Conspiracy Theory

[Pliny]

It's not as hopeless as that. Though many people certainly do learn that, there are also people coming out of our education systems who prefer smaller government. Quite a few of my friends and acquaintances in university (mostly engineering and science students) happened to fall into this category.

That's why I stay away from saying "every" and use the term "most".

I will even say that the engineering and science faculties at the post secondary level actually impart some practical knowledge to their students.

Building bridges that stay up is a requisite.

As for teaching and the humanities it is unbelievable what passes for instruction in those fields.

More students would apply themselves more ably if they were allowed to think instead of being spoon fed a lot of pablum to be regurgitated later.

Most of the investment vehicles available to banks are also available to individuals. When banks take your money and invest it into something that they hope will give a "10%" return, they are taking a risk. Your 2% savings account is risk free and insured. If you want to gamble and invest in the same type of portfolio that a bank does, there are certainly institutions that will provide you with that opportunity. The only difference is that banks can sometimes get better deals since they can invest much larger quantities of money than most individuals can, and that gives them some negotiating power. However, banks are also subject to a lot of overhead costs that individuals are not.

It is entirely acceptable for them to do what they do AS LONG AS there is informed consent. Yes, they have insured your 2% and the government goes even further and insures your deposit up to, I think it is, $60,000. (Did they raise it to a hundred thousand or did I just dream that?)

Anyway unless the government creates a scenario of moral hazard that makes banks abandon prudent lending policies it is fairly risk free.

There are of course other banking products than just savings deposits. There are investment funds and they do tell you the parameters of your earnings, their investment policies and the risks

that are supposed to assuage your fears of investing with them.

For example, most of my money is happily sitting and earning a ~7% return right now (that's last year's performance), through a varied portfolio of stable dividend paying stocks. That's not including the underlying value of the stocks, which has more than doubled since I bought them at the bottom of the "recession".

Smart man. Decent for doing it yourself.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Pliny

[Bonam]

That's why I stay away from saying "every" and use the term "most".

I will even say that the engineering and science faculties at the post secondary level actually impart some practical knowledge to their students.

Building bridges that stay up is a requisite.

Yep.

As for teaching and the humanities it is unbelievable what passes for instruction in those fields.

More students would apply themselves more ably if they were allowed to think instead of being spoon fed a lot of pablum to be regurgitated later.

I agree, teaching in some of the "liberal arts" fields is non optimal.

It is entirely acceptable for them to do what they do AS LONG AS there is informed consent.

Which there is. You don't open a banking account without consenting, and you have every opportunity to inform yourself of what that entails prior to consenting.

Yes, they have insured your 2% and the government goes even further and insures your deposit up to, I think it is, $60,000. (Did they raise it to a hundred thousand or did I just dream that?)

You didn't imagine it:

http://www.cdic.ca/

Anyway unless the government creates a scenario of moral hazard that makes banks abandon prudent lending policies it is fairly risk free.

There are of course other banking products than just savings deposits. There are investment funds and they do tell you the parameters of your earnings, their investment policies and the risks that are supposed to assuage your fears of investing with them.

Yep... so what exactly is the problem?

[Yesterday]

Did they not get a public education?

Most graduates of the public system seem to know how to make demands on government and vote for more benefits or not cutting benefits and beyond that they find a job that hopefully has benefits so it can become a career.

Yup, he is in public high school and just a regular kid...big, bad and beautiful. I can agree that what he has received to date for political education leaves a lot to be desired but what he has learned from me in terms of independance of thought makes the grade and we do talk. We talk a lot compared to many mother/sons. We have learned together about many things, I am so grateful for our relationship.

The real problem is that banks should tell you what they are doing with your money. They tell you they will pay you interest on a savings account but they don't tell you that they will use your money to make 10% and keep 8% for themselves while you are smiling with 2%.

We already know they do this and we perpetuate it knowingly by doing business with them anyway. In terms of variables that we could realistically effect, we are the largest.

In terms of developing a concept that could theoretically usurp a large enough portion of the finacial consumer base, well, the stock market would be instant death. If the assets to create loanable funds are reliant on the market, its too volatile for a small beginner and if we risked our clients assets on the market and lost them....also, any market assets would be a target for the pissed off big banks and like I said would likely be instant death. I like the idea of being completely liquid.

I've been looking at the totals for service charge profits across the big banks...quite a few trillion if I remember correctly. In terms of making a profit and even perhaps offering nominal interest on savings...without being a glutton there is a lot of room to play in even just a small percentage of this. Not to mention the interest collected on the loans.

We don't need another bank, we need something new. Something completely seperate from governments/printing money/hedges.

[Yesterday]

I've gone and lost that valuation article...this computer cleans itself every time I shut down the web so I lose all my history and the pdf while it is about velocity I need the other one to paint the picture. I'll fix this...

There is this one I found about the Federal Reserve that was quite enlightening...

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/should-the-fed-be-abolished.aspx

[Yesterday]

It's not as hopeless as that. Though many people certainly do learn that, there are also people coming out of our education systems who prefer smaller government. Quite a few of my friends and acquaintances in university (mostly engineering and science students) happened to fall into this category.

Most of the investment vehicles available to banks are also available to individuals. When banks take your money and invest it into something that they hope will give a "10%" return, they are taking a risk. Your 2% savings account is risk free and insured. If you want to gamble and invest in the same type of portfolio that a bank does, there are certainly institutions that will provide you with that opportunity. The only difference is that banks can sometimes get better deals since they can invest much larger quantities of money than most individuals can, and that gives them some negotiating power. However, banks are also subject to a lot of overhead costs that individuals are not.

For example, most of my money is happily sitting and earning a ~7% return right now (that's last year's performance), through a varied portfolio of stable dividend paying stocks. That's not including the underlying value of the stocks, which has more than doubled since I bought them at the bottom of the "recession".

I too am doing this all though I am just getting started by putting together a folio to practice research with. I am a dividend kind of girl.

On a later post you asked what the problem with the big banks is...they perpetuate the financial irresponsibility of our government and manipulate everything they can to the bottom line in their favour. They are a monopoly and a big pain. They use our debt as a tool, they reek havoc with interest rates and inflation with abandon, displaying blatant disregard for anything but the bottom line.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Yesterday

[Pliny]

Which there is. You don't open a banking account without consenting, and you have every opportunity to inform yourself of what that entails prior to consenting.

How many people know how the monetary, financial, banking systems work?

Most just know they need a bank account to cash their payroll cheque. How many times do we find out information after the fact?

Yep... so what exactly is the problem?

Privilege, monopoly. Fraudulent banking practices - such as fractional reserve banking that allows the creation of credit from nothing.

I am in basic disagreement with governments control over the economy through the central bank, manipulating the money supply and the interest rate. It allows government on a whim to vastly affect an individual's financial situation. If the system stayed as it is now I would only be mildly discontent but the progressive nature of government growth is what needs to be vigilantly watched. Once it controls the economy, as it currently does, it is a short step to tyranny. It just takes the wrong person to get elected, another Turdeau would be devastating and Canadians, in my view, are too supportive of big government.

Government can make everything appear to be economically sound when it isn't, as happened on a global level recently, and I fear we are on the edge of another precipice due to the folly of government economic policy designed to resolve the first crash. Our global situation is such that it is an opening for government to increase it's intervention in our lives on a large scale.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I've gone and lost that valuation article...this computer cleans itself every time I shut down the web so I lose all my history and the pdf while it is about velocity I need the other one to paint the picture. I'll fix this...

There is this one I found about the Federal Reserve that was quite enlightening...

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/should-the-fed-be-abolished.aspx

All in all a atraightforward account but it misses a few things about the reasons for depressions and boom times. This can only happen in the aggregate if there is some sort of massive change in the monetary supply.

It wasn't only the increase of a silver supply but the increase in the banks issuance of paper currency. Fractional reserve banking practices increased the amount of paper issued by banks far beyond the amount of silver added to their reserves. Had silver been the only factor there would have been a period of inflation to adjust to the increase in the money supply. Bank inflated the supply far beyond it and caused an economic collapse.

In 1907 there was a push by banking interests and others to institute a central bank. some of those interests were European as Europe had had a central banking system for quite a while. The Bank of England was formed in 1897, I believe.

There were benefits to a central bank to society but nothing more beneficial than to the bankers who could continue their banking practices, fractional reserve banking being very profitable. A central bank brought stability to banks and reduced risk to collapse and reduced susceptibility to bank runs.

A central bank could flow reserves to any member bank that could see it through a bank run. The fractional reserve rate would be determined by the central bank.

So it brought economic stability to the banks and was a protection for banks. Society was to benefit by the elimination of depressions and government could benefit by having available currency - which is why we still suffer boom and bust cycles and depressions were not eliminated.

[Pliny]

Yup, he is in public high school and just a regular kid...big, bad and beautiful. I can agree that what he has received to date for political education leaves a lot to be desired but what he has learned from me in terms of independance of thought makes the grade and we do talk. We talk a lot compared to many mother/sons. We have learned together about many things, I am so grateful for our relationship.

Your relationship sounds good.

We already know they do this and we perpetuate it knowingly by doing business with them anyway. In terms of variables that we could realistically effect, we are the largest.

In terms of developing a concept that could theoretically usurp a large enough portion of the finacial consumer base, well, the stock market would be instant death. If the assets to create loanable funds are reliant on the market, its too volatile for a small beginner and if we risked our clients assets on the market and lost them....also, any market assets would be a target for the pissed off big banks and like I said would likely be instant death. I like the idea of being completely liquid.

I've been looking at the totals for service charge profits across the big banks...quite a few trillion if I remember correctly. In terms of making a profit and even perhaps offering nominal interest on savings...without being a glutton there is a lot of room to play in even just a small percentage of this. Not to mention the interest collected on the loans.

We don't need another bank, we need something new. Something completely seperate from governments/printing money/hedges.

Well, we need sound money for one and sound banking practices. Fractional reserve banking is basically fraudulent.

[Yesterday]

Your relationship sounds good.

It's been the best 17 years of my life so far.

Well, we need sound money for one and sound banking practices. Fractional reserve banking is basically fraudulent.

I totally agree and fractional reserve is exactly what I would want to target if I were to seriously try and develop a new concept for banking. I'm thinking that perhaps the biggest effect we could have on this system would come from removing a sizable chunk of the loans business from the banks thus reducing their ability to print money...and also to eventually/ultimately move vast sums of money around the country/world by increasing velocity and decreasing new currency circulation. Accomplished in part by being liquid. Right now I am leery of gold standard and even a basket of assets, so far it has not been proven to me that this would accomplish much beyond removing layers of fraud. It does nothing towards deconcentrating wealth to any great degree. Just seems to shift power to those who are currently monopolizing resources. While the fractional reserve system has gotten out of control and needs to be constructively reconstructed, a need backed currency has the potential to deal with hunger in ways an asset backed never could.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Yesterday

[Pliny]

Right now I am leery of gold standard and even a basket of assets, so far it has not been proven to me that this would accomplish much beyond removing layers of fraud. It does nothing towards deconcentrating wealth to any great degree. Just seems to shift power to those who are currently monopolizing resources. While the fractional reserve system has gotten out of control and needs to be constructively reconstructed, a need backed currency has the potential to deal with hunger in ways an asset backed never could.

With an asset backed currency it means that real wealth is held by the people if they have any money at all and we can't say that an economy will function if the currency is not distributed so they will hold assets instead of paper or electronic balances.

In order for it to shift power to those who are currently monopolizing resources the economy would die. People would have to have money. There is no way to monopolize it and survive.

[Yesterday]

With an asset backed currency it means that real wealth is held by the people if they have any money at all and we can't say that an economy will function if the currency is not distributed so they will hold assets instead of paper or electronic balances.

I understand the concept of how the asset can validate the value but it is not the only way. At above $1200an ounce, after the conversion how much money are you going to have? It makes me think of times in the past when the US government forced the turning over of gold from it's citizens. In fact, I have heard rumours recently that once again in the US, there is criteria being set for ownership of gold in terms of being on government support. At least with them only being able to take fiat money from us (taxes,fees...valuation, interest...debt) they basically leave us with our real wealth. I realize that in terms of ever growing taxes and so on it seems as if they are robbing of us our wealth but they are only robbing us of useless fiat money. My gold is still sitting safe and its value has increased my wealth not negated it. Don't get me wrong....fiat money has grown into a monster and it seriously begs for reigning in... Any gold or other asset you bought/buy in your life time has been done with monopoly money, this fact however does not negate the fact that the asset itself will forever have value regardless of what becomes of the fiat currency that purchased it. If the asset is the value of the currency and the currency takes a major hit/dive...what then becomes the value of your asset? In this scenario your assets do not retain enough value to bail you out if need be. They do not represent IMO the security they should, as they could.

