reply to post by Rocketman7
So, the moral of the story, re the Canadian banks. Along with lower rates I mentioned that they were conservative lenders and that they did not have
to be aggressive lenders since we brought in user fee banking.
So we took the pressure off them, and so now you can see how if you have all the time in the world and a good bottom line that surprised even shocked
them, and yes outraged some Canadians when they saw their profit margins, but when the ship is sailing in calm waters and everything is running
smoothly you can pick and choose and you can invest in other aspects of business. A stable successful banking business is easier to run.
Then you just have to protect your image. The numbers speak for themselves. That is what people see mostly and what builds a good reputation.
Yes in Britain and in Europe and in America we did I shouldn't say we, but yes our spawn, were instructed to now come up with a plan themselves that
was creative as an exercise and Alan was prepared to bail them out if need be and I was not far away as well, but Alan wanted to retire and I wanted
to see some independence so that well they could manage on their own and they came up with some creative offerings didn't they?
The difference between them and me and Alan, our team, is we would never even so much as stretch the law in any fashion. We would not enter into a
game of chance that put banks at risk. We constantly managed the profitability of the banking industry and bond rates and we moved mountains to
maintain the banks as job one.
Well maybe our spawn never paid attention to the fact that while we were playing good cop bad cop or low rates high rates and I would be pro business
anti-bank and Alan would be pro bank, he would be striving for bond rates and I would be striving for business but at no time ever, would I do
anything that put banking at risk. In all cases where Alan thought it would be better to support banking returns rather than the markets, I would back
off completely and support banking. You know I would switch from being the antagonist, to being an ally, and right away we would stabilize banking
returns and the banking system.
Never would we treat the economy like Vegas.
Whenever we did anything that was a little bit risky, we would first be sure we propped up the banking industry and then test the waters we did our
homework, we watched carefully and always made sure we have a huge support network in banking and investment circles and the media.
So it looked easy, but we were always being cautious.
But I understand the need to finance a war and Europe was in Iraq too and it had dot com bust as well so I was pleased when I saw what they were
doing, since I like that independent spirit. Maybe they were too successful because it sure took off in a big hurry.
You know the riskiest I will get, is when I need to raise money for the military. Sometimes I have to be very creative with yet another bond offering,
and the bank shuffle lending money between institutions to increase capital. You can't do that without the support of government so I only did that
when it was to pay for the military.
I never really explained the bank shuffle so even our spawn couldn't do it and they didn't have the same influence in government so they had to work
with what they had which was Goldman Sachs and a few other huge institutions. Then they got government onside and they did get money just handed to
But they also sold some mortgage backed securities that were less than safe investments by capitalizing on people's love for gambling.
I am not going to say by not bailing them out, that I am at fault, because from my perspective I planned for any eventuality and used it to my
advantage to achieve global economic goals. Such as to fix capitalism.
It was not working properly. I am sure you recall everyone saying that.
Well its working better now.
I can't get involved on the street level and look at America for instance and their homeless problem or their foreclosure problems and base global
economic strategy on those unfortunate people.
I can not blow in the wind. I can however let a country like America look after its own poor.
Since it looks after its wealthy so well. If some of that wealth is at the expense of the poor, then by going in with help for the poor I am just
reinforcing the problem.
Well I could talk all day as you know but what we are doing for Greece is building a trade route since it is in with our global strategy for the
region. What the EU makes of that is up to you. Its not just Greece who can benefit, we are also involving other countries in the region for economic
development. There isn't enough fish farming in Greece for them to use that as a chief source of income so I hope their commercial skills will kick in
if we provide some opportunities for trade.
edit on 18-6-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)