Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Too Big To Fail(was GLOBAL ECONOMIC CHAOS SOON TO UNFOLD)

Expand Messages
  • jodemas2
    ... Jim, The reason we do not know is that the Federal Reserve who gave out all that money REFUSES to tell the American people to whom it lent its trillions of
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 19, 2010
      --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I don't know of anyone who has made a list of all the people, business and other organizations, and governments, who benefited from the bail-out. Such a list would be interesting, though it would require quite a bit of research to uncover that information.
      >
      > Jim
      >

      Jim,

      The reason we do not know is that the Federal Reserve who gave out all that money REFUSES to tell the American people to whom it lent its trillions of dollars and on what terms.

      You can watch Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke refuse to tell Senator Bernie Sanders here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8p0nBa866E&NR=1;
      or tell Representative Alan Grayson here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ECLxK2YTs.

      This is why you should contact your representatives and tell them you want them to vote for the Audit the Fed bill (HR 1207) and its companion in the Senate.

      The Fed is responsible for just about all our current economic woes as well as just about all past ones since its creation in 1913.

      Joe
    • Gary Shepherd
      Hi I know very little about such matters, but I suspect that the phrase too big to fail was a subjective judgment, based on just how much economic turmoil
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 19, 2010

        Hi

        I know very little about such matters, but I suspect that the phrase “too big to fail” was a subjective judgment, based on just how much economic turmoil would result in the world financial structure if these corporations did in fact fail.  Too much chaos in the markets would have been bad for the status quo, so those who want to maintain the status quo moved to protect it. I read an interesting statement – and I’m not sure who originally said it – that was, “Any business that is too big to fail is also too big to exist.”

         

        World Peace and Unity,
        Gary

         

         

        From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jfnewell7
        Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:01 AM
        To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: Too Big To Fail(was GLOBAL ECONOMIC CHAOS SOON TO UNFOLD)

         

         

        I very much agree that having many small banks or many small manufacturing companies is much safer than having just a few large ones which are, due to their small numbers and large sizes, so powerful they can act like a cartel.

        I am uncertain about the "too big to fail" argument. It might have been correct. However, it was also in the interests of some of the wealthy that the banks and AIG be bailed out, and to the interests of at least China. The United States had been selling China a lot of bundled mortgages, with insurance from AIG, so China would have had large losses if the bail-out had not occurred. A number of wealthy individuals would have had large losses as well, including but not limited to the individuals who would not have had their multi-million dollar bonuses if AIG and those banks had failed. In addition, some people made a lot of money from AIG payments when the mortgage bundles failed. Some people made a billion dollars or more from the bail-out of AIG, because the bail-out money was used to pay them. The insurance, the credit default swaps, was a popular speculation, which with the bail-out, turned out to provide huge profits to a number of individuals.

        I don't know of anyone who has made a list of all the people, business and other organizations, and governments, who benefited from the bail-out. Such a list would be interesting, though it would require quite a bit of research to uncover that information.

        So "too big to fail" might have been a valid reason, or it could have been a cover for activities from which many people made large amounts of money.

        Jim

        --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Branch <dbranch.branch@...> wrote:

        >
        > Durig the economic crisis,I kept hearing and reading about
        > how large,complex financial institutions are too big to fail.If that's the
        > case,then I would assume that the best solution would be is to break up
        > these huge financial conglomerates into small and medium-sized
        > corportions,instead of bailing them out at the expense of tax
        > payers.U.S.Senator Bernie Sanders have introduced legislation that would
        > give the Treasury Secretary 90 days to identify any financial institution
        > that's too big to fail,and break up that institution in one year.There
        > should be a revival of the Glass-Steagall Act,or similar legislation that
        > will prevent further mergers in the financial sector.Banking,credit and
        > investment services should be administered on the local community level.On
        > her website the"Huffington Post.Com",Ariana Huffington have
        suggested that
        > people take their money out of the big banks,and put it into small
        community
        > banks.What sort of impact this will make remains to be seen.
        >

      • jfnewell7
        You are right, but don t stop your thinking at that point. Once one identifies a problem that is keeping knowledge hidden (which is a good thing to recognize),
        Message 3 of 20 , Mar 2, 2010
          You are right, but don't stop your thinking at that point.

          Once one identifies a problem that is keeping knowledge hidden (which is a good thing to recognize), the next step is to ask what investigative methods could find that knowledge.

          Jim

          --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jodemas2" <jodemas2@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > I don't know of anyone who has made a list of all the people, business and other organizations, and governments, who benefited from the bail-out. Such a list would be interesting, though it would require quite a bit of research to uncover that information.
          > >
          > > Jim
          > >
          >
          > Jim,
          >
          > The reason we do not know is that the Federal Reserve who gave out all that money REFUSES to tell the American people to whom it lent its trillions of dollars and on what terms.
          >
          > You can watch Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke refuse to tell Senator Bernie Sanders here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8p0nBa866E&NR=1;
          > or tell Representative Alan Grayson here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ECLxK2YTs.
          >
          > This is why you should contact your representatives and tell them you want them to vote for the Audit the Fed bill (HR 1207) and its companion in the Senate.
          >
          > The Fed is responsible for just about all our current economic woes as well as just about all past ones since its creation in 1913.
          >
          > Joe
          >
        • ro-esp
          ... big words Joe, and easy to say, but could you enlighten us about by which methods this FED is abkle to ruin the worlds economies? Or do you just need
          Message 4 of 20 , Mar 2, 2010
            jodemas2@... sendis:

            > The Fed is responsible for just about all our current economic woes
            > as well as just about all past ones since its creation in 1913.

            big words Joe, and easy to say, but could you enlighten us about by
            which methods
            this FED is abkle to ruin the worlds economies? Or do you just need another
            scapegoat - the way others blame the men, the communists, the terorists, the
            muslims or what have you ?

            If I understand it correctly, the FED is the central bank in the US,
            and it's tasks
            are:
            1 to create tangible money
            2 fix the interest rate at which banks borrow money from the central
            bank (and of
            course, there will always be people who think this interest is too
            high or too low,
            and usually both groups will exist at the same time...)



            groetjes, Ronaldo

            --
            http://www.esperanto.net
          • jfnewell7
            You are certainly right about the subjective judgment, although I don t know one way or the other whether or not there would be too much turmoil. The method
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 2, 2010
              You are certainly right about the subjective judgment, although I don't know one way or the other whether or not there would be too much turmoil.

              The method could have been different, however. For example, AIG was bailed out to the tune of about 180 billion dollars, mainly due to the credit default swaps on mortgage bundles. Many people took out credit default swaps on mortgage bundles owned by someone else, so were purely gambling.

              For example, if the 180 billion dollars had been used to rescue people who couldn't make their mortgage payments rather than rescue AIG, and on average (since borrowers had different sets of problems) it required $25,000 to rescue each person unable to make their mortgage payments, that would have rescued about 7 million homeowners. That would have been enough to keep both AIG and all the banks afloat, so the whole crisis would not have happened. It is true that those people who took out default swap type insurance on mortgage bundles they did not own would lose their payment, but they knew they were just gambling to begin with.

