The 2007 Subprime Mortgage crisis

companies we given loans to avoid worldwide depression with 30% unemployment etc etc. Now do you understand?

 

insanity of course. Hillary and Bernie are libsocialists. They endorsed each other and are in same party. This is very very common knowledge

 

that was in 18th Century when you could raise a standing army in a week and it took months to cross the ocean. Do you understand now??

 

lunacy, liberalism is based on big govt while conservatism is based on freedom from govt. Do you understand?

 

insane!! they say they are socialists and nobody doubts them. They are for huge govt so they are socialists. 1+1=2

 

if they did that they would lose money so obviously they don't do that!! 1+1=2

 

most common definition is liberals favor bigger and bigger govt. For example, Trump cuts taxes while liberals want to raise them. 1+1=2

 

Trump cuts taxes, and increases spending. Lol.

Republicans LOVE them some big government.

 

they can call themselves whatever they like, but they are assuredly not liberal.

 

No, liberals are for freedoms. The clue is in the name.

 

If your ideas/politicies depend upon the proceeds of capitalism, then they are NOT socialist ideas or policies. They are simply preferential expenditure of capitalist profit.

 

They do lose money, only because they're the ones issuing it, it just causes inflation for all the other money they've printed.

It would be like a company has 100 shares of stock, and then the CEO decides to issue 20 new shares to his brother-in-law at a really cheap price. Obviously everyone else's shares will get diluted in value, and they will not be happy. (If they find out)

 

Of course if true the socialists would be in the Republican party, not the Democratic party. See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

If they call themselves liberal and everyone agrees then they meet the exact definition of liberal. 1+1=2. Do you need to be taught more???

 

insanity, the definition comes from usage not derivation. Do you need to be taught more?

 

total gibberish. can you restate in useful english.

 

if so why so afraid to tell us where?? when???
as always you know less than nothing about economics!

Based on those numbers, you could call the Fed the most profitable bank in the world. It's generating more income than America's top five banks -- JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Wells Fargo(WFC), Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Goldman Sachs (GS) -- combined.

 

And conservatism apparently. It is a demonstrable fact republicans LOVE them some big government. They ALWAYS increase its size and power.

 

Some Republicans. About half of them.

That's still better than the Democrats track record.

 

Why don't you go back and reread the post. It looks like you quoted the post before I was finished with it.

 

No it isn’t. Republicans are no different. As evidenced by them growing government size and power whenever they are in power.

 

The federal government is effectively subsidizing this. They collect taxes in the form of Federal Reserve Notes, therefore the inflationary cost in born out of the Treasury's purchasing power.

james M, do you realize that the Federal Reserve Bank has to be "profitable"? If they didn't keep with normal market profits on capital, it would lead to inflation.
If the Fed issues $1 billion new money and buys up $1 billion in assets, but doesn't collect any interest on those assets, and then later sells those assets back into the market for $1 billion, cancels that money and reduces the money supply back to what it was before, then during that time they effectively pulled $1 billion worth of assets out of the market that no one was able to collect interest on. That's going to lead to inflation, even though there is the same amount of money before, because they have effectively pumped money out to pay people not to collect normal interest on that asset. No one is going to accept money to buy their asset and then much later buy that asset back for the same amount of money, without that money being devalued in the eyes of those willing to sell their assets.
james M, do you understand this?

The assets that the Fed manages are (in a very theoretical indirect sense) owned by the people who hold US dollars. If the Fed is "profitable" it only helps prevent inflation (or theoretically even deflation if those dollars get more valuable).

To make the analogy again, it's a bit like owning stock in a company (at least when it comes to how much that stock is worth). It could be said that someone who holds a share of stock has a tiny amount of equity in that company. It's a similar relationship with US dollars.
If that company is not profitable, your share of stock is going to lose value. People don't want to hold an asset that's not accruing interest of gaining value, so there will be a discount rate. For example, your share of stock might have $100 worth of equity in the company, but a rational investor will only pay $95 for it, because his money is going to be sitting there not doing anything.
Same thing with the Fed. If that dollar represents $1 current equity, and the Fed is making no profit, people are going to treat it like it's only worth 95 cents. Inflation.

All this might be a little complicated and complex for you.

 

Is that just because of wars, or are you claiming they grow government size in other ways too?

 

Yes they grow in other ways, as well as wars.

 

Trump cut taxes and would cut a lot more if he had the political support. Democrats are supporting Sanders, an open socialist. See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?