The Housing Bubble

That wouls actually help the US. If they dump their dollar-based assets, the dollar would drop in value. If anybody in the world has an interest in anything that we produce, it would be cheaper for them to do so.

If they just stop buying Treasuries, or start selling them then the US is screwed.

Perhaps you’ve missed it, but:

China net holdings in U.S. treasuries -
July 2008: $939.9B
July 2009: $846.7B

chart

This is one of the triggers in fact of the ramping currency war.

If they stop buying then the Fed will have to raise interest rates to find new buyers, which would skyrocket the cost of servicing the national debt. I don’t think that would actually help the U.S.

If they stop buying then the Fed will have to raise interest rates to find new buyers

They did stop buying. (see above)

The “Fed” didn’t raise rates, they lowered them - or more appropriately they caused them to go down by buying and buying (and convincing other countries - e.g. Japan and UK - to do the same). Treasury rates are running at record lows.

Who needs China, when Feddie can buy all US government debt? The US dollar is invincible.

Print BB, print.

I for one would actually welcome higher interest rates. I’ve got quite a bit of cash stashed away and if they would raise rates to say- 7-8% I’d have a nice little side income. That and perhaps with higher interest rates it would actually force Americans to not only save more money, but to spend money more wisely. It seems stupid to me that we have basically had 0% interest rates for years now.

I for one would actually welcome higher interest rates.

Same here. Like you I am also sitting on a lot of cash. Bought some gold and silver when the gold was in 800-900. Rest I am all cash. I need to figure out where to park it now. I went mostly cash in May with a certainty that markets will fall significantly. Hasn’t happened. Now the dollar is declining and equities is going up, definitely a wrong bet on my part.

I’m mostly cash because I’m old-fashioned and because my wife and I would like to buy a house- for cash- in the next several years. We currently live in the Bay Area but are looking to move to TX or NC. Probably pick up some boring ole’ suburban home or a fixer upper in the sticks. I do have a 401k and several mutual funds and IRAs. But those have basically done nothing for 3 years. All my cash in in CDs… which basically means I get maybe a few bucks per month. Whoopee.. If interest rates were raised, that would be great. But I get a feeling they won’t until a fresh bubble is blown.

We’re in the same boat as you guys. Sitting on cash (since late last year) because we hope to buy a house with it. The Fed is making this as painful as possible for a reason…they want us out of our cash positions.

Standing up for your own interest is a knee jerk reaction? Enforcing (trade) laws is a knee jerk reaction?
Strange world you live in.
As far as China dumping US treasuries. Good, it will drive down the dollar and force some fiscal restrained upon our big spenders. The consequences for China are much worse.

“I would cut trade with China period.”

This would indeed be a knee-jerk reaction with many negative consequences.

If we continue trading with China given the current framework consequences will be even more dire. Not today but about 10 years from now. But we’re masters in kicking the can down the road.
Once liquid fuel scaricity asserts itself the China trade will resolve itself in a natural manner anyhow.

Precisely, scdave.

When your biggest worry is keeping your population working, nuking a major trading partner is not good policy. It tends to decrease their consuption of your manufactured goods, and it doesn’t even use up your surplus population as ground troops/cannon fodder.

Oh I wouldn’t think that they would do anything of the sort, at least in the short term. If we ever did get into an all-out trade and/or currency war with them, our status as a major trading partner may not remain in place; especially if our economy goes further into the crapper. Then they would have a lot less to lose.

Don’t forget there are a lot of other countries in the world than the U.S. also. We aren’t the sole customer of their production.

The average Chinese is also deeply nationalist. The government could imitate the Argentine junta and distract people by blockading or invading Taiwan.

“nuking a major trading partner is not good policy”

good point. Thats kind of messy anyway.

The real nuclear option is only a mouse click away. Default on the debt.

Besides as has been said elsewhere:

“Of course that would eliminate your opportunity for repeat business” -Lords of War

Plus if we are attacked, we would simply default on ALL bonds held by China.

“China is nuclear.”

And the US is the only country in history to have used these monstrous weapons. And we fried 500,000 civilians doing so.

And we fried 500,000 civilians doing so ??

The consequences of a sneak attack on military and civilians in Pearl Harbor…I have no heartburn with it at all unlike the trumped-up war with Bush/Cheney…

trolling ignored

Those are facts that cannot be disputed so of course you attack the messenger.

Well done.

So right Exeter, after Pearl Harbor we should have just buried our 3000 dead and gone back to surfing those north shore waves. I’m sure Tojo and Yamamoto would have stayed on their side of the Pacific.

Remind me again, what were the estimates of US casualties for a land invasion of Japan?

We fried millions of people without nukes. It just took longer.

Remind me again, what were the estimates of US casualties for a land invasion of Japan?

ISTR that the numbers bandied about were in the hundreds of thousands.

So right Exeter, after Pearl Harbor we should have just buried our 3000 dead and gone back to surfing those north shore waves. I’m sure Tojo and Yamamoto would have stayed on their side of the Pacific.
Remind me again, what were the estimates of US casualties for a land invasion of Japan?
—————————————————————-

Nice strawman JoeyJunior. And that’s all you’ve got. A strawman.

ISTR that the numbers bandied about were in the hundreds of thousands.

About a million actually was estimated for a full-scale invasion. We had already killed about 500,000 in conventional bombings - far more than we did with the nuclear bombs (note to exeter), which has high-end estimates of about 200,000.

Hooray! We only killed 200,000 senior citizens, children and women…. Go USA!!

And those 200,000 wouln’t have died if they had surrenedered.

Just the red ones.

And the white/ivory ones, too, no?

and the market place is apolitical. all attempts to make it otherwise are futile, and not even in our long term interests.

(This message has been approved by the Heritage Foundation and the Red Chinese Chamber of Commerce.)

The product was accidentally invented when a tech at Corning left a plate in the oven way too long, superheating it. ”

Huh I didn’t know that cool

A serendipitous invention made by Stookey in 1953 was when he took a piece of FotoForm glass and mistakenly heated it to 900°C when he meant to heat it to 600°C.[3] When an oven thermometer was stuck on the higher temperature Stookey had accidentally created the first glass-ceramic, Fotoceram.[2] It was later known also as Pyroceram.[3] This was the first glass-ceramic and eventually led to the development of CorningWare in 1957.[3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Donald_Stookey

From another website:

In 1957, Donald Stookey of Corning Glass Works discovered that the addition of certain nucleating agents to Fotoform glass (used in electronic components and fluidic control devices) produced glass objects that could be transformed into fine-grained ceramics by heat treatment. This new Pyroceram composition became the basis of Corning Ware..