              Jim

              Jim

              --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Shepherd" <gshepher@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi
              >
              > I know very little about such matters, but I suspect that the phrase
              > "too big to fail" was a subjective judgment, based on just how much
              > economic turmoil would result in the world financial structure if these
              > corporations did in fact fail. Too much chaos in the markets would have
              > been bad for the status quo, so those who want to maintain the status
              > quo moved to protect it. I read an interesting statement - and I'm not
              > sure who originally said it - that was, "Any business that is too big to
              > fail is also too big to exist."
              >
              >
              >
              > World Peace and Unity,
              > Gary
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com]
              > On Behalf Of jfnewell7
              > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:01 AM
              > To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: Too Big To Fail(was GLOBAL ECONOMIC CHAOS
              > SOON TO UNFOLD)
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > I very much agree that having many small banks or many small
              > manufacturing companies is much safer than having just a few large ones
              > which are, due to their small numbers and large sizes, so powerful they
              > can act like a cartel.
              >
              > I am uncertain about the "too big to fail" argument. It might have been
              > correct. However, it was also in the interests of some of the wealthy
              > that the banks and AIG be bailed out, and to the interests of at least
              > China. The United States had been selling China a lot of bundled
              > mortgages, with insurance from AIG, so China would have had large losses
              > if the bail-out had not occurred. A number of wealthy individuals would
              > have had large losses as well, including but not limited to the
              > individuals who would not have had their multi-million dollar bonuses if
              > AIG and those banks had failed. In addition, some people made a lot of
              > money from AIG payments when the mortgage bundles failed. Some people
              > made a billion dollars or more from the bail-out of AIG, because the
              > bail-out money was used to pay them. The insurance, the credit default
              > swaps, was a popular speculation, which with the bail-out, turned out to
              > provide huge profits to a number of individuals.
              >
              > I don't know of anyone who has made a list of all the people, business
              > and other organizations, and governments, who benefited from the
              > bail-out. Such a list would be interesting, though it would require
              > quite a bit of research to uncover that information.
              >
              > So "too big to fail" might have been a valid reason, or it could have
              > been a cover for activities from which many people made large amounts of
              > money.
              >
              > Jim
              >
              > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com> , Daniel Branch
              > <dbranch.branch@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Durig the economic crisis,I kept hearing and reading about
              > > how large,complex financial institutions are too big to fail.If that's
              > the
              > > case,then I would assume that the best solution would be is to break
              > up
              > > these huge financial conglomerates into small and medium-sized
              > > corportions,instead of bailing them out at the expense of tax
              > > payers.U.S.Senator Bernie Sanders have introduced legislation that
              > would
              > > give the Treasury Secretary 90 days to identify any financial
              > institution
              > > that's too big to fail,and break up that institution in one year.There
              > > should be a revival of the Glass-Steagall Act,or similar legislation
              > that
              > > will prevent further mergers in the financial sector.Banking,credit
              > and
              > > investment services should be administered on the local community
              > level.On
              > > her website the"Huffington Post.Com",Ariana Huffington have suggested
              > that
              > > people take their money out of the big banks,and put it into small
              > community
              > > banks.What sort of impact this will make remains to be seen.
              > >
              >
            • jodemas2
              ... I don t exaggerate and I don t need any scapegoats. The Federal Reserve (The Fed) acts as the US Central Bank but it is actually merely a conglomeration
              Message 6 of 20 , Mar 5, 2010
                --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:
                >
                > jodemas2@... sendis:
                >
                > > The Fed is responsible for just about all our current economic woes
                > > as well as just about all past ones since its creation in 1913.
                >
                > big words Joe, and easy to say, but could you enlighten us about by
                > which methods
                > this FED is abkle to ruin the worlds economies? Or do you just need another
                > scapegoat - the way others blame the men, the communists, the terorists, the
                > muslims or what have you ?
                >
                > If I understand it correctly, the FED is the central bank in the US,
                > and it's tasks
                > are:
                > 1 to create tangible money
                > 2 fix the interest rate at which banks borrow money from the central
                > bank (and of
                > course, there will always be people who think this interest is too
                > high or too low,
                > and usually both groups will exist at the same time...)
                >
                >
                >
                > groetjes, Ronaldo
                >

                I don't exaggerate and I don't need any scapegoats. The Federal Reserve (The Fed) acts as the US Central Bank but it is actually merely a conglomeration of private banks which lend money at interest to the government to operate. Prior to its creation in 1913, the federal government printed its own money, backed by gold and it did not have to pay interest to itself (obviously).

                The Fed in effect steals from people who have money by devaluing the currency. They do this by printing more and more money, backed by nothing these days, out of thin air.

                Also by setting artificially low interest rates, it creates bubbles, recessions, and depressions (like the one we are only beginning now).

                To understand money, you must realize that money is create as debt. Here is a video you can watch about that:
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t1m4r-IB1U

                Joe
              • jodemas2
                ... Jim, perhaps I didn t make myself clear enough, and I certainly haven t stopped thinking. The Audit the Fed Bill is designed to address exactly that lack
                Message 7 of 20 , Mar 5, 2010
                  --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > You are right, but don't stop your thinking at that point.
                  >
                  > Once one identifies a problem that is keeping knowledge hidden (which is a good thing to recognize), the next step is to ask what investigative methods could find that knowledge.
                  >
                  > Jim
                  >
                  > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jodemas2" <jodemas2@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > I don't know of anyone who has made a list of all the people, business and other organizations, and governments, who benefited from the bail-out. Such a list would be interesting, though it would require quite a bit of research to uncover that information.
                  > > >
                  > > > Jim
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > Jim,
                  > >
                  > > The reason we do not know is that the Federal Reserve who gave out all that money REFUSES to tell the American people to whom it lent its trillions of dollars and on what terms.
                  > >
                  > > You can watch Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke refuse to tell Senator Bernie Sanders here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8p0nBa866E&NR=1;
                  > > or tell Representative Alan Grayson here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ECLxK2YTs.
                  > >
                  > > This is why you should contact your representatives and tell them you want them to vote for the Audit the Fed bill (HR 1207) and its companion in the Senate.
                  > >
                  > > The Fed is responsible for just about all our current economic woes as well as just about all past ones since its creation in 1913.
                  > >
                  > > Joe
                  > >

                  Jim, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough, and I certainly haven't stopped thinking. The Audit the Fed Bill is designed to address exactly that lack of knowledge.

                  Joe

                  P.S. I really wish you guys would stop top posting. It makes tjhe messages very confusing at times.
                • jfnewell7
                  Actually, the Fed likes to say it controls the economy, and many analysts, stockbrokers, etc. go along with that. In reality, the economy often ends up doing
                  Message 8 of 20 , Mar 9, 2010
                    Actually, the Fed likes to say it controls the economy, and many analysts, stockbrokers, etc. go along with that. In reality, the economy often ends up doing something different from what the Fed intends. For example, the Fed didn't intend the massive recent world serious recession. Nor did the Fed intend for Madoff to scam/steal all those billions of dollars from his customers. Nor did the Fed intend for millions of people to become unable to make their mortgage payments. etc.

                    The Fed is certainly a major player in the economy, but there are other players and processes just as important. For example, the export of manufacturing jobs from the United States was done by the huge corporations, and is still continuing. The Credit Default Swaps were developed not by the Fed, but by private corporations.It appears that the private corporations are becoming increasingly criminal in both manipulating their books and in manipulating customers, and this is already causing serious damage to the economy as a whole. etc.

                    Jim

                    --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jodemas2" <jodemas2@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, ro-esp <ro-esp@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > jodemas2@ sendis:
                    > >
                    > > > The Fed is responsible for just about all our current economic woes
                    > > > as well as just about all past ones since its creation in 1913.
                    > >
                    > > big words Joe, and easy to say, but could you enlighten us about by
                    > > which methods
                    > > this FED is abkle to ruin the worlds economies? Or do you just need another
                    > > scapegoat - the way others blame the men, the communists, the terorists, the
                    > > muslims or what have you ?
                    > >
                    > > If I understand it correctly, the FED is the central bank in the US,
                    > > and it's tasks
                    > > are:
                    > > 1 to create tangible money
                    > > 2 fix the interest rate at which banks borrow money from the central
                    > > bank (and of
                    > > course, there will always be people who think this interest is too
                    > > high or too low,
                    > > and usually both groups will exist at the same time...)
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > groetjes, Ronaldo
                    > >
                    >
                    > I don't exaggerate and I don't need any scapegoats. The Federal Reserve (The Fed) acts as the US Central Bank but it is actually merely a conglomeration of private banks which lend money at interest to the government to operate. Prior to its creation in 1913, the federal government printed its own money, backed by gold and it did not have to pay interest to itself (obviously).
                    >
                    > The Fed in effect steals from people who have money by devaluing the currency. They do this by printing more and more money, backed by nothing these days, out of thin air.
                    >
                    > Also by setting artificially low interest rates, it creates bubbles, recessions, and depressions (like the one we are only beginning now).
                    >
                    > To understand money, you must realize that money is create as debt. Here is a video you can watch about that:
                    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t1m4r-IB1U
                    >
                    > Joe
                    >
                  • Andres Espino
                    Top posting works better for most.. it allows trimming off the bottom of long posts and it lets us see it quickly without downloading a long post.  Services
                    Message 9 of 20 , Mar 9, 2010
                      Top posting works better for most.. it allows trimming off the bottom of long posts and it lets us see it quickly without downloading a long post.  Services like AOL and MSN and Yahoo rely on top posting so people can trim posts.

                      Sorry just how I see it.. there is a long article in favor on wikipedia.

                      Andrew


                      --- On Fri, 3/5/10, jodemas2 <jodemas2@...> wrote:

                      From: jodemas2 <jodemas2@...>
                      Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: Too Big To Fail(was GLOBAL ECONOMIC CHAOS SOON TO UNFOLD)
                      To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Friday, March 5, 2010, 7:14 AM

                       



                      --- In WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@. ..> wrote:
                      >
                      > You are right, but don't stop your thinking at that point.
                      >
                      > Once one identifies a problem that is keeping knowledge hidden (which is a good thing to recognize), the next step is to ask what investigative methods could find that knowledge.
                      >
                      > Jim
                      >
                      > --- In WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com, "jodemas2" <jodemas2@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > --- In WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > I don't know of anyone who has made a list of all the people, business and other organizations, and governments, who benefited from the bail-out. Such a list would be interesting, though it would require quite a bit of research to uncover that information.
                      > > >
                      > > > Jim
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > Jim,
                      > >
                      > > The reason we do not know is that the Federal Reserve who gave out all that money REFUSES to tell the American people to whom it lent its trillions of dollars and on what terms.
                      > >
                      > > You can watch Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke refuse to tell Senator Bernie Sanders here: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=P8p0nBa866E& NR=1;
                      > > or tell Representative Alan Grayson here: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=00ECLxK2YTs.
                      > >
                      > > This is why you should contact your representatives and tell them you want them to vote for the Audit the Fed bill (HR 1207) and its companion in the Senate.
                      > >
                      > > The Fed is responsible for just about all our current economic woes as well as just about all past ones since its creation in 1913.
                      > >
                      > > Joe
                      > >

                      Jim, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough, and I certainly haven't stopped thinking. The Audit the Fed Bill is designed to address exactly that lack of knowledge.

                      Joe

                      P.S. I really wish you guys would stop top posting. It makes tjhe messages very confusing at times.


                    • ro-esp
                      ... Sounds to me like the FED does what all banks do..only difference is that it lends to the US-government. The way I see it, its not the creation of money
                      Message 10 of 20 , Mar 11, 2010
                        jodemas2@... sendis:

                        > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:

                        >> Joe, could you enlighten us about by which methods
                        >> this FED is able to ruin the worlds economies?

                        > The Federal Reserve (The Fed) acts as the US Central Bank but it is
                        > actually merely a conglomeration of private banks which lend money
                        > at interest to the government to operate. Prior to its creation in
                        > 1913, the federal government printed its own money, backed by gold
                        > and it did not have to pay interest to itself (obviously).
                        >
                        > The Fed in effect steals from people who have money by devaluing the
                        > currency. They do this by printing more and more money, backed by
                        > nothing these days, out of thin air.

                        Sounds to me like the FED does what all banks do..only difference is
                        that it lends to the US-government. The way I see it, its not the
                        creation of money that creates the problem, but rather it having to be
                        paid back , with interest that creates the inflation.


                        >
                        > Also by setting artificially low interest rates, it creates bubbles,
                        > recessions, and depressions (like the one we are only beginning now).

                        I think the rate of interest is irrelevant. The fact that it's over
                        zero counts.

                        [I also don't believe that creating money necessarily causes inflation. It
                        depends on how it's introduced in circulation. If you give everyone in
                        the US or EU
                        one dollar, it won'r create inflation. If you give millions to one
                        person with an
                        expensive hobby, maybe the prices of this hobby might rise]
                        >
                        > To understand money, you must realize that money is created as debt.
                        > Here is a video you can watch about that:
                        > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t1m4r-IB1U

                        I dont have sound-access, but I am very aware that money is created as debt.
                        Why do you think I plea against interest?

                        groetjes, Ronaldo
                        --
                        http://www.esperanto.net
                      • jodemas2
                        ... Jim, I am afraid if you believe that you are seriously misinformed. The Fed absolutely intended to cause this depression by debasing our currency and
                        Message 11 of 20 , Mar 12, 2010
                          --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Actually, the Fed likes to say it controls the economy, and many analysts, stockbrokers, etc. go along with that. In reality, the economy often ends up doing something different from what the Fed intends. For example, the Fed didn't intend the massive recent world serious recession.


                          Jim,

                          I am afraid if you believe that you are seriously misinformed. The Fed absolutely intended to cause this depression by debasing our currency and causing inflation. Infaltion is a way to steal people's hard-earned savings so that only the rick can afford things of value.

                          They have done this by taking the dollar off the gold standard, followed by printing money backed by nothing - out of thin air, if you will. The US dollar has lost 98% of its value since the creation of the Fed in 1913. It is now a mere "fiat" currency, and all fiat currencies, as has been historically proven, eventually go to zero. (We have 2% to go.)

                          Did you watch the video?


                          Ronaldo wrote:

                          "Sounds to me like the FED does what all banks do..only difference is
                          that it lends to the US-government. The way I see it, its not the
                          creation of money that creates the problem, but rather it having to be
                          paid back , with interest that creates the inflation."

                          Ronaldo,

                          unlike the Fed, ordinary banks do NOT set artificially low interest rates which then create bubbles, and bust and boom cycles.


                          "I think the rate of interest is irrelevant. The fact that it's over
                          zero counts."

                          No. There is a natural rate of interest which would be determined by the market if it were allowed to operate freely. The natural rate is > 0.

                          Joe
                        • jodemas2
                          ... That article says The choice between top or bottom posting generally depends on the forum and on the nature of the message. I would say top posting is OK
                          Message 12 of 20 , Mar 12, 2010
                            --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, Andres Espino <ima_very_cool_cowboy@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Top posting works better for most.. it allows trimming off the bottom of long posts and it lets us see it quickly without downloading a long post.  Services like AOL and MSN and Yahoo rely on top posting so people can trim posts.
                            >
                            > Sorry just how I see it.. there is a long article in favor on wikipedia.
                            >
                            > Andrew
                            >
                            >



                            That article says "The choice between top or bottom posting generally depends on the forum and on the nature of the message."

                            I would say top posting is OK if you are responding to a short message. Otherwise, one starts reading something, realizes that he has no context for it, must scroll down and read the OP, scroll back up to read the response AGAIN, and then scroll back down to get to the next message (at least on the digest form, which is what I get).

                            Also, bottom posting by no means precludes trimming messages. I do it all the time.

                            A. No, it doesn't.
                            Q. Does top-posting make any sense?

                            Joe
                          • jfnewell7
                            I agree with that. My own feeling is that if I remember the original message, I don t need to read it again, so top posting gets me immediately to the reply.
                            Message 13 of 20 , Mar 12, 2010
                              I agree with that. My own feeling is that if I remember the original message, I don't need to read it again, so top posting gets me immediately to the reply. With bottom posting, if I remember the original message, then I have to scroll down, skimming the original message carefully enough not to miss where the reply begins.

                              However, if I don't happen to remember the original message, or don't remember an important part of it, then it is there for me to reread.

                              Jim

                              --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, Andres Espino <ima_very_cool_cowboy@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Top posting works better for most.. it allows trimming off the bottom of long posts and it lets us see it quickly without downloading a long post. Services like AOL and MSN and Yahoo rely on top posting so people can trim posts.
                              >
                              > Sorry just how I see it.. there is a long article in favor on wikipedia.
                              >
                              > Andrew
                              >
                              >
                              > --- On Fri, 3/5/10, jodemas2 <jodemas2@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > From: jodemas2 <jodemas2@...>
                              > Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: Too Big To Fail(was GLOBAL ECONOMIC CHAOS SOON TO UNFOLD)
                              > To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
                              > Date: Friday, March 5, 2010, 7:14 AM
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Â
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@ ..> wrote:
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > You are right, but don't stop your thinking at that point.
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > Once one identifies a problem that is keeping knowledge hidden (which is a good thing to recognize), the next step is to ask what investigative methods could find that knowledge.
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > Jim
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > --- In WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com, "jodemas2" <jodemas2@> wrote:
                              >
                              > > >
                              >
                              > > > --- In WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote:
                              >
                              > > > >
                              >
                              > > > >
                              >
                              > > > > I don't know of anyone who has made a list of all the people, business and other organizations, and governments, who benefited from the bail-out. Such a list would be interesting, though it would require quite a bit of research to uncover that information.
                              >
                              > > > >
                              >
                              > > > > Jim
                              >
                              > > > >
                              >
                              > > >
                              >
                              > > > Jim,
                              >
                              > > >
                              >
                              > > > The reason we do not know is that the Federal Reserve who gave out all that money REFUSES to tell the American people to whom it lent its trillions of dollars and on what terms.
                              >
                              > > >
                              >
                              > > > You can watch Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke refuse to tell Senator Bernie Sanders here: http://www.youtube com/watch? v=P8p0nBa866E& NR=1;
                              >
                              > > > or tell Representative Alan Grayson here: http://www.youtube com/watch? v=00ECLxK2YTs.
                              >
                              > > >
                              >
                              > > > This is why you should contact your representatives and tell them you want them to vote for the Audit the Fed bill (HR 1207) and its companion in the Senate.
                              >
                              > > >
                              >
                              > > > The Fed is responsible for just about all our current economic woes as well as just about all past ones since its creation in 1913.
                              >
                              > > >
                              >
                              > > > Joe
                              >
                              > > >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Jim, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough, and I certainly haven't stopped thinking. The Audit the Fed Bill is designed to address exactly that lack of knowledge.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Joe
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > P.S. I really wish you guys would stop top posting. It makes tjhe messages very confusing at times.
                              >
                            • ro-esp
                              ... maybe in chatrooms, but in discussion it usually doesn t work better ... trimming can be done regardless of where you put your comment. and trimming
                              Message 14 of 20 , Mar 12, 2010
                                ima_very_cool_cowboy@... sendis:

                                > Top posting works better for most..

                                maybe in chatrooms, but in discussion it usually doesn't work better

                                > it allows trimming off the bottom of long posts

                                trimming can be done regardless of where you put your comment.
                                and trimming usually is what *doesn't happen* - as you didn't do it in
                                the message
                                that prompted this one..

                                > and it lets us see it quickly without downloading a long post. 
                                > Services like AOL and MSN and Yahoo rely on top posting so people
                                > can trim posts.
                                >
                                > Sorry just how I see it.. there is a long article in favor on wikipedia.

                                and on the other hand there's sites like http://www.learn.to/quote

                                groetjes, Ronaldo


                                --
                                http://www.esperanto.net
                              • jfnewell7
                                It is true that the Fed hires from the financial community. However, many members of the financial community were doing quite well before the crisis, with huge
                                Message 15 of 20 , Mar 16, 2010
                                  It is true that the Fed hires from the financial community. However, many members of the financial community were doing quite well before the crisis, with huge wage packages, huge bonuses, etc. The world crisis did not benefit them. Therefore, I don't think helping the rich could have been a motivation for the world crisis. The rich were doing better before the crisis.

                                  Jim

                                  --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jodemas2" <jodemas2@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Actually, the Fed likes to say it controls the economy, and many analysts, stockbrokers, etc. go along with that. In reality, the economy often ends up doing something different from what the Fed intends. For example, the Fed didn't intend the massive recent world serious recession.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Jim,
                                  >
                                  > I am afraid if you believe that you are seriously misinformed. The Fed absolutely intended to cause this depression by debasing our currency and causing inflation. Infaltion is a way to steal people's hard-earned savings so that only the rick can afford things of value.
                                  >
                                  > They have done this by taking the dollar off the gold standard, followed by printing money backed by nothing - out of thin air, if you will. The US dollar has lost 98% of its value since the creation of the Fed in 1913. It is now a mere "fiat" currency, and all fiat currencies, as has been historically proven, eventually go to zero. (We have 2% to go.)
                                  >
                                  > Did you watch the video?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Ronaldo wrote:
                                  >
                                  > "Sounds to me like the FED does what all banks do..only difference is
                                  > that it lends to the US-government. The way I see it, its not the
                                  > creation of money that creates the problem, but rather it having to be
                                  > paid back , with interest that creates the inflation."
                                  >
                                  > Ronaldo,
                                  >
                                  > unlike the Fed, ordinary banks do NOT set artificially low interest rates which then create bubbles, and bust and boom cycles.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > "I think the rate of interest is irrelevant. The fact that it's over
                                  > zero counts."
                                  >
                                  > No. There is a natural rate of interest which would be determined by the market if it were allowed to operate freely. The natural rate is > 0.
                                  >
                                  > Joe
                                  >
                                • jodemas2
                                  ... You have to scroll down ANYWAY to get to the next message (at least if you get this listserv in digest form, as I do), so there is no loss there. And with
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Mar 16, 2010
                                    --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > I agree with that. My own feeling is that if I remember the original message, I don't need to read it again, so top posting gets me immediately to the reply. With bottom posting, if I remember the original message, then I have to scroll down, skimming the original message carefully enough not to miss where the reply begins.
                                    >
                                    > However, if I don't happen to remember the original message, or don't remember an important part of it, then it is there for me to reread.
                                    >
                                    > Jim
                                    >



                                    You have to scroll down ANYWAY to get to the next message (at least if you get this listserv in digest form, as I do), so there is no loss there.

                                    And with so many messages coming through, it is not easy to remember WHICH original message is being replied to.

                                    Joe
                                  • ro-esp
                                    ... sure they do, especially when it comes to interest they have to pay... Although, here in the netherlands there s a bank advertising with savings- and
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Apr 2, 2010
                                      jodemas2@... sendis:

                                      > Ronaldo wrote:
                                      >
                                      >> "Sounds to me like the FED does what all banks do..only difference is
                                      >> that it lends to the US-government. The way I see it, its not the
                                      >> creation of money that creates the problem, but rather it having to be
                                      >> paid back , with interest that creates the inflation."
                                      >
                                      > Ronaldo,
                                      >
                                      > unlike the Fed, ordinary banks do NOT set artificially low interest rates

                                      sure they do, especially when it comes to interest they have to pay...
                                      Although, here in the netherlands there's a bank advertising with
                                      "savings- and
                                      motrgage-interests are linked and equal" (whichj is possible because
                                      banks lend
                                      out several times what the savers have on their accounts).
                                      And in sweden and denmark there's the JAK (earth, labour,
                                      capital)-banks that don't
                                      use interest at all - in contrast with "normal" banks.

                                      > which then create bubbles, and bust and boom cycles.

                                      "money as debt" is a bubble all in itself

                                      >> I think the rate of interest is irrelevant. The fact that it's over
                                      >> zero counts.
                                      >
                                      > No. There is a natural rate of interest which would be determined
                                      > by the market if it were allowed to operate freely. The natural
                                      > rate is > 0.

                                      You're not implying that money was created by god or anything are you?

                                      The only natural interest would be equal to inflation, and some even
                                      claim that
                                      it can be mathematically proven that one determines the other (or vv)

                                      groetjes, Ronaldo

                                      --
                                      http://www.esperanto.net
                                    • ro-esp
                                      ... I don t disagree with that. So what can we do about it? Implement a legal maximum-wage ? make it illegal to raise prices? Take away the banks rights to
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Apr 2, 2010
                                        jodemas2@... sendis:

                                        > Inflation is a way to steal people's hard-earned savings so that
                                        > only the rich
                                        > can afford things of value.

                                        I don't disagree with that. So what can we do about it? Implement a legal
                                        maximum-wage ? make it illegal to raise prices? Take away the banks' rights
                                        to create money?

                                        And last but not least: refute convincingly the economists' claim that
                                        deflation
                                        would be even worse on everyone ?

                                        groetjes, Ronaldo



                                        --
                                        http://www.esperanto.net
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.