Are we headed for a world wide meltdown?

Coming after Monkey pox. I have heard they will release Viral hemorrhagic fevers if certain chain of events happen between the midterms and 2024... Just be careful who you touch and blisters and such you can google pictures of monkey pox and it can blow up on someones back like the chicken pox

Here's how I broke it down by source and date published:

• Oliver North testifying 7/8/87
• Purported letter from North saying it was Nidal 11/28/2001
• townhall 1/22/2002
• workbench.cadenhead 2/13/2003
• Snopes undated <-- much like their pole dancer
• democraticunderground 1/19/2006 <-- seems to indicate Snopes article around this date
• factcheck 4/30/2009
• urbanlegendsonline 2/17/2010 <--- still says it was Osama
• Youtube of North testifying 3/9/2013
• truthorfiction 3/15/2015
• truthorfiction 8/9/2016 <--- needed to reinforce it or slow news day?

So it would seem that no one really cared much until after Sept 11, 2001. Though someone must have asked the question or brought it up to cause North to write it up (purportedly) some 14 years after the fact. I did not find the actual letter or in-print column anywhere.

So it was either my 25 years ago fuzzy memory or the BetaMax or the above search and findings. And I dang sure was not going to invest further time using the way back engine to validate original pub dates, so f*ck it. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

All you had to do was realize that Osama was in Afganistan at the time fighting the Soviets with weapons we were supplying or helping to supply. There was no reason North would have named Osama.

What North was trying to do was make it seem as if the Security System he illegally recieved was justified.


https://www.britannica.com/biography/Osama-bin-Laden

if you say so


posts: 46,595


bahahahaaaaa
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Look Gordon Gecko, lustylady was the one making fun of another poster (me) making fun of some dipshit (WYID) wanting me to reflect on my life.

How about you reflect on the meaning of your life....go ahead, lustylad and WYID, will go after you.

How much you lose today?

What would have happened if the Fed hadn't doubled its balance sheet during the pandemic? It seems safe to say bond market rates would have been higher, for both treasuries and MBS, without the 800-pound gorilla in the room lapping up everything in sight.... Originally Posted by lustylad

Thanks for that! I'd never thought about the effect of the PPP on rates.

Coming after Monkey pox. I have heard they will release Viral hemorrhagic fevers if certain chain of events happen between the midterms and 2024... Just be careful who you touch and blisters and such you can google pictures of monkey pox and it can blow up on someones back like the chicken pox Originally Posted by JohnWBabayka

Horse shit

Look Gordon Gecko, lustylady was the one making fun of another poster (me) making fun of some dipshit (WYID) wanting me to reflect on my life.

How about you reflect on the meaning of your life....go ahead, lustylad and WYID, will go after you.

How much you lose today? Originally Posted by WTF

so just because lustylad makes fun of you i can't? where's the fun in that?

Screw this lame dual mandate bullshit! As history plainly shows, policymakers ignore it whenever they can get away with it, anyway.

As most here probably know, the idea of a "dual mandate" for the Fed was raised by a number of policymakers in the 1970s and accelerated in 1977.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monet...es-it-work.htm

After the House and the Senate spent a bit of time massaging the details, Jimmy signed Humphrey-Hawkins in 1978.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphr...Employment_Act

While, during 1978-1979, the Fed threw one side of the mandate pair overboard, and then the other! (After Miller, Jimmy's first disastrous Fed chair, blew inflation through the roof and Volcker was called upon in 1979 to come in and repair the damage, as painful a process as that obviously was.)

Now watch as factions of the Fed are unable to agree on what level of monetary policy tightening is warranted.

That's why it might be necessary to deep-six the dual mandate in favor of a duel mandate!

That's right, just like Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr resolved their dispute way back in 1804.

Match up the leading proponent of dovish policy against the chief hawkish policy supporter. Right on the front lawn of the Marriner S. Eccles building! (At least we'd finally get policy clarity.)

Close it to the public and put it on Pay-Per-View. Imagine the ratings!

.

Close it to the public and put it on Pay-Per-View. Imagine the ratings!

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

We could pay off the national debt!!!

We could pay off the national debt!!! Originally Posted by Tiny

no matter the size of box office

the government would lose money

unions, dimocrats and their insiders , pan handlers, the dim news media and lobbyists would do well however

so just because lustylad makes fun of you i can't? where's the fun in that? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I was pointing out that lustylad didn't have a clue, as usual, wtf he was commenting on.

In your case I was just working in a Netflix jab

...sending Janet Yellan on the apology rounds tour and exotic review circuit. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

She sounds sincere. Right?!?

She sounds sincere. Right?!?



Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Please explain how her analysis fucked up your life?

Please explain how her analysis fucked up your life? Originally Posted by WTF

PLEASE. You know about the American Rescue Plan, Fed policy, unaffordable housing, unaffordable gasoline, unaffordable food, and the price of goods and services going up faster than wages. Yeah there are a lot of reasons inflation is high besides Janet Yellen. But she’s as good a scapegoat as any.

PLEASE. You know about the American Rescue Plan, Fed policy, unaffordable housing, unaffordable gasoline, unaffordable food, and the price of goods and services going up faster than wages. Yeah there are a lot of reasons inflation is high besides Janet Yellen. But she’s as good a scapegoat as any. Originally Posted by Tiny

Only a retard expects an explanation on a meme.

Calculations for a soft-landing...

The Fed Isn't Fighting Inflation, It's Fueling It

The media would like to believe the Fed is doing everything in its power to fight inflation, but it’s not true.

Yes, the Fed raised rates by 50 basis points in May and, yes, the Fed is trying to sound as “hawkish” as possible. But these things are designed to dupe the public not to reduce inflation. Let me explain.

The current rate of inflation in the US is 8.6%, a 40-year high.

At its May meeting, the Fed raised its target Fed Funds Rate to 1%. Here’s the scoop:

“The Federal Reserve recently announced that it’s raising interest rates by half a percentage point, bumping the federal funds rate to a target range of 0.75-1.00%.” (The Spokesman-Review)

Got that? So the Fed’s rate is still a measly 1%. That’s what the media is trying to hide from you, and that’s why you might have to read 9 or 10 articles before you find a journalist who provides you with the actual rate.

Why are they hiding the rate?

Because the rate is 7.6% below the rate of inflation, so it doesn’t do a damn thing. It’s another public relations travesty dolled-up to look like serious monetary policy. But it’s a joke, and you can see it’s a joke.

Think of it like this: If I loaned you $100 at 1% interest– but inflation was running at 8%– I would lose 7 bucks per year, right?

Right. And that’s what the Fed is doing. When interest rates are set below the rate of inflation, then the Fed loses money on every loan. In other words, the Fed is providing a subsidy to the banks for borrowing money. Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous?

How would you like a deal like that? How would you like it if the Fed paid you interest on your credit card debt? You’d probably like that, right? But—if you were honest with yourself—you’d admit that it was a “gift”, because that’s what it is, a gift. The big banks are getting another handout from Uncle Sugar. That’s the whole deal in a nutshell.

Meanwhile, you and I and the other 300 million serfs, continue to pay a hefty 18% to the banks that are being subsidized by the Federal Reserve. Sound fair?


So, how much would the Fed have to hike rates if it really wanted to do its job? Check out this clip from an article at the Chicago Booth Review:

“The usual wisdom says that to reduce inflation, the Fed must raise the nominal interest rate by more than the inflation rate. In that way, the real interest rate rises, cooling the economy.

At a minimum, then, according to the usual wisdom, the interest rate should be above 8.5 percent. Now. The Taylor rule says the interest rate should be 2 percent (the Fed’s inflation target), plus 1.5 times how much inflation exceeds 2 percent, plus the long-term real rate. That means an interest rate of around 12 percent. Yet the Fed sits, and contemplates at most a percent or two by the end of the year.” (“Why Hasn’t the Fed Done More to Fight Inflation” Chicago Booth Review)

...