It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Central Banks Unite to Aid Global Money Markets

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Central Banks Unite to Aid Global Money Markets


www.nytimes.com

PARIS — The Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and other central banks massively escalated the assistance offered to global money markets on Thursday, coordinating efforts to ease funding constraints stemming from the financial turmoil emanating from Wall Street.

The Fed said in a statement that it had authorized a $180 billion expansion of its temporary reciprocal currency arrangements, known as swap lines, to allow banks to borrow more dollars in markets at a lower rates.

“This is clearly a very significant help and central banks are showing decisive leadership here as risk aversion is hitting the private sector,” said Julian Callow, chief European economist at Barclays Capital in London.

The Fed also authorized increases in the existing swap lines with the European Central Bank, up to $110 billion from $55 billion, and the Swiss National Bank, up to $27 billion from $15 billion.

New swap facilities were established by the Fed with the Bank of Japan, for $60 billion; the Bank of England, for $40 billion; and the Bank of Canada for $10 billion.

“The central banks continue to work together closely and will take appropriate steps to address the ongoing pressures,’’ the ECB said in a statement.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 

Yeah, the US government and Federal Reserve have kicked out over $600 billion to bail out the largest banks. Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG. Lehman Brothers bit the dust -- the largest bankruptcy in history.

They all should have been allowed to bite the dust.

Welcome to COMMUNISM folks! That's what this is. The government owns the corporations. SOCIALISM in its purest form.

And here I was thinking that the Republicans were diehard, deregulation, capitalists!

The New World Order, is actually, The New Socialist World Order. It is obvious and on the front page of every major newspaper in the world!

(Now what was Jim Marrs saying about a Fourth Reich?)

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Communism on a global scale.

China must be thrilled.

The Neo-Socialists must be thrilled. They had everybody fooled with that "Neo-Conservative" dog and pony show.

Again, what was Jim Marrs saying about a "Fourth Reich"?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
This isn't communism and I'll take an educated guess that you have no idea what communism even means.

Neosocialism isn't even a term or a political theory.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


I have great respect for the depth and breadth of knowledge you share on this board. I wonder, however, that it may be obscuring your recognition that the perception of matter bears heavily on the events as they unfold.

Clearly this activity is not representative of communism. However it does represent a redistribution of wealth (as debt) that concentrates the power of the Central Banks (which I always am tempted to consider "one" bank).

Or am I also way off the mark? (It's at times like this when I wish I were better versed in game theory.)



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Corporations hijack the state that then hijacks corporations. What is really happening here is fascism. A mafia like slimeball of elitist property grabbers that aim to take over the world, one economic block at a time.

Don't bother to drape it in political theory, just call it what it really is, theft and deception. First the deception of a Fiat currency, which sucks the very lifeblood out of an economy, and then the theft of banking consolidation of assets by calling in the credits, despite the fact that they were the very institutions than engineered the financial collapse.

To atribute a philosophy to this would be insulting to it's victims. It's plain and simple parasitism.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
The problem is that these Central banks did the same in the beginning of the year, several times to keep the markets going.

At the end now in September they are doing it again.

This bail out is taking a lot of the bad debt with them, so actually in my eyes is nothing than redistribution of wealth and somebody has to pay the tag at the end.

We all know where the tag will be falling.

So for how long can this banks keep taking this risk? Unless this nothing than a planned big scheme for a higher purpose that we the "commoners" don't need to know until is all done and be served with the tag.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
i figure these countries are happy to help flood the world markets with the temporary relief of USDollars.. $180 Billion worth.


They are shrewd enough to know the temporary strength in the USD, along with the USFed opening up the tap on dollars...can be used to pump their economies & pay their bills with the soon to be become Monopoly-Money...
the ECB, Swiss, Japan, etc... rather trade with the USD instead of spending their own wealth assets.
The USD drop will sneak up on the world much like the bad 'AAA' debt paper, that the world bought from the US Investment Houses...


Everyone's playing a game of chicken... seeing just how close to the edge of the Grand Canyon, without falling to their death...
the world accepting the 'full faith & credit' in the value of the USD
can be reversed in a blink of the eye!



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


No he is right. The government, to my knowledge, has not acted on the warrants that AIG has given them. That mean the government isn't running AIG and its not government "owned". So long as AIG meets their end to pay back the loan, which they DO have the ability to do, the taxpayer will make some money off this in interest.

AIG just needed time to raise capital that it wouldnt have had without a loan. I think that the private sector just wanted to see AIG engage in a fire sale, or go bankrupt so they could pick of the pieces for dirt cheap.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by grimreaper797]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Communism: The government owns the means of production.

Does not the current situation illustrate government taking control of corporations? The corporations themselves are the collateral against the debt they have borrowed (borrowing) from the central banks and governments.

Are Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and now AIG now owned by the government through the fact that the corporations are now collateral against the debt owed to central banks and government?

Corporations are in fact referred to legally as persons. Albeit, "artificial persons", but "persons" nonetheless. Corporations are not referred to as citizens, they don't need to be, and they wish not to be. They most successful of them prefer and enjoy sovereign transnational status. However, they are legal persons, and a government that has policy to bail corporations out of financial situations is in fact a government that subscribes and prescribes socialist policy.

That is not a prime example of the "markets will prevail" philosophy that capitalists espouse.

Neo-Socialists is a term I have heard used before. In my usage, it refers to the individuals (natural persons) currently making decisions that have enabled governments and central banks to "rescue" private financial institutions. (Whether or not it's recognized by formal educational institutions is beside the point. I think it is.) When has government enacted policy that central banks used in order to bail corporate individuals out of financial crisis on such a large scale? Care to cite any historical precedents?

Anyway, maybe Wikipedia just made Neo-Socialism up all by itself: en.wikipedia.org...

Also, you could just Google "Neosocialism" for your own pleasure and edification.



[edit on 18-9-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 

If the world's money supply, money suppliers, and the largest corporations that manage all of that negotiable financial paper are now under the thumb of governments and their united central banks, what else would you call it instead of communism?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
Don't bother to drape it in political theory, just call it what it really is, theft and deception. First the deception of a Fiat currency, which sucks the very lifeblood out of an economy, and then the theft of banking consolidation of assets by calling in the credits, despite the fact that they were the very institutions than engineered the financial collapse.


Sound almost like what happened at the beginning of the last American Depressions. eh?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Actually this are financial institutions the ones that are behind peoples wealth and retirement accounts, homes and loans.

The corporations that deal with industries like manufacturing those has been long gone from the US due to outsourcing.

So the contribution from financial intuitions to the nations employment is just on one sector it doesn't cover the overall employment of the regular joes.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


No, that isn't what communism is about. This isn't redistribution of wealth based on the worker and all individuals being equal. Under a communist system capitalism and corporations would not exist. Nor is this "the third way" either.

This isn't a left vs right issue.

The only political-economic thought that could be applied here is the economic structure operated by Mussolini in Italy, which is arguably the most successful fiscal system Italy ever had.

As St Udio and I have said countless times on ATS: only two potential system can replace this current capitalism - a fascist style capitalism (Mussolini) or Islamic capitalism (no interest)

[edit on 18-9-2008 by infinite]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by Areal51
 


No, that isn't what communism is about. This isn't redistribution of wealth based on the worker and all individuals being equal. Under a communist system capitalism and corporations would not exist. Nor is this "the third way" either.

This isn't a left vs right issue.

The only political-economic thought that could be applied here is the economic structure operated by Mussolini in Italy, which is arguably the most successful fiscal system Italy ever had.

As St Udio and I have said countless times on ATS: only two potential system can replace this current capitalism - a fascist style capitalism (Mussolini) or Islamic capitalism (no interest)

[edit on 18-9-2008 by infinite]


Those are both scary alternatives. Or is it my ignorance of the specifics that leads me to fear?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Sound almost like what happened at the beginning of the last American Depressions. eh?


yeah except the Fed stepped in this time and didn't allow fear in the speculative market to crash our economy. That means that this is a great time to invest. Hell, I still wish I had money yesterday. I would have bought a bunch of stock in JPmorgan. I said that last night too. Today they are already up +4%.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by Maxmars
 


No he is right. The government, to my knowledge, has not acted on the warrants that AIG has given them. That mean the government isn't running AIG and its not government "owned". So long as AIG meets their end to pay back the loan, which they DO have the ability to do, the taxpayer will make some money off this in interest.

AIG just needed time to raise capital that it wouldnt have had without a loan. I think that the private sector just wanted to see AIG engage in a fire sale, or go bankrupt so they could pick of the pieces for dirt cheap.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by grimreaper797]


And in a true free market this should of happened. That is how things work. If you mismanage you lose the company isnt that why these CEOs get paid millions of dollars? There is no accountability anymore. You can walk in, take your millions, run the company to the ground, and still get paid. This is why America doesnt compete worldwide anymore.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by Areal51
 


No, that isn't what communism is about. This isn't redistribution of wealth based on the worker and all individuals being equal. Under a communist system capitalism and corporations would not exist. Nor is this "the third way" either.

Explain China. You are talking about communism in the pure sense, not how its currently practiced.


This isn't a left vs right issue.

It is in the United States. The prevailing Conservative view is that socialism is an evil that must be avoided at all costs. The markets and those who pull themselves up by their bootstraps will prevail.

Government providing aid so that corporations do not collapse is representative of socialist policy as practiced in the United States. It is no different than government social programs that help the elderly, poor, and sick.

Conservative capitalists in the United States typically do not support government social services. Those services are under constant threat of being privatized, and many of them have been.


The only political-economic thought that could be applied here is the economic structure operated by Mussolini in Italy, which is arguably the most successful fiscal system Italy ever had.

As St Udio and I have said countless times on ATS: only two potential system can replace this current capitalism - a fascist style capitalism (Mussolini) or Islamic capitalism (no interest)

[edit on 18-9-2008 by infinite]

That's why I used the term Neo-Socialist to refer to those who are rewriting domestic and international economic policy as we speak. Neosocialism refers directly to fascism.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
And in a true free market this should of happened. That is how things work. If you mismanage you lose the company isnt that why these CEOs get paid millions of dollars? There is no accountability anymore. You can walk in, take your millions, run the company to the ground, and still get paid. This is why America doesnt compete worldwide anymore.


In a true free market you would be getting raped by monopolies. In a true free market, yesterday would have been the start of the next great depression. In a true free market, you wouldn't be able to afford to survive in the coming months.

And accountability is nice, so long as the entire market doesn't crumble as a result. If you want to push for another great depression, fine, but don't hide behind "the free market" to push your crazy armeggeddon desires.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

In a true free market you would be getting raped by monopolies. In a true free market, yesterday would have been the start of the next great depression. In a true free market, you wouldn't be able to afford to survive in the coming months.

And accountability is nice, so long as the entire market doesn't crumble as a result. If you want to push for another great depression, fine, but don't hide behind "the free market" to push your crazy armeggeddon desires.


Then if they have a taxpayer backstop then they need to pay higher taxes. Plain and simple as that. Also the executive pay needs to be regulated also. This idea of free market profits and socialized losses is ludicrous. Companies need to fail its part of the free market gig. CEOs need to lose their job and golden parachute if they dont perform. This is how taxes stay low and we succeed. Im sorry we just have different business philosophies thats all. Im for true free market your for free market profits socialized losses.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join