Reddit Posts
Feels like 2006-2008 in the market. Not sure if we are closer to beginning or end of extreme volatility and not trying to predict.
Transacting Your Crypto Assets with the Big Banks is a Betrayal and a Disrespect to Satoshi's Work
Mentions
Actually they love socialism. They invested heavily in companies that got TARP money from gov.
> Buffett’s proposal At first, having just woken up and not expecting the call, Paulson was confused, and he wasn’t even sure who was on the phone: “My mom has a handyman named Warren. I’m saying, ‘Why is he calling me?’” Once he understood what was going on, Paulson says, he listened as Buffett “laid out an idea which was a germ of what we did.” What he told Paulson, Buffett recalls, is that, “It might make more sense to put more capital in the banks than it would to try and buy these assets.” On Oct. 13, the CEOs of major banks — including John Mack of Morgan Stanley, Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, John Thain of Merrill Lynch, and Vikram Pandit of Citigroup — convened at the Treasury to discuss the proposal. Not all of the banks needed assistance at that time, and some of the CEOs were reluctant to accept cash out of fear that it might signal to the public that they were struggling and prompt investors to pull out. But Paulson insisted that the bailout was necessary to renew faith in the economy, and everyone eventually agreed. “Look, if I get lucky, my board will fire me, and I’ll get out of all this craziness,” Mack recalls saying. The meeting ultimately led the Treasury to inject $250 billion into the banking system, drawing funds from TARP. [Interpret as you wish; if you don’t know already, he has his candies in Bank of America.](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/how-warren-buffett-helped-save-the-economy-during-the-financial-crisis.html)
>at the expense of taxpayer Didn't the taxpayer eventually profit from TARP?
Bruh, he works with his hip basically attached to the money printer (fed reserve) google how much he and his stock benefitted in TARP (troubled asset relief program). The pervert is one of the largest recipients of social welfare despite being wealthy. The treason he hates on BTC is because it threatens his ability to suck on the teat of taxpayers for free money. He's pleading and prostrating to have his access to suckle not ever be challenged. Basically on his knees simping hard and spreading his cheeks. Whatever it takes to keep his access to the money printer. He's pathetic and craven.
LMFTFY: They are using the FTX SBF fiasco to advance ~~their own motives~~ the motives of the corporate mafia paying for their mansions. ​ FYI: Elizabeth Warren is the POS lawyer that handed the banks their TARP funds after the 08 crisis and to this day pretends to be against them. She sucks more banker D than a Manhattan street walker.
She's probably impressed with the size of fraud given she only got 12 million with her TARP "ethics lapse".
> This is a rather central disagreement between us. I think that recessions, while a healthy and normal part of the business cycle, can also lead to massive suffering and political instability. Hence policymakers should manage the fallout and stabilize asap. Like we tried not managing the great depression and it was terrible. I’m not sure what more I could say on this. I’m going to agree to disagree on this as well. I think it just kicks the can to somewhere else. > Corruption is bad and if businesses misused that money, that should be investigated. But giving people unemployed people an income is good for the economy, they spend all that money which helps fuel local business. We do it anyways, covid was just a lot more. Covid without subsidies would have been great fun, eh? Putting money in the hands of employees is IMO a great thing to do to help stimulate things. However, PPP was what I was referring to which out the money in the hands of the employer, which did not trickle down to the employee. > Invalid premise. There were no major problems with mo (other than moral hazard) and m1 as you call it. The risk of shit-tons of people being unemployed, unable to work, stuck at home angry is very apparent though. A lot of democracies fell to Communism or fascism through basically this process of economic collapse throughout modern history btw. But this is my point, we haven’t inflated the m0 base supply at this rate in the history of the FED. We have no data to know if this is moral or not. So while I agree it’s a “invalid premise” it can go to say that your take is also invalid on a lack of data. Correlation does not mean causation (just because we haven’t seen the risk doesn’t mean it’s not there). > Economic meltdown is really bad, see my previous comment about our fundamental disagreement here. I just think overall that you really need to defend why the 2008 crash would have been better for everyone, had it actually been 100x worse. I agree it’s really bad, but I am a firm believer in justice, which propping up fraudulent businesses is not. I think in the long run, this crash would have been healthier to run it’s course. I think you are going to have to show me an historic example of how this has worked, because to my knowledge this has never been attempted so it’s very soon to act like this was a risk free way to de-risk the entire economy. I’m saying this, because I can show you many many examples where bad paper was absorbed and bankrupted a perfectly ran company. I do agree we are having a central point where we both disagree. My thing is, I can almost guarantee this risk didn’t magically disappear and it still exists and some poor generation is going to get fucked by it at a level much higher than we would have had to endure. Saving 1 baby now is all fine and dandy but if that 1 baby goes on to grow up and kill 10 babies it was a net negative. > Your premise seems totally disconnected from anything I’ve read about this. Loans to businesses that went bankrupt have been handled already. Most of the money was supplied directly to people via subsidies , not loans. That has already circulated throughout the economy through normal business and stuff. Do you have a legit source? (No zero hedge please) https://gcfp.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BailoutsV12.pdf Summary: https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/heres-how-much-2008-bailouts-really-cost And https://gcfp.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BailoutsARFEConferencePresentation.pdf Key points: Capital infusion was about 65% while subsidies where only 35% So while subsidies where used, it certainly was not “most” of the money. Liabilities such as insurance had to be beefed up. These don’t show up until the risk shows back up. Transaction accounts got unlimited insurance and FDIC a got boosted to $250k. If these ever have to be used, we will print an endless amount of money to cover this hole. Some of the biggest companies that should have went under are still to this day under a federal conservatorship. FHA(federal) mortgage loans needing to be bolstered. Point is, the bailouts where NOT just subsidies, the great bulk of the bailouts where garauntees and capital infusion. I believe the guarantees given are where the risk lies. Other people believe it’s the bundled capital infusion that created the m0 supply to look like a short squeeze chart where these will never be paid back(hence why that m0 chart has not gone down as they where not subsidies like you implied). If it was subsidies the FED would be running on a m0 and m1-4 surplus meaning they would be going DOWN if those subsidies truly paid off through normal business practices. Which it hasn’t. > Is inflation from sending murder robots to kill enemies in far distant wastelands ‘good inflation’ ? What about sending mosquito nets to African villages? I don’t really grasp your good / evil inflation concept. Inflation is just inflation no? Slight inflation (2-3%) is healthy. Being deflationary is dangerous and so is hot inflation above 5% for sustained periods. That’s what I mean but good vs bad. You need some inflation if your GDP is growing like it has been for us. > The world is not crypto. Stock market and commodity trading regulations are a thing. I think you’re extrapolating crypto disaster / liquidity risk to the real world economy without taking into account the greater regulation that dirty fiat central authorities can enforce. I’m simply mentioning crypto as it is the most risky asset class. I could mention SPACs and warrants as well but with the recent events crypto is much easier to explain. Crypto also is a great example of letting the first domino fall and to truly see all the contagion that was to come to get rid of bad business. Crypto is currently shedding the bad business and will come out of this much stronger, rather than propping up 3AC, FTX, genesis, and Celsius and hoping for the best. Do we really think infusing capital in those companies would have been good for the space? I don’t think so. Additionally, if we propped up Celsius or 3AC we may have never found out FTX or genesis where insolven and running bad business. > Covid, suez canal, and now war in Ukraine had a little to do with that inflation. Along with tax cuts and other fun fiscal adventures mentioned above. I agree with this. But only one of those examples increased the m1 supply which is why I’m implying it had a much bigger impact. > The government basically bought all those subprime mortgages through TARP. They injected capital to the markets through QE. TARP removed the stuff at the heart of the problem from the market, which eventually recovered in value and was collectively profitable for the govt (icky but necessary, like a temporary nationalization of trash loans). The QE solved the trust and liquidity issues which stopped the economic collapse. Now those mortgages have been properly valued, and there are new rules (dodd frank) and new watchdogs (cfpb) to prevent that situation from recurring. The problem wasn’t just the loans, it was the house of cards built on top through opaque and poorly understood, risky products (which were then collateral for yet other investments). I agree with all of this. Except the risk wasn’t simply removed. It was moved temporarily and the risk is somewhere out there still. Could be in the federal guarantees. Could be in inflation, could be in something we have never heard of. But that risk was not magically removed and just burned. It’s still there, somewhere.
>I want to thank you for a thoughtful discussion. I really appreciate your replies. Not too often can I receive a valid perspective with good ooints being made. Same to you! This has been fun and engaging. >I would argue, we have done exactly this before the 2000s and been plenty fine in the long run. This is a rather central disagreement between us. I think that recessions, while a healthy and normal part of the business cycle, can also lead to massive suffering and political instability. Hence policymakers should manage the fallout and stabilize asap. Like we tried not managing the great depression and it was *terrible*. I'm not sure what more I could say on this. >just poofed money into private individuals accounts Corruption is bad and if businesses misused that money, that should be investigated. But giving people unemployed people an income is good for the economy, they spend all that money which helps fuel local business. We do it anyways, covid was just a lot more. Covid without subsidies would have been **great fun**, eh? >how is the risk apparent (rather quickly as well) in a m1 scheme but not in m0? Invalid premise. There were no major problems with mo (other than moral hazard) and m1 as you call it. The risk of shit-tons of people being unemployed, unable to work, stuck at home angry is **very** apparent though. A lot of democracies fell to Communism or fascism through basically this process of economic collapse throughout modern history btw. >While increasing M0 supply has had little Tangible effects other than keeping bankers from being held accountable Economic meltdown is really bad, see my previous comment about our fundamental disagreement here. I just think overall that you really need to defend why the 2008 crash would have been better for everyone, had it actually been 100x worse. >We just started QT, so the question is, where did all the bad paper go that rising interest rates will start “calling” this bad debt? Your premise seems totally disconnected from anything I've read about this. Loans to businesses that went bankrupt have been handled already. Most of the money was supplied directly to people via subsidies , not loans. That has already circulated throughout the economy through normal business and stuff. Do you have a legit source? (No zero hedge please) >I’m more worried about bad inflation than inflation itself. Inflation isn’t always a bad thing. Is inflation from sending murder robots to kill enemies in far distant wastelands 'good inflation' ? What about sending mosquito nets to African villages? I don't really grasp your good / evil inflation concept. Inflation is just inflation no? >Well my theory is we will find out exactly what that is soon once these companies that got these products dumped on them realize they can’t service their loans due to these holes created by the same banks we propped up The world is not crypto. Stock market and commodity trading regulations are a thing. I think you're extrapolating crypto disaster / liquidity risk to the real world economy without taking into account the greater regulation that dirty fiat central authorities can enforce. >The ocean of easy money dried up and we saw just who was swimmming naked in the crypto space. This will continue to happen all over as rates rise The first sentence makes sense to me, not so much the second. Crypto is just filled with ponzi schemes and scams. You can't really compare it to stock in a company that produces and sells grain or railroad engines (although GME, AMC do blur that line). Crypto is uniquely and tragically malovolent towards the average investor. Sharks swim in the deep sea. >My question is, with all this bad debt and no way to truly know if the fed absorbed it all(which is another problem if they did). Who else is going to called if rates rise and hold even longer? Anyone who was making stupid bets with free money. This includes most of venture capital speculation, but probably / hopefully also entire departments at FANG like metaverse. It isn't necessarily all crypto, just those who were recklessly gambling on obscene leverage or stupid products or both. Probably btc and eth are fine but a lot of these embedded ecosystems are toxic nonsense. Some will go under just because lower price = lower fees, even if they played it safe. >. I mean we saw the worst inflation on record from just shifting the same policies form m0 to m1. Where the hell did that risk go from m0? >To me it seems like your argument tends to downplay that risk of not existing or being very little. Covid, suez canal, and now war in Ukraine had a little to do with that inflation. Along with tax cuts and other fun fiscal adventures mentioned above. >The FED painted itself into a corner. They probably should have raised rates a lot more for sure. Despite independence, they do face political pressure not to hurt the economy, which was probably too soft. >What these people fail to explain to me is how did we de-risk? I would like to challenge you to to find a single scenario in the past 100 years where someone successfully de-risked without putting their risk on someone else. The government basically bought all those subprime mortgages through TARP. They injected capital to the markets through QE. TARP removed the stuff at the heart of the problem from the market, which eventually recovered in value and was collectively profitable for the govt (icky but necessary, like a temporary nationalization of trash loans). The QE solved the trust and liquidity issues which stopped the economic collapse. Now those mortgages have been properly valued, and there are new rules (dodd frank) and new watchdogs (cfpb) to prevent that situation from recurring. The problem wasn't just the loans, it was the house of cards built on top through opaque and poorly understood, risky products (which were then collateral for yet other investments).
I want to thank you for a thoughtful discussion. I really appreciate your replies. Not too often can I receive a valid perspective with good ooints being made. Anywho, here’s some answers to some things you listed above. > Again, the alternative is that the entire financial sector crashes, and healthy businesses outside if it get wiped out. You can look at the UK and their abysmal economic performance during Austerity as a rough comparison for this strategy. Having a longer, more painful recession for no reason, did not really help them out later. I would argue, we have done exactly this before the 2000s and been plenty fine in the long run. However, I would not say that increasing M0 supply had no risk like this implies. It very well could have just can kicked and we will see it rear it’s ugly face down the road that could arguably be worse than just letting the markets play the course. It’s very hard for me to argue a risk that hasn’t happened yet, but I will do my best to explain my reasoning below. While increasing M0 supply has had little Tangible effects other than keeping bankers from being held accountable, doing this same scenario with m1 saw much more increasing risk approach much faster with inflation (due to PPP simply “proofing” money into small businesses with absolutely zero oversight which in turn just poofed money into private individuals accounts) so how is the risk apparent (rather quickly as well) in a m1 scheme but not in m0? I’m here to say that risk just hasn’t occurred yet as we haven’t truly in acted the mechanism that triggers that risk. We just started QT, so the question is, where did all the bad paper go that rising interest rates will start “calling” this bad debt? You can say some of it was bought by the FED and absorbed on their balance sheet, but that just makes the fed insolvent and have to pivot back to printing money to cover the huge hole they have from absorbing that bad debt. Additionally, we have ZERO idea on exactly what was bad debt as we didn’t see the contagion spread completely. For all we know the feds balance sheet from the purchasing program is only half of the bad debt circulating. Rising interest rates we are seeing right now is the risk everyone has been talking about, what else was purely wrapped up shit that people overlooked? Well my theory is we will find out exactly what that is soon once these companies that got these products dumped on them realize they can’t service their loans due to these holes created by the same banks we propped up. > Note: if you’re truly worried about inflation, you should be concerned about the Bush / Trump tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which massively increased the deficit. Its weird to talk about inflation without mentioning those big ticket fiscal catastrophes. I’m more worried about bad inflation than inflation itself. Inflation isn’t always a bad thing. You make a great point with the deficit caused by the war and trump/bush tax cuts(especially the timing of them couldn’t be any worse). Only pointing out that not all inflation is bad and I agree that the inflation caused by these as well are a form of “bad inflation”. > I agree wholeheartedly. This is unfortunately not a new pattern, poor people have always gotten the stick in the USA except from like 1930-1960 (well, the white poor had a brief reprieve). I agree with the general statement but the fact of the matter is that the wealth gap has increased exponentially since those times while productivity has increased exponentially. We can’t compare workers now to previous generations since on paper they are more productive, generate more profit per worker than ever all the while being equal or in most cases worst off than the less productive generations before them. > The risk is moral hazard, ie that the wall street bros who should have been financially murdered to hell for unsecured risk taking, instead skipped out on a bridge of government relief (TARP for the toxic mortgages, then QE for general financial liquidity). This is universally acknowledged as an awful thing, and in fact had a big impact on crypto speculation and scams. It’s just the alternative was absolute carnage on everyone else. I think I explained above well enough to try and walk you through my thoughts on how it’s more of a risk having not presenting itself quite yet vs there being no risk at all. I am however glad you mentioned crypto in all of this. Crypto has been the first place to see the aforementioned risk rearing it’s ugly head. Once money went from cheap (down right risk free borrowing) to expensive, we almost immediately saw crypto catch the contagion and tail risk of the FED intervention. The ocean of easy money dried up and we saw just who was swimmming naked in the crypto space. This will continue to happen all over as rates rise. Crypto saw it first as it is the riskiest asset class. My question is, with all this bad debt and no way to truly know if the fed absorbed it all(which is another problem if they did). Who else is going to called if rates rise and hold even longer? Who’s holding that 08 and Covid dog shit wrapped up as gold? For Covid it was people holding almost any currency. So it’s quite apparent to me that these policies include a huge risk. I mean we saw the worst inflation on record from just shifting the same policies form m0 to m1. Where the hell did that risk go from m0? To me it seems like your argument tends to downplay that risk of not existing or being very little. My experience in finance tells me if that risk was there it wasn’t just de-risked by magic. Anytime you de-risk you are moving your bad paper to someone else to position yourself better. Where the hell did we put that risk? If your answer is solely the FED I want to know how exactly you figured out every single risk factor from the last 20 years was ear marked and absorbed. Even if that very unlikely scenario happened, we still have an insolvent fed with such enormous debt that the only way to de-risk is by inflation OR taxing everyone to the gills (talking about 80% of everyone’s income being taxed including all corporations profits for the next 40 years). Go pay it off. The FED painted itself into a corner. People thinking that they didn’t are only looking in the past 10 years of finance which should have never happened if they didn’t and I would not be talking about entire sectors of the economy and overall markets becoming insolvent in the future. What these people fail to explain to me is how did we de-risk? I would like to challenge you to to find a single scenario in the past 100 years where someone successfully de-risked without putting their risk on someone else. It has never happened and the FED has put that risk somewhere else that I myself can only speculate on exactly where it is. If your answer is that it all went to the fed balance sheet I would like to know how they de-risk without transferring this risk back to the overall markets and common people?
Ok. I meant that it has mass appeal to Bitcoiners. I didn’t mean mass adoption by the general population. Things will evolve with time. Bitcoiners want a trust-less, peer to peer monetary network, that doesn’t rely on a central authority. That’s the main point of Bitcoin. The 2008 GFC is the hard fork in fundamental monetary philosophy…. George W. Bush created TARP on 10/03/08 and took it one way, whereas Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin on 10/31/08 and took it in another direction. It’s ok if mass adoption does or doesn’t happen, mass appeal has already taken hold around the globe and it gets bigger every year. Bitcoin doesn’t have it’s own PR department; it doesn’t have a marketing department. It doesn’t recruit the masses. It actually the other way around…people find a reason to discover bitcoin. It’s a growing worldwide network. Most Bitcoiners aren’t in it for fiat profits, that’s why we hodl. We are the solid base of the network. We wouldn’t sell if it soars past $1 million and we’ll acquire more if it drops to $1 thousand. Our mindset is to move through the looking glass and permanently leave the fiat world in the rear view mirror, as least for the portion of our dollars that we forever committed to Bitcoin. Regulations imposed by The Wizard have no power outside of Oz city limits.
The US government profited off the TARP bailout program.
The point USAC with FDIC backing, the fallout isn’t going to hurt retail banking customers. The people who get hammered in CED failures, are the retail customers. Plus, as unpopular as it initially was, TARP was a cash flow positive event for the government. The real downside is that none of the executives were punished. Either way, the actual little people are the ones who get hammered in CEX failures, that’s rarely the truth with bank failures.
To all cryptoers: Everyone loves capitalism until they have to pay for it. What's funny,virtual fiat/ crypto is valued on unlimited printing of U.S. fiat currency. Blind leading the blind. I keep forgetting; It's not their fault. They were forced to participate/gamble. QT, TARP, ZIRP, tax breaks for the corporations & the rich,how's that working out?
Again, no. There will be no bailouts for crypto companies because they're not systematically important, and there's little upside to doing so. It is not because "politicians don't benefit." Bailouts in general are enormously unpopular with the electorate, and that is doubly true of bank bailouts like TARP. Politicians do not like funding bailouts, but do so because it's seen as too costly to do otherwise.
It has everything to do with fractional reserve banking, because the short term debt and money markets were under stress. The things that were supposed to always be $1 almost failed. It wasn't just TARP but the fed entirely switched to a new system of ample reserves that monetized a huge portion of the circulating money supply. They tried to unwind during the tightening in 2019 but failed.
That's not quite true. Retail banks are required to buy insurance from FDIC and their books are audited by the government. In 2008 when several retail banks failed, FDIC kept customers' deposits whole, up to the limit of insurance. The 2008 bank bailout or TARP was funded by Congress, not the Federal Reserve. So yes, it is socializing the losses, but it wasn't by a central bank, at least not in the United States.
Actual rate is very difficult to calculate, but if we were able to see how much money the connected people have gained through the Cantilion effect then we might have a better idea. But that number is unknowable to the public by design. The closest we got to understanding that number (for a tiny slice of time) was was with the TARP funds that were dished out, some were disclosed, during the 2008 financial crisis. I'm unfamiliar with Japan's numbers.
The relation between the money printer and the inflation rate is called the marginal utility of the currency and assessing it is hard. It changes, and is a function of who’s holding the currency. A whole lot of people got burned with commodity speculation after the TARP was passed during the ‘08 financial crisis because inflation didn’t materialize. After COVID, the same economists used that empirical marginal utility and predicted the same muted inflationary response and were clearly wrong.
As someone who actually read the article, he initially brings up valid points but slowly starts going off the deep end, especially at: >When they **(banks)** fail, it’s going to be a lot worse **(than 2008)**, except with inflation too high and the Fed fighting inflation. There’s no TARP 2.0. All these banks are going to have to be allowed to fail. This is bullshit and he knows it. First of all, banks are in FANTASTIC financial health. Furthermore, we just saw the Fed swoop in during March of 2020 and prop up the entire US economy while it was shut down. We know for a fact that the Fed will do whatever it takes to prop up liquidity markets in times of need.
>but the truth is that they've contributed more to the budget deficit When you look at only the White House & not Congress, that has some truth to it, but it's actually not true if you look at who controls Congress. It's worth remembering that budgets originate in Congress & must be passed there before signed by the President. The Democrats controlled congress in Bush Jr's 2nd term, & when we had that huge spike in spending (TARP) it was Democrats controlling (and passing) in both houses & then signed by Obama in his 1st year. Historically if you look at control of Congress, and not the presidency, the Democrats are far bigger spenders than Republicans. Going back a bit further, the same holds true: In Obamas 1st terms with Dems in complete control, spending was very high & deficits were at record levels each year. Once the GOP gained control of Congress, they forced the spending sequester on Obama & deficits started to decline in his 2nd term. But that was not Obama cutting spending, it was Republicans cutting spending against his will. The same was true in Clinton's administrations in the 90s. When the Dems had control, they spent more. When the GOB gained control in '94, they actually forced a balanced budget (probably the last time we'll see that).
These are not major bank officials from the 2008 melt down, nor are they the folks in finance who created financial insturments out of high risk mortgages. The people who went to jail are minor bank officials, mostly of people who stole from TARP after the 2008-2009 bank melt down, for instance: "“Former bank officer Michael Erickson was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison for criminally defrauding Southern Bancorp, after the bank received a nearly $34 million TARP bailout,” said Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Christy Goldsmith Romero. “Instead of acting in the public trust, Erickson used his position at Southern Bancorp to steal thousands of dollars for his own personal enrichment from a commercial loan he managed. I thank the United States Attorney’s Office for Northern District of Mississippi for bringing justice in this case.” ebriose, did you read what you posted?
No major banks collapsing?!? Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merril Lynch, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Northern Rock, Countrywide, New Century, IndyMac, and like hundreds of regional banks. We’re you even around in 2008?!? Only difference is there was the Fed and TARP in 2008 to save traditional financial companies or that list would have almost all the big names you would recognize. No tarp and no central bank in crypto.
Only this time there's no bailout coming. Lots of people about to find out what would have happened without the TARP funds.
I like TARP (Totally a Rug Pull) which ironically aims to end rug pulls with their own app. Not invested in any other BSC coin but that’s just me
>The market just gets to do what it does best. It gets to relentlessly purge all the shit from the system. >And it does so in a swift way exactly because there is no bailout, no emergency lending program, no secret meetings at the NY Fed, no phone calls to Warren Buffett, no TARP, no QE, no nothing.
No. The Fed and Treasury say down banks and coerced the transactions through TARP. If you're interested, here's a good [read](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/21/eight-days/amp). A competitor whose voluntarily offering to take assets is basically saying they're willing to buy them at a discount. If you're a depositor, you really should hope it doesn't happen.
I'm alright with all your points. There isn't much to argue. I'm saying there are problems with fiat but *bitcoin isn't a magic bullet either*. Maybe it would be better though. At this point I wouldn't be against giving it a try because we don't have much to loose**.** I think very soon there will be a major restructuring of the monetary system anyway. >I'm fine settling on what I said above that a bitcoin-run economy would not allow free printing of supply, whether it be fractional reserve or imaginary fiat. Above is what I have a problem with. My view isn't popular but I don't believe the federal reserve prints money the way everyone thinks they do. Money doesn't come from the federal reserve, it comes from the private banking system via loans by business, individuals and the government. The F.R. controls short term interest rates, bank reserves, reserve requirements and a few other things. When the F.R. "prints money" what they are really doing is printing bank reserves out of thin air. The problem? Bank reserves aren't money. You can't go buy a gallon of gas with bank reserves. Those reserves must be loaned into existence to become money. Besides emergency measures: the F.R is restricted by the Federal Reserve Act. They were very intentionally **NOT** given the right to print money at will and spend it. Consider the Great Financial Crisis. Why did the F.R. go before congress and beg them to pass TARP? Why didn't the Fed just print the money? Because they can't. Consider the CARES ACT. Why didn't the Fed just print the money then too? Sadly, we all owe the government debt of trillions of dollars now. You, me, my grandkids, all owe. U.S. Bonds (debt) were sold by the treasury *in the open market*. Whatever bonds were bought by the Fed were purchased from the primary dealers (banks) and those incoming funds went on their balance sheet as bank reserves. (to the best of my understanding) So there is no such thing as money out of thin air. Debt is always created anytime money is created. I don't see how money can be created unless debt is also created at the same time. Therefore, if bitcoin is base money, it has to have some scarcity so people want it. This would create demand and create the need for the economy to borrow bitcoin. If nobody needed to borrow bitcoin because everyone had enough to satisfy their needs then why would it have value? Note; Obviously I subscribe to *the debt theory of money.* The point is this: All else being equal, I'm not so sure it really makes much of a difference if the base money is fiat, gold, bitcoin or whatever else.
> Here you can see what should happen to banks in 2008, if taxpayers wouldn't bail them out. It's worth noting that TARP turned a profit for the US, the taxpayers actually made a little money on that bailout. And it kept the US economy out of a 2nd great depression. Not saying it was a great thing and by all means the circumstances that led to the crisis need to be fixed ... but in the end it was one of the better examples of government intervention.
I didn't see the OP mention Trump or Biden I think the application is to Uncle Sam in general. But maybe you forget who was responsible for TARP.
The PPP was as bad as TARP
From first paragraph: Following the controversial bank bailouts and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in 2008, reports show in late 2019 and 2020, the U.S. Federal Reserve participated in providing trillions of dollars in secret repo loans to megabanks. At the end of March, investigative journalists, Pam and Russ Martens from Wall Street on Parade, uncovered $3.84 trillion in stealth repo loans from the Fed to the French financial institution, BNP Paribas in Q1 2020. Additional data indicates that the U.S. central bank leveraged secret repo loans to provide a whopping $48 trillion to megabanks in late 2019 and into 2020.
Yeah Warren was one of those who proposed TARP after 2008 financial crisis.
Satoshi certainly didn't want to enrich the likes of Goldman Sachs. As alluded to in the genesis block: > The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks. Guess who got a $10 billion TARP bailout? Goldman Sachs. What's the point of a "new decentralized financial system" if it ends up dominated by the same centralized players as the old system?
Satoshi certainly didn't want to enrich the likes of Goldman Sachs. As alluded to in the genesis block: > "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks." Guess who got a $10 billion TARP bailout? Goldman Sachs. What's the point of a "new decentralized financial system" if it ends up dominated by the same centralized players as the old system?
Memecoins with utility are going to be the next big thing IMO. You just have to find the right tokens and a community to support it. For me, Saitama and TARP, two up and coming tokens that should make a run in the next year or two. They have strong communities and great use cases. You just have to DYOR.
Actually his wife came to AMA few days ago, and said she supports LillyFinance 100%. You can find the AMA on twitter space. Justin from #TARP also said that he was on many calls with Lilly devs, and that they optimized contract and removed all "red flags" from techical point of view. LILLY FINANCE IS A LEGIT PROJECT you can fud all u want but sooner or later, you personally will be investing. But it will moon by then.
But, that wasn't what she was pushing the Fed chair about now was it? Her record is all talk on that stuff, she was literally a lawyer that Congress brought in to hand out the TARP funds without any criminal repercussions. She is just another piece of garbage masquerading as human being. Any legislation she writes will have plenty of loopholes for her and the banker cronies she pretends to hate in public.
A few days ago I learned about Totally A Rug Pull $TARP. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/totally-a-rug-pull/
If you want a low market cap with a big upside. TARP but it’s what this subreddit would consider a shitcoin
Actually when you spend more money than you have in your account, the bank is loaning you that money. You wouldn't expect to get a loan without having to pay interest or a fee, would you? When the banks were "bailed out" they received a loan from the government which included interest. They paid that back with interest meaning the government technically made money on the bailout. "In total, the government provided $245.1 billion in TARP assistance to banks and recouped $275.6 billion, for an investment gain of $30.5 billion." https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/government-financial-bailout.asp
A token called totally a rug pull $TARP on bsc is building a contract reader for such things. Be a few weeks/months yet though.
Their corporations lobby the government for things like TARP bailouts in 2008, ARP bailouts in 2020, and the obscene amount of bond buying and money printing to promote asset values. They’ve destroyed the wealth of the masses by stealth inflating the value of everything. So it’s no surprise they are publicly against any form of money that is immune to this type of policy. Cryptocurrency is not perfect, but I like it anyway. Fuck ‘em.
By TARP, do you mean Squid Token?
Are you talking about TARP -Totally A Rug Pull coin?
Talking to my parents friends who are a couple that are former economics professors now retired - something came up: we’ve had more economic catastrophies in the last 20 years than the previous 70 years combined. 2000/2001 a new paradigm is born: stupidly inflated tech stocks made tens-of-thousands of millionaires. This is where Vaporware proved itself as a viable scam and angel investors made killings selling out before the fall. When the bubble that was fanned and propped up by media popped, who lost money? The execs? The early investors? Nope, it was the public investors who chased IPOs. Anything of any true value was acquired for pennies and the tech that came out of that crash helped build what are now some of the most massive tech companies on the planet. Then, 9-11 happened causing shutdown 1.0 of the country and a massive influx of government money, a whole new war and trillions in contracts that lasted 20 years. Iraq was nothing more than a way for companies that got people elected and were owed favors to 10 x their value under the pretense of freedom on the march. Who lost the most in the shutdown and then paid for it all via taxes? Lemme guess, the public. 2008: a ridiculously overheated housing bubble popped and we went from HUNDREDS of banks to less than 20 while tens-of-thousands of homes went back to the banks via foreclosures. It was an old school land grab and my brother who owed only $22k on his home STILL LOST IT after 16 years of payments. I watched that happen up close! They said, “You’re eligible for loan modification - do x, y and z”. He was pedanic and persistent and called every other day. They said “it’s processing, it’s processing, any day now, any day now!” Then one day, “It’s been 60 days. You’re too late. We’re foreclosing.” It was a complete con-job and I almost admired how calculating it was. In addition to clawing back 10-15% of housing titles they held, the government “loaned” them trillions to expand their reach/control/assets at 0% interest. Again, who ended up losing the most and paying for it all? The public. This all seems too perfect not to be planned and controlled to happen every 10-15 years. As soon as ANY asset class starts raising the station of the Plebs, it’s villified, gutted, litigated, legislated and drained. What happened with Robinhood/AMC/GME last year is EXACTLY how it works on the macro level. When they win, it’s fair free market capitalism; when they lose, it’s illegal misconduct that congress must investigate. We have a phantom economy controlled by hundred or so oligarchs, we manufacture almost nothing, have billion dollar zombie companies running on fractional lending debt that is based on nothing and backed by nothing. TRUE growth peaked in 1971 and since then it’s been a hope/fear driven shell game where we just keep printing and printing and printing. Who always loses the most every single time? The public. These two people who I respect very much told me they expect the NYSE to lose 20% and crypto to lose 50-60% sometime in the next 24 mos. They don’t know when, but say, “all the signs are there.” When it happens, “experts” will say companies and assets and especially crypto was way overvalued, not nearly what they were cracked up to be, but when we reach the absolute nadir of the market, banks and hedge funds will buy all those same assets for 1/4-1/3 of their ATH prices and wrest control from our hands into theirs. Who will lose…again? The public. The government will facilitate all of the fuckery, too! From the Federal Reserve Act written by the 8 largest bankers and passed at the last minute on the last day before Congress’ Christmas break to FDR signing the gold confiscation act making it illegal to own over $100 in gold to Nixon taking us off the gold standard, to the Patriot Act collecting the now priceless metadata of tens-of-millions to the TARP fund where insanely profitable corporations got free money AND tax breaks they used to buy back stock from the public, and now - the Build Back Better plan. Considering Gavin Newsom’s bery profitable vineyard got $3,000,000 in “relief” while staying open the entire shut down is exactly how it is supposed to work! Meanwhile, restaurants around me couldn’t even get a $10,000 EIDL payment! That’s just how it goes. You don’t like it? You want to speak about it? Then YOU are an unamerican, maybe an antivaxxer and might even be a domestic terrorist! …better keep an eye on you! We are in a fully controlled, closed, dystopian, feudal fantasyland. We are back to the robber baron era where 15-20 men (now corps) control entire industries and have more power than the government. What they say goes. So, what to do? What can you do but try and endure. Bite the bullet. I was told to HODL the fuck out of assets no matter what. Don’t gamble, DCA into BTC, ETH, FAANGS… what else is there to do? These assets are now what US Steel, Ford, DOW, BP, Morgan was back then. If anyone has a better idea, I’m all ears. I can reasonably say BTC/ETH/FANNGS will survive and lead the way out, but if you think that’s wrong, lemme know…please!
"Totally A Rug Pull" TARP for short has already launched and pumped alot... no idea if it has or hasn't rugpulled.
Totally A Rug Pull (TARP) look it up, actually is designed to read red flags in your portfolio
$550 to 150k, just last month. TARP token.
Want an early play? TARP
Sold my shit bought saitama and TARP, I’m officially in the green in my wallet after my TARP went up 160%
Hahaha go look at the TARP chart 😂 idiot lol