Money

[JohnBirchSociety]

Guys, this has been a good thread in learning new knowledge. I do thank all who do contribute their own insight regarding currency of our nation.

Thank you. May I ask, do you agree with what I've said?

[JohnBirchSociety]

There are many factors that affect the economy. What backs currency is only one factor. The only reason I am oppose to gold-silver backing of money is that scarce commodity backing of currency cannot grow in the same proportions with a growing economy – otherwise in a stable non moving economy it works fine.

One of the factors that effects economy is called money supply. In the USA, this is the number of dollars allowed to circulate. The money supply has more to do with boom and bust economy than what backs the dollar – although they are related. In general the greater the money supply the more backing of dollars in liquid assets are needed to prevent a bust. The less money supply in the economy the more non-liquid assists can be used. One problem occurs when there is the money supply increasing in the economy without assets – this is the essence of inflation.

Another problem is shifting assets from liquid to non-liquid without altering the money supply, which is in part what we are currently seeing.

In the USA we have found the politics does not mix well with the overseeing of our monitory system. That is why we went to the Federal Reserve System. But the Federal Reserve System does not prevent politics from becoming an issue in policy.

I submit that the only way to maintain a stable system is to have government control and accountability. At least then an educated and intelligent body of interested citizens can correct problems through elections. But it appears to me that we do not have an educated and intelligent body of interested citizens in the USA. What we have are citizens that want someone else to fix for them whatever is wrong.

The Traveler

Inflation is, and always has been, an increase in currency supply.

Real money does grow in conjunction with Population growth and economic growth. Such was the case between 1790-1890 in the United States. During this period we had the largest growth in human standard of living in the history of the world, combined, to that point.

It has only been when we have stepped outside of the GOD ordained mandates of the Constitution, that we have encountered severe trouble as we are in right now.

This trouble will never be resolved, absent real money in the hands of the people. Never.

"Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of EVIL."

-D&C 98:6-7, emphasis added

Friends, don't we all get it? Don't we all get it?!!!

GOD himself has declared that "whatsoever is more or less than this" (The Constitution) "cometh of evil". Fiat currency is forbidden by our Constitution. The Federal Reserve System is forbidden. The Treasury department buying banks is forbidden. This is all evil.

The solution is to return, in as timely a manner as possible, to REAL money, and the Constitution. Absent this, we are going to fail.

[Traveler]

How do you peg a paper currency to the whole GDP? I'm not sure I even understand. Who makes the currency? How much currency will be produced? Who makes the decision whether to make more currency or get rid of excess? Isn't every currency redeemable for a given portion of the GDP anyway? I mean, if GDP is $13 trillion, then $1 is redeemable for 1/13 trillionth of GDP, and the purchaser gets to decide which 1/13 trillionth he buys. Right? But this is only good if people have confidence that the dollar is redeemable for 1/13 trillionth of the GDP. Thus far, this is nothing more than the very fiat system we have now. Am I wrong? What is the difference?

-a-train

Money is nothing more than a medium of exchange to make barter easier and more efficient. All exchanges are a result of some type of bartering. In any exchange there is something asked and something given. Any money regardless of what it is backed with is only as good as its barter power or value in exchange.

If you have been paying attention we have already discussed the problem of basing the value of money directly to a limited commodity. The wealth of any society can only grow by the amount allowed for that limited commodity to back the currency.

Let’s take the example of a bank that has 1 million dollars in deposits. If the bank loans out all the money then no one will be able to withdraw any of their savings until some of the investments have paybacks. But if the assets of the bank double and are now worth 2 million dollars they should be able to use those assets to make more bank loans and to handle withdraws. To force the bank to hold all assets to the initial value of 1 million is insane. The opposite is also true if the bank assets drop in value then the amounts in loans and withdraws must drop as well. The assets of the bank must balance with their business. That is the loans and customers ability to withdraw.

Gold is a liquid asset but should not be considered the only asset of an economy. All that I am saying is that all assets (including long term non-liquid assets) should be considered in what the real value of money is in a free and open economy. Gold has value but that value is finite. Gold value can bubble just has housing has and just like the housing bubble a gold bubble can burst. We are talking about a means to barter – What I am saying is that if the economy is free it must reflect all the assets of that economy. That does not mean that there will not be up’s and down’s. It means that what causes the up’s and down’s is the aggregate wealth of that economy and not any single element of that economy.

We already do this in a sense – if you go to borrow money they will consider your assets. Perhaps you primary asset is your job and your skills. Your job is not gold and your ability to borrow (barter) should not be based on how much gold you have but all the assets you have. Part of your assets is your history of borrowing. That is an asset in business as well. Your abilities are worth something – and in my mind it is worth more than gold. I am always shocked when someone thinks only gold is a worthy asset. Perhaps I am wrong – maybe that says more about you than I thought J

The Traveler

[Traveler]

...

Real money does grow in conjunction with Population growth and economic growth. Such was the case between 1790-1890 in the United States. During this period we had the largest growth in human standard of living in the history of the world, combined, to that point.

First off I do not believe 1790 to 1890 is the greatest example of economic growth. Secondly I find it interesting that you picked the year 1890 to end your example period – which just happens to be the date that began a period considered by many economist the second most economic disastrous period in US history – current crises included. Bad example.

The Traveler

[JohnBirchSociety]

First off I do not believe 1790 to 1890 is the greatest example of economic growth. Secondly I find it interesting that you picked the year 1890 to end your example period – which just happens to be the date that began a period considered by many economist the second most economic disastrous period in US history – current crises included. Bad example.

The Traveler

Why was it so bad? It wasn't because of the Gold / Silver Standard, it was because we were trending away from it, culminating in the ultimate financial disaster in American history, the creation of the Federal Reserve System.

The First 100 years in American history saw the greatest increase in human prosperity in human history, to that point. You should read "The 5,000 Year Leap".

There is a reason for that, even with the Great Civil War during that time frame.

[a-train]

If you have been paying attention we have already discussed the problem of basing the value of money directly to a limited commodity. The wealth of any society can only grow by the amount allowed for that limited commodity to back the currency.

I have been paying attention, I am simply saying the plain truth, that this statement is wrong. A society on a gold standard can gain tremendous wealth without any growth in the supply of gold.

Let’s take the example of a bank that has 1 million dollars in deposits. If the bank loans out all the money then no one will be able to withdraw any of their savings until some of the investments have paybacks. But if the assets of the bank double and are now worth 2 million dollars they should be able to use those assets to make more bank loans and to handle withdraws. To force the bank to hold all assets to the initial value of 1 million is insane. The opposite is also true if the bank assets drop in value then the amounts in loans and withdraws must drop as well. The assets of the bank must balance with their business. That is the loans and customers ability to withdraw.

This is almost a seperate conversation about bank reserve requirements. For now, I'll stick to the conversation about the currency itself.

Gold is a liquid asset but should not be considered the only asset of an economy.

Certainly not, and a gold standard does not do so.

All that I am saying is that all assets (including long term non-liquid assets) should be considered in what the real value of money is in a free and open economy.

All assets ARE considered in a free economy. I don't understand.

Gold has value but that value is finite.

I cannot think of anything besides those spiritual things that cannot be bought with money that is of infinite value. Of course gold has a finite value and a finite supply, but the same is true for all temporal things in this world.

Gold value can bubble just has housing has and just like the housing bubble a gold bubble can burst.

This is a relative notion. Are you saying that with a gold standard the money supply can still be inflated and deflated? I'm not sure I understand. If so, that is true, but the inflation and deflation is not under the control of some elite group or government.

We are talking about a means to barter – What I am saying is that if the economy is free it must reflect all the assets of that economy.

How does an economy not reflect all of its own assets? I'm lost here.

That does not mean that there will not be up’s and down’s. It means that what causes the up’s and down’s is the aggregate wealth of that economy and not any single element of that economy.

A fiat currency certainly would be a single element that causes ups and downs in pricing and can effect economic growth and wealth.

We already do this in a sense – if you go to borrow money they will consider your assets. Perhaps you primary asset is your job and your skills. Your job is not gold and your ability to borrow (barter) should not be based on how much gold you have but all the assets you have. Part of your assets is your history of borrowing. That is an asset in business as well. Your abilities are worth something – and in my mind it is worth more than gold. I am always shocked when someone thinks only gold is a worthy asset. Perhaps I am wrong – maybe that says more about you than I thought.

This sounds like a digression to the topic of lending practices. With a gold standard, people aren't given loans strictly based on how much gold they have and a gold standard does not somehow make a man's skills valueless. I'm not sure where this is supposed to be going.

Let's get back to simple basics. Tell me about who would create the money supply you are suggesting, how they would peg it to the GDP, how they will decide how much currency to produce, and so forth.

-a-train

[JohnBirchSociety]

Money is nothing more than a medium of exchange to make barter easier and more efficient. All exchanges are a result of some type of bartering. In any exchange there is something asked and something given. Any money regardless of what it is backed with is only as good as its barter power or value in exchange.

If you have been paying attention we have already discussed the problem of basing the value of money directly to a limited commodity. The wealth of any society can only grow by the amount allowed for that limited commodity to back the currency.

Let’s take the example of a bank that has 1 million dollars in deposits. If the bank loans out all the money then no one will be able to withdraw any of their savings until some of the investments have paybacks. But if the assets of the bank double and are now worth 2 million dollars they should be able to use those assets to make more bank loans and to handle withdraws. To force the bank to hold all assets to the initial value of 1 million is insane. The opposite is also true if the bank assets drop in value then the amounts in loans and withdraws must drop as well. The assets of the bank must balance with their business. That is the loans and customers ability to withdraw.

Gold is a liquid asset but should not be considered the only asset of an economy. All that I am saying is that all assets (including long term non-liquid assets) should be considered in what the real value of money is in a free and open economy. Gold has value but that value is finite. Gold value can bubble just has housing has and just like the housing bubble a gold bubble can burst. We are talking about a means to barter – What I am saying is that if the economy is free it must reflect all the assets of that economy. That does not mean that there will not be up’s and down’s. It means that what causes the up’s and down’s is the aggregate wealth of that economy and not any single element of that economy.

We already do this in a sense – if you go to borrow money they will consider your assets. Perhaps you primary asset is your job and your skills. Your job is not gold and your ability to borrow (barter) should not be based on how much gold you have but all the assets you have. Part of your assets is your history of borrowing. That is an asset in business as well. Your abilities are worth something – and in my mind it is worth more than gold. I am always shocked when someone thinks only gold is a worthy asset. Perhaps I am wrong – maybe that says more about you than I thought J

The Traveler

Real money is much more than a medium of exchange. Real money has the following characteristics:

1) It is relatively scarce

2) It is easily divisable

3) It is relatively durable

4) It has intrinsic value

It doesn't have to be Gold or Silver. Any medium that meets the criteria can be considered real money.

In the United States, under our Constitution, the accepted legal tender is to be Gold and Silver coin. This is how GOD intended it. And there is a reason for that specification. There is a reason why the Founders said Congress would "coin" money rather than "print" it.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I have been paying attention, I am simply saying the plain truth, that this statement is wrong. A society on a gold standard can gain tremendous wealth without any growth in the supply of gold.

This is almost a seperate conversation about bank reserve requirements. For now, I'll stick to the conversation about the currency itself.

Certainly not, and a gold standard does not do so.

All assets ARE considered in a free economy. I don't understand.

I cannot think of anything besides those spiritual things that cannot be bought with money that is of infinite value. Of course gold has a finite value and a finite supply, but the same is true for all temporal things in this world.

This is a relative notion. Are you saying that with a gold standard the money supply can still be inflated and deflated? I'm not sure I understand. If so, that is true, but the inflation and deflation is not under the control of some elite group or government.

How does an economy not reflect all of its own assets? I'm lost here.

A fiat currency certainly would be a single element that causes ups and downs in pricing and can effect economic growth and wealth.

This sounds like a digression to the topic of lending practices. With a gold standard, people aren't given loans strictly based on how much gold they have and a gold standard does not somehow make a man's skills valueless. I'm not sure where this is supposed to be going.

Let's get back to simple basics. Tell me about who would create the money supply you are suggesting, how they would peg it to the GDP, how they will decide how much currency to produce, and so forth.

-a-train

I'd love to see the answers to this as well. n/t

[Traveler]

Real money is much more than a medium of exchange. Real money has the following characteristics:

1) It is relatively scarce

2) It is easily divisable

3) It is relatively durable

4) It has intrinsic value

It doesn't have to be Gold or Silver. Any medium that meets the criteria can be considered real money.

In the United States, under our Constitution, the accepted legal tender is to be Gold and Silver coin. This is how GOD intended it. And there is a reason for that specification. There is a reason why the Founders said Congress would "coin" money rather than "print" it.

Point: if you think anything allowed under our original Constitution was how G-d intended it - then let’s bring back slavery. You could be my slave - sound good to you?

Question: If gold is to back the dollar how much gold should there be in one dollar and can that amount ever change? And how can the money supply increase to correspond to the wealth of the society if the amount of gold in each dollar is fixed then so are the number of dollars in circulation fixed forever. If we change the amount of gold per dollar then your argument of gold standard is suspect – if we can’t change the amount of gold per dollar then your argument that a growing economy and population is still workable is suspect because the gold value to asset value is off the charts. You must diminish the value of other assets or inflate the value of gold and inflating or deflating the value of gold is no different than inflating or deflating the value of any other kind of paper money. Do you not remember it is the power to barter that maintains the value of money? Restrict the barter from either side of the barter equation and the system will fail.

The Traveler

[JohnBirchSociety]

Point: if you think anything allowed under our original Constitution was how G-d intended it - then let’s bring back slavery. You could be my slave - sound good to you?

Question: If gold is to back the dollar how much gold should there be in one dollar and can that amount ever change? And how can the money supply increase to correspond to the wealth of the society if the amount of gold in each dollar is fixed then so are the number of dollars in circulation fixed forever. If we change the amount of gold per dollar then your argument of gold standard is suspect – if we can’t change the amount of gold per dollar then your argument that a growing economy and population is still workable is suspect because the gold value to asset value is off the charts. You must diminish the value of other assets or inflate the value of gold and inflating or deflating the value of gold is no different than inflating or deflating the value of any other kind of paper money. Do you not remember it is the power to barter that maintains the value of money? Restrict the barter from either side of the barter equation and the system will fail.

The Traveler

1) The Doctrine and Covenants has the answer to your question on the appropriateness of slavery in the Constitution:

"And that alaw of the land which is bconstitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me." -D&C 98:5

Only the portions of the Constitution that maintain rights and privileges is justifiable. Obviously slavery falls outside the bounds of this admonition.

As an aside, slavery is still legal in the United States:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." -US Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1

2) Congress, through proper authority given it by the Constitution stated in the Coinage Act of April 2, 1792, that a "dollar" of Gold should contain 27grain of Gold and that the Gold ratio to other metals in the coin (because pure Gold is to soft) should be 11 parts pure Gold to 1 part Silver / Copper alloy.

Congress was empowered through this Act, and others to have the public be able to present Gold or Silver to be coined for free, or for a nominal fee, have the public receive coin in the value of the metal minus the fee, immediately upon presentation.

Over time the supply of Gold / Silver coin expanded, thus preventing the hyper-inflation of Gold / Silver Coin value because of extreme scarcity. This kept the coinage relatively scarce, but not inordinately so. At the same time, Banks were allowed to print bank-notes, at their own risk that were backed in such currency.

In a free market, with real money, over time the money will increase in value because of supply issues. The reason Congress was given the power to "regulate the value thereof" was to avoid and catastrophic swing in such worth.

As with anything of this nature, it is only so good as the honesty of those elected. For example, in the Coinage Act of 1873 Silver was demonetized. This was unconstitutional and contributed, in large part to the Depression of that time.

The advantages of the Gold / Silver standard as mandated by the Constitution are great. One primary advantage is that a few conspiring people would have a very difficult time manipulating the coinage. For example, and in contrast, The Federal Reserve System manipulates our currency on an almost daily basis. If we were on a Gold / Silver standard, this could not be done, unless Congress voted on such changes in a very, very frequent way, which is highly unlikely given the Congressional schedule. In fact, there have only been five Coinage Acts in the United States, and only two of those made any significant changes.

See the difference?

[a-train]

If gold is to back the dollar how much gold should there be in one dollar and can that amount ever change?

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gave Congress the power "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

The Coinage Act of 1792 was the act of congress in establishing the U.S. Mint and the U.S. monetary system. The U.S. Dollar was therein defined as 27 grams of standard silver (90% pure). The U.S. Eagle was also defined as 17.5 grams of standard gold (90% pure). The system included Eagles, Half Eagles, Quarter Eagles, Dollars, Half Dollars, Quarter Dollars, Dismes, Half Dismes, Cents, and Half Cents which were 8.55 grams of Copper (2.75 times heavier and more valuable than a modern copper penny).

If in the event that money becomes too valuable, new smaller units can be created. When this occurs, nobody looses anything. Imagine that a new act of congress redefined the dollar as 13.5 grams of standard silver (half what it was upon the 1792 Coinage Act). A person holding a 27 gram dollar wouldn't suddenly loose half the value. The old dollar would still be worth two new dollars. It would in fact be exchangable for the new money. This in fact has happened many times in U.S. history.

And how can the money supply increase to correspond to the wealth of the society if the amount of gold in each dollar is fixed then so are the number of dollars in circulation fixed forever.

The number of dollars in the money supply under a precious metal standard is constantly changing. It is going up and down all the time. Money is lost from the supply and gained.

If we change the amount of gold per dollar then your argument of gold standard is suspect

No, this is no problem at all, as I have already mentioned.

inflating or deflating the value of gold is no different than inflating or deflating the value of any other kind of paper money.

Inflating the gold supply requires mining, minting, and so forth. Inflating a paper supply just requires printing. Inflating our current system requires nothing but the stroke of a keyboard. There are some major differences. The big issue is the power to create money out of thin air is corrosive and always has been.

We are witnesses of that today. Greed and deceit has led to tremendous credit bubbles and now that big companies are being burned by it, the Federal Reserve is bailing them out by creating money out of thin air. Now this has little effect on you and I today, but it means higher prices due to the devaluation of our dollars in the future. In fact, that is the very reason we are in this mess is because of too much debt and the monetarization thereof.

Do you not remember it is the power to barter that maintains the value of money? Restrict the barter from either side of the barter equation and the system will fail.

A precious metal standard monetary system poses no restrictions on bartering. I don't understand.

-a-train

[JohnBirchSociety]

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gave Congress the power "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

The Coinage Act of 1792 was the act of congress in establishing the U.S. Mint and the U.S. monetary system. The U.S. Dollar was therein defined as 27 grams of standard silver (90% pure). The U.S. Eagle was also defined as 17.5 grams of standard gold (90% pure). The system included Eagles, Half Eagles, Quarter Eagles, Dollars, Half Dollars, Quarter Dollars, Dismes, Half Dismes, Cents, and Half Cents which were 8.55 grams of Copper (2.75 times heavier and more valuable than a modern copper penny).

If in the event that money becomes too valuable, new smaller units can be created. When this occurs, nobody looses anything. Imagine that a new act of congress redefined the dollar as 13.5 grams of standard silver (half what it was upon the 1792 Coinage Act). A person holding a 27 gram dollar wouldn't suddenly loose half the value. The old dollar would still be worth two new dollars. It would in fact be exchangable for the new money. This in fact has happened many times in U.S. history.

The number of dollars in the money supply under a precious metal standard is constantly changing. It is going up and down all the time. Money is lost from the supply and gained.

No, this is no problem at all, as I have already mentioned.

Inflating the gold supply requires mining, minting, and so forth. Inflating a paper supply just requires printing. Inflating our current system requires nothing but the stroke of a keyboard. There are some major differences. The big issue is the power to create money out of thin air is corrosive and always has been.

We are witnesses of that today. Greed and deceit has led to tremendous credit bubbles and now that big companies are being burned by it, the Federal Reserve is bailing them out by creating money out of thin air. Now this has little effect on you and I today, but it means higher prices due to the devaluation of our dollars in the future. In fact, that is the very reason we are in this mess is because of too much debt and the monetarization thereof.

A precious metal standard monetary system poses no restrictions on bartering. I don't understand.

-a-train

Excellently written. Thanks. n/t

[JohnBirchSociety]

Am I just beating a dead horse here? Isn't the issue of what real money is all about, central to the economic chaos we are now facing?

It is the central issue. If you fail to understand it (and I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of the issue), you will never solve the problems caused by lack of it....

[JohnBirchSociety]

Two months now and this thread is dead.

We must have real money if we are to resolve the current fiscal crisis we are facing.

To have real money, we must know what real money is.

Isn't that the issue?

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

It makes me wonder if the United States is heading the same way Germany was under the Weimar Republic...sure you guys aren't paying reparations to other countries, but in a sense you're being forced to pay money for the mistakes of business corporations and unconstitutional federal institues.

Eventually, (And I know some of you think it's Obama...I still don't think it's gotten to that point yet to compare the man to Hiter) some person in the future, promising huge changes in the economic system will be elected. In order to create prosperity and order this person will chip away at the fundamental freedoms of the Union.

To quote Star Wars: So this is the way democracy ends, admist thundering cheering. (Just paraphrasing that).

The descent into modern totilitarianism is a gradual process whereby people give up liberty for comfort.

It happened in Italy, and Germany and numerous other countires.

(I won't include Russia, or China in that list because one kind of totilitarianism was merely replaced by another)

[JohnBirchSociety]

It makes me wonder if the United States is heading the same way Germany was under the Weimar Republic...sure you guys aren't paying reparations to other countries, but in a sense you're being forced to pay money for the mistakes of business corporations and unconstitutional federal institues.

Eventually, (And I know some of you think it's Obama...I still don't think it's gotten to that point yet to compare the man to Hiter) some person in the future, promising huge changes in the economic system will be elected. In order to create prosperity and order this person will chip away at the fundamental freedoms of the Union.

To quote Star Wars: So this is the way democracy ends, admist thundering cheering. (Just paraphrasing that).

The descent into modern totilitarianism is a gradual process whereby people give up liberty for comfort.

It happened in Italy, and Germany and numerous other countires.

(I won't include Russia, or China in that list because one kind of totilitarianism was merely replaced by another)

To the Lord's of Fiat (Paper Currency) the collapse is intentional and inevitable. What is dangerous for them is the inevitability is not fully predictable, and they can be destroyed in the ensuing crisis that it creates.

The game plays think they can forestall the inevitable while becoming immensely wealthy.

However, inevitable it is. Paper currency, fiat, will ALWAYS collapse. It will cause anarchy and despotism like Hitler and Stalin, and the worst of all Mao.

We must return to real, sound, money, as mandated by our divinely inspired Constitution or we are doomed. Period.

There is no other way.

[a-train]

It makes me wonder if the United States is heading the same way Germany was under the Weimar Republic...sure you guys aren't paying reparations to other countries, but in a sense you're being forced to pay money for the mistakes of business corporations and unconstitutional federal institues.

Eventually, (And I know some of you think it's Obama...I still don't think it's gotten to that point yet to compare the man to Hiter) some person in the future, promising huge changes in the economic system will be elected. In order to create prosperity and order this person will chip away at the fundamental freedoms of the Union.

To quote Star Wars: So this is the way democracy ends, admist thundering cheering. (Just paraphrasing that).

The descent into modern totilitarianism is a gradual process whereby people give up liberty for comfort.

It happened in Italy, and Germany and numerous other countires.

(I won't include Russia, or China in that list because one kind of totilitarianism was merely replaced by another)

What do you mean EVENTUALLY?!?!?!? Perhaps Obama?!?!? Please! The administration of George W. Bush, in the name of peace and prosperity, put a jack-hammer to the pillar of freedom in America.

The chipping has already turned to an outright "war on freedom".

-a-train

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

Don't get me wrong, the process was already underway. It was underway in Germany even before Hitler came to power. What I'm trying to differentiate is the time when freedoms are being attacked to when they are actually dead. Even Hitler put up with some facade of arguement in the Reichstag before outright banning all other parties.

[Hemidakota]

CNNMONEY - -- Fed to buy $600B in mortgage-related debt, Treasury to pump $20B in TARP funds to boost consumer credit.

[Hemidakota]

Deseret News | Government plans new credit, mortgage programs

[Hemidakota]

MoneyNews - Greenberg: Rescue Price Tag, $1 Trillion

[Traveler]

MoneyNews - Greenberg: Rescue Price Tag, $1 Trillion

Not to worry - it is just play money.

The Traveler