It's May 02, 2024, 06:36:05 PM
If CEO in Chief Obama demands banks give out loans to people who dont appear capable of paying, then once again these banks will fail and again be begging for a bailout.
But hold on one moment, the mortgage crisis did not equate to the over 13 trillion worth of bailouts, they are a part of a much mazier and complex and just downright criminal derivatives bubble. So for you to say that the banks doing this will lead to another collapse, is deeply misleading, it is the continued drive of derivatives which instigated this crash. The banks would not have the power they hold now without all ceilings being done away with, so to focus on this issue, is essentially marginalising the driving issue. The banks hold all the aces here and not the government, they always have held all the aces, they essentially run the federal reserve, same for some government board members and we know where their conflict of interests lie, such as Paulson.
Quote from: virtuoso on December 16, 2009, 04:48:51 AMBut hold on one moment, the mortgage crisis did not equate to the over 13 trillion worth of bailouts, they are a part of a much mazier and complex and just downright criminal derivatives bubble. So for you to say that the banks doing this will lead to another collapse, is deeply misleading, it is the continued drive of derivatives which instigated this crash. The banks would not have the power they hold now without all ceilings being done away with, so to focus on this issue, is essentially marginalising the driving issue. The banks hold all the aces here and not the government, they always have held all the aces, they essentially run the federal reserve, same for some government board members and we know where their conflict of interests lie, such as Paulson.Explain in lay men's terms what you are talking about when you say "derivatives bubble" and "continued the drive of derivatives which instigated cash"
When the act was repealed by George Clinton
Basically the glass steagalz act of 1933 was introduced to seperate commercial banking from investment banking. When the act was repealed by George Clinton it allowed the commercial banks to commence their activities as speculators. So what do I mean by a derivative? well it's a bet placed on a futures market, but not a fixed bet, i.e. think of spread betting, but spread betting which allows you to leverage 1 to 50, 1 to 60, 1 to 70. So as the money expansion increased, lets say people were placing spread bets on house prices, the money expansion allowed the prices to keep on increasing and so those financial institutions who had made their bets, could then sell those derivative bets on to someone else who would be happy to do so because they were only seeing their investments grow. So this rampant speculation, creates an artificial demand in the markets pushing the price higher and higher, however such a bubble will eventually implode simply because it's creating more and more money out of thin air and relies upon the ability of the consumer to still buy it. So when they announced a credit crunch, they pulled the rug on these gambling games, which immediately led to cries of the banks needing bailouts, so essentially what you have here, is they take our money and become a casino with it and when they lose, they can take more of our money to cover their losses. The reality is most of these banks have very little in the way of hard capital, the derivatives contracts, are essentially paper based because there is no actual real world economic activity to back them up.So in layman's terms, the bank must capitalise itself a a ratio of 1 to 10 usually, but in derivatives, you could end up multiply that number by another 20 fold, we don't even know what the actual value of the derivatives market is anymore, best guesses put it in the quadrillions, but no one knows just what figures we are looking at, because a record does not have to be kept of every derivative transaction. This is why the money taken by the banks of our money, the endless liquidity has gone to repair their balance sheet, hence the reason it's had no tangible effect or positive effect on the economy.
Quote from: virtuoso on December 23, 2009, 04:22:46 AMBasically the glass steagalz act of 1933 was introduced to seperate commercial banking from investment banking. When the act was repealed by George Clinton it allowed the commercial banks to commence their activities as speculators. So what do I mean by a derivative? well it's a bet placed on a futures market, but not a fixed bet, i.e. think of spread betting, but spread betting which allows you to leverage 1 to 50, 1 to 60, 1 to 70. So as the money expansion increased, lets say people were placing spread bets on house prices, the money expansion allowed the prices to keep on increasing and so those financial institutions who had made their bets, could then sell those derivative bets on to someone else who would be happy to do so because they were only seeing their investments grow. So this rampant speculation, creates an artificial demand in the markets pushing the price higher and higher, however such a bubble will eventually implode simply because it's creating more and more money out of thin air and relies upon the ability of the consumer to still buy it. So when they announced a credit crunch, they pulled the rug on these gambling games, which immediately led to cries of the banks needing bailouts, so essentially what you have here, is they take our money and become a casino with it and when they lose, they can take more of our money to cover their losses. The reality is most of these banks have very little in the way of hard capital, the derivatives contracts, are essentially paper based because there is no actual real world economic activity to back them up.So in layman's terms, the bank must capitalise itself a a ratio of 1 to 10 usually, but in derivatives, you could end up multiply that number by another 20 fold, we don't even know what the actual value of the derivatives market is anymore, best guesses put it in the quadrillions, but no one knows just what figures we are looking at, because a record does not have to be kept of every derivative transaction. This is why the money taken by the banks of our money, the endless liquidity has gone to repair their balance sheet, hence the reason it's had no tangible effect or positive effect on the economy.I still don't really understand. So are you saying that like I buy a house today for 100,000 dollars. Then these people bet or speculate that that house will be worth 200,000 by 2012. So then some idiot goes off of their bullshit speculation and buys the house for 170,000 and thinks he's getting a deal, when in reality the value of the house didn't go up? And they make money off of that somehow? Don't really get it.
Quote from: Infinite... Be and It Is on December 23, 2009, 09:51:08 AMQuote from: virtuoso on December 23, 2009, 04:22:46 AMBasically the glass steagalz act of 1933 was introduced to seperate commercial banking from investment banking. When the act was repealed by George Clinton it allowed the commercial banks to commence their activities as speculators. So what do I mean by a derivative? well it's a bet placed on a futures market, but not a fixed bet, i.e. think of spread betting, but spread betting which allows you to leverage 1 to 50, 1 to 60, 1 to 70. So as the money expansion increased, lets say people were placing spread bets on house prices, the money expansion allowed the prices to keep on increasing and so those financial institutions who had made their bets, could then sell those derivative bets on to someone else who would be happy to do so because they were only seeing their investments grow. So this rampant speculation, creates an artificial demand in the markets pushing the price higher and higher, however such a bubble will eventually implode simply because it's creating more and more money out of thin air and relies upon the ability of the consumer to still buy it. So when they announced a credit crunch, they pulled the rug on these gambling games, which immediately led to cries of the banks needing bailouts, so essentially what you have here, is they take our money and become a casino with it and when they lose, they can take more of our money to cover their losses. The reality is most of these banks have very little in the way of hard capital, the derivatives contracts, are essentially paper based because there is no actual real world economic activity to back them up.So in layman's terms, the bank must capitalise itself a a ratio of 1 to 10 usually, but in derivatives, you could end up multiply that number by another 20 fold, we don't even know what the actual value of the derivatives market is anymore, best guesses put it in the quadrillions, but no one knows just what figures we are looking at, because a record does not have to be kept of every derivative transaction. This is why the money taken by the banks of our money, the endless liquidity has gone to repair their balance sheet, hence the reason it's had no tangible effect or positive effect on the economy.I still don't really understand. So are you saying that like I buy a house today for 100,000 dollars. Then these people bet or speculate that that house will be worth 200,000 by 2012. So then some idiot goes off of their bullshit speculation and buys the house for 170,000 and thinks he's getting a deal, when in reality the value of the house didn't go up? And they make money off of that somehow? Don't really get it.Actually the creation of artifical wealth goes back to Reagan. Clinton repealing the glass stengall act certainly didn't help any. But the false creation of wealth while wages remained relativly stagnet traces back to Reagan. But idiots like Mr.Tin Foil watch out for shape shifting lizards virtuoso believe it was all Clintons fault with repealing that glass stengall act.And stop sending me PM's asking for black on white porn, Brian.
And stop sending me PM's asking for black on white porn, Brian.
Quote from: Rape isn't a crime if shes unconscious on December 23, 2009, 12:01:56 PMAnd stop sending me PM's asking for black on white porn, Brian.I actually never watch porn of any kind, and would never make an effort to communicate with you about anything. Your the type of person I only speak to when I have to.