Want to see the political "timeline" of how we got here with our economy?

[Thrill_KIll]

Or rather, the problems involving our current economic problem.

Now, it does get a little biased here and there, BUT....everything in it is FACT. I did some googling to verify a few things, as I've learned you better have your facts straight before you post them here....lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY&feature=user

It's 11 mins long, but VERY informative.

[palo god]

Another good reason not to vote for Obama /thread.

[Loose]

It seems the candidate that isn't leading controls internet gossip. At least that's what it seems like to me.

Also I'm voting for Nader.

[Thrill_KIll]

It seems the candidate that isn't leading controls internet gossip. At least that's what it seems like to me.

Also I'm voting for Nader.


Ok, so putting together a stream of facts and making sure people understand it is gossip?

Wow. That word usage sure has changed since my day.

[Incanam]

This is pretty dumb.

[Malhavok]

Interesting, if true it's Keatings all over again :bang:

[Shaehl]

Very nice vid. Lays out everything simply and clearly.

[PrimalSign]

This is pretty dumb.

I thought the video was pretty biased, but if you're going to just call something dumb without putting forth your reasoning... well... it's not the video that looks dumb.

[palo god]

This is pretty dumb.

How is this dumb? it shows facts on how all of this happened, are you stupid?

[Skree]

Ok, so putting together a stream of facts and making sure people understand it is gossip?

Wow. That word usage sure has changed since my day.Welcome to my world. :lmao:

Skree

[Thrill_KIll]

This is pretty dumb.

How so? Dude, every thing in there is 100% fact. Are you saying fact is dumb?

Or is it dumb because you refuse to believe it?

www.google.com

There, you research it. Although, considering your reply was "This is pretty dumb." and not some retort showing what was lies in it, I'll guess you've already burned google up in a "MUST SAVE OBAMA" fashion.

amirite?



Edit:

And I am not meaning this in a way to support McCain. Again, I warned of the political bias in it. But the factual content is undeniable.

[Entreri]

You can list nothing except facts and still be extremely biased by leaving out facts, details and context. The media does this all the time.

[Incanam]

How so? Dude, every thing in there is 100% fact. Are you saying fact is dumb?

Or is it dumb because you refuse to believe it?

www.google.com

There, you research it. Although, considering your reply was "This is pretty dumb." and not some retort showing what was lies in it, I'll guess you've already burned google up in a "MUST SAVE OBAMA" fashion.

amirite?
Nah, I believe it. I don't see the point. It is clearly biased against Democrats, where, whether it was caused as a result of that 1995 bill or not, it shouldn't be. Because I don't believe that in 1995, anyone else said "this will cause a huge recession, don't do it." If all the Republicans said exactly that, then I will submit to you, but I will need proof of that first.


If this was just to give info on the bills that caused it, and not the party, well, then cool. (I only saw the first two minutes or so if it stops being biased, forgive me).

[Battle]

Went by way too fast to read a lot of the text. Also just more propaganda bullshit. I try not to trust information from somebody with an obvious agenda.

[Baralis]

It is sad to see so many that are willing to turn a blind eye here because this video does not fit their view.

The video as with most political discusions is a bit bias. With that being said I believe most of it to be accurate. While I have not looked into most of these claims myself it is parallel to what my father has been telling me for weeks. He follows politics much more closely then I do and he normaly has his facts straight. I have learned that I can normaly trust his judgment on such matters.

[Malhavok]

Well, after a few minutes of watching teh 100% facts...

Yah, lol. 109th Congress was controlled by the GOP. Shelby & Sarbanes headed the Banking subcomittee which the Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 never made it out of. McCain was a co-sponsor, but apparently did care enough about the issue to jot his name down for 2007. Either way, the bill never made it out of committee, so saying the Democrats blocked it is pretty intentionally misleading.

[Entreri]

You could basically make a video about Saddam that blames his parents for conceiving him. Not what his uncle did. Not that he loved the Nazis. Not that the world did nothing for so long. Not that the US didn't remove him from power in the first war. Then you get to the current war and blame his parents for conceiving him.

While it would be true that he could not have done what he did without being born, it isn't the real cause. The video very clearly displays the classic post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacy, I may have spelled that wrong.

