$10 Million Loans for Everyone!


sheila bair former head of that b_s_e_
restaurateur op ed in the washington post and uh… she’s been finances big bang
so long to do re one of these i remember is that during the clinton nutrition she
said hey you know what if you deregulate the bank still take out of control rats
and robert rubin larry summers all those guys laughter nobec opportune time for
this woman no multiple picnic like the banks are big big risk out here this issues not a team player well that’s true that’s why we were
specter and uh… so she would sentence op ed hey you know what what if we were all
treated all american households were treated like a big banks well then we would get interest-free
loss was that’s what the banks of the nearly three years and years now trillions of dollars worth of ag over
seven trillion dollars last time bloomberg news that a report on it they
have the number seven point seven trillion probably more buy now
bullishness take that the service so she said what if we gave that ridge
american ten million dollars an interest-free
loan so we’re not giving it to them it’s at that same here so long and
whatever you investments you make weaving keepers collateral as they do
with the facts right so what happened to you well i loved she said all you have to do is turn
around and go to the treasury and you would make two percent but you’re paying zero percent sos free money you know how much that
would be per year two hundred thousand dollars as soon as i was free money udall retire immediately analyses the join two thousand is enough so that’s why she says they need in it
put it in the great treasuries if you like this much riskier but it gives you
a twenty-one percent return that way they two point one million yeah
well that’s a little too risky i’ll go for portugal securities or bonds twelve percent you’d make one point two
million dollars here you know any new like you do your money your able to borrow it an interest-free now i love that she did this example why want you get a sense of well you can’t lose and if that happened average americans
of course there republicans government efficient everybody would say it took
away his party appliance don’t government doing this knowing that you
can get but the big banks they do it huge scale to the tune of trends at oz
and nobody complains about or we do it of course head falls on deaf ears both democrats
and republics shed all the money over them
anyway it’s the same exact thing there is not sad rations know anything they did interest-free loans near zero
percent and in turn around and give it to the
back of a government at two percent any pocket the difference bloomberg at an
analysis of that thirteen billion dollars they made in
fremont if you have been given that money and
you just put it into treasuries you would have made thirteen billion dollars just give it to state a government money and the need to go back to the
government enemy while they go here to be thirty million dollars a freeman if we got to do it we all the rage and the second reason i love it is
accusing assess heberts free money and all the government has is the
collateral like so for example divisible by the treasury stuff i by the
court she’s debt instead malware make in one point two million
iso two hundred thousand ever goes bad who cares some my money
anyway i save the government you deal with them
and that’s here and bad portuguese debt so what do you need to are you gonna be
a soccer on may two hundred thousand you’re gonna put it in his riskiest
opposite can to make as much money in the short term
as you possibly can doesn’t meet your money anyway and you have no downside and now do you see why bankers both
arriving us from by getting a free money n_b_a_ incentivize to take the greatest possible rests because they might not even be appalled
that particular executive might not be able to saxo morris family or wherever in a couple years he thinks for a couple
of years and i’m here or shoot in the five ten years and i’m here i’ve got to
take as much money home responsible they’re giving me free money in the
letting me take whatever risk i want with it so why wouldn’t they do it of course
they work and when you take that much arrest
what’s gonna happen at some point you’re gonna lose one of
those gambles and when you do you have to pay the bill we all have to pay the bill

100 comments on “$10 Million Loans for Everyone!”

  1. samuraijack1371 says:

    Finally someone is ready to see the deficit from another perspective!!. A good place to see more on this to read this paper by Warren Mosler " Soft currency economy " Just google it.

  2. texkit1 says:

    Gosh are you clueless. You need to do some research. I would start with the documentary called "The Inside Job". Which doesn't take political sides. It shows what really happened with the banks/wall street. It will open your eyes to the truth.
    The facts are if Banking had been the most regulated sectors in the economy, none of this would have happened. No bank bailouts and no free fall of our economy.
    Challenge you to prove to us that banks being over regulated is causing our problems.