And it's back on the market..

Originally manufactured by Corning Glass Works, the CorningWare and Corelle brand names are now owned by World Kitchens Incorporated of Reston, Virginia, which relaunched the brand name in 2001.[2] CorningWare is sold worldwide, and it is popular in Canada, United States and Australia.

The original pyroceramic glass version of CorningWare was removed from the US market in the late 1990s. It was re-introduced in 2009, due to popular demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corningware

cool! Its not the best looking stuff but it is truly difficult to break. After reading about it ( I never knew it was supposed to be shatter resistant) I actually took a plate outside and dropped it on the driveway. It just bounced! Amazing since it looks so delicate.

the idea of using heat resistant glass for cookware came from someone’s wife a few decades earlier..

Developed by Eugene G. Sullivan and William C. Taylor for Corning Glass Works in 1915, Corning Ware evolved from an experiment by the wife of Jesse T. Littleton, Corning’s chief physicist. When she baked puddings, Mrs. Littleton substituted the bottom portion of a battery jar for breakable casseroles. From her success came Pyrex or nonexpanding glass, made from borax, alumina, sodium, and soda and fired at over 2,500°F (1,371°C). The low thermal quality reduced the danger of breakage; its reduced sodium content lessened the chance of chemical interaction.

I suppose a “battery jar” was some specially formulated glass container.. it’s hard to find the source for this..

Battery jars were exactly what they sound like: battery jars. Prior to rural electrification many companies like Kohler, Philco, GE, and others had home electric systems for those that lived in the sticks. I’ve seen a few of these are vintage old engine shows. In the basement was a small gas generator that charged a whole series of batteries- sometimes as many as 10-15 of them. The batteries were basically lead acid batteries houses in a square glass case. Typically 6 volts. The generator would run until the batteries were charged. The house was wired entirely for 6 volts and you could buy 6 volt appliances like radios, fans, heaters, lamps, and so on. Its a sort of forgotten technology from the teens and 20’s.

The product was accidentally invented

This never happens genetically in Nature, just ask a Creationist / Intelligent Design prognosticator.

now i remember.. i’ve seen pix of the old batteries. Not being much of a cook, I just couldn’t imagine any sort of battery jar having a suitable shape to bake pudding.

Some of us are as yet still an unfinished creation.

lots of Corningware on Amazon..

Corelle Livingware Geometric 16-Piece Dinnerware Set, Service for 4
Buy new: $51.10 $29.99

Reviews give it 4 and a half stars..

Corelle Impressions 16-Piece Dinnerware Set, Service for 4, Watercolors
1 new from $219.99

again, 4 and a half stars.

This Corningware conversation bums me out. When my mom passed, I gave away all of her “old” cookware because I thought I could easily buy “newer and better” stuff. Little did I know how valuable those dishes were.

The mention of Corningware reminded me of a funny childhood story. My mom had recently purchased some Corningware plates in the early 70’s (probably using H&H Greenstamps) and was showing off to her lady friends on Tuesday bridge night - she dropped the plate on the floor and it shattered into a hundred small broken pieces.

On another note - my Mom in her seventies still uses that Corningware as her daily dishes!

Stuff like that is tough compared to regular glass, but it’s still glass, and it will shatter. But they are pretty much heat-proof.

I recall one commercial where a bowl has been in the freezer and they take it out and pour molten brass or something into it..

Some of ours chipped around the edges and at least one broke somehow… but the kitchen floor was that soft linoleum and everything tended to bounce.

Good link. Rising disgust on all sides, it seems. So which was “an election year ploy,” voting for it or against it? Nauseating.

The sitting President will take the brunt of public ire, regardless of who has how many seats in Congress. More of the party of the misfits is baked in the cake.

Blue Skye,

Normally I’d agree without reservation, and you’ve a ton of history in your corner. But at the risk of saying “it’s different this time” ( it just may be? )

I wouldn’t say “people will ‘gladly’ vote for Obama again” nor would I say the Tea Party has anything to “watch out” for? We’ve become such hopeless “idea junkies” that we’re obsessed w/ newness.

Anything new and shiney, like going shopping when you’re depressed.

If the Republicans win this year and the economy goes down again, then people will gladly vote for Obama again, perhaps give a solid 60 votes in the Senate. Then, Tea Party watch out.

From where I sit, this year in Obama’s presidency looks like Reagan’s back in 1982. Recall that, back then, the economy seemed to be stuck in an endless recession. Especially in the Northeast and the Midwest.

Despite the current revisionism re: Reagan’s sky-high popularity, he wasn’t that beloved in the Northeast or Midwest. Something about the economy and his policies toward what was being referred to as the Rust Belt. The Sun Belt was getting quite a bit of Reagan love.

Well, the midterm elections didn’t go too well for the Gipper. And, what’s worse, key advisors were jumping ship. Some of them, like David Stockman, went on to write tell-all books. (Read Stockman’s Triumph of Politics. It’s good.)

Then came 1984, and wouldn’t ya know it, that moribund U.S. economy was showing solid signs of recovery. Yes, we all know that this came with a runup in the federal deficit and increasing consumer debt.

As for the election, Reagan was given a wonderful gift by the Democrats. That would be a weak opponent named Walter Mondale. Picking a woman as his veep didn’t help. Reagan cruised to victory.

I predict that similar things will happen this time around.

“Anything new and shiney, like going shopping when you’re depressed.”

Novelty. Yup, it’s been our MO for about a hundred years now.

In Montana,

I’m just sitting there watching in amazement as my wife’s Fortune 500 co. cycles thru new miracle-boy mgrs. on a 6-mo. timeline?

They’ve -got- issues, have no doubts, but they’re canning ppl before they’ve even had a window to fully implement the solutions as they ’see’ them ( let alone give them time to take effect? )

I don’t know if any of you have been sent out to work on an airplane or a car w/ an idea junkie, but they’re pulling the test leads off the component before you can even get a proper reading? My response has always been “I’ll see you back at the shop…” ( as in, if you’re going to act like that, you’re on your own! )

You don’t know what the Tea Party has to watch out for?

Public Option health care, for one. However, I don’t know how the Senate is going to shape up in 2012. 2010 is complex enough.

You don’t know what the Tea Party has to watch out for?

Public Option health care, for one.

Despite all of the current rumblings about repealing health care reform, I don’t think it will be repealed.

But I do think that the health insurance companies are doing a very good job of showing us that they’re not interested in playing ball. Just look at the latest decision to drop child-only policies.

So, donning my prognosticator’s hat, here’s what I think will happen:

1. The double-digit rate increases will continue. Which will lead to all sorts of people and companies dropping health insurance.

2. The public outcry that we’re already hearing will intensify. It will reach the ears of our legislators, who, in essence, will say, “Okay, insurance industry. You’re not willing to play ball and you keep gouging your customers with unjustified double-digit rate increases. Well, you’ve certainly gone ahead and made our day. Here’s that public option. You remember the public option. It was proposed as a way to keep you guys honest.”

3. The public option will become law, and the next thing you will hear is a stampede. It will be caused in part by people and companies dumping their private health insurance in favor of the public option. There will also be quite an exodus of people from the employed workforce. These pent-up entrepreneurs, finally freed of job lock, will be singing “Take This Job And Shove It!” on the way out the door. (I’m especially fond of the Johnny Paycheck version.)

As for private health insurance, it will continue to exist the way it does in Canada. It will be for such things as a nicer hospital room or other amenities like that. But the default insurance in this country will be public. And I predict that a lot of people will prefer it.

“going to shape up in 2012″ ( Wherein the world ends ‘any’ way… )

Nah, not being flippant, just trying to make it to ‘Friday’? Yet, with something, a movement as gangling and de-centralized as the TP ‘is’, how is possible to really ‘contain’ them? Just wondering aloud.

These pent-up entrepreneurs, finally freed of job lock, will be singing “Take This Job And Shove It!”

I’m studying the lyrics to the song, myself.

Arizona Slim,

In de facto fashion, that’s already kind of taken place here in OR. Surprised no one has yet mentioned that MCD’s is threatening to drop their emp’s off their “mini-med” (?) plan?

So be it thru the courts or as you say, simply refusing to play ball, likely as not to just slide thru the cracks. It’s already kind of dropped off my radar.

3. The public option will become law, and the next thing you will hear is a stampede. It will be caused in part by people and companies dumping their private health insurance in favor of the public option. There will also be quite an exodus of people from the employed workforce. These pent-up entrepreneurs, finally freed of job lock, will be singing “Take This Job And Shove It!” on the way out the door. (I’m especially fond of the Johnny Paycheck version.)

As for private health insurance, it will continue to exist the way it does in Canada. It will be for such things as a nicer hospital room or other amenities like that. But the default insurance in this country will be public. And I predict that a lot of people will prefer it.

Preach it, oxide! This would be the very best thing that could ever happen to this country.

A real estate agent friend called me the other day. She befriended a 70-year-old client of hers about five years ago who is alone. Five days ago her friend called her in tears because she found a breast mass. She is well-insured because she has Medicare and a supplemental, but she doesn’t get regular medical care or have a primary doctor. I told my real estate friend that she should take her friend to her (the agent’s) doctor. After a moment of silence she admitted to me that she is uninsured and doesn’t have a doctor herself, because she can’t afford it. I referred them to my doctor’s office, and they now have an appointment. We had a discussion about the fact that the only real estate agents who can afford insurance now are those who have husbands who are insured through their employers. Something has to give.

Oh, and I have to argue with those who claim that the US provides free medical care for illegals. Illegals are completely ineligible for Medicare/Medicaid/MediCal benefits. The only illegals I see in my office are those who pay cash to see me and have a referral. The only illegals who receive free care are those who are sick enough to get through the ER triage, or women in active labor. The only illegal I can recall taking care of in the hospital was a young farm laborer with untreated diabetes who fell face first in the first and developed rhinocerebral mucormycosis (fungus that gets in the nose in the immune suppressed and ends up in the eyeballs and brain.) Unfortunately I saved his life but he ended up like the guy in the picture.

http://abyssaldepths.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/mucormycosis-2.jpg

The internet was built in an effort to defeat world communism. Hey it worked, didn’t it?

The original internet protocol standard, MIL-STD-1777, was published decades ago.

Well, technically the original standard was RFC 791, which preceded MIL-STD-1777 by two years (and also obsoleted a 1-year-earlier version in RFC 760)

1777? was than when the internet was invented? I thought Al Gore invented the internet.

I think you are all correct. But this goes to show a more structural problem than simply lay all the blames on currency manipulation. In other words, we really need to ask ourselves, what do we make or have to offer that people in China want to buy?

I strongly disagree with that part. Very, very little is gone.

money flow between nations affects the wealth of individual nations, but it has no effect on global wealth. global wealth is increased through a net increase in global production and is decreased with net global waste, just as our personal wealth is.

this time i’m probably preaching to the choir.

Yep.

Where interest = waste. Interest is money transferred that results in no actual goods. Money management could perhaps be considered a “service”, but not really; only a base level of money management is really providing a service - the rest is just made overly complicated so the bankers can skim their part off the top.

Where interest = waste. Interest is money transferred that results in no actual goods.

well, you already know that i think that the ‘debt as money’ video contains almost as much misinformation as truth.

That’s my shop. I’m American and I live here in the USA. I get all the money from sales, and then pay the building’s rent, utilities and cheap-o Chinese labor, which is something like $100 per man, per month.

I might sell $1,000,000 worth of cabinets here in the USA.

No matter what my Chinese business expenses are, I’ve still added $1,000,000 to our trade deficit.

Dancing with the stars. Idol? Wheel of Fortune, Oprah, Judge Judy ???

Over its lifetime, the Fed has funneled more than $680 billion into the coffers of the Treasury. Until recently, the figures were pretty steady and relatively small — between $20 billion and $30 billion from 2000 to 2008.

So in about 100 years, the Treasury got 680B. The FED just printed up 1.4 Trillion in bailout money?? IN a year?

That’s a puff article by media to defend the FED. The truth is the FED is BUYING Treasury Bills, owed back by the Taxpayer (me and you) at interest, with money they PRINT.
And they’re trying to tell us the FED is making money for the Treasury. What a Complete crock!!!
The FED is licensed to PRINT money. They don’t create any wealth. They are stealer’s of wealth by “lawful” counterfeiting. That’s all they do.

No worries Diogenes, it will ALL change this Nov 2nd… ;-/

“It turns out that in the U.S., central banking is a reliably profitable business.”

How can I get me one of them Fed money trees that grows profits right out of thin air? That’s a pretty cool trick if you can figure out how to do it.

Okay, people, I confess. I committed a typing sin.

Meant to say 2005 up above. (See what digestive distress does to me? But I’m pleased to report that, in the past hour, I’ve started feeling much better, TYVM.)

Slim,

Good to hear. I feel like I’m coming down w/ something? You just feel listless for a bit, then come back as strong as ever. I’ll have something to eat and it’s like a total “re-set”. Weird.

We might have been able to see the bottom by 2013 (or a bit sooner) **if the govt had stayed out of the way.** Because of their interference with the market, the downturn will last much, much longer, IMHO.

What does that make the $20? I still see signs - No bills larger than a $20.

Well Steve, these days people largely DON’T use cash for large payments the way that they used to. They stopped printing any denomination large than $100 and even those are uncommon. Large cash transactions are commonly assumed to be criminal and generate special reporting requirements.

$100 is not a large transaction anymore. Heck, you can’t even fill up your tank and buy a carton of cigs for a $100 anymore.

Well I don’t smoke, and my daily driver has an 11 gallon tank. But I always use a credit card at the pump anyway.

I haven’t checked the price of nickle, but that coin is the only one left with the old metal content. Maybe it’s worth more than 5c or getting close.

The quarter is the new penny? I’d have to agree, but it is like the old large penny.

Quarter might be the new nickel, at least. Try feeding an NYC parking meter these days.

Maybe it’s worth more than 5c or getting close.”

Nickel is worth about a dime in metal content

there is a law that change can’t be exported outside the USA

Because coins are the only real US currency.

CA renter umm… coins AREN’T currency, they’re money. In fact they’re the money that you can exchange your federal reserve notes for.

Actually, coins are a type of currency, but I was referring more to the fact that coins are minted by the U.S. govt, while FRNs are not.

———–

In economics, the term currency can refer to a particular currency, for example Pound Sterling, or to the coins and banknotes of a particular currency, which comprise the physical aspects of a nation’s money supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency

Did the article actually say “Democrat bill?”

Wouldn’t “Democratish bill” be more proper?

Lucy: “You’re such a Blockhead Linus, I missed another Halloween, The Great Pumkin! Arrrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Cheers Lavi d!
Here’s to ya kid!

Happy October Birthday, lavi d!!!!

Are democrats really that inept to not filibuster bills they don’t like?

Here in AZ, the words “Democrats” and “inept” seem to be bosom buddies. Not to mention the words “ineffectual” and “lacking the courage of their convictions.”

+1000

Liberals want it both ways. That way they can not be blamed for anything.

Here in AZ, the words “Democrats” and “inept” seem to be bosom buddies. Not to mention the words “ineffectual” and “lacking the courage of their convictions.”

Exactly, it’s just that ol’ Hwy finds the “TrueBeliever’s™ / “TrueDeceiver’s™” “TrueHypocrite™” / “TruePurity™” Doctrine of: “if-your’re-not-with-us… your’re-Anti-American!” far more distasteful, …if it smells like vomit forced down you, imagine what it must taste like when you find out they’re in the power game just-for-themselves & “special” “others” not to be mentioned.

The republicans had control as long as they restricted themselves to things that could attract the votes of the more conservative democrats. That isn’t really complete control, but since there are conservative democrats, they managed. The current republican leadership and primary voters don’t let the more moderate republicans in congress get away with that very often.

I personally don’t care that much as I am not a Congress watcher to the extent that I can avoid it. Blame, when it is concentrated on party affiliation, is a boring game. “You controlled this for x number of years, so everything that happened during that time and for exactly 17 and a half months after that is all your fault”? Really? Yawn. Now, figuring out what policies brought about particular results is generally fascinating. Impossible to figure out since economists are not physicists, despite all their protests to the contrary, but fascinating all the same.

The republicans will take the House back. They will not put out a lot of big spending bills because they don’t want the visuals of them proposing spending. They will propose big tax cuts which probably won’t pass the Senate. The things that do get passed will be on the margins. There will be lots of investigations and hearings. Good chance of another recession (or continuation of the old one if you go by main street, not NBER, sentiments), but I am expecting that no matter what happens in the election. They will try to end health care reform by not funding it, but that will be tricky as it isn’t a single payor bill and I’m not sure how much funding it really needs. Life will go on.

TrueWhatsits™ - Hwy’s favorite strawmen!

Are democrats really that inept to not filibuster bills they don’t like?

Actually yes. They were “keeping their powder dry” or something like that. And they also respected the filibuster enough to limit it to things they REALLY didn’t like, for example those mass tax cuts in 2001,* hoping that Republicans would also respect the filibuster when their time came. Well we see how THAT turned out. The Republicans are now filibustering absolutely everything regardless of whether some more moderate Republicans like it or not. Because, if a Republican doesn’t filibuster, he has his campaign funding cut off. The Dems just barely got small business tax-cuts through only because George Voinovich, a moderate Repub, was retiring and no longer cared.

It should be interesting to see what happens if the Republicans take the House, as Polly says. Will the Dems have enough spine to filibuster the living daylights out of everything?

———–
*The Republicans had to “shove them down our throats” by the reconciliation process, exactly the same as the health care law. That’s why the cuts are expiring now.

Your analysis pretty much matches mine.

There is a high percentage of the Republican/Tea Party contingent out here that truly believes that having government implode is a good idea. In their view, gridlock/ineffective government is a win-win situation.

They all think that they would be safe if this country turned into Colombia, circa 1995. Maybe they are right. But I wouldn’t bet my life on it

republicans never had that kind of majority in senate

(It’s rumor that his favorite flower is “Forget-me-not”)

And here to break the tie in the Senate today is:

Dicky “Big-Paddle” Cheney…

Are democrats really that inept to not filibuster bills they don’t like?

Not only that, but the Morally Righteous Republicans had no problem impeaching Clinton for lying about sex, but impeaching Bush - or even investigating him - over lying about Iraq’s WMD was “off the table” according to Pelosi.

Not to mention Cheney intentionally blowing the cover of a CIA agent for political gain.

Republicans had no problem impeaching Clinton for lying about sex, but impeaching Bush - or even investigating him

One was under oath. The other wasn’t (AFAIK).

Surely you see the distinction, Lavi.

Yes, lying is bad. Lying under oath is actually illegal (perjury).

Surely you see the distinction, Lavi.

I certainly do, dj.

The Republicans impeached Clinton after investigating him for indecency - or whatever it was that they were looking for.

The Democrats, on the other hand, declined to even investigate Bush or Cheney for things much more serious is the point I’m making.

That was close!

That was close!

BWAHAHAHicHAHAHicHAHAHAHAHicHAHAHic* (DennisN™)

Interesting. I guess Westlaw and Lexis don’t have a problem with it.

Well…..

at the risk of a repost…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf5Jn8O3s0c

Not much has changed since 1964, eh?

Pete Seeger?

Any “young repubican” can educate ya that he was a communist & Anti-American!

From wikipedia….

In 1982 Seeger performed at a benefit concert for Poland’s Solidarity resistance movement. His biographer David Dunaway considers this the first public manifestation of Seeger’s decades-long personal dislike of communism in its Soviet form. In the late 1980s Seeger also expressed disapproval of violent revolutions, remarking to an interviewer that he was really in favor of incremental change and that “the most lasting revolutions are those that take place over a period of time.” In his autobiography Where Have All the Flowers Gone (1993 and 1997 reissued in 2009), Seeger wrote, “Should I apologize for all this? I think so.” He went on to put his thinking in context:
“How could Hitler have been stopped? Litvinov, the Soviet delegate to the League of Nations in ‘36, proposed a worldwide quarantine but got no takers.”

“the most lasting revolutions are those that take place over a period of time.” The conservative manifesto, coming from the mouth of Pete Seeger.

Winston Churchill came to that conclusion about Litvinov’s diplomacy in the 1930s. It just took Seeger a few more decades to see the light.

Harry Bridges Commonwealth Club speech 1959

Harry Bridges Commonwealth Club speech 1959

1959
March 21: Harry Bridges drew a standing-room-only crowd of 600 at the Commonwealth Club luncheon March 20 for his report on a recent trip to Russia. Obviously enjoying the opportunity to speak to one of the city’s leading business and professional groups, the Longshore Union president gave his audience the challenge he received in Russia: “Within 10 years the Soviet Union will give its workers the highest standard of living in the world, the highest wages, the shortest workweek, the best free medical care, the best education, no unemployment - all of these within a world of peace.” In a question-and-answer period that some present compared to his forthcoming appearance before the House Un-American Activities Committee, Bridges resisted most attempts to compare Russia with the United States. Russians work harder, Bridges told a questioner, and incentive systems are used in every job. “A lot of things are done over there that I don’t think our workers would stand for,” Bridges said, “but the workers believe they are working for themselves.” He conceded with a smile that a “slowdown” by Russian workers “probably wouldn’t get them very far.”

If, for instance, Mr. Chamberlain on receipt of the Russian offer [for a 3 power alliance with UK and France against Hitler] had replied, “Yes. Let us three band together and break Hiler’s neck,” or words to that effect, Parliment would have approved, Stalin would have understood, and history might have taken a different course. At least it could not have taken a worse.

- Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm , page 365

And continuing forward with Obama and the dems agenda means even more debt than doing nothing does. Screw us hard and fast or slightly softer and slightly slower, seem to be our choices.

He tightened the purse strings because he had to. The reps weren’t going to go along with the agenda he had in his first two years in office.

Lost me on that one.

Hoarders the show. Each week they focus on two different stories of extreme hoarding. Scary stuff. Makes me trash or sell more stuff on eBay after each showing.

The show American Pickers is just as bad. People with yards filled with crap that they just can’t part with.

My sis, the former “My house will be worth a million bucks in 2011″ wannabe real estate mogul is a hoarder-in-training.

House has crap stacked on everything. Clothes, mostly dirty, scattered out all over the place.

Her theory is that if you have five weeks of clothes for the kids, you only have to do laundry every five weeks.

Kids clothes have some kind of a half life shorter than 5 weeks. I think spontaneous generation takes less time than that.

Seems like most people are horders any more. My hood, haas houses mostly with two or three car garages the exception is the ability to park the cars in the garage. Even in winter, most of the neighbors park in the driveway with the garage piled to the ceiling with who knows what.

It’ll be a cold day in —- when I have to scape my windows in the morning or brush the snow off the car so I can keep a pile of junk in the garage.

I’ve had to run numbers showing that if you leave the per month payment steady, that an increase in mortgage interest rates from 5% to 8% could just devour the whole downpayment/put you underwater. Sometimes that helps a little. No one seems to get that if you buy when interest rates are low and downpayment requirements are nonexistant, you have to put aside huge chunks of money after your purchase is complete (while paying your brand new mortgage) so that you have enough to buy yourself out of the thing if you need to sell when interest rates are higher. At least you have to do that in a recourse state and you don’t want to end up broke.

“…an increase in mortgage interest rates from 5% to 8% could just devour the whole downpayment/put you underwater.”

It’s the macroeconomic effects of higher interest rates which interest me; with other things (especially incomes and lending underwriting guidelines) equal, higher interest rates eat up more of the owner’s monthly housing allowance, resulting in a smaller share of the payment going to principle amortization.

At the individual level, a smaller housing purchase budget results.

At the macroeconomic level, lower housing demand equilibrates with reduced purchase demand and lower equilibrium prices.

oh, i know that Packman. my post was in support of what you said, not critical.

Actually no, it’s a form of transfer of title.

Not when its in permanent limbo, Dennis.

DennisN, I am so glad that my teacup is resting peacefully on its coaster. Otherwise, you’d be owning me a new keyboard and monitor.

I can see you singin’ that while your cooking… lol

There are more than a few high-end printers here in Tucson. Many of them have been here for decades.

Even so, I can’t help thinking that more than a few of them are in AZ because the cost of doing business is so much less than CA. Heck, that’s why I’m here, and a bicycling mad creature like myself would certainly enjoy CA.

But, for those of you who are shopping for printing, specifically, postcard printing, I have not found any AZ printers that are as competitively priced as Modern Postcard in Carlsbad, CA, or Rocket Postcards in San Francisco. Or, for that matter, GFX Printing in Mississauga, Ontario.

that are as competitively priced as Modern Postcard in Carlsbad, CA, or Rocket Postcards in San Francisco. Or, for that matter, GFX Printing in Mississauga, Ontario.

Tankxs!

Mmmmm! Sounds good.

And, now that my immune system seems to have evicted those unwanted tenants from my GI tract, I may try making such a dish. One day on bland diet is quite enough, TYVM.

Hope your digestive tract is happy again soon, too…sounds painfully unpleasant.

Well drumminj, I used to think Congress wrote laws too. Now I think it’s the Lawbyists

okay, point taken. The lobbyists write the laws.

But congress at least passes them.

So how come Obama is responsible for not extending them then?

Please show me where I ever made such a ridiculous statement?

now helpfully irrelevant. Better.

That was a sober question that warranted a serious answer, sorry you didn’t get one.

Let’s review,… at the beginning:

President Obama effectively has declared war on America’s wealth creators

Gov’t policy that effects who & to what degree?

1. Medical doctor with a profitable hobby
2. Wall Street, Goldenmansucks et. al.
3. Gov’t worker in fire lookout tower

Maybe it was Catholic school.

Maybe it was Catholic school.

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that teacher is a bum
sits on a stool and sucks her thumb

(I went to Catholic school)

Way too young. What is that, WWII??!

Great video and song, Dennis. Never heard it before, but it really shows how nothing ever really changes.

Thanks for sharing it.

but apart from the fact that Diaz was the one who collected the mail every day, there’s a problem with Allred’s claim.

How did she manage that (from the fact that Diaz was the one who collected the mail every day), when she only worked 15 hrs per week?

Well. I reckon she worked hours that exactly coincided with x6 daily mail delivery…right?

hwy.. That’s just the sort of conclusion Inspector LeStrade would jump to… after which Holmes sets him straight.

The mail sits in the mail box until Diaz arrives, and takes it into the house.

from the fact that Diaz was the one who collected the mail every day

How do you come to know this as FACT?

The mail sits in the mail box until Diaz arrives, and takes it into the house.

She must be a safe ‘hood, as this mail box collection tactic might not work safely in some parts of the country. But of course, you seem to be intimate with all the FACTS in regards to Meg’s home mail system.

hwy..

meg whitman.. lives in a safe hood?

ya think??

Call Allred. Tell her you wanna be on the jury. She’ll send at least a limo .. maybe a private jet iffin yer far away..

She is the fourth wealthiest woman in the state of California with a net worth of $1.3 billion in 2010,[4]

wiki..

in other words, she can afford a maid… and maybe even has enough money left over to get one of them fancy mailboxes that has a lock on it..

That’s a good precaution, in case some thug kills all the security guards and somehow makes it to the gate in front of her driveway.

Joey, prove that she picked up & delivered Meggy’s mail everyday,without interruption for 9 years working 15 hours per week, or admit that you can not make such a statement as being FACTUAL, OK?

(And turn off the Rash Limpbaughs/Glenbeckinstan radio, it’s putting quite a bit of static in your responses.)

“If the mail don’t fit, you must acquit!”

“Sit DOWN, Mr. Cochran. We have already established that the Social Security Administration does not send no-match letters to employers with just one employee.”

“But your Honor. It don’t fit!”

“Bailiff!”

if we can’t limit the risk they incur (lawsuits), then many won’t start up and we will not have as many businesses.

We will have more, but smaller businesses. They will be focussed on making products efficiently, instead of on lobbying for political favors.

We will have more, but smaller businesses.

how do you think this will happen?

———–

They will be focussed on making products efficiently, instead of on lobbying for political favors.

they get their power through government. so we need to limit the power of government.

besides, what’s to stop many small businesses from pooling their resources to try to get favorable legislation?

power attracts corrupt money, so limit power and the corrupt money goes away. it goes away because it’s to difficult to try to control without the force of government.

when customers are sovereign, big business and corporations become benign.

Abolish corporations - I think I agree on this. They get preferential tax treatment. I am for abolishing only if the favors that corporations get versus individuals are given to individuals. For instance, the ability to save $50,000 or so into a SEP IRA or Keogh. Or writing off travel expenses. The limited liability stuff should be axed.

Putting everything up for referendum is okay though, but only if, as you suggest, the topics are first voted on by Congress. This would make “the people” the fourth check and balance.

I just don’t like democracy. Democracy plus idiocracy equals drab gray socialism. So a “referendum will only mean if 67% of the people are socialists, they will proclaim a super mandate over the 33%. Tyranny of the majority can happen.

I prefer to just not participate. I’m done with it.

Hwy, when you start with the premise that investors and managers have limited (i.e. essentially NO) liability for corporate actions, you are undercutting the entire legal system. It makes no sense to say that you have limited liability but then we are going to come down hard on you for unethical conduct.

Geez, terminate millions of “people” ? ;-/

By eliminating corporations, you are not “terminating” people. You are freeing up the entire business world to reorganize along the lines of skills and productive competition, instead of politics and lobbying and butt-kissing.

eyes just a awe-shuckin’ ya ’bout hows the Supreme x5 with GOP wigs legally determined that CORPORATIONS are “people”…

Supreme Court Rules Corporations Are People, Spending Is Speech …
In a dramatic upheaval that sharply divided the U.S. Supreme Court, a 5-4 majority ruled Thursday that under the First Amendment Congress may not bar

Aruba sucks. Just sayin’…

so who’s gonna move loads of money (+$250K) to any non-interest account? Gotta be a checking acct. I can’t think of anything else.

It’ll be businesses with huge payrolls, and that money is gone within a week… more likely in a day or two the acct is empty again.

But fate declares that particular bank fails while all the money is still in the account?

much ado about nothing, imho.

i was being melodramatic to emphasize a point.

with government guarantees, neither customers nor banks will have incentive to make good loans.

we need to put risk back into putting money in banks. we need people to care about the soundness of where they keep their money so that banks will want to be known as sound and safe. we need bankers to worry about getting paid back on their loans. we need them to worry about their reputations. those things make banks safe.

if this this thing passes, it guarantees that another crises will occur.

Common folks can’t tell if a bank is in good shape or not. They have no mechanism by which they can judge the soundness of a bank.

Even if they could, what’s sound today may be gone tomorrow?
Without govt guarantees, nobody will put their money in a bank.

The FDIC has such capability, and it does a pretty good job of it.. and people rely on them.

————
As for banks retaining loan risk, I am an investor. I WANT that risk (and it’s rewards). I demand that banks and lenders sell me those loans.

In fact, i want really high returns, so go write some very risky loans and I will buy them.

But if the loans prove to be more risky than advertised (inaccurate ratings), me and my fellow investors won’t buy any more from that source.

That source is forced to keep it’s loans, along with the risk.. and such bad underwriting spells their doom.

Common folks can’t tell if a bank is in good shape or not. They have no mechanism by which they can judge the soundness of a bank.

no, but they’d learn to. ratings services would spring up. pretty soon common folks would be up to speed on how safe their bank was.

———-

Even if they could, what’s sound today may be gone tomorrow?
Without govt guarantees, nobody will put their money in a bank.

there is a need for banks and there would be plenty of people that are willing to deposit money in them. but it is true that some probably wouldn’t, at least at first. they would be looking for strong safe banks, and the banks would have to stand up to public scrutiny or people would not deposit their money there.

——–

The FDIC has such capability, and it does a pretty good job of it.. and people rely on them.

the FDIC allowed the bankers and customers to fall asleep at the wheel. if there wouldn’t have been any government insurance, people would have taken their money out of banks that were making stupid loans. and no taxpayers would be taking on the losses of banks like they are now.

————

As for banks retaining loan risk, I am an investor. I WANT that risk (and it’s rewards). I demand that banks and lenders sell me those loans.

you’d demand to make loans that have very little chance to be paid back? you would have no trouble making such loans if you wanted to. you can always compete with banks for loans.

——-

In fact, i want really high returns, so go write some very risky loans and I will buy them.

how about a loan on an overpriced home taken out by a chronically unemployed person that is underwater the moment he signs the papers? after all, that’s the risk bankers were taking with taxpayer’s money. they didn’t have to worry. the government backed them up at our expense.

———-

But if the loans prove to be more risky than advertised (inaccurate ratings), me and my fellow investors won’t buy any more from that source.

the rating agencies had already been captured. their ratings were worth nothing. private agencies that rely on accurate reporting to make money would have been much more reliable for you.

——–

That source is forced to keep it’s loans, along with the risk.. and such bad underwriting spells their doom.

that would be the natural outcome of a free market. a market without government influence.

ok.. all that has been argued before, and I’ve no desire to hash it out again. But if you like, pick any one of your points and I will post a rebuttal .

Meanwhile ponder this.

You are a bank and have $1M in deposits. You must keep 10% cash reserves, and you can lend out $900K.
You write a few home loans totaling $900K, and you keep those loans in house.

You are outta cash. No more money to lend. You get a little bit back every month, but are unable to lend anyone in your community a healthy chunk of money for about 10 or 15 years (assuming no unforeseen disaster crushes you, and that you can squirrel away whatever pittance is coming in.)

So, businesses needing loans and home buyers needing mortgages walk right pass your door.. You are the bank that has no money.
Meanwhile you placed your bank at huge risk by keeping all your loans. Heaven forbid there is an economic downturn, cause you be toast.

there would be other banks to get loans from, if you were at your limit.

but the bottom line is that you want to over-leverage and put taxpayers at risk for it. that’s a recipe for disaster. and i don’t want to pay for other people’s mistakes, like i am now.

Can’t go to other banks.

Other banks have no money because they are doing the same thing. They are following your advice:
we need bankers to worry about getting paid back on their loans.

Well, the only reason a lender would worry is if they don’t sell the loans they make, and retain loan risk.

Sure, they will make rock-solid loans from that moment forward. (My guess is no human will qualify for a loan and the bankers will just shut the doors and find another hobby.)

But as was pointed out, banks will become dry wells and useless to their communities in very short order.
——–

i don’t want to pay for other people’s mistakes, like i am now.

Was that rhetorical, or are you somehow paying (money) for other’s mistakes?

Can’t go to other banks.

Other banks have no money because they are doing the same thing.

of course there would be other banks to get loans from. the scenario you’re suggesting is impossible.

———

Well, the only reason a lender would worry is if they don’t sell the loans they make, and retain loan risk.

so they can be bad loans as long as someone else buys them? that’s the same huckster’s mentality that that brought us into this crisis.

——–

i don’t want to pay for other people’s mistakes, like i am now.

Was that rhetorical, or are you somehow paying (money) for other’s mistakes?

i’m paying taxes. a percentage of it is for the bailouts.

..so they can be bad loans as long as someone else buys them?

As long as someone wants to buy them. There is a buyer for everything.
Odds are millions to one against you? More people like those odds than anything else.. it’s called the lottery.

As was said earlier, some investors desire higher risk. It affords the chance of higher returns in a short time.
Maybe you’re young, have plenty of years to recover if the bets don’t pay off.. so why not give it a shot.
But if you’re old, one must be careful because you’re no longer working, and it would be unwise to take too high a risk. Stick with AAA.. conservative risk and low payoff.

The only really “bad” loan is the one that is more risky than it’s claimed to be. No rating is perfect. It’s an art. But people must know what they are buying.

It’s no different than investing in diamonds or old coins or anything else that spans a range of quality. There’s something for everyone. But the quality rating must be reasonably accurate so the price paid is fair.

As long as someone wants to buy them.

sure, as long as someone wants to buy them. they just shouldn’t be guaranteed by the government. that’s a risk for the investors to take, not the taxpayers. i have no objection to high risk loans as long as government doesn’t force taxpayers to bail them out.

looks like we have our own chatroom. at least we won’t be boring anyone else to tears..

We have to ask why loans are being purchased and backed by the government.

Is it to allow banks to write bad loans without consequence? No.

Here’s what happened:
The madness of the housing bubble meant investors of ALL types, world wide, believed property prices would only rise.

If property only rises in value, there is no such thing as a bad loan. It doesn’t matter of the borrower is working or not. The home can be refinanced or sold at some higher price, and the investor will recover his money.. guaranteed.

Investors drove demand for anything the banks could write. Collar someone walking by, and give them a mortgage. We will buy it. We see nothing but profit.
“We” included very conservative institutional buyers.. everyone wanted in on the boom.
—-

Demand was so high that they ran short of mortgage securities to sell. That’s when some of the big investment banks started chopping existing securities into little pieces, and reassembling them into “new” securities.

They attempted to keep bond ratings accurate with complicated formulas.. a little of this, plus a little of that. But things became blurred and the math got away from them.

So, it was soon discovered that some of the little pieces included in certain AAA rated securities may have been total crap… toxic.. and the whole bond was therefore poisoned.

Investors stopped buying because the bond ratings were in question.
———

Since the steady influx of investor money (they buy mortgages from banks) stopped, that which allows banks to lend money continuously stopped.
Money dried up. Even businesses, which need loans all the time, were unable to borrow from their bank.

Money stopped flowing through the economy. Businesses and jobs when south.. chain reaction..

—-

Enter the govt. They took the place of the frightened investors, and purchased the banks’ mortgages .. hopefully, only temporarily..
Thus money started flowing through the economy again (Or so it should have, in theory).
——

Nothing about the situation was related to the quality of bankers’ lending. Like any good business, banks were simply providing whatever the public wanted to buy.

Rather, the problem was extreme fear of inaccurate ratings of the various mortgage backed securities floating around in the secondary markets.

That flow of investor money was the air-supply for the housing bubble. When the money stopped the bubble couldn’t grow further.

money doesn’t stop flowing through the economy when credit dries up. the money already in existence continues to flow. future money creation does get curtailed.

ignorance should pay a price, a punishment, in the market. but when there’s government insurance against ignorance, then there’s little price or punishment to pay. then ignorance continues its destruction unabated.

..the money already in existence continues to flow.

Without credit/lending, that existing money will flow only until it enters a bank’s vault.. and there it stays.

hmm.. punished for ignorance. We’d all be covered with welts from the lash..

Without credit/lending, that existing money will flow only until it enters a bank’s vault.. and there it stays.

no, it most certainly would not.

tell me.. what do you think would happen to the dollars already in existence if the government suddenly, permanently closed all the USA stock exchanges monday morning? would the existing dollars (USA fiat paper currency):

1. increase
2. decrease
3. remain the same amount

hmm.. punished for ignorance. We’d all be covered with welts from the lash..

no lashing. some will become richer and some will become poorer. if you’re poorer because of ignorance, that’s the punishment.

Stock exchanges closed permanently?

i dunno.. economic collapse.. Money or gold wouldn’t matter much since there’s nothing to purchase.

but.. what’s the point of considering that scenario?

Assuming banks won’t lend, how would dollars escape the vault?

but.. what’s the point of considering that scenario?

i’m trying to get you to think about dollars in existence. you said all the dollars would eventually wind up in bank vaults. now i’m trying to show you something about money.

i’m not trying to embarrass you. most people don’t know this. if you want me to show you, you have to choose one of the three answers. if you choose not to, it’s no problem either.

Assuming banks won’t lend, how would dollars escape the vault?

there’s no assumptions about what a bank would do in my question. i’m just asking you what you think would happen to the dollars in existence if all the stock exchanges were to be closed monday morning. nothing more.

given that we have only one condition: Trading stopped.

I don’t see how that alone affects the money supply.

So.. i pick 3. remain the same amount

technically dollars in existence probably increases a slight amount. but that is for a different reason than than the stock market question i asked you.

you answered correctly. dollars in existence would remain the same. that’s because almost all transactions are is just a transfer of wealth, mostly using dollars. transactions don’t affect the giant pool of dollars in existence.

but then i don’t understand why you think that all dollars in existence would eventually end up in bank vaults without recurring bank loans. you’ve just shown that you understand that transactions happen without banks all the time. there’s no need for them to go into bank vaults at all.

and dollars don’t stay in vaults when they’re used to repay loans. they’re the lender’s dollars, not the debt’s dollars. they go back out the door again to cash checks, withdraw savings or maybe to be loaned out again. loan repayment wipes out debt, not dollars.

ok, maybe look at it in a different way..

it’s against the law to destroy dollars. but you’d think that the government wouldn’t mind dollars being destroyed because dollars represent government liability. a promise to pay. but the government doesn’t want you to destroy dollars because they represent the value of past labor. if dollars get destroyed, then the value, or more properly the ‘money’ that they represent is lost forever. and contrary to what most people believe they can’t just be printed and put into circulation. that would be counterfeiting even if they were printed by the US treasury.

new paper dollars have to be exchanged for something of value or they can’t go out the door. once they have value they’re supposed to retain it. dollars are supposed to be a store of value. they would quickly lose value if they were just thrown out the door into the street.

all this is just a round about way of saying that all the dollars wouldn’t end up in bank vaults. and repayment of debt doesn’t destroy dollars.

Joey, thank you for your answer. i wrote out a fairly lengthy reply. i’ve been waiting hours for it to show up. so far it hasn’t.

your answer was correct. but i’m not going to try to recreate my lost post. we’ll just have to leave it here. maybe it will show up. or maybe this post won’t even show up. i don’t know what the rules are here. maybe i’ve broken them.

at any rate, this is a short post so maybe it will get to you.

it’s common for most people’s first posts of the morning to stall for an hour or so..

I’d prefer to avoid “fiat money” and what’s real and what’s not real, and “where” that money is or is not, and instead focus on the question of money flow without credit.

The conversation took a turn when you said “money doesn’t stop flowing through the economy when credit dries up.”

Business transactions are on credit. Cash transactions are virtually unknown. I find it difficult to imagine a functional economy where immediate payment is demanded by all.

It seems so obvious to me that credit is the life blood of the economy, I have a feeling we are not talking about the same thing.

banks help make trades more efficient. and that’s good, but not necessary.

banks loan money, which is both good and bad. that is, loans can be detrimental all on their own. most often, loans to buy wasting assets are detrimental to the borrower.

but even if there were no banks, people could still get loans. they’d find ‘angel’ investors. plus, other entities would pop up, just to make loans.

i’m not advocating eliminating banks, i’m just saying it would be possible to get by without them.

dollars would still flow, just not as efficiently without banks.

the long term problem if there were no banks would be than fiat currency would slowly enter a shortage because the population would grow and the dollars in existence would not. money, however, would not stop growing. keep in mind that money and currency aren’t the same thing.

banks help make trades more efficient. Well, yeah.

You go to the store and expect to find milk.

The corner store repeatedly orders a delivery of milk, soup and hundreds of other things from maybe 5 different warehouses. A warehouse buys it’s inventory from hundreds of different manufacturers. The manufacturers buy their raw materials from scores of producers. All these transactions instantly pass through the various involved banks.

Additionally, whatever support infrastructure these businesses might need, from trucks to refrigerators to building additions to upgrading assembly lines is funded with loans from a bank.
—-
No money changes hands. It’s all just banking transactions that repeat themselves over and over, 24/7.

The banks make various fees for the many financial services they provide acting as a central transaction hub, as well as earning interest on the loans.

This mundane money-shuffling is not the kinda thing angels are interested in.