M-T "Everything falling into place?" OK maybe I need to work through this some more.
This isn't a great example, but it is recent.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-07/gdp-less-meets-eye
"As one easily notices GDP on a per capita basis is more worrisome than when
viewed on a total basis as in the first two graphs. The economic growth rate
per person is currently below one half of one percent. More concerning,
it is below levels seen during the great financial crisis in 2008 and it is
still trending lower. This graph confirms our macroeconomic concerns and helps
explain, in part, why so many U.S. citizens feel like they are being left behind.
Factor in that many of the economic spoils are not evenly distributed, as
assumed in this analysis, but are largely accruing to the wealthy, and the problem
only worsens. As such, the growing social anxiety and trend towards populism,
be it conservative or liberal leaning, will not likely dissipate if the
aforementioned economic trends continue."
Begin by rethinking what the author says, and look at what happened post 2002
when Greenspan inflated the US housing bubble. Then note that graph of ten year
GDP growth rate per capita, and then note that today the figures are almost
certainly lower, and note that the graph is a crude approximation for productivity.
Except that productivity needs to be measured as productivity per employee not
per capita. Thus as unemployment falls, employment numbers increase, and
productivity falls if GDP stays constant, so the graphed figures should be a
bit optimistic.
As stated in my earlier post, as this trend continues, the US economy moves into
instability. There's a lot of noise in these figures, so deciding when things
like a phase change has happened can only be precisely defined in hindsight.
Maybe Armstrong's 2015.75 applies here, maybe not, the exact date is unimportant.
There are no precedents for this, and I sincerely hope that I have completely
misread the way things seem to be moving.
Japan and some parts of Europe are ahead of the USA. Emergent nations
with growing populations still have well-behaved economies. Think of all this as
an enormous hall with rows and rows of dominoes all falling into place. The
emergent nations' dominoes haven't started falling - yet.
So, when you read "It ain't working", or similar thoughts, know that it also
ain't fixable. But beware - economists are like medieval doctors, if one bunch
of leeches hasn't worked, moar leeches will be applied.
Is that any clearer? Maybe re-reading my last 3-4 posts will help?
Topic: Unrestricted Banking and Problem Banking - page 3. (Read 9763 times)
I won't say fiat created the economic crash, we could be using bitcoins and still have an economic crash. It's more of an administrative anomaly than something tied to fiat.
well it actuall did not and you are right, the banks created that, and it is the reason why i hate banks, bitcoin is way better to use 
...
Everything changes over time. History shows us that there have been Bad Times (of many kinds, including economic depressions and nasty totalitarian regimes) for millennia.
I'm not really sure how much The Banksters have contributed (again I don't know how much), but it does seem that corruption among banks has always been a big problem. The old problem of Private Gains / Social Losses has always been with us, and the banks seem to almost always be the beneficiaries (or bank managers anyway).
* * *
Re "money", my favorite description splits money into three concepts, IMO this may be the best way to think of money (not as just "one" slippery thing):
1) Unit of Account (eg, how much a cow is worth)
2) Medium of Exchange (using money to actually buy that cow)
3) Store of Value (your unit of money will be worth about the same next year as this one).
The problem with "money" is that there is no money that reliably fulfills all three! Currency can easily be used for the first two roles, especially No. 2.
But, currency is NOT a good & reliable Store of Value. Gold is however. Gold is not as good for Unit of Account nor Medium of Exchange.
Everything changes over time. History shows us that there have been Bad Times (of many kinds, including economic depressions and nasty totalitarian regimes) for millennia.
I'm not really sure how much The Banksters have contributed (again I don't know how much), but it does seem that corruption among banks has always been a big problem. The old problem of Private Gains / Social Losses has always been with us, and the banks seem to almost always be the beneficiaries (or bank managers anyway).
* * *
Re "money", my favorite description splits money into three concepts, IMO this may be the best way to think of money (not as just "one" slippery thing):
1) Unit of Account (eg, how much a cow is worth)
2) Medium of Exchange (using money to actually buy that cow)
3) Store of Value (your unit of money will be worth about the same next year as this one).
The problem with "money" is that there is no money that reliably fulfills all three! Currency can easily be used for the first two roles, especially No. 2.
But, currency is NOT a good & reliable Store of Value. Gold is however. Gold is not as good for Unit of Account nor Medium of Exchange.
... in the past there has been state-issued money in the form of gold and silver coins that had intrinsic value because of the precious metal content. Of course also in this case the value was somehow standardized, i.e. fixed. But I think it's fair to say that these forms of currency where at least partially "honest" compared to what we have today with unlimited debt-driven growth of the monetary base.
'Partially honest' seems a fair description, since gold and silver standards (especially when gold coins circulated as currency alongside paper money) did play a role in slowing down the state-driven financial inflation.
But when we talk about what a truly theft-free system looks like, there either are perverse incentives, or there aren't. The speed of theft, while important, is not fundamentally a factor here.
The metallic standards does incentivize the authorities to issue each additional unit of paper money. This issuance is free wealth or power for the elites, while the standard holds.
