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

youngdan wrote:

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.

You are right there, youngdan. In the bigger picture, it is astounding how miniscule and irrelevant the names of venerable institutions of the financial world like Lehmann really are.

Slim Buddha wrote:

youngdan wrote:

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.

You are right there, youngdan. In the bigger picture, it is astounding how miniscule and irrelevant the names of venerable institutions of the financial world like Lehmann really are.

I agree with you youngdan that a dig out for Lehmanns would be difficult to arrange. Things have moved on since that lady wrote her article. One of the reasons for this is that from what we hear people in the US are pretty angry about the bushel of money with which the old F and F bosses have been paid off, whilst the common shareholder is told to go hang themselves, and the tax payer carries the can.

It looks like reality is kicking in on the ISEQ today

Lehmans should be left out to dry. It's about time some companies went out of business in this mess. The government cannot and should not be bailing everybody out since it creates enormous moral hazard and leaves us ill-equipped for future financial developments.

Moral Hazard, leaves us ill-equipped and does not solve the underlying problems either in the specific companies or in the system. All of this is just a timeout, putting the problem off for another day.

cactus flower wrote:

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

You're very welcome cactus, I'm getting a lot out of this jousting of differing opinion. I would add that you shouldn't look for an alternative to capitalism but embrace it and work to hammer out its more glaring imperfections.

johnfás wrote:

Moral Hazard, leaves us ill-equipped and does not solve the underlying problems either in the specific companies or in the system. All of this is just a timeout, putting the problem off for another day.

Exactly johnfás, it's almost like we need some real blood-letting in all of this, we need to have a wave of creative destruction to wipe out the old system which got us into this mess so that we can have a chance of avoiding something similar ten years down the road.

Well, de mourkets have seemingly responded well to F&F's Treasury take over. All the major indexes are up WOW. However, there is still a general unease as indicated by futures prices and volatility indicies. Even the Lehman story isn't creating that much hype given the banking cirsumstances in the US. I suppose people are just resigned to bad news. Or are they ignoring or putting off the inevitable consequences? Deleveraging by big banks still has some way to continue - to the tune of at least another $500 billion by conservative estimates.

The question still remains to be answered about when the Irish banks will come clean on their localised deleveraging. I opened a local property supplement yesterday and was astounded to see advertised home and land prices have not gone down but actually increased in some cases! Only in Ireland. While the US is taking its lumps, and property is being foreclosed at high rates, the Irish banking institutions have relied on the ECB to temporarily insure themselves against developer non-payment of loans. This is market distortion of the highest order.

The main story is still in commodities which continue to deflate and yet it doesn't seem that much more new money is flowing into bonds.

The Euro has halted its precipitous slide and now seems to be shoring up around the 1.42 mark.

More on Lehman. There's much being made about the Fed and Treasury not coming to Lehman's rescue. Big deal. The consolidation of US banking continues apace. Where the Fed and Treasury see long term advantage, they back the banks. Where they see a new competitive edge developing for the remaining "super-banks" they let the opposition fail. We are simply seeing the creation of finacial institutions which dwarf anything that has existed in history. I see where one of the German banks has already responded in kind and bought into another bank. I expect this "consolidation" to continue apace during the next decade. Us mere penny-annie consumers will probably become increasinly redudant to the banking system as concentrated wealth becomes the main focus of banking activities in the future.

Whilst we may have become immune to bad news there sure is better news management. The double speak is on a power with the jargon that surrounds a military campaign.

Will this thread have to renamed to 3000-4000 tomorrow?

Edit
here it is already today

It should be renamed, Youngdan's 1000 here we come

The Irish financial index is down nearly 8% this fine Monday morning and the ISEQ over 4%. Maybe they'll choose a bad news day like today to announce Irish bank write offs and try bring the news under the radar. Though I doubt it.

The Euro is rising in price on the news that the Fed might have to cut interest rates further. Big deal. The Fed and the Treasury have shot their bolts. There's nothing left in the quiver. Another cut down to 1.5% is only going to encourage further deflation imo. While this goes against current economic structural cause and affect, I think the market sentiment will just see a cut as desperation. Credit destruction is offsetting every attempt by the Fed and ECB to pump prime the markets with printed currencies. Yet they are only playing the equivalent of a schill game where they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The banks don't trust each other, the big guns have no ammunition and businesses and the consumer are going to continue to reign in investment and spending.

rockyracoon wrote:

The Irish financial index is down nearly 8% this fine Monday morning and the ISEQ over 4%. Maybe they'll choose a bad news day like today to announce Irish bank write offs and try bring the news under the radar. Though I doubt it.

The Euro is rising in price on the news that the Fed might have to cut interest rates further. Big deal. The Fed and the Treasury have shot their bolts. There's nothing left in the quiver. Another cut down to 1.5% is only going to encourage further deflation imo. While this goes against current economic structural cause and affect, I think the market sentiment will just see a cut as desperation. Credit destruction is offsetting every attempt by the Fed and ECB to pump prime the markets with printed currencies. Yet they are only playing the equivalent of a schill game where they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The banks don't trust each other, the big guns have no ammunition and businesses and the consumer are going to continue to reign in investment and spending.

Quote :

The Federal Reserve is privately owned. The ownership looks like this:

Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin (see Rothschild and World Economy)
Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Germany and Amsterdam
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York

As you say - robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Just a note on how Machine Nation is moving up in the ISEQ. We are now on page three, if ISEQ trading is googled. Boards.ie is on page one. The only other sites ahead of us are the main newspapers, Davy Stockbrokers and Finfacts. Politics.ie on page 5.

Cheers for us

We are at 4116 and dropping fast. Could well go through 4000 today. However there seems to be a pattern being played out where sharp decline attracts short term buys, price rallies, bit of a rise and then profit taking. Cycle then starts again.

However this is a bear market and dangerous to keep pegging the floor at roughly the same value. I wont be jumping in just yet.

Squire wrote:

We are at 4116 and dropping fast. Could well go through 4000 today. However there seems to be a pattern being played out where sharp decline attracts short term buys, price rallies, bit of a rise and then profit taking. Cycle then starts again.

However this is a bear market and dangerous to keep pegging the floor at roughly the same value. I wont be jumping in just yet.

4050 and heading straight down

Someone was obviously scared of 3999, it virtually touched it and then jumped back up again. We're at 4117 now but America is only just opening its doors.

Back up over 4200 again now. Bit of a rollercoaster for the old brokers.

It is on its way back up again. This pattern has been repeating for the last month or so. Sharp drop, buyers pile in and take profit when it rises, but one of these times it may not stop falling.

There is little sense that I can see to this. I think it has a bit to fall yet. 4000 is a magic round number. Line in the sand.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

The Federal Reserve is privately owned. The ownership looks like this:

Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin (see Rothschild and World Economy)
Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Germany and Amsterdam
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York

I see the New World Order theory of the Fed is still gaining currency (no pun intended). the big bad Jews rule the world etc etc etc.....

1. There is no single Federal Reserve, there are 12 regional ones. Despite belief, the NY Fed is not the equivalent of the ring that binds them all. However I'll use The Fed as an expression since every one else does.

2. All banks that operate in the United States have to hold a percentage of their reserves in the Fed. These reserves are referred to as shares, and insofar as they are the capital of the Fed, they can be consider ownership in a way, but have no voting rights.

3. The Federal reserve is independent of the US government (as a Central Bank should be), however its remit is controlled by Congress, and the vast bulk of the profits it makes end up in the Treasury. If it wanted the Congress could shut it down in the morning. Effectively its part of the executive, but with considerable autonomous latitude.


So where did this business about the Jewish banks come from? A bloke by the name of Gary Kah http://www.garykah.org/profile.html who wrote a book called On Route to Global Occupation, the upshot of which is that the Bible is coded with the destiny of the world, including the plot to take over the world. He is also one of the main proponants of the Catholic Church controlling the UN belief (see hibernia-Free on Politics.ie for details). In fairness he does a great job of believing simultaneously that the Catholic Church controls politics, the Jews finance and that the New Age movement/enviromentalism is the new religion being promoted by the Illuminati to enslave peoples minds.

Google him, its worth it.

Mind you Kah was expanding on the earlier work of Eustace Mullins, though he had an entirely different list. Mullins however believed that the world of finance was controlled by a 2000 year old Babylonian sect. Also that Jews engage in human sacrifice for religious purposes etc etc (The Biological Jew, published by the Aryan League of America).

The fact of the matter is those banking interests do own the Federal Reserve. The big money is not in it's operating profits but it's ability to create 500 billion out of then air and then dole it out to it's owners. It's owners also own the Midas Touch as they know the future direction of the markets as they control liquidity.

That entire post is misleading except for the part that says Congress could close down the Fed at any time. All they have to do is revoke it's Charter(license). Congress is unlikely to do this because the Fed supplies it with an unlimited sourse of funds without which deficit spending would cease.

The Fed is not part of the government in any way and it will do what is in the best interest of the Fed.

MikeW wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

The Federal Reserve is privately owned. The ownership looks like this:

Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin (see Rothschild and World Economy)
Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Germany and Amsterdam
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York

I see the New World Order theory of the Fed is still gaining currency (no pun intended). the big bad Jews rule the world etc etc etc.....

1. There is no single Federal Reserve, there are 12 regional ones. Despite belief, the NY Fed is not the equivalent of the ring that binds them all. However I'll use The Fed as an expression since every one else does.

2. All banks that operate in the United States have to hold a percentage of their reserves in the Fed. These reserves are referred to as shares, and insofar as they are the capital of the Fed, they can be consider ownership in a way, but have no voting rights.

3. The Federal reserve is independent of the US government (as a Central Bank should be), however its remit is controlled by Congress, and the vast bulk of the profits it makes end up in the Treasury. If it wanted the Congress could shut it down in the morning. Effectively its part of the executive, but with considerable autonomous latitude.


So where did this business about the Jewish banks come from? A bloke by the name of Gary Kah http://www.garykah.org/profile.html who wrote a book called On Route to Global Occupation, the upshot of which is that the Bible is coded with the destiny of the world, including the plot to take over the world. He is also one of the main proponants of the Catholic Church controlling the UN belief (see hibernia-Free on Politics.ie for details). In fairness he does a great job of believing simultaneously that the Catholic Church controls politics, the Jews finance and that the New Age movement/enviromentalism is the new religion being promoted by the Illuminati to enslave peoples minds.

Google him, its worth it.

Mind you Kah was expanding on the earlier work of Eustace Mullins, though he had an entirely different list. Mullins however believed that the world of finance was controlled by a 2000 year old Babylonian sect. Also that Jews engage in human sacrifice for religious purposes etc etc (The Biological Jew, published by the Aryan League of America).

Well thanks for that, MikeW. I'm not a "believer" and have posted here and on P.ie and here against "protocol of Zion" nonsense and the idea that there is a banking conspiracy. Imo we are looking at inherent systemic failure. This is the official word on which banks make up the Federal Reserve, for anyone who want to read it. It has over 2,000 members.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_1.pdf

As it is quite a short pdf. which unfortunately took 15 minutes to open, or I would have replied sooner.

youngdan wrote:

The fact of the matter is those banking interests do own the Federal Reserve. The big money is not in it's operating profits but it's ability to create 500 billion out of then air and then dole it out to it's owners. It's owners also own the Midas Touch as they know the future direction of the markets as they control liquidity.

That entire post is misleading except for the part that says Congress could close down the Fed at any time. All they have to do is revoke it's Charter(license). Congress is unlikely to do this because the Fed supplies it with an unlimited sourse of funds without which deficit spending would cease.

The Fed is not part of the government in any way and it will do what is in the best interest of the Fed.

You raise some points there so lets go through them.

"those banking interests do own the federal Reserve"

OK, again we are back to the fact that the Fed refers to the deposits as shares. This would be a valid point except:

1) They have no voting rights of any note. None. Nada.
2) They cannot be sold, transferred or otherwise transferred. Nor can they be assigned as proxies (although even if they could, there is nothing for them to proxy).
3) A bank cannot decide not to place these deposits, they are entirely compulsary.

Does any of that sound like "ownership" to you? No vote, no say, no choice?

"The big money is not in it's operating profits...."

Well it usually makes over $20bn a year and over 95% of that goes to the treasury. Big is relative I suppose.

".....but it's ability to
create 500 billion out of then air and then dole it out to it's owners."

Becomes nonsense based on the above ownership issues. Well actually it was pretty much nonsense before that.

"It's owners also own the Midas Touch as they know the future direction of the markets as they control liquidity."

Several issues with this. Firstly the owners bit. Still not true. Secondly, according to you the liquidity consists of the Fed creating it and giving it directly to them, so what Midas Touch? Lastly, and the biggy, even if we were to take the structure and bend it to your interpretation of the deposit holders being the out and out owners of the Fed, that is all large banks in the US. Its not much use knowing the future direction of the markets if all the big players know whats happening.


"That entire post is misleading..."

The entire post was based around pointing out that the two people who came up with the whole interpretion of the Fed as being privately owned were a right wing anti-semetic conspiracy theorist and a right wing rapture junkie (and conspiracy theorist). Their interpretation of the ownership of the Fed came from the same pool of research as the rest of their writings. Not sure which bit you consider misleading.

"The Fed is not part of the government in any way..."

The system of Federal Banks is directly run by a Board of Directors which decide issues like interest rates. They are appointed directly by the President and confirmed by Congress.

Currently the board is (if you know who replaced Mishkin and who the seventh is let me know, couldn't find them on a quick search)

Board of Governors
Ben S. Bernanke Professor of Economics at Stanford and Princeton
Donald L. Kohn career spent in Federal Reserve System
Kevin M. Warsh SEA to the president, previously 7 years with Morgan Stanley
Randall S. Kroszner Professor of Economics at Uni Chicago.
Frederic S. Mishkin Professor at Columbia Business School (left Aug 31 2008).
Elizabeth A Duke Previously at TowneBank, SouthTrust Wachovia and Tidewater Banks

Now I'll grant you that these being current or previous employees of the heavy hitters in the Banking world is distu..... Oh hang on one was seven years at MS, another spent some time at Wachovia, otherwise no particular history of affiliation with any Bank. They are mainly Professors of Economics, which strikes me as being a reasonable place to get your economics experts.

For broader economic policy the Head of the NY Fed and 4 others are brought on board. They are currently:

Timothy Geithner Pres, Fed NY. Previously with IMF and before that US Treasury.
Richard Fisher Pres Fed Dallas. Previously BBH and US Treasury and State Department.
Sandra Pianalto Pres Fed Cleveland. career spent in Federal Reserve System barring short time with US House of Representatives.
Charles Plosser Pres Fed Philadelphia. prof of Economics Rochester, Stanford and Chicago.
Gary Stern Pres Minneapolis Prof Economics Columbia and NYU.

Still no committee of large banks. And all the Presidents of the Regional Feds have to be approved by the Government appointed BofD.


I'm not particularly expecting you to be convinced by any of this, I know you are a fully signed up member of the Ron Paul pro Gold Standard anti fractional banking brigade, which is big at the moment because it can correctly say that there would not be this crash if he had his way. This is true, but nor would there have been any growth at any stage. Ron Pauls method moreover gives a very easy route to a small group of people controlling the markets.

Sorry cactus, I wasn't really trying to infer that you were a believer, but that list that starts with Rothschilds and goes downhill from there always annoys me.

I do agree with you however that there is a serious risk of a complete failure of the system.

The Fed Reserve's independence and control is a grey area and may intentionally been enacted to be so. However, President Woodrow Wilson, who decried his own involvement in pushing for the arrangement, may serve as warning that the arrangement is not serving the best interests of the US population. The recent moves by successive Fed chairmen to install the now famous "puts" to banks while at the same time stoking inflation through historical money supply growth may also serve as a warning that the interests of the Fed and the interests of the US as a whole are in conflict. The Fed, simply stated, have played the game in the interests of their banking buddies while creating exponetial loan growth taken on by consumers, industry and indeed the Federal government itself. The entire US system is now in hock to the financiers and so are their children and grandchildren.

One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see what detrimental affects Fed Res policy has had on the US economy and the poltical well-being over the last 70 odd years.