" Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves."

- Norm Franz, Money and Wealth in the New Millennium

Wealth of Americans plummets 40 percent during Obama's reign in office
According to federal figures, the average American household's wealth declined by a staggering 40 percent since President Obama took office, wiping out nearly 20 years' worth of wealth accumulation and growth; middle-class families bore the brunt of that decline, by the way (what else is new?).

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036157_Americans_wealth_economy.html#ixzz1yqEZ4Mvb


Learn more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/036157_Americans_wealth_economy.html

from the site

In real numbers, that's a decline from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010, which is about where Americans were in 1992.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036157_Americans_wealth_economy.html#ixzz1yqGmGe1w



OBAMA took office in 2009

any numbers to report the decline since he actually took office,,,?

According to federal figures, the average American household's wealth declined by a staggering 40 percent since President Obama took office.


--->wiping out nearly 20 years' worth of wealth accumulation and growth; middle-class families bore the brunt of that decline, by the way (what else is new?).<-------

1992 to 2012 = 20 Years of wealth accumulation... wiped out.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036157_Americans_wealth_economy.html#ixzz1yqHmmq63

I saw the sentence but the actual NUMBERS given are from 2007 til 2010,,,


IM asking for the actual NUMBERS between 2009 and today,,,,

the feds survey mentioned was conducted for the years of 2007 thru 2010

We are currently in the middle of the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world.

this may be true

its not true that the start was in 2009 though,,,

It started when we started shifting mfg jobs overseas to China.

outsourcing sucks,,,

That would be nice. I don't know what the reference to 2007 - 2010 was supposed to mean.

Im not sure either. I read that the Feds do a survey of consumer finances every three years and the figures in the article seem to be referring to those numbers. The last survey was in 2010, the next should be in 2013.

Continued abuse of our money under Obozo admin!


Monetary Policy Will Not Stimulate the Economy

by Joe Cobb | Jun 25th 2012

The Federal Reserve has created billions of dollars in new bank reserves over the past two years, mostly as part of its bailout of the banks that were exposed to default on mortgage bonds issued by Fannie and Freddie. Those unsound, even toxic bonds threatened to bring down the international banking system because banks depend on the ability to sell their assets if depositors and creditors demand withdrawals.

A bank is just a big "balance sheet." It has assets on one side supporting (balancing) the liabilities it owes to depositors and creditors. If the asset side drops in value, the bank becomes insolvent, just the same as if it had overextended itself by issuing too many liabilities.

Homeowners who invested in big houses, which declined in market value when the housing bubble popped, face a similar problem. The homeowner might still be able to pay the mortgage, but the house is "upside down." The homeowner cannot sell it or even refinance it. Many homeowners who wanted their home to be an investment that goes up in value decided to walk away instead to paying the mortgage, even though paying was possible.

Not all the bonds and mortgages held by the banks were bad assets. But some were bad and potential buyers did not know which ones. If a bank wanted to sell a good bond it held among its assets to get cash to pay a creditor, it had to depend on someone else willing to buy the bond. When the bond market freezes up, because nobody knows whether particular bonds are good or bad, even the good bonds lose value; they can only be sold at a deep discount.

The Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP) was supposed to be a switch-out program for bad bonds, similar to the Savings and Loan relief program in the 1980s. The federal government became the owner of over $150 billion in commercial real estate when insolvent S&Ls were closed. The government held the real estate in a trust fund, and within 10 years the real estate had all been resold to investors and the federal government made a profit.

Regardless of whether anyone should be bailed out, the idea was to have a temporary program to provide repayments to investors who had put up the money before the collapse. In the S&L bailout, the investors were considered to be "little people" covered by deposit insurance. In the TARP bailout, the investors were the biggest and wealthiest financiers. But the Bush-Obama bailout was sold on the claim that those banks were too big to fail because smaller banks and families depended on the smooth functioning of the payments system. Whether that claim was true, or just special interest pleading by rich insiders, will have to wait for historians in the future.
The Difference between "Bailout" and "Stimulus"

The bailouts were logical "soft landing" schemes, allowing troubled banks and S&Ls to pay off depositors and creditors. For some, it was a breathing period for the asset markets to recover confidence, so that bonds and real estate could recover some of their pre-crisis value in the resale markets. But the "quantitative easing" of the Federal Reserve, boosting liquid bank reserves today to the highest level in history, is something else. It is an example of a discredited macroeconomic theory, identified as Keynesian but equally embraced by Monetarists who admire Milton Friedman.

In the 1930s, a theory of business cycles was embraced in Britain and the U.S. that focused attention on the spending of consumers as the main engine of economic growth. When a depression came along, the theory said "spend more money" to pull out of it. We see this today when journalists and economists say the problem of the Great Recession today is due to "insufficient demand."

Keynesians would say the important "tool" is to manipulate interest rates closer to zero, and businesses will borrow and spend more. Tax measures, like cutting social security taxes for workers (those who still have jobs), are supposed to put more cash in people's pockets so they will spend. Of course, most people just pay down their credit cards with extra cash in a troublesome economic climate; they don't spend more. Tax cuts can only help stimulate the economy if they provide incentives for more work and production, so it would have been better to have cut social security taxes on employers. Employers hire and retain workers on the basis of the costs of labor. Cutting the employers' tax would have made it less costly to hire or retain workers.

Monetarists, following Milton Friedman, claim that interest rates are not the key to booms and busts. Instead, the quantity of bank reserves, which are pyramided in the M-1 and M-2 numbers, are more important. If the money supply increases during a recession, the first effect may be to boost spending by everyone who has more of the new money. Again, the Keynesian model of boosting spending to cure "insufficient demand" is used to justify bailing out the economy.

With interest rates near zero, and quantitative easing flooding banks with reserves, the problems with this macroeconomic theory ought to be examined. Milton Friedman and the monetarists always said that after a money supply stimulus had created a recovery, the next effect of the new money would be an increase in inflation.

We have not yet seen any recovery, and we are waiting with fear for the second stage of the prediction – a new burst of price-increase inflation. Wait for it.

Typical....one reason why the abuse can continue...