Historically, Britain must count as the best custodian of metallic standards. Even there, by the eve of World War I, Britain only had 3% of the gold required to redeem its total outstanding paper money. (The pound took another hundred years to reach its current value, which is 1/230 of its value against gold, under the gold standard. This is even worse than the dollar, which has shrunk 'only' to 1/64 of its former self by the same yardstick.)
You could say that the public could watch the authorities, and that metallic standards have market forces built in to suppress financial inflation. All true, but state-driven financial inflation is a social addiction overwhelmingly larger than either force. The populace, not just the elites, will demand the rules be loosened, at key times, since they too are used to the unearned wealth and comfort. If, every time I touch alcohol, I eventually become fully-fledged alcoholic, I should probably stay away from any drop of it (and in fact I believe that is the foundation of Alcoholics Anonymous.)
What state-driven bubbles do is that they become so big that they 'must' be kept alive to avoid great pain. And the only way to keep them alive? A bigger bubble.
I won't say fiat created the economic crash, we could be using bitcoins and still have an economic crash. It's more of an administrative anomaly than something tied to fiat.
i think it actually did because fiat is really bad and it is making the inflation bigger and bigger, thats why i like bitcoins more than just regular fiat 
The difference between hard and soft money is not 'intrinsic value,' whatever that means. The difference is 'who gets to say what value it has.'
With state-issued money, the public authorities get to say, and therein lies all the perverse and destructive incentives.
With non-state-issued money, no matter what determines the money's value, the authorities do not get to say.
And that, it turns out, is the most important attribute, in the real world.
With state-issued money, the public authorities get to say, and therein lies all the perverse and destructive incentives.
With non-state-issued money, no matter what determines the money's value, the authorities do not get to say.
And that, it turns out, is the most important attribute, in the real world.
That is undoubtedly an important attribute. However in the past there has been state-issued money in the form of gold and silver coins that had intrinsic value because of the precious metal content. Of course also in this case the value was somehow standardized, i.e. fixed. But I think it's fair to say that these forms of currency where at least partially "honest" compared to what we have today with unlimited debt-driven growth of the monetary base.
I agree with you that we need a free market for money. That means the state monopoly of money creation must be abolished and everyone should have the right to issue his/her own money as he/she sees fit. The market forces will quickly distinguish between good and bad money and fraudulent forms of money will loose acceptance sooner or later.
Fortunately we have Bitcoin, which is private money and a perfect first step in ending the parasitic age of debt-based governance and central banks.
ya.ya.yo!
The easiest way to define money is as a value-exchange. It's the denominated amount of a widely circulated currency (gold, currency, BTC) for which one party is willing to trade for a set amount of goods, services or labor to a counter-party. The difference between currency and "hard coin" is that currency has zero intrinsic value. Gold has intrinsic value, so does BTC. Even labor goods and services have intrinsic value. The problem for BTC in general is that since the public can't hold it in their hands, and because it's only existed for a short period of time, to them it has no intrinsic value.
The difference between hard and soft money is not 'intrinsic value,' whatever that means. The difference is 'who gets to say what value it has.'
With state-issued money, the public authorities get to say, and therein lies all the perverse and destructive incentives.
With non-state-issued money, no matter what determines the money's value, the authorities do not get to say.
And that, it turns out, is the most important attribute, in the real world.
The easiest way to define money is as a value-exchange. It's the denominated amount of a widely circulated currency (gold, currency, BTC) for which one party is willing to trade for a set amount of goods, services or labor to a counter-party. The difference between currency and "hard coin" is that currency has zero intrinsic value. Gold has intrinsic value, so does BTC. Even labor goods and services have intrinsic value. The problem for BTC in general is that since the public can't hold it in their hands, and because it's only existed for a short period of time, to them it has no intrinsic value.
This is the central banks' strategy at this point:
Maintain what's left of the asset bubble until:
1. Big growth comes from somewhere. This is the preferred path. Growth doesn't have to be a giant technological breakthrough; it can be a big, newly industrialized country (or countries) coming on stream to provide real goods and services to support the financial assets already or about to be issued.
2. Big war or terrorism happens. The current condition is a de-facto continuous injection of pain into vulnerable populations until something breaks. The US-led West will ride in shining armor to bring 'final' defeat to terrorists and/or tyrants. And it just happens that such a great victory will allow the US to dictate the postwar financial order (as in 1945,) get the level of financial repression it wants (as the post-1945 Bretton Woods system moved the world further from the gold standard to the dollar standard,) and blame any 'financial irregularities' on the conflict.
3. If neither 1 nor 2 materialize before the asset bubble must collapse, then wipe out all debt. The most likely method will be 'helicopter money.' (Really big amounts, not the timid QEs so far.) This will push inflation so high that past debt will no longer be constraining central bank and government stimulus efforts. Finally, as during 'normal' times, the public will believe in the authorities' determination and ability to generate inflation, and they will start spending and lending on their own. This financial reset will be the last resort since it won't do any good to the reputation of the assets issued by the elites.
Granted, this is not on the same long-term basis on which your trajectory of civilization is being discussed. And I am absolutely no fan of the modern system. But the elites are not yet at their wit's end, at least in the medium term.
