stock-channel.net - Aktien Links Stocks Rohstoffe Trading Handel Exchange
stock-channel.net - The Art Of Trading Home Analysen IR-Center Finanznews Finanzlinks Mediathek Diskussion Kontakt

Zurück   stock-channel.net - Das Finanzportal > Zeitgeschehen
Benutzername
Kennwort
FAQ Benutzerliste Kalender Foren als gelesen markieren Reload
Aktuelle Uhrzeit 17:36
Antwort Gehe zum letzten Beitrag
 
Themen-Optionen
Alt 24.07.2008, 20:01   #406
Silverbay
stock-channel.net senior member
 
Registrierungsdatum: Mar 2008
Beiträge: 998
Standard Vergleich

quote lunar

@Silverbay - sein Bad in der Menge ist wenn man an die Sicherheitsvorkehrungen für einen Bush denkt



... allerdings, der Johanna hat es auch den Atem genommen,
Montag wieder back to the real ( 10xxx ) ?
Silverbay ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Silverbay die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 24.07.2008, 21:53   #407
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard

__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************

Geändert von lunar (24.07.2008 um 21:58 Uhr).
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 24.07.2008, 22:51   #408
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard

Morning Bell: What’s the Worst Part of This Bill?

Posted June 24th, 2008 at 8.46am in Ongoing PrioritiesToday the Senate is scheduled to vote on the housing bailout bill that has been circulating on Capitol Hill for so long its title today is simply “a bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes.” When a bill’s title includes the phrase “and for other purposes,” you know the American taxpayer is about to get a raw deal. This bill is such terrible public policy in so many different ways that it’s hard to pick which one is the worst. But we’ll try.


  • Bails out the banks most responsible for the current crisis. The most important thing to remember about this “housing reform” bill is that checks for the mortgage bailout go directly to the banks that irresponsibly lent money to risky borrowers. That’s why Countrywide Financial and Bank of America have pushed so hard for this program. And since it is a voluntary program, the banks get to choose which loans they’ll pawn off on the taxpayer. As a result, banks will keep the loans that have the best chance of being paid back, while the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) is forced to guarantee the riskiest borrowers.
  • Increases the risk of an even bigger taxpayer-funded bailout. Between 2000 and 2007, the FHA increased its portfolio of no-down-payment loans from 2 percent to 37 percent. These loans default at almost three times the rate of other loans. As we explained above, all of the $300 billion in loans the bill intends the FHA to take on will be preselected by banks as those with even higher default rates. The FHA posted losses of $4.6 billion last year. FHA’s losses, paid for by taxpayers, will skyrocket if this bailout passes.


  • Creates a special-interest slush fund. Partisan leftist groups such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) have pushed for a federally funded National Housing Trust Fund for almost a decade now. During the brief economic downturn in 2001, ACORN advocated the fund as an economic stimulus. From 2003 through 2006 it promoted the fund as a solution to housing prices that were too high. Now ACORN argues it’s needed because housing prices are too low. A National Housing Trust Fund will make it easier for the left to funnel millions in taxpayer dollars down the drain of ACORN’s well-established history of fraud, deceit and intimidation.
The bill does have one saving grace: It does contain much needed reform for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The near-monopoly power these government-sponsored entities have in the mortgage industry was a key cause of the housing bubble. But conservatives shouldn’t let Freddie and Fannie’s needed reform of be held hostage. They deserve their own standalone bill.
__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 25.07.2008, 09:09   #409
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard

Bank Gave Counterfeit Bills, Couple Says

Different Customer Given Refund After Fake Money Claim, Report Says

POSTED: 11:33 pm EDT July 22, 2008
UPDATED: 11:27 pm EDT July 23, 2008

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A couple has contacted the Secret Service claiming a Central Florida bank gave them 10 counterfeit bills during a transaction.

IMAGES: Fake $100 Bills Surface Ulises Garcia said he was withdrawing cash from a Wachovia Bank and depositing it into a Bank of America so he could pay his bills online.

However, the Bank of America teller noticed something funny about 10 of the 36 $100 bills Garcia said he received from Wachovia Bank -- they were counterfeit, Local 6's Tony Pipitone reported.However, the bank has not given Garcia or his fiancé, Joann Rodriguez, any money."We have big plans," Rodriguez said. "We were planning to get married in about two or three months.""And this money's pretty important?" Pipitone asked."Very important," Rodrguez said. "It's a big part of our wedding.""It is really frustrating for us," Garcia said. "The bank is not doing anything about it. (It's) just not giving us any solutions at all."A Wachovia representative said it will not refund any money because it can't verify the $1,000 in counterfeit notes were the same bills Garcia was handed by their teller.But weeks later, Wachovia did refund $40 to another customer with a similar story, Local 6 has learned.Garcia said Wachovia is ripping him off and has alerted the sheriff's office, the Secret Service and the media."Ten (bills) in one transaction to come from one bank, that is definitely unusual," U.S. Secret Service representative Jim Glendinning said."But is it possible?" Pipitone asked."Remotely, yes it is," Glendinning said.Glendinning said he was not surprised the Bank of America caught the counterfeits but wondered how a Wachovia could pass the bills unless a bank employee was in on it, Pipitone reported.The United States Secret Service Web site shows people how to detect counterfeit money.Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.

aha - neuer Weg zur Sanierung der Banken
__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 25.07.2008, 15:08   #410
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard von DU

.
__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 25.07.2008, 16:46   #411
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard

Gold Ambush Tactics & Potpourri

Jim Willie CB
Jim Willie CB is the editor of the "
Hat Trick Letter"
Jul 25, 2008

......For the second time in the last several weeks, the gold market has been on the receiving end of ambushes. Leading up to their July 3rd announced rate hike, the Euro Central Bank strong hints prompted the last ambush. The gold futures contracts bear this out easily, as the big cartel players sold down the gold price with heavy paper supply simultaneously. They had to do so. When physical is in reduced supply, resort to trusty paper. After stabilizing in the 920 to 925 range, gold promptly rose to exceed 980, only to be ambushed yet again. The ambush consists of an unexplainable sudden $20 decline in midday, cheered by the majority but without any analysis of where the decline originated. The motive for the early July ambush was simple. The EuroCB revealed their intention to hike rates by 25 basis points, thus exposing the USDollar to even more risk of decay, degradation, and depreciation. Without more corrupt interference in its market, the gold price would have surely vaulted past 1000 in July. So enter JPMorgan and their vile henchmen comrades. Who ever said the only noisy communists resided in Moscow and Beijing and Pyongyang? Central planning and market control have migrated as tools from communists to those conmen posing as capitalists and defender of freedom! Let's call the US Federal Reserve and its partners in collusion what they really are: better dressed and younger Politburo members equipped with better sales pitches. These guys resemble the Gosbank goons, whose three featured henchmen should have substituted Bernanke, Paulson, and Cox. So they whacked gold immediately before the EuroCB decision to hike rates three weeks ago, since the news was to be so very harmful to the USDollar.

The next ambush came late last week and this week. What was the risk posed to the USDollar? This time the dire bank situation had turned desperate in its bloody atmosphere, laden with many ugly features and developments. First, the corrupt block of legitimate shorting of bank stocks coupled with selective enforcement of naked shorting of bank stocks coupled with improper blame of bank stock woes assigned to those nasty short speculators. So they engineered a short cover rally in the bank stocks that truly defies any claim as absurd that the US stock markets are fair, open, and driven by equilibrium, or free from scum. Speaking of scum, consider that the new SCUM = Sacred Cow Untouchable Mountains of banking manure. See the Sacred Cow SCUM list of banks forbidden from shorting, led by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Lehman. Do you think their bank executives loaded up on option calls before the news, all tipped off? Sure!

Lost somewhere along the way was the legitimacy of shorting a stock when the company behind the stock was insolvent and fending off bankruptcy. The protected few sacred cows have one thing in common, being all related to the London Bullion Market Assn (LBMA). Thanks to Seeking Alpha for that jewel of information, details in next month's newsletter issue. So those very banks most closely associated with corruption of the precious metals market are the sacred cows most protected by totally obscene selective regulatory enforcement. By the way, few have thought this through. By limiting legit short procedures, the regulators have interfered with legitimate option trading activity, as managed by dealers. They typically short a stock after taking the opposite position to a legitimate option put short position. So look for the options market to be all mangled as well. Free market? Not a chance!

Second, the US Federal Reserve announced on Tuesday that their lending facilities would be made available to selective large hedge funds. Again, the keyword is selective. This opens many new questions. Certainly some hedge funds are working in concert with many entitled Wall Street firms as they busily wreck the national financial structure by supporting the unsupportable USTreasurys and by trying to destroy the indestructible gold & silver market. If not for acting as USGovt agents in price control, the system would give them up for carved dinners on the bankruptcy table. Give credit where due. These conmen wizard control freaks have wielded leverage and corruption for longer than the 31-year record for previous fiat currency survival. Alright, so hedge funds will be given access to bond swaps by the USFed benefactor. Will some hedge funds be slaughtered much like Bear Stearns, for the same motive? The Bear Stearns book contained too much short USDollar positions and too many long gold positions. When they appealed to the USFed for help, the USFed killed them instead. Now hedge funds will be in the same predicament. A big hedge fund might be intentionally targeted by privileged Wall Street syndicated bank operators for a kill, with the fund's unwanted positions liquidated, but its desired positions in need of protection seized by JPMorgan. A hedge fund that is loaded with almost all unfriendly positions will just be killed outright, a typical tactic being a cutoff of credit by the Wall Street firm itself. The USFed will come to lend a helping hand, assuming some of the necessary load. This is American financial capitalism at its most desperate, most scummy, most bound by elite welfare, and most despicable. This is the Fascist Business Model on display, showing yet another new facet of corruption. Few realize that USFed bond swaps are temporary, and cannot alleviate bank woes unless the USFed makes the swaps permanent. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN, since the USFed is not a charitable organization willing to kill itself for the public good. The public remains clueless, bewildered, and too confused even to respond or to object. It understand little of inflation, and less of banking procedures.

