Central Banks Unite to Aid Global Money Markets

reply to post by Maxmars


The merger in the United Kingdom between Lloyds TSB and HBOS is the future of the finanical system. Governments will basically rewrite rules and add small regulation for giant banks - who will then have significant control over the market. To ensure capitalism continues, governments will have to allow massive monopolies to manipulate the market and limit competition.

No need to race for profits and create bubbles when there is hardly no competitors in the markets, right? France is a perfect example of a cartel of banks who control the market. Canada is another too.

After 2009, the little guy will no longer exist.

reply to post by infinite


I'm trying to get my head around the notion that this can somehow be a good thing for all of us, rich, poor, and the rest.

Square peg, round hole.

Is there no social contract for some organizations simply because they are profit oriented? Does their bottom line supersede the welfare of the society from which they derive their 'living?'

I suppose my inability to comprehend the artificiality of the constructs of economics is what hinders my ability to grasp the 'up end' of this scenario. I know that there are 'investors' who demand remuneration for risk, but it seems that the risk is not really defined to me in the equation.

Why would it be more important to make the 'easy money' than to ensure continuity of capital flow?

Really..., I'm lost in this quagmire of decisions based on decisions which are ramifications of decisions made for the benefit of unseen and anonymous deciders.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Maxmars]

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

Those that don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. And drag down those that learned it and don't want to repeat it with them. Heh.

Capitalism is just a stage in a cycle, if you're using a fiat currency, and if not capped even if you're not. What happens is capitalists consolidate, they buy more stuff, and then the consolidated then buy more stuff and then, quicker than almost everyone expects, a handfull of people dominate the entire economic process of a whole society, of a whole world even. That's more or less where we are now, with what has been called the superclass. Once they dominate the economic they invest in the political.

And the system that comes out of this monopolization of government by one economic class can only have one name: fascism. Why? Because capitalism is a selection process where the biggest liars, the smartest thieves, the most parasitic usurpors of other people's wealth are the ones with the "positive" survival traits. And we end up with a dominant superclass of human scum. That's where we're going btw.

So, uhm, wake up I guess.

reply to post by mybigunit


I love how you call it "socializing losses" when just 3 days ago, we suffered the largest bankruptcy in american history because the Fed refused to bail them out. I just don't understand how you could be making these wild connections.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Your opinions of the hypothetical impacts of pure capitalism, while historically well founded and reasonable, are speculative and more importantly in no way, shape, or form should be considered by anyone to exonerate the unbelievable crimes and mismanagement of the leaders of the corporate and banking worlds. I agree that pure capitalism is disastrous to the average person, but that doesn't excuse the fact that our capitalism, limited and regulated as anyone may care to argue it is, is nonetheless a fundamentally flawed system. One need only look at its most recent convulsions. If we judge a tree by the fruit which it bears we must call the economy what it is: smoke and mirrors inside a house of cards. Rather than argue over nomenclature, however, we should be figuring out how to fix or replace the system, it's obvious that no one else is.

I think we should start with the Roman mainstay of qui bono? Of course most of the world already knows the answer, but it is important and deserving of repetition until those qui bono are removed from their offices (public and private).

[edit on 18-9-2008 by EtSolveMundi]

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by mybigunit

 

I love how you call it "socializing losses" when just 3 days ago, we suffered the largest bankruptcy in american history because the Fed refused to bail them out. I just don't understand how you could be making these wild connections.

Lehman bros out of how many? Just wait till the FDIC needs a bailout which is coming up. Wait till the auto industry and airlines also need a bailout. Oh wait those arent bailouts those are just loans so they dont go under. Question where are we getting all of this money to give all these guys hmm? We going to dig into our treasury? Oh wait we cant we are bankrupt. We going to borrow it? This is the most likely and we can pay some interest on it. Or are we going to just print it and further kill our currency.

This is socializing losses dude because if these guys were allowed to fail you would see mass panic. Mass panic is what we need because our financial system is broken. It needs to be overhauled. Our government is broken and needs to be overhauled. Until there is some crash though people just dont care what is happening in our country. Then they listen to people like you who say no worries guys everything is fine no story here move along. Im probably guessing you were one of the guys regurgitated Bushs old talking points that the economy is great and there is nothing to worry about. Then again maybe Im wrong.

BTW I like your pic but Doc Holiday was a little more self reliant I think.

reply to post by mybigunit


Interesting that you bring the possible bail out to the FDIC I think I spelling right, my daughter work in a bank and they already has received news of the FDIC running out of money.

If this is true our government will not want to see the masses running to their banks to pull their money out.

Yeah I think another bail out again.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Indeed, if you somehow manage to ignore the estimated $500 to $900 billion dollars in bailout costs and "capital injection" or "liquidity moves", then where would one come up with such a fanciful notion of socialized losses?

P.S. the CEOs will still get their paychecks, thank god

reply to post by marg6043


The FDIC has admitted it has very little cash on hand. It was recently mentioned in another ATS thread that the insurance payments banks make to the FDIC are actually used to cover regular government expenditure (debt payments, etc.). It's also no secret that bank branches keep very little cash on hand. Nevertheless a bank-run should hypothetically be halted very quickly thanks to electronic banking monitors. Of course the effects would still be terrible, it just shouldn't snowball.

reply to post by EtSolveMundi

I wholeheartedly agree. We should not be arguing nomenclature. Personally, I chose the terms that I felt best fit the situation. And those terms are backed by at least 85 years of historical facts and understanding. Terms that when used in the context of today's events, should trigger some sort of visceral reaction to those events.





[edit on 18-9-2008 by Areal51]

Once upon a time (almost 200 years ago) in the galaxy far, far away (British Empire) there was a guy called Nathan Mayer Rothschild.

The rest is history.

The not so funny thing here is that 200 years later we are seeing the same money grab and we are discussing who did it and how we gonna fix it (or pay for it).
Meanwhile, the the descendants of this dude (and his partners) are popping champagnes , snorting large amounts of illegal substances, having fun with young girls (or boys) and singing that old Briney Spears' hit "Oops I Did It Again".

History has a way of repeating itself.

I see where the deregulation brought this upon our country and our
allies. Once you allow a bank to dabbling in the stock market
there bound to lose it.

In the olden days of past, all banks encouraged savings accounts or as it termed Deposits on Account before making loans in the community.
The rule of thumb was to set aside 20% for customer withdrawls
before creating 40% in loans leaving a margin of 20% to the Federal Reserve.

This use to work ... the bank could make loans for mortgages, business etc
which in turn builds more revenue for the bank while building the community.

This doesn't apply once you go into the globe market.

why doesn't the FED just say: everyone, you are now debt free. I mean tehy make up the money anyway... why not just release everyone of their debt and start over?