It is true banks gave out loans to people that shouldn't have gotten them. That is A cause, not THE cause. For instance, if the mortgages were properly insured (they weren't due to deregulation) it wouldn't have been a problem when people defaulted on them.

Economies don't crash due to single problems.

[Dreadknought]

Pretty good video about the bills, and the corruption with Fannie and Freddia.

[Thrill_KIll]

Nah, I believe it. I don't see the point. It is clearly biased against Democrats, where, whether it was caused as a result of that 1995 bill or not, it shouldn't be. Because I don't believe that in 1995, anyone else said "this will cause a huge recession, don't do it." If all the Republicans said exactly that, then I will submit to you, but I will need proof of that first.


If this was just to give info on the bills that caused it, and not the party, well, then cool. (I only saw the first two minutes or so if it stops being biased, forgive me).


Well, as far as republicans go...you have two sides to pick from. Reagan's administration didn't even pay it any attention, but the republicans did fight it tooth and nail in '94 when the Clinton changes were proposed, and later passed. Remember, in the '94 and '95 years, Clinton enjoyed a democratic congress.

Nor is it a gaurantee that had Bush's (Jr.) proposed regulation of them been listened to back in '03, that this would have been avoided. However, that is a moot point since we'll never know now.

I'm not sure off hand about republican dissension to the act when it was proposed under Carter.

[Caffy]

Well, after a few minutes of watching teh 100% facts...

Yah, lol. 109th Congress was controlled by the GOP. Shelby & Sarbanes headed the Banking subcomittee which the Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 never made it out of. McCain was a co-sponsor, but apparently did care enough about the issue to jot his name down for 2007. Either way, the bill never made it out of committee, so saying the Democrats blocked it is pretty intentionally misleading.

I haven't looked into it much; the only refference I've seen said is was blocked in commity.

The video didn't put enough, really any, blaim on the Republicans, who IMO have to take their lumps for a good bit of this.

I blaim the Dems more, but that's like saying two guys just robbed you, and you blaim the one who hit you 5 times, less than the guy who hit you 6.

[Thrill_KIll]

You could basically make a video about Saddam that blames his parents for conceiving him. Not what his uncle did. Not that he loved the Nazis. Not that the world did nothing for so long. Not that the US didn't remove him from power in the first war. Then you get to the current war and blame his parents for conceiving him.

While it would be true that he could not have done what he did without being born, it isn't the real cause. The video very clearly displays the classic post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacy, I may have spelled that wrong.

It is true banks gave out loans to people that shouldn't have gotten them. That is A cause, not THE cause. For instance, if the mortgages were properly insured (they weren't due to deregulation) it wouldn't have been a problem when people defaulted on them.

Economies don't crash due to single problems.


You mean like not being forced to lend to high risk people?


And holy ramble, Batman....

[Entreri]

You mean like not being forced to lend to high risk people?


And holy ramble, Batman....

What?

I was just pointing out the gaps in your logic.

[Incanam]

but the republicans did fight it tooth and nail in '94 when the Clinton changes were proposed, and later passed.
Yes, but why did they fight it?

[Malhavok]

Well, as far as republicans go...you have two sides to pick from. Reagan's administration didn't even pay it any attention, but the republicans did fight it tooth and nail in '94 when the Clinton changes were proposed, and later passed. Remember, in the '94 and '95 years, Clinton enjoyed a democratic congress.

Nor is it a gaurantee that had Bush's (Jr.) proposed regulation of them been listened to back in '03, that this would have been avoided. However, that is a moot point since we'll never know now.

I'm not sure off hand about republican dissension to the act when it was proposed under Carter.

Well, keep in mind that the Bush administration did relax regulations on the CRA in 2005. It was 99.95% a business as usual change that just loosened the definition of small banks.

So much for the 2003 proposal to create a new agency. That bill, by the way, was the previously mentioned S-190 that never made it out of committee. A for effort, F for business as usual. Of course that applies to both parties. This bubble was a long time in the making an no one cared. Then again, I don't think anyone foresaw how far it would extend. Back in 2005 I certainly didn't think the housing bubble be bringing down major financial institutions.

[Thrill_KIll]

Well, after a few minutes of watching teh 100% facts...

