Abrignac
2 years ago
One of the “evil” things the Fed does is to facilitate fractional lending. Fractional lending is essentially entity A securing a loan for funds not in possession to give to entity B. It then presumes the entity that took the loan is going to repay that loan so it can repay its loan.

How does that differ from a scenario where entity A goes to entity B and secures a loan, with the proceeds of that loan entity A secures products from entity C to sell to entity D and hopes entity D will make appropriate payment so it can repay its loan to entity B?
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago

Why even bother?

rfenst wrote:




Why should the Federal Reserve be audited?

Look at all of the damage to the US economy and the World they have created. You can down the list of chairman's and see the lies and wrong direction and inaction they have been a party to. Why, you'd firmly believe that they were a government agency! They're not.

That's why.
jeebling
2 years ago

No. "Fraud" is generally defined as an intentional, material, misrepresentation which induces another to act to his own detriment in a way that would not otherwise have occurred, but for the material, intentional, misrepresentation. There is no such thing as "fraud after the fact" like you are alleging.

rfenst wrote:



If the misrepresentation for political gain at the expense of taxpayers is not fraudulent by definition then it must be theft.
jeebling
2 years ago

No. "Fraud" is generally defined as an intentional, material, misrepresentation which induces another to act to his own detriment in a way that would not otherwise have occurred, but for the material, intentional, misrepresentation. There is no such thing as "fraud after the fact" like you are alleging.

rfenst wrote:



Your definition is not quite correct. Here’s from Black’s Law Dictionary. I had to look it up.

https://thelawdictionary.org/fraud/ 
jeebling
2 years ago

The market economy is not nearly liquid enough or sufficient to replace the fed in the short or intermediate run. If it could provide the liquidity in the long run, there is the question of what occurs in the time between now and how and when market liquidity would match demand.

rfenst wrote:



Correct. So this will take years to unwind. Throwing the balance sheet on the market one morning is not what I had in mind. Continuing status quo just makes the problem worse leading to a crisis that we can’t truly recover from.
Speyside2
2 years ago
I have no idea what the new system should be, not my expertise. My thought is a well planed phase in over say 20 years. This would be a slower ate of change, 5% per year. I do not know if this is doable or not.
jeebling
2 years ago
I’m far from an expert. I’m just enjoying an interesting topic and sharing my opinions, trying to see other perspectives I may not have given enough attention to or may need to reconsider. I have thought a lot about it though and I’m not thinking these things for the first time as I type them out in this thread. Still, I remind myself that it is easier for me to throw darts at the FED than it is for those responsible to fix it or decommission it.
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
2 years ago

Your definition is not quite correct. Here’s from Black’s Law Dictionary. I had to look it up.

https://thelawdictionary.org/fraud/ 

jeebling wrote:


Your link is not even secure.
Moreover, it isn't even related to Black's.
LMFAO!!!
RayR
2 years ago
Did someone say Federal Reserve Fraud?
I heard they had to pass the Federal Reserve Act so they could find out what was in it.

Monopoly Men (Federal Reserve Fraud) (1999)

?si=6dsp1G8Zml0AgOr7
jeebling
2 years ago

Your link is not even secure.
Moreover, it isn't even related to Black's.
LMFAO!!!

rfenst wrote:


Had to edit my response here…

You are right and I was wrong. The definition I quoted is from Black’s but it did not include the 4th part. I stand corrected, sir. Fraud includes the part where the “victim” took action on the information provided by the fraudsters.
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
2 years ago

Had to edit my response here…

You are right and I was wrong. The definition I quoted is from Black’s but it did not include the 4th part. I stand corrected, sir. Fraud includes the part where the “victim” took action on the information provided by the fraudsters.

jeebling wrote:


Good catch!

Moreover, the misinformation provided by the fraudster has to be "material" (critically important) and "induce" (cause another to act)...
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
2 years ago
The Economic Slowdown Is Finally Here. Welcome It.
Services sector cools as consumers pull back, putting rate cuts back on the table

WSJ

Evidence is stacking up that the U.S. economy has slowed, led by the formerly red-hot services sector.

Yet overall activity levels remain healthy, and some cooling is welcome news to investors because it opens the door back up to possible rate cuts by the Federal Reserve.

The most obvious indicator was Friday’s employment report, which showed the economy added 175,000 jobs in April, down significantly from 315,000 in March. Particularly notable was the shift to just 5,000 jobs being added in the leisure and hospitality sector compared with 53,000 in March.

This is consistent with earnings reports over the past week from food-services providers including Starbucks and McDonald’s, which both cited growing caution among consumers. Even Kraft Heinz said out-of-home venues such as restaurants are buying less from it.

“The consumer is certainly being very discriminating in how they spend their dollar. And the inflation that has occurred over the last couple of years in the U.S., I think, has certainly created that environment,” McDonald’s Chief Executive Christopher Kempczinski told analysts on a conference call on Tuesday. Starbucks, for its part, reported a 3% decline in North American comparable-store sales in the first quarter which, along with weakness in China, prompted a 15.9% plunge in its stock price.

Also on Friday, a monthly survey by the Institute for Supply Management showed services-sector activity dipping into contractionary territory in April for the first time in 15 months. “The composition of the report was weak, as the employment, new orders, and business activity components all declined,” Goldman Sachs economists said in a note.

Of course, it wasn’t all doom and gloom. True, the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9% in April from 3.8% the prior month. But, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics noted, this indicator has been in a narrow range of between 3.7% and 3.9% since August of last year. Economists at Bank of America said they see evidence that the great “catch up” in services-sector employment following the pandemic is finally ending. “In our view, this is not an outright negative sign for the economy,” they added.

One very welcome sign from the Fed’s point of view is the continued slowdown in wage growth, with average hourly earnings rising just 3.9% from a year earlier in April, compared with 4.1% in March and 4.3% in February. This suggests pricing pressures could keep subsiding, despite the stubbornly high inflation reports of recent months.

Indeed, Friday’s soft jobs data was enough to get investors thinking about rate cuts again. Stocks rose and bond yields fell on the data, with the S&P 500 gaining 1.3% and yields on benchmark 10-year Treasurys declining by 0.07 percentage point. A move at the Fed’s next meeting in June still seems to be off the table. But the likelihood of a cut by September as implied by the Fed Funds futures market rose to 67.1% late Friday from 61.6% a day earlier, according to CME Group.

If the economic data cooperates between now and then, the possibility of a sneaky July cut could keep creeping higher. Right now, markets put that at just a 36.6% chance, but it is Goldman Sachs’s base case.

A little summer slowdown could be just what this economy needs.
jeebling
2 years ago

Good catch!

Moreover, the misinformation provided by the fraudster has to be "material" (critically important) and "induce" (cause another to act)...

rfenst wrote:



Well, it was a good catch but you caught it. And I’m a little bit smarter now lol
Speyside2
2 years ago
At the right price precious metals are good investments. Especially if the economy goes belly up. There is a very good chance the stock market crashes after the elections. The increase since boomers started retiring makes no sense. Cash is leaving the market faster than cash is coming into the market. This should cause a decrease in the market, it has not. I think right now semi-precious gems may be a good investment also. I seldom see a stock that interests me. The P/E ratios are way too high, also debt is huge for so many companies. Crypto is risky because it is so volatile, but I have more faith in it than fiat money.
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
2 years ago

... Crypto is risky because it is so volatile, but I have more faith in it than fiat money.

Speyside2 wrote:


Really?
Abrignac
2 years ago

At the right price precious metals are good investments. Especially if the economy goes belly up. There is a very good chance the stock market crashes after the elections. The increase since boomers started retiring makes no sense. Cash is leaving the market faster than cash is coming into the market. This should cause a decrease in the market, it has not. I think right now semi-precious gems may be a good investment also. I seldom see a stock that interests me. The P/E ratios are way too high, also debt is huge for so many companies. Crypto is risky because it is so volatile, but I have more faith in it than fiat money.

Speyside2 wrote:



I’m curious as to why you believe that?
Speyside2
2 years ago
I think investors may panic if Biden wins the election. As a generality most investors are reactionary and not proactive. Also, I am taking into consideration the rest of what I wrote after the statement you highlighted. I strongly believe the market is due for a large correction for those reasons. If enough investor start selling off it seems to me that panic will set in, and others sell off also. As you know my grammar/English is poor. I did not mean to sound so smug/sure about that. It is only my opinion. Rather I should have started that sentence with, I think. That would have best portrayed what I was thinking.
Abrignac
2 years ago

I think investors may panic if Biden wins the election. As a generality most investors are reactionary and not proactive. Also, I am taking into consideration the rest of what I wrote after the statement you highlighted. I strongly believe the market is due for a large correction for those reasons. If the average investor starts selling off it seems to me that panic sets in and others sell off due to that. As you know my grammar/English is poor. I did not mean to sound so smug/sure about that. It is only my opinion. Rather I should have started that sentence with, I think. That would have best portrayed what I was thinking.

Speyside2 wrote:



You’re fine. I was just curious as to why you felt that way.

I don’t see an investor panic simply because Biden got re-elected. I think it any correlation does manifest would be more due to a cooling off of the economy. If so, it could happen if Trump gets elected.

As far as PE’s are concerned I wouldn’t read too much into that other than perhaps those stocks with higher PE’s may fall further simply to become more realistically priced in line with actual value. Keep in mind the price of a publicly traded stock rarely reflects the actual value of its assets and earnings.
jeebling
2 years ago
Just reflecting on this overall topic and referring back to the relationship of the Treasury and the FED printing and distributing new money that was not created by economic output but rather by adding numbers to ledgers. Those trillions of dollars don’t stay in the pockets of taxpayers. They percolate back to banks. The banks don’t just sit on the money. They loan it out and invest it. That inflation that makes a bag of Doritos cost $7.49 also raises the price of stock shares. Some would call this type of inflation growth. But, interest rates and unemployment numbers, if they are not favorable, could result in a horrific bubble for Wall Street. Of course this only hurts us suckers at the bottom of the wealth / income scale. This is an over simplified statement. My point is that the risk seems to be pretty high at the moment.
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
2 years ago
Inflation Rate in the United States averaged 3.30 percent from 1914 until 2024 (reaching an all time high of 23.70 percent in June of 1920 and a record low of -15.80 percent in June of 1921).


https://www.google.com/search?q=us+inflation+rate+long+run&oq=us+inflation+rate+long+run&gs_lcrp=EgZjaH
JvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0
IBRAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBxAAGIAEGKIEMgoICBAAGIAEGKIEMgoICR
AAGIAEGKIE0gEJMTY1OThqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



30 Year Mortgage Rate in the United States averaged 7.73 percent from 1971 until 2024 (reaching an all time high of 18.63 percent in October of 1981 and a record low of 2.65 percent in January of 2021.)


https://www.google.com/search?
q=average+historical+morgage+rate&oq=average+historical+morgage+rate&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyB
ggAEEUYOTIJCAEQABgNGIAEMgkIAhAAGA0YgAQyCQgDEAAYDRiABDIICAQQABgWGB4yCAgFEAAYFhgeMggI
BhAAGBYYHjIICAcQABgWGB4yCAgIEAAYFhgeMggICRAAGBYYHtIBCTIwNzAzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=
chrome&ie=UTF-8
Users browsing this topic