Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Was Financial Crisis Orchestrated?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    193

    Post imported post

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xKPcyvlfnc

    Rep. Paul Kanjorski, (D-Pa.) chairman of the House Capitol Markets subcommittee admitted on C-SPAN that the current economic problems were the result of an “electronic run on the bank” that resulted in the hemorrhaging of $550 billion in just “an hour or two.”

    Kanjorski was accosted by an irate American caller charging that the economic stimulus package is solely for the benefit of fat cats on Wall Street rather than for Joe Six-pack on Main Street. The Congressman made the following comments:

    "Why did we do that? We did that because. . .Look, I was there when the secretary of the treasury and chairman of the Federal Reserve came and talked with members of Congress about what was going on, it was about Sept. 15. . . . Here’s the facts; and we don’t even talk about these things.

    “On the previous Thursday [Sept. 11] at about 11 a.m. the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of 550 billion dollars, being drawn out in the matter of about an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help, pumped $105 billion in the system and quickly realized they could not stem the tide. . . We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there. If they had not done this, their estimation was that by 2 o’clock that afternoon, 5.5 trillion dollars would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, [which] would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. . . .

    "We talked about what would happen—it would have been the end of our economic and political system as we know it, and that’s why we had to act and do things quickly. Why? Because if you don’t have a banking system you don’t have an economy, and although we did that it wasn’t enough. The economy has been falling and we’re really no better off today than we were three months ago, as other assets are going sour by the moment. . .

    ***

    * He does say this in the youtube link.

    * This was later supposedly debunked as an "Internet Rumor" - see http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/20...s-removed.html

    * But at that same debunking webpage, it says the following:

    "Update - for all who claim that Kanjorski is yapping with a few screws loose upstairs, take a look at this clip: http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wm...ring092408.wvx

    and fast forward to the 1 hour, 50 minute and 48 second mark. This is archived footage from the September 24 House Financial Services hearing at which both Paulson and Bernanke are present. Kanjorski asks Paulson this very question, and states to Paulson, that the information came originally from him. Now, Kanjorski may be anything but not senile as he is merely repeating facts that Paulson tells him. And Paulson does not refute the facts. His explanation is somewhat amusing. Make your own conclusions.

    * I went to the link and watched the archived CSPAN footage from 9/24/08 at 1Hr;50min 48 Sec, Kanjorski starts - he uses up too much time talking himself but finally gets out the question - which asking Hank Paulson what he means when he says that spending $700B would be costing 'far less than the alternative' - so that the American people can know -

    * Paulson starts by saying that he agrees with Kanjorski's comments. He is about to start answering when Chair Barney Frank cuts him off, says he's almost out of time, and tells Paulson to answer the first part of the question about money market funds and what happened with those but not to use up time answering the question about the "worst alternative."

    * Paulson explains what the money market funds are in the context of commercial paper and lending and what they did to raise the guarantee to $250K and 'unfreeze' the market - but he never explains what was meant by the 'worst alternative' although it is clear that he knows what Barney Frank means when he says not to discuss it -

    * I have heard and read before that Paulson told Congress there was a fear in the Bush Administration and at Treasury specifically that there would be civil unrest if they didn't push through that $700B but never heard why.

    * The article below is not fact checked and I do not agree with it but it raises the question whether there was a financial attack on the US which was mitigated to some extent but which may have been orchestrated by enemies of the US -

    ***

    Was Financial Collapse an Orchestrated Event?
    U.S. Rep. admits run on banks that started financial meltdown was deliberate attack

    By Mark Glenn

    In an admission stunning for its frankness Rep. Paul Kanjorski, (D-Pa.) chairman of the House Capitol Markets subcommittee admitted on C-SPAN that the current economic problems were the result of an “electronic run on the bank” that resulted in the hemorrhaging of $550 billion in just “an hour or two.”

    Kanjorski was accosted by an irate American caller charging that the economic stimulus package is solely for the benefit of fat cats on Wall Street rather than for Joe Six-pack on Main Street. With barely concealed panic in his voice, the congressman tried explaining the severity of the financial problem with the following comments:

    "Why did we do that? We did that because. . .Look, I was there when the secretary of the treasury and chairman of the Federal Reserve came and talked with members of Congress about what was going on, it was about Sept. 15. . . . Here’s the facts; and we don’t even talk about these things.

    “On the previous Thursday [Sept. 11] at about 11 a.m. the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of 550 billion dollars, being drawn out in the matter of about an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help, pumped $105 billion in the system and quickly realized they could not stem the tide. . . We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there. If they had not done this, their estimation was that by 2 o’clock that afternoon, 5.5 trillion dollars would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, [which] would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. . . .

    "We talked about what would happen—it would have been the end of our economic and political system as we know it, and that’s why we had to act and do things quickly. Why? Because if you don’t have a banking system you don’t have an economy, and although we did that it wasn’t enough. The economy has been falling and we’re really no better off today than we were three months ago, as other assets are going sour by the moment. . .

    "Somebody threw us in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean without a life raft and we’re trying to determine which is the closest shore and whether there’s any chance in the world to swim that far. We don’t know. . . .

    Put in less “gentle” terms, the 2-hour/half-a trillion dollar/$4.6 billion-per-minute event Kanjorski described was the equivalent of having a major economic artery “Jack-the-Rippered” in a way that threatened the very existence of not only the U.S. but the entire world whose economies and political stability are intrinsically tied to the monetary good mood of the land of the free and home of the brave. According to some of the economic experts interviewed for this piece (who insisted upon anonymity,
    due to the “sensitive” nature of the topic) it is one of the largest—if not the largest—singular transfers of money in history in such a short time frame.

    Furthermore, the general consensus of those interviewed is that had the bloodletting been permitted to run its course—meaning the evaporation of 5.5 trillion dollars—it would have resulted in the elimination of 90% percent of America’s liquidity (again the “blood” that keeps the economic body alive) in the span of just five hours.
    Based upon the unnerving words of the congressman in this television exchange, what is known is as follows:

    First, that the potentially apocalyptic events leading up to the bailout of America’s banks are not “talked about,” something to remember when President Obama or his monetary magicians are promising “this and that” with regard to curing America’s economic ills. By the very words of Rep. Paul “Vallachi” Kanjorski, a “code of silence” exists among the “made members” of the political and financial elite preventing them from telling the
    truth. The fact that it took close to five months for this information concerning a deliberate run on the banks to be made public is proof that the captain and crew of the Titanic have decided to allow the passengers to go about their lives unencumbered while they try to find a way to “deal with” the current situation.

    Second, that on Sept. 15, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Shalom Bernanke testified before Congress that on the previous Thursday, Sept. 11, an “electronic run” on the U.S. banking system took place between the hours of 9 and 11 am. . . . That had stop-gaps not been executed, by 2 p.m. (again, on Sept. 11) the hemorrhaging of “$5.5 trillion” would have taken place, resulting in the collapse of not only “the entire economy” of the United States but as well of the world within just “24 hours,” leading to “the end of our economic and political system as we know it.”

    Eliminating the possibility that the event was all part of some fluke or “market correction,” the congressman ended his comments by saying “someone” was responsible for the slashing of that financial jugular that nearly bled America to death, as well as indicating the worries on the part of the power elite in Washington as to whether or not at the end of the day America would survive it, despite the unprecedented transfusions.

    The date on which the hemorrhaging is said to have taken place, Sept. 11, is the same date America’s financial headquarters were attacked seven years earlier. It started the “war on terror” benefiting a certain ethno-theocratic state in the Middle East. The time frame this monetary hemorrhaging is said to have taken place was between 9 and 11 a.m., which coincides with the time frame of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,* with the first tower being struck by an airliner shortly before 9 a.m. and the second tower collapsing at roughly 10:30 a.m.

    People who note the hundreds of “odd” items dealing with 9-11, including but not limited to the arrest of hundreds of Israeli intelligence operatives, some seen cheering as the Twin
    Towers were crumbling, will consider that the current financial crisis—rather than being an “accident”—may be another act of sabotage on the part of the same malicious entity.”



  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    TatankaGap quoted:
    SNIP it would have been the end of our economic and political system as we know it,
    Oooooo. The end of a criminal class (Congress) that can spend vast sums outside the constitution by borrowing from a central bank (Fed), and only having to raise taxesto pay the interest on that debt, thus avoiding the revolution that would attend raising taxes to directlyaquire the vast sums spent?

    The end of a privately owned central bank that creates money out of nothing, creating inflation, yet gets to collect interest on that nothing?

    Do away with that?

    Oh, dear me.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    TatankaGap wrote:
    SNIP On the previous Thursday [Sept. 11] at about 11 a.m. the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of 550 billion dollars, being drawn out in the matter of about an hour or two.
    Lets say, just for a moment, that this is true--$550B in a couple hours.

    Who could do that? Who has $550B in accounts they control?

    Another central bank or group of member banks comes to mind.

    An electronic run on a bank conjures images of numerous people trying to withdraw money from a bank, yet we've not heard of any such panic publicly. Surely such an event would have been reported by investors who were taking out their money, or tried and couldn't. I'm not a market watcher, but I should think we'd have heard about that in the media.

    Which suggests a coordinated activity by a small number of people privy to the scheme.

    It would help to know which accounts were being emptied. Just follow the money back to the "who".Otherwise, its just speculation. I'm sure the government would have done that by now. Not too many people or even banks have access to $550B worth of accountssuch that the removal activity could be concentrated into a couple of hours,I should think.

    Assuming its true. I haven't watched the videos.

    Who on the forum knows about this stuffand can shed light on this?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    That this is a manufactured crisis at least in part is undeniable. The Obama administration has actively undermined the economy with fear-mongering to push an agenda. The mortgage problem was a potential $100 billion mortgage loss in 4 states and a few select large cities in other states which became nationalized as government fear-mongering and bailouts killed the mortgage market in the 75-80% of mortgage/real estate markets unaffected initially. To not do so would have required naming names as to which specific groups that were defaulting in record numbers caused the initial foreclosure spike which soon started driving down home values subsequently taking out large numbers of investment buyers in those 4 states.

    The real question is how closely the banking/hedge fund/real estate failures are really related. Many have tried to make it sound as if they went hand in hand. Knowing the story of what really happened in the real estate slide I think there had to be something else going on in the financial markets to cause things to go bad so quickly. The housing market simply does not have such immediate effects on the broader markets.

    An electronic run on the banks as an attack on our economy is (and this is scary to admit as I am not typically a conspiratorist) is the first thing I have heard that really makes sense. If that was the case, that it hasn't been made public is not surprising. The Bush administration for as yet unexplained reasons beyond protecting intelligence sources was resistant and even loathe to divulge any information about most disrupted plots. Only if the arrests were impossible to hide was information forthcoming leading many to believe and/or argue that there weren't any such plots stopped. That the Obama administration and its supporters in congress wouldn't admit such matters is obvious as they have an agenda that is better pushed if they can cause people to believe that this was a failure of government oversight, ie not enough government and capitalist greed.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP The real question is how closely the banking/hedge fund/real estate failures are really related. Many have tried to make it sound as if they went hand in hand. Knowing the story of what really happened in the real estate slide I think there had to be something else going on in the financial markets to cause things to go bad so quickly. The housing market simply does not have such immediate effects on the broader markets.
    Good question. I guess we would have to see the same balance sheets and numbers as the govern-ers to really answer that question.

    I think part of my problem is that I haven't been following things closely enough to catchthe alleged explanations.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP An electronic run on the banks as an attack on our economy is (and this is scary to admit as I am not typically a conspiratorist) is the first thing I have heard that really makes sense. If that was the case, that it hasn't been made public is not surprising. The Bush administration for as yet unexplained reasons beyond protecting intelligence sources was resistant and even loathe to divulge any information about most disrupted plots. Only if the arrests were impossible to hide was information forthcoming leading many to believe and/or argue that there weren't any such plots stopped. That the Obama administration and its supporters in congress wouldn't admit such matters is obvious as they have an agenda that is better pushed if they can cause people to believe that this was a failure of government oversight, ie not enough government and capitalist greed.
    Funny thing is, it already made sense to me without the "electronic run on the banks" and without the conspiracy theory. Just goes to show you what some people consider "makes sense" differs from other people, I guess.

    I would think the conspiracy question would really revolve around who was doing the withdrawing, and why.

    Since my earlier post above, I've thought some more. It doesn't seem completely far-fetched to me that foreign markets, and even partly in the US could have been spooked by news the preceding day or two and decided to pull out their money. It does howeverseem like a huge amount of money to go so fast. I'd like to know what was happening as far as withdrawals the day before and earlier that morning.

    Was there a rising trend in withdrawals already occuring that got enough worrisome that the Fed had already started watching the market? (Why was the Fed watching that market in the first place? Does the Fedmonitor markets every minutesuch that they can spot hugevolumesin and out at the time they occur?)

    Or was there a sudden smaller group of withdrawals in larger batches of money?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP The real question is how closely the banking/hedge fund/real estate failures are really related. Many have tried to make it sound as if they went hand in hand. Knowing the story of what really happened in the real estate slide I think there had to be something else going on in the financial markets to cause things to go bad so quickly. The housing market simply does not have such immediate effects on the broader markets.

    Here is something that might help.

    LEVERAGE:

    Definition 1
    The degree to which an investor or business is utilizing borrowed money. Companies that are highly leveraged may be at risk of bankruptcy if they are unable to make payments on their debt; they may also be unable to find new lenders in the future. Leverage is not always bad, however; it can increase the shareholders' return on their investment and often there are tax advantages associated with borrowing. also called financial leverage.

    Definition 2
    What the debt/equity ratio measures.

    This content can be found on the following page:


    document.write(window.location.href);

    http://www.investorwords.com/2786/leverage.html

    (Hey! That's handy. I did not write the note about where to find the content, nor write the link. The website from which I copied the info must have done it automatically. The information is definitely not part of what I copied.)
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,605

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    snip.............
    I would think the conspiracy question would really revolve around who was doing the withdrawing, and why.

    Since my earlier post above, I've thought some more. It doesn't seem completely far-fetched to me that foreign markets, and even partly in the US could have been spooked by news the preceding day or two and decided to pull out their money. It does howeverseem like a huge amount of money to go so fast. I'd like to know what was happening as far as withdrawals the day before and earlier that morning.
    China?

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Um, Gulf States?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Post imported post

    Pardon me, but this thread does not belong in "Why Open Carry."

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    XD-GEM wrote:
    Pardon me, but this thread does not belong in "Why Open Carry."
    Actually I would give him this one. If indeed this situation was a direct attack against the United States, then it definitely falls into the realm of proof that we should be ready for the unexpected. Part of the preparedness includes carrying whenever possible.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    bohdi wrote:
    Um, Gulf States?
    Hmmmmm. Maybe you have something there.

    Or any state or group of stateslosing income fast from falling oil prices. Of course, it would also have to be somebody who had investments in the US.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    193

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    snip.............
    I would think the conspiracy question would really revolve around who was doing the withdrawing, and why.

    Since my earlier post above, I've thought some more. It doesn't seem completely far-fetched to me that foreign markets, and even partly in the US could have been spooked by news the preceding day or two and decided to pull out their money. It does howeverseem like a huge amount of money to go so fast. I'd like to know what was happening as far as withdrawals the day before and earlier that morning.
    China?

    Yata hey
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0223/p01s03-wosc.html

    China's buying spree in global fire sale
    This month China bought stakes in French, Canadian, and Australian firms.
    Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
    from the February 23, 2009 edition

    Beijing - General Motors is doing it. The world's second-largest mining group is doing it. Russia, Brazil, and Venezuela are doing it. And China is loving it.

    Squeezed between falling profits and the credit crunch, a growing number of troubled corporations and countries are turning to cash-rich China for a bailout. And with foreign assets cheaper than they have been for years, Beijing is on an international spending spree.

    "The international financial crisis ... is equally a challenge and an opportunity," China's energy czar, Zhang Guobao, wrote recently in the official newspaper People's Daily. "The slowdown ... has reduced the price of international energy resources and assets and favors our search for overseas resources."

    So far, the government has concentrated on natural-resource deals, securing supplies of oil and minerals in return for large amounts of cash. But private Chinese firms are also taking advantage of the crisis in other sectors: Diesel-engine giant Weichai Power is expected to buy a French plant that US automaker General Motors is selling off in its struggle to survive.

    Though the Chinese economy has also been hit by the crisis, cutting growth by almost half, "what sets China apart is that Chinese banks have not been so badly hurt, and the policy banks still seem ready to lend" in support of key government objectives, says Erika Downs, a China energy specialist at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

    The China Development Bank, for example, is financing China's biggest-ever foreign investment – a $19.5 billion bid by the mostly state-owned Aluminum Corp. of China for an 18 percent slice of Rio Tinto. The Australian mining company desperately needs the cash in order to pay off $19 billion in debt over the next two years.

    That deal, still to be approved by Australian regulators, is seen here as a pathfinder. "It illustrates Chinese state business's strong capacity ... and gathered experience for state-owned firms to operate abroad in the future," explained an article published earlier this month in People's Daily.

    Other recent multibillion-dollar deals include the purchase by China Petrochemical Corp., the country's second-largest oil producer, of Canada's Tanganyika Oil, which works in Syria, and the bid that China Minmetals has made for OZ Minerals, an Australian zinc producer on the verge of bankruptcy.

    "The amount of money coming out of Beijing suggests they are confident that we are at the bottom of the market," says Paul Cavey, an analyst with Australia's Macquarie Bank in Hong Kong. And with China's trade surplus still wide, since imports have fallen even faster than exports, "they still have a lot of money to play with," he adds.

    Last week the Chinese government sank $39 billion of that money in three separate deals to secure future oil supplies from Russia, Brazil, and Venezuela.

    A $25 billion loan to Russia, whose economy is reeling from plummeting oil prices, won a promise to supply 290,000 barrels per day for the next quarter-century and to build a pipeline into China.

    "The slowdown in the Russian economy, declining crude prices, and production and the credit crunch have lent the Chinese far better bargaining power," wrote Gordon Kwan, head of China energy research at CLSA brokerage, in a research note last week.

    A $10 billion loan to Brazil, announced during a visit to the country by Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, secured a similar pledge to provide up to 160,000 barrels of crude a day. Mr. Xi also signed a deal with Venezuela for up to 1 million barrels per day by 2015 in return for another $4 billion from China to top off an existing development fund.

    "More than anything else, China always wants security of resources going into the future," says Mr. Cavey. The crisis, and falling asset prices, "open up a significant part of the world," he adds. "China will think of investing pretty much anywhere there are resources, not just the places that other countries don't want to go."

    Few expect Beijing to invest in the troubled financial sector, however, despite the hopes some foreign banks have harbored of attracting Chinese money. "Natural resources are so strategic for a country, they can justify investments there, but they can't justify another financial-sector deal," says Andy Xie, an independent economist.

    China's sovereign wealth fund has lost between half and two-thirds of investments it made over the past two years in financial firms such as Morgan Stanley, Blackstone, and Barclays, Mr. Xie points out.

    As China begins to move again on the international scene, taking advantage of low prices, it remains to be seen how much political resistance its bids will provoke.

    In 2005, political pressure in Washington forced China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC) to withdraw its bid for the US oil firm Unocal, even though the Chinese firm offered more money than its rival, Chevron.

    "The situation is so bad that there is a desperation now to get money," says Cavey. "But it will still be a difficult political balance to strike" for the state-owned firms that are expected to be most active abroad.

    Especially touchy will be the question of state assistance for Chinese firms, potentially giving them an advantage over Western competitors. The China National Petroleum Corp.'s website last week carried a report on the government's yet-unpublished oil and gas development plan, which suggested such assistance is foreseen.

    "China will encourage enterprises to develop the exploration and acquisition of overseas resources and will offer low-interest loans and preferential lending rates for major overseas energy investment projects," the report said.

    "With low oil prices, we may see Chinese banks playing a bigger role" in funding acquisitions, says Dr. Downs at Brookings. "And if it is known that Chinese companies are getting money from state banks at low interest rates, we will see concern that this support creates a playing field that is not level."


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    193

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP The real question is how closely the banking/hedge fund/real estate failures are really related. Many have tried to make it sound as if they went hand in hand. Knowing the story of what really happened in the real estate slide I think there had to be something else going on in the financial markets to cause things to go bad so quickly. The housing market simply does not have such immediate effects on the broader markets.
    Good question. I guess we would have to see the same balance sheets and numbers as the govern-ers to really answer that question.

    I think part of my problem is that I haven't been following things closely enough to catchthe alleged explanations.
    Check out AIG - why are they pumping another $30 B on top of $130B for a total of $160B - looks like AIG is the hub and has "spoke-like" ties to all major financial institutions which if AIG was actually treated as bankrupt, those financial institutions would have to write off assets that are toxic but insured by AIG and that would push them all over the brink....they say AIG was run like a hedge fund so that's the answer - the relation between AIG acting like hedge fund, the hedge funds, and the banks and their asset portfolios of insured asset backed securities and bad mortgage loans, IMHO -

    NY Times editorial -

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/op...ial&st=cse

    "...In a joint statement with the Federal Reserve on Monday, the Treasury justified the move, saying that “the potential cost to the economy and the taxpayer of government inaction would be extremely high.” That’s a textbook rationale for any bailout. What no one is saying — the Bush folks wouldn’t, and the Obama team seems to have taken the same vow of Wall Street omert* — is which firms would be most threatened by an A.I.G. collapse. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve noted in their statement that A.I.G. is a “significant counterparty to a number of major financial institutions.”

    That means that by enabling A.I.G. to avert bankruptcy proceedings, the taxpayer is also bailing out — whom exactly?

    Not knowing is not acceptable. At this stage of a deepening crisis, no one is arguing that the government should let A.I.G. collapse into a disorderly bankruptcy. It is too interconnected. During the housing bubble, it used unregulated derivatives to insure mortgage securities that turned out to be toxic — without putting aside reserves in case it had to pay up. If it now went under, there could be a chain of catastrophic defaults among banks that hold the securities and related investments.

    The A.I.G. bailouts fail the basic test of transparency: Who ends up with the money? Major financial institutions are not innocent victims of A.I.G.’s demise. They are sophisticated investors, and they should have known the risks being taken — and who profited mightily from the relationship before it all came crashing down.

    Whoever the recipients are, they should be investigated for their roles in the crash and, to the extent possible, be made to pay for the bailouts...."


  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    TatankaGap wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    snip.............
    I would think the conspiracy question would really revolve around who was doing the withdrawing, and why.

    Since my earlier post above, I've thought some more. It doesn't seem completely far-fetched to me that foreign markets, and even partly in the US could have been spooked by news the preceding day or two and decided to pull out their money. It does howeverseem like a huge amount of money to go so fast. I'd like to know what was happening as far as withdrawals the day before and earlier that morning.
    China?

    Yata hey
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0223/p01s03-wosc.html

    China's buying spree in global fire sale
    You hear that Fedgov?!!!!

    The Chinese version of suppression works better. At least the real productionby their serfs results in real wealth that can be stolen and then used to buy up part of the world increasing their control and negotiating position.

    Your version of suppressionjust loans your serfs into paper wealth (read phony wealth). When your little Federal Reserve-induced fraud crashes, the Chinese step in with their real wealth and gobble up the bits.

    Damn! I can't even be suppressed by competent tyrants! My tyrants have been outsmarted by theChinese. What a bunch of laughable boobs.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    TatankaGap quoted the NY Times:
    SNIP Whoever the recipients are, they should be investigated for their roles in the crash and, to the extent possible, be made to pay for the bailouts...."
    Bet this story gets buried quick.

    Thanks for posting these Tatanka!!!!

    The only other comment I might add is that they should be prosecuted for fraud on a massive scale. The fraud being that somebody created the FALSE value of the service AIG purported to perform, while presumably raking in big money themselves. But don't focus on the big money. Focus on the lie that AIG would be able to perform that was maintained in the meantime.

    So, more than just paying for the bailouts. Life sentences.

    I wonder if that money disappearing from the money markets in a few hours is connected?

    Why am I having to wonder? Why isn't the fedgov reporting it? (rhetorical questions to show perspective about the Fed and the fedgov.)

    You know what really angers me? Forty years from now when I am too damn old to do anything about it, some Woodwardor Bernsteinis going to blow the cover off this, everything will make sense, and the suffering, worry, want, and decreased quality of life willbe shown to have been both totally senseless and totally avoidable.

    I shouldn't read this stuff in the evening. I'm too mad to get any sleep tonight.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    I fully agree that a financial meltdown is a good reason to carry of any type, open or concealed.

    I do think that the current crisis was manufactured by people who want to use it to push through some pretty distasteful legislation under the rubric of emergency stimulus. The only way to get these bills past that they are currently passing is to shove them through so fast that nobody has time to read them, not even those who are voting on them.

    I went to a gun store the other day and it was packed. There were at least three people in the store who were making a first time ever purchase... and these were not young men. These guys were very worried about the financial crisis causing many social services to collapse under the weight of newly unemployed and/or retired baby boomers. One guy was sure that we would see food riots within 18 months and he wants to be prepared to protect his property.

    Another guy just bought a 5 acre plot of land to begin gardening on as he believes that pretty soon, inflation will kill the value of the dollar.

    All of these reasons have some merit and are a good reason to carry... and I believe that if more and more people open carry, it will actually make people feel safer once the SHTF.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  18. #18
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    What does this have to do with OC? When I post a non-OC, but gun related article in "General Discussion", the post gets removed. When someone else posts in an on topic forum, it's ok?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •