Global financial system implosion begins

[Jessiedog]

Thanks, ymu.

I saw the programme (and have seen Hendry a few times before - I have BBC World News [but can't access iplayer, being "overseas" an' all]).

While he is, in no doubt, a bit of a jack-the-lad, he seems to me to be not a terrible chap. He runs a small hedge fund (prolly only a half dozen, maybe ten, employees - many youngsters, maths and stats peeps).

He berates the bailout of banks; believes that Capitalism without bankrupcy is like Christianity without hell; he believes that investment banking should be completely separated from deposit taking banks (high street and commercial banking - which should be focused upon lending to taking deposits and lending them to consumers and businesses), believes that taxpayers should not be called to account for banking speculation, believes that 125% mortgages are fucking nuts, believes that governments that are finacially profligate for short term political gain should be held to account, believes in more transparency at all levels - and more regulation, believes that a lack of regulation and collusion between govts' and banks have inhibited this.


Sounds fair to me.


Meanwhile, he analyses all these aspects and then risks his clients money (they know the risks, he explains them carefully before taking on a client -most of his clients are "old money" looking to preserve and prosper by placing a small part of their portfolios with him) in "betting" to exploit the foibles and "corruption" within the "system".


I'm not sure that he's the kind of evil you think he is - I'd be more inclined to look at the big banks and those (govt. folks) who used our money to bail them out for the real "bad guys", not little hedge funds like Hendry runs that try to exploit the "bad guys" collusion and corruption.





Woof

 

[ymu]

Fair dos. He irritated the fuck out of me, and I think wisdom with hindsight is dead easy, as is knowing the right things to say now - if he was making money off stupidity rather than blowing the fucking whistle, he's part of the problem. And he was - that is supposed to be the primary role of a hedge fund - the smart money to balance out the stupid money. There was just too much stupid money around to be balanced out. And all he could think to do was make a bigger profit off it.

I do have a massive dislike of anyone who works in high finance. No excuses, IMO. Greed with zero integrity is the only qualification needed.

 

[Jessiedog]

Fair dos. He irritated the fuck out of me, and I think wisdom with hindsight is dead easy, as is knowing the right things to say now - if he was making money off stupidity rather than blowing the fucking whistle, he's part of the problem. And he was - that is supposed to be the primary role of a hedge fund - the smart money to balance out the stupid money. There was just too much stupid money around to be balanced out. And all he could think to do was make a bigger profit off it.

I do have a massive dislike of anyone who works in high finance. No excuses, IMO. Greed with zero integrity is the only qualification needed.

I understand your distaste, ymu, but still feel that it's misplaced.



If you owned your own home and, by your own research, you figured that it would be worth 10% (i.e. 90% less than now,) within a few weeks, would you try to sell it to someone else and pocket what you could or would you sit on it?

If you had a pension and you reckoned that if you didn't immediately shift everything into cash, by selling the assets/shares/stocks/whatever to someone else, it would be worthless, would you not sell?

If your elderly parents had all their money invested in Greek govt. bonds (the coupon of which was currently financing their retirement,) and you reckoned they would lose everything soon because Greek bonds would become worthless and no coupon would ever be delivered or paid, would you really advise them to hold tight - or would you suggest that they sold them ASAP (to some other poor sucker who would take the hit)?


I don't think so.

What's different in Hendry's world?

We all live in a Capitalist, fucked-up, system.

I don't believe that you won't/wouldn't do what you can/could (within this system,) to advantage yourself and your family as much as possible.

Unless and until you are prepared to compromise your own (family's and children's) future, within this Capitalist fuck-up that we live in, I think it is disingenuous to be berating peeps like Hugh Hendry, who is only doing exactly the same thing as you for him and his employees and clients.



You see?





Blessings, ymu.....


And nite all.




Woof

 

[ymu]

I wouldn't choose to go into a profession that unethical in the first place. I want to abolish private banking - the hypocrisy would kill me.

It's not easy to make an ethical career choice. I'm lucky that I can - Big Pharma would pay me a fortune relative to what I earn in the public sector, but my job is to work out exactly how they're lying to us, and how many they're killing with their over-priced poisons. I just could not do it, and we have enough so fortunately I don't need to. I don't have a problem with those who have made a different choice, but I do have a problem with those who go into casino banking, regardless. Two of our friends work for Goldman's, so this can be tricky at times!

My general attitude is that people have to live in the system we have and I won't blame them for making the best choice for themselves. But noone who can get a job in investment banking is short on choices. I have no respect for greed. Young and naive is an excuse but I despise those who don't get out when they realise, and those who are too blinkered to ever realise. They are beneath contempt. They steal from me and mine, and they know it. Scum of the earth.

 

[Dr Jon]

Money juggling parasites.

Maybe part of the problem is that bankers, money jugglers and politicians have such a pitiful understanding of science: they believe in all kinds of superstitious nonsense like "sustainable growth", which would be immediately recognised as an oxymoron by anyone with cells between their ears. Like Brown's proclamation of "the end of boom and bust", such concepts are not unlike the delusional nonsense spouted by religious loons. That an economic system based on converting natural resources into garbage at an ever increasing rate could not have any outcome other than catastrophic collapse, seems to have escaped them. Unless they really are greedy, cynical, immoral scum of the earth - as you suggest.

 

[elbows]

Its not all garbage though is it, we have also grown a life support system for far more humans than ever before. The nature of the march of human progress in science, production & exploitation made giddy growth inevitable. Nobody taking over any of the controls is going to try to force this into a swift reverse, because that in itself brings insane levels of suffering.

Theres a good reason the sci-fi version of the future entailed humans learning how to exploit the resource of other planets. The reality remains far duller so the age of coming to terms with limits seems to be upon us.

The term sustainable growth is indeed silly if looking at the long timeframe, but as ultimately the sun eventually dies we arent taking sustainable to mean sustainable for infinity. So depending on what timeframe we limit ourselves to, and bearing in mind growth could be at very slow rate and yet still be real growth, the term sustainable growth could be just about valid for some period of time at least.

Just because I think we're hitting some limits, eg peak oil, doesnt mean I think the word hope should be removed from the dictionary. Personally I expect we are in for some ugly decline, but there are things we may do to make the journey less ugly than some would imagine, science could deliver something useful that would justify the position of optimists, just as we have got lucky and dodged bullets in the past. We are adaptable, but not without pain. We can become much more efficient, and its possible that we may find some way to build the concept of efficiency into our economic & social systems in ways that are presently almost unthinkable. Perhaps they can even come up with a new way of looking at growth, if they can decouple stats on useful growth from waste. Calculate how much of todays activity is waste, then take this figure away from total activity. Now there is room to grow again, and incentive to reduce waste, for as waste is reduced this frees up resources to be used for the productive/useful growth that is measured & rewarded. Yes eventually you still hit a ceiling and Im not even sure if stats about 'good growth' can be used to make economies and systems work, and I am being slightly tongue in cheek with this suggestion. But given the need that humans have to not feel permanently miserable and doomed, if the realities end up harsh then we'll eventually find some new ways to think about and measure our journey, and to think of it as progress.

 

[Dr Jon]

Its not all garbage though is it, we have also grown a life support system for far more humans than ever before. The nature of the march of human progress in science, production & exploitation made giddy growth inevitable. Nobody taking over any of the controls is going to try to force this into a swift reverse, because that in itself brings insane levels of suffering

The only problem with this is that this system is fundamentally unsustainable, based on smash n grab economics and use of non-renewable resources. We now have a population which well exceeds sustainable carrying capacity and no amount of financial blah-blah or quantitative easing will be able to change that.

Just because I think we're hitting some limits, eg peak oil, doesnt mean I think the word hope should be removed from the dictionary

I guess that depends what you're hoping for.

Personally I expect we are in for some ugly decline, but there are things we may do to make the journey less ugly than some would imagine, science could deliver something useful that would justify the position of optimists, just as we have got lucky and dodged bullets in the past. We are adaptable, but not without pain. We can become much more efficient, and its possible that we may find some way to build the concept of efficiency into our economic & social systems in ways that are presently almost unthinkable.
Perhaps they can even come up with a new way of looking at growth, if they can decouple stats on useful growth from waste.

This is the kind of religious thinking I was on about: the hope that boffins will pull a rabbit out of the hat and save us from doom.

Whilst there will be new technologies which reduce waste and increase efficiency, I suspect this will only lead to Jevons' Paradox unless we take serious steps toward reducing population to sustainable levels. It is obviously better if this is achieved voluntarily and humanely, though history does not bode well in this respect.

 

[Giles]

The only problem with this is that this system is fundamentally unsustainable, based on smash n grab economics and use of non-renewable resources. We now have a population which well exceeds sustainable carrying capacity and no amount of financial blah-blah or quantitative easing will be able to change that.

I guess that depends what you're hoping for.


This is the kind of religious thinking I was on about: the hope that boffins will pull a rabbit out of the hat and save us from doom.

Whilst there will be new technologies which reduce waste and increase efficiency, I suspect this will only lead to Jevons' Paradox unless we take serious steps toward reducing population to sustainable levels. It is obviously better if this is achieved voluntarily and humanely, though history does not bode well in this respect.

Hopefully the UK shouldn't do too badly if there is suddenly no more food to import. We could feed ourselves if we had to. Dig for Victory!

Giles..

 

[ferrelhadley]

UK mortgage approvals down to 16 month low.

Downward pressure on house prices again before the cuts bite.

 

[Jessiedog]

I wouldn't choose to go into a profession that unethical in the first place. I want to abolish private banking - the hypocrisy would kill me.

It's not easy to make an ethical career choice. I'm lucky that I can - Big Pharma would pay me a fortune relative to what I earn in the public sector, but my job is to work out exactly how they're lying to us, and how many they're killing with their over-priced poisons. I just could not do it, and we have enough so fortunately I don't need to. I don't have a problem with those who have made a different choice, but I do have a problem with those who go into casino banking, regardless. Two of our friends work for Goldman's, so this can be tricky at times!

My general attitude is that people have to live in the system we have and I won't blame them for making the best choice for themselves. But noone who can get a job in investment banking is short on choices. I have no respect for greed. Young and naive is an excuse but I despise those who don't get out when they realise, and those who are too blinkered to ever realise. They are beneath contempt. They steal from me and mine, and they know it. Scum of the earth.

You kind of evaded my direct questions, but indirectly answered them....

My general attitude is that people have to live in the system we have and I won't blame them for making the best choice for themselves.

So you would sell to some other poor sucker to protect you and yours.


And as you say, most people would.


The point about Hendrey, is that he pretty much shares your perspective about investment banking - they're total fuckers, and so are the govts' that support them/permit their abuse of "the system.


He has been quoted as saying that what he is trying to do helps to "keep capitalism honest".

Not so differnet, eh?


So, I reiterate, I think your condemnation of him is misguided.




Woof

 

[ymu]

You can take my words out of context all you like Jessie, doesn't make them say what you want them to say.

 

[Bear]

UK mortgage approvals down to 16 month low.

Downward pressure on house prices again before the cuts bite.

Yeah, if they're forced to raise interest rates house prices are going to go through the floor. Although I really don't understand why it's considered a sign that the economy doing well when homes become so expensive that people can't afford to live in them. Once a house is built, I can't honestly see what wealth is created by the price rising, rather it's just like wealth is being transferred from one person to another.

Ireland posted figures today saying their economy has shrunk 1.2% surprising analysts who expected to see growth. These market forecasters seem like snake oil salesmen, the fact their surprised makes me think they don't have bloody clue and they just waffle and talk shit... Like those rating agencies the government are scared off, their scared the agencies that rated the subprime mortgage debt AAA will take the UK's AAA rating away. Why is a penny paid to this useless and clueless industry?

 

[ymu]

When house prices fall a huge chunk of imaginary wealth disappears.

 

[Jessiedog]

You can take my words out of context all you like Jessie, doesn't make them say what you want them to say.

As I mentioned, I think you're deftly avoiding the point I was making.


No biggie.




Woof

 

[ymu]

Your direct questions were a bollocks attempt at comparing the morality of an individual with a one-off chance to save their paltry life savings, with the decision of someone to go into industry and screw billions of such individuals over for a living. And trying to imply that an individual has the same amount of information to make these decisions with as those that make an obscene amount of money from screwing them over.

I cannot afford a private pension. I have owned two properties and sold them when I got jobs in different cities. I now live on a rusty old boat because that is all I can afford, having moved to a stupidly expensive city. My mother is on benefits because her pension is near worthless thanks to cunts like Hendry. Your questions are fucking insulting, tbh.

 

[Jessiedog]

Your direct questions were a bollocks attempt at comparing the morality of an individual with a one-off chance to save their paltry life savings, with the decision of someone to go into industry and screw billions of such individuals over for a living.

I think I was commenting on a deeper issue of human nature.

At what point do you draw the line, ymu?

All that Hendry does is garner information and make decisions upon them based upon his perceptions of his (and his family's and client's,) self interest.

The scale may be different, but the impulse is the same.

So, exactly at which point on the spectrum do you draw the line? (Genuine question.)

There's a very strong argument that suggests that the relative wealth of those living in "the west" (including the millions on state benefits,) is, in and of itself, a fundamental feature of the imbalances that perpetuate the absolute poverty of the many hundreds of millions living in "the east". Which is a seperate, but connected, issue.

Where is the line of self interest to be drawn?

At what dollar level does wealth preservation become greed?

I think it's an interesting question.



And let's face it many, if not most, people in the west are making "wealth preservation" decisions that are based on factors far from those I postulated in my previous post. Only about 40% of all privately owned properties in the UK have any outstanding mortgage.


If someone you know (or anyone for that matter,) was sitting on a property that they could sell today for GBP 200,000 who believed in their heart and soul would be worth GBP 10,000 in January 2011 and for a decade thereafter, can you think of anyone that wouldn't unload it to someone else (and, by definition, shift the risk of that massive loss to some other poor - perhaps less well informed - soul)?

Anyone?

I can't.

It's just a matter of scale.


We're all in the same, fucked up, game.

And trying to imply that an individual has the same amount of information to make these decisions with as those that make an obscene amount of money from screwing them over.

The point is that, in my example above, the person who thinks the market will crash is doing exactly that - passing the buck onto someone (who they believe is,) less well informed and therefore, by definition, "screwing them over" by GBP 190,000 (a loss prevented is, essentially, the same as a profit made (or at least further losses prevented to oneself) - it's only the transfer of risk and consequent loss, to someone else.

I cannot afford a private pension.

Me too.


In fact, I am 49 years old and have no pension whatsoever (neither private, nor state or "old age" or whatever). I have no savings, have had not a penny of income (no welfare, nothing,) for over 2 1/2 years and am living on my credit cards and will, consequently, likely soon (a month or two,) be bankrupt and homeless (and I mean catastrophically homeless, we don't really have the same kind of "unemployment benefits" or "housing allowances" or other welfare state stuff that the UK provides - I'll lose my dogs, my possessions and everything).

So, what's your point on that matter?

I have owned two properties and sold them when I got jobs in different cities. I now live on a rusty old boat because that is all I can afford, having moved to a stupidly expensive city.

I'm sorry to hear about your situation if you feel it's not good - I can assure you I can fully empathise. I do hope that you can keep your job and home and pension.

My mother is on benefits because her pension is near worthless thanks to cunts like Hendry.

I'm sorry that she's not wealthier and needs to rely on the state - it would be nice if everyone was wealthier, wouldn't it?

But thank God she has some kind of pension and some state benefits to top it up, no?


Nevertheless, as I've posted earlier, I think your vitriol towards Hendry is misguided and would be better directed towards the cunts in the investment banks and the cunts in the governments that cheered them on and then supported them and, of course, then profited therefrom.

All Hendry was doing was looking at what they were doing and saying: "Nah! I reckon these cunts are gonna fuck things up and I'm gonna sell beforehand to protect my family's interests."

Of course, it's on a different scale when were talking about IB's and Govt. But the principal holds.

Your questions are fucking insulting, tbh.

That saddens me, ymu.




I've always valued your posts and have never meant to insult - please accept my deepest apologies if I have made you feel that way.



I was just trying to point out that I don't think Hendry is the one you should be railing at.

Apologies.


Woof

 

[ymu]

Jessie, I'm saying that his entire industry is why some people in the world are so disgustingly poor and others so disgustingly rich. That it is not right to compare the decisions amateurs are forced to make in this fucked up system with those made by professionals with the odds loaded in their favour (and the shareholders, pensioners and taxpayers to pick up the tab if they make a loss). It's a totally false comparison.

I'm very happy, thank you. We're fine on our rusty old boat - she's ace. We don't need much. Noone needs that much. It's precisely because some people think they do that others are priced out of life. That's wrong.

I find it really hard to square your defence of Hendry with your passion about the poor in China. He's part of the problem. It's nothing to do with making a rational decision when faced with it, it is to do with the ethics of ever putting yourself into the position of making those decisions for a living. I don't like what soldiers do for a living, but I recognise the fact of economic conscription. Hendry has no such excuse. He had many choices, and he chose to screw everyone else over for more money than could ever be made in an honest job. I don't care if he's better than most - I do not think his industry should be allowed to exist.

Oh, and I adore you sweetheart. Sorry if I gave a different impression. Not angry with you - just Hendry and his ilk.

 

[Jessiedog]

Interesting response, ymu, and interesting debate.



I'm not sure if we're diverting the thread too much though (after all, it's a "global" thread and all the 'quants, traders and economists are here with their weighty inputs).

Nevertheless, I will respond to your post in due course here, as soon as poss' (meanwhile, I'm frantically trying to get a job as a "tea boy" or something,) unless peeps feel this diversion should be aired elsewhere (personally, I think it's pertinent to the "global" crux of this thread - after all, we're not all 'quants.)

I think there's still some meat to be wrought from this diversion.





Blessings, ymu, and all.






Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Andy Xie (independent economist, I've mentioned him before,) has called "The Top" of the China housing market.

He says that the bubble won't "burst", but will deflate slowly over the next five years - this year @ 10% down overall and then a further 20% down in 2011 and more in 2012.

In five years he reckons that properties in 1st tier cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, etc.) will be 50% or more below where they nare today - and in some crazy, speculation-ridden 2nd tier cities (such as Zheijing,) prices will be 80% off within five years.

Nevertheless, he sees overall economic growth continuing during this time at @ 7% per annum and the middle classes enjoying the property deflation as they can then afford to enter the market. Structural changes are underway and many speculators will be burnt. The Central govt. will need to recapitalise the banks again - sooner rather than later. Incomes are on the rise and domestic consupmtion will benefit from the deflation in property.


In general, I concur.

Property prices will be 50% of where they are today within 4 - 5 years - and the "middle classes" (who've been saving-up forever,) will begin to enter the market. Meanwhile, the Yuan will gradually rise and wages will rise more, providing a boost to the domestic consumer market.


That said, more needs to be done on social welfare for the poor.





Woof

 

[elbows]

Tension grows as G7 ministers set to meet over 'international currency war'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/05/g7-meeting-over-currency-skirmish

Finance ministers from the G7 will hold an informal meeting in Washington this week to discuss growing concerns that the world is in the grip of an "international currency war", as government's manipulate their currencies to bolster exports.

The meeting on Friday, on the sidelines of the annual International Monetary Fund gathering, comes amid rising tensions between the western industrialised nations and China, whose prime minister Wen Jiabao is on a charm offensive in Europe this week.

In two separate moves designed to weaken currencies, the Bank of Japan reinstated its zero interest rate policy and pledged to buy ¥5tn ($60bn) of assets; while Brazil doubled a tax on foreign investors buying local bonds to put a lid on a recent rally in its currency, the real. It was Brazil's finance minister, Guido Mantega, who coined the "international currency war" phrase last week, following a series of interventions by central banks in Japan, South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan to make their currencies cheaper.

Almost surprising its taken so long for this stuff to become an issue.

 

[grit]

This is the kind of religious thinking I was on about: the hope that boffins will pull a rabbit out of the hat and save us from doom.

.

 

[Falcon]

UK Pension explosion

Nice, well written piece from the Economic Policy Centre. The government has worked out that there is a £2.2 trillion shortfall between UK pension liabilities and the amount that has and will be set aside to meet them.

That's not the real problem - they've used a discount rate (3.5%) that is too high. Discounting by 1% over inflation (3.0%) gives a £4 trillion shortfall, or an extra £40,000 per family in the UK.

And even that's not the real problem. The "inflation" of 2% per annum is the rate it is assumed the economy will continue to gorw, based on its historical growth rate. That in turn assumes that the energy supply will grow in proportion.

2% growth in the energy supply is (70/2 = ) 35 year doubling time. So by the time a 30 year old wants his pension, the global energy supply will have had to increase from 80 million barrels a day to 160 million barrels a day to fuel the economic growth to pay for it. In that 35 years, due to the nature of compound growth, we will have to produce more oil cumulatively than the total cumulative amount of oil that has ever been produced in the last 150 years.

In fact, the underlying oil rate is falling at 4 million barrels per day each year, and will have halved in 35 years time.

So - no pension.

The £1 trillion black hole – public sector pension liabilities (Economic Policy Centre)

 

[ferrelhadley]

US Republicans should have control of congress in a few weeks, then the stimulus spending will be squeezed out. We shall see what happens to the world economy then.

 

[Shevek]

scary stuff

 

[Barking_Mad]

Suburbs take hit as US poverty climbs

The American suburb is no longer a refuge from poverty in cities.

A pair of analyses by the nonprofit Brookings Institution paints a bleak economic picture for the 100 largest metropolitan areas over the past decade and in coming years, and finds that suburbs now are home to one-third of the nation's poor, and rising.

The study of census data finds that since 2000, the number of poor people in the suburbs jumped by 37.4 percent to 13.7 million. The growth rate of suburban poverty is more than double that of cities and higher than the national rate of 26.5 percent.

At the same time, social service providers are spread thin in many suburban areas, according to a detailed Brookings survey of groups in representative metropolitan areas of Chicago, Los Angeles and the District of Columbia. That has forced providers to turn away many poor people due to scarce aid that typically goes to cities first.

"Millions of Americans at all income levels moved to the suburbs looking for better schools, better jobs, affordable housing, and a sense of security, but in recent years, as incomes have fallen, people had a harder and harder time making ends meet," said Scott Allard, a University of Chicago professor who co-wrote one of the reports.

"As a result, Americans who never imagined becoming poor are now asking for assistance, and many are not getting the help they need."

After the recession began in 2007, the suburbs continued to post larger increases in the number of poor — adding 1.8 million, compared with 1.4 million in the cities.

The findings come weeks before the Nov. 2 congressional elections in which voters anxious over the economy will decide whether to keep Democrats in power. Made up of both cities and surrounding suburbs, the large metro areas represent two-thirds of the U.S. population and are home to battlegrounds that helped lift Democrat Barack Obama to victory in 2008.

Cities still have higher poverty rates — about 19.5 percent, compared with 10.4 percent in the suburbs. But the gap has been steadily narrowing. In a reversal from 2000, the number of poor people living in the suburbs now exceeds those in cities by roughly 1.6 million.

 

[goebfwai]

QE2: Policymakers struggle in a world of strategic uncertainty
Post categories: Quantitative Easing

Paul Mason | 11:03 UK time, Friday, 8 October 2010, BBC Newsnight

"As the world's finance ministers huddle in Washington there is a comprehension problem with quantitative easing. It's not just that the general public fails to understand it but that there is emerging evidence that those running it do not really understand it either.

As they get ready to do more of it there is trepidation in investment circles for a bigger reason than it might not work: fund managers are starting to realise that they live in a world where all the major movements in the markets are in fact the product of state policy, not market forces.

They fear we are approaching a kind of global state capitalism whose laws operate, as it were, "behind the backs of its producers" (Karl Marx's phrase - he would have loved the irony)."

"...the outcome is clear: QE1 stabilised the situation but was not enough to re-start self-sustaining economic growth.

Bernanke stated the case against QE2 last month: that it might have only a marginal effect on growth but boost inflation. Alan Greenspan this week has joined in, warning that extra money might not be enough without micro-measures to force the banks to lend it instead of sitting on it."

...

"...OK here's the scary bit, (and if you are still with me congratulations - it is hard to get your head around): some economists believe bond yields are an accurate predictor of long-term GDP growth. So if you believe this theory, the bond markets right now could be predicting a decade of low or zero growth.

However, if you don't buy this, the alternative is quite unpalatable also: the bond market has ceased to be a market at all...One implication...is that the current rebound in stock market prices, on the back of recovering company profits, could be a "last hurrah" before a decade of stagnation. Again, opinion is divided."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/10/qe2_policymakers_struggle_in_a.html

 

[Barking_Mad]

 

[yield]

Barking_Mad is that graph from this article?
The Trade and Tax Doomsday Clocks WSJ OCTOBER 4, 2010

 

[goldenecitrone]

Whatever my opinion is of the rights/ wrongs of the system, I would never underestimate the capacity for business to evolve to make the best out of a crisis

You're not wrong. But who would have thought they'd manage to get the old and the sick and the disabled to pay for it all?

 

[deke t lefel]

the recent large scale quantitative easing hasn't caused widespread inflation because the banks are not lending the money to the majority

money seems to be finding its way to the mergers and aquisitions market where smaller companies are getting swallowed up by bigger corporations - this trend makes the few incredibly rich whilst, increasingly, the majority become employees of larger corporations

the change of HMRC's banking suppliers in 2009 from the Bank of England to Citi and RBS has added to the steady supply of money into the banking sector

more quantitative easing means that workers will, in effect, increasingly be paying taxes directly back to their paymasters

same as it ever was