Banking-Banking-Banking.... EU's "DebtRank" study of the Fed ... apparently pointless.

A recent article discusses the topic of a recently completed study regarding the risks engendered by an intensely interdependent banking sysytem. The openening dialog begins with a phrase I hadn't heard in the MSM vernacular... "Too central to fail."

Team studies the innermost circle of the financial crisis

“Too central to fail” instead of “too big to fail”: whether banks pose a risk to the financial system when they get into distress has more to do with their level of networking than with their size. Economic researchers at ETH Zurich have developed a method to deduce the “systemic importance” of banks from their complex connections within financial networks.

-----------------------------------------

Before I proceed, I would like to apologize in advance for anyone whose sensibilities may be offended. This is aprticularly true of those enamored of the monetary and fiscal policies strongly endoersed by the current political regimes around the world.... you see this problem is not just a "Federal Reserve Bank" problem... it's truly the 'load-bearing' center of the strategy to create what David Rockerfeller once revealed as his ideal for global governance;

“The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” - from his book Memoirs

While warmly received by the political regime, the "intellectual" elite, and the Banking community - it was the private media that agreed to keep this agenda from the general public:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

Most claim this was "-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany" but "Bluffton today" attributes the comments to David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991. Either way..., the same people were thanked... and apparently present.

If Walter Cronkite wrote the truth when he reportedly penned this:

"A handful of us determine what will be on the evening news broadcasts, or, for that matter, in the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal.... Indeed it is a handful of us with this awesome power... a strongly editorial power. ...we must deicide which news items out of hundreds available we are going to expose that day. And those [news stories] available to us already have been culled and re-culled by persons far outside our control."

... it would appear that this recent article was vetted and refined by some 'invisible hands' And presumably those are the same folks who Rockerfeller was thanking above.

-----------------------------------------

Now... on to the main course of my offering for you.

Interestingly, this report includes some contentions that bear examination.

Between 2008 and 2010 a total of 22 banks formed the innermost circle of the financial crisis. They were so intensely connected with each other through credit relationships, mutual equity investments and financial dependencies that the distress of any single one of them could endanger the entire financial system. In November 2008, the emergency loans granted to these banks by the American Federal Reserve to protect the American financial system from collapse amounted to a total of USD 804 billion.

Here we have the work of some German academicians who used, as a data source, figures reported by the Federal Reserve... but in later paragraphs they admit....

At the height of the crisis, the total amount of loans granted climbed to an astonishing USD 1.2 trillion.

Yet, this does not include the amounts passed to foreign banks.... some say to the tune of $9 Trillion dollars (with a "T".) "$9,000,000,000,000 MISSING From The Federal Reserve .. Shocking Footage !"

But let's overlook that for a moment.

This study of the central banking system in the US was launched by the European Commission (FOC), and one would think that the Eurpoean community would not tolerate bias or 'shenanigans' in the reporting of something so 'central' (pardon the pun) to their economic well-being.... but they must have... because this academic research dares not say what is obvious to anyone not vested in the sanctity of the "house rules" that banks - such as they are - are sacrosanct and we cannot exist without them.

The researchers contend - undoubtedly correctly - that:

Even small banks can pose systemic risks if they are closely networked with other financial institutions. However, the identification of such networking risks and interdependent credit risks presents major challenges for science, business and the authorities concerned.

Why? I ask does it not seem evident that the "major challenge" arises when you have to "guess" about the insitutions actions, when 'trade secrecy' is considered 'personal privacy' for those who can collapse economies at a whim.

Their strategy is doubly innovative: on the one hand, it is based on original data from the Federal Reserve, while on the other hand, the ETH Zurich researchers are analysing the Fed data using a newly-developed network research method for the first time.

Even the Eu knew that basing any assessment on data the Fed provides is doomed to be unusable... so they developed a method to review the data "knowing" that is suspect in the first place... but they don't frame it that way.

Reportedly, a total of 407 "financial insitutions" borrowed emergency loans from the Fed. We must ask ourselves about the difference between a bank and something that is not a bank... but still qualifies for emergency loans from the Fed. That matter is not discussed in the press release.

In a demonstration of 'coincidence' that will not be academically questioned - 30 banks reached the peak of their entire "emergency situation" simultaneously at the height of the overall crisis. Nevertheless, the researches culled the data down to those 22 institutions which received at least $5 Billion.... leaving me with questions about the remaining 8.

The researchers followed Google's lead by reengineering the "page rank" system to apply it to a notional economic banking network rank, which they call "DebtRank" which appears in the article in such a manner as to assume the term "DebtRank" will be trademarked or copywritten.

Papers here: dx.doi.org... dx.doi.org... dx.doi.org... and dx.doi.org...

((continued))

What amazes me is the idea that these academicians can take in the entire network of the central banks and fail to see that they are subcomponents in a singular supranational banking cartel ... and that the evidence doesn't 'spin' any other way. There is no true banking competition... it is a global monopoly, entrenched in each nation's economy such that they derive profit from any transaction - anywhere - anytime. In other words, they own all the money in the world... they "own it." Yet no nation that I am aware of (aside from those subject to hereditary rule - royalty) can ever be said to have agreed to the scheme.

Also, surprising to me is the idea that the EU accepts this work, while remaining silent about the obvious 'overlord' role the Central banking Cartel has over each of them.

We now can be fairly certain that many trillions have been introduced into the global economy by fiat; that those controlling and 'owning' the money are hidden, that a complex system of control remained largely concealed; both out of store-bought political respect for the bankers who can make or break anyone, and by the active efforts of the 'celebrity' elite to obfuscate and make impossible any action to reveal the truth.

Thanks for reading! Now tell me, what do you think?

Originally posted by Maxmars
What amazes me is the idea that these academicians can take in the entire network of the central banks and fail to see that they are subcomponents in a singular supranational banking cartel ... and that the evidence doesn't 'spin' any other way. There is no true banking competition... it is a global monopoly, entrenched in each nation's economy such that they derive profit from any transaction - anywhere - anytime. In other words, they own all the money in the world... they "own it." Yet no nation that I am aware of (aside from those subject to hereditary rule - royalty) can ever be said to have agreed to the scheme.

Also, surprising to me is the idea that the EU accepts this work, while remaining silent about the obvious 'overlord' role the Central banking Cartel has over each of them.

We now can be fairly certain that many trillions have been introduced into the global economy by fiat; that those controlling and 'owning' the money are hidden, that a complex system of control remained largely concealed; both out of store-bought political respect for the bankers who can make or break anyone, and by the active efforts of the 'celebrity' elite to obfuscatge and make impossible any action to reveal the truth.

Thanks for reading! Now tell me, what do you think?

Wow, couldn't have put it better myself Maxmars, S+F

What do I think?
I think that nations like the US and UK should grow a pair and exile these gangsters like the Finnish are trying to.

Its about damn time. Everyone laughed at the hippies when they were shouting out 'Corporations mannn.. evil bankers.. consumerism mann..'

Now who's laughing?
The 'Elite'.

And I don't like it when evil people laugh at the misfortune of good people.