The ISEQ Thread Part I - March 2008 - October 2008 **LOCKED**

How right you are slim, Clanrichard has the Palin avitar. I enjoyed the thread where I was sending NDS, DR, FT and himself off to fight the Russians. NDS might have gone as there is no sign of him lately. A new name perhaps as he does after every few months.

It might be time for me to discuss fisting again. This always draws him out to point out that hetrosexuals engage in it as well. Always good for an outragious debate but DC might be a bit strict at the moment after banning Slartibuckfast with over 3000 posts and 2 more. It is a sad day when you can't laugh at some fool going half way round the world to get himself killed.

When is this speach on the economy due from Cowan. We need a bit of comedic relief with all that is going on.

Trillions to the Chinamen, Billions to the Africans and 4 hummers to the Rooskies and no opportunity for mirth

youngdan wrote:

How right you are slim, Clanrichard has the Palin avitar. I enjoyed the thread where I was sending NDS, DR, FT and himself off to fight the Russians. NDS might have gone as there is no sign of him lately. A new name perhaps as he does after every few months.

It might be time for me to discuss fisting again. This always draws him out to point out that hetrosexuals engage in it as well. Always good for an outragious debate but DC might be a bit strict at the moment after banning Slartibuckfast with over 3000 posts and 2 more. It is a sad day when you can't laugh at some fool going half way round the world to get himself killed.

When is this speach on the economy due from Cowan. We need a bit of comedic relief with all that is going on.

Trillions to the Chinamen, Billions to the Africans and 4 hummers to the Rooskies and no opportunity for mirth

NDS may have sobered up and realised that Palin does not possess the intellectual political rigour he had hoped for. I haven't seen him on the wingnut threads but there appears to be plenty of Idaho survivalist wannabees ready to deputise for him in his absence. You will be able to see them for yourself. As they say, by their bullshit shall ye know them.

Cowan's speech due later in the month. If it is real comedic relief you are looking for, pray that he is mildly indisposed and watch Coughlan deliver the speech in his stead. Coughlan. Economics. Now THAT'S comedy!

NDS is still about, forget which nom de plume is currently in use. He is easy to spot, the replies are long and there is an emphatic quality to the sentence structure coupled with insider information.

It is amazing how passionate many are regarding the elections in the USA, especially as the main candidates are decidedly mediocre. The whole campaign is cant hypocrisy, lies and utterly misrepresentation. It neatly highlights the political problems at the heart of the USA. IMO Rotten to the core, really.

So with that in mind why should anyone believe, or expect, that decisions on financial issues are made for the common good?

I am for bed, had a right night reading and only got from Leamington Spar to Ludlow skipping London. I will dream of Yeovil.

Will Slarti be turning up here, or is he only happy in the one home? not a holdiday residence kind of a guy?

With the film out everywhere of the 60 dead children, who we were assured by NATO last week were not dead, were not children and were definitely a hoax we should prepare to disbelieve, we should expect extra efforts to be really polite about the forces in Afghanistan. They won't lent him back on P.ie again for a week or two.

cactus flower wrote:

Will Slarti be turning up here, or is he only happy in the one home? not a holdiday residence kind of a guy?

With the film out everywhere of the 60 dead children, who we were assured by NATO last week were not dead, were not children and were definitely a hoax we should prepare to disbelieve, we should expect extra efforts to be really polite about the forces in Afghanistan. They won't lent him back on P.ie again for a week or two.

Ah yes, reassurances from Nato.... about as much use as a catflap in an elephant house

And about as credible as Comical Ali.

I'd just love to know how much those bombs cost... apperently each of those "smart bombs" cost a million bucks each at the start of the Iraq war 5 years ago.

I've always said those wars were value for money.... NOT!

The one crumb of comfort I have is that our tax money is not going in that direction. If the biggest problem we've got is an inflated property market and civil service....well, at least that isn't killing anyone.

expat girl wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Will Slarti be turning up here, or is he only happy in the one home? not a holdiday residence kind of a guy?

With the film out everywhere of the 60 dead children, who we were assured by NATO last week were not dead, were not children and were definitely a hoax we should prepare to disbelieve, we should expect extra efforts to be really polite about the forces in Afghanistan. They won't lent him back on P.ie again for a week or two.

Ah yes, reassurances from Nato.... about as much use as a catflap in an elephant house

And about as credible as Comical Ali.

I'd just love to know how much those bombs cost... apperently each of those "smart bombs" cost a million bucks each at the start of the Iraq war 5 years ago.

I've always said those wars were value for money.... NOT!

The one crumb of comfort I have is that our tax money is not going in that direction. If the biggest problem we've got is an inflated property market and civil service....well, at least that isn't killing anyone.

Exactly - and one of the reasons why I voted against Lisbon

cactus flower wrote:

What I find sad, is the posters on P.ie and the Pin who whoop over what they think are the fat cat's woes, and don't realise yet that the number is on the ticket is theirs. Ben Dunne can sell his helicopter for 2 million readies. They have nothing to sell once the second hand Toyota is gone.

A large part of the world is struggling to buy food, which is the main item of their daily budget. The free market that promised everyone would be rich rich rich was a joke,

What is with your reflexive revulsion of the free market? You're frequently slating it as being the source of the woes of the world today, but you fail to acknowledge that free markets are the greatest engines of prosperity in this world today. When markets are liberalised, productivity of the suppliers goes up, the quality of the product sold is improved, prices are reduced, more jobs are created and more economic wealth generated. This can be seen in the opening up of the airline, insurance, technology and banking sector. And anyway, what, exactly is the alternative? Monopolies? Cartels? Woefully inefficient public companies?

Quote :

but not a joke on the hyper rich who will have plenty of salvage out of the operation. It will be every class for itself. The British working class were an organised force with the strongest Trade Unions in the world, but they were a wages movement, not geared to social change, just to increasing the number of crumbs from the Empire's takings that would come to their members. Maybe there is a point at which they will drag themselves away from Eastenders and do something.

Dragging themselves away from Eastenders, isn't that a bit snobbish?

Quote :

Its in the developing countries and in China and India that you'd definitely want to watch for something different.

Which would be what exactly? The Chinese and Indians want the same things we do, a home, a car, holidays, happy successful children and the ability to retire later in life to enjoy the fruits of their labours. Free market capitalism allied to a liberal democracy is the best hope they have of realising this dream since it was progress towards this ideal which provided the West with the economic and social advantages it enjoys over the rest of the world.

Quote :

The ISEQ will I suppose soon revert to the level of the Georgian Bourse, which meets three times a week for an hour after lunch?

Why would it do that? Dublin is one of the world's top 15 financial centres, why just recently the amount of reinsurance taken out here equalled all that in Lloyd's Market in London. We're number 1 in the listing of international funds, have every major financial institution in town, have great infrastructure, loads of highly-educated talent, a great regulatory and legal framework and some of the best tax rates going. The idea that we would resemble the unfortunate Georgia is laughable.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

What I find sad, is the posters on P.ie and the Pin who whoop over what they think are the fat cat's woes, and don't realise yet that the number is on the ticket is theirs. Ben Dunne can sell his helicopter for 2 million readies. They have nothing to sell once the second hand Toyota is gone.

A large part of the world is struggling to buy food, which is the main item of their daily budget. The free market that promised everyone would be rich rich rich was a joke,

What is with your reflexive revulsion of the free market? You're frequently slating it as being the source of the woes of the world today, but you fail to acknowledge that free markets are the greatest engines of prosperity in this world today. When markets are liberalised, productivity of the suppliers goes up, the quality of the product sold is improved, prices are reduced, more jobs are created and more economic wealth generated. This can be seen in the opening up of the airline, insurance, technology and banking sector. And anyway, what, exactly is the alternative? Monopolies? Cartels? Woefully inefficient public companies?

We have all of them at the moment. I don't think you are a fan of the untrammelled free market are you Ard-Taoiseach? Would you ban social security and public health, and let F and F go bust ? I really like your focus on what is working and what is positive, but there are serious problems at the moment that need to be recognised before they can be solved, in terms of environment, health and also the extreme instability of the system we have. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have thousands of houses standing empty in the US while people live in homeless shelters, but that is just as much an aspect of the free market as is wealth based on new technology.

The free market generates a tendency to monopoly - look at Bill Gates - and cartels operate the whole time: every supermarket in Ireland is charging the same amount for pretty well everything.

I would really love to be able to offer you an alternative suggestion, but I'can see there were a lot of problems with trying to introduce centralised state economies, and I don't know of any other variant. I do think that deciding that something better is needed is a starting point to investigating new possibilities.

Quote :

The Chinese and Indians want the same things we do, a home, a car, holidays, happy successful children and the ability to retire later in life to enjoy the fruits of their labours

What people want and what they get are two different things. The free market globalised economy gives to some and takes from others.

I've been known to watch Eastenders myself.

Free market? Great idea. While we are waiting for a highly decentralised Anarchist bunch of societies based on local resources we probably have to put up with the free market.

Is Government regulation always necessary to keep it in check i.e. to keep monopolies and cartels from happening? Does Government too often skew the free market when it thinks it's doing good?

How important is geography in the operation of free markets and the way in which people are dispersed under a theoretical free market system but also under a government which no one is sure is incompetent, corrupt or on the right track only out of sync with patterns in other places?

In an ideal world of proactive consumers and minimal government or corporate interference or corruption, will our poor and needy be accomodated?

Are there too many false assumptions made about the ability or desire of consumers to make good choices when considering the free market as a model?

cactus flower wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

What I find sad, is the posters on P.ie and the Pin who whoop over what they think are the fat cat's woes, and don't realise yet that the number is on the ticket is theirs. Ben Dunne can sell his helicopter for 2 million readies. They have nothing to sell once the second hand Toyota is gone.

A large part of the world is struggling to buy food, which is the main item of their daily budget. The free market that promised everyone would be rich rich rich was a joke,

What is with your reflexive revulsion of the free market? You're frequently slating it as being the source of the woes of the world today, but you fail to acknowledge that free markets are the greatest engines of prosperity in this world today. When markets are liberalised, productivity of the suppliers goes up, the quality of the product sold is improved, prices are reduced, more jobs are created and more economic wealth generated. This can be seen in the opening up of the airline, insurance, technology and banking sector. And anyway, what, exactly is the alternative? Monopolies? Cartels? Woefully inefficient public companies?

We have all of them at the moment. I don't think you are a fan of the untrammelled free market are you Ard-Taoiseach? Would you ban social security and public health, and let F and F go bust ? I really like your focus on what is working and what is positive, but there are serious problems at the moment that need to be recognised before they can be solved, in terms of environment, health and also the extreme instability of the system we have. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have thousands of houses standing empty in the US while people live in homeless shelters, but that is just as much an aspect of the free market as is wealth based on new technology.

The free market generates a tendency to monopoly - look at Bill Gates - and cartels operate the whole time: every supermarket in Ireland is charging the same amount for pretty well everything.

I would really love to be able to offer you an alternative suggestion, but I'can see there were a lot of problems with trying to introduce centralised state economies, and I don't know of any other variant. I do think that deciding that something better is needed is a starting point to investigating new possibilities.

Quote :

The Chinese and Indians want the same things we do, a home, a car, holidays, happy successful children and the ability to retire later in life to enjoy the fruits of their labours

What people want and what they get are two different things. The free market globalised economy gives to some and takes from others.

I've been known to watch Eastenders myself.

The free market with sensible regulation works. The free market works best when the public service is subjected to a similar level of regulation and accountability as the private sector.

Untrammelled free market economics, ie pure neo-liberalism, doesn't work at all. The US is finding that out. Freddie and Fannie could have used some enforceable sensible regulation.

There is no free market in the US. The government created the problem to begin with. The US is a socialist country. You can not even cut hair in this country without getting a license.

youngdan wrote:

There is no free market in the US. The government created the problem to begin with. The US is a socialist country. You can not even cut hair in this country without getting a license.

Would the economy be better off with less regulation ?

Slim Buddha wrote:

The free market with sensible regulation works. The free market works best when the public service is subjected to a similar level of regulation and accountability as the private sector.

Untrammelled free market economics, ie pure neo-liberalism, doesn't work at all. The US is finding that out. Freddie and Fannie could have used some enforceable sensible regulation.

