agau121 wrote:
...It had not occurred to me to think of this in terms of Dodd-Frank. It makes complete sense to use Dodd-Frank as a model, a reference point, for understanding any upcoming symbolic and public display at an attempt to institute "reform" of financial markets in the EU. If it unfolds in any way similar to the way Dodd-Frank unfolded, it will ultimately reveal itself to be an empty ritual designed to placate the public and in the end will result in an incremental change at best.

...As a bit of an aside, I had to laugh about this during the recent presidential election in the U.S. During the campaign Mr. Obama bragged more than once about the Dodd-Frank legislation that he signed as if it were an accomplishment. I remember his words to be something along the lines of, "We passed the most extensive financial reform legislation in over a decade [or whatever]."

...I suspect that labeling him as a socialist and continuously directing emotional energy towards this idea is being used as a way to keep the right distracted and spinning its wheels.


In fact there's nothing to wait for when it comes to deciding whether this "proposal" in Europe will end up being an empty sham. I had to go back to early 2010, but I finally found a commentary I had written on European efforts to curb the Banksters...back when I still took such posturing seriously.



Fraud Charges on Interest-Rate Swaps

I was encouraged at that time because Italian authorities had charged JPMorgan and other Big Banks with "fraud" in relation to their interest-rate swap scam. Had that scam ever been fully/properly exposed; it would have led to the inevitable exposure of the MUCH LARGER credit-default swap scam -- and prevented the economic devastation of Europe.



It was fraud in credit-default swap markets which allowed the Banksters to BLEED $TRILLIONS in excessive interest payments out of their economies. U.S. interest rates are at 0% -- despite the U.S. being totally bankrupt. UK interest rates are near-zero -- despite being totally bankrupt. Canadian interest rates are near-zero -- despite becoming nearly/totally insolvent as well.

But in Europe; their "risk" on $TRILLIONS in sovereign bonds is fully-priced in terms of the interest paid on their bonds? And no one else inside or outside the mainstream media (other than Webster Tarpley) finds this strange???



The jury is not still "out" in Europe. They are all Traitor Regimes just as we have here in North America. In a sense it's almost BETTER that there are Traitor Regimes in all of these countries. When the next crash comes (September?) at least some of the Sheep will actually pin the blame where it belongs.

With respect to the logical absurdity of Obama's claims of the "most-sweeping financial reforms" in over a decade; the perversity is actually greater than what you indicated. The decade-plus before this marked nothing except radical deregulation of the financial industry.

Obviously "reforms" are Obama-code for (supposed) tightening of regulations; or his entire statement is an OBVIOUS LIE: there were HUGE deregulation reforms over the past decade, while Dodd-Frank has been entirely irrelevant.

So what we have Obama saying is that he passed the "greatest reforms" during a span in time when there were absolutely no reforms of any kind even proposed. This would like some member of Hitler's regime bragging about being "the greatest humanitarian in the Third Reich". Indeed, that was the implicit message in awarding Obama a "Nobel Peace Prize".



...and when it comes to labeling Obama a "socialist"; there are many layers of propaganda here apart from the mere divide-and-conquer dynamics versus the Neanderthal Right.

To start with, they need this ideological rhetoric to DUPE Americans into believing that they have a "political spectrum" in their political system.



In ANY other Western nation except the UK (even after the Fascist take-over of Europe) the U.S. Democratic Party would be the "right wing" party of their political spectrum -- while the Republicans would represent the ultra-right fringe/lunatic party which typically commands 10% to 20% support in European nations.

If the American Sheep were exposed to actual political/ideological diversity; they might realize that choosing between being strangled by the Velvet Glove (the Democrats) or pounded with the Iron Fist (the Republicans) does not represent "political choice".



And then as I alluded to recently; if (as I fear) the Oligarchs are setting-up the American Sheep to embrace some extreme-right Republican Thug, then the appropriate strategy is to make sure that "socialism" is blamed for all the problems caused by Obama's deliberate mismanagement (i.e. serving the Oligarchs).

Again: think chess game. The Oligarchs have (likely) already picked-out their 2016 tool for the U.S. presidency -- or they at least have a (very) "short list". So part of their present agenda with respect to the propaganda is the silly divide-and-conquer ideological drivel. But part will undoubtedly be more refined than that: already setting up the Sheep for their new, Republican master.

I cannot envision any scenario where another Democrat will succeed Obama; so I would suggest that people focus their own observations on clues as to who or how the Oligarchs will elect a Republican as the next U.S. president...

debsyl wrote:
My husband came across this interesting article.

It one looks at the picture, it is pretty clear that the elites come from various races.


rt.com/news/britain-eton-elite-shooting-protesters-770/

UK’s elite school asked 13-year old boys to pretend to be Prime Minister and justify the army shooting dead 25 protesters in a speech to win a scholarship, British media revealed.

The question, which was put to students applying for the King’s Scholarship, worth one tenth of Eton’s £32,000 a year fees, is entitled “Concerning Cruelty, Clemency and Whether It Is better To Be Loved than Feared”, and follows a passage from Machiavelli.

“The year is 2040. There have been riots in the streets of London after Britain has run out of petrol because of an oil crisis in the Middle East. Protesters have attacked public buildings. Several policemen have died. Consequently, the government has deployed the army to curb the protests. After two days the protests have stopped but 25 protestors have been killed by the army,” the question reads...




Debsyl, the article is certainly "interesting" -- in the typically horrific manner of much of our news. However, with not one word in this text implying anything about racial demographics; I don't see how you could possibly reach your dubious conclusion that Eton is some mixed-race institution.

Understand that this is at least a potentially valid question to ask OFFICERS serving in the military. It is in no way justifiable to ask such a question of 13-year-old boys seeking an athletic scholarship.

What's the obvious MESSAGE here: if you want this scholarship; PROVE your loyalty for the establishment by "justifying" the murder of ordinary people.

Note what is also on display here: Israeli Math.

What is the "lesson" that Israel's Rogue Regime has taught our own Fascist governments. If "they" (i.e. the people) kill one of "us" (i.e. your Nazi thugs); then you are "justified" in killing ten of them.

This article is proof that Eton is nothing but a Nazi training-facility; and the PICTURE of those Eton students looked pretty white to me...

In looking through an item on the gold-trade in China, what immediately leaped out at me was news that the renminbi is now at a 19-year high versus the dollar. The chart available at the link below (sorry, couldn't copy it) shows the USD beginning its slide versus the renminbi in the middle of 2010.

www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=CNY&view=5Y

In January of 2010, I wrote the following piece:

China About to End Dollar-Peg

The article began:

Having received several comments and questions from readers about the future of China's monetary policy, which “pegs” the price of the renminbi to the U.S. dollar; that usually serves as a good indicator that this is a topic worthy of a more detailed discussion.