Maintain what's left of the asset bubble until:
1. Big growth comes from somewhere. This is the preferred path. Growth doesn't have to be a giant technological breakthrough; it can be a big, newly industrialized country (or countries) coming on stream to provide real goods and services to support the financial assets already or about to be issued.
2. Big war or terrorism happens. The current condition is a de-facto continuous injection of pain into vulnerable populations until something breaks. The US-led West will ride in shining armor to bring 'final' defeat to terrorists and/or tyrants. And it just happens that such a great victory will allow the US to dictate the postwar financial order (as in 1945,) get the level of financial repression it wants (as the post-1945 Bretton Woods system moved the world further from the gold standard to the dollar standard,) and blame any 'financial irregularities' on the conflict.
3. If neither 1 nor 2 materialize before the asset bubble must collapse, then wipe out all debt. The most likely method will be 'helicopter money.' (Really big amounts, not the timid QEs so far.) This will push inflation so high that past debt will no longer be constraining central bank and government stimulus efforts. Finally, as during 'normal' times, the public will believe in the authorities' determination and ability to generate inflation, and they will start spending and lending on their own. This financial reset will be the last resort since it won't do any good to the reputation of the assets issued by the elites.
Granted, this is not on the same long-term basis on which your trajectory of civilization is being discussed. And I am absolutely no fan of the modern system. But the elites are not yet at their wit's end, at least in the medium term.
"Be not afraid of greatness. Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have
greatness thrust upon them" - Shakespeare
A day or two back, I'm told that we are now in a "post-heroic Age". This in the context
that we are more likely to die in a household accident, such as falling off a chair,
than in a terrorist attack. Add to this threats such as organised crime, drug trafficking,
sex slavery, paedophilia, as headlined by the main stream media, and one would assume that
the mass of the population is traumatised into fear of its own shadow. Ever wondered
why they carry out polls to find out what scares you most?
It's time to raise your eyes from this dark path and stare into the abyss nearby. Does that
frighten you? Those of you still with me are probably asking. which abyss?
there are so many? This one: "Stability" ... OK, dive in.
For most of recorded history, 0 < beta + alpha. The population increased, and they found better
ways to make stuff. The economy grew. The times when that didn't happen were dark times:
the fall of the Roman Empire; the Black Death, ... you get the picture. Hence the willingness
of politicians to talk about "growth" and "stability". Their audience translated this as
more jobs, and more money, and that's what they voted for: Infinite Growth.
But, Central Banks cannot create babies, nor even an increase in the economically active
population. They might have contributed to an increase in innovation and productivity by
ensuring that the most inefficient abusers of capital got pushed into creative destruction,
but signally failed to do that. They cannot directly improve productivity or innovation.
Which begs the question: Absent some magical event, what are the chances of both productivity
and population growth turning down in the none-too-distant future? Quite high, perhaps, see here:
http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf
The paper follows up work carried out 1972-1974 "Limits to Growth", finds that the "Business as
Usual" scenario is followed reasonably closely up to the date of publication (2014) and expects
a decline in world industrial production to begin soon. And if growth continues, the collapse
will be steeper and deeper.
I'm inclined to believe that the outcome will not be as dire as some forecast. However, the
point is made that we cannot expect 0 < beta + alpha to prevail much longer. What happens
as we transit this trajectory? The world's economies move into instability, with unpredictable
interactions. If the central banks were well prepared with low debt and plenty of munitions,
they might be of some help. Frankly, they look like a liability.
I'm thinking that this is hard to take in, that economics as we know it, free market capitalism,
could just stop working. Maybe one word will explain : RATIONING. Got it? Everything falling
into place? Good. Any Questions? Confirmations?
I do expect one or more financial "events" before we get to that point. Whether we get a repeat
of 2008, maybe better, maybe worse, remains to be seen. The last event saw a transfer of wealth
to the one percent. Next time there will be many more people with little to lose.
"Be not afraid of greatness", as this New Age of Heroes gets thrust upon our newest generation.
The New Heroic Age.
greatness thrust upon them" - Shakespeare
A day or two back, I'm told that we are now in a "post-heroic Age". This in the context
that we are more likely to die in a household accident, such as falling off a chair,
than in a terrorist attack. Add to this threats such as organised crime, drug trafficking,
sex slavery, paedophilia, as headlined by the main stream media, and one would assume that
the mass of the population is traumatised into fear of its own shadow. Ever wondered
why they carry out polls to find out what scares you most?
It's time to raise your eyes from this dark path and stare into the abyss nearby. Does that
frighten you? Those of you still with me are probably asking. which abyss?
there are so many? This one: "Stability" ... OK, dive in.
For most of recorded history, 0 < beta + alpha. The population increased, and they found better
ways to make stuff. The economy grew. The times when that didn't happen were dark times:
the fall of the Roman Empire; the Black Death, ... you get the picture. Hence the willingness
of politicians to talk about "growth" and "stability". Their audience translated this as
more jobs, and more money, and that's what they voted for: Infinite Growth.
But, Central Banks cannot create babies, nor even an increase in the economically active
population. They might have contributed to an increase in innovation and productivity by
ensuring that the most inefficient abusers of capital got pushed into creative destruction,
but signally failed to do that. They cannot directly improve productivity or innovation.
Which begs the question: Absent some magical event, what are the chances of both productivity
and population growth turning down in the none-too-distant future? Quite high, perhaps, see here:
http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf
The paper follows up work carried out 1972-1974 "Limits to Growth", finds that the "Business as
Usual" scenario is followed reasonably closely up to the date of publication (2014) and expects
a decline in world industrial production to begin soon. And if growth continues, the collapse
will be steeper and deeper.
I'm inclined to believe that the outcome will not be as dire as some forecast. However, the
point is made that we cannot expect 0 < beta + alpha to prevail much longer. What happens
as we transit this trajectory? The world's economies move into instability, with unpredictable
interactions. If the central banks were well prepared with low debt and plenty of munitions,
they might be of some help. Frankly, they look like a liability.
I'm thinking that this is hard to take in, that economics as we know it, free market capitalism,
could just stop working. Maybe one word will explain : RATIONING. Got it? Everything falling
into place? Good. Any Questions? Confirmations?
I do expect one or more financial "events" before we get to that point. Whether we get a repeat
of 2008, maybe better, maybe worse, remains to be seen. The last event saw a transfer of wealth
to the one percent. Next time there will be many more people with little to lose.
"Be not afraid of greatness", as this New Age of Heroes gets thrust upon our newest generation.
The New Heroic Age.
I won't say fiat created the economic crash, we could be using bitcoins and still have an economic crash. It's more of an administrative anomaly than something tied to fiat.
actually, fiat and nothing else created the crrash we had and i think the crash but bigger one will happen any time soon, it is really crazy I won't say fiat created the economic crash, we could be using bitcoins and still have an economic crash. It's more of an administrative anomaly than something tied to fiat.
well it kinda was because of the money we have right now thats why i want bitcoin to replace all the banks and fiat we have at the moment 
Banks always were and always will be thew main cause of all economic crises in the world. And they are still running this world, so at the moment I don't know what could changew that. Bitcoin, unfortunately, can't..
I won't say fiat created the economic crash, we could be using bitcoins and still have an economic crash. It's more of an administrative anomaly than something tied to fiat.
banks and the never ending printing of the money created it, thats why i hate the economic system we have at the moment, i hope it will change in the future though
I'll summarize some of the points of these recent posts, because mainstream and
most alt-media reporting seems to skip over important background details.
Bucket shops were banned in 1929 because they were fraudsters. It was too easy
to suck clients in on a momentum trade, and at an appropriate moment, to short
the stock, causing a crash and wiping out clients trading on margin.
The Savings and Loan Crisis (1986-1995) sent many bankers to jail. There were two
other outcomes:
the US government seized toxic loans, and as a consequence of attempting to sell
these at a profit, forced unsafe practices onto the financial sector, and forced
the Ratings Agencies to underestimate risk.
the financial sector moved to protect itself from prosecution, seeking "deregulation"
and "light touch regulation". Besides the removal of Glass-Stegall, the prohibition
on "bucket shops" was removed. Fraud was now legal (again!).
While the deregulation issue was broadly internationally understood, the repricing
of risk and its effects was hidden. Financial instruments rated 'AAA' are
expected to default once in 10,000 years. That number suggests that it is pointless
to insure against default because your counterparty is more likely to fail than the
bond. Initially, there was no market for that insurance (CDO's) because the risk
was correctly priced. That changed, in part because of US government pressure,
beginning with sub-prime.[1]
In 2004 the FBI was warning that mortgage fraud in America was endemic.
In 2005, Washington Mutual was reducing its mortgage lending, and in doing so,
its profits suffered, weakening the bank.
"More backers piled in with time, and by May 2005, Mr. Burry closed the first deal on
subprime credit default swaps with Deutsche Bank."
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/michael-burry-the-man-who-shorted-subprime/
In 2006 John Paulson took an artisan industry and industrialised it. Goldman Sachs,
satisfied itself with its cut of the trade between the buyers and the sellers of CDO's.
The lack of risk of going to jail, and the mispricing of risk mandated by US
government pressure and practice meant that the more toxic the debt, the greater
the likely profits all down the food chain.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/12/debunking-the-big-short-how-michael-lewis-turned-the-real-villains-of-the-crisis-into-heros.html
"So it wasntt just that these speculators were harmful, and Lewis gave them a free pass.
He failed to clue in his readers that the actions of his chosen heroes drove the demand
for the worst sort of mortgages and turned what would otherwise have been a "contained"
problem into a systemic crisis."
"Both market participant estimates and repeated, conservative analyses indicate that
Magnetar's CDO program drove the demand for between 35% and 60% of toxic subprime bond demand."
"For the most part, the dealers themselves. Without going into mind-numbing detail, the apparent
risklessness of an AAA instrument hedged by an AAA counterparty (in this case, a monoline)
substantially reduced the capital a dealer needed to support a position. As a result,
holding AAA CDOs hedged by AAA guarantors was treated, on a profit and loss basis on the
relevant dealing desks, as vastly more attractive than finding investors to take the other
side of the trade. In other words, this was massive gaming of the banks' own bonus systems."
Think of it like this: If the government mandated fitting faulty brakes to cars, and then
repealed all the laws relating to speeding and traffic violations, would you be surprised
when a few accidents occur in good weather? followed by massive pileups on motorways when
winter sets in? (It's not just the US Government BTW, they had help).
[1] The Ratings Agencies agreed to change their models in 1997. Within ten years, problems
began to appear: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/speeches/2009/speech374.pdf
The sort of problem that, according to statistics, as Haldane comments "To provide some context,
assuming a normal distribution, a 7.26-sigma daily loss would be expected to occur once every
13.7 billion or so years. That is roughly the estimated age of the Universe."
In good times failure rates can be fitted to a normal, gaussian distribution. That model
would seem to be optimistic by a factor of four when the hard times reappear - the "fat tail"
or power law distribution.
most alt-media reporting seems to skip over important background details.
Bucket shops were banned in 1929 because they were fraudsters. It was too easy
to suck clients in on a momentum trade, and at an appropriate moment, to short
the stock, causing a crash and wiping out clients trading on margin.
The Savings and Loan Crisis (1986-1995) sent many bankers to jail. There were two
other outcomes:
the US government seized toxic loans, and as a consequence of attempting to sell
these at a profit, forced unsafe practices onto the financial sector, and forced
the Ratings Agencies to underestimate risk.
the financial sector moved to protect itself from prosecution, seeking "deregulation"
and "light touch regulation". Besides the removal of Glass-Stegall, the prohibition
on "bucket shops" was removed. Fraud was now legal (again!).
While the deregulation issue was broadly internationally understood, the repricing
of risk and its effects was hidden. Financial instruments rated 'AAA' are
expected to default once in 10,000 years. That number suggests that it is pointless
to insure against default because your counterparty is more likely to fail than the
bond. Initially, there was no market for that insurance (CDO's) because the risk
was correctly priced. That changed, in part because of US government pressure,
beginning with sub-prime.[1]
In 2004 the FBI was warning that mortgage fraud in America was endemic.
In 2005, Washington Mutual was reducing its mortgage lending, and in doing so,
its profits suffered, weakening the bank.
"More backers piled in with time, and by May 2005, Mr. Burry closed the first deal on
subprime credit default swaps with Deutsche Bank."
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/michael-burry-the-man-who-shorted-subprime/
In 2006 John Paulson took an artisan industry and industrialised it. Goldman Sachs,
satisfied itself with its cut of the trade between the buyers and the sellers of CDO's.
The lack of risk of going to jail, and the mispricing of risk mandated by US
government pressure and practice meant that the more toxic the debt, the greater
the likely profits all down the food chain.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/12/debunking-the-big-short-how-michael-lewis-turned-the-real-villains-of-the-crisis-into-heros.html
"So it wasntt just that these speculators were harmful, and Lewis gave them a free pass.
He failed to clue in his readers that the actions of his chosen heroes drove the demand
for the worst sort of mortgages and turned what would otherwise have been a "contained"
problem into a systemic crisis."
"Both market participant estimates and repeated, conservative analyses indicate that
Magnetar's CDO program drove the demand for between 35% and 60% of toxic subprime bond demand."
"For the most part, the dealers themselves. Without going into mind-numbing detail, the apparent
risklessness of an AAA instrument hedged by an AAA counterparty (in this case, a monoline)
substantially reduced the capital a dealer needed to support a position. As a result,
holding AAA CDOs hedged by AAA guarantors was treated, on a profit and loss basis on the
relevant dealing desks, as vastly more attractive than finding investors to take the other
side of the trade. In other words, this was massive gaming of the banks' own bonus systems."
Think of it like this: If the government mandated fitting faulty brakes to cars, and then
repealed all the laws relating to speeding and traffic violations, would you be surprised
when a few accidents occur in good weather? followed by massive pileups on motorways when
winter sets in? (It's not just the US Government BTW, they had help).
[1] The Ratings Agencies agreed to change their models in 1997. Within ten years, problems
began to appear: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/speeches/2009/speech374.pdf
The sort of problem that, according to statistics, as Haldane comments "To provide some context,
assuming a normal distribution, a 7.26-sigma daily loss would be expected to occur once every
13.7 billion or so years. That is roughly the estimated age of the Universe."
In good times failure rates can be fitted to a normal, gaussian distribution. That model
would seem to be optimistic by a factor of four when the hard times reappear - the "fat tail"
or power law distribution.
I won't say fiat created the economic crash, we could be using bitcoins and still have an economic crash. It's more of an administrative anomaly than something tied to fiat.
I hate lies. Lies get good people killed. That's lies, dammed lies and government statistics.
So, when some government statistics "got revised", something just didn't smell right.