  3. FirebirdCamaro1220 says:

    Wasn't Sheila Bair one of the people who helped Bernanke and Paulson with the bailouts? (as FDIC head at the time)

  4. genie0390 says:

    Hush your mouth Cenk,..you mean it was Clinton that deregulated the banks? How does this fact jive with the fool idiot notions that GW Bush caused the meltdown?

    actually Clinton did a lot more to cause the financial crisis, like with his enhanced CRA, mandating Fannie Mae to force banks to loosen lending rules, force banks to stop redlining poor communities, appointing the super crook Franklin Raines as CEO of Fannie, in general causing the housing bubble

  5. genie0390 says:

    actually it is you that is clueless

    had the Dems not inferred with the housing industry and forced bankers to loosen lending rules, there would not have been all those phony useless mortgages backing securities sold to the world, which triggered the collapse

    you totally ignore the root causes for the meltdown.

    I like your claim "The Inside Job" doesn't take political sides!,..haha, get out of here

  6. Michael Xie says:

    I would personally invest the interest free loans into the Nigerian Prince who emailed me yesterday.

  7. texkit1 says:

    No not me…..it's obviously you have never seen "Inside Job". Yes Clinton signed the GLB act which was sponsored by Republicans Gramm, Leach & Bliley. Why its called the GLB. GOP had control of the Congress during Clinton, last 2 yrs. Fact is if Clinton would had veto it than Bush would have signed it. With Bush & Republicans control of Congress they did a lot, lot more deregulation. Which made it way more worse than just GLB act alone. GOP goal is to have no regulations of banking.

  8. genie0390 says:

    oh look, a guy with "3k" in his handle obviously referring to his yearly income

  9. genie0390 says:

    unlike you, Clinton was man enough to admit he made a terrible mistake by deregulating banks in a speech at Toronto canada

    you don't know what Bush would have done! He did try twice to clamp down and regulate "gov backed entities" like Fannie/Freddie but was blocked by Dems

    want to talk control of Congress? in 2006, 2 yrs prior to meltdown, Dems took Congress and barney Frank became chmn Banking Committee. His lover was VP at Fannie, knew what was coming, but frank didn't even warn Americans

  10. herpiethelovebug says:

    The rift wasn't about money. Egos, perhaps. TVP released a video explaining the breakup, watch?v=zJbRM46tltI. And regardless of why they went their own ways, we all still live in this world, and our behaviors come from this environment. Jacque and Peter included. TVP is still a direction worth pursuing regardless of who is doing the talking. TZM is still a good tool for understanding, but I think misses the mark of TVP. Give the vid a watch, it might clear up your misconceptions on the split.

  11. genie0390 says:

    look here dumbnuts, anyone who travels through life in lockstep and mind with progressives like Cenk/Ana and the rest of the hapless TYTs is the one who's pathetic, needs to have his head candled

  12. orochimarujes says:

    The government simply should not have the power to loan out that much taxpayer money (or any at all). The answer isn't regulation of banks, but shrinking of government power, because that seems to be where the banks are getting all this free money in the first place.

  13. SoyElta says:

    He didn't say he figured it out, everyone knows this. He is talking about an OP-ED

  14. texkit1 says:

    Another Fox news mouth piece. lol First how could Dems block anything when Reps had control. Gramm wanted to deregulate banking, all Reps do including Bush. Reps wrote the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. It's their baby.
    In 2007 Frank did become Chmn of the Financial Services Committee and sponsored H.R. 1427, which would have over sight of Fannie/Freddie.
    Do you not understand that Republicans want to deregulate all financial institutions. They talk about it all the time.

  15. Z says:

    Whats funny is they don't want regulations because regulation is Big Brother infringing on your liberties and freedom well sounds to me like they like having the liberties and freedom of pretty much committing fraud and embezzlement so…….in theory sounds kinda like there whole concept of freedom is screwed but I guess they were able to they committed all those acts and still to this day there free from jail that is….

  16. genie0390 says:

    don't be insulting, I have the education, experience to think for myself

    fact is, Barney frank was chmn of the powerful banking committee, had to know what was coming down but did nothing to try and stop it, didn't even bother to warn Americans

    as for how blocking works in Congress, I refer u to the first 2 yrs, 2009/10 when Dems had TOTAL control but still blame GOP for always saying "no"

    Dems want total control over banks, interfere with workings of the market, blame others when things fail

  17. StreakyBaconMan says:

    That doesn't mean you can get rid of tax and use printed cash to spend. The money has to actually be worth something to begin with, and if you create it from paper and just use it, the money you printed is worth the paper it's printed on and nothing more. Money gets its value by being exchanged for things that have value to people. If you didn't exchange anything of value to obtain the money, it isn't worth anything. Would you accept payment in money I printed from my printer?

  18. StreakyBaconMan says:

    Research hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic. You can't just go printing off money instead of tax, money becomes worthless. If I printed $100 bills with my printer, would you accept them as payment? No, because they are worth nothing. I didn't do their value in work to obtain them, or exchange anything of value for them, making them worthless. Why should anyone accept money from a government that just prints it off when it's low on money? It's only worth the scrap paper.

  19. BigTim951 says:

    Your welcome…
    No I believe that we should end the fed period.. Makes no sense that we don't print our own money.. Borrowing it from a private corporation is just stupid and makes a debt hole that we can never get out of… Back when our money was printed by us it was backed by GOLD but now its backed by nothing but debt..

  20. StreakyBaconMan says:

    The reason I don't want to reply to you is because you assume you must be correct and refuse to reasearch at all on the subject. No matter what you say, governments can't just print of money when they need to pay for something. It doesn't work, never has and never will. Tax is nessisary, and although the tax system isn't ideal and could do with some changes, but unless you want to go back to living in the wild and being basically cavemen again it is completely nessisary.

  21. poofendorf says:

    larry summers: one of the dumbest economists in the history of the world.

  22. herpiethelovebug says:

    I love all the economic propagandists here posting this and that, while totally ignoring what Cenk is talking about. Money is fake, the economy is not economic in any regard, and it is a system of slavery no matter how you look at it. Oh well, keep fiddling while Rome burns around your ears.
    The Venus Project. That is the direction in which we should be going.

  23. TheOrdinaryEconomist says:

    I would agree. I would like to see other currencies allowed to compete with the dollar within the US. I believe Utah has passed a law in which gold is now legal tender and there are debit cards you can get now that are backed by gold. As more people adopt sound money the demand for dollars will fall and items priced in dollars will rise creating more demand for sound money. The Fed and all those in bed with them, banks and politicians alike will fight tooth and nail against such though.

  24. humboldthammer says:

    Why not — it's only $1500 trillion dollars? Might take a few months to print — only a few hours to create it electronically, HOWEVER, talk about inflation!!
    I used 150 million adults (not 320 million population).

  25. Kate Linnell says:

    she was using an example -_-; not saying we should use it.

  26. RoScFan says:

    thatcer was like the us conservatives????

  27. Rainshi says:

    sadly goverment won't get rid of their own power. Just like the average americans wouldn't agree to work for less even though to do so would make several homeless. Greed is what is causing American to fall. But that's just history repeating itself.

  28. RandyNewmanFan says:

    If everyone got 10,000,000$, a candy bar would begin costing 10,000$ and your house would cost like 30$ million a month

  29. Florentino Montalvo Gaytán says:

    If you look at it you will realize that most other countries print their own money, except the US. Almost every other country with central bank have a governor of the bank andits part of the gov, the reason why worked out for the US is because the dollar was forced as monetary reserve with debt to many countries (all LatAm, east asia). Before the fed was formed and gold standard dropted there was only 1 country with a big debt, the US, the others were just fine.

  30. noprofitmaximierung says:

    Right, but Banks deal with Capital and are needed to give out loans and push the accumulation of capital to the maximum. If you regulate banks and don't let them spread "risk" through derivatives and other "tools", that concentrated risk can take down whole banks and then you have a real crisis of the banking system. So, that said: Fuck Capitalism.