The general attitude I have encountered (which is obviously fueled by how the mainstream media chooses to report this issue) is that China's government is likely to retain the dollar-peg either because a) that has been its policy throughout the last decade; or b) that China is somehow “trapped” into maintaining the “peg”. I firmly believe the exact opposite: that China's government is very close to abandoning the dollar-peg, and (in fact) has made a multitude of preparations to do so...

My reasoning was very simple. China was going to abandon its "peg" to the dollar and allow the renminbi to steadily appreciate for two reasons -- and neither had anything to do with the (empty) threats from U.S. politicians.

First China could see the U.S. was planning to destroy the value of the dollar through over-printing; and so it had to decouple from that currency or have its own dragged down with it. Secondly, it was also clear to me then that China was 100% committed to having the renminbi become the new "reserve currency".

To take over the mantle of "reserve currency" requires a strong currency. No one is going to abandon one weak, reserve currency for another weak, reserve currency.

Note that there is a third way in which China has insulated itself (and its population) from the Hyperinflation Hell being created in the West: food independence. Knowing that "food inflation" has been in the high double-digits, and actually reached triple-digits last summer (according to the World Bank); China has minimized its own food requirements.

In looking at total Chinese imports, I discovered that (by dollar value) food imports only account for about 4% of total expenditures. What this means is that China is largely immune to external price-shocks to the food-supply; and as the renminbi becomes reserve currency it has zero domestic vulnerability -- unless China chooses to follow the West down the path of "competitive devaluation".

Meanwhile, for precious metals investors; what does it mean when we hear that the Hong Kong gold-trade in renminbi has tripled just this year? It means the Chinese are buying their gold with a "strong currency" -- i.e. gold is even cheaper for them. This means even at current (USD) price-levels (and as the renminbi continues to appreciate) Chinese gold demand can only continue to increase.

The only thing which can cool-off Chinese gold-buying would be DRAMATICALLY higher prices. Even moderately rising prices won't slow them down, since (as we saw in the last rally) the "greed impuls" is alive-and-well in China -- and a rising market only whets their appetites further...




Yuan Gold Trade in Hong Kong Triples as Currency Gains Cut Risk

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/yuan-g...-gains-cut-risk.html

Trading in gold using the Chinese currency has tripled in Hong Kong this year as the yuan’s rally to a 19-year high helps limit risks for jewelers.

Average daily volume was 6.5 billion yuan ($1.1 billion) in the first five months of this year, compared with 1.8 billion yuan for the same period in 2012, according to the Chinese Gold & Silver Exchange Society, the city’s century-old bullion house. That exceeds the 4.9 billion yuan target set when the contracts were introduced in October 2011...

Before "bail-ins" (in Europe) there was "MF Global" (and PFG Best) in the United States. Bankers stealing via REHYPOTHECATION.

For those who have forgotten the meaning of this deliberately incomprehensible jargon; this is where banksters use YOUR accounts as collateral for THEIR gambling -- without ever getting the explicit provision of clients.

So how did they get away with this open theft (so far)? Banksters are allowed to HIDE these provisions in the "small print" of client contracts -- so that some/most/all clients of U.S. large financial institutions have UNWITTINGLY given the Banksters legal permission to use their funds as gambling collateral.

Now we have this "announcement" from the EU that (suppposedly) it's going to put the brakes on this LEGAL FRAUD. Yeah, right.



What makes me skeptical here, to say the least?

1) Never ONCE does Bloomberg even use the word "rehypothecation." Why not? Because this is just more "smoke" (from Euro-land) and they don't want to get U.S. Sheep worked-up into a lather about rehypothecation. Presumably if this was a serious proposal to block rehypothecation the Euro leaders would have actually STATED (in clear terms) what they were supposedly doing.

2) IF Europe was concerned about rehypothecation; the time to act was TWO YEARS AGO when the first rehypothecation crime was committed (MF Global).

3) There can be no possible DEFENSE of rehypothecation. None. Thus if Europe was serious this was a problem, it wouldn't "weigh" doing something about this, it would have simply done it.

The fact that Euro-land waited two years to even ACKNOWLEDGE this as an issue and now they are only considering doing something about it proves this is not a serious proposal.

4) The Euro-zone just finished being the first regime to perpetrate a "bail-in". Are we really to believe that the first (and only) Western regime to actually perpetrate a bail-in will also be the first (and only) Western regime to outlaw rehypothecation?



So why make this subject PUBLIC at all? Two possible strategies.

a) Stalling tactic. What do the banksters (and their political servants) like to do with respect to the most-outrageous and indefensible of their crimes? "Study" them. Thus we can expect Euro-land to take a "long look" at rehypothecation -- and then either refuse to end it, or simply "study it" for 10 - 15 years.

b) Shake-down. Imagine you're a corrupt Euro politician. Bribes from your "friends" the Banksters have been kind of lean lately; so you decide it's time to "motivate some generosity" from them.

What better way to pry money from the Banksters than to threaten to end one of their forms of unregulated stealing???



Strangely, Sinclair chooses to act like someone who just "hopped off the Turnip Truck", actually taking this posturing seriously:

...Now we have a proposal which when adopted would be a Euroland Blockbuster. A direct kick in the slats of Shadow Banking, something that will never occur in the USA. Euroland would unravel the collateral chains of Shadow Banking there, if you can call it that, a knee capping. The USA has emasculated new bank regulations, making a fool of Volcker’s name of part of it. The USA entertains all the flim flam of the Bankster and Brokesters. Since Banksters and Brokesters own Washington there is little hope of any change.

This is, in the final analysis, more evidence that the Euro in whatever form it ends up, two or one, will take ascendancy over the dollar, certainly if these proposal become solid action.

This is the same Jim Sinclair who has promised his readers (for several years) that the U.S. government will soon introduce a "gold certificate"; restoring integrity to the U.S. monetary system, and allowing the U.S. to retain global economic supremacy.

One day he is defending the existing monetary/financial structure in the U.S.; the next day he's doing so with Europe. It's like he's playing a one-man game of "good cop/bad cop"...???


EU Weighs Curbs on Banks’ Use of Client Assets as Collateral

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-24/eu-wei...s-as-collateral.html

Banks and brokers face a clampdown on using assets they hold for clients as collateral for their own trades as part of European Union moves to bolster market stability and rein in shadow banking.

The European Commission is weighing whether firms should have to obtain formal consent from their clients before being allowed to reuse assets to back other trades, according to a document obtained by Bloomberg News. The consent would be enshrined in a “contractual agreement” between the parties.

The handing over of collateral is an integral part of repurchase agreements, or repos -- one of the activities under review by global regulators as part of their efforts to regulate shadow banking. The reuse of clients’ assets poses a potential threat to financial stability should one of a chain of firms that handled the securities go bankrupt, according to the document prepared by commission officials and dated May 15. Uncertainty about who holds an asset can fuel panic in times of market stress, according to the paper.

“Complex” chains of collateral can make it difficult for investors to “identify who owns what, where risk is concentrated and who is exposed to whom,” according to the document. “This has consequences for transparency and financial stability.”

Under the plans being weighed by the commission, banks and brokers holding securities for clients wouldn’t be allowed to reuse the assets for trading on their own account -- speculation on the markets aimed solely at boosting their own revenues, according to the document.
Repo Trades

The EU market for repo trades, contracts in which one investor agrees to sell a security and then buy it back at a future date at a fixed price, is worth more than 5.6 billion euros ($7.2 billion) according to the most recent survey published by the International Capital Market Association.

Repos are a major source of short-term finance for banks, allowing them to use securities as collateral for short-term loans from investors such as other banks or money-market mutual funds.

The Financial Stability Board has estimated that the global shadow-banking system was worth $67 trillion in 2011, with EU-based activities accounting for about $31 trillion.

Shadow banking is a term used by regulators to define activities that fall outside the scope of most banking and market regulation, and which they believe could be a source of systemic risk. The FSB has identified repos, securities lending agreements and securitization as examples of shadow banking activities.

Chantal Hughes, a spokeswoman for Michel Barnier, the EU’s financial services chief, declined to immediately comment on the document.

debsyl wrote:



...Thank you, Jeff, you have made my point. Just because a name is applied to a group means nothing to me. You can tell a Christian by its fruit. If he/she does not follow in the teachings of Christ, than no one has the right to call that person a Christian whether you wish to slander the name of Christ or not.


I seem to see a double-standard here. On the one hand, "good Christians" can simply refuse to acknowledge "bad Christians" as being "Christian" at all. Conversely, when you seek to demonize the actions of a tiny percentage of the world's 1 BILLION Muslims; you seek to smear all Muslims with their actions.

He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

If you don't want to be lumped-in with the extremists on the (Christian) Religious Right then you should scrupulously avoid demonizing Muslims based on anecdotal (and unreliable) reports on "Muslim extremists".

I'm certainly not against "personal responsibility". However when we have ALL the supposed "experts" in our markets claiming to be "surprised" again and again and again at the direction in which our economies are moving; I consider it entirely unfair to make ordinary people MORE RESPONSIBLE than experts.

How many of those "experts" got fired after being spectacularly wrong about the Crash of '08??? Why do only ordinary people ever get "held responsible" for their actions. Once upon a time the definition of a "leader" was someone who TOOK RESPONSIBILITY. Now all our so-called Leaders do is blame/lecture the people.

Note also the "efficiency" argument involved here. No one home-buyer can destabilize a housing market through "reckless borrowing". Indeed no group of ONE HUNDRED home-buyers could destabilize the market. However it would (and did) take much less than one hundred BANKS engaging in reckless lending to destabilized the system.

It's efficient for EVERYONE to designate banks as being 100% responsible for lending standards.

zooey wrote:
...People, IMHO, have been kept ignorant of simple finacial thinking; to the detriment of the masses. People I know cannot decipher their Hydro bill let alone a refi agreement.

z


I think this is the WHOLE point Zooey.

Prior to our Corporate Media inventing the new mythology that ORDINARY BORROWERS should be telling their bankers whether a particular home/mortgage was affordable; it was universally understood that as the "experts" it was up to the BANKERS to assess the affordability/viability of a particular mortgage.

In previous generations when the mortgage options were MUCH, MUCH simpler; we still put the onus on BANKERS to make sure that loans were affordable/suitable. Now today with the banksters making the mortgages ten times as complicated you want to pin the blame on borrowers for not telling bankers what they can afford...?

Part of the reason why the bankers automatically accepted the premise that THEY were responsible for assessing mortgages is that prior to securitization all mortgages were kept on their own books.

Wall Street INVENTED the mythology that borrowers should be "responsible" because they stopped keeping any of their mortgages on their own books -- and wanted ZERO responsibility for sound lending practices...while paying themselves 10,000% more in annual compensation than bankers of the previous generation.

I have to ask Zooey: what have you been smoking...?

robinsld wrote:
Indeed, Jeff, in times when I was less aware of the reality behind the scenes, and more naïve, generally, I did find myself thinking that countries would be better run, not by elected officials but by some sort of corporation whose role it was to actually run the country to the benefit of all. Now, of course, I hold no such illusions. Any corporation put in this role would instantly pervert the rules and laws to their own benefit and it would become a simple dictatorship, probably a malevolent one...


Robinsld, I would never suggest (in a million years) truly "corporatizing" government; BUT that doesn't mean that we can't radically improve performance by running government in a "business-like manner".

Instead of our sleazy popularity contests; we have the "shareholders" (voters) elect a Board of Directors (on the basis of their qualifications/resumes). This elected Board does NOT have direct control over the public treasury (the primary basis for corruption).

Instead, the Board of Directors then selects the executives to actually run the government -- again based on COMPETENCE/QUALIFICATIONS, not popularity. These various departmental heads can be FIRED at any time (for poor performance) just like the deputy administrators in our current governments.

Conversely, these representatives would not face idiotic/arbitrary electoral deadlines to achieve results (and thus get re-elected). They would remain in their position as long as they performed competently; bringing another dimension to our governments not seen for decades -- LONG-TERM PLANNING.

I both refuse to pronounce our current Idiot's system as "acceptable"; nor will I give-in to defeatism and claim that it's not possible (even practical) to make radical improvements. Every problem has a least-worst solution -- even our rancid/corrupt political systems...

robinsld wrote:
DayOwl wrote:
Jeff Nielson wrote:


Why do Americans still play their silly political game of alternating between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb (i.e. Democrats and Republicans)? Because they still believe this represents a "choice"...



If voting changed anything, it would have been eliminated long ago. Americans (and others) vote for idiots because only idiots are on the ballot!

Well said, DayOwl! This, of course is the crux of the matter - the "choice" is there to give the minions the belief they have some sort of power over the system, but the reality is, there has never been such power. The French Revolution and the American War of Independence were probably the closest to attaining such power to the people, but these have long since been corrupted by the power and control inherent in financiers. You're correct, elections never change anything, if they did, they would have been done away with. Replaced by dictatorship, presumably.


Well, I'm in somewhat unusual territory (lol); but I'm going to defend the Sheep...at least a little.



My own experience is that any time ordinary people are asked to express their opinion on an issue (by voting) where they spend at least a LITTLE time thinking, and don't have their ability to choose actively sabotaged by the media; that they display a rather uncanny, collective "common sense".

I'm old enough to remember when the media DID used to make a positive attempt to inform rather than distract/confuse/deceive -- and at least occasionally we ended up with good governments back then.

It's easier to run idiots as candidates when they know they won't have to face hardly any substantial questioning. Shine the spotlight on these cockroaches however, and they will scurry for cover...

Thanks for the heads-up Earl.

They will be gathering in Vancouver, so I'll see if I can make it down there...

Earl, in fact AgAu beat you to the punch on this one...

www.bullionbullscanada.com/bulletin-boar...-back-finance-reform



But having pasted so much of Taibbi's text here, I'll point out something I didn't mention in my previous remarks: NOTHING on "position limits."

As a reminder, the Dodd-Frank "mandated" position limits (on the size of bankster trading positions in commodity markets -- like gold and silver) beginning January 1, 2011. They were to be IMPOSED on the banking industry by the supposed "watchdog", the CFTC -- which is run by Goldman Sachs Stooge Gary Gensler.



What happened on January 1st, 2011. Gensler simply ignored the LAW, and began negotiating with the BANKSTERS on what they thought the position limits should look like. In other words, this is identical to the government passing a law BANNING certain forms of Mafia crime -- at which point the U.S. government begins negotiating with the Mafia to find out what they want the law to look like.



Understandably, Taibbi (and Bill Black) were commenting on the changes which have actually occurred. However for precious metals investors what's really relevant is what has been OMITTED...

Earl wrote:
To the Community,

Appreciate any and all input.

Thank You
Earl


A million Israeli landmines planted in occupied Palestinian West Bank
The 1997 Ottawa Treaty bans the use of mines, but countries like the US and Israel have opted to not sign the treaty.

www.middleeastmonitor.com/

www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-ea...alestinian-west-bank

About a million landmines have been planted by the Israeli occupation in occupied Palestinian West Bank, official Palestinian data has shown.

The Commissioner General of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in Washington, Maan Erekat, said: "The number of Israeli landmines planted is between 800,000 to a million."

During his meeting with UN and NGO officials in New York on Wednesday, Erekat said: "This significant number of landmines poses great direct danger to the safety and security of Palestinian citizens." He discussed efforts with the officials he met to remove these landmines.

Erekat reiterated the importance of "continuing the efforts being exerted by the UN and NGO in cooperation with Palestinian parties to remove the landmines planted around the occupied West Bank."

The Israeli occupation has planted landmines in the Palestinian territories since it occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 under "security" pretexts.

There are about 51 landmine fields scattered around the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, especially in the Jordan valley, the north and west of the West Bank, near the 'Green Line,' around Israeli settlements and around large empty spaces where Israeli soldiers practice their military drills.


Whenever I hear the words "landmine treaty"; I can't help but flash-back to the entirely irrelevant life of the (late, but still) beloved "Lady Diana". Her one (supposedly) "great contribution" to humanity? As Champion of the "global anti-landmines treaty" -- which was ratified by every government on the planet...except for all the nations which actually USED landmines (like the U.S. and Israel).

It's like hyping a "global treaty" to NEVER AGAIN use nuclear weapons on humanity...except none of the nations which POSSESS nukes sign the treaty.



Sadly, more often than not with ANY supposedly "humanitarian" endeavour we discover (upon closer scrutiny) that it's either a SHAM -- or worse. What did we hear from the sem-repentent "economic hit-man", John Perkins?

He was funneled into the Peace Corp as part of his infiltration process to gain access to Third World governments. While it's certainly possible that the Peace Corp does (limited amounts of) good work too; undoubtedly the reason why this "charity" remains funded is as a TOOL of the Oligarchs.

Lady Di's supposed landmines treaty did accomplish one tiny objective: it clearly delineated the world's ROGUE REGIMES.

Earl, I bumped-up your Karma for this post. Taking a stand against "fracking" and preserving the quality of European beer.



I can't even drink most of the swill produced in North America, as the chemical preservatives give me migraines.

Of course, I'm assuming that your principal purpose in posting this was not to warn us of the threat to European beer (lol); but rather to illustrate the insanity of full-tilt, virtually unregulated "fracking" in the U.S.



In that respect, it's important that CORPORATE OLIGARCHS in the beer industry are strongly opposed to fracking. Since we all know how the 'fraternity' of these oligopolies tend to stick together (to the detriment of us); whenever we see an Oligarch complaining about another Oligarch (and not trying to make money out of it - lol) we should take such warnings very seriously.

Fracking is not "safe" for beer profits. That seems to suggest it's not "safe" for the Little People either...

It's Friday May 24th, and to describe bullion markets as "sleepy" today would be nothing less than gross understatement. The market is nothing less than comatose -- as evidenced by the daily price-action from Basher Central:

www.kitco.com/images/live/gold.gif

Gold is set to end the week just above $1380/oz, while silver will finish the week right around $22.50.

Obviously the U.S. banksters have collectively decided to make it a four-day long weekend, as the U.S. heads to its Memorial Day weekend. Is there anything we can derive from the complete absence of bankster-manipulation, even from a single day? Perhaps.

While it's also possible that the paper-gold Sellers have also taken off for the long weekend (at least in U.S. markets); what I seem to be seeing in general in U.S. market price-action is a dramatic reduction in downward pressure from that Great Liquidation.

Rather, over the past two weeks most of the intervals of weakness have occurred further eastward, not only in London markets but also Asian markets. This seems to indicate this crude chronology.

Originally it was only the Smart Money in U.S. markets which went into this paper-gold liquidation frenzy -- and ALL the downward pressure on the market was originating (naturally) in the U.S. As the market bottomed, Asian and European sellers joined in.

We haven't seen the same phenomomen in the silver market, because there is practically no "smart money" in the silver sector (except us, and we don't count - lol). The silver market is basically all BANKSTERS on the short side, and small investors and dumb Big Money on the long side.

In other words, the only large institutional investors who are in the silver market actually believe there is some "silver" in SLV.



But now the great paper liquidation may be coming to an end; meaning dramatic upward pressure on the price of gold. It is certainly not a coincidence that this is timed with the WEAKEST seasonal point in the gold market.

So we will see if this emerging pattern persists. Downward sloping moves in the market would indicate that net-liquidation is continuing, while upward-sloping movement indicates the (paper) market has shifted to a "long" (i.e. upward) bias. As always, vertical moves (in either direction) indicate pure manipulation.

Have a good weekend!

I got this in my e-mail this morning from Peter Schiff's site/company and couldn't help but chuckle. The sub-title was:

Physical Gold Divorces Paper

We get a complete description of Decoupling, except (just like the mainstream media) Schiff can't manage to get himself to use this "D" word. Instead we see "divorced", "distinct", "divergence", and "disconnect".

Congratulations Peter Schiff! In only 300 words, you managed to use EVERY D-word synonym for "decoupling" in the English language.



[Editor's note: for six months I was one of the contributors to Peter Schiff's "Gold Report"; so my work is certainly familiar to them.]

There was the opportunity to click on a link to see "the full report"; but since I'd already seen all the D-word synonyms (lol) I didn't bother going for a look...

On April 12th and 15th we saw the largest two day drop of gold futures in 33 years. Gold fell 14%, or $225 per ounce. Many analysts were touting this as the end of the bull market in gold. They must not be looking at the long term chart, or they are the people who had been advising not to buy gold for the past 12 years.

This is not the first time we’ve seen a correction in gold and it won’t be the last. Given twelve years of gains, a pullback of 20-30% should not be alarming. The rapidity of the pullback sure raised some eyebrows, but by no means does this imply an end of gold’s ascent.

During this pullback we witnessed two distinct gold markets, one being the futures market (aka the paper market) and the other the physical market. While there was record selling on the futures exchange, investors were lining up to purchase physical coins and bars. The premiums for these products were expanding to levels not seen since 2008. Bullion dealers were running out of physical product to sell even with these increased premiums. The US mint’s April 2013 sales were up 948% compared to the prior year.

Ultimately, the price decline in the paper market was much less severe than in the physical market. The price of gold dropped more in the futures market than it did for physical coins and bars. Not only did those who owned paper gold experience larger losses, they were also sold out at the bottom when they couldn’t meet their margin calls.

In the future this divergence between physical and paper will likely continue. The futures exchange is subject to manipulation and only has enough gold to back a tiny fraction of the open contracts. Investors are going to wake up to the fact that there are more claims on gold than actual gold. As more people demand delivery, the physical price will have to increase to meet this demand.

This full report explores:

Previous gold corrections
The bullish and bearish preceding events
Analysis of the “smack down”
Possible manipulation of gold prices
The paper/physical disconnect
What’s next for gold?

There was "good news" on the U.S. economy, and so its stock markets fell -- just like they should, according to the mainstream media. This is because good news is now "bad news."

That sort of perversity in market reaction is not necessarily unheard of. However, it's the construction of the new propaganda initiative which makes one shake their head. Follow the bouncing ball.

Because the U.S. economy is so strong (lol); B.S. Bernanke is once again talking Exit Strategy...for the 864th time (lol!). And despite the fact that the first 863 promises of an Exit Strategy turned out to be nothing but absurd lies; once again the Corporate Media takes Bernanke at his word (lol!!)...this is despite the fact that Bernanke, all the Fed-heads, and the ENTIRE Corporate Media are too embarrassed to use the words "exit strategy" (lol!!!).

So because the Exit Strategy lie is once again being spewed, and because the U.S. economy is (supposedly) so "strong" (despite all the recent news being bad - lol); when the U.S. government does actually release a piece of (supposedly) strong economic data, this is now "bad news"...because it means the Exit Strategy is coming.

Why is the Exit Strategy such bad news for U.S. markets? Because despite the propaganda machine thumping its chest about "record highs" in the U.S. fraud-markets; everyone in the Corporate Media openly acknowledges that the ONLY thing pumping-up U.S. markets is Bernanke's "open-ended" $1 TRILLION per year in money-printing. And who nows how many $TRILLIONS he and the banksters have simply counterfeited...???

The question the Corporate Media can never seem to manage to ask (let alone answer) is this: IF the U.S. economy is so strong; why do its markets require $1 TRILLION per year in money-printing to pump them up...AND a Plunge Protection Team?



Consider the following. The Dow hit 10,000 for the first time FOURTEEN YEARS AGO. Since then even with all the money-printing and even using the government's completely bogus numbers on inflation; the Dow's "record highs" represent a "gain" of less-than-zero.

In other words, U.S. markets have provided 14 years of losses using the government's inflation numbers, the Dow is a money-loser (despite all the pumping). Use Shadowstats inflation numbers; and today's "record highs" represent a greater than 1/3 loss since 1999.



[courtesy of nowandfutures.com]

Note that the Dow index changes all the time. "Winners" are substituted into the index and "Losers" are taken out -- artificially pumping-up the average still further. U.S. markets have only one purpose: fleecing the Sheep (and enriching the Banksters).

Should an ordinary person ever actually manage to make (real) "gains" in U.S. markets; it's purely accidental...



How surreal have U.S. markets and U.S. reporting on those markets become? I had a nice quote all ready from the Bloomberg article I selected...but by the time I went back for a second look the quote had been edited-out -- with no acknowledgment by Bloomberg that the piece had been "updated" (edited).

It seems the Corporate Media is getting more nervous about its Script...





U.S. Stocks Fall as Investors Weigh Orders Data, Stimulus

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-24/u-s-st...d-day-of-losses.html

U.S. stocks fell for a third day, as an unexpected gain in durable goods orders fueled concern about the pace of stimulus efforts and forecasts from Gap Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Co. trailed analysts’ estimates.

Gap and Abercrombie & Fitch slipped more than 2.4 percent. Sears Holdings Corp. sank 18 percent as the retailer controlled by billionaire hedge-fund manager Edward Lampert posted a loss. Salesforce.com Inc., the biggest maker of online customer-management tools, dropped 6.1 percent as the company’s profit forecast fell short of estimates...

For a tiny, little nation; Iceland is certainly managing to make its mark on European and global politics.

It first made its name by being the ONLY European (and Western) nation which has managed to (more or less) rid itself of the Western banking cabal. Its reward for that amazing feat is that along with the other Scandinavian countries it is the only European nation with a relatively healthy economy.

Now Iceland has gone a step further: permanently closing the door on its application for EU membership. This quote sums it up nicely:

...“I can’t believe that anybody’s serious about joining the EU right now,” Phelps said. “It’s like saying: ‘it’s a beautiful house -- it happens to be on fire at the moment -- we should buy it!



With the EU being intended as a Fascist straitjacket to plunder all of Europe; Iceland's move has considerable significance -- despite its size. As nations like Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy are totally destroyed from being inside this straitjacket; it's inevitable that governments/movements will now surface in these nations DEMANDING that these nations leave the EU.

I admit to being one who originally believed the EU was a "noble experiment" designed to forestall any more pan-European wars. And maybe it was. The sad reality is that the EU was completely hijacked by the banksters/Oligarchs; and now it is an institution just as rotten as the U.S. Two-Party Dictatorship and our corrupt financial system itself.

Much like "smashing the Oligopolies" is one path to ridding ourselves of corrupt government; another path is to "smash" the political entities into smaller (self-governing) pieces. It's much harder for the Oligarchs to (completely) control a larger number of regimes -- which is why they have so rabidly promoted the EU straitjacket over recent decades.

I refuse to subscribe to any general philosophy of (for lack of a better word) "anarchy". However, the mantra of "smaller is better" applies to many contexts in the corrupt world of the 21st century.




Laureate Phelps Warns Against EU as Iceland Drops Bid

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-22/icelan...uns-euro-crisis.html

Nobel Laureate Edmund Phelps warned against the dangers of European Union membership as Iceland became the latest nation to question the sense of affiliation with a bloc mired in economic crisis.

Iceland’s new government said yesterday it will halt its EU bid and drop the previous coalition’s goal of euro adoption. Prime Minister-elect Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, whose Progressives won last month’s vote together with the Independence Party, said he doesn’t want to join a bloc in crisis as his own economy recovers. According to Phelps, the decision is likely to spare Iceland many of the risks plaguing the EU.

“We’re still learning about the European experiment and to what extent it’s going to succeed,” Phelps, 79, said in a telephone interview. “The possibility is not foreclosed that the experiment is going to prove unworkable, unsuccessful.”

The appeal the EU once held to nations seeking economic stability and access to free trade is crumbling as the region fails to emerge from its crisis. The U.K. is now openly questioning its allegiance with the EU while other members like Denmark have distanced themselves from the goal of euro adoption to protect their economies. Iceland, which in 2008 became the first nation to succumb to the global financial crisis, now enjoys faster economic growth than the EU average...

There was a piece from Bloomberg which so perfectly describes the mentality/personalities of these psychopaths-in-suits that I don't even need to add any words of my own...indeed, readers may find some of the descriptive language contained therein eerily familiar.



The point to note from this is that MOST of the "successful" banksters are clearly clinical psychopaths. John Perkins (i.e. the Economic Hit-Man) is at the least a borderline psychopath given the very easy manner in which he rationalized his Crimes Against Humanity for so many years.


Amaranth Hit Death Spiral as Sycophants, Fools Cavorted

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-22/amaran...-fools-cavorted.html

In September 2006, Greenwich, Connecticut-based hedge fund Amaranth Advisors LLC collapsed after losing more than $6 billion in the natural-gas futures market. In “Hedge Hogs,” Barbara T. Dreyfuss tells the story of the math-whiz traders whose risky dance with deregulation led to the collapse.

The star of Dreyfuss’s distressing tale is Brian Hunter, the Amaranth celebrity described by sycophants at the now-defunct Trader Monthly magazine as a top dog among a crop of “red-hot traders.”

Dreyfuss, a former securities analyst, rehashes a lot that we know about Hunter’s antics. And despite admirable efforts to explain the arcana of futures trading, she may lose the lay reader when illustrating the Amaranth drama with details of widening or narrowing trading spreads.

But she does a great job of putting Amaranth’s out-of-control trader into historical context, explaining the blitz of deregulation that set the stage for someone like Hunter to do maximum damage.

Dreyfuss also captures the juvenile culture of trading luminaries who battle like enemies in some twisted fantasy. Hunter and futures trader John Arnold, founder of the hedge fund Centaurus Advisors LLC, fight each other in trading duels more suited to the video game Halo than real life.
Destroy Someone

“‘If you want to succeed and make money, you want to destroy someone else,’ a trader tells Dreyfuss. “‘That’s just how it works. If I want to be successful in this industry, I’m going to want to destroy five guys.’”

Armed with degrees in physics and mathematics, Hunter started trading natural-gas futures at TransCanada Corp. in his native Calgary in 1998. He left for Deutsche Bank (DB)’s New York headquarters in 2001, where he worked in the global commodities markets division. By the time he left Deutsche Bank for Amaranth two-and-a-half years later, he’d been demoted by a supervisor who would say later in a deposition that Hunter couldn’t be trusted to “do the right thing for the bank.”

As is to be expected in the world Dreyfuss is describing, Hunter was “quickly scooped up” by Amaranth despite that rocky ending with Deutsche Bank.

A year later, he parlayed an offer from SAC Capital Advisors’s Steven Cohen into a sweetened deal to stay at Amaranth. Money was a factor in the new agreement, but not the only one.
No Oversight

Hunter demanded that he be allowed to move from Amaranth’s Connecticut headquarters to Calgary. He also wanted to be free from the oversight of a former Enron Corp. trader named Harry Arora who’d been keeping tabs on him. The star got what he wanted.

Arora later quit, warning on his way out that Hunter “could blow up the entire firm.”

By spring 2006, clients were seeing red flags in the sudden massive gains in Amaranth’s energy portfolio -- up $1 billion in April. What goes up in a dramatic spike, those clients correctly figured, must come down.

BlackRock Inc. (BLK), the New York investment-management firm, was concerned enough that it paid a penalty to bail out. After that, Hunter’s bosses began making the first of several unheeded requests that he cut back on his positions. In May, Amaranth lost more than $1.1 billion, and a death spiral was in full force.

The book describes traders who manipulate markets and eviscerate pension-fund portfolios but don’t have a clue about the destructive roles they play.

In June 2006, when Amaranth was on its slide to oblivion, the clearly out-of-control Hunter observed to a colleague that other people in the markets “were getting out of control.” In another exchange, a trader who works with Hunter refers to the “fricken deviant market.”

It becomes clear to the reader pretty quickly who the deviants are here. Hint: They do not include “the market.”...

agau121 wrote:
Jeff Nielson wrote:
This brings me to a Golden Oldie around here. One so old that even our "old Regulars" (you know who you are) may not remember it...


"The Bankers Manifesto of 1892"

(Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. from Minnesota before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens.)...

I have pulled up and read your entire original commentary. My skeptical mind has to ask, can we be certain of the authenticity of the document cited (The Bankers Manifesto of 1892)? My initial, and admittedly cursory, search engine search did not immediately turn up an obvious credible source and also seems to indicate some controversy concerning it's authenticity. Do you happen to recall what you used as a source for this document originally? I'm not asking you to do my research for me, only asking if you might be able to provide some leads.


Good stuff AgAu!

I'm always gratified to see Healthy Skepticism on display. And if we're to retain our "intellectual integrity" around here (lol); then I cannot be exempted from such scrutiny when it comes to either what I write or what I present.

Endeavouring to generally be a "responsible journalist" (lol); when I first stumbled across this text I did try to verify/document it. I spent a few hours tracing it as far back as I could. It seems to date back at least a couple of decades; back to when stuff simply "appeared" on the Net; often with little-to-no documentation.

Unable to verify authenticity, I became more cynical (lol). I assumed it was not authentic; and then proceeded with analysis. There are only two possibilities.

This was a fictional but legitimate "warning" from someone who wanted to make it appear to be of historical origin (for purposes unknown). OR, it's simply a disinformation hoax.

But this is the Game Plan, described perfectly. Plunder-and-steal relentlessly. And while you're plundering-and-stealing you also engage in relentless divide-and-conquer tactics -- to keep the Sheep distracted and "squabbling" amongst themselves.

