Quote:
Originally Posted by host
samcol, the largest asset of the households in the US, far and away, is the equity hled in the homes that they live in. The equity held is the difference between what the homeowner or mortgagee, would net after a sale, and after proceeds of the sale first pay off all liens on the property and sales and closing expenses.
My understanding of what you and candidate Paul are advocating, is a "reform" which would eliminate fractional reserve banking. Mortgage loans approved to prospective home buyers would come from cash reserves of lenders, in the case of lending banks. from a portion of deposits not reserved to protect a bank from a sudden "run" on it's deposits, a series of numerous, unforseen withdrawals by depositors.
Since real estate values correlate directly to liquidity, the ease and availability of mortgage loans, how would ending of fractional reserve banking, even if it was a gradual...say five year process, preserve liquidity, especially since Americans support a negaitve savings rate? Wouldn't it be more likely that ending fractional reserve banking, in addition to pressures from mortgage loan resets and falling housing prices already in progress, would accelerate foreclosures and transfer an impressively large portion of housing assets from current householder/mortgagees....to wealthy investors?
Paul's intent is to reverse the quantity money supply. If that is done or even aniticpated, all assets will be worth less. Less government regulation will leave everyone to build on what they already have, or don't have. It offers an enormous headstart for the wealthiest and most connected, to take what is left in the hands of the less wealthy, 90 percent.
Call the "Paul movement", what is. It's a group of people in good health with good future income prospects who do not want to pay taxes.
Be careful crossing the street, avoid touching your face with your fingers, wash your hands often, avoid crowds and people who sneeze without covering their mouths. If you succeed in electing Ron Paul, you're going to have to stay healthy to earn and keep all that money!
|
What is the better choice, a gradual removal of the fractional reserve or a never ending life of despotism with the federal reserve that no amount of social welfare programs can ever cure?
There is no doubt removing the Fed will definetly cause rocky economic times, but how is that worse than a complete crash that seems inevitable? Ron Paul's plan is to remove the Fed gradually as well mandatory participation in social programs. Abrubtly ending both instantly would be nothing more than a government manufactured crash rather than the assured crash that is coming.
I don't see how me being able to spend or save more of my money as a bad thing. I can't help it if someone doesn't practice sound personal financing, but if we let the government handle it we are all stuck. I have little faith in them getting us benefits or saving us in a crisis. Social Security has been robbed and FEMA's track record is horrible (New Orleans anyone?). The people running the show have proved time and time again that they cannot handle our money properly.