Amidst the latest situation with a bank system reeling, their stocks in need of a corrupt engineered bounce, and announcement of a broader rescue from USFed swaps to hedge funds, the news was so bad that gold had to be ambushed yet again. The BKX bank stock index bounced very close to my stated 57 target, for which the bear triangle deserves the credit. Give the banks another couple weeks, and the gravity force will push its rancid juices to the bottom line again. This sector amazingly enjoys the benefit of accounting quiet darkness in the middle months of quarters, precisely when lies and false spin can be promulgated safely, with more willingness by sheeple to gobble it up as valid research, when it is pure deceptive promotional propaganda. THE BANKS WILL BE DILUTED INTO OBLIVION, AIDED ONLY BY RESTRICTIONS TO TRADES, that is my ongoing mantra. Within a couple weeks, gold will rise again unfettered by the illicit assault on real money. The basic underlying problem has not gone away. The housing prices continue down. The formal collateral for bank-held mortgage bonds continues to fall in value. When the USEconomy was heretically built atop a housing bubble by Greenspan policies and US corporation coopted acquiescence, a systemic breakdown was assured. England shares in this destruction outcome being assured. In the Untied States, expect a housing bear market of double strength, since the first one in year 2001 was interfered with. It was not eliminated, only delayed....

......SOME IMPORTANT POTPOURRI
The new housing & mortgage rescue plan has some missing pieces. The Federal Housing Administration had asked specifically for some risk price protection. They were denied. So the FHA risk is open-ended. For those who are unaware, the FHA controls the under-water mortgage bailout mechanism. The official package, which took eleven months to prepare, when it should have taken no more than three or four months, is entirely inadequate out of the gate. It is 5% of what will ultimately be needed. The US Congress is very likely to fall for the bait of a quasi unlimited bailout tab for its quasi-govt guarantees for the Fannie Mae enterprise, which in no way is quasi-honest. It is the quintessential colossus of corrupt US mortgage finance, the blackest of black eyes ever to grace the US financial landscape in its modern history. For the Congress to offer any substantial backstop will guarantee not its survival, but instead the zoom of the gold price well past the $2000 price level, as in two thousand dollars per ounce. We are witnessing the gradual process of granting a blank check to Fannie Mae for losses that in my estimation will amount to over $1 trillion. Even Bill Gross of PIMCO just yesterday raised his estimate to a cool $1 trillion in mortgage losses for banks as a group. He said, "Nearly one trillion dollars of cumulative losses will finally mark the gravestones of this housing bubble."

The Three Stooges of Bernanke, Paulson, and Cox appeared before the US Congress in order to gather in near total power to control the system they succeeded in destroying, and to force the USGovt to bail out the conmen who remain unprosecuted for bond fraud. They appear before the nearly equally compromised august body of legislators in order to appeal for extending the regulatory powers, especially the SEC, without any new formal legal approval. Rarely do they appear as duos, yet alone threesomes, a testament to their utter desperation. Notice that the Congressional members still lick their boots, even though they are more responsible for the bank destruction than almost anybody. Their reward will be total power, bestowed by the sleepy servants, or at least their acquiescence. Those responsible for the bank breakdown want total authority in a queer audacious maneuver. Today Cox from the SEC was all alone in the congame before Congress. Imagine corrupt conmen making a major appeal before compromised legislators who are mainly beholden to special interest lobbies. Cox disrupted the bank rally by advising regulatory differences to continue for commercial banks versus investment banks. Or was it the horrendous housing news that sent the Dow Jones Industrial Index down over 200 points? Perhaps it was realization that the bank sector short cover episode has ended almost as suddenly as it began? The opportunities for graft and fraud will be huge and ripe. Look to the FHA to become the focus of that corruption, which writes the bailout check given to the original loan underwriter, since all it requires is paperwork from an appraisal for a hefty check written to the originator. Research the Hurricane Katrina relief effort, if you wish to observe corruption. One dollar in three is stolen are tainted by corruption.......

.....A new chapter to the mythology treatise has been written. The slow motion collapse of the US financial system proceeds on schedule. The claim nowadays is made, that the USEconomy will remain protected from the bank system woes. What a crock! No, the planned destruction all started with Greenspan's acquiescence to irrational exuberance in 1994. He decided to amplify the US$ money supply out of step (faster) than economic growth, so long as the (rigged) Consumer Price Index remained calm. The export of inflation helped to keep it down for a decade, but now that policy has backfired. The destruction required a key push by the 1999 grant of Most Favored Nation status to China. That enabled removal of a large chunk of the US industrial base. The resulting poverty kept down the power of the proletariat laborer, a key opponent to Politburo central bankers. Doesn't anyone realize central bankers are more communist in nature than capitalist? Sadly, Americans learned little in school, surely not how communists identified, and not how fascists are identified. The absence of viable income from added value enterprise gave birth to the Asset Based Economy, wherein the Untied States took the deadly pill. This was not a red pill versus blue pill, but a hemlock pill. It built the economic foundation atop a housing bubble, and laced the entire banking system with an unstable temporary mortgage latticework. The risk price model formed the glue, and that too has begun to dissolve.

THE UGLIEST PART OF THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL PATHOGENESIS IS THAT MOMENTUM IN THE BREAKDOWN IS FIERCE, AND FEEDBACK LOOPS ARE UNSTOPPABLE, AS THEY FORCE DE-LEVERAGING AND POWERFUL CONTINUATION OF THE PRICE DECLINE FOR ALL ASSOCIATED ASSETS. In its wake lie gold & silver, which benefit from the retreat from a burning collapsing building built of paper girders and paper walls, held by faulty risk price model glue.

THE HAT TRICK LETTER PROFITS IN THE CURRENT CRISIS.

full story: http://www.321gold.com/editorials/w...llie072508.html

GOSBANK ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosbank
(zum Glück gibt's Wikipedia )


__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************

Geändert von lunar (25.07.2008 um 17:06 Uhr).
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 25.07.2008, 17:14   #412
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard

...eigentlich kann man immer wieder lesen - wie unfähig die die Leute an den Schalthebeln sind

25 July 2008


Stiglitz on Fannie and Freddie, Free Lunches and Moral Hazard

Fannie’s and Freddie’s free lunch
By Joseph Stiglitz
July 24 2008 18:25
The Financial Times

Much has been made in recent years of private/public partnerships. The US government is about to embark on another example of such a partnership, in which the private sector takes the profits and the public sector bears the risk. The proposed bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entails the socialisation of risk – with all the long-term adverse implications for moral hazard – from an administration supposedly committed to free-market principles.

Defenders of the bail-out argue that these institutions are too big to be allowed to fail. If that is the case, the government had a responsibility to regulate them so that they would not fail. No insurance company would provide fire insurance without demanding adequate sprinklers; none would leave it to “self-regulation”. But that is what we have done with the financial system.

Even if they are too big to fail, they are not too big to be reorganised. In effect, the administration is indeed proposing a form of financial reorganisation, but one that does not meet the basic tenets of what should constitute such a publicly sponsored scheme.

First, it should be fully transparent, with taxpayers knowing the risks they have assumed and how much has been given to the shareholders and bondholders being bailed out.

Second, there should be full accountability. Those who are responsible for the mistakes – management, shareholders and bondholders – should all bear the consequences. Taxpayers should not be asked to pony up a penny while shareholders are being protected.

Finally, taxpayers should be com*pensated for the risks they face. The greater the risks, the greater the compensation.

All of these principles were violated in the Bear Stearns bail-out. Shareholders walked away with more than $1bn (€635m, £500m), while taxpayers still do not know the size of the risks they bear. From what can be seen, taxpayers are not receiving a cent for all this risk-bearing. Hidden in the Federal Reserve-collateralised loans to *JPMorgan that enabled it to take over Bear Stearns were almost surely interest rate and credit options worth billions of dollars. It would have been easy to design a restructuring that was more transparent and protected taxpayers’ interests better, giving some compensation for their risk-bearing.

But the proposed bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac makes that of Bear Stearns look like a model of good governance. It sets an example for other countries of what not to do. The same administration that failed to regulate, then seemed enthusiastic about the Bear Stearns bail-out, is now asking the American people to write a blank cheque. They say: “Trust us.” Yes, we can trust the administration – to give the taxpayers another raw deal.

Something has to be done; on that everyone is agreed. We should begin with the core of the problem, the fact that millions of Americans were made loans beyond their ability to pay. We need to help them stay in their homes, including by converting the home mortgage deduction into a cashable tax credit and creating a homeowners’ Chapter 11, an expedited way to restructure their liabilities. This will bring clarity to the capital markets – reducing uncertainty about the size of the hole in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s balance sheets.

The government should set a limit to the size of the bail-out, at the same time making it clear that, while it will not allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fail, neither will it be extending a blank cheque. There may need to be a drastic reorganisation. There should be a charge for the “credit line” (any private firm would do as much) and, given the risk, it should be at a higher than normal rate.

The private sector knows how to protect its interests; the government should do no less. As long as the credit line is extended, no dividends should be paid. To ensure that the government is not simply bailing out creditors who failed in due diligence, at least, say, 25 per cent of any notes, loans or bonds coming due that are not lent again should be set aside in an escrow account, to be paid only after it is established that taxpayers are not at risk. Any government loans should be cumulative preferred debt: the taxpayers get paid before any other creditors receive a dime. To discourage moral hazard the interest rate should be at a penalty rate and, reflecting the rising risk, increase with the amount borrowed. Finally, the government should participate in the upside potential as well as the downside risk: for instance, by taking shares (which it might later sell) or, as it did in the Chrysler bail-out, warrants.