Yah, lol. 109th Congress was controlled by the GOP. Shelby & Sarbanes headed the Banking subcomittee which the Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 never made it out of. McCain was a co-sponsor, but apparently did care enough about the issue to jot his name down for 2007. Either way, the bill never made it out of committee, so saying the Democrats blocked it is pretty intentionally misleading.

What???


Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, And this mean they couldn't even get a senate vote on it thanks to it being treated as a party issue, with a few republicans as well voting against it. Maybe that's why McCain didn't try again in '07 with the dem leadership being MUCH more entrenched?

It is hard to figure out why someone would be against it, until you start to see how deep in our government's pocket's people like Fannie Mae's hands were.

Edit:

The corruption, of course, being on both sides of the fence.

[Malhavok]

What???


Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, And this mean they couldn't even get a senate vote on it thanks to it being treated as a party issue, with a few republicans as well voting against it. Maybe that's why McCain didn't try again in '07 with the dem leadership being MUCH more entrenched?

It is hard to figure out why someone would be against it, until you start to see how deep in our government's pocket's people like Fannie Mae's hands were.

Talk about misleading......

Link?

All I know is the bill died in a committee that was chaired by the GOP with a majority of its members being GOP. You say it was a party-line vote "with a few republicans voting against it as well", which demonstrates it wasn't a party-line vote. That's like saying the bail out was party-line. Sure it was 2/3 1/3, but generally we call that bipartisan.

[losinglife]

lol at everyone trying to throw the blame on parties! They are basically one in the same. Ok so its biased against dems, but that really isnt the point of the video.

EDIT: hahah ok after going to the "updated" video it is clear this is anti-obama message. But that still shouldnt effect facts for facts.

[WhySoSerious]

We are seriously in a world of shit.


God damn it.

[Zadok]

This is only half of a story. Yes it may be true. but it tells a small portion of what really happened. This issue is due solely to GOP. look everywhere else but this fucking fox news special bullshit. I hate stupid people.

[Vanno]

Went by way too fast to read a lot of the text. Also just more propaganda bullshit. I try not to trust information from somebody with an obvious agenda.

Everyone has an agenda; that should preclude examining the facts supporting their agenda.

[blemm]

While I have not looked into most of these claims myself it is parallel to what my father has been telling me for weeks. He follows politics much more closely then I do and he normaly has his facts straight. I have learned that I can normaly trust his judgment on such matters.

Guys, I don't think you are all realizing what's going on here: Baralis's daddy says that this video is right; no need to look any further.

Link?

All I know is the bill died in a committee that was chaired by the GOP with a majority of its members being GOP. You say it was a party-line vote "with a few republicans voting against it as well", which demonstrates it wasn't a party-line vote. That's like saying the bail out was party-line. Sure it was 2/3 1/3, but generally we call that bipartisan.

Link?

This is only half of a story. Yes it may be true. but it tells a small portion of what really happened. This issue is due solely to GOP. look everywhere else but this fucking fox news special bullshit. I hate stupid people.

Look everywhere else?

How about here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE)? Or here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=democrats+caused+financial+crisis&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=)?

[Malhavok]

lol at everyone trying to throw the blame on parties! They are basically one in the same. Ok so its biased against dems, but that really isnt the point of the video.

EDIT: hahah ok after going to the "updated" video it is clear this is anti-obama message. But that still shouldnt effect facts for facts.

Well, the thing is the facts aren't facts. It says that the Democrats killed Bush's 2003 agency to oversee fannie and freddie. That's not even close to true, the bill died with out making it out of committee. It'd be like saying that the Democrats killed Bush's bail out plan.

Truth is neither party much supported increased regulations for their own reasons. If you've got to simplify it down to a party-line level the DNC did not support it because it got in the way of their agenda of pushing affordable housing. The GOP didn't support it because it got in the way of their agenda of not wanting big government. I will say the DNC has really been incredibly hypocratic on the whole issue. Pelosi in particular with all her "Bush and GOP deregulation put us in this mess". But trying to pretend the GOP supported Sarbanes-Oaxley like regulation on Fannie & Freddie is just as off-base.

