Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Global financial system implosion begins

I didn’t suggest any such thing do calm down. Only said that the series of very high profile scandals and bad publicity at this particular Swiss bank are part of why people withdrew their money. Not moral outrage. And depositors for years have paid to keep their cash quietly in Swiss francs, negative interest rates or zero interest with fees.
 
Maybe it'll turn out, with the benefit of hindsight, that running down actual value-adding activities whilst simultaneously encouraging finance to cream off an ever-growing percentage from them, most of which then sits idle on the balance sheets of the wealthy doing absolutely nothing for the economies that created it, was a bit of a shit idea.
 
CS were on the the rising stars of the late 80s as they started to go global and swallow up all kinds of rival shite as they went on an acquisition splurge. Went huge on derivatives and set up a derivative arm with memberships of the various exchanges. Got a bit silly and got involved in stuff they really couldn’t accommodate really. Tons of dodgy stuff went on across the globe as they worked hard to make the financial business accessible to everyone - meaning money laundering and despot investment. Rotten fuckers.let them fail
 
I didn’t suggest any such thing do calm down. Only said that the series of very high profile scandals and bad publicity at this particular Swiss bank are part of why people withdrew their money. Not moral outrage. And depositors for years have paid to keep their cash quietly in Swiss francs, negative interest rates or zero interest with fees.
Will Rogers had an interesting line about the Swiss (tbf he had quite a few interesting lines)...wtf does that have to do with First Boston?
 
Last edited:
What did he say then?
Tbh as a person who for reasons of shitty jewish 20th century history is nominally a swiss citizen, it gets really boring that every single time the country is mentioned people pipe up with the nazi gold thing in the most lurid language they can think of as if that was somehow going to be News to anyone, nazi gold & cheese, maybe a clock. :rolleyes:
The mountain of stuff that CS has admitted to in court or has had exposed in leaks to the press in recent years is way more relevant to their current predicament.
 
Last edited:
What did he say then?
Tbh as a person who for reasons of shitty jewish 20th century history is nominally a swiss citizen, it gets really boring that every single time the country is mentioned people pipe up with the nazi gold thing in the most lurid language they can think of as if that was somehow going to be News to anyone, nazi gold & cheese, maybe a clock. :rolleyes:
It also obscures the fact that Switzerland is predominantly a manufacturing economy!
 
What did he say then?
Tbh as a person who for reasons of shitty jewish 20th century history is nominally a swiss citizen, it gets really boring that every single time the country is mentioned people pipe up with the nazi gold thing in the most lurid language they can think of as if that was somehow going to be News to anyone, nazi gold & cheese, maybe a clock. :rolleyes:
The mountain of stuff that CS has admitted to in court or has had exposed in leaks to the press in recent years is way more relevant to their current predicament.
surely this is it?
 
Is this likely to be true?
Zerohedge is banned from Facebook and believed to be run by a Bulgarian Putin fan
Rationalwiki calls it "Batshit apocalypse porn" Zero Hedge
Reuters are usually more reliable? Zero Hedge is dodgy.
First Republic Bank gets $30 billion in deposits from big banks
March 16 (Reuters) - First Republic Bank (FRC.N) has received $30 billion in deposits from several big banks, the banks said in a statement on Thursday, as part of a rescue package for the lender.

JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Citigroup Inc (C.N), Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N), Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and others are involved in the rescue, according to the statement.

New Fed Bank Backstop Has Scope to Inject as Much as $2 Trillion
March 16, 2023 New Fed Bank Backstop Has Scope to Inject as Much as $2 Trillion - Bl…
Market observers are on alert to find out just how much extra funding the Federal Reserve’s new bank backstop program will ultimately add into the system, with analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. positing that it could inject anywhere up to $2 trillion in liquidity.
That’s their maximum estimate. The analysts’ prediction based on the amount of uninsured deposits at six US banks that have the highest ratio of uninsured deposits over total deposits is closer to $460 billion. That’s a smaller amount, but still enormous compared to historic usage of the so-called discount window, another Fed facility that is often seen to carry a stigma and has historically involved banks taking a haircut on the amount borrowed relative to collateral.
All that money to cover bankers losses, yet Medicare for all is unaffordable?
 
When will they learn after what happened in 2008 and the last few days
If you follow Bob Beckman (maybe before you were born) he always swore by the Kondratiev Wave - which he projected back into the stone age!
In other words the booms, busts, scams just keep happening over and over again - on a 54 year cycle allegedly.
Beckman's illustrations were colourful - I was very taken with the "Hemline Indicator"
hem.jpg
 

Not entirely sure they've got their heads round the EUs regs for being tradable

Mi d you not sure EU has its head round smart contracts either


 
Smart contracts are anti-contracts. They actively undermine the basis of a contract, which is to build trust and build sociality. They don’t assume good faith with consequences for breaches, they assume bad faith and create compulsion in compliance. They’re what you get if you have no society. They need burning with fire
 
Smart contracts are anti-contracts. They actively undermine the basis of a contract, which is to build trust and build sociality. They don’t assume good faith with consequences for breaches, they assume bad faith and create compulsion in compliance. They’re what you get if you have no society. They need burning with fire
I think that's a dark potential - but I'm sure they can have benign uses.
 
I think that's a dark potential - but I'm sure they can have benign uses.
It’s not their potential I’m talking about so much as their inherent nature. They turn people from free agents that must trust each other in order to build a social engagement into compelled automate that have no choice to do something regardless of circumstances or context. That has bleak implications.
 
It’s not their potential I’m talking about so much as their inherent nature. They turn people from free agents that must trust each other in order to build a social engagement into compelled automate that have no choice to do something regardless of circumstances or context. That has bleak implications.
:confused: Andrew Bailey doesn't spend his entire day signing bits of paper
 
Still only a promise. You'll be telling me next ALL the contracts on things like paper gold complete
A smart contract is more than a promise. A promise contains within it mutual trust. A smart contract does not need trust, because there is no path other than the prescribed one.

For banking contracts, this may be largely moot. But for other contracts, the difference is chalk and cheese. Contracts build societies, smart contracts are the end of society.
 
Smart contracts are anti-contracts. They actively undermine the basis of a contract, which is to build trust and build sociality. They don’t assume good faith with consequences for breaches, they assume bad faith and create compulsion in compliance. They’re what you get if you have no society. They need burning with fire

Thats a strange way to consider the basis of a contract. When I sign a contract for say house insurance, I'm not trying to build trust or get friendly with the insurance company, I'm trying to make sure that if my house burns down, I get the cash to buy a new one.

If my house burns down and the insurance company turns round and goes "well, you see, we've been friends for a long time, mate, and I trusted you not to let your house burn down, so maybes I'm not actually going to give you the cash, but I still want to be your friend" then have all the hassle of their complaints procedure/ombudsman/court to get the contract enforced, I'm not really going to be thinking "all that trust we built up and the friendship we made and they betray me like this", I'm going to be thinking "where the fuck am I going to live, now that these fuckers have breached the contract and landed me with all this hassle"

With a smart contract, if I can prove to that contract that house is burnt down, it will immediately remove the appropriate amount of money from the insurance company and give it to me....instantly.

A smart contract is more than a promise. A promise contains within it mutual trust. A smart contract does not need trust, because there is no path other than the prescribed one.

For banking contracts, this may be largely moot. But for other contracts, the difference is chalk and cheese. Contracts build societies, smart contracts are the end of society.
Traditional contracts allow loopholes and technicalities, companies pay lawyers a great deal of money to get these put in in a manner that will reduce their liability, the contract writer, usually the more powerful of the two parties contracting enforces their conditions, get out clauses, demands on the other, Most people dont even read the contracts that they sign, far less negotiate over terms. Can you honestly say that you read every element of your credit card agreement when you signed up for it?

Traditional contracts build societies that advantage those with the capital to draw up the terms.
 
Back
Top Bottom