What exackerly is the story with US mortgage debt?? Houses in Detroit for a dollar... and 10% of mortgage payers in either arrears or default. I know that most US mortgages are non-recourse... i.e. if the banks get the keys the debt is considered cleared, rather than Europe, where you still owe the bank the difference if you were in negative equity when the house was sold. But even with a non-recourse mortgage, if you get reposessed, presumably it goes on your credit record?? I'm a bit confused as to why it is SOOO bad, with official unemployment figures of only 6.1%... that's about the same as ours and we don't have 10% of the population defaulting... and the US interest rates, unlike our own, have gone right back down again. Either the unemployment figures are just plain wrong, or everyone's wages have been slashed.... whassup over there???? I thought a lot of the mortgages were fixed rate there anyway.

expat girl wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

The free market with sensible regulation works. The free market works best when the public service is subjected to a similar level of regulation and accountability as the private sector.

Untrammelled free market economics, ie pure neo-liberalism, doesn't work at all. The US is finding that out. Freddie and Fannie could have used some enforceable sensible regulation.

What exackerly is the story with US mortgage debt?? Houses in Detroit for a dollar... and 10% of mortgage payers in either arrears or default. I know that most US mortgages are non-recourse... i.e. if the banks get the keys the debt is considered cleared, rather than Europe, where you still owe the bank the difference if you were in negative equity when the house was sold. But even with a non-recourse mortgage, if you get reposessed, presumably it goes on your credit record?? I'm a bit confused as to why it is SOOO bad, with official unemployment figures of only 6.1%... that's about the same as ours and we don't have 10% of the population defaulting... and the US interest rates, unlike our own, have gone right back down again. Either the unemployment figures are just plain wrong, or everyone's wages have been slashed.... whassup over there???? I thought a lot of the mortgages were fixed rate there anyway.

All of those things I think - easy to default, and very tempting in a falling market. Incomes haven't gone up in real terms in 30 years - Walmart wages.
There are suggestions that the unemployment figures are dodgy in some way.

You can see ads on the internet for how you can default and move into the house next door for less.

Quote :

Shares of the No 4 US investment bank lost nearly half their value today amid concern the company is having trouble finding fresh sources of capital.

Lehmans is on the blink. Are they not part of the Fed?

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

Shares of the No 4 US investment bank lost nearly half their value today amid concern the company is having trouble finding fresh sources of capital.

Lehmans is on the blink. Are they not part of the Fed?

What the hell is the Fed anyway? Is it a bunch of banks or a bunch of bankers running a printing press? Can a bank of the Fed really go down? Just because a Minister dies doesn't mean the Ministry is gone too....

http://www.lehman.com/

cactus flower wrote:

I don't think you are a fan of the untrammelled free market are you Ard-Taoiseach? Would you ban social security and public health, and let F and F go bust ?

I'm a fan of very, but not untrammelled free markets. I'm in favour of light touch regulation which intrudes only where it is necessary in the business process and no more. I'm in favour of strict means tests on social security and a proviso that those without work must be actively seeking work and should be provided with training facilities, if necessary, to speed that process. Public health is also an area which can be developed, but I welcome private initiatives in this area as well. I do however want several markets liberalised like dentistry, pharmacy, the legal profession, electricity, gas and so on. I see free, competitive and open markets as the route to high quality goods and services, low prices, more and better jobs, higher productivity and less waste. We have all seen the huge amount of economic boost created by the liberalisation of the airline, insurance and retail industry of this country and it is my view that that should continue since it aids us in improving our already world-beating productivity, keeps unemployment low and drives the economy forward thus providing us with the resources we need with which to invest in education, infrastructure, our pension fund and so much more. If we were talking ten years ago, I would have recommended the full privatisation of F and F and the ending of the strange arrangement then. It would've been easy since we would not have the difficulties of today with which to deal. Unfortunately, a terrible situation has been left to fester as a result of US government inaction and these companies had to be nationalised. It should be the government's duty now to clean house and then put these companies up for auction in 3-4 years. This was not a market failure but a government failure.

