Reverse Money Flow from the Consumer to the Banks is the way to solve the economic crisis.

If the Banks valued the reverse flow of money from the consumer back to the bank in the form of interest free debt paydowns, the economy would even out a lot sooner. Instead, the banks and the federal reserve only seem to acknowledge the outflow of credit that is putting the consumer farther and farther behind because of the interest rate charges that eat into what a consumer can actually spend.

Would the Entire Worlds Economy be in Better Shape if all those Balloon Payments hadn't Ballooned?

Wouldn't everybody have been better off if all of those balloon payment loans had simply stayed "as is" for several more years? Over a year ago, when the stock market was still shooting upwards, I suggested a similar concept regarding credit-card-debt on my Credit-Card-Cap.com website.

Banks chose to foreclose and destroy homeowners who could actually afford a lower than desired monthly payment. Compared to getting zero dollars for that investment, was this really a wise course of action?

I believe a big elitist virus has been exposed. Loans MUST ENSLAVE the borrower for a long period of time. If the Loan does not enslave the borrower, the borrower did not borrow enough, or is paying too low of an interest rate.

One way to heal the economy is to offer interest free paydowns on ALL CREDIT CARD DEBT, but that is not acceptable to the banking elitists who can't stand the idea of unburdening the minions below them of their debt.

At some point in time, the flow of money from consumers who are PAYING DOWN THEIR DEBTS to the banks, is a good thing. Unfortunately, financial elitists don't want you to enjoy the freedom of being debt free and have instead chosen devaluation as a sordid solution to the world's economic situation.

One tip to remember regarding credit-card debt, if you cannot afford to pay down FOUR TIMES the MONTHLY MINIMUM DUE, you may never get out of credit card debt.

How Wall Street could help Prevent Flooding from the Mississippi River, but Refuses to do so.

Over time, the Mississippi River bottom literally gets "muddied up". The result is the depth of the Mississippi gets shallower and shallower. Today we see the result of that shallow depth as the midwest experiences monstrous floods unseen in at least 15 years.

Some people like to rationalize that floods are good for the economy. Insurance money "floods" the area and people go forward with the task of rebuilding their lives, hiring contractors who in turn purchase supplies, and so on.

While one can agree that there is sort of a perverse economic insurance funded bounce after a tragedy, I doubt that the actual net affect is a good one. How about Wall Street actually supporting the revitalization of the Mississipi River by having it dredged several feet deeper. I would assume that the mud at the base of the Mississippi River is actually good potting and planting soil, no?

Why can't Wall Street just create an industry that actually maintains the Mississippi River and in the process prevents flooding, damage to billions of dollars worth of real estate, reduces Insurance Industry costs, and creates a made in america product? Or should I say Mud in America. Mississippi Mud would probably would be coveted in the United States, especially with so many people starting to grow their own fruits and vegetables.

If you are an expert in the field of flood management and want to refute my position, please do so in the comments section. I just want to understand why Wall Street can't create a win win win situation within the United States, but happily will bilk indebted american citizens to the tune of 30% credit card interest rate charges, and then use that money to invest in economies outside of the United States. How about Wall Street start helping the very people they are overcharging and underserving.