There will be another banking crisis, because bankers who enriched themselves in the process of causing the last one have paid no price. There can be no bigger incentive to speculate on risky deals than the knowledge that if it goes pear shaped some one else gets the bill. There will always be banking crises for as long as the current system is in place - the system that gives commercial banks an effective monopoly on money creation, that allows them to make loans with money that they don't have, that allows them to charge interest on making loans with their fictive money, and which means that everyone - individuals, businesses and governments are massively and permanently in debt. Amazingly, there is a simple solution. One that was proposed by economist Iriving Fisher in the 1930s, and which has been shown to be workable by two of the IMF's top economists. It involves removing the power to create money from commercial banks, and handing that power to a responsible publicly administered body that would adjust the amount of money in the economy so that the system runs smoothly. These are the ideas being proposed by Positive Money. It's about time these ideas were discussed openly in the media. As long as politicians are in cahoots with economists, rating agencies and banks, we will have repeat crises. As demonstrated in the excellent Inside Job documentary, bankers no longer assume responsibility if their companies go bankruptcy due to amendments to legislation. This was started by Thatcher and continued by Blair in the UK and by Clinton and Bush in the USA. Deregulation is to blame. Nobody from either major parties in the UK or the USA has condemned the bankers for their underlying role in the global financial crisis and the fact that bankers continue to pay themselves huge bonuses show that nothing has changed. As long as bankers can bet against the welfare of their companies, as in the Lehman crisis, confident that they will not go to prison for causing billions in losses to the economy, nothing will change, unfortunately. The ratings agencies got off without any censure for backing mortgage securities that were high-risk and, as it turned out, completely worthless. The banks selling these securities to the public were simultaneously hedging their risks by basically betting that the securities would lose value. For some reason, such behavior is not condemned by the politicians of all hues. And bankers continue to make fortunes from simple betting. Even worse, now they pay even less tax than they used to.
Access Investments-Building Awareness - European Union-ROMANIA
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
...of bankers and crisis...
There will be another banking crisis, because bankers who enriched themselves in the process of causing the last one have paid no price. There can be no bigger incentive to speculate on risky deals than the knowledge that if it goes pear shaped some one else gets the bill. There will always be banking crises for as long as the current system is in place - the system that gives commercial banks an effective monopoly on money creation, that allows them to make loans with money that they don't have, that allows them to charge interest on making loans with their fictive money, and which means that everyone - individuals, businesses and governments are massively and permanently in debt. Amazingly, there is a simple solution. One that was proposed by economist Iriving Fisher in the 1930s, and which has been shown to be workable by two of the IMF's top economists. It involves removing the power to create money from commercial banks, and handing that power to a responsible publicly administered body that would adjust the amount of money in the economy so that the system runs smoothly. These are the ideas being proposed by Positive Money. It's about time these ideas were discussed openly in the media. As long as politicians are in cahoots with economists, rating agencies and banks, we will have repeat crises. As demonstrated in the excellent Inside Job documentary, bankers no longer assume responsibility if their companies go bankruptcy due to amendments to legislation. This was started by Thatcher and continued by Blair in the UK and by Clinton and Bush in the USA. Deregulation is to blame. Nobody from either major parties in the UK or the USA has condemned the bankers for their underlying role in the global financial crisis and the fact that bankers continue to pay themselves huge bonuses show that nothing has changed. As long as bankers can bet against the welfare of their companies, as in the Lehman crisis, confident that they will not go to prison for causing billions in losses to the economy, nothing will change, unfortunately. The ratings agencies got off without any censure for backing mortgage securities that were high-risk and, as it turned out, completely worthless. The banks selling these securities to the public were simultaneously hedging their risks by basically betting that the securities would lose value. For some reason, such behavior is not condemned by the politicians of all hues. And bankers continue to make fortunes from simple betting. Even worse, now they pay even less tax than they used to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Of course the easy money, which Wall Street is insatiably addicted to like heroin, will continue under a Yellen chairmanship at the Federal Reserve. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America. Main Street incomes will just continue to stagnate under this oligarchy that has been in place since that actor fellow became president and introduced the world to the system called 'Reaganomics'
President Obama wanted Summers because he was Wall Street's preferred choice. The President will now choose from a new list of names that the financial community on Wall Street submits for his consideration.