  31. texkit1 says:

    You know that there are Dems & Reps on Financial Services Committee. So your mad at Frank for not warning us but Reps didn't have to warn us.
    What I can't figure out are you for regulation or against them. You blame Dems for deregulation but than you blame Dems for regulations & interfering with the free market.
    In 2009/10 Dems didn't have full control of the Senate. Yes, there were more Dems but with the way voting works in the Senate, to have full control you need 60 in the majority.

  32. StreakyBaconMan says:

    You miss the point. If the government just created money to pay people to build roads, be police officers etc from nothing, then the money is worth nothing. Sure, you can get away with printing off a little bit of money and it wont be worthless, but if you sustained your entire country by printing off cash every time the country needed a new road or more hospitals etc, then money would quickly become worthless as has happened in the past.

  33. Doctormaniac Butts says:

    1, my point has nothing to do with getting rid of taxes (i think you may have confused me with samuraijack1371) and 2, yes, i would, because EVERYONE thinks those papers are worth what they claim to be. After you give me the money, i would do a transaction with someone else, then they would do a transaction with someone else, and so on and so on. The economy then grows and increases the value of the dollar (which makes up for the loss in value you caused by printing it).

  34. zendingo19 says:

    Obama 2012

  35. StreakyBaconMan says:

    It is not much different from me printing off my own personal currency and asking others to accept it. If I did nothing but print money, then how does the person I am trying to pay justify the value I put on my money? Would you trade your time to someone who would give you say $100 an hour, but the way they get money is by printing it off because they don't want to use their time to earn the $100 to pay you for your time? Why would you when they don't sacrifice their time to pay you?

  36. StreakyBaconMan says:

    The thing is that over time people put less and less value on currency overall because of the fact that some of the currency was not earned and nothing of value was traded for it. Say you lived on a small island and everyone had $1,000,000 between them, but then someone went and printed off $100,000 for whatever reason and spent that money. Now there is $1,100,000 on the same island, and there isn't more things to spend the money on than before, making the value of all the money go down.

  37. StreakyBaconMan says:

    If you get the balance right, and only add money when nessisary then it's perfectly fine, but if you're injecting money because you need to buy something then it's going to be a problem. I never ment that you can NEVER add money, but under the circumstances that the original person I was replying to set out, you should NEVER add money for that purpose, and it can't replace tax as he thinks it can.

  38. Doctormaniac Butts says:

    Think of it like this, say I have 2 cars, but I only need 1 to drive, and I need a house. some guy needs a car to drive, but has 2 houses. I trade him 1 car for 1 house. a house is "objectivity" worth more than a car, but our needs were met by him "loosing" value, therefore, wealth was mutually gained. money is exactly that: a means to finding this optimum, and until we reach it, printing money will technically increase wealth, if only because there is no such thing as "objective"

  39. StreakyBaconMan says:

    I've already said that there is a middle ground. Sometimes the benifits of printing off money outweighs the negitive consequences of doing so. Often it does not.

    Usually there is a man who is willing to trade his car and some other things to make up to the value of a house, so the man who needs a car and has two houses gets a car, and something else that he may need, like food and water.

    If there is nobody willing to trade more than a car for your house, then it is worth a car.

  40. StreakyBaconMan says:

    If everything you could buy costs $1,000,000 and 10 people have $100,000 each, but 1 of them prints off $100,000 extra, he can buy more things, but eventually everything is bought, and there is money left over. The value of currency will change if there is more money than things to spend it on because the remaining currency is worthless and cannot be exchanged for anything. If you just add currency to spend it, it devalues the rest of your currency because you need to be able to exchange it.

  41. StreakyBaconMan says:

    It doesn't mean that you should never add currency, for example you don't want a house to cost $10, because then the cheapest thing would be 1c, which is only 1/1000th of the cost of a house. Sometimes it is nessisary to devalue your currency, and currency is also destroyed so you need to print off more currency to replace destroyed currency, otherwise it makes the money that remains worth too much. I know there needs to be a middle ground, but printing money isn't a solution most of the time.

  42. StreakyBaconMan says:

    And it certainly isn't a solution to tax which the original guy I was replying to was saying.

  43. Doctormaniac Butts says:

    bullshit, you've consistently said that printing money doesn't work
    while I agree there are MANY situations in which printing money is a bad strategy, there are times when it will stimulate an economy. yes, no shit, if demand isn't high enough to make a person trade more than a car for a house, then car = house (what point were to trying to contradict?)

  44. Doctormaniac Butts says:

    what the hell do you mean, "when everything is bought?" HAS THAT EVER FUCKING HAPPENED? everything is bought happens only at an economic optimum (a.k.a., when no one needs anything anymore, and which I specifically said is a situation in which printing money will not increase wealth). of course 1 random person can't print an entire TEN FUCKING PERCENT of the entire wealth. It must be 1: SMALL and 2: PLANNED by a treasury and controlled by the government in the form of a stimulus.

  45. Doctormaniac Butts says:

    apologies, i found where you said the "middleground" thing, yet, you still miss the point, the value of money isn't tied to actual, physical objects, it is compared to how close to optimum trade is at (close to optimum = high wealth, therefore, any money spent in a close-to-optimal economy is worth more than money spent in a crappy economy).

  46. hozehd says:

    "So agian, I should wait until a vitamin b12 defiency has gone untreated","So people should wait until irreversible nerve and brain damage before they even go to a doctor?"
    No I'm saying they should go to the doctor as soon as they think it is worth the money to purchase such services. And by the way, it is said "worse than a Nazi" not "worst than a Nazi" Once again I hope English is your second language.

  47. hozehd says:

    If you want to give the government ultimate power over your life then you should let them take over paying your doctor bills.

  48. hozehd says:

    If preventative care is valuable then people will seek it out and pay for it. If people fail to seek out what is in their better interest it only means that GPs have failed to advertise correctly or price their services correctly. Preventative services are covered by most insurance policies and most insurance policies are subsidized by the state. If the state started paying the bill for breast enlargements, or cellphones, or tattoos, or oil changes the price of the subsidized service would rise.

  49. ecwaufisxtreme says:

    The Venus Project is a sign that we need to elect Sarah Palin as our next POTUS and kick all the men out! We NEED an ALL WOMAN GOVT!

  50. ecwaufisxtreme says:

    President Palin will COMPLETELY DESTROY the FED with the WRATH and FURY of GOD HERSELF! She will restore our currency back to sound money backed by GOLD blessed with Palin's GOD LIGHT!

  51. herpiethelovebug says:

    LOL Hysterical. Dude, you are an amazing troll. They should create a troll like creature in the new Guild Wars named after you. Keep up the good work 🙂

  52. StreakyBaconMan says:

    What point were you trying to make? And when I said printing money doesn't work it was in reference to printing money instead of collecting tax. I incorrectly assumed as you were defending the other guy I was replying to that you also thought this was a viable alternative to taxation. I had already said in an earlier comment that if you get the balance right and add money when nessisary, everything will be fine.

  53. StreakyBaconMan says:

    It's hard to understand what you mean in your example but I'll give it another shot.

    I know that money is there so we don't trade goods and services directly. So if a house is worth one and a half times as much as a car then you trade your house for a numerical representation of the value of your house and pay the numerical representation of the car, meaning you can keep the remaining value of your house while still obtaining a car. What does that have to do with printing money?

  54. StreakyBaconMan says:

    I'm not saying that has ever happened, but that's because there is a shift in value of the goods and services that people pay for when there is more money. You can't have everything on your island costing $1,000,000, yet there is more than $1,000,000 on the island, because you could buy every good and service and have money left. If you take what I've been saying to be that it is NEVER a good idea to print off more money, then I'm sorry because that is not my beleif. I know it can be nessisary.

  55. StreakyBaconMan says:

    All I was saying was that the guy I was replying to is an idiot because you can't replace tax with printing off new money. The government can't print off money simply because it needs money to spend without huge negitive consequences. It would be almost as bad if you never added any more cash for any reason, but I wasn't trying to say that it is bad to add cash period. It may have come off that way, but I ment it in the context of replacing tax with printing new money.

