Fed cuts funds rate 75 basis points

[Ryder]

If this does colapse which I believe it will just how far no one knows. The scary part is if this goes like 1929 then 70% of the country was on the farm, today they are in the city. Thats a lot of people we have raised in a chicken coup, they have no idea how to raise and prepare food.
Stock up on ammunition.

Affirmative.

 

[bigbull338]

we are heading for a depession.an right now theres nothing to stop it.the only thing we can do is tighten our belts an hang on.but the thing is no one knows how long the slump will last.but if it last as long as the 29 crash.alot of people will lose their homes.

 

[TexasBred]

The meltdown will happen but lowering the rate will only delay the meltdown but not for long and make it much worse. It is like getting in trouble with your parents and lying about it, the beating is delayed a short time, but it will be much worse.

When you hear about those banks losing billions of dollars it seems abstract . In the case of a mletdown if you have $10,000 in the bank and only get back $2500 it will not be as hard to understand .

Larry

Abstract? This is a real problem and I am saying it should be dealt with in a real way, not by covering our eyes and hope it gets better. People will loose money, your example may happen, I understand perfectly. I may be cold about the whole situation, but down the road that $2500 may become $0. I understand the situation very well, I think this country neads an axe man.

If your money is in the bank it's insured. You won't lose it even if the bank goes under. If it's in mutual funds etc. that's a diff. story. I never heard of anyone losing any money in the S&L fiasco. Other financial institutions purchased the assets and deposits of the failed ones and both borrowers and depositers hardly knew anything happened at all. You just sent your deposits and payments to a different address. The treasury simply issued new bonds (increased national debt) and others bought them.

 

[john250]

"Stock up on ammunition" is not bad advice. But you know that a man in a suit will steal more money than a man with a gun.
Sooner or later, the idea will be floated to Cap market prices for food, and possibly fuel. And that idea will appeal to politicians who are getting their ears blistered by constituents, voters, complaining about food prices. If price controls get a foot in the door, we agriculturists are just as screwed as we would be if some big dude from the inner city came looking for meat with an Uzi.
Keep in touch with your politicians. Nixon tried price controls in the '70's, and the cattle market didn't really recover until the 90's. Other factors played a role, of course, but price controls caused a major crash in the cattle market.
Commodity prices have to be free moving. Otherwise, supply becomes non-existent. The only thing worse than $4 diesel and $5.50/bu corn is NO diesel and NO corn.
Do you want to stand in line for $3 diesel? Or would you pay $4 to buy what you need when you need it?
When inflation is rampant, this tired old idea of price controls always comes back around. Controls don't work, they have never worked and they will not work now. Agriculturists suffer a disproportionate impact from controls. While you are stockpiling ammo, get to know a politician. It may be the most important thing you do.

 

[Ryder]

If your money is in the bank it's insured. You won't lose it even if the bank goes under. If it's in mutual funds etc. that's a diff. story. I never heard of anyone losing any money in the S&L fiasco. Other financial institutions purchased the assets and deposits of the failed ones and both borrowers and depositers hardly knew anything happened at all. You just sent your deposits and payments to a different address. The treasury simply issued new bonds (increased national debt) and others bought them.[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money in banks is not safe if there are massive defaults. There is not nearly enough money in the insurance program to cover very many banks.

 

[TexasBred]

If your money is in the bank it's insured. You won't lose it even if the bank goes under. If it's in mutual funds etc. that's a diff. story. I never heard of anyone losing any money in the S&L fiasco. Other financial institutions purchased the assets and deposits of the failed ones and both borrowers and depositers hardly knew anything happened at all. You just sent your deposits and payments to a different address. The treasury simply issued new bonds (increased national debt) and others bought them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money in banks is not safe if there are massive defaults. There is not nearly enough money in the insurance program to cover very many banks.[/quote]

Read the comment again. Other "surviving" banks take over the assets and deposits. Now in an absolute worst scenario they would all fail. In that case your money would be worthless anyway. Banks can still legally advertise that not a single penny has ever been lost in an insured account in an institution.

 

[larryshoat]

If your money is in the bank it's insured. You won't lose it even if the bank goes under. If it's in mutual funds etc. that's a diff. story. I never heard of anyone losing any money in the S&L fiasco. Other financial institutions purchased the assets and deposits of the failed ones and both borrowers and depositers hardly knew anything happened at all. You just sent your deposits and payments to a different address. The treasury simply issued new bonds (increased national debt) and others bought them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money in banks is not safe if there are massive defaults. There is not nearly enough money in the insurance program to cover very many banks.

Read the comment again. Other "surviving" banks take over the assets and deposits. Now in an absolute worst scenario they would all fail. In that case your money would be worthless anyway. Banks can still legally advertise that not a single penny has ever been lost in an insured account in an institution.[/quote]In the S&L thing it was relatively small . Who would take over Bank of America ? TB, I do think you are right ,they are going to cover every dollar, that dollar won't buy much, but you will still have a dollar .The point I was trying to make with auctionboy is that the feds hands are tied, they simply have no choice but to do what they are doing .

Larry

 

[TexasBred]

Found this interesting about the S&L disaster:

The Savings and Loan scandal is the largest theft in the history of the world.

Deregulation eased restrictions so much that S&L owners could lend themselves money.

The Garn Institute of Finance, named after Senator Jake Garn, co-authored the deregulation of the industry and received $2.2 million from industry executives.

Neil Bush, George Bush's son, never servered time in jail for his part in running an S&L into the ground.

Represenative Fernard St. Germain, who was head of the House of Representatives banking, co-authored the deregulation and was voted out of office after other questionable dealings and was sent back to D.C. as an S&L lobbiest.

Charles Keating, when asked if massive lobbying efforts had influenced the government officials, he replies "I certainly hope so."

The rip-off began in 1980 when the government raised the federal insurance on S&L's from $40,000 to $100,000 even though the typical savings account was only around $6000.

Some of the seized assets were a buffalo sperm bank, a racehorse with syphilis, and a kitty litter mine.

James Fail invested $1000 of his own money to purchase 15 failing S&L's. The government reimbursed him $1.85 billion in federal subsidies.

It sometimes took over 7 years to close failing S&L's by the government.

When S&L owners who stole millions went to jail, their sentances were typically one-fifth that of the average bank robber.

The goverment bail out will cost the taxpayers around $1.4 trillion dollars when it is over.

If the White House had stepped in and bailed out the S&L's in 1986 instead of delaying until after the 1988 elections, the cost might have been only $20 billion.

With the money lost from the S&L scandals, the government could have provided prenatal care for every American child for the next 2,300 years.

With the money lost from the S&L scandals, the government could have purchased 5 million average homes.

The authors of "Inside Job", a book about the S&L scandal, found criminal activity at every S&L they investigated.

 

[Hippie Rancher]

I never heard of anyone losing any money in the S&L fiasco.

Now you have. I was on the jury for Keating's civil trial in Tucson. There were a number of plaintiff/witnesses that had lost their savings. I believe there were actually over 300 plaintiffs. Yes they all lost their money.

 

[Caustic Burno]

What the Feds should have been doing is putting these bankers in jail for making loans they knew people couldn't repay. Making loans right and left on homes with no proof of financial responsibility.
Throw them under the jail for sending credit cards out through the mail and these checks that come through the mail at holidays. Go in and start repoing peoples stuff that don't pay there bills.
The people that are paying for this mess are the people that pay there bills no matter if it is a credit card or through the banks they use that make bad loans.
There is no penality for this rampant theft that is occuring every day.

Every American will end up paying because of greedy bankers and idiots that can't manage a dollar much less a budget.

 

[dun]

Every American will end up paying because of greedy bankers and idiots that can't manage a dollar much less a budget.

It's the free enterprise function. Business alwasy has to increase business to keep they're shareholders happy.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Every American will end up paying because of greedy bankers and idiots that can't manage a dollar much less a budget.

It's the free enterprise function. Business alwasy has to increase business to keep they're shareholders happy.

I would agree if they were not backing banks with taxpayer dollars.

 

[dun]

It's the free enterprise function. Business alwasy has to increase business to keep they're shareholders happy.

I would agree if they were not backing banks with taxpayer dollars.

Didn;t say it was right, just the way it is

 

[TexasBred]

I never heard of anyone losing any money in the S&L fiasco.

Now you have. I was on the jury for Keating's civil trial in Tucson. There were a number of plaintiff/witnesses that had lost their savings. I believe there were actually over 300 plaintiffs. Yes they all lost their money.

If they lost actualy deposited money they failed to ensure that these accounts were set up in such a way as to always be insured by what was then the FSLIC .... most investors lost their life savings, largely because they held securities backed by the parent company of Lincoln Savings rather than deposits in the federally insured institution, a distinction apparently lost on many until it was too late.

 

[Hippie Rancher]

If they lost actualy deposited money they failed to ensure that these accounts were set up in such a way as to always be insured by what was then the FSLIC .... most investors lost their life savings, largely because they held securities backed by the parent company of Lincoln Savings rather than deposits in the federally insured institution, a distinction apparently lost on many until it was too late.

That is called blaming the victim.
The organization was terribly corrupt - they did bait and switch operations on a lot of older and English as a second language citizens. One piece of evidence I will never forget was an employee training document that was a deposit form filled in with an "example" customer's info that had the name "Old Woman" "#### Retiree Drive", City, State etc. The arrogance was astounding. The gold plated faucets in his jet and the money spent on art for the hotel compared to the savings lost by the woman who had worked all her life in NYC's garment district making clothes were more of the same.

I will never forget the regulator who broke down crying during his testimony of the big retirement party held for one of them by the lobbyists probably using some of this stolen money.

McSame was a witness too. Explaining his innocence taking care of (and being taken care of) one of his constituents. He had to "explain" staying in one of Keating's many houses and using one of the jets. Even though he barely knew him. :roll:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/3501/Charles ... t-too.html
I just checked on line for a couple of things and it was 20,000 people who lost money not 300! Maybe that was the witness list I was remembering. Also mentioned was another document:

One sales document introduced in the civil trial exhorted Mr. Keating's salesmen with the words, ''And always remember the weak, meek and ignorant are always good targets.'"

 

[TexasBred]

Hippie you're totally wrong. I wasn't blaming the victim. Only showing just ONE of the many schenanigins these crooks were pulling on the home folks and not disclosing exactly what was being done with their money. In short this guy stoled hundreds and hundreds of millions, got most of his convictions overturned and is still living the good life while the folks that trusted him lost it all.
But, that said, when you offer someone something that's obviously too good to be true, such as exorbitant returns on money, then it usually is too good to be true. Greed works on both sides and these guys used it in it's lowest form. The man sure wined and dined up several billions of new deposits in a short time. Heck this crook even had Allen Greenspan taking his side when things started going sour and his S&L could not meet regulatory requirements for reserves etc.