Quote :

I really like your focus on what is working and what is positive, but there are serious problems at the moment that need to be recognised before they can be solved, in terms of environment, health and also the extreme instability of the system we have. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have thousands of houses standing empty in the US while people live in homeless shelters, but that is just as much an aspect of the free market as is wealth based on new technology.

There are distortions in every market and in every economic eettlement. That is a fact of life. The world is so complex, so varied and so utterly uncontrollable by any one centralising force that ridiculous situations ensue. The problem is that it is beyond the skill of even government, especially government some would say, to rein the situation in and to resolve distortions by decree. What we can do is try to limit distortions to as few cases as possible. One of the ways we can do this is through the improvement of information flows in markets. This means that everyone can make better decisions on what particular item they will or will not buy or sell in that market. This has the effect of lowering distortions by more accurately catering for everyone's needs since everyone will be more empowered to get the right deal for them. This knowledge is a characteristic of free, perfectly competitive markets and we should aim to foster it in as many markets as possible since it will resolve many difficulties.

Quote :

The free market generates a tendency to monopoly - look at Bill Gates - and cartels operate the whole time: every supermarket in Ireland is charging the same amount for pretty well everything.

Not true on both counts. The free market allowed Bill Gates with a better business model supersede the old, clunky and bureaucratic IBM. If IBM were a more nimble, more agile and adaptive company. If IBM was a more competitive company, then they could've destroyed Bill Gates' Microsoft before it even began. This was not a failure of the market, this was a failure by IBM. And today, the free market is working to create competition to Microsoft. Whether it be Firefox, Google, Apple, Linux or Lotus, there exists significant competition out there for Microsoft. The software market is a free market which just happens to be dominated by Microsoft and they would and perhaps are being wiped out for having inferior product. Just as Microsoft used the power of free markets to unseat IBM and provide a better product, so too might Google dethrone Microsoft to produce a better deal. It's beautiful and it's beneficial.

On the second count, there does exist competition in the supermarket trade, it's called Aldi and Lidl. These two companies are taking advantage of a relatively free market to provide a better product(those Trash Savers ads illustrate this) at lower prices. This shows the benefit that a free market brings, employment to those at Aldi and Lidl, lower prices for consumers and a better deal in general for just about everybody.

Quote :

What people want and what they get are two different things. The free market globalised economy gives to some and takes from others.

And look at what it is giving to the Chinese, Indian, Peruvian and Vietnamese peoples. All these countries have embraced a generally liberalising and free-market oriented policy framework and are already reaping significant rewards. In China, a population the size of Dublin is pulled out of poverty every week, something similar is happening in India, the poverty rate has fallen by about 10% in Peru since the start of the decade and Vietnam is enjoying a revival that has seen its wealth come on in leaps and bounds. The free market is giving much more to these countries than any other competing system could.

Quote :

I've been known to watch Eastenders myself.

As have I!

No I'm going off to an Sibín after all that.

But the idea of the free market is based on the rational and predictable behaviour of consumers, business and government (and externalities) all of which may be falsely assumed to work in certain ways. For example that everyone always wants to work... that everyone generally demands a high standard; that everyone stays the same over time; that everyone is more or less educated well and there is very good information in the market and that people respond to it optimally; that price generally directs choice; that people are suitably skilled - for example that managers are adept at using Google, Linux or Mac as a preference over MS. I'd argue that the complexity of MS has frightened a lot of managers into staying with them for fear that another system will take as long to learn. And it may.

I think a market is a lot like a garden - it needs to be tended or the big ugly weeds will take over. That might be good for the weed ecology but it might not be good for the human one.

Without regulation, the free market, I'll offer you, will work very well for half of the people half of the time. But is that sufficient? (especially when you have corrupt/incompetent government and an apathetic electorate that seems half drugged at times)

If you don't know all about the fed after all the stuff I have posted on it then there is no point in p;osting on it any more.

No Cactus, why would anybody think that Lehman was part of the Fed, but then again some people think the Fed is part of the government.

youngdan wrote:

If you don't know all about the fed after all the stuff I have posted on it then there is no point in p;osting on it any more.

No Cactus, why would anybody think that Lehman was part of the Fed, but then again some people think the Fed is part of the government.