In order for it to shift power to those who are currently monopolizing resources the economy would die. People would have to have money. There is no way to monopolize it and survive.

[Yesterday]

With an asset backed currency it means that real wealth is held by the people if they have any money at all and we can't say that an economy will function if the currency is not distributed so they will hold assets instead of paper or electronic balances.

I understand the concept of how the asset can validate the value but it is not the only way. At above $1200an ounce, after the conversion how much money are you going to have? It makes me think of times in the past when the US government forced the turning over of gold from it's citizens. In fact, I have heard rumours recently that once again in the US, there is criteria being set for ownership of gold in terms of being on government support. At least with them only being able to take fiat money from us (taxes,fees...valuation, interest...debt) they basically leave us with our real wealth. I realize that in terms of ever growing taxes and so on it seems as if they are robbing of us our wealth but they are only robbing us of useless fiat money. My gold is still sitting safe and its value has increased my wealth not negated it. Don't get me wrong....fiat money has grown into a monster and it seriously begs for reigning in... Any gold or other asset you bought/buy in your life time has been done with monopoly money, this fact however does not negate the fact that the asset itself will forever have value regardless of what becomes of the fiat currency that purchased it. If the asset is the value of the currency and the currency takes a major hit/dive...what then becomes the value of your asset? In this scenario your assets do not retain enough value to bail you out if need be. They do not represent IMO the security they should, as they could.

In order for it to shift power to those who are currently monopolizing resources the economy would die. People would have to have money. There is no way to monopolize it and survive.

[Yesterday]

The reality of the price of gold to me...I certainly do not consider any value above roughly $300 an ounce as any kind of profits for myself. In fact, I am ignoring the fact that theoretically I could take this new found value, create a bunch of credit with it and probably make myself some money. Without truly understanding why the price is so high my morals and instincts say, turn away my friend. Wait till days of softer winds if you get my drift.

[Bonam]

I realize that in terms of ever growing taxes and so on it seems as if they are robbing of us our wealth but they are only robbing us of useless fiat money.

Haha, if it is so useless, wanna send it my way? Lemme tell you my paypal account...

[Yesterday]

Haha, if it is so useless, wanna send it my way? Lemme tell you my paypal account...

[Yesterday]

I must say that this is quite beautiful. I was wondering how long it was going to take for Greenspan to finally be implicated publicly. If any of you have picked up on the magnitude of the Global Settlements this article will speak volumes to you....

http://modernmarketingjapan.blogspot.com/2010/08/alan-greenspan-united-nations-and-1345.html

http://upintelligence.multiply.com/reviews/item/2

http://leconomistamascherato.blogspot.com/2010/08/daniele-dal-bosco-back-in-news.html

World wide coverage...I could post more. He is so popular :angry:

Edited August 11, 2010 by Yesterday

[Yesterday]

http://pragcap.com/alan-greenspan-sounds-the-bond-vigilante-siren-call

So he seems to at least grasp the fact that the United States has ZERO solvency risk. But he seems to fail in understanding why our borrowing costs might increase. Mr. Greenspan doesn’t seem to connect the dots between the lack of solvency risk and what might actually cause higher interest rates – inflation. But as he admitted above, Mr. Greenspan can’t understand why there is no inflation (just like he can’t understand why stocking the the shelves with more apples doesn’t result in higher sales).

This is a Greenspan quote out of an article that I found quite interesting. It covers a variety of topics.

This one in particular, the highlighted sentence... The reason there is no inflation, why the banks aren't lending...in part yes because there is not much consumer demand for loans at the moment, mostly fear related. There is however one other very big reason and that is Global Settlements. Pretty well every country in the world is involved with this on some level and right at the heart of it are the banks.

In a global settlement, there is created a situation where all levels of court and multiple plaintiffs come together for the purpose of trying their cases against the defendant. This is usually requested by the defendant for reasons of time, exposure to adverse media and cost. In this case the defendants are banks. The trials have been going on in individual countries for years and years and comparatively recently turned into a global settlement situation to encompass all countries with implicated banks. Out of this settlement of course must come massive financial recourse for victims not to mention fines but also global regulations that allow for a unified front regarding the international fraud that is being cleaned up globally as we speak, as we sleep.

Long and short of it, IMO, until the global settlement court trial sessions coupled with appropriate signed global resolutions, we wont see much in the way of honest encouragement for banks to start lending.

We should be thankful in a way for alternative media because main stream are not allowed to cover this. The only problem I have with alternatives is that it can be very hard to substantiate material and their reputation as a whole really sucks so it's hard to get appropriate attention to the good material that does get represented there. For the most part I have tried to post research paper's that carry a better reputation to explain global settlements, they are back through the posts on this thread but sometimes one of these alternatives actually publishes something true about what is going on and Greenspan is in a lot of trouble.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Yesterday

[Pliny]

If the asset is the value of the currency and the currency takes a major hit/dive...what then becomes the value of your asset? In this scenario your assets do not retain enough value to bail you out if need be. They do not represent IMO the security they should, as they could.

How can the currency take a major hit/dive? The only way it can is if it is issued without connection to the asset. That would create inflation and be a sort of robbery of the value of the currency. Only a fractional reserve system could create that.

The only other way I can see a hit against a currency is straightforward robbery of the stored assets.

These are the ways currency could be robbed of value. One is the criminal way and the other is the legalized monopoly way.

The economic history of the world is one of governments taking over control of the money supply, devaluing it and eventually making it useless. It happened in Rome with price controls on grain, it happened in France with the "assignat" It happened in ancient China where paper money originated.

In the old days devaluation of the money was a way that Monarchs robbed their citizens. They alloyed the coins with base metals. Today, the money supply has been devalued, first by legalized fractional reserve banking practices, and then, when currency was awash and depressions created, removal from the domestic gold standard, and with further inflation, removal of the international gold standard in 1973.

[Yesterday]

How can the currency take a major hit/dive? The only way it can is if it is issued without connection to the asset. That would create inflation and be a sort of robbery of the value of the currency. Only a fractional reserve system could create that.

The only other way I can see a hit against a currency is straightforward robbery of the stored assets.

These are the ways currency could be robbed of value. One is the criminal way and the other is the legalized monopoly way.

The economic history of the world is one of governments taking over control of the money supply, devaluing it and eventually making it useless. It happened in Rome with price controls on grain, it happened in France with the "assignat" It happened in ancient China where paper money originated.

In the old days devaluation of the money was a way that Monarchs robbed their citizens. They alloyed the coins with base metals. Today, the money supply has been devalued, first by legalized fractional reserve banking practices, and then, when currency was awash and depressions created, removal from the domestic gold standard, and with further inflation, removal of the international gold standard in 1973.

Once again, you do a better job of explaining me than I do myself. Too funny. Even though we come from different points of view. That is a neat quality you have there Mr. Pliny. Are you as gentle in deed as you are in word?

The term hit/dive was not a good one, I was at a loss for situations to use as an example. Debasing the coinage was a good one. It seems to me that the current price of gold is somehow another rip off scheme. I've had it explained to me that the price is reflecting what it would be if the US dollar was to be asset backed by it in its current condition. This explanation does not sit well with me. Another explanation was that if the foreign debt was to be paid of by gold/asset backed structures that the price would need to be what it is to have enough to pay off that debt. Perhaps. I am inclined to think that the price reflects enough of a profit margin to encourage at least some currency movement within the US to keep at least minimally, the banks rolling over their credit while they get through the settlements. Till the 0% interest is lifted off of overnight transactions...till the bank reserves can be utilized to produce credit again...till the government can stop producing bonds in vane to try and stabilize the dollar till the banks can flow again...just uneducated guesses on my part but each time I go ahead and express my thoughts I learn what is right and what is wrong about my understanding.

[Pliny]

Once again, you do a better job of explaining me than I do myself. Too funny. Even though we come from different points of view. That is a neat quality you have there Mr. Pliny. Are you as gentle in deed as you are in word?

The term hit/dive was not a good one, I was at a loss for situations to use as an example. Debasing the coinage was a good one. It seems to me that the current price of gold is somehow another rip off scheme. I've had it explained to me that the price is reflecting what it would be if the US dollar was to be asset backed by it in its current condition. This explanation does not sit well with me. Another explanation was that if the foreign debt was to be paid of by gold/asset backed structures that the price would need to be what it is to have enough to pay off that debt. Perhaps. I am inclined to think that the price reflects enough of a profit margin to encourage at least some currency movement within the US to keep at least minimally, the banks rolling over their credit while they get through the settlements. Till the 0% interest is lifted off of overnight transactions...till the bank reserves can be utilized to produce credit again...till the government can stop producing bonds in vane to try and stabilize the dollar till the banks can flow again...just uneducated guesses on my part but each time I go ahead and express my thoughts I learn what is right and what is wrong about my understanding.

Yes things line up when you express yourself.

As for gold, the price of it is purely speculation and a hedge against currency collapse. It is basically an expression of uncertainty. Most, probably see it as an opportunity to make some currency.

If it collapses they will be very surprised but they will have some assets.

Every wrong step the US government makes in trying to establish a stable economy will increase uncertainty and drive up the price.

Obama has been sugar-coating things to get his own way. He wanted to pass the economic stimulus plan and warned of unemployment reaching 8% if it didn't get approval. It passed and unemployment went to 10% and sits at 9.5% today.

He said that if the Health care plan were passed the cost of health care for the individual would go down. Policy renewals are showing a hefty increase in premiums.

He has promised increased government intervention in the market and that intervention hasn't so far met with the approval of the people nor the business community. Promised regulation of the market is making it nervous to say the least.

Watch for gold to continue to rise.

[Yesterday]

Yes things line up when you express yourself.

Thanks for the encouragement. I think right now I am suffering from the effect of the g-forces I am encountering on my trip through this learning curve.

As for gold, the price of it is purely speculation and a hedge against currency collapse. It is basically an expression of uncertainty. Most, probably see it as an opportunity to make some currency.

If it collapses they will be very surprised but they will have some assets.

I agree with you here over turning a profit even though I personally won't but I am not so sure speculation and hedging are the main culprits.

Every wrong step the US government makes in trying to establish a stable economy will increase uncertainty and drive up the price.

Once again I question the source of the force....motivation.

Obama has been sugar-coating things to get his own way. He wanted to pass the economic stimulus plan and warned of unemployment reaching 8% if it didn't get approval. It passed and unemployment went to 10% and sits at 9.5% today.

He said that if the Health care plan were passed the cost of health care for the individual would go down. Policy renewals are showing a hefty increase in premiums.

Instead of looking at what Obama is saying and doing from a point of view that paints them as actions to further an agenda, I've been looking at it as being actions forced by the global settlements going on around the world. Especially in regards to his spending and the banks. That what we see is more of forced situation than one of a specific agenda. Perhaps what he states publicly has nothing to do with the real reason why but is nothing more than a poor attempt to rationalize the awful amount of spending involved in cleaning up/backing up the settlements. A situation he is not allowed to acknowledge publicly.

He has promised increased government intervention in the market and that intervention hasn't so far met with the approval of the people nor the business community. Promised regulation of the market is making it nervous to say the least.

One major obstruction to creating tougher market legislation is the different definitions of what is legal and the different requirements that arise from it between countries. Perhaps at this juncture it is not possible to crack down further until global agreements are made between countries as to market legislation. Securitization is one such issue.

Watch for gold to continue to rise.

The higher it goes the bigger the fall.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Yesterday

[Pliny]

I agree with you here over turning a profit even though I personally won't but I am not so sure speculation and hedging are the main culprits.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. "Uncertainty" is the main reason.

Instead of looking at what Obama is saying and doing from a point of view that paints them as actions to further an agenda, I've been looking at it as being actions forced by the global settlements going on around the world. Especially in regards to his spending and the banks. That what we see is more of forced situation than one of a specific agenda. Perhaps what he states publicly has nothing to do with the real reason why but is nothing more than a poor attempt to rationalize the awful amount of spending involved in cleaning up/backing up the settlements. A situation he is not allowed to acknowledge publicly.

I believe that Obama has such faith in his "good intentions" that they are enough to heal the world.

You do know what road is paved with good intentions?

The higher it goes the bigger the fall.

Stabilization of the world economy will bring about the fall. Will it stabilize? The CBO estimates unfunded liabilities of the US between 150 and 200 trillion.

[Yesterday]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. "Uncertainty" is the main reason.

It is certainly the consumer point of view.

I believe that Obama has such faith in his "good intentions" that they are enough to heal the world.

I've spent some time watching the man. If you study his mannerisms and his body carriage it says something totally different. Regardless of his ability to muster up the stance he should carry on stage it slips...hard. I realize this might sound lame but really, sitting here trying to sort through the myriad of opinions about Obama I need to fall back on instincts. His hands are tied, he is a good fall guy. What was needed was a fellow who could stand on a stage and actually justify those budgets with credibility. He did this. IMO those budgets are integral to this situation. They are not what they appear to be. One thing that really sticks out in my head is the open ended state policies regarding the expenditure of money from the health care bill. How they don't have to account for or spend the full budget allotment nor do they need to transfer back or carry oer the leftovers. Kind of sounds to me that they needed a reason to cover the fact that the budget coffer is actually empty and didn't want to have to admit it or ever reveal it ant any rate. Just a hunch.

You do know what road is paved with good intentions?

It sure ain't the yellow brick one!

Stabilization of the world economy will bring about the fall. Will it stabilize? The CBO estimates unfunded liabilities of the US between 150 and 200 trillion.

Yes, it is a big debt. I have to wonder how much of this will be forgiven and what will come due. Greece would be a good example here of order of operations in terms of debt forgiveness and credit restructuring. The US has had most of its credit pulled and is going through the same motions as Greece regardless of the fact that it is not put out in main stream media in such a way as to paint a fluid picture. Not to mention the international fraud disaster they are caught up in globally. The bail outs were for the most part whistle blower settlements and credit obligations, the liquidity that is supposedly sitting in the hands of the banks is virtually non-existent or I could say only virtually existent. Not without more bail-out money and then only after this is over.

Have you ever heard of the 'Federal Market Fraud Restitution Fund'? It was on Wiki for awhile and now I can't find it. Remember before when I mentioned to magnitude of the monies collected in the last 10 years or more and just massive volumes yet to come? Where is all that going. My knowledge of these types of funds is not in depth but I do know that at least 10% goes to the Fed off the top. The billions collected from the banks over the 7-10 years is divided up between things like shareholder education and such but what of all the rest. Hundreds if not more so far. Ooddles and ooddles of money.

Some of what I've been able to piece together is that victims apply through court for restitution from this fund when monies have been collected for them and deposited but the criteria for eligibility has been awful and heavily biased in favor of the Fed or Sec for the US and not healthy for investors on foreign soil of most countries. (tax/market fraud) This situation is a global one in which Holland set the tone by honouring foreign investors who bought shares, through whatever exchange Holland operates through, in their courts in a fight against an oil company. I could find the link, I think. Another global settlement to stem the tide of fraud. I imagine it is going to go on for years. It's been going for years.

This massive fraud is what is causing credit fear across the world. Loosely put, the biggest bank run in history?

I have no idea how long it will take to stabilize, there are a few bankruptcies to come yet. The fraud dictates this.

I have to wonder if Harper's hard core stance about ending stimulus might be in part motivated by a lack of desire to carry the banks regardless of whether this situation gets cleared up or not in time for the cut off date. Obama on the other hand I don't think he has a choice, our situations are not quite the same.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Yesterday

[maple_leafs182]

This is an interesting article about the BoC and who controls/owns what...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/theultimatescam/The%20Bank%20of%20Canada.htm

Excellent find. I only read a couple of paragraphs so far but I liked what I read.

The central banks and governments are proxies for the Crown and others that have divided the world up among themselves. I don't know who all the players are but governments work to keep the societies stable and the central banks provide the tools to economically keep things stabilized.

The UN and the Bank of International Settlements tells me that a further consolidation of power is in the process. That means, if plans are successful, that perhaps there is some jockeying for position but maybe not.

Is it a conspiracy? It is a plan and if the central planners don't want to be hung, if/when things go sour, they must remain anonymous and the governments must ultimately be the responsible agencies.

It isn't good to point to the Queen or any owners as members of a Cabal and label them conspirators.

That all sounds like a conspiracy to me, people manipulating the world for their own gain. As for the Queen, monarchies have always been about the consolidation of power, this hasn't ended, forces are still working to consolidate power. Many of us are just naive and have the mentality, that can't happen to me... It is happening right in front of our eyes.

[Oleg Bach]

FOUR highly focused lawyers run the nation - the rest is theatre.