I can't find any infos on why S-109 was killed in committee. All I know is there wasn't support from either party to enforce the regulations on the financial markets. Republicans have been at the forefront of challenging Sarbanes-Oxley and Hagel is far from a lock-step party-liner.

edit; blemm here's the link
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

As I said, I can't find a break down of who on the committee supported it. Since there's been an absence of either party stepping up on the issue both are going to try and spin it and place the blame on the other as they always do. I do give McCain some brownie points, although I've read some things which indicated (quite possibly more partisan spin inc) that he supported the bill late in its cycle. Problem is McCain backs the bail out, which for me totally eclipses any brownie points he picked up.

[Septus]

Or rather, the problems involving our current economic problem.

Now, it does get a little biased here and there, BUT....everything in it is FACT. I did some googling to verify a few things, as I've learned you better have your facts straight before you post them here....lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY&feature=user

It's 11 mins long, but VERY informative.

Yeah, this pretty much shows every single problem the Dems were responsible for. I didn't even click the link but I'm assuming it's "Burning the House Down."

Now all some one needs to do is put up a same video for the GOP and we can finally smoke these criminal parties out of our government.

Knowing our population though, they'll just ignore the video attacking their party and focus on the one attacking the opposition.

[Lictor]

Very nice vid. Lays out everything simply and clearly.

...then it always reeks of manipulation of facts and propaganda. The truth is always in the middle.

[Arkh]

I think all started when banks got a monopoly on money.

[Lictor]

I think all started when banks got a monopoly on money.

That is US case. AFAIK, control over euro (and other EU currencies) are kept in respective government(s) hands.

[losinglife]

Well, the thing is the facts aren't facts. It says that the Democrats killed Bush's 2003 agency to oversee fannie and freddie. That's not even close to true, the bill died with out making it out of committee. It'd be like saying that the Democrats killed Bush's bail out plan.

Truth is neither party much supported increased regulations for their own reasons. If you've got to simplify it down to a party-line level the DNC did not support it because it got in the way of their agenda of pushing affordable housing. The GOP didn't support it because it got in the way of their agenda of not wanting big government. I will say the DNC has really been incredibly hypocratic on the whole issue. Pelosi in particular with all her "Bush and GOP deregulation put us in this mess". But trying to pretend the GOP supported Sarbanes-Oaxley like regulation on Fannie & Freddie is just as off-base.

I can't find any infos on why S-109 was killed in committee. All I know is there wasn't support from either party to enforce the regulations on the financial markets. Republicans have been at the forefront of challenging Sarbanes-Oxley and Hagel is far from a lock-step party-liner.

edit; blemm here's the link
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

As I said, I can't find a break down of who on the committee supported it. Since there's been an absence of either party stepping up on the issue both are going to try and spin it and place the blame on the other as they always do. I do give McCain some brownie points, although I've read some things which indicated (quite possibly more partisan spin inc) that he supported the bill late in its cycle. Problem is McCain backs the bail out, which for me totally eclipses any brownie points he picked up.

Well i mean my point was, it stating the dems killed the bill wasnt really an important factor considering it was obviously slanted against them. However the bill never did pass (or get out of committee) wich is fact.

So i guess you can say its slanted facts :rolleyes:.

[Largion]

Is there a poll on who the Americans are going to vote on with the options Obama, McCain and outher?

[Schmaus]

Another good reason not to vote for Obama /thread.

i thought it was 8 years of republican that led to this financial crisis

..according to this republican atleast

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04B3Wl2qouw

for those of lack of attention , there is a picture showing my point very clearly.

[Schmaus]

It is sad to see so many that are willing to turn a blind eye here because this video does not fit their view.

The video as with most political discusions is a bit bias. With that being said I believe most of it to be accurate. While I have not looked into most of these claims myself it is parallel to what my father has been telling me for weeks. He follows politics much more closely then I do and he normaly has his facts straight. I have learned that I can normaly trust his judgment on such matters.

cause my father said so.?

show this link to your father , its republican explaining the financial crisis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04B3Wl2qouw

[The Cougar]

It's funny how Schmaus the Socialist suddenly became such a Ron Paul supporter.

[DipMode]

This is not easy to debunk. But if you still think that link wasn't on the level....

click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM)

and listen to what happened in their own words....

[Schmaus]

It's funny how Schmaus the Socialist suddenly became such a Ron Paul supporter.

what can i say

someone showed me about Ron Paul , have been doing research on him ever since and liked what i read and heard.
I am always open for debates and discussions , and always to learning new things and broadening my own perspective.

quote from Ron: the followers of obama and followers of me overlap eachother on a lot of opinions


To me they are very similar , both strong men , with a clear and sober view on the world. Both could do USA and the world a great service being in office.


What is funny is how a european regards socialism as a bad thing. (you dont have to read Karl Marx to apreciate it)

i suspect more that you are from USA posing as a Norwegian , and that you have been brought up fearing communism and socialism. With being so close to Cuba and good old Fidel.
Also the username of Cougar, a typical NA feline, adds to my suspicion, then again i might be wrong and this is pure presumption

(btw ....did you know that thanks to socialism in Cuba , the death rate of babys is lower than USA , thanks to socialism and healthcare)

[DipMode]

i thought it was 8 years of republican that led to this financial crisis

..according to this republican atleast

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04B3Wl2qouw

for those of lack of attention , there is a picture showing my point very clearly.

the last 6 years of congress have been controlled by democrats.

[Schmaus]

the last 6 years of congress have been controlled by democrats.

how about you look closer to the first few seconds of the link

Budget deteriorates 8.8 trillion dollar under REPUBLICAN policies.

i know politics like to change and interpret and put things out of context.

But i thought this video was clear

[Schmaus]

This is not easy to debunk. But if you still think that link wasn't on the level....

click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM)

and listen to what happened in their own words....

i have watched the whole thing

there are facts linking Democrats to Fannie Mae,

But the interpretation and the text added to the video are biast (no problem) but very manipulative .

It are these manipulative summaries of larger and complicated things that are most annoying , yet so common and practised in politics.
Thats why i prefer Obama and Ron Paul , i have not heard them slandering anyone ,(except out of context quotes)

if you feel like it look at this video from the republican man explaing the Financial disaster striking USA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04B3Wl2qouw

[Lictor]

i suspect more that you are from USA posing as a Norwegian , and that you have been brought up fearing communism and socialism. With being so close to Cuba and good old Fidel.
Also the username of Cougar, a typical NA feline, adds to my suspicion, then again i might be wrong and this is pure presumption

Schmaulock Holmes.

[Thrill_KIll]

Yeah, this pretty much shows every single problem the Dems were responsible for. I didn't even click the link but I'm assuming it's "Burning the House Down."

Now all some one needs to do is put up a same video for the GOP and we can finally smoke these criminal parties out of our government.

Knowing our population though, they'll just ignore the video attacking their party and focus on the one attacking the opposition.


OMG...THANK YOU SEPTUS!

Finally, someone who understands. Since Joe Average thinks this is a "Bush/GOP failure" because Obama and Pelosi told them, they are missing the bigger picture that while the republican party definitely had a hand in it (For example, I know Bush wanted to do some things to fix it in '03, but he should have went on national TV, and demanded congress fix this NOW. Had he made a huge public deal out of this, something might have gotten done), the democratic supporters thinking it is all republicans are stupid as well.

The video talks about the ROOT CAUSE of this, and how poor politics, and corruption allow it to become what it is today. The only damning thing about it towards Obama is pointing out those same CEOs from Fannie Mae are running his campaign for him. But to me it simply illustrates how both sides are corrupt, and if they don't like that fact, they can smoke thier change pipe all day long and look the other way I guess.

[Jezrith]

The video talks about the ROOT CAUSE of this, and how poor politics, and corruption allow it to become what it is today.


Yup, and if you truly ignore the spin in the video it shows yet again, that the blame for this falls right on the feet of government intervention in the market. Government passed laws interfering with the natural order of the market and then the Fed came along dumping cheap money into the same market, prices become artificially inflated, a bubble is created, said bubble explodes. Now, how anyone thinks its a good idea for the government do the exact same thing that created this problem in the first place (ie: dumping $700 billion into the market to loosen up asset leverages, in reality artificially setting prices for certain debt tranches) is totally beyond me.

[Septus]

Yup, and if you truly ignore the spin in the video it shows yet again, that the blame for this falls right on the feet of government intervention in the market. Government passed laws interfering with the natural order of the market and then the Fed came along dumping cheap money into the same market, prices become artificially inflated, a bubble is created, said bubble explodes. Now, how anyone thinks its a good idea for the government do the exact same thing that created this problem in the first place (ie: dumping $700 billion into the market to loosen up asset leverages, in reality artificially setting prices for certain debt tranches) is totally beyond me.

Some of the intervention (like CRA) definitely overstep the bounds of a natural free market, but it's a very grey line.

EVERY SINGLE RULE THAT OUR FINANCIALS WORKS BY "AFFECTS" THE FREE MARKET. Got that? I mean things like GAAP, capital requirements, security rating regulations, etc etc etc. Would you say this is "inhibiting the free market" too?

So this is the dilemma, what is "infringing on the free market," and what is necessary? Is Glass-Steagall infringement? I would say hell fucking no, but that didn't stop the government from repealing it while trumpeting de-regulation (I call it caving to lobbyists).

I'm sure some one will say capital requirements are too much regulation; pardon me while I laugh and ignore you.

[Desperado[1G]]

OMG...THANK YOU SEPTUS!

Finally, someone who understands. Since Joe Average thinks this is a "Bush/GOP failure" because Obama and Pelosi told them, they are missing the bigger picture that while the republican party definitely had a hand in it (For example, I know Bush wanted to do some things to fix it in '03, but he should have went on national TV, and demanded congress fix this NOW. Had he made a huge public deal out of this, something might have gotten done), the democratic supporters thinking it is all republicans are stupid as well.

The video talks about the ROOT CAUSE of this, and how poor politics, and corruption allow it to become what it is today. The only damning thing about it towards Obama is pointing out those same CEOs from Fannie Mae are running his campaign for him. But to me it simply illustrates how both sides are corrupt, and if they don't like that fact, they can smoke thier change pipe all day long and look the other way I guess.

Dude, ron jeremy looks so fucking creepy

[Jezrith]

Some of the intervention (like CRA) definitely overstep the bounds of a natural free market, but it's a very grey line.


Government action artificially increased demand for real estate, I can't see how the line could be any more red than that.


EVERY SINGLE RULE THAT OUR FINANCIALS WORKS BY "AFFECTS" THE FREE MARKET. Got that? I mean things like GAAP, capital requirements, security rating regulations, etc etc etc. Would you say this is "inhibiting the free market" too?


They all may effect the free market in some manner, true. But whether or not they artificially manipulate the pricing in that market is a different story.


So this is the dilemma, what is "infringing on the free market," and what is necessary?


I agree it is a dilemma, and by default I would say most regulations infringe on the free market, unless proven otherwise. I'm willing to concede that some regulations, say regulations that deal with transparency, can in fact make the market even more accurate and efficient, but those types of regulations are few and far between.



I'm sure some one will say capital requirements are too much regulation; pardon me while I laugh and ignore you.


Why would you say capital requirements are a requirement? (I'm not saying they are or aren't just curious about your opinion)

[Septus]

Why would you say capital requirements are a requirement? (I'm not saying they are or aren't just curious about your opinion)

Well, without spamming an essay, the most recent example would be speculation via unmonitored markets (ie. ICE - intercontinental exchange). Without capital requirements, I can just grab as much paper as possible and speculate any which way I want.

This exacerbates wild swings in the market. Ideally the market would behave mathematically, with every stat moving according to the underlying fundamentals. But we also have a human element to deal with (ie. political strife, war, fear, etc). This means that the way a stock SHOULD move is not always the way it DOES move.

At the end of the day though, we would want stability (which is why we have a Federal Reserve system). At the same time though, we want accurate pricing/valuation; and the best/only way we've found to do that so far is an open market.

[Thrill_KIll]

;1761994']Dude, ron jeremy looks so fucking creepy


He's a prick, but loyal member of SF 'till death.

:sly:

[Killuminati]

That is US case. AFAIK, control over euro (and other EU currencies) are kept in respective government(s) hands.

Is that why you guys have something called the European Central Bank and the Euro?