Printable View
Apparently the Federal Reserve is actually a private bank although most people would believe it is public. Bush is tell the other politicians to sign up quickly despite the fact he seems to have had little input.In election year seems like the other politicians are growing a pair that has been missing since post 9/11. From what I have read politicians on both sides are querying this.
I wonder how many shares in USA Inc. China have been buying on the cheap.
It's both actually, the Board of Directors is elected by the banks but the Board of Governors is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal..._of_government
The wife was speculating about China Inc yesterday too. They already own a huge portion of their national debt, so a little private ownership should bring things to a head nicely. (More) Nationalism next, then war? Sound familiar?
adam
If you are really interested see below. Explains how the Federal Reserve was apparently illegally privatised.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
[gv]-1656880303867390173&ei=5nLZSKSuK5LAqALVlPC-Ag&q[/gv]
AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM
China apparently holds a lot of US government & bonds. They also hold a lot of bonds from Frannie Mae & Freddie Mac at a higher rate than the government bonds because they were perceived not quiet as secure as government bonds. Those that held the later bonds will do very well.
Its surprising the dollar actually worth anything any more.
I've never heard of this associated press writer before, but I like her terminology...here.
:D
Here's the part that made me laugh, just in case it's modified in the above link.
http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=xMTIuUwNc...502886%2fV%3d1
'The plan, bo**ixed up for days by election-year politics, would give the administration broad power to use taxpayers' money to purchase billions upon billions of home mortgage-related assets held by cash-starved financial firms.'
Apologies for trying to circumvent the word filter, but that is just too damn funny. Maybe she is trying to inject a new word into US politics...:D
Not really, when you build a house you have something of value, true value you can live in it for a start. What creates bubbles is not building enough prices, which causes house price inflation - ie false wealth, people think they are wealthier because there are insufficient houses, a really bizarre way of thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
You can increase house prices by knocking houses down!!
You could do it untill there was only one house left worth a triilion Euros!!
But would people be better off? No.
Read a good article on this at the weekend & was blaming US mess the very cheap credit. Us Interest rates were 1-2% a few years ago & when money is that cheap encourages speculation. It rewards the speculator & punishes the thrifty saver.
Edit: Bradford & Bingley nationalisation is confirmed although seems due to the way UK market is regulated the other Banks will have to pay the compensation over time.
How long before an Irish bank is trouble? Seem naive to think the crisis can be avoid despite government claims everything is ok...?
I don't really understand your point to be honest. Maybe if you used real examples it might be clearer?Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Define trouble? If its liquidity driven trouble then it can happen very, very quickly. I'd be mildly surprised if we get to the end of this week without something coming out, very surprised if the Irish banking market looks the same at the end of October and absolutely shocked if haven't seen some change by Christmas.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
It appears my timelines above were too generous if anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Wouldn't be surprised if something happens overnight...
Should I be selling? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Too late, they are now probably worthless pices of paper ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
If you haven't sold before now then hold on as at this stage the downside is pretty much exhausted and a merger is the most likely way out.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Have faith in our communist system......err I mean capitalist system :D
As friend in the US said to be last week when talking about government bail out over there. "Its not socialism, its National Socialism" We all know that by another name.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
We may get the hard hats on today because goodness knows what's going to happen today with the rejection of the bail-out.
Government guarantee being well received by the markets (wonder if it will last?) but this move was clearly driven by something.
The Congress decision is very, very interesting, particularly given that both Presidential candidates supported it.
Could mark the end of the US as a superpower.
Edit: Just found out some of the detail. The guarantee isn't aimed at retail deposits (although it obviously covers those lucky enough to have more than E100k on deposit!). It also covers, senior and dated sub-ord debt, covered bonds and inter-bank lending. Thats all the info you need to know to determine why this was brought in at 2am on a Tuesday morning (liquidity crisis at one or more Irish institution which backed up yesterdays rumours). This is the final throw of the dice, there's nothing left to give.
Was Irish decision an effort to save Anglo Irish Bank who lost something like half its value yesterday?
I was amazed to hear US politicians say some of them rejected the plan due to partisan speech. Even if true seems idiotic to admit that as I don't see the public blaming the person who made the partisan speech.
The best alternative I have heard to the US bailout plan that was rejected yesterday is to tax share dealings. Apparently a 0.25% tax on transactions would yield $150bn per year. This would also encourage long term investments & make daily trading/gambling less attractive. Doesn't cost the US taxpayer any money directly so is financed by the industry itself.
Quote:
But there's another way: Create an agency to fund the bailout, loan that agency the money from the treasury, and then have that agency tax Wall Street to pay us (the treasury) back.
For us, this Securities Turnover Excise Tax (STET) was a revenue source. For example, if we were to instate a .25 percent STET (tax) on every stock, swap, derivitive, or other trade today, it would produce - in its first year - around $150 billion in revenue. Wall Street would be generating the money to fund its own bailout. (For comparison, as best I can determine, the UK's STET is .25 percent, and Taiwan just dropped theirs from .60 to .30 percent.)
To me, the decision looks like a clear attempt to stop an immediate liquidity crisis with one or more of the Irish banks.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Its the liquidity thats the killer, the share price is one of the symptoms.
Actually, on the share price, given there was no official info released yesterday to the markets and prices fell very sharply after lunch, I hope the FinReg are investigating potential insider trading/market abuse as it looks fishy.
Obviously either the banks or the Government was bluffing with all the recent assurances. So the Government allow crazy leading practices to their builder buddies, and now come in as the white night to protect their banking buddies from the fall out. Benefit to the normal joe bloggs tax payer? Well there is no benefit from this deal bar proping up the banks - no return on possible investment, just a bail out. I guess we can see why the Tribunals find it so hard to get financial records out of the banks.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Macy your core point that banks are being bailed out for their mistakes is absolutely correct. But the alternative would've been either banks going under, or foreign ownership of the banking sector and likely huge job losses either way (this may yet still happen).Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Also, the Government lending is at commercial rates.
The benefit to the taxpayer is keeping a large number of individuals as taxpayers (as opposed to being on the dole) and securing their savings.
There was always the nationalisation option, which would've protected jobs, given the Government a chance to control the wages and bonuses of the execs that got us into this mess in the first place, and would've provided the tax payer with a return in the future (either through on going profits or through a privatisation).
This is a no loss bail out to bank exec's, bank shareholders and ultimately anyone that's into the banks for millions (no pressure for the banks to foreclose, so lots of builders/developers/ landowners can breath easy).
I'm not against state intervention, just the form of it.
Given that the EU have already stated they are reviewing the current plan from a competition standpoint I'd say nationalisation of the whole sector is a non-runner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Also, the guarantee is being provided at commercial rates, ergo there is an immediate return. Nationalisation would be a huge cost with only a dim prospect of a future return.
This was a liquidity driven event. Credit decisions such as you mention, have been, are and will continue to happen. Builders/developers and landowners can't breathe easy, as this fundamentally has got nothing to do with them. If you have info to the contrary please provide it, otherwise you are descending into Joe Duffy territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy