Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact
  • Hi Guest,
    We have now moved the boards to the new server hardware.
    Search will be impaired while it re-indexes the posts.
    See the thread in the Feedback forum for updates and feedback.
    Lazy Llama

Global financial system implosion begins

Not at all, you're expressing a resonably well-read "man on the Clapham Omnibus's" take on these things.

However, you tend to produce facts rather than opinion, facts that, to those peeps who are professionally close to these issues, were well known up to 6 months ago.

I'd said it was well known at least a year ago. (A group of mates were discussing it and the implications for people re-packaging debt and selling it on). The problem with Dissadent's analysis is that it is too much "man on the Clapham Omnibus's" take on things, mainly because I think he's taking everything at face value. Once you do serious analysis (as a few friends have for work) you realise the problems are just associated with limited sectors.

The Credit-Crunch will be the same as the Y2K Bug, Bird-flu, paedophiles and the chances of being in a Terrorist Attack: handy stories with a nub of truth that generate scary headlines to sell papers...
 
. . . Once you do serious analysis (as a few friends have for work) you realise the problems are just associated with limited sectors.

The Credit-Crunch will be the same as the Y2K Bug, Bird-flu, paedophiles and the chances of being in a Terrorist Attack: handy stories with a nub of truth that generate scary headlines to sell papers...
Disagree (hey, many views make a market!).
Personal opinion (from a fixed income perspective) is that if companies can't afford to roll over debt then they're f*cked.
This hasn't begun to sink into equity valuations yet imo.
 
Personal opinion (from a fixed income perspective) is that if companies can't afford to roll over debt then they're f*cked.
This hasn't begun to sink into equity valuations yet imo.

It hasn't really had an impact on the 'real world' yet either. Neither for that fact have inflation.

It is a slow coming train and I suspect that we will see both of these things start to create a downward spiral.

Its not a good place to be.
 
ha ha! really more to do with it being a jargon-laden and somewhat arcane subject that is somewhat simplisticaly reported on by the press and politicians (eg the Gov wanting banks to pass on cuts in base rates to mortgage holders)
ay, was a bit tongue in cheek, I kinda realise it's not really all just the markets keeping info to themselves, though I'm also not naive enough to think that someone running the figures for a company is going to write a press release before they tell their bosses what they've sussed out etc.

Atm I am King Ursine, Emporer of the Bear People wrt current global financial outlook.
I'm go go gav, king and queen of the podiums, but only on days when the full moon falls on a weekend;)
 
It hasn't really had an impact on the 'real world' yet either. Neither for that fact have inflation.
I disagree... for whatever reason we've been partly using the 0% interest credit card balance transfer offers to cash flow our club promotions business for the last couple of year mainly coz it was just easier to sort out than business loans etc. despite good credit ratings and paying back each month, my business partner has been unable to renew his credit card, which has knocked our cash reserve.

obviously that's a bit of an odd way of doing things, but from where I'm sitting, I'm sure the credit crunch and related effects is actually having a major impact on people and their spending habits, but the impact in terms of companies going to the wall etc will take several months to start showing up in the figures.

the business I run (club promotion) is probably one of the first to be hit as people's disposable income gets squeezed, but I've just been doing the figures, and we've had a major drop off in numbers that I just can't explain by any other factor (not that other factors aren't in play, but there's defo something else going on). we've had a 25-35% drop off in attendance at our best performing nights, with stupid drop offs of 2-300% on nights that fall at the wrong time in the month - ie. people in our market just generally have way less money left each month after covering their essentials.
 
The "credit crunch" is over.

This week has seen an unending slew of articles and pronouncements to that effect. I feel slightly honour bound to stand up and say Ive not really changed my opions.

The dollar has risen strongly against the worlds currencies, comodity prices, most notably food have fallen, oil has dropped and the stockmarkets risen strongly. The labor markets are not as weak as they were predicted they would be (only 20 000 job losses but 90 000 gained in the US service sector balancing out the other sectors big job losses).

The fundamentals have not changed for me.

Americans are being cripled by fuel prices. Oil has fallen to merely $112 a barrel. That is cripling Joe sixpack. NASCAR ticket sales are down. Its that bad. It is simply erroding money from American pockets and keeping up the trade deficit.

Food prices are largely based on last years costs not this years insane bull run on comodities, basics are going to eat into the family budget leaving less for services and mufactures. Hence inventories in factories are building up. More job losses to come.

US grain stocks. World grain stocks are not great but they are still there. US grain stocks are running on vapours. They urgently need to rebuild these, that means buying large amounts of grain. The crazy price spike in wheat was not sparked by speculators but by a total lack of it in the mid west at one point that seen competing bakeries bid the spot price (the price you pay on the spot for delivery not the futures price normaly quoted) run up to $23 a bushel. Then the futures when beserk. But the US is running very low on corn and wheat and the prospects for continuing drought in the US look good and while Australia has had a good summer (our winter) there are now reports that the rains brought in by la Nina are now disapating and the Big Dry may be back on. Diesel and fertiliser prices will be high for a while yet. Meat is cheap this year but wont be next year. Food inflation will be here for a couple of years yet.

Pensions. I honestly believe over the next couple of years the US is going to have to stop spending and start saving. The social security system is insolvent but running and there 401ks (private pension) is subject to the whimsey of the stock exchange hence will fall. The savings to borrowings is far to heavily infavour of borrowings, people will be retiring soon. Mortality beckons the baby boomers.

And housing. Ofcourse people forget how oil affects the new housing developments. 40 miles out of town and more, people dont wont to live in the exburbs anymore, they cant afford it. New developments have many houses unsold that brings down property values anyway. Credit is tight. Subprime was only the begining. HELOCS, Jumbos and Alt A have yet to bark.

I will sit here with my dogged world veiw that this will be an extended recession or series of recessions.

Several states are in deep deep shit. Califronia and Florida no 1 and 2.

US airlines are in a 'world of hurt' and many more are going bankrupt over the next year.

When Countrywide and Thornberg Morgages have hit the wall and Wells Fargo has had major write downs, then Ill start believing we are getting to the bottom.
 
More doom and gloom.

The global slump of 2008-09 has begun
Telegraph. 12/05/2008. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.

US consumers are juggling plastic to put off their day of reckoning. The Fed survey said credit card debt had jumped 6.7pc in the first quarter to $957bn, or $6,000 per working American, despite usury rates near 20pc.

"My guess is that many Americans continue to run up massive credit card debt because they have little intention of paying it off," said Peter Schiff at Euro Pacific Capital. Quite.

...

Crude ceased to be a friend of equities when it reached around $110 a barrel. At last week's close of $126, it became an outright threat. The Bush rescue package - $800 in rebate cheques per household - has been rendered null and void by the latest spike. The average US home is now spending over 8pc of income on energy or fuel.

OPEC is playing with fire by refusing to pump more oil to offset rebel attacks in Nigeria. The cartel's output drop of 350,000 barrels a day in April is a hostile act at this point.

But there again, why should Middle Eastern states help America as long as the White House keeps filling the US petroleum reserve to prepare for war with Iran? Bush is playing with fire, too.

The oil spike will burn itself out. China has hit the buffers. With inflation at 8.5pc, it risks political turmoil. Moreover, it has repeated Japan's mistakes in the 1980s, building too many factories shipping too many goods at slender margins into a crumbling export market.

What next? USA needs to erode its debts... so more currency devaluation? How much are the creditor nations able and/or willing to lose?
 
Saw the first mention of Stagflation in the news today. The cost of living certainly appears to be rising fast.
 
U.K. producer prices climbed in April at the fastest annual pace since at least 1986 as raw-material costs jumped, adding to the case for the Bank of England to moderate the pace of interest-rate cuts.

Prices charged by factories rose 7.5 percent from a year earlier, the most since records began two decades ago, the Office for National Statistics said in London today. Economists predicted 6.4 percent, the median of 26 forecasts in a Bloomberg News survey shows. On the month, prices increased 1.4 percent, also the fastest pace on record.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a8WpsvnuXCHM

Inflation is really going to be a big problem. It has so far not quite made it through to producers yet but basic food stuffs and energy just keep on going up in price.

At some point these costs are going to have to be passed along to the consumers. 7.5% factory gate inflation is pretty steep but also I think the recent huge run up in the price of oil has not really worked itself into the system yet. For example transport companies will have to increase prices at some point although alot of them are probibly making big losses on fixed price contracts.

The price of gas in the UK is set for yet another hike.

The US is now recieving its $600 (or whatever the individual gets) stimulus check, but this is going to be eaten up by price hikes in petrol.

Traditionaly when the economy slows the central bank lowers the cost of borrowing so people can borrow to spend, but they also raise them to fight inflation. UK inflation is now up to 3%, the BOE is supossed to keep it around 2.5% so they are going to have to raise interest rates. This is what stagflation means, caught where your usual stimulus cannot really be used.

The US stimulus cheques are just going to feed inflation further by giving seppos money for high petrol prices justifying people buying oil futures at high prices.

Now parliment is asking questions about the alleged manipulation of the LIBOR.

The banks continue there slow release of writedowns.

I think the Chinese are feeling alot of pain right now. There factories will begin to fill up with unsold goods soon. This will help cool some comodities, perhaps even oil. This may be a suprise for alot of people when the Chinese demand for oil starts to cool off.
 
Traditionaly when the economy slows the central bank lowers the cost of borrowing so people can borrow to spend, but they also raise them to fight inflation. UK inflation is now up to 3%, the BOE is supossed to keep it around 2.5% so they are going to have to raise interest rates. This is what stagflation means, caught where your usual stimulus cannot really be used.

What is really needed are some tax cuts. I'm not sure there's very much else that can be done to encourage spending. Commodity price rises seem to be fueled (no pun intended) by the rapid growth of China & India.

Its a real perfect storm for the UK - all the things that have worked well for the economy previously are conspiring against us now - low inflation, low mortgage & interest rates... its not a good place to be and I just don't see any light at the end of the tunnel for aroudn 3 years.
 
BOGNONBR_Max_630_378.png


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BOGNONBR

bernake.jpg


http://www.cumber.com/home/Factors.pdf

So this is where we are. On the top is the banks. The 'non borrowed reserves of depository institutions' and the bottom is the US Fed, what assets it now holds. Two sides of the same coin. This is how the credit crunch and housing collapse have been slowed and stalled, by swaping the federal reserves collection of securities such as government debt for the dreck (the infamous CDO's and MBS's) the banks could not sell. This swap is how the banks have remained liquid (i.e. they have cash). Credit availability has been cut very heavily but the banks still have money to operate with. Liberatarians in the States are screaming for blood over this as they strongly see this as a debasement of the currency. But the piper must be paid at some point. That swap is not yet permenant so the banks have been allowed to swap there unsellable morgage backed securities for top notch assets. This is a temporary solution. These assets the Fed now has are backed by a mortgage market that is still in free fall, most of the MBS and CDOs come from the bubble states. The overall value of housing has only fallen about 15% but in the bubble states its a blood bath, 50% falls in value are far from uncommon. Not only are those financial instraments loosing value in terms of loss of value of the properties but they are going lose the whole morgage as the houses are foreclosed and the bank has to sell the unsellable house at auction to get something back from the CDO.

This is all yet to really really really sink into the banking system. Their ability to lend money in years to come looks very very dicey.

Whats more there future earnings are not going to come back to previous levels in a hurry.....

Banks increasingly “hollowed out” capital and liquidity reserves – that is, they reduced these to minimum levels. Concepts of “purchased” capital and “purchased” liquidity gained in popularity. The theory was that banks did not need to hold equity and cash buffers as these items could always be purchased in the market at a price.

In the first quarter of 2008, the position deteriorated. For example, Merrill Lynch’s Level 3 assets increased to US$69.86 billion as of March 28 from $41.45 billion on Dec. 28 (an increase of 69%) equivalent to over 225% of capital.

A further area of concern is the practice of “circular asset sales”. Banks have sold risky assets where the seller has provided the buyer with favourable terms. Banks have sold leveraged loans on the basis that the bank lends the buyers 75-80% of the price at below market rates. Sellers have given undertakings that if future asset sales are at lower prices than that paid by the buyer then the seller will compensate the purchaser. These provisions have allowed banks to sell assets at prices that avoid the need to further mark down its positions.
I remember a very high profile selling off of debts by Citi that had all these characterstics where they lent money very favourably to a group buying there debt at a nice discount.
Rating agencies have downgraded a number of investment banks and many are still on “negative watch” as a result of concerns about asset quality, capital requirements and earnings outlook. Lower credit ratings may limit the ability of banks to trade. Where accepted as counterparty, the banks may have to post increased collateral. There is anecdotal evidence that large hedge funds are now asking banks to post collateral as surety to mitigate credit risk in transactions. Merrill estimated that a downgrade of its credit rating by one category (notch) would require it to post an additional US$3.2 billion of collateral on over-the-counter derivative transactions. Similarly, Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers estimated that a single level ratings downgrade would require posting an additional US$973 million and US$200 million of additional collateral. Weaker credit ratings will affect the ongoing profitability of affected banks.
Rating agencies have been an absolute joke. AAA is virtualy meaningless.

Accounting factors may also affect any earnings recovery. FAS157 allows the entity's own credit risk to be used in establishing the value of its liabilities. Changes in the entity's credit standing are therefore reflected as changes in fair value. This results in gains for credit downgrades and losses for credit upgrades.

As credit spreads increased, US banks have taken substantial profits to earnings from revaluing their own liabilities (Exhibit 3). European banks have also taken significant gains. If markets stabilise and the credit spreads for banks improves then banks will have to reverse these gains. There may be significant mark-to-market losses especially on new debt issues by banks at high credit spreads since mid-2007.
So you make a profit off of your loss of credit rating? I have heard this before and not really believed it or at least thought Id misunderstood it. Ho hum.

Banks with sound traditional franchises that have avoided the worst excesses of the last 10-15 years will do well in the changed market environment. Such old fashioned banking may ironically do well in the “new” environment. Interest rates that they charge customers have increased. Bank deposits have become far more attractive than other investments. Stronger banks have also benefited from a “flight to quality”.
I like these words.

Taken from

http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/FeaturedCommentaryHome

But on top of all this the banks will soon have to be absorbing losses from the cost of fuel. Airlines are currently in a game of running through there lines of credit to keep prices low and planes flying, the whole thing is to use there billions in debts to retain market share until the competators go out of bussiness. The airline indusrty is a basket case. The banks are going to the cleaners with them. By early next year bigger carriers will start going chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and the smaller ones will simply unwind and stop operating.

Detroit is possbly worse.

company's <GM> current market value is smaller than that of Mattel Inc., maker of Matchbox cars,

link The manufacturer of the hummer is worth less than the manufacturer of hummer toy cars.

Without going into it but in the US Detroit has huge monumental pensions and health care costs. Ford, GM and Chrysler made there money with massive big SUVs while the Japanese and Germans made proper cars. Now the market has shifted and people want cars not APC's, so the big three are shutting loads of plants taking huge losses and have enormous costs from previous employees still to pay.


Oh there is good news the subprime crisis has levelled off. The reason repossesions and defaults are still rising is all the non subprime morgages that are going sour. Subprime crisis over. Real crisis begining.
 
Even if the worst case meltdown is avoided, and the system is propped up effectively, the implications of who has been doing the bailouts will be felt for a long time. Ownership & power has been travelling East.
 
The USA is in a massive balance of payments deficit. All large ticket transactions are denominated in US dollars. Foreign central banks are obliged to acquire dollars, in receipt for exports and to stop their currencies appreciating against the Dollar. They then need to recycle these US IOUs, being politically unable to purchase American assets, titles and privileges, they are forced to buy Treasury Bonds.

The US Government by printing Dollars, so depreciating the currency, they devalue their debt to the world and relatively increase the value of their international assets.


Sorry to bring something up from far earlier in the discussion but is this actually correct? Particularly the bolded part.

I ask because it's something I had thought of myself, but owing to a poor understanding of international trade and finance (it's another language to me) I'd always assumed that it must just be my misunderstanding because it's not something I'd ever known anyone else to consider. Is there no interest on this IOU? And who is it owed by, the US Government? The people? People who are invested in the US?
 
The USA is in a massive balance of payments deficit. All large ticket transactions are denominated in US dollars. Foreign central banks are obliged to acquire dollars, in receipt for exports and to stop their currencies appreciating against the Dollar. They then need to recycle these US IOUs, being politically unable to purchase American assets, titles and privileges, they are forced to buy Treasury Bonds.

The US Government by printing Dollars, so depreciating the currency, they devalue their debt to the world and relatively increase the value of their international assets.
Sorry to bring something up from far earlier in the discussion but is this actually correct? Particularly the bolded part.

I ask because it's something I had thought of myself, but owing to a poor understanding of international trade and finance (it's another language to me) I'd always assumed that it must just be my misunderstanding because it's not something I'd ever known anyone else to consider. Is there no interest on this IOU? And who is it owed by, the US Government? The people? People who are invested in the US?
I will try my best.

There are many competing theories about money, money supply, debt and so on. You can end up with very very arcane arguments about it all and no real solution. There are two fundamental different ways of issuing a currency, one backed by spicie and the other a fiat currency.

Spicie means gold, silver or something of value.

Fiat means "by decree". It is currency not really backed by anything other than trust.

The US will not litteraly 'run the printing presses' (this is what is called M1 money, money that physically exists as a real coin or note). But it can create money in a number of ways, for example allowing banks to raise more debt on there assets.

OK now for a discussion on fractional reserve banking. This means that a bank has to have a specified fraction of whatever money it loans out to customers in reserve. I.e. for every ten pound they lend to customers they must have one pound in there vaults. Changing this ratio (say to 20 to 1) is one way of increasing money supply without 'printing' more money.

What yield was saying..... so far as I understand is that the IOU's are dollars, they mean that for so many dollars the US owes there value. Imagine Pannini football stickers at school. You could have traded these for the value of something from the tuck shop. Say two stickers for a bar of chocolate. Someone gives you two football stickers and you figure that you are able to trade them for a chocolate bar a couple of weeks later. This is why its called an IOU. A "promise to pay the bearer". So long as there are a fixed number of Pannini stickers in circulation then and everyone wants them the value stays the same.

But lets say you cant go to the tuck shop and hand them over to get a chocolate directly. To this end, the US has banned countries from using its dollars to buy assets. Famously China and Unocal and Dubai and its World Ports.

So what can you buy with Pannini stickers, well if someone is issueing real IOUs (treasury debts) that you can swap for your pannini stickers that promise to pay 20 pence every week the IOU is not repayed. So you are sort of stuck buying the IOUs and then anything other kids have (this is things like the commodities market).

Now as all the kids in the school accept the panini stickers as a currency but only one kid has acess to them, that one has control of there value. The more he dishes out the less in value each sticker will have. If in theory all you can buy is promises from them (the IOUs) to turn them into real money or something then eventualy people will loose faith in the value of the panini currency.

I am sorry if the analogy is not great but China traded its work and Saudi its oil for dollars (panini stickers) they were denied the right to buy anything really valuable (chocolate) like say a big US company or US designs for aircraft, instead they had to trade with other kids for what they had or to buy IOUs (US treasury bonds) to pay interest on the panini stickers they were lent.

Hoewever the US is now dishing out so many stickers (dollars) they are loosing value. They are backed by nothing of value other than the trust they can be redeemed for something of worth. This trust is going and the dollar is losing its value...........


does this explanation help or confuse people more?????
 
I think its very helpful cheers, although there may be one or 2 bits that add to the confusion.

I know enough to sometimes feel in my head that I roughly understand things, but not enough to try to explain it to others. I might have a vague stab now though, or at least add to what you've said.

Balance of trade has always been important. We want countries like China & Saudia Arabia to use the wealth they have gained, in ways that help us. We got more stuff from them than they got from us, so an inbalance exists. They have got paid a lot of $ for stuff. We want them to lend that money back to us, or invest it in other ways in our countries, or we can try to restore the trade imbalance by selling them expensive military equipment etc.

They would like to get a good rate of return on their wealth, for it to grow rather than shrink, and they want it to be reasonably safe, and for a lot of it to serve their other national interests. Government bonds are considered pretty safe, as there is the power of the state to back them up. The state is in charge of upholding law, and ensuring the security of physical assets, ultimately by use of force if necessary.

When the dollar devalues as it has in recent years, the effects are a bit complicated. Oil is priced on dollars for a start, and Chinas currency is tied in value to the US dollar, although they have relaxed that a bit more in the last year or so.

Also if you are a country with lots of wealth saved in dollars, you do not want to blink. They have to be careful with how quickly they get rid of $'s and $ denominated bonds. Because if they try to sell too much too fast, the value of the dollar declines even further, which they dont want to do when so much of their wealth is in dollars.

The US $ has a very special place in the global economy which has enabled it to do things which would have totally destroyed other currencies. It was placed at the heart of the global economy after world war 2, effectively being the worlds reserve currency, and was backed by gold This came apart by the 70's, but the dollar still maintained its place. In the last decade the Euro has made this situation much more interesting, it is a threat to the dollar in some regards, although I do not pretend to understand all this properly.

This wikipedia entry about Reserve currency might shed some light on the matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency

Also I have to say that although the instances where the USA has refused to allow certain assets to be bought by foreigners makes all the news, there are still quite a lot of opportunities for China and the Middle East to invest, we want their money, just not in certain sectors. Some of the recent bank bailouts have been by sovereign wealth funds of China and others.

I also find it can be extremely helpful to completely remove money & markets from thinking about the world, and see what picture you get then. If we look at wealth in terms of resources, an interesting perspective can be gained, and then fed back into understanding of the picture that includes money, markets etc. For example look at what the UK has in terms of assets, everything from natural resources, infrastructure, industry, to the jobs & skills people have, and what we actually manufacture ourselves. Compare that to other countries. If there is an anomaly between what we actually have and produce, and what the rest of the world is providing, then these imbalances can be explained somewhere in the murk of the economic system.

In present times everything is especially murky, a simpler picture will emerge if reality bites, but I doubt it will be a pretty one.
 
The rate of option ARM delinquencies is already spiking
Posted by: Prashant Gopal on July 02
The next wave of foreclosures is expected to gather strength when the million or so option ARMs start resetting in large numbers next spring. But it seems that many of these loans, which allow borrowers to make minimum payments that don’t even cover the accrued interest, are already going delinquent.

According to a recent analysis by Lehman Brothers, option ARMs that originated in 2006 performed about as well as fixed-rate Alt-A debt for the first 12 months. But by the time they were 2 years old, about 2.1% of performing loans were going 60-days delinquent each month. Compare that to a 1.2% of current loans going delinquent with other Alt-A loans. The rate of increase in delinquencies is even beginning to approach that of subprime, which is about 2.5%.

“It’s a better quality borrower but the rate of increase in delinquency is looking closer to subprime than Alt-A,” said Akhil Mago, the head mortgage credit strategist for Lehman Brothers, said.

Strange, right? The loans were generally given to folks with good credit, most of whom are still only making minimum payments.

Looks like these borrowers might simply be giving up on the mortgages because they have less and less of an incentive to keep paying. Option ARMs give borrowers a choice of making a minimum payment that only covers a small portion of the interest, the rest of which is added to the loan balance. With years of unpaid interest accumulating and house prices falling, some homeowners have seen their equity disappear and now owe more than their initial loan balance. The gap between the original loan balance and the value of their home is only widening as home prices fall. Many of these borrowers were given the loans with only a requirement that they “state” their income rather than verify it (The result: Lots of folks exaggerated their salaries). So, these borrowers might only be able to afford the minimum payment, which can increase by 7.5% a year and then more than double when the loan recasts.

A major concern is that 70% of option arms are concentrated in California and Florida – two states that have already been hard hit by the housing slump. Subprime mortgages, on the other hand, were dispersed across the country (about 60% of them were outside Florida and California) And as prices in those states continue to fall, refinancing options for these borrowers disappear even as recasts loom.

link

Many months ago I warned that the subprime was only a fraction of the problem. The second half of this kicks of in style next year when the option ARMs reset. A hell of alot of these were speculator buyers who bought properties to sell on but got stuck with them. Others ofcourse just made bad calls on buying there McMansions. This whole thing is like a steam roller on a downhill. Not moving fast by not really something that can be stopped.

A small American bank Indymac is now strongly rumoured to be close to collapse. They are very heavily into the Option ARM market. It will be intersting to see if in an election year the government takes the approach, like Bear Sterns, it is too big to collapse.
 
Interesting explanation here.

The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole...Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world's money..." THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure that rules our nation and the world today. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned "central" bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation, including America, has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers.
It's a bit dry & boring, but explains how the whole fucking mess got started...
 
The Guardian's piece on the true, global significance of the UK's nationalisation of Northern Rock is very perceptive: banks lend more money than they have on deposit, treating tomorrow's expansion as collateral for today's debt. Since tomorrow's expansion depends on cheap oil, and there isn't any left, a system rigged for implosion is now beginning to do so. Northern Rock marks the end of one era, and the beginning of the next.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/18/northernrock.alistairdarling

You're just hoping it implodes, so you don't have to get a real job; aren't you?
 
Oh if it implodes many of us will be doing jobs that are much more 'real' than at present.

Growth is god. God is dead.
 
I give it another 2, maybe 3 years before the implosion is complete.

We're seeing the first leaks in the dam. The trickle will become a flood as interdependent financial, climatic, agricultural, social and ecological systems fail, leaving us to our fate in the wreckage of capitalism.

Still, mustn't grumble. Things could be worse...
 
While I do think that it is likely we are in for an extended series of recessions, I see no reason for a total collapse. It could happen but I doubt so rather strongly. There is an ultimate floor to the current housing malaise in America, a dip bellow then a return to fair value for the houses. This will be partialy deflationary* in the medium term as debt is destroyed and wealth with it (by wealth many houses will fall into disrepair and many people who have invested wealth into houses will loose some of what they have paid in already). But once the correction is complete life will carry on again.

Already congress and the senate are working on a $300 billion package to help bailout home owners. It will be contentious and a very bitter slap in the face to anyone who lived within there means, also problematic due to the complexity of who is owed what by whom.

When the dust settles it will be a changed world but not a collapsed one. The recovery is rather likely to be led by a return west of manufacturing.

But I guess a total loss of confidence in the markets and a real ugly crash is also within the reaonable range of possibilities. Id not be able to argue against that.


*not that it will increase the purchasing power of a dollar mind.
 
I was thinking more of what Colin Campbell has been saying about peak oil: that the (stock-market) values of everything are based on the supply of cheap oil and the assumption of continued supply.

When you think how dependent we are on oil for practically everything, you get an idea of how much shit we're in. Add to that peak Uranium, Phosphorus, even water (ffs!) and it becomes ever more interesting - in the Chinese sense. Whole ecosystems are getting trashed in China, Asia and South America.

The cherry on top of this Doom layer cake is climate change: This presents serious challenges to our survival at a time when our means and opportunities to slow or reverse CC are fast running out.

I hope I'm wrong about all this, just up to my eyes in a puddle of pessimism, but I don't think so. The time to have done something about this was back in the 1970's, around the time of the first oil shock and the publication of Limits To Growth: a time when people calling for change were being slagged off as hippies, commies, freaks, Malthusians, etc.
:rolleyes: :(
 
I was thinking more of what Colin Campbell has been saying about peak oil: that the (stock-market) values of everything are based on the supply of cheap oil and the assumption of continued supply.

When you think how dependent we are on oil for practically everything, you get an idea of how much shit we're in. Add to that peak Uranium, Phosphorus, even water (ffs!) and it becomes ever more interesting - in the Chinese sense. Whole ecosystems are getting trashed in China, Asia and South America.

The cherry on top of this Doom layer cake is climate change: This presents serious challenges to our survival at a time when our means and opportunities to slow or reverse CC are fast running out.

I hope I'm wrong about all this, just up to my eyes in a puddle of pessimism, but I don't think so. The time to have done something about this was back in the 1970's, around the time of the first oil shock and the publication of Limits To Growth: a time when people calling for change were being slagged off as hippies, commies, freaks, etc.
:rolleyes: :(


Your not alone mate. I'm not a doommonger and keep trying to not think about it - but every time I think about what goiing to happen to the world in my lifetime - or even just the next 5 years - it leaves me very depressed - cos it all looks like a shit sandwich with very little that can be realsitically done by ordinary people to change it.
 
Yeah same here. Although I am a doommonger, and I do believe ordinary people have more than a small role to play in getting humanity through difficult times without a complete meltdown.
 
Back
Top Bottom