The delusional Mr. Barnes seems to belong to the Robert Mugabe school of economics where superhero "Helicopter Ben" comes to the rescue of we mere mortals with his printing presses and $90BILLION per month in currency debasement. Not since the ancient Roman senate voted to debase the denari with copper has there been so much to lose by so many.
Remember that Mizz Yellin sits at the feet of both the debaser-in-chief and his plantation-master/chief slave Bernspanky. All these mental midgets can come up with as solutions is PRINT MORE MONEY.
Of course, the life savings of every American buys half as many pastrami sandwiches as when Obozo was inaugurated.
Am I wrong?
Can you prove it?
Or are we all thoroughly sodomized by the Obozo printing party?
Wall Street has been spitting blood over the possibility of Summers getting the Fed job. My WSJ keeps bursting into fire.
Obama pushed for Summers over the loud protests of both business people and politicians -- of both parties, no less. Yellen is seen as the "safe pair of hands" by investors and as mercifully scandal-free by liberals.
My best guess is still that the president really, really doesn't want Yellen and she was the only other viable candidate to Summers. He's not going to be a happy camper.
Democrats push for Janet Yellen as Fed chair after Summers withdrawal
Obama let it be known in not-so-subtle fashion -- via one of his infamous White House leaks -- that he vastly preferred Larry Summers as his first choice for Fed chair and Timothy Geithner as his second choice.
Now, if Obama nominates Janet Yellen at this point, as appears increasingly likely, she will be regarded as sloppy seconds...or sloppy thirds.
So, the hapless and clueless Democrats are pleased as punch about this development? Apparently, they haven't figured out that Obama has more contempt for them and their "base" than he reserves for Republicans.
If Obama gave a damn about what Democrats think, he would have nominated Janet Yellen already and would have honored her by affirming that she is the best-qualified candidate for the job. Plus, Yellen has the added cachet of being the first woman to chair the Fed since its inception in 1913.
Yellen is currently the Vice Chairperson of the Federal Reserve System, a position she has held since October 2010. Prior to that appointment, she was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (June 2004-2010), and became a voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) in 2009.
How sad (and revealing) that Obama was ready to overlook the chance to make history by nominating not only the first woman to chair the Fed, but the best-qualified candidate with a demonstrably stellar record, while preferring instead the significantly less well-qualified privileged princelings Summers and Geithner, whose shabby performances and serial failures are a matter of record.
I suspect that Obama fears Janet Yellen's independence -- because, unlike Summers and Geithner, she is not perceived to be a toady.
Besides the Wall Street banksters and hedge fundsters and the elite 1% and 0.1% -- those fortunate few who will reap the rewards flowing directly into their coffers and investment portfolios from the Fed and its policy -- why should those of us who inhabit the real world give a damn?
For what its worth, I believe the Federal Reserve System is a rotten, secretive, corrupt institution that was designed to serve the interests of the elites at the expense of the many and should be abolished completely or restructured and reformed to require openness and transparency. Moreover, the Fed should be subject to regular audits and reaonsable regulation and serious oversight by the House and Senate and, if necessary, by the Department of Justice.
PS -- The Fed's much-vaunted "dual mandate" -- to keep inflation low and to encourage full employment -- is a cruel joke for the many and a fairy tale for the elites to use for purposes of deception and manipulation of popular opinion.
Rebel Democrats on Monday threw their weight behind a growing campaign for Janet Yellen to take over the US Federal Reserve, as their successful revolt against White House pick Larry Summers emboldened those calling for tougher policy toward Wall Street.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of four banking committee members who helped force Summers, a former Citigroup adviser, to withdraw from the race on Sunday, said the development should give President Barack Obama a chance to rethink his strategy, which has been criticised for being too accommodating toward banking interests.
"I don't think it's any secret that Larry was not my first choice," said Warren. "I think the president is taking his time, he's thinking through this and we're having a good and thoughtful discussion, which is a good thing to have in Washington."
Summers was treasury secretary under President Clinton. He is seen by his opponents as being heavily implicated in the lax regulatory environment which helped caused the banking crash.
On the fifth anniversay of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the race to succeed the current Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, has become a symbol of the political battle in Washington over how to rein in the power of financial interests. Yellen, who is currently vice chair of the Federal Reserve, is seen as much less close to Wall Street than Summers. She is also favoured by those who would like to see more women in Obama's inner circle.
"Janet Yellen, I hope, will make a terrific Federal Reserve chair," said Warren, in an interview on MSNBC. "I hope she's nominated. She has great experience, she has great judgment. I think she would make a terrific federal reserve chair. The president will make his decision but I hope that happens."
Paradoxically, US financial markets rose on the news that Summers had withdrawn his candidacy; Summers had been expected to oppose fresh economic stimulus if he made it through the Senate confirmation process.
"Larry Summers' past decisions to deregulate Wall Street and do the bidding of corporate America have made the lives of millions of Americans more acrimonious. He would have been an awful Fed chair," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "President Obama should appoint someone to lead the Fed who has not accepted millions in payments from Wall Street, and who will prioritize an economy that works for the little guy above further enrichment for the big guy."
The whispering campaign against Summers echoed a Senate backlash last year, at Obama's attempt to nominate Susan Rice as secretary of state, and comes as his failure to secure congressional backing for military strikes against Syria risks further weakening his political capital in Washington.
Writing to Obama to explain his decision to pull out, Summers acknowledged that he would have faced a bumpy ride from the Senate.
"This is a complex moment in our national life," he wrote. "I have reluctantly concluded than any possible confirmation process for me would be acrimonious and would not serve the interests of the Federal Reserve, the Administration, or ultimately, the interests of the nation's ongoing economic recovery.
"I look forward to continuing to support your efforts to strengthen our national economy by creating a broad-based prosperity and to reform our financial system so that no president ever again faces what you and your economic team faced upon taking office in 2009."
“The path that the commission has proposed toward a resolution mechanism is a rocky one. There can be no doubt about it: we need to be on a legally certain foundation.”
Lol, the legal foundations of Europe are built on quick sand which can move at any time for any reason. The vague and non-specific language used in EU treaties serves only one purpose; to allow for any interpretation. They can always find a clause to justify what they already want to do.
BERLIN—Germany's slow-burning election campaign has finally sprung into life with less than a week to go, as controversy and shifting voter sentiment force some parties to fight for their political existence.
The leaders of Chancellor Angela Merkel's current coalition partner, the pro-business Free Democratic Party, were left pleading for votes on Monday after a disastrous defeat in Bavarian regional elections the previous day.
The Greens, part of a center-left opposition that hopes to oust Ms. Merkel, are reeling from revelations about their past tolerance of a pro-pedophilia faction within their ranks.
Stimulus? Free money to the banks, giving them free money to continue gambling on Wall Street and make the market go artificially higher.
When I was a young girl (a long time ago), my father took me to buy my first block of stock at the age of 14. In those days, one could only buy stock in blocks of 100 shares or more, and you had to hold them for at least a year, or pay high capital gains for them. He also taught me the market was an excellent indicator of what was going on in the real economy, watch the market, you could judge what the economy would do. If printers were hot, buy paper stock...and so on.
No longer. The market has no relation to the real economy, it is totally rigged. 85% of all transactions are high frequency grab and skim where a few individuals buy and sell massive amounts of securities in less than the time one can blink an eye. No capital gains taxes for them, just skimming more money out of the economy.
That leaves 15% of the market to consist of real investors. We don't know how many of them buy on margin.............They are the ones who will get hurt when the market goes down.
The FED has been putting $85 billion a MONTH of "electronically generated money" into the market. The money is generated on a spreadsheet, but real cash is in short supply. The panic will start when too many people start asking for their money in cash.
BERLIN—A radical left party is the strongest guarantee that conservative leader Angela Merkel will secure a third term as German chancellor in national elections next Sunday.
Die Linke—or 'The Left'—is expected to win up to 10% of the vote, and it is part of a trio of left-of-center parties that, together, could win a majority of seats in Germany's parliament, the Bundestag. But its relations with the other left-leaning parties are so bad that it almost certainly can't form a coalition with them.
Those bitter divisions among Ms. Merkel's opponents mean she will, in all likelihood, stay chancellor.
Post a Comment