Indeed, it is such a perfect description of what has taken place over the last decade that it is a very powerful argument for either "precognition" or time-travel!!



In all of the time I've spent sifting through Disinformation; I have yet to come across an example of "disinformation" which is comprised of 100% truth. I've seen plenty of disinformation in the 90+% truth level, but never 100% truth -- since BY DEFINITION, 100% truth cannot be disinformation.



Reinforcing that, what could be the possible motive for supposed "disinformation" which is (in fact) 100% truth? Keeping the Sheep ignorant is obviously one of the Oligarchs' top priorities.

Thus we seem to be left with only two possibilities as matter of inevitable logic. Either The Bankers' Manifesto is entirely legitimate and exactly as presented; OR it was a perfect warning created for us at least 20 years ago -- at a time when I cannot see how any ordinary person could have written such a perfect script.

Thus if it was created 20 years ago; it would seem that the only possible "candidates" as author would be some Insider connected closely enough to the Oligarchs to be able to describe the Game Plan with this degree of precision.



So, using my best efforts at Holmesian Logic (lol!); I suggest we have one of two possible conclusions we can make:

a) The Bankers' Manifesto is an entirely legitimate document
b) The Bankers' Manifesto was a perfect-but-fictionalized warning

Here is one final tid-bit of evidence. Somewhere in my reading/research over the past week I came across a reference to Lindbergh as being active and outspoken against the Banksters. It may very well have come in The Money Masters.

So if The Bankers Manifesto is a perfect-but-fictionalized warning; the author not only was able to frame it (convincingly) in archaic language; but also chose a very plausible fictional source for his warning.

robinsld wrote:
...They probably don't DESERVE a better fate, but at the same time, perhaps they never were given the opportunity to deserve a better fate. Nonetheless, there will always be some who by virtue of their own intellect and conscience can see that things SHOULD be better than they are. I like to imagine that there is still a little of that sort of virtue in everyone...


I would echo much of those thoughts Robinsld...but not all of them.

Yes, as individuals most of the Sheep probably were never given a "real choice" for a better future (unlike the Silver Spoon existence for the Oligarchs and all of their most-devoted Followers).

But collectively the Sheep clearly did have the "opportunity" to create a better world for themselves individually -- via the ballot-box. Ironically, the PRECISE reason why most of the Sheep "never had a Chance" was by them voting for the Oppressive governments who robbed our generation(s) of the economic opportunities our parents took for granted.

Citizens turned into victims are worthy of pity. Serfs who choose to serve forfeit most of the basis for compassion.

Conversely, how/why has it been so easy to delude-and-enslave the Sheep? Precisely because of our inherent decency. In many ways it is the most formidable WEAPON the Oligarchs weild against us.

How/why have the Oligarchs been able to create the world which we (and few others) now see clearly around us? Because (being decent and naive) the Sheep are incapable of believing in EVIL on the scale which is demonstrated every day.

Ironically the LARGER the crimes committed by the Oligarchs (and the Puppet Politicians acting in their name) are even more invisible to the Sheep...

I wanted to add a "P.S." to today's post (separately) since today's edition of The Grind was already quite a long one.

ALL of the negative propaganda the Corporate Media has been spewing for the past 10 days was summed-up very nicely by Bloomberg (in the "Commodities" article):

...Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said yesterday that the U.S. central bank may reduce the pace of asset purchases in the next few meetings if policy makers can be confident of sustained improvement in the world’s largest economy.

Understand that this is EXACTLY the message which Bernanke has been sending for four years. As a matter of logic/mathematics; the only thing which could put pressure on prices (in either direction) is to change the message.

Irrespective of which side of Bernanke's mouth you choose to listen to; NOTHING at all changed. Either the money-printing will continue forever; OR the Fed will Fed will begin to reduce money-printing some time "in the next few meetings" IF the Fed-heads are confident that the "Recovery" is now "sustainable".

There was literally not one word (out of either side of Bernanke's mouth) which we have not already heard literally dozens of times. Thus as a matter of elementary logic it is IMPOSSIBLE for Bernanke's remarks to have had any impact on markets whatsoever...except for those who simply/implicitly branded Bernanke a LIAR when they powered gold and silver prices higher yesterday.

agau121 wrote:
DayOwl wrote:
My own response is that this is just a power play: "See what happens when we restrict QE? Are you sure that's what you really want?"

See what happens when you reject bail-ins (as in Cyprus)? Are you sure that's what you really want? It could be worse, but at least you can live with this (for now).



Yes, it's always possible that there will be some stock market shenanigans used merely as a feint (or threat). Note however, the methodical creation of a stock market bubble -- especially in U.S. markets.

European markets can't "bubble" because of Austerity-induced economic destruction and the fears of "deflation" (lol); but that doesn't mean they can't be crushed lower in some global ALGORITHM event.

With most of the Sheep hooked-up to these algorithms, it's MUCH easier for the banksters to manipulate stock market prices en masse than even manipulating the paper bullion markets.

In the case of U.S. markets; there has been FOUR YEARS of propagnda-pumping and bubble-creation -- and U.S. equity markets were significantly overvalued before this new bubble-creation began. The U.S. is clearly due for a major crash.

Then we have Japan just recently announcing a massive increase in money-printing despite 0% interest rates and (finally) some signs of life in their economy.

What have I told people about 0% interest rates and QE? That in any "remotely healthy" economy they will drive economies (and markets) toward IMMEDIATE bubbles.

In a perfect world, if the Oligarchs (primarily based in the U.S.) were wanting to have the next Depression blamed on a stock market crash; don't you think they would prefer that (this time) it wasn't U.S. MARKETS which got most of the blame?

Having Japan as "Ground Zero" for (this time) an economic holocaust seems to fit in very well with the Godzilla mentality that the Oligarchs have shown toward Japan again and again and again...

agau121 wrote:


...In any event, I have been keeping my ears open for news about Jack Lew because it seems unlikely that a person with his background and dishonest character would end up as U.S. Treasury Secretary unless he was going to be used to achieve strategic outcomes in service of the oligarchy.

Given Obama's track record, I have to wonder if perhaps he isn't the best person the oligarchy could have asked for in office at this time. He serves as an object of derision for the right wing, particularly the true whack jobs, which keeps them distracted, he tosses just enough crumbs here and there to progressives to keep them from getting uppity, he's a talented orator, and people are simply not accustomed to thinking of black people as servants of the oligarchy, which misdirects their attention and keeps them placated.


Very good points. In fact I had intended to point out how/why we had the transition in the U.S. from Idiot Bush to Brilliant Obama. What did the Oligarchs want in a "leader" when they installed Bush? A Thug who was good at following simple orders (like an attack-dog). You point at something and say: "destroy."

