None of your misunderstanding about money or currency explains your claim about how bank and fed "fraudsters" have screwed the middle class since the US went off the gold standard.
The 2008 bankster bailouts would have been impossible under the Bretton Woods gold standard.
So would the
enormous profits the government made off of those bailouts.
Banks and hedgefund managers kept their jobs and bonuses.
Tell that to
Lehman Brothers. 25,000 people lost their jobs in just that one firm.
And for the record, the only reason someone
should lose their job is if they did something criminal. The sole reason why the 2008 collapse happened was because the so-called "Big Three" credit rating agencies--S&P Global Ratings (S&P), Moody's, and the Fitch Group--all independently screwed the pooch (Fitch Group less so than S&P; S&P less so than Moody's) when it came to properly evaluating the underlying investments in order to give mortgage-backed securities their unjustifiably high ratings.
Iow, it is their fault entirely for not doing the one job they all have. Had they valued this junk--in the exact same way others discovered the imminent collapse, by simply looking at the underlying mortgages and who they went to--there never would have been a collapse, because no one would have ever used these vehicles as money-markets (i.e., low yield cash equivalent investments where rich people park their money until month or quarter-end investing in alternative assets).
The only other major contributing factor to the downfall was the outsourcing of mortgage loan due-diligence by banks. No bank should underwrite a loan that they did not "personally" investigate, but that's not criminal behavior, that's just bad business. Because the banks were one step removed from doing any due diligence on the mortgages, it allowed mortgage brokers to focus on their commissions rather than the bank's financial well-being, but the
reason they did so was because it was believed--yes, believed--that by bundling riskier loans with a majority of non-risky loans, risk was mitigated sufficiently and that's why the Big Three gave them such high ratings.
If the 30% of riskier loans defaulted, the 70% of less-risky loans that would not default would bear the weight. Or something to that effect. I'm oversimplifying, of course, but that's the gist and it's a sound theory that, again, had the Big Three properly weighted in their ratings would have prevented all of this debacle in the first place (especially when banks pushed more and more junk into the investment pool mix, making them more unstable and therefore should have been rated lower and lower each time they did it).
The middle class lost much of their wealth
Temporarily and that primarily in regard to
net wealth; i.e., the market value of their home--which constitutes one of the largest assets for the middle class--went temporarily under, but now the same home has re-established the same value and then some, at least before
Trump trashed the place.
There are many reasons to hate Republicans and their abysmal fiscal irresponsibilities, but the 2008 collapse is not one of them. The whole thing can be chalked up to the fact that Corporate America--particularly in finance--is made up almost exclusively of C students who do the majority of the nuts and bolts and here it came down to people who should have dug deeper, but just didn't, because one hand didn't even know the other needed washing.
But it wasn't the result of some grand coordinated conspiracy of a monolithic banking cabal out to defraud mom & pop. Some places--people, really--knew that they were pushing junk, but then that's nothing new in the finance world. That's precisely what drives almost all banking and investment regulation; the requirement that everyone who does so fully understands the risks involved and can afford to whether them. It's not mandatory, ffs. It's a goddamned casino and you're always playing Craps. Or, worse and more accurately, Roulette (sometimes, Russian).