  56. Doctormaniac Butts says:

    i posted my answer in a different comment, so you may have missed it
    the value of money isn't tied to actual, physical objects, it is compared to how close to optimum trade is at (close to optimum = high wealth, therefore, any money spent in a close-to-optimal economy is worth more than money spent in a crappy economy). you also incorrectly state (in your example) that there is a million dollars worth of stuff on the island; the economy constantly increases that number until it hits its max

  57. Doctormaniac Butts says:

    alright, cool, at least we're clear about samuraijack1371 being an idiot

  58. StreakyBaconMan says:

    My understanding is that the closer you are to neither person losing wealth during a transaction, the better off everyone is. We use money to help in trade so that people lose less wealth when they make transactions such as selling a house in order to buy a car.

    The value of money comes about because some things are many times more valuable than other things because of the time it took to make, or the difficulty in obtaining the materials.

  59. Doctormaniac Butts says:

    actually that example was to illustrate that spending currency in an economy generates wealth, which directly fights the currency's decrease in value from printing money (because currency represents wealth).

  60. romanmir01 says:

    No, not everybody 'knows this'. Unless this is your first time watching TYT, you'd understand that Cenk has no clue about economics, as far as he is concerned in this video, this is the first time he figured this out because of that op-ed.

  61. romanmir01 says:

    You go ahead into your 'venus project', I am not interested.

  62. SoyElta says:

    Hmm, no. I've gotta say I am doubtful.
    I've seen a lot of TYT videos, I've seen them since they stopped being radio only in fact. But I understand if you disagree.

  63. Polo Player says:

    They get it at 75 Basis Points 🙂

  64. Despicably Irascible Rapscallion says:

    Yeah, most people don't realize how disastrous an effect the policies of Mulroney had on Canada either. To this day, the majority of Canadian federal debt occurred under the Mulroney administration.

    It doesn't matter when talking to most of these so-called 'conservative' dimwits anyway. They don't care about the facts, and just pretend things were different. It's like the idiots who don't realize Reagan RAISED taxes trying to balance the budget he destroyed.

  65. herpiethelovebug says:

    Where did I say that?

    You have a nice day too.

  66. genie0390 says:

    it's very difficult having any sort of meaningful debate with progressives!

    here you are claiming that GOP prevented things getting done in the Dem controlled Senate and the House. I have pointed out that GW Bush tried twice to regulate "gov backed entities" such as Fannie/freddie, that could have prevented the meltdown, progressives mocked me claiming that Bush had a majority in Congress. fact is Dems did block Bush. Now Obowma and all Dems claim that Bush is responsible for the meltdown

  67. texkit1 says:

    Because we are too educated for you. lol
    The melt down happened because of deregulation of the financial institutions & greed.
    GLB Act which repealed part of the Glass Steagall Act. The GOP wrote the GLB Act which Clinton was wrong to give in and sign. Bush allowed for even more deregulation after he became POTUS. If he tried to stop it why did he allow it in the first place.
    Watch the Inside Job to learn how deregulation caused all of this. Than we can have a meaningful discussion.

  68. texkit1 says:

    Now the Senate. The Senate has crazy dysfunctional rules for voting. You have to have 60 votes to stop a filibuster on any bill that is trying to get passed. All one side has to do is scream we will filibuster, the other side backs down. Neither side is willing to change these rules because they don't want to give the other side the advantage. They are so dysfunctional that it really doesn't matter who is in control of it. Both political parties should get the blame for it.

  69. herpiethelovebug says:

    Why would we do that? The Venus Project won't work unless a sizable majority wants it to happen. You don't really understand it do you? There would be no need to hurt anyone. A Resource Based Economy would provide everything needed for everyone to live to a high standard of living in a world of abundance. I don't know why you would want to trade bits of paper for items everyone has access to, but if you wanted to, go ahead.

  70. genie0390 says:

    "people have thought about a world without currency for hundreds of years"

    what people are you referring to? Nobody that crazy comes to mind

    "Remember in most areas of the world, it was European colonizers who forcibly imposed a currency-based economy on foreign people"

    and that was a good thing too!

    you likely would be perfectly happy being a hunter and gatherer, provided you could get your hands on the odd Swedish meatball or two

  71. genie0390 says:

    "The melt down happened because of deregulation of the financial institutions & greed."

    you may be a nice enough liberal, but there is this mental block preventing you to see root causes, probably due to ideology

    all the deregulation in the world wouldn't have mattered had the mortgages backing the securities being traded been solid, not toxic! It was CRA enhanced rules, Clinton's mandating bank lending rules that created the subprime mess, the housing boom wherein deadbeats got mortgages

  72. Shreem says:

    What cookie cutter houses for everyone? No variety? You just have to take what the elite give you. Sounds like a communist paradise.

  73. Shreem says:

    There is one emerging…BRICS

  74. herpiethelovebug says:

    Where do you get that idea from? Homes would be far more individually designed than they are today. You would be able to make your choices. Read question 28 in the FAQ on the VP website. There is no elite, there is no state, there is no money. All of these are required for communism. Communism, Capitalism, Fascism, and so on, are all just different ways of managing money. This is why they all fail.

  75. yatubehabibi says:

    If these conformist and ignorant math/physics people were to stop for a second and listen, how would you explain how they are holding back our perception? What is it that we are perhaps missing? I would appreciate a concise explanation.

  76. yatubehabibi says:

    It appears your understanding of these 'theories' (a term which you use colloquially) is limited to popular science accounts. If you actually understood the equations, you would understand how people have misled you to a crock of bullsh*t. Perhaps before you berate your betters, learn some math and understand the equations for yourself. Until then, ask yourself if you can in all honesty criticize equations which YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, and which are beyond your intellectual capacity.

  77. yatubehabibi says:

    I despair at the steep scientific illiteracy and intellectual degeneration of our species. Perhaps such is inevitable. I suppose you can't be blamed geebus80, for your imbecility, for scientists have forsaken their duty to inform laymen in the name of neutrality and out of philosophical sloth. And so I can only despair, and hope, perhaps. Take care, geebus80, and dream of a future spared of your stupor. I know I will.

  78. texkit1 says:

    No politics…To begin to understand the finical crisis you first have to learn how regulation & deregulation played its part. They were able to trade toxic loans all bundle up because of deregulation of derivatives. Regulations were put in place after the crash of the market in 1929. Which helped stabilize our economy, once they were removed it led us to the crisis we had in 2008. Removing them turn Banks/Wall Street into gambling casinos. Instead of chips they used derivatives.

  79. genie0390 says:

    you really do have a mental block

    how about the liberal policies that created the toxic loans in the first place. Without those toxic loans the derivatives would have been solid investments, hence no meltdown whatsoever

    it's the same policies that created the S & L fiasco. There criminals took the blame, the politicians that provided the pathway for them escaped any blame

    same crap, different times

  80. texkit1 says:

    So Republicans have no responsibility in any of this, not even Phil Gramm. You believe that Liberals who wanted to help low income ppl buy homes are to blame. You don't blame Banks/Mortgage Co./Wall Street who saw that they could push these loans, that they knew were toxic, bundle them up…lead others to believe that they were good investments, sell it to them…making huge profits…not caring who gets hurt.
    Your blaming the wrong Dem, it wasn't Frank but Chris Dodd who is the low life.

  81. david morgan says:

    i have ichy balls

  82. genie0390 says:

    "You believe that Liberals who wanted to help low income ppl buy homes are to blame"

    as the old tried and true saying goes, "the roads to hell are paved with good intentions", but sadly hell is what happened to hard working decent Americans

    "You don't blame Banks/Mortgage Co./Wall Street who saw that they could push these loans, that they knew were toxic, bundle them up.."

    I do blame them to the extent they were bastards with no ethics taking advantage of what foolish politicians did

  83. texkit1 says:

    you said: I do blame them to the extent they were bastards with no ethics taking advantage of what foolish politicians did
    Who do you think was behind the politicians, giving them money to do their bidding. Who wanted to deregulate in the first place. Banks/Mortgage Co./Wall Street were buying politicians to do what they wanted done.
    You still won't admit that Reps did this too, they wrote the legislation & voted for it. Phil Gramm in Texas took credit for it even bragged about it.

  84. senortonyful says:

    You don't have to believe me. Like I've said, you can look through their video catalog and find quite a few vids where he discusses this same thing. I imagine he just brought it up again bc of the article he references in the story. And yes, there's a hell of a lot Cenk doesn't know and it's quite obvious. He's a journalist, not an intellectual. If you want to really learn about a subject then read a book. You can't expect him to be proficient in everything he reports.

  85. ahamatmabrahman says:

    See video Roger Hayes explains The Lawful Bank

  86. stylz1 says:

    Cenk shuttimg em down again.

  87. stylz1 says:

    But remember…It wouldn't be the people saying millions aren't so much anymore, it would be the Banks telling the people to think that.

  88. stylz1 says:

    Wait…so conservative lack of regulation caused financial corps to make liberal toxic loans? Something doesn't sound right about that. Look 5 levels back on that one.

  89. genie0390 says:

    you have an obvious problem with simple concepts and logic

    it was Clinton that deregulated banks in 1999, started the housing bubble with his enhanced rules for CRA passed by Carter, forced banks through Fannie Mae to loosen lending rules leading to subprimes and the toxic assets.

    Bush tried twice to regulate Fannie/Freddie but was blocked by Chris Dodd, rep Waters, Barney Frank

    Bush walked into the mess by virtue of the timing of his Presidency, just like he walked into 9/11

    wise up

  90. stylz1 says:

    That is basically what I'm saying. It is greed, not the fact that everyone has money, but the fact that people especially banks will want more of it.

  91. stylz1 says:

    I know exactly what you are saying, it has been the Repub mantra for a few years now…but like I said you have to go deeper than that. Sooooo…

  92. genie0390 says:

    go do your own research

  93. stylz1 says:

    And you keep regurgitating Rush Limbaugh "facts".

  94. DisProveMeWrong says:

    heh, "conservative estimate"

  95. Relbl says:

    Seems no one on TYT has any idea what the FEDs overnight discount window is, which is the only type of draws that big banks get for their 0.25%. It's an overnight loan!! to maintain overseas liquidity when American markets are closed. All settlements are made the next day.

    QE was printing money essentially to buy new US debt. There was over $4T of new debt in Obama's first 2 years; the FED was worried the market COULDN'T buy it all, so they did. They've sold most of it back the market already.

  96. Relbl says:

    Also, Ms Bair is unbelievably intellectually dishonest when advocating for $650T worth of loans to be made (even though I get it she was being tongue-in-cheek). It's 10x the size of the global economy, triple the size of the entire derivatives market, and basically would be the Zimbabwe moment that so many seem to wish upon America.

  97. Adam Rainstopper says:

    This bothers me.

    Take the point Cenk made about the government GIVING the money to the banks and providing the incentive to gamble with it, then reference it against his argument with Peter Schiff in which Schiff said that we shouldn't focus our hostilities on the banks for taking the money, but rather on the government for giving it to them. When he said this, Cenk was so mad he cut Schiff's mic and kicked him off the show, yet here he is praising someone else for making the exact same point.

  98. Lin Poh says:

    Dear Investors/Financial Seekers.

    We are a Registered Private Investors/Loan Lender, Do you need FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE? Are you in financial mess OR debts? We offer loan at 3% interest rate within 1 year to 30 years repayment duration period to Individual and Companies that are in need of financial assistance and to any part of the world.

    Interested Individual OR Companies should contact us via: Email:{[email protected]}

    Regards,

    Lin Poh Loan Firm Team.

  99. Yun Chung says:

    YUN CHUNG LOAN FIRM!!

    We are a Government Approved/Registered Financial Company. Are you in any financial crisis? Do you need a LOAN to refinance your home, or expand your business? Do you need LOAN to settle urgent debts and stay with one lender? Do you need LOAN to pay off your bills? We offer LOAN to individual & cooperate bodies in need of financial assistance at 3% interest rate without credit check or collateral. We offer Local & International LOAN! e-mail:{[email protected]}.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *