5 trillion in student debt

vantexan

Well-Known Member
tom cotton is an extremist didnt he call for americans to be bombed a few years ago?

debt is to capitalism what hell is to christianity.
He's pointing out the obvious. Someone has to pay the bill. If not the people who got the loans then the taxpayers will. And we're already in serious debt.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
He's pointing out the obvious. Someone has to pay the bill. If not the people who got the loans then the taxpayers will. And we're already in serious debt.
cool then im sure hes against giving money to israel and wars with russia and china? he must be leading the charge to cut spending on war every year and calling for taxes on the rich right?
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member

did the banks pay it back?

Yes.

From your article:

"Recently, a pair of PhD students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City tried to assess the total size of the Fed’s commitments—not just loans made, but asset purchases as well. The bottom line: a Federal Reserve bailout commitment in excess of $29 trillion.

That figure has, in turn, been criticized by economist James Hamilton who argued, incredibly, that the Fed’s bailout commitment under one facility was zero because all the money was paid back."



“Felkerson [one of the UM-KC students] takes the gross new lending under the Term Auction Facility each week from 2007 to 2010 and adds these numbers together to arrive at a cumulative total that comes to $3.8 trillion. To make the number sound big, of course you want to count only the money going out and pay no attention to the rate at which it is coming back in. If instead you were to take the net new lending under the TAF each week over this period-- that is, subtract each week's loan repayment from that week's new loan issue-- and add those net loan amounts together across all weeks, you would arrive at a cumulative total that equals exactly zero. The number is zero because every loan was repaid, and there are no loans currently outstanding under this program. But zero isn't quite as fun a number with which to try to rouse the rabble.”
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
Yes.

From your article:

"Recently, a pair of PhD students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City tried to assess the total size of the Fed’s commitments—not just loans made, but asset purchases as well. The bottom line: a Federal Reserve bailout commitment in excess of $29 trillion.

That figure has, in turn, been criticized by economist James Hamilton who argued, incredibly, that the Fed’s bailout commitment under one facility was zero because all the money was paid back."



“Felkerson [one of the UM-KC students] takes the gross new lending under the Term Auction Facility each week from 2007 to 2010 and adds these numbers together to arrive at a cumulative total that comes to $3.8 trillion. To make the number sound big, of course you want to count only the money going out and pay no attention to the rate at which it is coming back in. If instead you were to take the net new lending under the TAF each week over this period-- that is, subtract each week's loan repayment from that week's new loan issue-- and add those net loan amounts together across all weeks, you would arrive at a cumulative total that equals exactly zero. The number is zero because every loan was repaid, and there are no loans currently outstanding under this program. But zero isn't quite as fun a number with which to try to rouse the rabble.”
theres another documentary named the best one illustrating the fraud in 2008 crisis and i think it came to around the same number but i could be wrong

im glad youre back!!!
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
WOW, I could get double my bonus points that way.
1712609031266.png

 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member

did the banks pay it back?
Yes.

From your article:

"Recently, a pair of PhD students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City tried to assess the total size of the Fed’s commitments—not just loans made, but asset purchases as well. The bottom line: a Federal Reserve bailout commitment in excess of $29 trillion.

That figure has, in turn, been criticized by economist James Hamilton who argued, incredibly, that the Fed’s bailout commitment under one facility was zero because all the money was paid back."



“Felkerson [one of the UM-KC students] takes the gross new lending under the Term Auction Facility each week from 2007 to 2010 and adds these numbers together to arrive at a cumulative total that comes to $3.8 trillion. To make the number sound big, of course you want to count only the money going out and pay no attention to the rate at which it is coming back in. If instead you were to take the net new lending under the TAF each week over this period-- that is, subtract each week's loan repayment from that week's new loan issue-- and add those net loan amounts together across all weeks, you would arrive at a cumulative total that equals exactly zero. The number is zero because every loan was repaid, and there are no loans currently outstanding under this program. But zero isn't quite as fun a number with which to try to rouse the rabble.”
theres another documentary named the best one illustrating the fraud in 2008 crisis and i think it came to around the same number but i could be wrong

Perhaps that documentary is also misleading.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
A former finance minister of Greece is probably the last guy on Earth that I'd want to talk to about this stuff. I'm sure he comes highly recommended by your information sources that would like to see the west burn.
you got it wrong, it was the bankers who wanted to see the west burn which includes him.

ask michael hudson.
 
Top