But obviously after 8 years of Thug-rule you require someone capable of finesse: the Used-Car Salesman. The bait-and-switch artist capable of promising "change" while delivering the exact same policies as his Thug predecessor.

Fortunately, I doubt very much that Obama has been selected to be the American Hitler. I say "fortunately" because while any American Hitler can/will do horrible things to the world; a brilliant Hitler would have a much higher probability of both committing worse deeds and surviving longer.

The reason that Obama can't be the next Hitler is that too few Americans would slavishly follow a black Hitler. Then we factor-in the mainstream media. We continue to get the relentless propaganda from the idiot-Right that "Obama is a Socialist." To me this guarantees that the Oligarchs have already decided to elect a Republican next time.

This next window will almost certainly coincide with "Hitler time" in the U.S.; as there's no way they can hide the magnitude of the current, accelerating collapse more than a few months longer.

My prediction for the next U.S. president is an ultra-religious, WASP Republican (male). Call it "gender bias"; but I still can't picture a female Hitler. And then the U.S. is right back to Thug-rule -- except the next Thug will be using the Iron Fist on his own people.

Now back to your point on Jack Lew. Who was in charge as U.S. Treasury Secretary during the LAST crash-and-bailout period? Ex-Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Enough said.

debsyl wrote:
If you have trouble understanding the concept I noted, perhaps the following unrelated example would help.

If I tell you I am on a diet, yet continue to eat with total pleasure, would you not declare me a hypocrite and know that I am, in fact, NOT on a diet?

On the other hand, if I adhere to my diet in many/most respects, but fall into temptation and eat a chocolate occasionally, I am sure you would agree that I am, in fact, on a diet, but have only strayed from my resolution.


Debsyl (ironically) the phrase you're grasping for in fleshing out your concept is "good faith". If people make an honest/legitimate (and continuous) effort to avoid sin; then it's perfectly understandable that a wise/benevolent God will forgive them when they stray from the path.

I don't think you'll get any argument that "forgiveness" is laudable -- providing there is BOTH genuine remorse AND "good faith."

But that's not what we see (especially) with the Religious Right in the U.S. The moment that these hypocrites are provoked to anger (usually via the alleged crimes of some Muslim Boogeyman) their response is "drop bombs on their heads."

So first of all the hypocrites make ZERO effort to "avoid temptation" their own thirst for blood.

Secondly, I doubt if few if any of the Catholics in the U.S. who cheer on the U.S. war machine ever even see the need to "confess" anything. They don't even recognize their hypocrisy (and lust for violence) as a sin.

Thirdly, if these Hypocrite Catholics (hypothetically) ever engaged in Confession, what would be the nature of that confession?

"Forgive me Father, for every time I hear that our military has dropped bombs on someone I cheer."

If the Hypocrite Catholic was being totally honest; he would be not only confessing his previous sins, but also his (premeditated) future sins -- since if he was being honest, he would acknowledge that he will make no attempt to avoid sin in the future.

So not only do we also have ZERO remorse, but also awareness (at least at the subconscious level) that the Hypocrite will never attempt to avoid sin in the future. At literally every level this is "BAD FAITH."

Please explain to me how/why such individuals do not deserve to be Damned??

zooey wrote:
The bubble that burst was the bubble of ever-increasing equity in house prices.

Par example; I bought a home in 1998 for $X. By 2008, on paper and assessment for tax purposes, my house had doubled in value.

It is now assessed, here in BC Canada, in 2013 at a 45% drop from the high. Still is "worth more on paper" than what I paid.

Gist of this is: People saw never-ending price rises in their homes so, being idiots, they bought more than they could afford, counting on the increases.

They refinanced and took out "ficticous" home equity loans. They are now under water.

My feeling. Yes there was a speculative housing bubble.

But it was largely on paper. People should have used a calculator and logic to figure what was affordable before they refinanced with endless "equity loans".....

Sorry but not a bit of sympathy for being greedy like the bankers.


Zooey, I know where you're coming from in that when I've tried to tell individuals (active in the Canadian housing market) that this is the WORST real-estate bubble in history; all I hear in return is "how well" they have done so far.

Obviously it's nothing less than the real-life illustration of the cliche of someone jumping off a 100-storey building, and then (while whizzing past a window on the 50th floor) remarks "so far, so good."



But what we can't forget is what ultimately CREATED this greed-cycle for all these ordinary (and otherwise innocent) people is nothing more than BELIEVING THE LIES of our governments and bankers (and media).

Ask yourself this: do these people really deserve to be wiped-out financially simply from being more victims of the Oligarchs' lies...???

SebC wrote:
I found this interesting:


Seb, this thread is my daily dialogue to our Community. If you (or anyone else) has a comment or question directly relating to something I write here you're free to post a reply.

This thread is not a link-dump.

We've got an entire Forum where you can post your thoughts. Do not post non-relevant material on this thread again.

agau121 wrote:
Jeff Nielson wrote:


The epitome of this is Tim-the-tax-cheat Geithner. Not only does Geithner have ZERO intellect (as is obvious any/every time you hear him speak); he has ZERO academic qualifications in the world of finance/business.

He is the U.S. Treasury Secretary, and before that the President of the New York Fed...

It may have been a simple oversight on your part, but Geithner is no longer the U.S. Treasury Secretary; Jack Lew is, and he is arguably worse than Geithner. Among other things he is a former COO of Citibank who was instrumental during the Clinton administration for the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and has since refused to acknowledge that deregulation of Wall Street contributed to the financial crisis of 2008.

This segment of Democracy Now! features Matt Taibbi and Bill Black discussing Jack Lew's nomination in January of 2013:

"Failure of Epic Proportions": Treasury Nominee Jack Lew’s Pro-Bank, Austerity, Deregulation Legacy

www.democracynow.org/2013/1/11/failure_o...ons_treasury_nominee

Regarding my own congressperson, while I am not making excuses for her, my sense of her response to my question was not so much that she was pretending to know more than she actually did but rather that she was delivering a prescripted response with which she had previously been provided. My guess is that she had previously attended some sort of Democratic Party coaching session wherein they prepared their members to deliver the canned reply that she delivered to me.



Lol!

In fact I do no recall chatter about Geithner being replaced for Obama's second term, but (especially as a Canadian) I really can't be bothered to pay too much attention to the particular names of the Henchmen.

Frankly it amazed me that they would allow Geithner to remain in that job for an entire term, given that he was a total embarrassment to the U.S. every time he opened his mouth. In comparison, Junior was a skilled public speaker.



Obviously they decided that they needed a Bag Man at the Treasury Department who at least sounds literate. One really has to wonder about the knuckle-dragging, right-wing ideologues who continue to refer to Obama as a "socialist" when these are the types of people he keeps appointing to high office.