cactus flower wrote:

Can't listen to that at the moment, but in my view Ron Paul is in no position to lecture about this. He is, if possible, even more opposed to regulation than Gog and Magog.

The thought starts to come to my mind that this tiny elite may need us far more than we need them. They look great when they're strutting around unchallenged, but look how easily they were rattled.

Well he wants money tied 1:1 with gold so there would be no need to regulate the money supply. Might be an interesting debate for another day.

Just listened to Bernanke denying the bailout was inflationary, about 6.15 on the video, but he slid over his words and I can't make them out. Paul was on a soap box - let the market rip and let wages drop, go back to minted coinage and everything will be fine. No critique of what the banks did, except that it was inflationary.

The IMF, which has laid waste to national economies with its demand for letting the market rip, is now calling for international action on the credit crisis.

Quote :

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, has called for a global solution to the US financial crisis, saying coordination of the reform effort "is a job for the IMF."

Reform of the international financial system could begin when finance ministers and central bankers convene in Washington next month for the IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings, he said.

In an interview with France's Journal du Dimanche newspaper, he said the US $700 billion bailout plan, which was rejected by the House of Representatives on Monday, should be a first step toward reform of the global financial system, and called for greater regulation of financial institutions and markets.

"It's because there were no regulations or controls, or not enough regulations or controls, that this situation was born," he said. "We must draw conclusions from what has happened—that is to say regulate, with great precision, financial institutions and markets."

"This (US) plan is welcome because it's comprehensive. But it has to be the first step of international political action," said Strauss-Kahn, a former French finance minister who took over as head of the Fund in November last year

IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings

Strauss-Kahn said the IMF would be happy to coordinate the global reform process, which could begin next month when finance ministers and central bankers convene in Washington for the annual IMF/World Bank meetings on October 11-13.

From the IMF performance to date, they are the last people I would ask to work on this. It does make sense though that it should be dealt with internationally not just nationally. At the moment there are clearly co-ordinated US - European moves being agreed behind the scenes. A bit of oxygen i.e. transparency, would do this process good.

Quote :

At the moment there are clearly co-ordinated US - European moves being agreed behind the scenes. A bit of oxygen i.e. transparency, would do this process good.

Interesting - Have you any more info on that?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

At the moment there are clearly co-ordinated US - European moves being agreed behind the scenes. A bit of oxygen i.e. transparency, would do this process good.

Interesting - Have you any more info on that?

youngdan would better describe the dispensation of a few billion dollars here and there throughout the european banks "in the interests of liquidity". Presumably the Fed and the ECB talk to each other.

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Would clearly be money better spent to help people pay their mortgages. But mortgages are only part of the problem. There are credit card debts as well.
Maybe a combination of the Swedish approach plus some help to people who have been missold. And of course, a CAB for confiscating the illgotten gains of fraudulent and misselling bankers.

Somebody please tell me - if the banks are bailed out because people default on mortgages, and banks are given money to compensate, who will then own the houses and land?

Maybe people who owe money should be made to do ten years hard labour including the banks who financed them? Some earnings assessments to get mortgages included Christmas and Birthday presents and some brokers may even have added an extra zero to the declared income when the applicant turned around to get some sugar for their coffee. Breaking stones for ten years they should be.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=161&t=40841#p1350666

Have you read the Lehman thread on p.ie? Seabhcan asks the same question as you above here and kerrynorth describes how mortgages were sliced and diced and packaged on to other investment banks who didn't have their names on the mortgage backing either. Sidewinder comes in with this link to a case in Ohio where 14 foreclosures were thrown out of court because the mortgage lender trying to seize them couldn't prove that they owned the finance. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/15lend.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I don't know what law was changed after that but adjustments were made to protect the mortgage lenders of these types of mortgage...

i see my input into that discussion was totally overlooked by your good self!

zakalwe wrote:

i see my input into that discussion was totally overlooked by your good self!

Aw - I think your inputs are a bit too detailed for my brain although I'm getting around to the point where the detail is sinking in finally. You mentioned putting SIVs back onto the bank's balance sheets as a possible remedy ... where are the sivs now and who is responsible for them - some brokerage somewhere?

Also, those 14 foreclosures in Ohio that were thrown out of court because the lender couldn't produce a sign of ownership for them - do you know what was changed in terms of legislation after that? Otherwise Christmas for all the "No Job? No Problem!" people who defaulted but whose mortgages turned out to be splintered into ten squillion bits and flung in a trash can.

I went back to the p.ie link but it doesn't work with their new layout.

Tickerman has found the reason why Paulson is sweating to death - the creditors are coming looking for their money. The Americans sold a rake of dodgy stuff to the Chinese among others and now they want their money back.

The bailout in under a minute


The 9 minutes of tickerguy on the ACTUAL REASON for the bailout

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqIFoBXGizc&feature=user

Ah... now I understand - its all the fault of the greedy foreign bastards. Not so pretty.

The greedy foreign bastards (China mainly) own a tidy slice of the US national debt. I presume they threatened to call it in if they were left holding the toxic mess of subprime gunk issued to them by the US banks.

Any other explanations?

Auditor #9 wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

i see my input into that discussion was totally overlooked by your good self!

Aw - I think your inputs are a bit too detailed for my brain although I'm getting around to the point where the detail is sinking in finally. You mentioned putting SIVs back onto the bank's balance sheets as a possible remedy ... where are the sivs now and who is responsible for them - some brokerage somewhere?

Also, those 14 foreclosures in Ohio that were thrown out of court because the lender couldn't produce a sign of ownership for them - do you know what was changed in terms of legislation after that? Otherwise Christmas for all the "No Job? No Problem!" people who defaulted but whose mortgages turned out to be splintered into ten squillion bits and flung in a trash can.

I went back to the p.ie link but it doesn't work with their new layout.

the sivs are sitting as bankruptcy remote vehicles (through credit default swaps that now may be worthless) in places like the isle of man, channel islands, cayman et al.
they earn no profit (total income from mortgages equals total expenditure paid to note holders) and, get this, are set up as charitable trusts (thus avoiding paying cgt on increases in asset values (not a prob at the moment) and vat). i believe the girl guides of isle of man own/facilitate trusts worth billions if not trillions for a tidy fee, just don't quote me on it.

if the EU and US passed a law whereby all mortgages originated in their banks must be carried on the balance sheet, or maybe some sort of recourse for failing sivs put in place it'd prevent it happening in the future.

if your mortgage is pre 2000 (i think), your mortgage can't be sold on (without notice to you, so read every thing your bank sends you). but post 2000 then the ultimate holders of your mortgage is probably some siv in the channel island or isle of man.

What good is a piece of paper from your bank saying they've sold your mortgage onto Shady Practices LLC? You're not in any position to object are you, bar moving to another lender?

coc wrote:

What good is a piece of paper from your bank saying they've sold your mortgage onto Shady Practices LLC? You're not in any position to object are you, bar moving to another lender?

they have to give you notice that they are doing it. then you can prevent them from selling it across to the aforesaid Shady Practices vehicle (not an LLC as those are neither bankruptcy remote nor tax exempt).

That was my question, how do you prevent them selling it on?

coc wrote:

That was my question, how do you prevent them selling it on?

by registering your dissatisfaction. ultimately they need your permission but do not require "affirmative" permission, proof of notice along with no evidence of refusal is enough to qualify as permission.

i'd send a letter by way of registered post to the bank saying that your mortgage contract is with bank x with whom you have a relationship and do not want it sold or transferred in any way to a 3rd party. i'd cc your solicitor on the letter to put the sh!ts up the official who opens it.

cactus flower wrote:

Ah... now I understand - its all the fault of the greedy foreign bastards. Not so pretty.

The greedy foreign bastards (China mainly) own a tidy slice of the US national debt. I presume they threatened to call it in if they were left holding the toxic mess of subprime gunk issued to them by the US banks.

Any other explanations?

I can't understand the logic of this? What leverage do the foreigners have? Are they threatening to seize all US assets if the USA defaults? Anything they do is likely to cost them more than they would already have lost? Mystified. I think he is grasping a straws here.

Either that or there are parts of the plot that are not immediately apparent.

Couldn't resist.

Interesting contradictions wrt to the imf highlighted by cactus flower above.

For similar see Monbiot this week.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/marketturmoil.subprimecrisis

However, I don't think it's fair to call it 'shock treatment'. It's certainly not comparable to what was forced upon East Asian nations, Argentina, Russia or for decades in Africa, Latin America etc...

It is now beginning to be believed by the market that the bailout bill(which is assumed this time will pass) is not enough in size to slow down the deflation that I have said will rollover all efforts to fight back the tide. This week saw the Treasury sell 165 billion in very short duration bills. It just so happens that the amount of fear out there is driving people to put their money into short term treasuries at the moment for safety. But the reality is that the bond market will ot be able to handle this new supply.

There is a big shock coming as there are huge losses still hidden not to mind new losses about to come. For example when the WaMu bonds were obliberated the Teachers Union of America took a loss of 26 billion. The reality and knoch on effect of a loss that size has not yet hit home.

Talking about shock. Irish people will get one hell of a shock if anyone actually asks for the funds that they have now gauranteed. If this German counterparty demands the piddling 1.5 billion loan due then it is game over. Linehan does not have 1.5 billion. Anyone that leaves his money in an Irish bank now is crazy.

On the other site I saw a stupid post. Someone reckoned that Gordan Brown could not have done what linehan did because they were not part of the Euro.

The reality is that Linehan could not do what he did but did it anyway, whereas Brown could guarantee if he wished but did not. Brown has monetary control over his currency and Linehan does not

Youngdan you're up late. Is the deflation starting big style now? Gold and oil are down and both the Dow and Nikkeri fell again yesterday, The iseq is up though !

There is a bit of uproar about Lenihan's move by the English with English money appearing in Irish banks. But I don't know why they're complaining because a number of English banks had rakes of money depostied in them - Lloyds and hsbc I think - they saw 200 billion deposited there and were complaining ... I'll get a link but I don't know why they were complaining - is it also a sign of deflationary times?

Pax wrote:

Interesting contradictions wrt to the imf highlighted by cactus flower above.

For similar see Monbiot this week.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/marketturmoil.subprimecrisis

However, I don't think it's fair to call it 'shock treatment'. It's certainly not comparable to what was forced upon East Asian nations, Argentina, Russia or for decades in Africa, Latin America etc...

I do think its fair to call it a case of typical Klein "shock". What I was pointing to in the OP and in starting this thread is that the two page Paulson proposal as originally brought forward was essentially a request by an individual for unlimited access to the US Treasury to pour, as he sought fit, into the banks. The 700 billion was "at any one time". The Bill proposed immunity from prosecution in a way that US Presidents could only dream of. This was backed by Bush. The US public was told that the sky would fall in if the Bill was not passed unaltered the next day. Had this been passed, as youngdan rightly said, it would not have secured the US economy but would have secured Paulson and any party he favoured. The impoverishment of middle class and working class Americans following on from that is a foregone conclusion. The US public were 80% opposed to this outrage and played a blinder in barraging their elected reps with phone call, emails and demonstrations.

It is not surprising that Paulson is reported to have actually gone down on his knees to Pelosi begging her to put this through, and that he nearly passed out during the meetings. The stakes were that high.

Now the Senate has passed the deal tied into a "tax rebate" bribe.

There are clearly close parallels in what is happening in Ireland, except our politicians learned the lesson and made sure they made the announcement to the world before asking the Irish people what they thought.

Well it will pass today but the unemployment report out shortly could rock the market first.

youngdan wrote:

Well it will pass today but the unemployment report out shortly could rock the market first.

Unemployment in the US increased by 750,000 in the last year.

Bloomberg articles that explains the basic provisions of the bill in fairly simple terms.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=aoLdh.TSHXqs&refere=home

Doesn't examine the pork barrel amendments which would make for some intersting reading in itself.

rockyracoon wrote:

Bloomberg articles that explains the basic provisions of the bill in fairly simple terms.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=aoLdh.TSHXqs&refere=home

Doesn't examine the pork barrel amendments which would make for some intersting reading in itself.

I finally (think) I understand what pork barreling is.

cactus flower wrote:

Pax wrote:

Interesting contradictions wrt to the imf highlighted by cactus flower above.

For similar see Monbiot this week.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/marketturmoil.subprimecrisis

However, I don't think it's fair to call it 'shock treatment'. It's certainly not comparable to what was forced upon East Asian nations, Argentina, Russia or for decades in Africa, Latin America etc...

I do think its fair to call it a case of typical Klein "shock". What I was pointing to in the OP and in starting this thread is that the two page Paulson proposal as originally brought forward was essentially a request by an individual for unlimited access to the US Treasury to pour, as he sought fit, into the banks. The 700 billion was "at any one time". The Bill proposed immunity from prosecution in a way that US Presidents could only dream of. This was backed by Bush. The US public was told that the sky would fall in if the Bill was not passed unaltered the next day. Had this been passed, as youngdan rightly said, it would not have secured the US economy but would have secured Paulson and any party he favoured. The impoverishment of middle class and working class Americans following on from that is a foregone conclusion. The US public were 80% opposed to this outrage and played a blinder in barraging their elected reps with phone call, emails and demonstrations.

It is not surprising that Paulson is reported to have actually gone down on his knees to Pelosi begging her to put this through, and that he nearly passed out during the meetings. The stakes were that high.

Now the Senate has passed the deal tied into a "tax rebate" bribe.

There are clearly close parallels in what is happening in Ireland, except our politicians learned the lesson and made sure they made the announcement to the world before asking the Irish people what they thought.

I get the point you're making now, in fact it's very comparable. I was thinking about the more stark contrast between the East Asian crisis and the recommended solutions, and the current bailout but yeah it certainly conforms to the use of a crisis to implement undemocratic 'solutions'.