We should not be worried about shareholders losing their investments. In earlier years, they were amply rewarded. The management remuneration packages that they approved were designed to encourage excessive risk-taking. They got what they asked for. Nor should we be worried about creditors losing their money. Their lack of supervision fuelled the housing bubble and we are now all paying the price. We should worry about whether there is a supply of liquidity to the housing market, so that those who wish to buy a home can get a loan. This proposal provides the necessary liquidity.

A basic law of economics holds that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Those in the financial market have had a sumptuous feast and the administration is now asking the taxpayer to pick up a part of the tab. We should simply say No.

The writer, 2001 recipient of the Nobel Prize for economics, is university professor at Columbia University. He is co-author with Linda Bilmes of The Three Trillion *Dollar War: the True Cost of the Iraq Conflict
Posted by Jesse at 12:52 AM
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/
__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 25.07.2008, 19:24   #413
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard

Housing Rescue WILL NOT Work At All

July 25, 2008

Elaine Meinel Supkis


We finally open the latest Santa Claus Congress package. It is full of the usual useless stuff. It is really an attempt at turning back the clock. Oh, we so very much want the Free Funny Money™ to continue! Toyota has finally become the world's biggest auto manufacturer. Even if some of these are made by American workers at lower wages than in Detroit, this is not a sign that is good for Americans. Also, the suppression of the commodities markets continues. This is the only way they know that can hide inflation. Desperately, everyone in the US power structure wants to resume asset inflation. This is impossible. Until Americans figure out that cheap lending means economic destruction, we will continue to flap around the flame of cheap loans like a moth looking for sex with candles.


Inflation Outlook Makes a `Bond Bubble' Unlikely, Goldman Says
(Bloomberg) -- Yields on U.S. government debt won't increase as much as some analysts expect because inflation expectations are ``well-contained,'' according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Those who call for a ``dramatic'' rise in yields often point to an increase in so-called headline inflation and household expectations, Goldman analysts led by Francesco Garzarelli wrote in a note to clients today.

Expectations for inflation a decade from now are still below the average since 1997 and aren't statistically different from expectations in the past nine years, said the analysts, drawing on data from London-based Consensus Economics. That undermines the idea of a bond bubble in which prices are too high and yields are too low, Goldman said.

Several things here: Goldman is, like many gnomes, a lying bastard. He can't help this. Note the last sentence here: he is very careful to say that future inflation won't be greater than the average since 1977. I never want to just assert things, I use charts and graphs a great deal and whenever we talk about anything like this, we must rush off to these charts and graphs to see what the truth is and the truth here is obvious: this gnome is comparing a time frame that includes one of the greatest inflationary surges in US history since 1820. This is not a minor matter!


Here is a Federal Reserve graph I heavily amended:



I am looking for several things here. One is the comparison of 30 year mortgage rates to CD values and 6 month Treasury bills. CDs and Treasuries usually track very close together. Significantly, they also diverge. The spread widens at specific historic events. What I was curious about was the harmonic echo of this divergence when the spread between CDs and 30 year mortgages were at their greatest.....

......Trouble comes when the rate of inflation is far ahead of all these rates! In the case of the last 20 years, the inflation rate has been well above the cost of a 30 year mortgage as well as Treasuries and CD which is why the savings rate has utterly collapsed and debts have grown like weeds in a warm summer rain. Note how twice, the mortgage rates were less than other interest rate instruments: in 1975 and the ruinous 1978-1982 period......

......The thing to remember here is pretty simple: banks make a lot of money when the spread is the greatest. The periods with the green bars show us when the Federal Reserve politically manipulates the value of the Treasuries by artificially lowering the rates below the rate of inflation. Notice clearly how the Fed panicked in 1975 and in the late 1970's. The rate jerks upwards wildly then they tried to bring it below 10% and then were forced to raise it back up to 18% again. Even after suppressing it below 8%, this failed immediately and it had to be raised yet again to over 12% just one year later! Instead of stability, we see this time frame from 1970 to today as one of greatest instability. And of course, the greatest two spreads are in 1992 and 2003, both period coming right after a recession that the Fed 'fixed' by dropping interest rates very, very low.....

.......Back to Goldman Sachs: that guy is insane or a liar. Nothing shows us that inflation is going away in the future. Everything including the news about the latest futile bail out bill in Congress, shows us future inflation taking off like a rocket. Unless we collapse into a massive deflationary spiral which is quite possible. Money can and has, vanished.....

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/money_matters/
__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 25.07.2008, 19:27   #414
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard

Traders manipulated oil prices
(CNNMoney.com) -- The government charged an oil trading firm Thursday with manipulating oil prices in the first complaint to be announced since the regulators began a new investigation into wrongdoings in the energy markets. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused Optiver Holding, two of its subsidiaries and three employees with manipulation and attempted manipulation of crude oil, heating oil and gasoline futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

"Optiver traders amassed large trading positions, then conducted trades in such a way to bully and hammer the markets," CFTC Acting Chairman Walt Lukken said at a press conference. "These charges go to the heart of the CFTC's core mission of detecting and rooting out illegal manipulation of the markets."

First there was no naked short selling. Then it was forbidden. Then there was no oil market manipulation. Now it too, is being forbidden. The gnomes need to inflate SOMETHING, anything. This is what a Bare Bear market looks like: naked, screaming gnomes running wild. Alas, this won't make a good video that can be sold after spring break.

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/money_matters/
__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 26.07.2008, 09:55   #415
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard

Dixie Chicks - Travelin' Soldier

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nLBgmbXBOb8
__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 26.07.2008, 09:56   #416
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard



Zitat:
Zitat von Hoka

Jim Sinclair’s Commentary

The silence surrounding this important event is mindboggling.

NAB will shock Wall Street
The Business Spectator


The National Australia Bank's decision to write off 90 per cent of its US conduit loans will have dramatic repercussions around the world. Wall Street will be deeply shocked when they understand the repercussions of what NAB has done. It is clear global banks have nowhere near provided for their exposures to US housing loans which in the words of John Stewart are experiencing a “meltdown”.

We are now way beyond sub-prime. NAB says that it is suffering a 55 per cent loss on American housing loans – an event that has never happened in the history of a developed country in recent memory. This is an unprecedented event and means that the cost of bailing out the US financial system is now far beyond the highest estimates. A US recession is now locked in, but more alarmingly, 55 per cent loan losses point to the possibility of a depression.

It means the cost of bailing out housing exposures to the two mortgage insurers will be so great that it will leave no room to bail out anything else and there are several US banks that are now in big trouble. NAB says that the dislocation in the residential market is separate from the corporate market, but the flow on is inevitable.

While global banks have been writing down their balance sheet assets, few have tackled their conduit exposures which are off balance sheet but to which they are ultimately liable.

More…

__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 26.07.2008, 11:59   #417
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard

...bisschen viel Lesestoff über diese leidige bailout Geschichten - aber vielleicht später interessant zu wissen wer so in etwa richtig lag oder ob "nur" der Teufel an die Wand gemalt wurde

Congress Taps Paulson’s Helmet

By: Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

-- Posted Friday, 25 July 2008 | Digg This Article | Source: GoldSeek.com


With President Bush no longer threatening a veto, the subprime mortgage and Fannie and Freddie “bailout” bill is now sailing through Congress. In anticipation of its enactment, Congress had the foresight to raise the national debt limit to $10.6 trillion. Who says that politicians don’t plan ahead?

Once signed into law, the budget busting legislation will hand the Administration a blank check to prop up the ailing home lenders. The ultimate cost is anybody’s guess. I believe that the price tag will be higher than just about anyone imagines. Paulson’s Bazooka will be locked and loaded with enough fire power to blow what’s left of our economy into the dustbin of history. Though the government and Wall Street assure us that these bold moves will save the housing market, and the economy as a whole, from collapse, the reality is that the solution is far worse than the problem. As painful as the failure of Freddie and Fannie would have been, bailing them out will hurt even more. In other words, it’s not the disease that will kill us but the cure.


Ironically, while government is rightly criticizing mortgage lenders for ditching lending standards during the boom (well after the horses had left the barn) the new law will actually encourage lenders to be even more reckless then before. By taking all of the risks out of mortgage lending (provided of course that the loans are conforming), the government is telling lenders not to worry about the loans they make, because if borrowers do not repay, the government will.


Since this bailout eliminates all market based deterrents to reckless lending for conforming loans, the only checks remaining will be those imposed by Freddie and Fannie themselves through the criteria they set for those loans. And although they have taken some steps over the past few months to tighten their minimal “standards”, the political agenda behind the bailout will cause this nascent effort to lose steam. In essence, the government’s main goal is to prop up home prices. Since American homes are still overvalued given the fundamentals, their prices can only be pushed up with reckless lending and inflation.

As a result of this bailout bill, the share of mortgages owned or insured by Freddie and Fannie will likely swell from near 50% today to over 80% within a year or two, turning a $5 trillion problem into a $10 trillion fiasco. If the government succeeds in keeping real estate prices propped up, it will only do so at the cost of sending all other prices through the roof. More likely, real estate prices will continue to decline despite government efforts to levitate them, compounding the problems and the losses.

The grim reality is that trillions of dollars were borrowed and spent that will never be repaid. No government program can alter that fact. Someone is going to have to pay the piper for all those granite counter tops and plasma TVs. The price tag is staggering and for all the bailouts and stimulus packages, all the government can do is exacerbate the losses and shift the burden through inflation. Nor can the government resurrect bubble home prices and the fantasy of real estate riches that went along with them. One way or another, rational home prices will be restored and the myths of our asset-based, consumption-dependent economy will be finally discredited.

CNBC once nicknamed me “Dr. Doom”, but compared to what I see coming now, they should have then called me “Dr. Sun Shine”. Take a look at a presentation I made back in November 2006, at the Western Regional Mortgage Bankers Conference. There are eight clips in total, and though the entire presentation is worth watching, most of the real estate comments begin with the 4th clip. Click here to watch the video on YouTube. Every real estate prediction I made at that conference, which was considered outrageous at the time by those in attendance, has already come true. As confident as I was then about this impending crises, I am even more confident now that the government has just thrown gasoline onto the fire.

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read my new book “Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse.” Click here to order a copy today.



More importantly, don’t wait for reality to set in. Protect your wealth and preserve your purchasing power before it’s too late. Discover the best way to buy gold at www.goldyoucanfold.com . Dowload my free Research Report, "The Powerful Case for Investing in " Foreign Securities " at www.researchreportone.com . Subscribe to my free, on-line investment newsletter at http://www.europac.net/newsletter/newsletter.asp.


-- Posted Friday, 25 July 2008 | Digg This Article | Source: GoldSeek.com
- Peter Schiff
http://news.goldseek.com/EuroCapital/1217004550.php
__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 26.07.2008, 12:46   #418
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard



The Triumphant Return of the Friday Funnies

"Barack Obama is behaving very presidentially now. He's in the Middle East, and he met today with the leaders of Israel and Jordan. And not to be outdone, earlier today, John McCain was in the park playing checkers with Ed Koch." --David Letterman
"After a quick meet-and-greet with King Abdullah, Obama was off to Israel, where he made a quick stop at the manger in Bethlehem where he was born." --Jon Stewart, on Barack Obama's Middle East trip
"Barack Obama is very popular in the Middle East. I guess a lot of people over there saw the cover of the New Yorker." --Jay Leno
"John McCain was talking about this, and he said that the problem is that the border between Iraq and Afghanistan -- they share a common border, that's what he was saying. Mistakenly said that Iraq and Afghanistan have a common border, and I thought, well, no wonder we can't find Osama Bin Laden -- we've been searching an imaginary border." --David Letterman
"Let me ask you a more serious question. When you woke up this morning, did you feel a little colder, the country was a little sadder, a little lonelier, a little less hopeful? There's a reason for that [on screen: CNN telling viewers that Obama has left the country]. Don't take our hope away. We miss you. Barack Obama, the living embodiment of goodness and light, the future of human evolution." --Jon Stewart
"Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to President Bush's time in office as 'a total failure.' Yeah, Bush defended himself saying, 'Oh, come on, I've hardly spent any time in my office.'" --Conan O'Brien
__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 27.07.2008, 13:04   #419
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard

PUTTING THE “FEDERAL”
BACK IN THE FEDERAL RESERVE


In a July 19 Wall Street Journal article titled “Why No Outrage?”, James Grant quoted Mary Lease, a 19th century Populist who urged farmers to “raise less corn and more hell.” Grant notes that financial behavior that would have been met with outrage in the 19th century is now met with near-silence from a too-tolerant populace. For decades after the Civil War, monetary reform was a chief political issue, one around which whole political parties formed. Why is it hardly mentioned today? Grant suggests that the lack of outrage may be because the old 19th century Populists actually won:
“This is their financial system. They had demanded paper money, federally insured bank deposits and a heavy governmental hand in the distribution of credit, and now they have them. The Populist Party might have lost the elections in the hard times of the 1890s. But it won the future. . . . They got their government-controlled money (the Federal Reserve opened for business in 1914), and their government-directed credit [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]. In 1971, they got their pure paper dollar. So today, the Fed can print all the dollars it deems expedient and the unwell federal mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combine [to] dominate the business of mortgage origination . . . .”

Mr. Grant may have answered his own question, in another way than he intended. Most people, evidently including Mr. Grant, actually think that the Federal Reserve is a federal agency; and that paper dollars are issued by the government; and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are federal mortgage giants. The American people are silent because they have been duped into believing they have gotten what they wanted. In fact, what the people got was not at all what the Populists fought for, or what their leader William Jennings Bryan thought he was approving when he voted for the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. In the stirring speech that won him the Democratic nomination for President in 1896, Bryan expressed the Populist position like this:
“We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. . . . Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson . . . and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business. . . . [W]hen we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and . . . until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished.”

Bryan lost in 1896 and again in 1900, but he went on to lead the opposition in Congress. A major bank panic in 1907 led to a bill called the Aldrich Plan, which would have delivered control of the banking system to the Wall Street bankers. However, the alert opposition, led by Bryan, saw through it and soundly defeated it. Bryan said he would not support any bill that resulted in private money being issued by private banks. Federal Reserve Notes must be Treasury currency, issued and guaranteed by the government; and the governing body must be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

To get their bill past the opposition in Congress, the Wall Street faction changed its name to the Federal Reserve Act and brought it three days before Christmas, when Congress was preoccupied with departure for the holidays. The bill was so obscurely worded that no one really understood its provisions. Its backers knew it would not pass without Bryan’s support, so in a spirit of apparent compromise, they made a show of acquiescing to his demands. Bryan said happily, “The right of the government to issue money is not surrendered to the banks; the control over the money so issued is not relinquished by the government . . . .”

That was what he thought; but while the national money supply would be printed by the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, it would be issued as an obligation or debt of the government to a private central bank. The Federal Reserve is wholly owned by a consortium of private banks; it is controlled by bankers; and it protects their interests. It issues Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) for the cost of printing them (or, more often, for the cost of entering numbers on a computer screen). This privately-issued money is then lent to the government, and it is owed back to the private Federal Reserve with interest. The interest is eventually refunded to the government, but only after the Fed deducts its operating expenses and a 6 percent guaranteed return for its bank shareholders.

Congress and the President have some input in appointing the Federal Reserve Board, but the Board works behind closed doors with the regional bankers, without Congressional oversight or control. Bank CEOs actually sit on the boards of the Fed’s twelve branches. As just one recent example of the private control of public monies, in March of this year the New York Federal Reserve agreed in private weekend negotiations to advance $55 billion of the people’s money so that JPMorgan Chase could buy Bear Stearns at the bargain basement price of $2 a share, down from a high of $156 a share. It was a hostile takeover, not approved by the Bear Stearns shareholders or the American voters. JPMorgan Chase is the bank founded by John Pierpont Morgan, who sponsored the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Jamie Dimon, the current CEO of JPMorgan Chase, sits on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which dominates the twelve Federal Reserve Banks; and he has huge stock holdings in JPMorgan Chase. His participation in the decision to give his bank $55 billion in Federal Reserve loans is the sort of conflict of interest that federal statute makes a criminal offense; but there is no one to prosecute the statute, because the banking lobby is too powerful to be denied. The banking lobby is powerful because private bankers, not the government, create our money and control who gets it. (See Ellen Brown, “The Secret Bailout of JPMorgan,” May 13, 2008, www.webofdebt.com/articles; and “What’s the Difference Between Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns?”, June 14, 2008, ibid.)

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a major coup for the international bankers. They had battled for more than a century to establish a private central bank in the United States with the exclusive right to “monetize” the government’s debt; that is, to print their own money and exchange it for government securities or I.O.U.s. The Federal Reserve Act authorized a private central bank to create money out of nothing, lend it to the government at interest, and control the national money supply, expanding or contracting it at will. Representative Charles Lindbergh Sr. called the Act “the worst legislative crime of the ages.” He warned prophetically:
“[The Federal Reserve Board] can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by greater rate variation, and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down.

“This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed. . . . The financial system has been turned over to . . . a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people’s money.

In 1934, in the throes of the Great Depression, Representative Louis McFadden would go further, stating on the Congressional record:
“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man’s throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
“These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.”
As for Fannie Mae – the Federal National Mortgage Association – it actually began under Roosevelt’s New Deal as a government agency. But like the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae is now “federal” only in name. In 1968, it was re-chartered by Congress as a shareholder-owned company, funded solely with private capital. If it were a bank, today it would be the third largest bank in the world; and it makes enormous amounts of money in the real estate market for its private owners. In 1970, Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation) was created to provide competition and end Fannie Mae’s monopoly in the secondary mortgage market. But Freddie Mac too is a wholly shareholder-owned, publicly-traded corporation.
Under a 1992 law, if either of these two mortgage giants is seen to be severely undercapitalized, it may be placed into government conservatorship. But the plan now being pursued is to bail out these private corporations by increasing their capital base with taxpayer money and their profit margins with greater access to Federal Reserve loans. The result will be to privatize profits to their management and shareholders while socializing risk to the taxpayers. We the people will foot the bill. If the people are going to bear the risk, we should reap the benefits. Either these two mega-corporations should take their licks in the market like any other private corporation, or they should be nationalized, delivering not just their debts but their assets to the taxpayers. Not just Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but the Federal Reserve itself should be made truly federal entities, as the voters have been led to believe and their names imply. Remove the myth that these Wall Street-controlled entities act by and for the people rather than being run for private gain, and we will soon see the outrage Mr. Grant says is curiously missing.
Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are webofdebt.com and ellenbrown.com.

Home

eigentlich alles bekannt ....aber so wie jetzt wieder alles abläuft scheinen alle den Kopf in den Sand zu stecken - irgedwann erstickt man eben
__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 28.07.2008, 15:35   #420
lunar
veränderlich
 
Benutzerbild von lunar
 
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Beiträge: 39.047
Standard

...sollen sich nur gegenseitig

Former hedge fund head files against Citigroup: report

Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:52pm EDT

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A former manager of a Citigroup Inc (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) hedge fund has filed a complaint with a British tribunal accusing the bank of causing his fund's demise, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday, citing people familiar with the matter.

In a sealed complaint filed last month with a state-run employment tribunal, John Pickett, who ran a hedge fund known as CSO Partners that specialized in corporate debt, accuses the bank of pressuring CSO to buy billions of dollars in troubled loans, the newspaper reported.

Pickett said the loans undermined CSO and led to his resignation. Citigroup called the complaint "without merit," the Journal said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bond...625656620080726
__________________
***************http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ***************
lunar ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser lunar die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Antwort Gehe zum letzten Beitrag


Themen-Optionen

Gehe zu



Aktuelle Uhrzeit 17:36
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © stock-channel.net