Well youngdan, I've read your stuff carefully, but their names seem to keep coming up together. This article seems to tally well with what happened to Bear Stearns as I saw it at the time (with maybe a little exaggeration of its state of health) and suggests a connection between Lehmans and the Fed.

Quote :

What's the Difference Between Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns? Lehman's CEO is on NY Fed Board
By Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown

An earlier article by this author ("The Secret Bailout of JP Morgan") summarized evidence presented by John Olagues, an expert in options trading, suggesting that JPMorgan, far from "rescuing" Bear Stearns, was actually its nemesis.[1] The faltering investment bank was brought down, not by "rumors," but by insider trading based on a plan drawn up much earlier. The deal was a lucrative one for JPM, handing the Wall Street megabank $52 billion in loans from the Federal Reserve (meaning ultimately the U.S. taxpayer). So how did JPM get away with it? Olagues notes the highly suspicious fact that JPM's CEO James Dimon sits on the Board of the New York Federal Reserve.

In his latest post, Olagues discusses the fate of Lehman Brothers, the nation's fourth-largest investment bank and the next faltering bank expected to fail.[2] Unlike Bear Stearns, which got decimated by the JPM buyout using Federal Reserve money, Lehman Brothers is probably in line for a massive bailout from the Fed. At least, that's what its CEO Richard Fuld seems to believe. The June 4, 2008 Financial Times of London quoted him as stating, "The Federal Reserve's decision earlier this year to lend directly to investment banks should take questions about Lehman's liquidity off the table." Whether Lehman can come up with the "liquidity" to meet its debts is no longer an issue, because it expects to be feeding at the trough of the Federal Reserve, just as JPM did when it bought Bear Stearns at bargain-basement prices. The difference between the two "bailouts" is that Lehman Brothers, unlike Bear Stearns, will actually get the money. Why is Fuld so confident of this rescue operation? Olagues notes that Fuld, like Dimon (and unlike Bear CEO Alan Schwartz), sits on the Board of the New York Federal Reserve.

A conflict of interest? It certainly looks like it. Indeed, Olagues points to a statute defining this sort of self-dealing as a criminal offense. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 11, Section 208, makes it a felony punishable by up to 5 five years in prison for members of the Board of Directors of a Federal Reserve Bank to make decisions that benefit their own financial interests. That would undoubtedly apply here:

"Fuld, at last count, owns 1.9 million shares of Lehman . . . . Although Mr. Fuld sold over $320,000,000 worth of stock at near all time highs in 2006 and 2007, received through the premature exercise of his stock options, he still has value in his present holdings of approximately $100,000,000."

Likewise, says Olagues, "James Dimon holds almost 3 million shares of J.P. Morgan stock worth over $120 million with taxes already paid and executive stock options equal in my estimate of another $70 million. His dispositions of stock equaled $140 million over the past few years." Olagues adds:

"Fuld, like Jamie Dimon, was at the luncheon on March 11, 2008 with Bernanke, Rubin, CEO of Citigroup, Geithner, President of the New York FED, Thain of Merrill Lynch, and Schwarzman. Some claim that the meeting was about Bear Stearns and how to handle the situation."

Needless to say, Bear CEO Schwartz was not invited to the luncheon. "Lehman Bros. is one of the original stock holders of the New York Federal Reserve Bank," Olagues observes. "Bear Stears does not now have any ownership in the FED banks."

The luncheon was held three days before the March 14 collapse of Bear Stearns stock that led to the bank's demise. If the luncheon attendees were indeed discussing the Bear problem on March 11, testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in which the principals said they first heard of the problem on the evening of the thirteenth, says Olagues, was "less than truthful."

The evidence at least warrants an investigation, but who is going to hold these self-dealing Federal Reserve Board members to account? New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, the former thorn in the side of the Wall Street bankers, has been summarily disposed of; and under the latest proposal of U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the Federal Reserve itself will soon become the chief overseer and regulator of the banks. The Federal Reserve will regulate the Federal Reserve Boards, with their litany of private bank CEOs, a clear case of the fox guarding the henhouse.

____________________________

1. Ellen Brown, "The Secret Bailout of JP Morgan: How Insider Trading Looted Bear Stearns and the American Taxpayer," webofdebt.com/articles (May 13, 2008); John Olagues, "Bear Stearns Buy-Out . . .100% Fraud," optionsforemployees.com/articles (March 23, 2008).

2. John Olagues, "Conflict of Interests at the N.Y. Fed," optionsforemployees.com/articles (June 11, 2008).

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In "Web of Debt," her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are http://www.webofdebt.com/ and http://www.ellenbrown.com/ Her eleven books include the bestselling "Nature's Pharmacy," co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, which has sold 285,000 copies.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ellen_Brown

Continuation of previous post:

Quote :

Since the credit crisis struck, wiping out half a trillion dollars of investments held across Wall Street, all banks have been slimming down the holdings of their massive trading desks, in order to reduce their levels of risk. Lehman, which had taken on more leverage than any other bank but Bear Stearns, and therefore had the weakest ratio of assets to potential liabilities, has been deleveraging more ferociously than most. It has needed to, to shore up the confidence of investors and its trading partners. A Bear Stearns-style run on the bank, which collapsed Lehman's august rival back in March, is unlikely now that investment banks can borrow directly from the Federal Reserve. But Lehman will need to persuade trading partners of its long-term viability if it is to win significant new business.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/lehmans-fight-for-survival-917258.html

This all seems to tie in with what you have told me about the Fed, youngdan, and the set up that operates so that a few big guys can operate as very successful vultures benefiting from the cadaver of the market.

Thanks for the long post Ard-Taoiseach. I will read it again when I'm more awake: it may take me a few more hours then to come up with a better alternative to the capitalist system

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I don't think you are a fan of the untrammelled free market are you Ard-Taoiseach? Would you ban social security and public health, and let F and F go bust ?

I'm a fan of very, but not untrammelled free markets. I'm in favour of light touch regulation which intrudes only where it is necessary in the business process and no more. I'm in favour of strict means tests on social security and a proviso that those without work must be actively seeking work and should be provided with training facilities, if necessary, to speed that process. Public health is also an area which can be developed, but I welcome private initiatives in this area as well. I do however want several markets liberalised like dentistry, pharmacy, the legal profession, electricity, gas and so on. I see free, competitive and open markets as the route to high quality goods and services, low prices, more and better jobs, higher productivity and less waste. We have all seen the huge amount of economic boost created by the liberalisation of the airline, insurance and retail industry of this country and it is my view that that should continue since it aids us in improving our already world-beating productivity, keeps unemployment low and drives the economy forward thus providing us with the resources we need with which to invest in education, infrastructure, our pension fund and so much more. If we were talking ten years ago, I would have recommended the full privatisation of F and F and the ending of the strange arrangement then. It would've been easy since we would not have the difficulties of today with which to deal. Unfortunately, a terrible situation has been left to fester as a result of US government inaction and these companies had to be nationalised. It should be the government's duty now to clean house and then put these companies up for auction in 3-4 years. This was not a market failure but a government failure.

Quote :

I really like your focus on what is working and what is positive, but there are serious problems at the moment that need to be recognised before they can be solved, in terms of environment, health and also the extreme instability of the system we have. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have thousands of houses standing empty in the US while people live in homeless shelters, but that is just as much an aspect of the free market as is wealth based on new technology.

There are distortions in every market and in every economic eettlement. That is a fact of life. The world is so complex, so varied and so utterly uncontrollable by any one centralising force that ridiculous situations ensue. The problem is that it is beyond the skill of even government, especially government some would say, to rein the situation in and to resolve distortions by decree. What we can do is try to limit distortions to as few cases as possible. One of the ways we can do this is through the improvement of information flows in markets. This means that everyone can make better decisions on what particular item they will or will not buy or sell in that market. This has the effect of lowering distortions by more accurately catering for everyone's needs since everyone will be more empowered to get the right deal for them. This knowledge is a characteristic of free, perfectly competitive markets and we should aim to foster it in as many markets as possible since it will resolve many difficulties.

Quote :

The free market generates a tendency to monopoly - look at Bill Gates - and cartels operate the whole time: every supermarket in Ireland is charging the same amount for pretty well everything.

Not true on both counts. The free market allowed Bill Gates with a better business model supersede the old, clunky and bureaucratic IBM. If IBM were a more nimble, more agile and adaptive company. If IBM was a more competitive company, then they could've destroyed Bill Gates' Microsoft before it even began. This was not a failure of the market, this was a failure by IBM. And today, the free market is working to create competition to Microsoft. Whether it be Firefox, Google, Apple, Linux or Lotus, there exists significant competition out there for Microsoft. The software market is a free market which just happens to be dominated by Microsoft and they would and perhaps are being wiped out for having inferior product. Just as Microsoft used the power of free markets to unseat IBM and provide a better product, so too might Google dethrone Microsoft to produce a better deal. It's beautiful and it's beneficial.

On the second count, there does exist competition in the supermarket trade, it's called Aldi and Lidl. These two companies are taking advantage of a relatively free market to provide a better product(those Trash Savers ads illustrate this) at lower prices. This shows the benefit that a free market brings, employment to those at Aldi and Lidl, lower prices for consumers and a better deal in general for just about everybody.

Quote :

What people want and what they get are two different things. The free market globalised economy gives to some and takes from others.

And look at what it is giving to the Chinese, Indian, Peruvian and Vietnamese peoples. All these countries have embraced a generally liberalising and free-market oriented policy framework and are already reaping significant rewards. In China, a population the size of Dublin is pulled out of poverty every week, something similar is happening in India, the poverty rate has fallen by about 10% in Peru since the start of the decade and Vietnam is enjoying a revival that has seen its wealth come on in leaps and bounds. The free market is giving much more to these countries than any other competing system could.

Quote :

I've been known to watch Eastenders myself.

As have I!

No I'm going off to an Sibín after all that.

I would agree broadly with what you are saying, Ard. I am a very strong believer in limited, but rigorously enforced, regulation. No regulation leads to chaos. Too much regulation leads to stasis. There is a balance. The trick is finding that balance and maintaining it by enforcing the limited regulation necessary to ensure that it doesn't tip in either direction, chaos or stasis.

I am also in favour in removing barriers to trade. Competition is necessary to stimulate market activity. However, creating faux markets in services and utilities is sometimes economic lunacy posing as valid theory and this should be shown up to be the nonsense it is. The privatisation of British Rail is a powerful example of dogma triumphing over common sense. There was no doubt a better way of reducing the involvement of the state in the rail service but privatisation was certainly the worst way possible. British Water is another example.

We could, Ard, have a long discussion about this but I guess we are in broad general agreement so I will join you in the Sibin instead.

The first paragraph was aimed at Audi and the 2nd paragraph was aimed at you Cactus. If ye had watched The Money Masters video closely 6 months ago ye would have an easier time following what is going on now.

I posted earlier that the ceo's of Morgan and Freddie sat on Federal Reserve boards and that article above states that the Lehman ceo is on the NY Federal Reserve.

The bankers went to the trouble of creating The Fed for the purpose of creating cash to bail themselves out.

This has been done time and time again. While they do this the use the created money to buy every asset on Earth. When they have all the gold then they will collapse the system. Following the collapse you will have starvation to shrink the population

youngdan wrote:

The first paragraph was aimed at Audi and the 2nd paragraph was aimed at you Cactus. If ye had watched The Money Masters video closely 6 months ago ye would have an easier time following what is going on now.

I posted earlier that the ceo's of Morgan and Freddie sat on Federal Reserve boards and that article above states that the Lehman ceo is on the NY Federal Reserve.

The bankers went to the trouble of creating The Fed for the purpose of creating cash to bail themselves out.

This has been done time and time again. While they do this the use the created money to buy every asset on Earth. When they have all the gold then they will collapse the system. Following the collapse you will have starvation to shrink the population

People are already hungry - oil prices have done it.

The people who own the Fed is a different matter than actually being a part of The Fed. Lehman can fail with no ramifications to the Fed even though Lehman may own part of the Fed. A bailout of Lehman at this point will be a very risky move as the usual excuses won't apply. Were the public to ask who actually owns the Fed then there would be an outcry to get rid of it. I expect Lehman to be sacrificed if necessary as in the bigger scheme of things it is small potatoes.