I haven't, yet, worked out what is going on, but along the way I came across this:
http://www.marketskeptics.com/2011/04/government-financial-innovation-caused-2008-financial-crisis.html
"Below are two videos showing how the federal government (not wall street) caused 2008 Financial Crisis."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNXyBIPAJqQ
"1) Bundled toxic (subprime) loans into securities
2) Used financial alchemy to make risk "disappear"
3) Designed complex financial structures to hide the fraud
4) Developed insanely optimistic evaluation models to inflate ratings on toxic securities
5) Marketing these toxic securities to an unsuspecting public"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4PE1gZn7s4
"1) Created the entire infrastructure necessary for the subprime market to function
2) Decimated state authority to regulate the financial sector
3) Shielded subprime lenders from prosecution
4) Encouraged banks to buy toxic CDOs and to get rid of safer assets"
I'll compress this into a few lines. Bucket shops began in the late 1800's, expanded
in the 1920's and were outright banned in the USA in 1929.
"In other words, they were fraudsters." - jmalmberg March 5, 2009
Then, after the USA's Savings and Loans crisis (1986-1995), parts of the US government
found toxic debt on their books - similar to the subprime stuff of 2008 that had 40%
delinquency rates, and to the 30% delinquency rates of the 1930's.
When you have a load of fish sitting in the sun, and nowhere to put them, what do you do?
In the case of this debt, the government cooked the books, then twisted the arms
of the Ratings Agencies to change their models, and, as if by magic, toxic debt
took on the appearance of investment grade government paper.
Cue scene from "The Wolf of Wall Street", and a modern day bucket shop was born.
Contrary to the current "What Everybody Knows" the Government had to twist Wall Street's
arms pretty hard to get them to do their bidding. Even the US Justice Department
began to throw up when they found out about this.
In 2000, as part of the race to the bottom, this:
"This act shall supersede and preempt the application of any state
or local law that prohibits gaming or the operation of bucket shops"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
"Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no."
"... it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers."
The above narrative fits the description of "Control Fraud" to a "T".
That's maybe not the best move when your economy depends on a fiat based currency.
Eliot Spitzer Governor of New York resigned on March 17 2008 amid threats of impeachment.
Just. Another. Coincidence.
And my original query? It's still in play. And a couple of other things:
After you read up on the above, you may want to compare with this:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf
"the real causes of the economic crash"
Also, an earlier post mentioned that the FED was a "monopoly purchaser
of lemons". Sounds like the hole RTC found itself in all those years ago.
So, when some government statistics "got revised", something just didn't smell right.
I haven't, yet, worked out what is going on, but along the way I came across this:
http://www.marketskeptics.com/2011/04/government-financial-innovation-caused-2008-financial-crisis.html
"Below are two videos showing how the federal government (not wall street) caused 2008 Financial Crisis."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNXyBIPAJqQ
"1) Bundled toxic (subprime) loans into securities
2) Used financial alchemy to make risk "disappear"
3) Designed complex financial structures to hide the fraud
4) Developed insanely optimistic evaluation models to inflate ratings on toxic securities
5) Marketing these toxic securities to an unsuspecting public"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4PE1gZn7s4
"1) Created the entire infrastructure necessary for the subprime market to function
2) Decimated state authority to regulate the financial sector
3) Shielded subprime lenders from prosecution
4) Encouraged banks to buy toxic CDOs and to get rid of safer assets"
I'll compress this into a few lines. Bucket shops began in the late 1800's, expanded
in the 1920's and were outright banned in the USA in 1929.
"In other words, they were fraudsters." - jmalmberg March 5, 2009
Then, after the USA's Savings and Loans crisis (1986-1995), parts of the US government
found toxic debt on their books - similar to the subprime stuff of 2008 that had 40%
delinquency rates, and to the 30% delinquency rates of the 1930's.
When you have a load of fish sitting in the sun, and nowhere to put them, what do you do?
In the case of this debt, the government cooked the books, then twisted the arms
of the Ratings Agencies to change their models, and, as if by magic, toxic debt
took on the appearance of investment grade government paper.
Cue scene from "The Wolf of Wall Street", and a modern day bucket shop was born.
Contrary to the current "What Everybody Knows" the Government had to twist Wall Street's
arms pretty hard to get them to do their bidding. Even the US Justice Department
began to throw up when they found out about this.
In 2000, as part of the race to the bottom, this:
"This act shall supersede and preempt the application of any state
or local law that prohibits gaming or the operation of bucket shops"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
"Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no."
"... it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers."
The above narrative fits the description of "Control Fraud" to a "T".
That's maybe not the best move when your economy depends on a fiat based currency.
Eliot Spitzer Governor of New York resigned on March 17 2008 amid threats of impeachment.
Just. Another. Coincidence.
And my original query? It's still in play. And a couple of other things:
After you read up on the above, you may want to compare with this:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf
"the real causes of the economic crash"
Also, an earlier post mentioned that the FED was a "monopoly purchaser
of lemons". Sounds like the hole RTC found itself in all those years ago.
I'm struggling to keep up with the flow of news. This is some weeks old, it's on
the IMF and the Greek economy - some background - I don't have
transcripts for some of this, so feel free to jump in:
Around 2009-2010 everyone knew that Greece was going to default on its debts.
Then, it got a bailout. And another, and another... In the midst of all this,
Yanis Varoufakis became the Greek Finance Minister, and began to put together
an economic plan.
We were spared the details of his proposals, as he quickly found that the Troika,
- the ECB, IMF and European Commission, none of whom were elected to any position
of power, (and in effect the council of Finance Ministers) - were diametrically opposed
to his proposals. The Troika wanted austerity, while at the same time imposing
conditions that almost certainly ensured that the objective would not be met,
despite, or perhaps because of, the likely collateral damage to the Greek economy
and the need for further bailouts.
Mr Varoufakis pressed the dozen or so key EU Finance Ministers and found that, in
private, the Ministers were quite knowledgeable, and acknowledged the strength of his
arguments. Singly, in private, they assured him of their support for his case, but as
soon as these Ministers appeared in public, their understanding disappeared, and they
were back onto the Troika's message.
More curiously, Mr Varoufakis had appealed for help in tacking corruption, a
widely publicised barrier to improving the Greek economy, and pursuing tax
payments, essential for achieving the Troika's stated objectives. No help
was forthcoming, despite dubious financial transactions with other EU member
state's banks. Thus Greece could use only its own resources to fix its problems,
despite a clear implication that other nations were benefiting from misdeeds.
I'll briefly mention that my recent earlier post highlighted the relationship
between government deficit spending and the profits of private companies. That
logic would suggest that a sudden drive for government budget surplus would
result in private, and public, companies running at a loss, and possibly
into bankruptcy. The Troika's policies made the Greek situation worse.
All the above suggests that, at best, the Troika's decisions were driven by
politics rather than economics. Other interpretation placed on the Torika's
motives could be much more concerning for the future of the Eurozone.
Recently, support for Greece and for Mr Varoufakis, now the exFinance Minister,
has appeared from an unexpected source - the IMF.
"What the IEO report makes very clear is that the IMF should never have agreed,
as part of the Troika, to assist the EU in forcing austerity upon Greece without
insisting on significant debt relief, in the shape of a haircut, or
(a) debt writedown(s)....
The IMF's long established policy is that both MUST happen together."
"And Europe's grip on the IMF is exactly what the report is about,
in that it accuses Lagarde et al of bowing to EU pressure,
to the extent that it abandons its own guiding 'laws'.
It acted like it was the European Monetary Fund, not the international one."
"That would seem to leave the IMF just one option: to apologize profoundly to Greece,
to demand from the EU that all unjust measures be reversed and annulled,
and to set up a very large fund (how about $1 trillion) specifically to support
the Greek people, including retribution of lost funds, repair of the health care system,
reinstatement of a pension system that can actually keep people alive and so on and so forth."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-02/end-imf-credibility-or-why-christine-lagarde-should-be-fired-wont-be
https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2016/08/why-should-the-imf-care-about-its-credibility/
http://www.ieo-imf.org/ieo/pages/CompletedEvaluation267.aspx
So, what to take away from all this? That the IMF, the ECB, and the European Commission
are subservient to an unknown unelected body seemingly unconcerned by inter-national
corruption to the extent of hundreds of billions of Euros? If it were not for
prior art in the form of Operation Gladio, such a conspiracy theory would sound
ridiculous.
If, after researching Operation Gladio, you can afford a further three hours,
see 'After Dark British Intelligence' - though it is off topic for this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caUG4L-3S30
I'm mentioning this only as background material on the relationship between
an elected representative government and the notional Deep State.
the IMF and the Greek economy - some background - I don't have
transcripts for some of this, so feel free to jump in:
Around 2009-2010 everyone knew that Greece was going to default on its debts.
Then, it got a bailout. And another, and another... In the midst of all this,
Yanis Varoufakis became the Greek Finance Minister, and began to put together
an economic plan.
We were spared the details of his proposals, as he quickly found that the Troika,
- the ECB, IMF and European Commission, none of whom were elected to any position
of power, (and in effect the council of Finance Ministers) - were diametrically opposed
to his proposals. The Troika wanted austerity, while at the same time imposing
conditions that almost certainly ensured that the objective would not be met,
despite, or perhaps because of, the likely collateral damage to the Greek economy
and the need for further bailouts.
Mr Varoufakis pressed the dozen or so key EU Finance Ministers and found that, in
private, the Ministers were quite knowledgeable, and acknowledged the strength of his
arguments. Singly, in private, they assured him of their support for his case, but as
soon as these Ministers appeared in public, their understanding disappeared, and they
were back onto the Troika's message.
More curiously, Mr Varoufakis had appealed for help in tacking corruption, a
widely publicised barrier to improving the Greek economy, and pursuing tax
payments, essential for achieving the Troika's stated objectives. No help
was forthcoming, despite dubious financial transactions with other EU member
state's banks. Thus Greece could use only its own resources to fix its problems,
despite a clear implication that other nations were benefiting from misdeeds.
I'll briefly mention that my recent earlier post highlighted the relationship
between government deficit spending and the profits of private companies. That
logic would suggest that a sudden drive for government budget surplus would
result in private, and public, companies running at a loss, and possibly
into bankruptcy. The Troika's policies made the Greek situation worse.
All the above suggests that, at best, the Troika's decisions were driven by
politics rather than economics. Other interpretation placed on the Torika's
motives could be much more concerning for the future of the Eurozone.
Recently, support for Greece and for Mr Varoufakis, now the exFinance Minister,
has appeared from an unexpected source - the IMF.
"What the IEO report makes very clear is that the IMF should never have agreed,
as part of the Troika, to assist the EU in forcing austerity upon Greece without
insisting on significant debt relief, in the shape of a haircut, or
(a) debt writedown(s)....
The IMF's long established policy is that both MUST happen together."
"And Europe's grip on the IMF is exactly what the report is about,
in that it accuses Lagarde et al of bowing to EU pressure,
to the extent that it abandons its own guiding 'laws'.
It acted like it was the European Monetary Fund, not the international one."
"That would seem to leave the IMF just one option: to apologize profoundly to Greece,
to demand from the EU that all unjust measures be reversed and annulled,
and to set up a very large fund (how about $1 trillion) specifically to support
the Greek people, including retribution of lost funds, repair of the health care system,
reinstatement of a pension system that can actually keep people alive and so on and so forth."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-02/end-imf-credibility-or-why-christine-lagarde-should-be-fired-wont-be
https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2016/08/why-should-the-imf-care-about-its-credibility/
http://www.ieo-imf.org/ieo/pages/CompletedEvaluation267.aspx
So, what to take away from all this? That the IMF, the ECB, and the European Commission
are subservient to an unknown unelected body seemingly unconcerned by inter-national
corruption to the extent of hundreds of billions of Euros? If it were not for
prior art in the form of Operation Gladio, such a conspiracy theory would sound
ridiculous.
If, after researching Operation Gladio, you can afford a further three hours,
see 'After Dark British Intelligence' - though it is off topic for this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caUG4L-3S30
I'm mentioning this only as background material on the relationship between
an elected representative government and the notional Deep State.
Unrestricted banking for me is what bitcoins offers today, bitcoin has a blockchain which is the bank, with it being centralized we can monitor our transactions transparently, with its low cost banking it can attract lots of people especially in the other country to do their remittances thru bitcoins.
thats true, banking with bitcoins is unrestricted, every person can be their own bank and use their money whenever they want thats why i like bitcoins that much An inhabitant of the Bank for International Settlements claims bankers are "Magic People"
Kuroda-San insists that if the Japanese people would only believe :
"I trust that many of you are familiar with the story of Peter Pan, in which it says,
'the moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease forever to be able to do it,'"
all would be well with the Japanese economy.
What next? "attempts to kill goats by staring at them."? (and more)
"The Men Who Stare at Goats (2004) is a book by Jon Ronson concerning the U.S. Army's
exploration of New Age concepts and the potential military applications of the paranormal."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats
Maybe even "Helicopter Money"? - Seriously? - How might this work in practice?
Soooo, you have thought this through, and maybe created "Streetwalkers Inc",
(for the tax advantage.) While walking down main street, your corporation
finds a newly issued $1 bill. What do you do? You enter it into your P&L account:
Profit from walking down street : $1
Wonderful. Profits, unfortunately, do not just appear out of thin air.
How to even know that this is a profit? Let's simplify Levy's total profits equation:
TNP = TVI + t4b + t5b + t6b + cCr + aL - cCrl -cs + TpCNP + BT + BI - Tdp - ex -dep + ETC -vOt7 + vOt8
Yuck. But all we need from the equation is this :
TNP = TVI
TNP = Total Net Profits (all corporations)
TVI = change in the value of money over the time in examination.
Since the quantity of goods that can be bought is unchanged, the profit is
created by an increase - $1 - in the quantity of money. And, since the
quantity of goods is unchanged, there must be a loss somewhere. In this case,
the bank that printed and issued the money - it now has a loss to account for.
Thus, "Helicopter Money", in current parlance, will be paid out of the
pockets of the owners of the banks, most probably the owners of the
Central Bank - TPTB. About as likely as (1+1 ne 2) IMHO.[1]
So, if governments (ie, you, dear taxpayer) are not going to fund
"Helicopter Money" what is really going on? (Taxpayer funding makes as much
sense as some of the projects referred to earlier) - A non-mathematical,
non-economic, conspiracy-theory explanation should have the fewest assumptions.
"Occam's Razor : Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions
should be selected." The TPTB are involved, soooo, maybe this?
The World is being conditioned to drop its trousers and grab its ankles
anytime the phrase "Helicopter Money" is broadcast. Oh! One other thing:
Don't forget to say "Thank You Ben Bernanke!" [2][3]
If, by now, you are curious as the the competence and motivation of these monetary gods,
the concluding remarks of a report on the Lehman debacle may crystallize those doubts:
"Their explanations for their actions rest on flawed economic and legal reasoning and dubious factual claims."
http://www.econ2.jhu.edu/People/Ball/Lehman.pdf
[1] for example see "Exploring Complex Dynamic Systems" Cheng, Zhang
J System Simulation 2002 14(11): 1147-1149
[2] Feel free to substitute your choice of Central Banker.
[3] Your guess at what happens next?
Jump to: