y have a good say in how things are done, but they hold less than 10% of th e total US debt, so we can still tell them to go pound sand.
ed and powerless China is
why-you-not-ki.html)
James,
No, I can't watch videos yet. This place recently installed public WIFI and I could occasionally watch a video, but the traffic is so high the bandwid th drops off fast and usually all I can get is a couple web pages. So I wen t back to slow mode. I'm thinking of getting a tablet with WIFI so I can go to McDonalds and watch videos for the price of a cup of coffee.
And your point is? You surely are not suggesting that banks should loan to people that are likely to default on the loan. That is part of what happened during the housing bubble.
BS > If it's in a bank, it isn't going to be lent BS > to anybody who can't prove they've got BS > something equally valuable that the bank can BS > sell if the borrower defaults on the loan. BS > Bill Sloman, Sydney Dan > And your point is? You surely are not Dan > suggesting that banks should loan to people Dan > that are likely to default on the loan. Dan > That is part of what happened during the Dan > housing bubble. Maybe he thinks Barney Frank and the Sandlers evil capitalist right wingers?
they've got something equally valuable that the bank can sell if the borro wer defaults on the loan.
Go back and look at what I originally posted, rather than trying to make se nse of the over-snipped responses.
James Arthur was in his best Keynes-got-it-wrong-mode where he explains tha t keeping money under the mattress or in a bank doesn't really create a rec ession or a depression (despite the fact that it does). I was trying to poi nt out - and actually said - that banks aren't venture capitalists and don' t lend enough money to businesses which are actually trying to expand.
ikely to default on the loan. That is part of what happened during the hou sing bubble.
I did also mention - in my following post - that banks go crazy sometimes a nd lend money to quite the wrong people, but that this usually tends to pro duce market bubbles rather than promoting sustainable economic expansion.
Greegor has a fertile imagination, but a rather poor grasp of reality. He's probably channeling the delusion that the Community Reinvestment Act had something to do with the sub-prime mortgage bubble.
formatting link
says it didn't but right-wing nitwits think they know better.
It is Murdoch-owned, and it does publish a lot of denialist propaganda against anthropogenic global warming, which John Larkin has been known to recycle here, but it can't be his sole source of misinformation.
I had a fairly specific point, which you've snipped from your response without marking the snip.
This does seem to be a frequent rhetorical trick with right-wing nitwits - usually labelled text-chopping. Be careful, or I'll end up confusing you with krw.
Not actually correct, but krw isn't interested in what's actually going on, but in scoring a cheap rhetorical point - he is an archetype of the right-wing nitwit.
Actually, he's showing himself up as another one of the dim right-wing creeps who infest sci.electronics.design. krw won't have noticed - he doesn't know any better.
BS > Go back and look at what I originally BS > posted, rather than trying to make BS > sense of the over-snipped responses Dan > In other words you had no point. krw > NOW, you "get" Slowman. ROFL
JL > QE is just a big socialist wealth JL > transfer scheme. In this case, it's JL > from the poor to the rich. JL > Expect bad things, longterm. How does this help George Soros?
- usually labelled text-chopping. Be careful, or I'll end up confusing you with krw.
Here is your entire post. Tell me what specific point you had that I snipp ed out. Telling the truth does not seem to be one of your strengths.
Dan
- show quoted text -
of us, they are effectively investing on our behalf. That's good, because someone has to invest, and government sucks at doing that. If they put it i nto businesses and buildings and productive stuff, everybody wins. If they stash their cash in the stock-market-casino, or offshore accounts, we lose.
people tend to stash their cash in accounts. Some inflation is helpful in that it makes investment the best way to make money.
ing physical realities.
osed to signify that somewhere, somehow, there's a pile of stuff you made, facilitated making, brought to market, or otherwise increased the value of.
id enough to trade you currency for it--they bought it.
has more machines, goods, or whatever.
culation and benefiting society. You've done a good thing.
" it, the bank loans it out to someone who can. It doesn't lay fallow and useless somewhere doing nothing--that's not how it works.
If it's in a bank, it isn't going to be lent to anybody who can't prove the y've got something equally valuable that the bank can sell if the borrower defaults on the loan.
Bankers aren't venture capitalists. They aren't in the business of investin g in extra production machinery either, particularly during a recession.
James Arthur has a peculiar faith in the positive virtues of bankers. In hi s mind they were the helpless victims of a Democrat conspiracy when they cr eated the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and they look equally Teflon-coated in all the other fairy-stories he posts here.
s - usually labelled text-chopping. Be careful, or I'll end up confusing yo u with krw.
pped out. Telling the truth does not seem to be one of your strengths.
I've snipped out what James Arthur was saying, and retained the point I was making.
hey've got something equally valuable that the bank can sell if the borrowe r defaults on the loan.
ing in extra production machinery either, particularly during a recession.
If you don't find that to be making a specific point, do tell me why. My gu ess is that you can't make sense of it - it's not a complicated point, but you, as a representative example of our crew of right-wing nitwits, may wel l have trouble getting your head around it. Understanding the truth doesn't seem to be one of your strengths.
they've got something equally valuable that the bank can sell if the borro wer defaults on the loan.
sting in extra production machinery either, particularly during a recession .
guess is that you can't make sense of it - it's not a complicated point, bu t you, as a representative example of our crew of right-wing nitwits, may w ell have trouble getting your head around it. Understanding the truth doesn 't seem to be one of your strengths.
I found you statement that "If it's in a bank, it isn't going to be lent to anybody who can't prove they've got something equally valuable that the ba nk can sell if the borrower defaults on the loan." so obvious that I though t you must be trying to imply there was something wrong with banks doing th at. Banks act in their own self interest. Nothing wrong with that. I act in my own self interest, and expect everyone to act in their own self inte rest. Why would you think that anyone would not work in their own self int erest. So is your point that banks work in their own self interest?
In the same way, I think it is obvious that banks do not invest in producti on equipment. They may make loans to people that want to invest in product ion equipment, but the banks do not invest.
Incidentally I am not right wing. I am just against stupidity.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.