Yesterday

It is sad story at the same time as being interesting. Jeez, it sounds like the market manipulation today. Some things just never change.

Hi, I remember hearing this now that you mention it. Where did the bakner's first get the cash to lend. Were they just wealthy or did they print money?

The lawyer is Al Hodges and there is a bivens based law suit in California against the SEC and various others. If you wonder use the search heading "Al Hodges updates" and the letters for the case will come up.

Hi, has anyone ever heard of " World Global Settlements"? It was mentioned by a lawyer in California in a few letters to both Obama and the Queen amongst many others. I have found nothing about it. The lawyer is representing the shareholders of CMKM/CMKX. The reason I am asking on this thread is that I think this is in part what the G8/20 have on the table for discussion.

I had heard a statement once that the G20 was a knee jerk reaction to the the Dollar Refunding initiative tabled by the G7 a few years ago. I wonder if there is any truth to it?

Well said.

I know the story sort of, to me it is sad that currency comes at a cost. The money might not have had an asset value beyond need but did it work? Did the system work? As with asset backed dollars he who owns the assets is a lucky person and the rest...to me, an asset backed dollar equals to many opportunities for unfairness which tend to lead to war, look at how we already fight over assets of various kinds. I feel like a bit of an idealist where my views about currency are but if currency is going to be our means of trade, well it's not working in its current form and asset backed really sends a red flag up for me. Didn't fractional banking form in part because there just wasn't enough assets to make enough money? I realize war created a vast need beyond resources but I wonder how long we would of lasted without war till we ended up in the same situation due to commercial expansion.

Very well, I'm not going to fight 2 very grumpy old men and a moderator just to have a conversation. You go ahead and keep the history straight. It will be there when I get there. All the best.

I have wondered this too, the stability would come from an asset based dollar not the gold so referred to. It is the desire more than anything to remove fractional reserve. Dollar = asset or no deal. "Gold standard" seems to be a catch phrase.

Alex Nicholson and Paul Abelsky, Bloomberg · Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010 Russia’s central bank has started buying Canadian dollars and securities, First Deputy Chairman Alexei Ulyukayev said. “The Canadian financial market isn’t very big,” Mr. Ulyukayev told reporters in the central Russian city of Tula Wednesday. The bank can invest a “significant amount” in the Canadian currency, “but the securities market is limited.” He didn’t specify how much the bank had invested. Russia aims to diversify its reserves, the world’s third-largest stockpile, and promote regional currencies in trade and finance to reduce risks posed by the dominance of the U.S. dollar. The central bank said in November that it planned to add Canada’s dollar to its reserves and might consider including other currencies later. Bank Rossii is “discussing” the possibility of buying Australian dollars, chairman Sergei Ignatiev said last month. Russia’s reserves were previously made up of 47% U.S. dollars, 41% euros, 10% pounds and 2% yen. The stockpile fell 2% in December to US$439-billion, the central bank said on Jan. 15. The country keeps about 35% of its international reserves in U.S. Treasury debt. The central bank doesn’t plan to shift reserves to private corporate assets from sovereign bonds, Mr. Ulyukayev said. “We are such conservative investors that we won’t invest in private bonds even though spreads are smaller,” he said. Bloomberg.com Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/Russia+central+bank+starts+buying+loonie+stocks/2463910/story.html#ixzz0qpROoqjM The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

I have to agree with you. Punked has put up a valiant effort at helping us to understand this. You are both right. We did not require the same "bail-out" as the US. And yes, I can see the need to keep the market liquid, foreign interest in our country right now is imperative to the long term goals of our dollar (I've got some articles for this) and any bump in our liquidity or weakness of any kind would greatly impede the dollars direction.

The date on this paper is for September, not sure if this is the one. Did they have snow last year at this time?

Hi, still not sure what would describe the difference between socialism, fascism and so on. Giggle, I'll keep working on my understanding.

This is a nice post. I wonder if the flaws are mostly related to fractional reserve banking and interest. I really do wonder if that is the problem. Creating money itself is not an issue in other settings like ( I can't remeber if it was north or south ) Carolina's. I'm so hazy on my history facts but I do remember friction with England over the success of the program and its eventual demise because of this friction. I wish I could understand whether or not a simple system of creation/tax removed from fractional reserve with minimal interest to help regulate flow would work. It boggles my mind how complicated this whole system is and I wonder how many important global decisions are being made with tied hands because of this failure. In my mind making money off of money would have to be a big part of the problem. You make money from service. I suppose that one could argue that the banks are providing a service of providing credit but this argument only wins because of the fact that there is no where else go and when applied to this lop sided system you need interest to create money.

http://www.voxeu.org...php?q=node/4101 This is a link to the ZIRP reference. A very interesting article in many ways. PS In the end I would like to know if this is a good example of fascism. Not Zirp, although an understanding of that principle as far as alignment wouldn't hurt but most importantly the FCCC paper.

Page 59 18. Parties shall further collectively reduce global emissions by 50–85 per cent by 2050 compared with the 2000 level. These collective obligations should be adjusted in accordance with best available scientific information, including the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Is this open ended? I am trying really hard to be objective but instinct wants to tell me to read this as the contract it is and remember that interpretation is 9 10ths of the law. Earlier I was reading some posts about the BP oil spill involving valves that Bush disolved some legislation to avoid a conflict for BPs rigs on US soil. The first thing I wondered was whether or not there was a clause like chapter 11 (shown on CETA thread) which would of allowed BP to sue Bush over any legislation impedeing corporate profits. I realize this BP thought sounds completely unrelated but in a way, it shows how destructive open ended cluases can be. This whole section on greenhouse gases seems open ended. While perhaps innocuous at this moment, how could that change in a moment. Time will tell, I am not a doomsayer just wanted to point out what might be a red flag as to being able to actually enforce this ambitous reduction in the long run. I question a few more paragraphs in this section too.

Page 60 23. This Agreement does not affect the ability of Parties to establish emissions trading linkages between or among themselves. Any ideas of what this means read in the context of the surrounding pages?

I hope you are right about the funds comment. As I understand it the revenue will be let at interest with development controls. I'll post more as I read furthur. It does sound so very fair in some ways but in others I'm not so sure. Thank-you for the link to the adaptation discussion I'll go check it out.

42. Parties should commit to: (a) Promoting the full range of available management tools and financing options in implementing local, national or regional adaptation actions, including innovative managerial and financial techniques; FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 Page 44 ( Encouraging financial flows for adaptation to the LDCs and the poorest and most vulnerable communities within countries; © Promoting the conditions that will encourage private-sector investment to build resilience in sensitive sectors; (d) Promoting access to appropriate technologies, knowledge and expertise to address adaptation, in particular for the least developed countries, including the creation of enabling environments for the successful adoption of such technologies. Section C, if I understood ZIRP properly about the negative effects on private sector growth...would the World Banks position on a global extraction from Zirp have anything to do with this?

41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries’ ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the “Convention Adaptation Fund”] [may] [shall] include: (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];] ( [Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties];] © [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];] (d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;] (e) [[Levies on] [shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport;] (f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading; (g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];] (h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties);] (i) [[Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels (in accordance with Article 11.5 of the Convention).]] I would like to have an understanding of just how much revenue this is going to generate.

Fair enough I suppose. It is hard to bring up small points of a large concept without losing context. However, with a reference copy, good enough. Let me refresh myself and get back to you as I was in the process of re-reading it myself.

http://unfccc.int/re...lca7/eng/12.pdf This is for Waldo, love ya babe. Keepin us all straight.

I don't want to talk about the science, I want to talk about this paper, I found you a link. Like you, I don't understand the science enough to debate it. I just used the controversy to defend my desire to discuss this paper. After reading this, I do feel rather more skeptical of what to believe scientifically however, this is in part, the global climate policy we are getting regardless of why.

Here it is http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf I should get better at saving my links....