesn't it?

Now, that's the nutshell. Not surprisingly, I have a lot more on the Federal Reserve loaning us money to bail out Wall Street and how the Fed is private. If you're interested, keep reading.

Effectively, though, I've made my point.

Isn't that funny? I keep having to use the word "effectively" because all this money stuff is so stupid and vague there's nothing tangible about it--just like our currency. If only we had a gold reserve... :(

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

The Great "Evil" (Socialism) Hits Wall Street

It's the end of an era on Wall Street, according to that screencap from CNN.com, it's the end of the era of the Wall Street investment banks. According to the article that the headline links to (here: http://money.cnn.com/…/index.htm ) the government is taking over the last investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. This is a move that: "allows Goldman and Morgan to scoop up retail banks and to streamline their borrowing from the Federal Reserve. The shift also is aimed at removing them as targets of nervous investors and customers, who brought down their former rivals Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch this year."

So, basically, this was done to strengthen these huge banks and to stop them from crumbling under the pressure of the other banks crumbling. If these banks did crumble we'd have a bigger economic meltdown.

At least, that's how I understand it.

HOWEVER, the cry of "socialism!" is a common thing in our country. Obama's been called a socialist, anyone who wants to see free health care for everyone has been called a socialist and now I'm calling the USG socialist since so many seem to think the government doling out money is socialism.

This puts the USG in the same category as the Soviet Union and the Nazis (apparently). They were all considered socialists--and thanks to that, we know that socialism IS EVIL.

OK, the real irony here is that socialism is NOT evil. It's the people who practice it that can either be corrupt or not. When you ignore hundreds of thousands of homeless and jobless people in our cities, that's OK. But when you ignore the plight of our crumbling banking system that's just wrong.

Amtrak? The airlines? Banks? They're all corporations and all have been bailed out by the government--by our tax dollars.

The people who cry out against socialism think it's fine when corporations need help, but not individuals.

When individuals need financial help it's because they didn't work hard enough or they're lazy or druggies or hippies.

When Wall Street needs help, no one really talks about why they need help, they just get that help.

Sure, the news and pundits explain that "these banks are too big, they can't be allowed to fail" but what does that really mean?

It means that the individual is not important. Only the system matters.

That doesn't just sound like socialism, that sounds like <em>communism</em>.

What it all sounds like to me is hypocrisy.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

Congress Must Demand Bush and Cheney Resign

So, I'm not entirely sure how my personal email address got on the "Democrats.com" email list, but some how it got on it. (My email was on the Republicans email list, too at one point, but I had the good sense to remove it.) Earlier tonight I got an email from them that had an amusing subject--I've made it the title of this post.

My first reaction was: "That's rich! Where were the Democrats five years ago when Bush illegally invaded Iraq?"

I still think it's a valid concern, but I actually read their email and something in it really got me going. Have a look:

Congress Must Demand Bush and Cheney Resign

George Bush wants taxpayers to pay $700 billion to bail out Wall Street for its reckless investments in mortgage-backed securities. That's on top of $800 billion for other recent bailouts, including A.I.G., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns.

The current financial disaster is the direct result of the Bush-Cheney Administration's 8-year policy of deregulation, corruption, and greed.

The Bush-Cheney Administration cannot be trusted to solve the massive problems they created. Before Congress gives the Bush Administration one dime of taxpayer money for financial bailouts, Congress must demand the immediate resignation of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Henry Paulson and the appointment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi as President until our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2009.

Email your Senators and Representative and spread the word:
http://www.democrats.com/resign

Again, my instinct, initially, was to blow this email off, just like I did Robert Wexler's attempts to impeach Bush while simultaneously asking for campaign donations. However, I'll give you one guess at what it was in this email that made my ears prick up.

No, it wasn't the basic message that Bush and Cheney should be gone from the White House. I've been saying that for years and there are WAY more reasons for them to leave than just Bush and Cheney's move to embrace socialism for corporations. No, what made my right eyebrow rise was that last bit. They want Bush, Cheney and Paulson out and:

...the appointment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi as President until our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2009.

Now, I'm no fan of Pelosi. She lost my faith when she said that impeachment was off of the table a while back. However, getting a Democrat woman into the White House before even the election would be a devastating blow to the McCain campaign. There would be no way in hell he could win after enough of raised our voices to get his man out of the Oval Office.

I get scared looking at the polls and wondering why Obama isn't doing better in them. How can they be polling so close to neck and neck when McCain is campaigning on a platform he ripped off from George Bush?

I don't believe Americans are that stupid. This is why I'm hoping you, my faithful readers will please click on that link above (or this one here: http://www.democrats.com/resign ) and voice your support for a demand of resignations from Bush, Cheney and Paulson.

If enough of us speak up now they won't have a choice but to actually react. We, The People of the United States of America can make our opinion known by telling Congress ourselves that we want this administration GONE from the White House.

Please, please, please, please, do this!

I don't ask for much--I hardly ever ask my readers to sign on any dotted line, but if we can just get together on this one point--that we want the Bush Administration gone IMMEDIATELY--we don't have to worry about McCain winning in November.

Please go here:

http://www.democrats.com/resign

...and fill out the form.

Here are some other places around the 'net you can read about this email:

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Congress_Must_Demand_Bush_and_Cheney_Resign

http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/congress-must-demand-bush-and-cheney-resign/

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=788298

http://mccainsucks.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/congress-must-demand-bush-and-cheney-resign/

http://www.nj.com/forums/politics/index.ssf?artid=1801971

Got a blog? Please blog about this. Got a Twitter account or an account at another micro or miniblogging site (like Jaiku or Tumblr)? Pleeease post about this there.

Feel free to post links to your blog posts in the comments.

By doing this we can avoid giving our flawed election system the chance to screw up another presidential election with a tight race! We need a landslide to have an undeniable winner--unlike in 2004 and in 2000 when Bush won by an iffy hair's width.

By making your voice heard you can beat the electronic systems that are owned by Republicans and don't provide reliable methods for recounts.

I've already filled out that form. I hope you will, too.

Please and thank you! {seesmic_video:{"url_thumbnail":{"value":"http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/J6WP06YwpM_th1.jpg"}"title":{"value":"Congress Must Demand Bush and Cheney Resign "}"videoUri":{"value":"http://www.seesmic.com/video/1A8wekkf25"}}}

Can We All Agree that Any Extreme is Bad?

This is just a quick post because the thought occurred to me while considering the blatant hypocrisy of the Federal Reserve and the USG bailing out/taking over banks.

See, we need banks in order for our monetary system to function. Without them we'd all be carrying too much cash or we'd make our homes a magnet for home robberies. Banks also allow for a much smoother and faster (believe it or not) transfer of money from one person or corporation to another.

Sure, they also allow for quite a bit of money laundering (read: crime) but there's essentially no modern tool of society that can't be repurposed for corruption and greed. The point is, we need the banks.

So, the USG and The Federal Reserve effectively nationalizes a bunch of them. Now the Fed is not really part of the government--the USG pretends to oversee it but really, the Fed chairmen over the years have been so good at obfuscation that I blame no politician for not wanting to exert force over these guys. Of course, I DO blame politicians for not doing it despite not wanting to--but I'm getting off-topic.

OK, so here the USG/Fed are, taking over banks--essentially owning said banks. So, now our tax dollars (and any investments in the Fed) make each of us (and investors in the Fed) partial owners of these banks. You know what this looks like, right?

Communism.

Or even Socialism.

Or both!

So, isn't this completely hypocritical of a government whose excuse for not nationalizing health care is that government-run health care would be too much like socialism?

Doesn't this make the government completely full of shit when it gives us any reasons for anything (especially after losing all credibility in stating facts about "enemy" countries)?

Let's also consider how nationalized health care benefits would help hundreds of thousands of people--possibly millions of people--who don't have health care insurance (like yours truly).

Yes, banks are important, too.

But which is more important to prop up?

1) America's financial health
2) Americans' actual health

I say both. Instead, we worry about "isms" and assume that they're all bad except for the one the rich folks practice: Capitalism.

The catch is, that we can see that no regulation on banks has gotten themselves into this predicament. Our economy is failing and some people are calling for even LESS regulation. It's unchecked greed that caused this problem.

Surely, as with complete socialism, you can see that complete capitalism is also dangerous. Leaving everything to the "free market" means greed and power can rule all things.

Only a just set of regulations can keep the power-brokers from abusing their power.

This is especially obvious when you consider that sometimes socialism is OK. The USG/Fed and the rich folks of America are happy to see the banks be bailed out. Meanwhile, I would like to see health care be free for all Americans.

So, once you realize that in some cases socialism is OK, why do so many people insist that we stick to one "ism"? Surely, ANY extreme is bad--so why not regulate socialism AND capitalism and any other "ism" that will help America and the American people be stronger?

Why is Muslim extremism bad and Christian extremism not?

Why was Soviet extremism bad and American extremism not?

Why is Socialism bad, except when it helps the rich?

How can you say your way is better or best and assume that other folks who say the same thing about their own way are wrong?

What if you're both right and in some ways bits of all ways just might be the best way of all?

Bizarre Health Statistic from NYT Labor Reporter

So, I'm finally getting back to listening to my podcasts after moving to NYC and I'm listening to Democracy Now today when I hear the guy who wrote the book "The Big Squeeze" say something in an interview with Juan Gonzales. Check it out: "And another, you know, health statistic that surprised me when I was researching the book was, United States spends about $6,500 per person for health coverage, which is more than twice what France and Germany spent, about two-and-a-half times what Japan spent, yet, you know, they have universal health coverage." (source: http://www.democracynow.org/…enhouse_on )

I found this pretty damn surprising. If true, it would mean that, put it simply, the capitalist model (vs. the "socialist" one everyone says is bad) delivers crappier health care for most people and costs more, as well.

Our leaders are *seriously* letting us down, it would seem. (In another way, I mean.)

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.