Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mind Blowing- JP Morgan has total derivative exposure of $90 TRILLON!! And 35%+ is BBB grade or less

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 10:58 PM
Original message
Mind Blowing- JP Morgan has total derivative exposure of $90 TRILLON!! And 35%+ is BBB grade or less
http://maxkeiser.com/2011/06/29/total-net-derivative-exposure-jpm/

Total net derivative exposure rated below BBB on JP Morgans $90,000,000,000,000 ($90 trillion) books currently stands at 35.4% MUCH WORSE than Bear Stearns and Lehmans derivative portfolio just prior to their CRASH. JPMs IMPLOSION will be 1000 Xs bigger than Enron!




What about JPMs garden variety claim exposure to various lawsuits?

Whalen $200 Billion in Claims Against JP Morgan & Banks http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2011/6/29_Whalen_-_%24200_Billion_in_Claims_Against_JP_Morgan_%26_Banks.html

Whats JPMs current market capitalization? About $160 billion




An Independent Look into JP Morgan

http://boombustblog.com/BoomBustBlog/An-Independent-Look-into-JP-Morgan.html

The JP Morgan forensic preview is now available. Remember, this is not subscription material, but a "public preview" of the material to come. I thought non-subscribers would be interested in knowing what my opinion of the country's most respected bank was. There is some interesting stuff here, and the subscription analysis will have even more (in terms of data, analysis and valuation). As we have all been aware, the markets have been totally ignoring valuation for about two quarters now. It remains to be seen how long that continues.


Cute graphic above, eh? There is plenty of this in the public preview. When considering the staggering level of derivatives employed by JPM, it is frightening to even consider the fact that the quality of JPM's derivative exposure is even worse than Bear Stearns and Lehmans derivative portfolio just prior to their fall. Total net derivative exposure rated below BBB and below for JP Morgan currently stands at 35.4% while the same stood at 17.0% for Bear Stearns (February 2008) and 9.2% for Lehman (May 2008).

We all know what happened to Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, don't we??? I warned all about Bear Stearns (Is this the Breaking of the Bear?: http://boombustblog.com/index.php/20080127142/Is-this-the-Breaking-of-the-Bear.html On Sunday, 27 January 2008) and Lehman ("Is Lehman really a lemming in disguise?": http://boombustblog.com/index.php/20080221162/Is-Lehman-really-a-lemming-in-disguise.html On February 20th, 2008) months before their collapse by taking a close, unbiased look at their balance sheet. Both of these companies were rated investment grade at the time, just like "you know who". Now, I am not saying JPM is about to collapse, since it is one of the anointed ones chosen by the government and guaranteed not to fail - unlike Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and it is (after all) investment grade rated. Who would you put your faith in, the big ratings agencies or your favorite blogger? Then again, if it acts like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is it a chicken??? I'll leave the rest up for my readers to decide.

snip

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




my take



As of May 18th, 2011 (the last BIS update available, which covers the period up to January 1st, 2011), the total notional value of all global OTC or over-the-counter (meaning non-exchange traded instruments where there is huge 'counter-party' risk) derivatives is now $601 trillion dollars US.

http://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1105.pdf

The actual total is probably closer to $1 quadrillion, as at the end of 2008, both the BIS and the IMF simply changed to a 'value to maturity' model, which is a 'mark to model' method, not the truthful 'mark to market' model for valuing notional derivative contract value. At the time of this change, the total was $1.1 quadrillion for OTC derivative types.

This is the same trick that the private banks and firms have used for the last 15 years to hide massive losses and claim false profits to trigger executive bonuses (it used to be illegal, until the laws were changed under the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations).


If even 25% of these contracts go bad, you are talking about $250 or so trillion needed to be covered. ( this is if the total is $1 quadrillion) The global GDP is only 55 to 60 trillion a year. The definition of economic depression is a 5% drop in GDP over 2 consecutive years.



So, adding in the rest of all public debt you come up with this scenario (and this again is based on the $1 quadrillion derivative total):


The USA is actually around $ 350 trillion in debt (14+ trillion in official debt, 111 trillion in unfunded mandates (projected out to 2050 under current schema), plus 75 trillion in OLD derivative debt (the New York Fed alone had over 50 TRILLION in bad debt parked off balance in 2007 (pre crisis) and has added at least 23 to 24 trillion more since then), plus 150 trillion in NEW derivative losses that the Fed will attempt to monetize over the coming decade or two)

The EU and rest of world will have new derivative losses of 100 trillion, on top of old losses of 50 trillion, plus they have around $300 trillion in unfunded mandates, plus another 50 trillion in collective sovereign debt for a total of 500 TRILLION in total public debt for rest of world.

This means that the total debt of the world's nations, when you factor in official government debt, unfunded mandates ( ie. the social security, medicaid, medicare of the USA and then the EU's and all other country's safety nets and pension funds), plus the global derivative losses (given the historical 25 percent loss rates for derivatives) that will be tossed from the banks unto us all via the Central banks of the world is around, to my best dead reckoning........

$ 850 TRILLION dollars total global PUBLIC debt owed by nations to the private central banking cartel.

To pay this off, at a Central Bank bank global interest rate of just 3 percent, would take 100 years of payments at 27 trillion a YEAR, or 50% of the entire WEALTH of the world's complete output for the next 100 years.

The USA alone has around $10 trillion each year in wages and profits paid out to all its 310 million citizens, but its share of the global debt of 850 trillion (around 41 percent or 350 trillion) means that is yearly payment for the next 100 years would be $11 trillion a year, so tell me how even a 100 percent tax rate will cover the payment.

Bear in mind, taking just 5% (or ten time LESS than the 50 percent required to pay off this REAL debt over the next 100 years) of global GDP causes a global DEPRESSION, and taking just 20 percent (or 2.5 times LESS than is needed) causes global financial systemic collapse.

This also assumes all sovereign debt borrowing STOPS now, which, of course, it will not, in fact it is increasing at an exponential rate.

This also DOES NOT take into account the PRIVATE debts owed by the global population for mortgages, student loans, cars, credit cards, etc etc, nor does it take into account state, city, provincial public debts at sub-national levels.

This is well over over $100 trillion dollars, so in total, given a 25% failure rate for OTC derivatives, you are looking at $1 quadrillion globally in combined public/private debt.

BOTTOM LINE


1 these derivative losses have and will continue
2 the sovereign nations have and will dump these losses onto their citizens through the central private run banks
3 the nations have and will keep spending and borrowing more, further racking up debt to these very same private run central banks
4 the world's nations have over $400 trillion dollars U.S. in unfunded mandates that they have promised the 6.8 billion people on the planet in terms of all social safety nets and pension funds
5 the world cannot, I repeat, cannot GROW its way out of the following total debts, and they will have to literally enslave the entire planet into working as a slave, (ie, for no wages, 100 percent global tax rate), just to come close to keeping the current global cumulative debt payments going over the next 200 years

The system will either collapse in its entirety, and all debts, especially all debts owed to private central banks by nations (as well as all, and I mean all,derivative debt) will be forgiven, or else we all will literally have to be enslaved and all our wages confiscated at gunpoint simply in order to keep the debt service scheme payments flowing.

It is mathematically impossible for there to be any other choice, the numbers speak for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Who would un-rec this?
Seems like there must be some JPM bootlickers lurking around
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
40. I believe this outcome was discussed as a Worst-Case Scenario back when
the mortgage industry imploded. I distinctly recall reading, on here, at Kos, and elsewhere, that the MBS scheme was only the tip of the iceberg, and that the situation involving derivatives was oh so much worse, on the order of trillions.

90 trillion dollars? I didn't expect it to be that high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
111. There are a few people here who have 1000+ posts who accuse people of just wanting
to stick it to Wall Street and the banks.

That's where the unrec probably came from
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AverageJoe90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's all good, but there's one problem........
There are no truly 'private' central banks, contrary to what some of the John Birch types may wish to claim.
Although if, IF, the U.S. really does have $350 trillion in debt......it'd take about 2 whole generations{40-50 years} to pay it all off. But I have a feeling most of these debts are completely fake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. the US Federal Reserve is owned by private institutions via non-transferable subscription stock in
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 12:16 AM by stockholmer
the 12 regional banks. If you cannot acknowledge this, then you are just willfully blind. BIRCHERS?!! PLEASE spare me, I am a socialist from Sweden.

Simple question, if the Fed is part of the USA government, why is there absolutely no audit allowed of it? Name me one part of the US government that doesnt have to submit to Congress how and where they spend the money. The Fed doesn't at all, in fact it fights Congress every step of the way to avoid this. (see the Supreme Court ruling just below).

As for the debts being 'fake' why dont you asked the good people of Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, etc, and most of the 3rd world.

Bailout May Cost $23.7 Trillion: Barofsky
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aY0tX8UysIaM

Watchdog sees huge U.S. bill for banks bailout
Financial bailout's cost to U.S. could total almost $24 trillion
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32010841/ns/business-us_business

QE in Round TRILLIONS
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100007647/qe2-in-round-trillions/

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

In addition, that lawsuit against the Fed showed that trillions went directly to Non-US PRIVATE banks and corporations (including Gaddafi, lolol)

Fed to release bank loan data after Supreme Court rejects appeal
Key Excerpts from Article on Website of Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg News

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/21/business/la-fi-fed-banks-20110321

http://www.examiner.com/us-intelligence-in-national/released-bank-records-bankers-wives-qaddafi-get-millions-risk-free-loans




The Excel(.xls) documents can be downloaded and and viewed(through Zoho) below:

Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities Program
Recipients of money: UBS, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas, Barclays Capital, Nomura Securities, and more.
View: http://sheet.zoho.com/view.do?url=http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/files/mbs.xls
Download: http://www.unelected.org/fed_docs/mbs.xls



Commercial Paper Funding
Recipients of money: General Electric(GE), Harley-Davidson, McDonalds, American Express, Republic of Korea (South Korea), Metlife, Verizon, Prudential Financial, PNC Bank, Toyota, and more.
View: http://sheet.zoho.com/view.do?url=http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/files/cpff.cp.xls
Download: http://www.unelected.org/fed_docs/cpff.cp.xls

Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan
Recipients of money: Retirement Funds(e.g. California Public Employees Retirement System), Pension Plans(e.g. City of Stamford(CT) Firemens Pension Fund), Life Insurance Companies(e.g. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company), and many many more.
View: http://sheet.zoho.com/view.do?url=http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/files/talf.xls
Download: http://www.unelected.org/fed_docs/talf.xls


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



Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/680/1239/200393/



Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.
No. 80-5905
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1982.
Decided April 19, 1982.
As Amended June 24, 1982.

Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Affirmed.

1. United States

There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but critical factor is existence of federal government control over "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of an entity. . . .

2. United States

Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .

3. United States

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when a tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Bank, which performs important activities for the government. . . .

4. Taxation

The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation.

5. States Taxation

Tests for determining whether an entity is federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, is very broad: whether entity performs important governmental function.


--------------
Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.

James R. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before Poole and Boochever, Circuit Judges, and Soloman, District Judge. (The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation)

Poole, Circuit Judge:

On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Clains Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. . . . Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. . . . "Federal agency" is defined as:


the executive departments, the military departments, independent
establishments of the United States, and corporations acting
primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not
include any contractors with the United States.

28 U.S.C. Sect. 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under Sect. 2671.

<1,2> There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361.

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:


It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over
the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when
necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on
through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which
require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which
determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other
words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the
exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to
individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of
routine.

H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

<3> The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a "public official" under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting "for or on behalf of the Government." . . . The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is "substantial federal involvement" in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.

<4, 5> The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. . . . The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . . The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.

Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. . . . State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. . . . Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . .

Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. Sect. 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be "liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purpose of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.

AFFIRMED.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. We've been through this bullshit before....
the regional Federal Reserve Banks are controlled by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The member banks have ZERO control over the operation of the regional Federal Reserve banks.

Beyond that, the Federal Reserve is audited by multiple entities, including the GAO and outside accounting firms. This is getting really tiresome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. tiresome?, hmmm, that would be your inabilty to accept that your are wrong on all counts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Bullshit, dude...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. its not right nor left wing, its the truth, and your 'debunking' techniques are so 1998, but, you
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 01:54 AM by stockholmer
will just have to find for yourself. Get off the bankster apologist/collaborator kool-aid, for starters. Those sites you reference have material written by intelligentsia herd-controllers. I cite case law, you pound the table.

Get over it, the world is run by a private cartel of psychotic bankers and their minions. They are the enemy, not people like me and others who despise the genocidal practices they design and fund and enforce.

You were probably one who belittled anyone who stated that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false-flag op designed to ensnare the US further in Viet Nam as a 'conspiracy theorist'.




Hard ears dun hear, hard ears gwaan FEEL.

Dude
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. "intelligentsia herd-controllers"
Dude, all you've got is a bunch of conspiracy theory nonsense. I'll take the Congressional Research Service, Political Research Associates and others over your nonsense anyday.

Your strawman arguments aren't very convincing, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. from your own source it says private
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 02:46 AM by stockholmer
http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRS-myth.htm#hd3

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE?

The public/private nature of the institution has given rise to the claim that the Fed is a "private corporation." This claim is not correct. Part of the system consists of private corporations. Part is a federal agency.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a government agency. Its employees are employees of the federal government, paid in accordance with federal government pay scales, and part of the federal employee retirement system. The premises are federal government property. The seven Board members are appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate in the same fashion as other government appointees.

Under the supervision of the Board of Governors are 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks. These are private institutions with certain privileges granted to them, restricted to conducting business specified by the Federal Reserve Act. As private institutions, they are "owned" by their "stockholders," they make their own pay and hiring policies, and pay local property taxes.

For some purposes, however, they are treated as instrumentalities of the federal government. They examine, regulate, and supervise some operations of their member banks: a public sector function. Hence, they are exempt from state and local income taxes. They are also treated as government agencies with respect to certain statutes. But for most other purposes, the 12 regional banks are legally regarded as private.

The system as a whole is subject to congressional oversight. As required by law, twice a year the Chairman of the Board of Governors must consult with the House and Senate Banking Committees concerning the conduct of monetary policy. Other Federal Reserve actions and policies are also subject to the scrutiny of the Congress.


CONTROL OF THE FED
Each regional Federal Reserve Bank has nine directors. Six of these directors are selected by the member banks that own it ("class A" and "class B" directors). The other three ("class C") are appointed by the Board of Governors. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of each regional Federal Reserve Bank are appointed by the Board of Governors from among the class C directors. The directors oversee operations of their Bank, select the President and first Vice President of their Bank (and determine their salaries) all subject to overall supervision and approval by the Board of Governors.
it is common to hear assertions that control of the Fed is in the hands of an elite. In particular, it has been rumored that control is in the hands of a very few people holding "class A stock" in the Fed.

As explained, there is no stock in the system, only in each regional Bank. More important, individuals do not own stock in Federal Reserve Banks. The stock is held only by banks who are members of the system. Each bank holds stock proportionate to its capital. Ownership and membership are synonymous. Moreover, there is no such thing as "class A" stock. All stock is the same.

This stock, furthermore, does not carry with it the normal rights and privileges of ownership. Most significantly, member banks, in voting for the directors of the Federal Reserve Banks of which they are a member, do not get voting rights in proportion to the stock they hold. Instead, each member bank regardless of size gets one vote. Concentration of ownership of Federal Reserve Bank stock, therefore, is irrelevant to the issue of control of the system.


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

the author builds up quintessential strawmen as well

I don't care that the board of governors is a federal agency, those members of that are always picked from the banksters pre-approved list. As for 'Congressional oversight', what a joke. A case had to taken to the US Supreme Court just to get a part of TARP and other bailouts to be released. The reports of the Fed to Congress are also oblique and , as I stated above, they has never been a FULL audit of the Fed, in its 98 year history. They are as transparent as a puddle of mud.

another strawman:
----------------------------------
"Ownership and membership are synonymous. Moreover, there is no such thing as "class A" stock. All stock is the same.

This stock, furthermore, does not carry with it the normal rights and privileges of ownership. Most significantly, member banks, in voting for the directors of the Federal Reserve Banks of which they are a member, do not get voting rights in proportion to the stock they hold. Instead, each member bank regardless of size gets one vote. Concentration of ownership of Federal Reserve Bank stock, therefore, is irrelevant to the issue of control of the system."

--------

I never brought up so-called class A stock, nor concentration of ownership, and just because because it is one bank, one vote, in no way means that the collective owners do not have a huge sway over the choice of directors. Also, the author picks up one of the most ludicrous of the claims by Fed opponents (one that any serious one never thought was true) just so that he can easily knock it down. This is pure sophistry, as it doesn't diminish nor does it disprove the serious issues that are actually being addressed.

If all is so angelic and harmless and puffy clouds, why no audit, why not list ALL the owners of the regional banks (and also the myriad layers of foundations and shell holding schemes of these regional banks)?

--------------------------------------------------------
Finally, as your USA constitution says in Article 1, Section 8

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

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


Last time I checked, the Fed (in its own words) is an INDEPENDENT organ, is not a member of Congress, it DOES set the value of US monetary system, AND the US Dollar says Federal Reserve Note, not US Treasury Note.

The last president to challenge the Fed directly and print US Treasury Notes for dollars was John F Kennedy (also the last good president the US had), and he took a slug to the head for his comeuppance.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. 'quote mining', is that what you call reposting the very article you tried to bang me with? ROFLMAO
till we meet again, good bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. No...
It's when you take the parts that seem to support your claim and ignore the ones that contradicts it, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #25
44. Projecting much?
Aren't you technically doing the same since that article did not back up your claim in its entirety.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. Dude...
something that is both public and private cannot be labeled "private" and just ignore the public part. My point is that the Federal Reserve is a federal agency. That hardly makes it a private bank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. I simply said you were equally selective from the links you posted
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 02:02 PM by liberation
E.g. you claimed the private banks had no influence in the Fed, which they do since they are part of the board as per the links you provide.


Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Dude...
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 02:07 PM by SDuderstadt
pay attention. Outside of tending to day-to-day matters, the regional federal reserve bank boards of directors are limited to implementing the policies handed down by the Board of Governors. That's it.

The power is exercised at the top. By the Board of Governors of a FEDERAL AGENCY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #51
124. Well, "dude" once more thanks for proving my point
Actually there is more to it, the executive part of the Fed is the Federal Open Market Committee, which is made of the presidential appointed governors AND private bank representatives.

You should actually read the links you posted, or you can continue to prove my point about your projection of selectivity.

Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #124
126. Which is heavily weighted to...
the Board of Governors.

Yes, I've read what I provided. I also understand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #126
128. .... which is not what you were claiming just a post ago.
Thus indeed there was more to "it" wasn't there?

And once again I must thank you for proving my point


Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. Really?
How so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. Dude
just because I thanked you for proving my point, it doesn't mean I am willing to grab that shovel and keep digging that hole for you. That's just lazy!

LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #130
134. Dude...
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 07:37 PM by SDuderstadt
There are 12 regional federal reserve banks. The FOMC is comprised of 12 members, of which the Board of Governors comprises 7 seats, or roughly 60% of the votes. The other seats go to the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on a permanent basis with the remaining seats rotating for 1 year terms. That means at given time, 7 of the regional federal reserve banks have zero representation whatsoever. It's clear who runs the Federal Reserve and it ain't the regional banks, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banned from Kos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. you are correct, of course, why would a private entity pay the Treasury
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/01/federal-reserve-2010-record-profit-financial-crisis-intervention.html

its entire profit each year?

($78 billion in 2010)

Fed conspiracy theories are worth a dime a dozen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Exactly n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. Whoa..
did you even bother to read the article you linked to?

The profit, which is paid to the U.S. Treasury, is a 65% increase over last year's payment of $47.4 billion, which was also a record. As the Fed's balance sheet has more than doubled to about $2.4 trillion since the 2008 financial crisis, it has pumped about $125 billion back into the government's coffers.

"This is, at this point, is a profitable program from the perspective of the federal deficit," Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told the Senate Budget Committee on Friday referring to the central bank's wide-scale purchase of mortgage-backed securities and other assets, alluding to the final numbers formally released Monday.

But the Fed still could lose money on the huge amount of assets on its balance sheet when it starts selling them off in the coming years. Those assets include mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and assets purchased as part of the 2008 rescue of insurance giant American International Group and the Fed-engineered sale of Bear Stearns to JP Morgan Chase.



Logic. Give it a try once in a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banned from Kos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. If the Fed were to "lose" money on a future asset sale
they do not ding the Treasury. It is simply absorbed in the money supply.

On QE2 and Treasury Bill/Bond purchases - if they lose there we are all in a world of shit. It means we/GOP have defaulted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. You really can't figure this one out on your own?
Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. No...
you can't.

Please explain your claim to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. Maybe Alan Grayson can help you out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. Maybe you could address my question...
rather than relying on others.

How is a federal agency a "private bank"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. What does the Fed's balance sheet...
have to do with them rebating all their "profit" to us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. Dude..
Did you ever wonder why we allow a group of private banks to create trillions of dollars sovereign US currency http://www.correntewire.com/fed_money_spreadsheet">out of thin air and use it to buy up their own worthless dogshit securities? Guess it's like, no biggie, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. They aren't....
"private banks" and you are totally glossing over the fact that the Federal Reserve is required, by federal law, to rebate all of its earnings to the U.S. Treasury. Taking a macroeconomics class might help you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. This reply makes no sense, dude.
I didn't "gloss over" anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. Yeah...
you did.

How is the Federal Reserve a "private bank"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #72
133. Another nonsensical reply, dude.
The Fed unquestionably serves the interests of private banks, much like those glorious 'public'/private partnerships Fannie and Freddie.

Maybe learn how to read a balance sheet, not just a profit statement before you scold others on matters financial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #133
136. GGM...
The Federal Reserve regulates the member banks, as well as charges them significant fees. I think you've got the org chart upside down.

I also analyze balance sheets and income statements on a regular basis. What is it on the balance sheet that you believe supports your earlier claim? Do you understand the difference between the income statement and the balance sheet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #136
156. i don't think you and GGM are friends anymore. why, if you weren't friends,
do you think you could bear it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #156
157. Why, dionysus!
What an UGLY thing to say. I abhor ugliness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #157
158. why SDuderstadt, you're not wearing a bustle... how lewd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #158
159. Oh, dionysus!
I'm sorry! I forgot you were there.

You may go now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
77. That is the best he can do in saying he was wrong.
Nice job in destroying his feeble arguments!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. I have no doubt that you don't understand...
how the Federal Reserve works, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #78
83. Of course you have no doubt, your mind was made up long before
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 05:11 PM by Rex
posting. I think it is so funny how ALL of the people that reply to you crush your ridiculous knee jerking posts with nothing more then simple truth. :rofl:

You are one of the worst posters I've ever seen on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #83
88. Dude...
You can line up all the posters you want and that doesn't trump the Congressional Research Service:

http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRS-myth.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banned from Kos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #83
137. No one here has presented a single verifiable fact to refute
the Dude guy. Not one.

The Fed was one of the crowning achievements of the Wilson Progressive Era. The Democratic populists of the era fought for it as did the progressive Greenback Party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #83
275. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #24
113. Lol, good work, btw. From my understanding of the Fed Reserve
your assessment is closer to the facts. There have been efforts to bring them more under the control of Congress, but not very successfully. They have always claimed that private banks should not be under government control and apparently those claims have kept Congress in the dark about much of what is done at the 'Federal' reserve.

I used to think that the claims of banks running this country were conspiracy theories, but the more we get to look behind the 'curtain' the more it appears to be true. Could any other entity have sent an agent, King Henry Paulson, to Congress with an edict that the American people had to hand him a check for three quarters of a trillion dollars, no questions asked, and NO OVERSIGHT from Congress, and scare Congress into giving it to him?

THAT was an amazing thing to watch and I think, woke up a large majority of the American people to the fact that something other than democracy is going on in this country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #113
117. "they have always claimed that private banks should not be under government control"
That would be news to the FDIC, Sabrina. And, do you really want to claim there is no congressional oversight of TARP?

As far as Congress "being in the dark" about the Fed, you do know that it was set up as an independent federal agency to insulate it from political pressure on PURPOSE, right. Do you really want the GOP-controlled House to interfere with the Fed?

I believe activism is great, Sabrina. Uninformed activism, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. why SDuderstadt, where you going with those bildegbergers and silver bullion? is that an illuminati
badge i see?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. Why, dionysus!
Are we cross?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. i ain't afraid of you SDuderstadt. because without that trilateral commission, you're nothing but a
skinny, lunger...


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Why, dionysus!
You look like someone just walked over your grave...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. i didn't make a dent, did i?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. In vino...
veritas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #43
59. you tell the trilateral commission i'm comin! you tell em the law's comin! and hell's comin with me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. You're a daisy...
if you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #60
155. barber.. proceed suh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
91. "Quote mining" -- your schtick is to expect people not to read the material you reference.
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 05:40 PM by JackRiddler
This "quote mining" is from one of your links.

stockholmer's "conspiracy writing" is case law!

Your arguments are Potemkin links -- label it as though it says what you want and assume no one will click.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. Dude...
It's quote mining when someone sees both the words "public" and "private", then ignores "public".

More importantly, the "case law" is, in fact, an employment law case and has no bearing outside that case. The Federal Reserve was established as an independent federal agency and it remains one today. Citing an employment law case as contravening that is pure folly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. I am not your "dude" and your projection is hilarious.
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 05:54 PM by JackRiddler
It's quote mining when someone sees both the words "public" and "private", then ignores "public".

i.e., What you did in pretending the privately-owned Federal Reserve banks are entirely under public control, when they can't even be audited. Of course, they're not quite "private" either: they constitute an autonomous, private branch of government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #96
98. You can play word games all day...
if you want, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #98
101. As you wish, Studly McFugly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. Sore loser...
dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #104
112. Studly McFugly...
Studly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #112
118. Quit "harrassing" me!!
Aaiiee!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #96
259. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #259
269. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #96
260. Show me where I left out...
"private", dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. You do know it was Goldman Sachs
who blackmailed the US Gov for TARP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
52.  I would laugh at your naive post but there just isn't enough space. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Apparently, there's also not enough space for you to...
show where a single thing I said was not true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #54
79. Look stupid?
You give far too much credit to someone that has no grasp on anything discussed here on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. Dude...
You're laboring under the false impression that if enough people are wrong about something, that makes them right.

The Federal Reserve has both public and private components. That doesn't make them wholly private anymore than it makes them wholly public. I don't expect people who know little about the Federal Reserve.to understand its design or structure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
93. nice, stockholmer, devastating review
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. Dude...
Stockholmer claims the Federal Reserve is not audited. That's news to the GAO, who audits it under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act.

http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRS-myth.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #97
100. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #97
141. Yes GAO can audit. But did they?
@SDuderstadt: your link states that some entities (GAO and others) have been empowered by law to audit the FED since its inception.

However, I don't see any individual audit mentioned there. Could you point me to a document that lists the actual FED audits that have happened, as well as the respective reports? I'd like to known when was the FED audited, what exactly was audited, what were the conclusions, and what was done to fix problems.

BTW, I've rarely, if ever, saw anyone around here defending an individual or organization as passionately as you defend the FED. I'm fixin' to congratulate you, if you're so kind as to provide satisfactory answers to a few questions, starting with the one above.

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #141
142. Here are some resources...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #142
145. I don't see the GAO audits
Neither do I seem to remember ever reading about one in the press. Something like "Earlier this month, GAO concluded their 25th audit of FED. The report concluded that..."

BTW, I am worried about this paragraph in the page that you linked: "Operations at each Federal Reserve Bank also are subject to review by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the audit arm of the U.S. Congress. However, GAO auditors are restricted by law from reviewing monetary policy operations and transactions carried out by the Federal Reserve on behalf of foreign central banks. This restriction was imposed by Congress to assure the independence of the Federal Reserve from political influence."

I have two questions about that passage:

1. Can you name one federal agency that the US Congress is restricted by law from auditing, at least in part?

2. Why is the US Congress prohibited from *knowing* some things done by the FED? I might be able to somehow accept the idea that the US Congress is prohibited from *doing* things, as in mandating the FED to take a particular course of action. But *knowing* is different from *doing*. Can you help me here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #145
146. The idea about some things about the Fed...
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 10:18 PM by SDuderstadt
being off-limits is to preserve the independence of the Fed and insulate it from political pressure.

As far as the GAO audits, there were 253 returns for that search term. I rather doubt you clicked on each one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #146
147. Just point me to one GAO audit
You haven't answered my first question (name one federal agency), and you only half-answered my second.

Next question: US Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich, if I remember correctly, have stated in US Congress sessions that "Federal Reserve is as federal as Federal Express". What is your interpretation of that statement?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #147
148. My interpretation of their statement is...
neither one knows what the fuck they're talking about.

As far as your demand for a GAO audit, are you asking because you want ro be educated or are you asking because you deny they exist and want to be rebutted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #148
149. I've never heard about a GAO audit
Also, Ron Paul said that FED has never been audited by the Congress. He's the current chairman of the United States House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, btw.

That's why I am curious to see one actual audit.

Either the Congress is totally nuts to nominate a guy that has no idea what he's talking about to chair the thing that he has no idea about, or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #149
150. First of all...
Ron Paul is a fucking moron. Secondly, like most Right libertarians, he is anti-Fed, so I would take anything he says with a grain of salt. He hates the idea of an independent Fed and would love to bring it under the control of Congress, which would be a very bad idea.

As far as finding actual GAO audits, I already told you how to find them. If I can, you can.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #150
160. Let me answer my own questions
'Cause you ain't going to.

It would appear that there were actual GAO audits to the FED (although I haven't seen one yet), but they were severely limited, by law, to aspects that are not central to FED's mission.

The Government Accounting Office does not have complete access to all aspects of the Federal Reserve System. The law excludes the following areas from GAO inspections (31 USCA 714):

(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;

(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, open market operations;

(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or

(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items.

I have yet to see an(other) federal agency that is as audit-proof as the FED. One that seems close is the CIA:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/02/panetta-once-ba.html

Regarding the question whether the FED is a federal agency, the best description that I found is this: The Federal Reserve System serves as the Central Bank of the United States, and is comprised of the Federal Reserve Board a federal agency located in Washington, D.C and 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks, however, consider themselves private corporations with private funding. They possess some powers distinct from those of the Board, and they do not publish any FOIA regulations."

That comes from a legal opinion letter related to Bloomberg's lawsuit caused by the FED's inadequate response to FOIA requests regarding information on the "discount window lending program". That program was regulated by the Board, which is a federal agency, thus it should have responded to the FOIA request. However, the Board replied that the requested documents were at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) which is not a federal agency, and thus it can ignore FOIA requests. It sounds like a benevolent and cooperative agency to me...

One point here is that we should clearly distinguish the Banks (which are private) from the Board (which is an agency). Why does it matter? Because the Board itself doesn't make much profit, indeed. Almost all earnings return to the Treasury. But it's the perfect vehicle for the Banks to make huge profits by lending the government and collecting interest.

In addition, by Bernanke's own admission in november 2002 (look it up!), the FED caused the Great Depression by reducing the money supply. Many say that the FED was also instrumental in the Great Recession in which we are today. Both by allowing it to happen and by applying the wrong solution afterward.

I'm wondering how many depressions, recessions, bailouts and other crap we need until we decide that the FED doesn't do a good job and we need to kill it or at least remake it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #160
161. Dude...
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 02:22 AM by SDuderstadt
Are you claiming the regional Reserve Banks make huge profit? That is not remotely true and I challenge you to show me any evidence otherwise. By law, the member banks receive a 6% return on their subscription stock, but that's only fair because that represents capital they would have otherwise invested. In addition, it offsets fees that they pay to the Federal Reserve. Note that. The reality is that the member banks pay far more into the system than they receive from it. More importantly, the regional Federal Reserve Banks are part of the Federal Reserve system and, as such, their earnings are all pooled together and minus operating costs, are rebated back to the U.S. Treasury, which anyone can see by looking at the Federal Reserve financial statements.

As far as your claims about the Fed's impact upon recessions/depressions, maybe you should look at the frequent bank runs and other panics prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve. I don't know if you are a Ron Paul devotee, but you are badly misinforming people here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #161
162. How the FED helps private banks make profit off the US Gov
Just one example.
Which is one more than you gave me when I asked for one GAO audit.
http://rt.com/usa/news/federal-reserve-wall-street-government-profits/
Tip of the iceberg. Much more stuff available.

For historical pointers, try Congressman Louis T McFadden's speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, on June 10, 1932. He was the Chairman of the United States House Committee on Financial Services. Another crazy chairman!

The plot thickens: three US Congressmen, one US judge...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #162
163. Dude...
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 02:52 AM by SDuderstadt
Your "source" is Russia Today? Seriously?

Above and beyond that, I already told you where to find the GAO audits.

As far as your admiration for McFadden, let me lay this to rest right now. You'll note the source is Political Research Associates, which is well-known for researching RW propaganda. As I asked you before, are you a follower of Ron Paul?

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty10.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #163
164. The second they attack the source, you know they've lost :)
Don't waste my time. Can you click on links?
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=c6149c44-b22d-401d-9e00-ad079cb4317d

How about this one:

The federal government, in ways explicit and implicit, profoundly subsidizes and shelters the banking industry. True since the 1930s, it is much more so today.

When the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to help buoy the economy during a slowdown, banks are the first beneficiaries. As the Fed lowers short-term rates, banks borrow cheaply and lend out for a lot more, making any new lending highly profitable (assuming the banks make good loans). This is classic monetary policy, and supported nearly universally. But lets not pretend that it isnt a boon to banks.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/in-u-s-monetary-policy-a-boon-to-banks/


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #164
165. Dude...
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 03:04 AM by SDuderstadt
I am well aware of Sanders'criticism and I have never claimed the Fed does not have room for improvement.

The link below will take you to multiple GAO and OIG audits of the Fed, despite your inability to find even one of them.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/

In the meantime, you keep ducking my question. Are you a follower of Ron Paul?
It's a simple question, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #165
167. FED is the topic, not me
And you failed to answer my questions on that topic.

Asking questions about me is actually off-topic. As is attacking the source.

But if you really want to know, I first read the "Russia Today" material here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/26/fed-lending-helped-wall-street_n_853884.html

Much more detailed. I particularly like the part where the FED needed a lot of pressure to release the documents, then JPMorgan declined to comment, and FED declined to comment too. Brings to memory the event in which both Fox Business and Bloomberg needed to sue the FED for information. Why would anyone want to audit these people, when they are so open and forthcoming...

Have you noticed, we already have three crazy congressmen (two of them House finance committee chairmen), one crazy senator, one crazy judge and two crazy business media outlets?

Good to learn that the GAO audits exist. I stopped caring about their contents when I learned how limited in scope they are allowed to be. See, I actually learn new things here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #167
176. It's a simple question...
dude.

Sabrina has already professed her appreciation to Ron Paul for his attempts to achieve "transparency" (although she completely sidesteos the issue of Paul's attack on the Fed's independence).

Your anti-Fed position is quite clear. Why not go an extra step and weigh in on Ron Paul? Or, should we just go by your use of Ron Paul talking points? Simple question: why didn't Ron Paul tell you about the audits the Fed already undergoes from the GAO, OIG and outside accounting firms? Why did Paul lie and tell everyone that the Fed has "never been audited"?

Hint: because "the Fed has never been audited" is a better soundbite and prejudices people, who don't bother to fact-check, against the Fed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #176
183. You're sliding off-topic again
I'll grant you that the statement that the FED has never been audited by the Congress is not accurate. I'll actually check again to make sure that I did not take it out of context. Remember that I did not present that as a fact. I just said that the Congressman said that, and I asked you to point me to one GAO report, so that I can double-check. Which took you a long time. Maybe GAO are not so proud of these audits, that's why they're hard to find. :)

I've learned now that the audits that the Congress is lawfully allowed to do at the FED are so unusually impotent that I am not sure that they should be called audits. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people have no idea how pathetic those audits are. And if they knew, would they still call them audits? Hard to tell.

So if someone says "FED has never been audited by the Congress", I will disagree. But if he says "FED has never been really audited by the Congress" I will probably agree. What a difference an adverb makes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #183
186. Dude...
Are you claiming that the Fed is only audited by the GAO? How about the OIG? How about the outside accounting firms? If you're so knowledgeable about the Fed, why did you not know about these audits? Don't you like to get the full picture before you condemn the Fed?

As to your squealing about my bringing up Ron Paul and trying to claim he is somehow "off-topic", I will remind you that YOU initially brought him up in post #'s 147 and 147. I'm sure by now that you wish you hadn't.

Too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #165
170. 'Are you or have your ever been a ...'
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 03:47 AM by sabrina 1
Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson is apparently a 'follower of Ron Paul' as you tried to put it, at least on the matter of the lack of transparency at the Federal Reserve.

He joined Paul in an attempt to get a 'widespread audit' of the Fed. Reserver by the GAO! Wow, so if there have been all these audits and all this transparency why would Congress have had to vote on a bill FORCING such a measure, and why did the Fed. Reserve fight that bill so hard??

Can you explain that? Are Alan Grayson and the many Democrats who supported the Paul/Grayson bill also 'Rightwing Conspiracy Theorists'?

Fed Beaten: Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Passes Key Hurdle

In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.

The measure, cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed's opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal.


The Fed Reserve sent in lots of lobbyists trying to stop this from passing. Then they got another bill, meant to be a compromise, presented, but it seems that the more they tried to hide whatever it is they are up to, the more Congress thought that maybe they actually are hiding something. As if anyone ever thought they weren't.

Of course they did not give up after this, but since you seem to think that anyone who wants to know what they are hiding is some kind of Rightwing Lunatic, are you prepared to call Grayson and the rest of the Democrats who voted with him, 'rightwing lunatics' also?

And btw, no one has to 'submit' to your interrogations on this board. Ron Paul may be wrong on some issues, but he has certainly been right on the illegal wars, on torture and on a number of other issues and has been joined often by some of Congress' most Liberal members in an attempt to get answers that the American people have a right to. This demonizing of anyone who doesn't toe the line for Corporate American is getting really old. I and many other people are very glad when both parties work together on their behalf.

Or maybe you just don't want transparency in our government for some reason.



Thank you Ron Paul and Alan Grayson for working for the American people and at least trying to force some transparency in this government which appears to have an awful lot to hide.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #170
171. I'll be glad to answer your questions when...
you answer mine, Sabrina. If you don't know which ones I am talking about, I'll be glad to point them out to you.

In the meantime, is it all about "transparency"? Or, could part of the issue be that Paul (interesting that you stand up for him) and others are at odds with the Fed about the Fed's traditional independence from Congress? There's a reason that the Fed was created as an indepedent federal agency, Sabrina. And, there's a reason why people like Paul object to that independence.

Can you guess what it is?

P.S. Do you agree with Paul's call for a return to the gold standard?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #171
175. Can we try to stay on topic?
Ron Paul is not the topic.
The FED is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #175
177. I beg to differ...
Ron Paul's attack on the Fed is certainly germane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:33 AM
Response to Reply #175
181. Dude...
YOU, yourself, raised Ron Paul's name in post #'s 147 and 149.


Now, you're crying "foul"?

Too funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #171
180. This isn't about Paul, although you are struggling hard to distract
from what it really is about. How do you feel about Elizabeth Warren? Is she a 'rightwing conspiracy theorist' also?

I, like all Americans expect Congress to look out for the American people. I don't care much who in Congress does that. If Alan Grayson does it, I respect him for it, and if Ron Paul or any other member, Dem or Republican, I respect them also. I don't 'support' politicians, I expect them to do the job they were elected to do and will give them credit when they do it.

Do you NOT support Grayson's efforts, and Elizabeth Warren's, Ron Paul's, since all seem to be in agreement that the Federal Reserve needs to be thoroughly audited? Do you base your decision on the letter after a member Congress' name, or on the issue? Is it the 'party' for you or the 'country'? For me, it is easy, I care about this country.

I am very familiar with the history of the Federal Reserve and what its original purpose was. Is there some reason why you assume that DUers are stupid btw? Time and time again you have proven to be less than knowledgeable about issues you choose to challenge, often without much other than snide remarks, people on this board. THEY otoh, have produced evidence to back up their contentions while you evade and obfuscate.

I'm done, for now. Answer or don't, it is your credibility at stake, not mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #180
185. "Klingon" brought up Ron Paul first, Sabrina...
By the way, have Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson called for the abolition of the Fed and a return to the gold standard?

No one opposes transparency, Sabrina. But, that's not what Paul is after, hence his call for abolishing the Fed. The core issue is the Fed's independence from politics. Paul is attacking that head-on. And, you're cheering him on.

As for your false attack that I "evade and obfuscate", you conveniently omit the mounds of evidence I do provide. One thing for sure, though, is that we seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes evidence. My is fact-based, not conducting online polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #185
190. And what is 'suspect' about bringing up Paul, or Grayson, or
any of those who in the past year, have expressed serious concerns about the Federal Reserve? He was brought up in relation to those issues, that is all.

Each of those mentioned have views about issues that someone isn't going to agree with, but the fact is that many Democrats found common ground with Paul on this issue, and that is all that is important here. You constantly veer off into other territory derailing what would otherwise by worthwhile discussions. Paul's views outside of his participation in this matter, are irrelevant to this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #190
192. Do you agree with Paul that we should...
abolish the Fed and return to the gold standard, Sabrina?

Do you even know what the Fed does and how it does it? Do you understand why it is important to insulate the Fed from political pressure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #192
197. You are off topic again.
One more time. This topic is not about Ron Paul, much as you are desperately trying to make it so for some inexplicable reason. I asked you questions, you have not answered them. As usual, you are derailing an otherwise important and interesting discusssion.

Grayson, Paul, Warren and many other members of Congress have become very concerned about what has been going on at the Federal Reserve. So are the American people. I applaud all of them for trying to do what they were sent to DC to do. No one is above the law. No bank, no institution. This country's economy was decimated, by fraud (see Senate Committee's findings) by criminal activity that has been referred to the DOJ by Sen. Levin's Committee. Recommendations have been made for full investigations of these crimes.

The Fed. Reserve is being required to cooperate with Congress and to provide more information than it is apparently willing to provide. Good for those who are not allowing them to operate without oversight, which is what they would like to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #197
199. "so are the American people"
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 05:31 AM by SDuderstadt
Sabrina, the average American hasn't got the foggiest notion what the Fed does or how it does it and, further, could not name the chairman if the Fed if their lives depended on it. You keep rambling on about "transparency", but have not once addressed the issue if the independence of the Fed.

Why don't you address that, Sabrina? I'd also be interested in your explanation of what the Fed does. The composition of the Federal Open Market Committee. The operation of the Fed's overnight discount window.

However, I'm willing to bet you won't understand the importance of any of that as a necessary first step to critiquing the Fed. More importantly, I'm positive that you don't comprehend the thin line between "oversight" of and "interference" with the Fed. In this regard, Congress (and, especially, Ron Paul) is the wolf, Sabrina.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #199
202. Your complete, and totally misguided and incredibily
arrogant and ignorant assumption that people do not understand or know what you think you know, is simply amazing. I don't know who you associate with, but I can assure you that most of the people I know are very informed about their government and how it works, including teenagers. So get off your high horse. Your nonsensical suppositions about the American people are downright insulting. Maybe you need to get out more. I know people in their late teens and early 20s who would wipe the floor with you on the issue of this government and how it works.

Still haven't answered my questions, but that's par for the course with you.

The Feds are nervous, they are under pressure, they are hiding things from Congress. They have had to be forced to produce information that the American people were and are entitled to, such as WHO, WHICH BANKS or other entities received TARP money, and only because they were forced did we find out some pretty disturbing things. Do YOU know what has been discovered so far? The sheer nerve of Geithner, eg, to decide that the American had not right to that information. Maybe that would give you a clue as to why Congress now wants more transparency.

You seem woefully ignorant of what is at the bottom of all this. But since you spend most of your time on trivia that has no bearing on anything of importance, that is not surprising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #202
206. Sabrina...
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 05:49 AM by SDuderstadt
TARP was not administered by the Fed. It was administered by the Treasury Department.

Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #206
214. Geithner and Bernanke, Treasury and the Fed Reserve
both have been fiercely trying to hide information from Congress. These two have been given the trust of the American people and on their watch, this country's economy was destroyed. It was only because they were forced to do so, that the information that has been revealed was revealed. The point I made was that without pressure, Geithner would never have revealed what was revealed. Congress knows that now, and should not have made it necessary for outside entities to have applied that pressure. NOW, maybe they are attempting to do the job they should have done with Treasury, by applying pressure themselves to the Fed. Reserve. Get it now?

Or, maybe they do not want someone else to do it who might not be as concerned about protecting them at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #214
216. WTF?
The economy was destroyed on Geithner's predecessor's watch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #206
229. Duh, I just explained my reference to Tarp.
Read again. Geithner and Bernanke, both hiding a lot, Geithner tried to hide who the money from TARP was paid to (do I need ot point out that he is Treasury?) Bernanke, what is he hiding at the Federal Reserve? Maybe we can find out the way we found what Geithner is hiding, and maybe that's why Congress is finally doing its job rather than have an outside entity do it for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:07 AM
Response to Reply #185
194. As I brought up Kucinich, Sanders, Stockman, McFadden, Bernanke, and others
But you keep talking only about the one that you like the most. Pathologically off-topic. Even if you chose to talk about another one or all of them for that matter.

Why are you always mixing the problem with the solution? Knowing the problem doesn't necessarily imply knowing the solution. Ron Paul might be in that situation regarding the FED.

On this forum we have not reached the phase where we look for alternatives to the FED, because we don't even know the full scope of the problem yet, as we're not allowed to audit the darn thing. And if we do FOIA, they won't answer and we'll need to sue them, and so on and so forth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #194
195. "we're not allowed to audit the darn thing"
Dude, I have disproved that multiple times. And the conversation you don't want to have is about the independennce of the Fed. I think it's good to insulate them from political pressure. How about you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #195
200. And you still have not answered my questions. Why has it been
necessary for Congress to pass bi-partisan bills to force the a 'widespread' audit of the Federal Reserve? Why do so many members of Congress feel that whatever has passed for auditing, is not satisfactory?

AND, are Grayson, Warren and all the other members of Congress demanding transparency from the Federal Reserve which, btw, they are fighting hard not to provide, 'rightwing lunatics'? Still waiting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #200
209. Sabrina...
Don't you think Congress would like to have control over the Fed?

Can you understand why that's a bad idea and why the Fed fights it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #195
203. Err, I meant really audit the darn thing
Insulating them from political pressure may be a good direction to follow, but it's all a matter of degree and method. The method of insulating them from political pressure by keeping all their important policies and dealings virtually hidden from the public eye doesn't seem to work. We need better ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #170
173. I forgot Grayson and his tough exchange with Bernanke
Someone should write a book about the crazy people against the FED:
4 US Congressmen (3D+1R), 2 of whom chaired the House finance committee
1 US Senator (I)
1 US Judge
2 business media outlets
... and we can find many more in another right-wing source:
http://www.lizpeek.com/index.php/site/article/tea_party_rallying_cry_qabolish_the_federal_reserve/

My favorite over there is David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director (he also advised Obama to raise taxes and strongly criticized Bush's tax cuts): Ben Bernanke is undermining the US economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #173
178. Has David Stockman called for...
abolishing the Fed and returning to the gold standard??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #178
188. Keep scattering the topic until people lose focus?
The main point is that there's something very wrong about the FED. Too many people have said it, we can't ignore it anymore. And the wrong part seems to be very important too. As important as causing a Great Depression and a Great Recession. We need more information (read: real audits) and real national debate on this topic.

There are a few possible outcomes of that debate: reshaping the FED, remaking it from scratch, or killing it. If we kill it, there next step also gives us a few options. The gold standard is just one of them. But we're already going too far from the main point. Which is, I'll say it again for you, that we need way more information and way more national debate on this topic. I dare to say that we can't really fix the economy this time around without fixing the FED too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #188
191. Dude...
How many people are in favor of "killing" the Fed? How many of them are macro-economists? Have you ever taken a macro-economics class?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #191
201. Found more prominent FED killers for you
Barney Frank to the left.
http://www.businessinsider.com/barney-frank-bill-to-strip-regional-fed-members-from-voting-2011-5
OK, he's merely trying to "kill FED's independence".

Pat Buchanan to the right:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/04/03/should-we-kill-the-fed/

Again, killing the FED is not my point here. My point is that we need to thoroughly analyze all our options regarding the FED and then make an informed decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #188
204. Yes, there is something very wrong at the Fed and Congress
knows it. Although some are working hard to try to keep everyone else from knowing it, enough of them are making it tough to let it slide this time.

Interesting how Geithner tried so hard to hide who was given TARP money, eg. The sheer arrogance of these people is stunning.

I am grateful to people like Paul, and I am hoping Grayson will be back in Congress soon to keep the pressure on. They are fighting hard to keep Elizabeth Warren from being appointed to the position of oversight, also. Can't say I blame them as she will be a difficult person to fool.

Anyhow, as you can see, our friend is attempting to avoid too much discussion of the actual issues for some reason, and you, btw, are under no obligation to respond to off-topic 'interrogations'! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #204
219. Luckily, this is not my first forum...
The FED apologist has a fair amount of troll abilities. But I've seen them before.

If the Congress changes/ends the FED, let's hope that it won't be just to create the Global FED, as some people speculate.

Since we can't audit the dealings between the central banks, it's like having a global FED anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #188
261. There you go, "the gold standard"
:rofl:

Your Mark Levin slip is showing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #188
263. "fixing the Fed"
Translation: decimating the Fed's independence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #164
166. "the second they attack the source, you know they've lost"
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 03:07 AM by SDuderstadt
So, if you used FreeRepublic or PrisonPlanet as a source, would pointing that out signify that I have "lost"?

I hardly think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #166
168. The original source matters, not the relay
If I show you a FreeRepublic message that properly references CBO, then CBO is the original source and you can do your web search and take it from there. The RT article was like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #168
172. Oh, no it wasn't...
dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #172
174. You can read, right?
From the RT article:

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont has called the lending program "direct corporate welfare to big banks, and initially ordered this study. The report shows the money was used to bring profits to big business "instead of using the Fed loans to reinvest in the economy," Sanders said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #174
179. Yes, I can...
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 04:27 AM by SDuderstadt
can you?

If Russia Today is merely republishing someone else's work, where's the identification or crediting of the original source? Look hard, because it isn't there, dude.

BTW, why can't you simply disavow that you are a follower of Ron Paul?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #179
184. No you can't
Republishing is different from referencing. They clearly referred to Sanders' study and report.
And you're off-topic again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #184
187. Dude...
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 04:56 AM by SDuderstadt
So they ARE the original source of the story!

You tried to make it sound like it was someone else's story and they merely reprinted it. So your "source" IS Russia Today, despite your earlier claim that it was not. Let me make sure I get this straight. You're claiming that I am "off-topic" because I am impeaching the source YOU introduced?

Too funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klingon Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #187
189. You're wasting my time again, so this thread ends here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #189
193. Good...
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 05:04 AM by SDuderstadt
because you're wasting our time with your sub rosa promotion of Ron Paul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #193
196. I agree you wasted his time. Also can you please answer sabrina's question
Do you think Alan Grayson is some right wing anti fed conspiracist?

And let me point out to you, again, because it was quite clear in the above exchange. if one agrees with Ron Paul and many dems and others that the FED should be more closely audited, it doesn't necessarily extrapolate into wanting to return to the gold standard.

A point that seemed to fly right over you ron paul shaming head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #196
198. Dude...
What do you think Ron Paul's endgame is? Is there a reason you don't address the issue of the Fed's independence.

And, yes, I think Alan Grayson was wrong to ignore the issue of the Fed's insulation from Congressional pressure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #198
205. That's Dudette to you.
So you must be some right winger because you think Grayson was wrong. Just giving back a little. You operate with smear tactics instead or debating facts. What was Graysons end game, and couldn't that be another democrats end game. Whatever, the concept is lost on you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #205
208. Dude is unisex n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #208
212. I prefer Dudette or Dudess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #212
215. Good...
I prefer "dude".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #215
217. I prefer to call you doodie. Do you mind? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #217
218. Yeah...
and you know the reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #218
220. we'll if my preference means nothing to you, why should yours mean anything to me?
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 06:08 AM by boston bean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #220
222. Because "dude" is a common way to address people...
"doodie" is a euphemism for human excrement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #222
226. "doody" is a term for human excrement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #226
228. And "doodie" is...
a variation on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #228
233. In your opinion...... but what does that matter? you don't give a hoot about anyone else
Doody = human excrement

Doodie does not equal human excrement.

Dudee or Dudey just doesn't look right. I prefer Doodie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #233
237. Bullshit...
pun intended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #237
239. you're a very cheery chum aren't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #239
254. I don't know how you suppose you can tell...
anything about a person's disposition from postings in a discussion forum.

Myself, I don't even try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #168
207. I love RT, it's an excellent source. I am thrilled that we get
them on our cable lineup. Far more in depth reporting than most of the MSM here, and they now have Thom Hartmann and Max Keiser with their own shows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #207
210. Of course you would...
Sabrina.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #210
211. you make personal attacks, that is all you do, Doodie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #211
213. Show me a single personal attack I...
made. Being critical of someone's positions or methodology isn't a "personal attack".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #211
221. Yes, he does. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #221
224. he's calling you a right wing republican for agreeing with Paul that the FED
should be truly audited. but can't extrapolate that by his reasoning not agreeing with Grayson could make him an Right Wing Extremist........... :eyes:

Then wants to throw in the "gold standard" canard... useless
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #224
227. Show me where I did that...
take your time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #227
231. ok, all from right here in this thread
1)because you're wasting our time with your sub rosa promotion of Ron Paul.
dude.

2)Sabrina has already professed her appreciation to Ron Paul for his attempts to achieve "transparency" (although she completely sidesteos the issue of Paul's attack on the Fed's independence).

3)Your anti-Fed position is quite clear. Why not go an extra step and weigh in on Ron Paul? Or, should we just go by your use of Ron Paul talking points? Simple question: why didn't Ron Paul tell you about the audits the Fed already undergoes from the GAO, OIG and outside accounting firms? Why did Paul lie and tell everyone that the Fed has "never been audited"?

4)In the meantime, you keep ducking my question. Are you a follower of Ron Paul?
It's a simple question, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #231
232. Not a single one of those...
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 06:23 AM by SDuderstadt
is a personal attack. You need to understand the meaning of the term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #232
234. you are basically calling people Ron Paul lovers. You try to skirt
the rules, but it's obvious you think anyone who agrees that the FED should truly be audited is a Ron Paul supporter, therefore their opinion means nothing, because Ron Paul is a RWer.

Grow up, Doodie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #234
236. BB...
I am asking people what their take on Ron Paul is and pointing out his actual agenda.

Unintentional irony: your admonition to me that I "grow up" IS an example of a personal attack.

Too funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #236
238. I am asking you why does it matter when the scope of their argument is the auditing of the FED
not the gold standard. and agreeing with him on that does not mean they agree with going back to the Gold Standard. You are using it to try, feebly I must say, to tear down their argument with an old ruse. Basically guilt by association. Open the mind some Doodie! Agreeing with Paul that Fed should be truly audited does not make one a right winger to anyone but you in your own mind.

And anyone who uses Dude at the beginning of every sentence might benefit from maturing a bit. Sorry you took offense. I only meant it as constructive criticism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #238
253. "agreeing with Paul that the Fed should be truly audited"
I noticed that you sidestepped the issurme of the Fed's independence, again. Of course, Ron Paul would be happy that people are doing that.

Hint: ignore Ron Paul's real agenda at your own peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #224
230. Yes, a very old tactic used to derail topics and completely without
logic. Not that it succeeds, in fact it probably does the exact opposite as it keeps the thread alive, which is a good thing ...

Every cloud has a silver lining :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #230
235. Read your post # 202...
Sabrina.

That's an example of a personal attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #221
225. Then point to one...
Sabrina.

In exchange, I'll show you dozens from you.

Fair trade?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #210
223. Thank you, most intelligent people who are interested in
real news have discovered it. No wasted airtime on people's personal sex lives, or hours and hours of coverage of murder trials. As Hillary said of them 'they are good'! And she should know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
153. If I followed your reasoning
I could say that because cars are privately owned that auto owners own the Federal Department of Transportation. The member banks are private. They are regulated by the government. What is hard to understand about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #153
154. Because you are trying to oversimplify...
a complicated situation. If the member banks "own" the regional federal reserve banks, why don't the member banks tell the regional federal reserve banks what to do? It's the other way around.

Subscription stock conveys a different kind of ownership than regular ownership. More importantly, do you think the regional federal reserve bank own the Fed? Hint: No.

Acid test: if the member banks really own the Federal Reserve, why is it required by federal law to rebate ALL of its earnings to the U.S. Treasury?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. It's gona blow Nelly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. Max Keiser who posts on DU has been all over this stuff. .
At least two years ago I recall listening to his program on Resonancefm. He's a very bright guy who does a show on that station by the title of The Truth About Markets.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
55. Max gets it as well as anybody I know. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. K&RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. JP Morgan backed Hitler. The reicht wing will never let them fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. Naw, that couldn't be. JP was dead by the time WWII started.
Wasn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AverageJoe90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. OK, maybe J.P. himself couldn't....
......but what about his inheritors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #17
245. the rise of Hitler via the Anglo/American banking cartel, in my own words
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 10:24 AM by stockholmer
Hitler and his ideology was born forth, aided and financed by the USA/UK from the remnants of WW1. Large power brokers through the British Roundtable groups (the Lord Milner group and the Cecil Rhodes group, etc), which morphed into the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs and its American counterpart, The Council on Foreign Relations in NYC (along with their member's Foundations (ie, Ford, Rhodes, Rockefeller, etc) helped set up the eugenics laws of Nazi Germany.

The Rockefeller's' chief executive of these institutions was the fascist Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin, assisted by his proteges Otmar Verschuer and Franz J. Kallmann. In 1932, the British-led "Eugenics'' movement designated the Rockefeller's' Dr. Rudin as the president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The USA counterpart was the American Eugenics Society, which turned into Planned Parenthood through the latter's founder,(and Nazi and Klan supporter) Margaret Sanger.

The tattoos on Nazi concentration victims were a tracking system utilizing the IBM Hollerith punch card computer system, leased at below-market rates to the Nazis in 1933 by the US corporation under the direction of its CEO (and eugenics supporter/fascist sympathizer) Thomas J Watson. Watson also sent over one hundred IBM employees to Germany to help set up and run the initial system. It was first tested in the late 1920's in a Jamaican race-mixing study.


In regards to Hitler and the financing, I focus on the following .

Democratic Party power broker Averell Harriman (US Secretary of Commerce, Governor of New York, and Ambassador to the USSR and the UK) and his brother Roland, founded one of the biggest banks in the World, Brown Brothers Harriman. This bank was like the Goldman Sachs of the 1930's and 1940's.

One of the founding partners of Brown Bros. Harriman, and point man for German investment was none other than Prescott Bush, son-in-law of George Herbert Walker (also employed at BBH) the father of George HW Bush, and grandfather of George W Bush.

BBH were the chief USA private banking source (along with the Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank and the energy assistance of their Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) of money that funded the rapid rise of Hitler and the rebuild of the German military-industrial complex via hundreds of billions (in today's dollars) in investments and loans to Krups, I.G. Farben, etc.


Also involved, in the Euro side were the British Rothschild-controlled Bank for Trade and Shipping (Bank voor Handel and Scheepvaart) in Rotterdam, and their proxy Emil Georg von Stauss, who before becoming the president of Germany's largest bank, the Deutsche Bank was Managing Director of the European Petroleum Union (a Rothschild front organization), and the Warburg family of Switzerland, Germany and the USA. (Paul Warburg. along with JP Morgan, was a principal driving force of the USA Federal Reserve in 1913 as well).

The Anglo-American banking cartel thus financed both sides of WW2, just as the British bankers have done for every single major war since the Napoleonic War, under Nathan Mayer Rothschild. He used spies from the battlefield to start a false rumour in London that Wellington had lost at Waterloo and Napoleon was sailing cross the Channel, thus driving down the entire London Stock Exchange by over 95% in a few hours. He then bought it up at pennies on the pound, thus becoming one of the richest men, if not the richest, in the world at the time.

The family eventually took over control of the Bank of England, and became the most powerful of all the international banker cartels. They today control via proxies the most powerful bank in the world (BIS or the Bank of International Settlements in Geneva) which is the global Central Bank's Central Bank, overseeing through indirect control the IMF, World Bank, US Fedral Reserve, the ECB (European Central Bank), Bank of England, Bank of Japan, Bank of China (to a lesser extent), the G20 etc, etc.

We all globally suffer under this international banking cartel today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #245
271. Well, now you've done it.
Controlled demolition of consensus history in just a few seconds.

Whoever gets even the gist of this understanding will be changed.

Nice consciousness raising effort, I must say.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. Is money real anymore? Was it ever? Sheesh. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
45. Money was/is/will never be real
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 01:27 PM by liberation
it is an abstract human concept. Capital, for all intents and purposes, is nothing more than a placebo representing value.


Fascinatingly enough; labor, knowledge, and physical assets are real. And they are usually owned or provided by the supposedly "poor" majority in a capitalistic system. Ironic, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theophilus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
10. If corps. are "people", J.P. Morgan should be executed or euthanized or
whatever to put it out of our misery. IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
11. Should I bail on my JPM Chase bank stock?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #11
256. For moral reasons alone, everyone should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CleanGreenFuture Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
15. JPM doesn't have $90 Trillion in derivatives exposure...
We do...American citizens. Remember the rule: Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

JPM is too big to be allowed to fail. We will pay their debts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
16. Well now, that's some serious cabbage.
I wonder how long before it is boiled.

Mama mia, JP's probably spinning in his grave right about now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #16
32. Oh, no
JP is smiling serenely. His legacy have robbed us of more money than perhaps even he ever could have dreamed of. Multiples of the entire world world GDP, and we're on the hook for it all?

I'd call it genius, but the genius is only in estimating how people would buy into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
46. JP is probably spinning because he did not think of it first
JP Morgan for all intents and purposes was a fairly rotten human being. Is the historical memory of some Americans that lacking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
18. That's the highest number I've ever heard -- most I heard was $53 Trillion -- Yikes!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
27. If every item on earth, every asset appraised, it wouldn't total 1 quadrillion.
After the global financial collapse, only a few individuals will own everything, likely people again as slavery will be reinstated to pay off debts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #27
151. There isn't that much money
And nobody said there was. Nobody is on the hook for it. Those numbers are coming from the "notional value" of the derivitives, which is nothing more than a hypothetical number used for calculating other numbers. There's an explanation on Wikipedia but I can't understand it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notional_amount

A few people aren't going to own everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
28. JPM is at the heart of the crisis and Goldman Sachs is its whore
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 06:40 AM by cap
Not my original. Forget who said it but I believe it's the truth. Unfortunately it's not just those two companies but lots of other companies who will be taken down.

I don't know when we will realize that we have been fooling ourselves by not making competitive products that use fairly priced labor at a reasonable profit margin. That's what these derivatives are hiding. I think that there is some place for derivatives in certain circumstances but not to cover up the huge fantasy begun under Reagonomics. Carter was correct when he pointed out the malaise and tried to deal with it.

Now the chickens have come home to roost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #28
244. actually it is the City of London, all else has emanated out from there for the last 200 years
Whenever you see a 'Crown Corporation', never be fooled that it is simply a royal British entity, It is a privately-owned (at its core) organ of the systemic controllers.

The web of control, both indirect and direct, that has been raised up by the banksters over the last 200 years is so convoluted and multi-dimensional that it takes quantum physical modeling to untangle.

All the major banks (both private and so-called national central one) have their roots and/or funding in some fashion from the cartel that is centered in the City of London. This includes the Morgan clan, Goldman, Citigroup, Barclays, HSBC, Soc Gen, UBS Warburg, BNP Parabais, Deutsche Bank, etc in the private sphere, and the IMF, World Bank, US Fed, Bank of England, ECB, etc, in the so-called public and trans-national sectors.

At the top of the pyramid (to my best dead-reckoning) is the BIS (Bank of International Settlements) in Geneva, which is the Central Banks' Central Bank.

Russia, India, South America, even China http://taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=742556&lang=eng_news , are caught up into this web, some to more extent, some to lesser, but still trapped by the spider in City.


In 2001, only 8 nations had Central Banks that were not BIS controlled : Iraq (now does), Afghanistan (now does), Somalia (now does in name, if not practice), Iran, N. Korea, Sudan (now has been split into 2 nations, with the oil rich south now having one in the fold), Cuba, and Libya ( the 'rebels' have set one up see below). See a pattern?

One of the FIRST things that the so-called rebels in Libya did was to set up a central bank and oil company.
http://www.thenational.ae/featured-content/channel-page/business/banking/rebels-set-up-oil-company-and-bank

The globe suffers as long as the City-based system is in charge of global monetary policy.

It despises Sharia Islamic banking (which forbids interest on debts and loans). Thus you get the so-called 'Clash of Civilisations', the 'War on Terror', the 'Arc of Crisis', etc etc etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
29. Hyper-inflation and then worldwide depression ?
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 08:10 AM by KurtNYC
I would think the Fed will have to issue a 150 trillion dollars to cover this which should tank everything.

The good news: your used car will be worth over $4 million dollars and all of the under water mortgages will go back into the black
The bad news: a slice of pizza will be $480 (with pepperoni $625)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
31. Derivitives are BETS. They are not backed by anything real, except someone's gamble.
They should be allowed to evaporate. This is what people aren't getting. The sooner we let these assholes lose their bets, and the vapor-money they represent can disappear, they're going to keep letting us taxpayers and working people pay for the losses.

These ARE BETS. Let them lose their asses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. They own the gov't
All of this will be paid by us unless something monumental happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #31
48. Technically every investment is a bet.
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 01:34 PM by liberation
not just derivatives, which are basically investment multipliers. I.e. they act as further compounders/multipliers of previous bets, a bet on a bet if you will.

It is truly fascinating how separated from physical reality the financial sector is, I said fascinating due to the influence financial institutions exert (i'd say almost total control) over the actual physical world we live in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #48
95. That's not true. Primary investments are not merely "bets."
Primary investments are purchases of ownership in an asset that exists physically: real estate, shares in a company, commodities, intellectual property (a song exists as words and notes and recordings). You are betting (hoping) that its value will rise, but you own a piece of the thing regardless.

Derivatives don't own anything except the bet. They are bets on how primary investments will go, or how aggregates of primary investments will go, or how the bets on the bets will go. Hedges on investments were the original rationale for this, but now most derivatives by far are bets on things that the bettors don't even know. Might as well be at a horse race! Nothing's backing them and they don't really exist, which is why psychologically it was so vital that the Federal Reserve cover 100 percent of the swag AIG owed to Goldman et al., because really it should rightly have been ZERO, and the whole lot of them hauled in for fraud. (What else to call making bets valued at six times the value of all things on Earth and then expecting these to be covered by the government, when one side cannot pay?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #95
127. Actually, You seem to be confusing the "what/why" with the "how."
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 07:19 PM by liberation

A primary investment is still done with the aim of a specific return, otherwise is not a primary investment but a simple purchase. Not all purchases may be investments, and not all investments may involve purchases. But investment by definition implies the aim of profit/return, i.e. a bet. Which is what I claimed originally, and which still applies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
psychopomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #95
182. You raise some interesting points
while framing this mess in a way that someone like me, having no real interest in the financial markets other than in how the greater trends of the market affect me directly (along with morbid curiosity), can understand. It is amazing that these fraudulent hustlers have managed to escape any penalty for their crime. Receiving outstanding bonuses, even.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #95
240. Self-correction: "bets on things that the bettors don't even OWN" (not "know")...
Although, as we've seen, it's also true that the bettors often don't KNOW what they're betting on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarburstClock Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
34. RT is a fantastic source of information. REC'D
They still do research instead of being spoon fed propaganda like the mainstream whore U.S. media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
123. I agree and we are lucky that they, along with Current TV
are part of our cable lineup. They do some great historical documentaries also. And Max Keiser and Thom Hartmann have their own shows on RT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
35. "Say, Buddy, can you spare a dime?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
36. Looks more like $84 trillion to me
Not sure how much I trust Max Keiser, but apart from that, interesting stuff, though confusing too.

Saying that the US owes $350 trillion sounds like BS. $350 trillion may be out there in fake money put out by JPM, but how on earth do we OWE that?

I note the http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2011/6/29_Whalen_-_%24200_Billion_in_Claims_Against_JP_Morgan_%26_Banks.html
link cites a 33 prominently, which sets off my conspiracy/disinfo alarm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. "33"
LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
47. Not sure I fully understand this, but I'm wondering if they have shorted the instruments behind
their derivative exposure pointed out here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
58. Great post, Stockholmer.

"The system will either collapse in its entirety, and all debts, especially all debts owed to private central banks by nations (as well as all, and I mean all,derivative debt) will be forgiven, or else we all will literally have to be enslaved and all our wages confiscated at gunpoint simply in order to keep the debt service scheme payments flowing."

IOW, the existing financial system is bound to collapse since no nation can enforce total population control.

The question is only how hard the transition period will be and IF there is still a possibility of a relatively soft landing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky Luciano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
61. Massive flaws here. Notional is not the same as value.
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 03:29 PM by Lucky Luciano
You say that if 25% of the contracts go bad out of 1 quadrillion notional, then $250T will be lost. This is totally false.

If we enter into a $100MM notional interest rate swap today with 5 year maturity - a garden variety standard as hell trade, then the value at inception is ZERO. So, if rates stay the same and I file bankruptcy tomorrow, there is almost no VALUE lost. The contract is merely broken and you will have to trade elsewhere to get it back on. If rates moves massively - like 2%, then the value will be several million for the rate swap - no where near the $100MM notional.

Also, I am not sure if your total notional accounts for netting. In other words, if I buy $100MM notional from Goldman and sell $100MM notional to UBS, then I have no net exposure outside of counterparty risk. The rates themselves are neutralized, so $200MM notional is like zero net notional, but with counterparty risk. Sometimes I may have a buy and a sell against the same counterparty booked as two trades - then there isn't even counterparty risk.

Did you account for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #61
114. The larger point that was omitted in your hypothetical
is that corporations shouldn't be dealing in those absurd, irrational sums of money in the first place. When the U.S. economy was at its healthiest, a company's value was reflected by the demand for its goods and services. It was measurable, proportional, relatively transparent and just made sense. Now we have mania on Wall St. and the political class is afraid to touch it. Doesn't it strike you as odd that you're throwing around hundreds of trillions of dollars in your post? At what point would this mega casino raise your eyebrows? Sextillions? It won't get to that point not because either party will stop it but because the house of cards will come crashing down under it's own stress long before. Hundreds of trillions of dollars in bets is maniacal. That is the point and it is surely a sign of how sick our economic and political health has become. It isn't grounded. It isn't based in reality. But it almost fucked up about 95% of us in a very real way just a couple of years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky Luciano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #114
242. The derivs that dominate the notional are related more to rates - by far.
So, the bets are more macro than company specific. I did think the thread was about how much we could be on the hook for in a bailout. The notional amounts are not even close to the potential losses - and that was my point.

When I was in my first year of grad school, I distracted myself with daytradin and knew nothing and was not mature enough to do my taxes promptly. The IRS sent me a note saying that I had $2MM in income. Apparently, they only looked at the sum value of all my sell orders. The buys were roughly of the same order. If each of those trades were booked as a contract, it would look like I had $4MM notional when I had no risk at all. Of course, for stocks one is exposed to the entire notional for losses, but for interest rate swaps which dominate derivatives, the exposure is much much lower than the notional.

The $100mm referenced above is not at all the size of the bet, but is used to calculate the payoff as rates move. In today's environment, if rates move by 1%, which is a lot, a 5 yr interest rate swap with $100MM notional will be worth $4.815MM. For the swap to have a value of $100mm, 5 year rates would have to ncrease to 22.8% - not gonna happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #61
241. So you say, until the day you demand a government bailout for your notional bets...
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 08:53 AM by JackRiddler
because god forbid you should have to break a contract with one of those banks, causing them to be short on their own obligations and break contracts with other banks, and so on as the dominoes fall.

And then, if you're AIG or Goldman or Societe Generale or one of the other TBTFs globally, you get hundreds of billions of real dollars to cover your pure wishes.

Of course the value of naked derivatives contracted among two banks who don't even disclose the contract and who could NEVER cover all their bets at the same time should rightly, in any credible system of value, be ZERO. It should be illegal and the primary actors in a system that bets a notional value higher than that of all the real estate in the world should be hauled in for fraud.

But in practice we have seen that certain actors have enormous blackmail power over states and the world, by virtue of their claim that if they went under, the planet itself would implode. (Blackmail power, or the power that comes from owning the regulators, the legislators, the judges and the news media.)

These fuckers have already extracted hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers on the power of that planetary blackmail, and rather than prison, they know only success with their demented, conscienceless schemes. So they continue. And the next crash is preprogrammed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky Luciano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #241
243. The amount of money that can be lost is still enormous,
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 09:59 AM by Lucky Luciano
....but $250T is a couple of orders of magnitude too high and highly misleading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #243
249. You mean, the amount of money that was already defrauded from the taxpayers was enormous...
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 10:40 AM by JackRiddler
and, having happened, constitutes proof enough of what happens when you let the banksters write the rules.

I don't really care if the OP has the risk exactly right. You don't have an idea what the risk is either, and that in fact is the point: no one does. This risk should not exist at all. Naked derivatives already caused the system to melt down once, and everyone in the world had to suffer except the banksters who caused it, who were the only ones rewarded. They burned down cities and got bonuses for it.

No regulation. No open market, no consolidated information. Most derivatives are completely naked bets unrelated to hedging. No idea what the volume of the market is or who is exposed. Exotic formulae that the dealers do not usually understand. An incentive system that encourages betting because only deals and never losses determine the bonuses. An ideology that claims all this is good and is utterly contemptuous of the 99 percent as patsies because they aren't seizing whatever isn't nailed down in the world. And after the whole thing predictably fails, Congress again fails to regulate it and the banksters, untouched, go right back to doing what they did before. What do you think will keep happening in such a system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #61
247. by going bad, I meant counter-party risk that resulted in a tangible loss to one party, am I missing
something here? Any additional info would be so appreciated.

cheers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky Luciano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #247
266. I interpret going bad as counterparty risk as well.
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 01:22 PM by Lucky Luciano
Google "interest rate swap" and go to the wiki link. At the bottom they describe how to value a swap - try to understand it. There is no complex quanty math there. At the bottom they actually discuss $342T of IR swap notional outstanding with a gross value of 13.9T as of 2009. That $13.9T is the number people need to look at for counterparty risk. I don't know if it is exactly right, but it is the right order of magnitude and not a misleading number like the notional amounts people throw around to scare people. Still a huge number of course. Hard to say more on an iPhone at work though. Typing is a nightmare on an iPhone!

Oh yeah, and look up the concept of DV01 known as the dollar value of a one basis point move in rates. This tells you how much the value if the swap changes when rates move by a basis point. It is a function of the rate curve, time to maturity of the swap, and notional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #266
267. will do, thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #61
248. "Notional is not the same as value." Thanks, also the graph and original ...
article are from September 2009.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pansypoo53219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
63. washnton monthly had a article warning about dirivatives
many many years ago. the 90's i believe. or early 2000s. i will never EVER invest on wallstreet.

not that i will ever have money to invest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill USA Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
74. recommended!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
75. In order to understand the F.R. today you have to go back a century, when the F.R. was hatched;
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 05:06 PM by ooglymoogly
to the diabolically secret meeting at Jekyll Island.

Who attended that meeting and what was their purpose and why was there such a need for secrecy; and therein lies the purpose of the F.R., then a hundred years ago and as it is today.

MONOPOLY and the elimination of competition.

The clue to the answer lies in the fact that at that time congress was threatening measures that would limit the power of these same big banking families, that the "we the people" were growing increasingly weary of; not too surprisingly, just like today.

At Jekyll Island, a plan was hatched to thwart that threat and co-opt it to their own ends and that plan is what we now call the F.R.

Their purpose was monopoly by the five or six richest families in the world at that time controlling over a third of the worlds wealth and F.R. was their vehicle for that monopoly.

The F.R. was born at that secret meeting; though conceptualized much earlier.

They are all the names we hear today and the purpose of the F.R. is no different today.

The F.R. is the fraternity of wealth, that controls this country, deciding who makes it into their very exclusive circles and who sells out to their fraternity at bankruptcy fire-sale for pennies on the dollar auctions; as in the collapse of Leaman Bros, co mingled by Marriages to Kun Loeb, vis a vie Loeb Roads, who's representatives were at that secret meeting a century ago as were all the major banking families of today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. More conspiracy theory...
bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. As hard as many of us try to tangle with the facts, to not cloud them
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 05:30 PM by ooglymoogly
to fudge them, to rewrite them, the funny thing is the facts are still there. Do your homework for cripes sake. For your first lesson google "How was" and "who was instrumental in forming the F.R. Or just google "Secret meetings at Jekyll Island. No reputable historian disputes these facts, though I admit they have been swept under the rug by similar thinking folks as your posts would indicate is your own line of thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. Dude...
search terms designed to elecit conspiracy theories isn't very impressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #82
90. If googling how the fed was formed; or who formed it, is asking for conspiracy theories.
Jeees! I rest my case. As far as the meeting at Jekyll Island is concerned, it is a well known and a well documented part of history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Dude...
Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Google "Barack Obama was born in Kenya" and see how many hits you get.

So, a meeting was held on Jekyll Island. So, what? You seem to be spreading nonsense from G. Edward Griffin, who is as certifiable as Jerome Corsi.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #80
86. Just look at the posts in this thread, the Dude is always wrong
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 05:10 PM by Rex
and has this funny way of just digging a deeper hole, until no one cares anymore and leaves him to his false victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. Oh, I see...
the "strength in numbers" argument. Sorry, dude...it doesn't work like that.

http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRS-myth.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #89
132. Technically, I think that was more of an ad hominem
Carry on...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banned from Kos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #80
87. Funny, The Creature from Jekyll Island was written by this guy
"Starting as a child actor, he became a radio station manager before age 20. He then began a career of producing documentaries and books on often-debated topics like cancer, Noah's ark, and the Federal Reserve System, as well as on Libertarian views of the U.S. Supreme Court, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment,<2> a view considered quackery by the medical community.<3><4> He has also promoted the Durupınar site as hosting the original Noah's ark, against skeptics as well as near-Ararat Creationists. He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.<5> In 2002, Griffin founded the individualist network Freedom Force International." (Wiki)

G. Edward Griffin - certified nutjob
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #87
99. Let me pin you down here
You are saying the meeting of the most powerful bankers on earth did not take place on Jekyll Island a century ago. Or that the same people or their representatives did not attend that meeting and that the F.R. was not ratified three years later formed and manned by these same people. Hey I got some shares in a bridge to sell. As far as your guy Griffin, I don't know who you are talking about but at least (I) will google that name. Aldritch (of the Rockefeller clan) is the man in history to consult on this...not sure about the spelling but don't think that should stop anyone from getting real rather than fictional info on this. Hey kudos on your intro into the tag team, gubment right or wrong and all that rah rah shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. Dude...
Do you believe the most "powerful banks on earth" run the Federal Reserve? Do you think the "most powerful banks on earth" would agree to any set-up that has the Board of Governors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and, further, is required to rebate ALL of its earnings after operating expenses to the U.S. Treasury??

I can go toe-to-toe with all your conspiracy theory nonsense as long as you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #87
107. Hey I just realized you prolly think Jekyll Island is not real
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 06:24 PM by ooglymoogly
and you do not know it is famous for just that meeting. You are prolly getting it confused with Jekyll and Hyde which I readily admit is a fictional and dastardly character.

Jekyll Island is a real and quite beautiful place off the southeastern coast with a now famous resort on it.

It is famous for that very meeting in QUESTION by some.

It has dirt and trees and bricks and mortar and real, not FICTIONAL, characters on it.

Dr. Jekyll never visited mayhem on Jekyll Island, as he is a FICTIONAL character.

It is a resort ISLAND.

It is famous for having HAD, A CENTURY AGO, a world ALTERING conference on it a century ago. It now has SIGNBOARDS and PLACARDS attesting to that fame and its NON FICTIONAL existence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. Dude...
no one is denying that there's a Jekyll Island, but that really lends no credibility to your claim that the meeting was nefarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #108
115. Ahhh yessss, appearances
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 06:52 PM by ooglymoogly
You just know politicians; and by far the most savvy banking types, just could not understand a concept so deceitful as a false facade...um... appearance; for if they did not have them, this government could not operate behind the curtain for outcomes not necessarily or usually not, beneficial to the folks they represent, but instead for the powerful. Yahhh its all good...Its all just as it seems and all, just as they tell us it is.

May I refer you to a very prescient writer...Arthur Conan Doyl.

One of his most famous and most brilliant FICTIONAL characters was made to say ...

"NOTHING is EVER as it seems"

There is never black and white, each in this world is made up of varying shades of color or the absence thereof and worlds of deceit can and do turn easily within those boundaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #115
119. I haven't got the foggiest notion...
what you are rambling about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #119
122. Somehow I did not think you would nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #122
125. I have difficulty with incoherent...
paragraph-long run-on sentences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #107
140. Can I get a link?
I've never even heard of this Jekyll Island before.
Do you have a link to the meeting that took place there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #140
246. It's actually on the Wiki page for the island itself
Planning of the Federal Reserve System
See also: History of the Federal Reserve System

At the end of November 1910, Senator Nelson W. Aldrich and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department A. Piatt Andrew, and 5 more of the country's leading financiers, who together represented about one-fourth of the world's wealth, arrived at the Jekyll Island Club to discuss monetary policy and the banking system, an event led to the creation of the current Federal Reserve. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, the 1910 Jekyll Island meeting resulted in draft legislation for the creation of a U.S. central bank. Parts of this draft (the Aldrich plan) were incorporated into the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. On November 56, 2010, Ben Bernanke stayed on Jekyll Island to commemorate the 100-year anniversary of this original meeting.


here's the Google search
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #140
250. here are some links
http://www.businessinsider.com/fed-jekyll-island-club-2010-11

The Federal Reserve is going back to Jekyll Island to celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the infamous 1910 Jekyll Island meeting that spawned the draft legislation that would ultimately create the U.S. Federal Reserve.

The title of this conference is "A Return to Jekyll Island: The Origins, History, and Future of the Federal Reserve",http://www.frbatlanta.org/news/conferences/10jekyll_index.cfm and it will be held on November 5th and 6th in the exact same building where the original 1910 meeting occurred.

In November 1910, the original gathering at Jekyll Island included U.S. Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department A.P. Andrews and many representatives from the upper crust of the U.S. banking establishment. That meeting was held in an environment of absolute and total secrecy. 100 years later, Federal Reserve bureaucrats will return to Jekyll Island once again to "celebrate" the history and the future of the Federal Reserve.

Sadly, most Americans have no idea how the Federal Reserve came into being. Forbes magazine founder Bertie Charles Forbes was perhaps the first writer to describe the secretive nature of the original gathering on Jekyll Island in a national publication....

clip

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyll_Island#Planning_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System

Forbes magazine founder Bertie Charles Forbes wrote several years later:


Picture a party of the nation's greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily riding hundred of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written... The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car of which the railroad had received orders to draw up on an unfrequented platform. Off the party set. New York's ubiquitous reporters had been foiled... Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank, Paul and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference with Paul, Frank and Henry... Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present system together. He more than any one man has made the system possible as a working reality

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

great short animated movie explaining central banking domination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OQzH07u0U


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #250
265. Whoa! Those are excellent links, thanks.
It had to be done in secrecy, of course.
So much of our fucking history is done in secrecy and yet we boast (falsely) that we are transparent, yet the whole time only a handful of people actually know what happened during an event such as this.

I thought Congress had designed the Federal Reserve system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banned from Kos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #75
85. After reading this OP and thread I am surprised more people
do not have an unhealthy paranoid hatred of federal government.

I really fear than an End-the-Fed gold-standard right-wing nutjob grabs control of the White House soon because we are moving in that direction sad to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #85
131. LOL, Ron Paul has the same chance of winning the presidency, as Willem Dafoe wining miss Universe.
Well at least that is a fresh of fresh air over the more traditional "booh Palin" or "booh Bachmann" arguments commonplace here, when someone reaches an argumentative dead end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #85
251. so you are a fiat paper money believer? roflmao (& stop conflating the US government with the Fed!)
If you just went to US dollars as a primary 'savings vehicle' since 1999 or so, you are WAY down in actual accrued wealth, due to inflation.

Even If you were ONLY buying into the teeth of the manic parabolic gold bubble of January/February 1980, you would have been in the black since 2007, if you were buying in 1977, 1978, and the first half of 1979 you were ALWAYS in the black, and if buying in 1982 to 1985 (and almost all of the rest of the 1980's), you were in the black from 2005 onwards. If you had been buying from the end of 1997 up until 2005, you would have seen huge profits of over 300 to 600 percent already, just in gold. Silver is even more dramatic in its rate of return, even with the very recent pullback from $47/$49 an ounce to $35/$$37 an ounce.

Gold has increased by double digits as a percentage gained for the last 10 years in a row. Can you say the same of the NASDAQ? The Dow? The S&P? The US dollar? US Treasuries? The average US IRA? LOL! How about your paycheck? How about the value of the average American house? Not so funny for the average American.


I have been long gold AND silver since 1998 and 1999 (in physically-held, allocated non-bank secure vault accounts), when the US trashed the GlassSteagall Act and legalized derivatives under the Clinton/Rubin/Greenspan troika. I have an average gain of over well over 300%, whilst the Dow is utterly stagnant from the tech bubble crash of early 2001 till now. In fact, it is off greatly, due to inflation, and many were crushed in the stock crash of 2008-2009, and pulled out, locking in huge losses that they could have somewhat recovered in the QE 1 and QE 2 fueled bubble that is now unraveling. Check back with me in 3 or 4 years when those 300% figures are closing in on 1000% profits.

In 1970, the average US car cost $3900 and it took 114 ounces of gold to buy. In 2011, that same car is around $29,000 yet takes less than 19 ounces of gold to buy. Hello dollar debasement!

Plus, when the Fed fund rate peaked under Volcker in the middle of 1981 at 20%, the US national debt was only 1 trillion, today it is 14 times that (soon to 16 times that) , and even a move of the Fed's Fund Rate (it is now and has near zero% since the 2008 crisis) up to only 5% or 6% (hardly the 20%+ that the PIIGS are paying) would mean well over a trillion in debt service payments over just ONE year. If/when the funds rate does double digits, say hi to $1.5 to 2 trillion a YEAR in debt service payments alone.

If you are holding long term US treasuries, you will be the one gasping soon, unfortunately. Bill Gross of PIMCO (director biggest bond fund in the world) pulled completely out of ALL US debt over a month and a half ago. I suggest you do the same.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banned from Kos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #251
273. So you're a goldbug? Nice. How is that Max Keiser plan to bankrupt
JP Morgan by buying silver working out?

About as well as his plan on shorting Coca-Cola then telling the world not to buy their HFCS water?

How much has he lost on these schemes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
102. Just for the record, Stockholmer, you won the debate on this thread.
I scored it 100 to zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #102
106. LOL!
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 06:12 PM by SDuderstadt
Well, of course, as long as you ignore all his egregious factual errors.

I must say, though, it is rather heartwarming how you all form little support groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. You would have done well if I gave points for 'LOL', 'bullshit', 'nonsense' and 'dude'.
I'll see if I can find a judging rubric that will support your style. Better luck next time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #110
121. You missed the references I actually provided...
the notion that someone interested in the outcome could be an unbiased judge is like expecting partisans to police themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #110
143. Dude...
How can you not realize the awesomeness of the 'Dude...' rebuttal. It's the opposite of the Chewbacca defense. Once the 'Dude...' defense comes into play, you might as well just give up, you've already lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #143
144. I "love" it when people downplay...
actual knowledge. I just don't expect our side to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #102
264. But you lost your judging credentials from taking a bribe last year
So your statement is, well, invalid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
105. Stopped reading after "new derivative".
The welling internal violence I feel upon seeing those words is almost as great as the debt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
109. Has there been any talk of forgiving all debt and if now why not?
I have a headache from reading this OP, since math does that to me. I do appreciate the work you have done though and will read it again to try to absorb it.

Another question, why are derivatives legal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #109
255. derivatives were made legal under the Clinton/Robert Rubin/ Greenspan troika via the
Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Also, in 1999, they dismantled the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which separated investment banks from consumer banking.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/60minutes/main4546199.shtml

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1432654






http://www.counterpunch.org/kaufman09192008.html

The Bi-Partisan Origins of the Financial Crisis
Shattering the Glass-Steagall Act
By WILLIAM KAUFMAN

If you're looking for a major cause of the current banking meltdown, you need seek no farther than the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

The Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933, mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking in order to protect depositors from the hazards of risky investment and speculation. It worked fine for fifty years until the banking industry began lobbying for its repeal during the 1980s, the go-go years of Reaganesque market fundamentalism, an outlook embraced wholeheartedly by mainstream Democrats under the rubric "neoliberalism."

The main cheerleader for the repeal was Phil Gramm, the fulsome reactionary who, until he recently shoved his foot even farther into his mouth than usual, was McCain's chief economic advisor.

But wait . . . as usual, the Democrats were eager to pile on to this reversal of New Deal regulatory progressivism -- fully 38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal (which passed 90-8), including some famous names commonly associated with "progressive" politics by the easily gulled: Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer. And, of course, there was the inevitable shout of "yea" from the ever-servile corporate factotum Joseph Biden, Barack Obama's idea of a tribune of "change"--if by change one means erasing any lingering obstacle to corporate domination of the polity.

This disgraceful bow to the banking industry, eagerly signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999, bears a major share of responsibility for the current banking crisis. Here's the complete roll call of shame:

REPUBLICANS FOR (52): Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Brownback, Bond, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Chafee, Cochran, Collins, Coverdell, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Gorton, Gramm (Tex.), Grams (Minn.), Grassley, Gregg, Hegel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Jeffords, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner. DEMOCRATS FOR (38): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Edwards, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey (Neb.), Kerry (Mass.), Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Moynihan, Murray, Reed (R.L), Reid (Nev.), Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli and Wyden.

REPUBLICANS AGAINST(1): Shelby.

DEMOCRATS AGAINST(7): Boxer, Bryan, Dorgan, Feingold, Harkin, Mikulski and Wellstone.

NOT VOTING: 2 REPUBLICANS (2): Fitzgerald (voted present) and McCain.

The House Democrats were no less enthusiastic in their endorsement of this invitation to plunder--the repeal passed there by a margin of 343-86, with the Donkey Party favoring the measure by a two-to-one margin, 138-69. Current House speaker Nancy Pelosi managed not to register a vote on this one, so great was her fear of offending her party's corporate paymasters even though she knew passage was a sure thing.

clip

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banned from Kos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #255
274. Ridiculous. Derivatives have been around for a century.
They are instruments whose future value are derived from an underlying asset.

All stock options are derivatives. I buy calls on US Steel without owning the stock and the calls pay off on a future date based on Steel's stock price then. I never own the stock.

Now should they be in the light and regulated - yes. Stock options are so now and CDS are not. That is the intention of Dodd-Frank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #109
262. also do some research into Blythe Masters of the London JP Morgan branch and how her team developed
the modern derivative system. One of my best friend's mother worked in the same department in the mid 1990's as Blythe's team. Both my friend's mother and father (they are both international investment bankers out of London worth millions upon millions) soon switched to physically holding huge amounts of gold and silver as soon as Glass-Steagall was repealed. My friend is only 26, and also started buying gold and silver (via a proxy account held by her father) since she became a fashion model in 1999. Her wife as well started back doing the same in 2004 (she was my friend's gf at the time), and now they are both extremely wealthy on their own, having taken significant portions of the high wages they earned from international modeling and transferring these into gold and silver. Beauty and brains (my friend has dual bachelors, a Columbia MBA, 2 more masters, and is now a PhD student here in Stockholm) and both are only 26!. Makes me feel like I wasted some years, lolololol.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/20/wallstreet.banking

The woman who built financial 'weapon of mass destruction'


In the article below we said that Blythe Masters of JP Morgan developed the credit derivatives which were at the heart of the current financial crisis. We apologise for unfairly failing to give her an adequate opportunity to respond and for making inaccurate personal references about her. The guide to which we referred was a general guide to credit derivatives and not just about those she created; she was 34, rather than 35, when she became chief financial officer of JP Morgan; and she was not working in hospital before having her baby, but viewing financial data to pass the time.



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


If Warren Buffett is to be believed in his verdict that derivatives are "financial weapons of mass destruction" then Blythe Masters is one of the destroyers of worlds.

British-born Masters is one of the most powerful women on Wall Street and is widely recognised as one of an elite group dubbed the "JP Morgan mafia" that fostered the creation of the complex credit derivatives at the heart of the current crisis ripping through Wall Street. Many of the highly qualified mathematicians and academics who worked on the credit derivatives market in the early days have gone on to run hedge funds and into high-powered jobs at other investment banks, but most of them started out at JP Morgan.

Masters sees things slightly differently. In a brief email exchange with the Guardian, she said: "I do believe CDSs have been miscast, much as poor workmen tend to blame their tools."

In 1997, she and a team developed many of the credit derivatives that were intended to remove risk from companies' balance sheets. The idea was to separate the default risk on loans from the loans themselves.

The risk would be moved into an off-balance sheet vehicle. The product was called Bistro, otherwise known as broad index secured trust offering.

In a guide to understanding the instruments she had created, Masters sung their praises: "In bypassing barriers between different classes, maturities, rating categories, debt seniority levels and so on, credit derivatives are creating enormous opportunities to exploit and profit from associated discontinuities in the pricing of credit risk."

snip
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #262
270. Definitely will read this, thank you, I did know about the
Glass Steagal Act being rescinded, and I know that the Brooksley Born warned about derivatives and was basically run out of her position by Greenspan, Summers et al. That was covered in the excellet Doc. on PBS, 'The Warning'. So they cannot say they were not aware of the risks.

Shameful that so far no one has been held accountable.

Thanks for the work you did on this OP and for these two comments, I will be back later to read them thoroughly. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
116. An attempt to map the derivatives pyramid:
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 06:44 PM by JackRiddler
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/Exter's%20Pyramid.png

((EDIT: DAMN! WON'T DISPLAY - because it's a PNG? Right click, copy link, paste into new window to see it.))

.............

Love that chart! But my endorsement is conditional (gold is not "power money" more than the fiat, but anyway...)

You know the $800 T in shadow derivatives at the top is 100 percent guess. These are the derivatives contracts between parties who haven't told anyone they've placed bets with each other. Could be higher or lower.

Doesn't matter because it's all what some scumbags hope to get in case given contingencies happen. They're betting many times the values that could ever be covered if even a fraction of the contingencies were to be activated (which will happen as the housing market continues to contract). If enough of these contingencies are activated, those levels go poof. Almost none of that gets paid off.

It's like if you and I made a billion dollar bet on the outcome of a football game, but we've got a thousand dollars collateral between the two of us. There will be an outcome to the game, but neither of us gets the prize. (Well, the NFL could always cancel the next season and delay armaggedon, ha ha.) But what if we can call on a government to print money to bail us out because we're TBTF?

However, even that can't work very far. All the QEs together are a fart if the intent is to cover the derivatives. The banksters right now are trying to seize the planet, but it's not enough. All the money and GDP output could be sucked upward (prompting upheavals and revolutions everywhere), the pyramid would still go poof.

Real money and assets land in some bank's balance sheets, where they stay to ostensibly cover its bets. The result is to suck money out of the real economy in an effort to cover the bullshit bets and thus deflationary, then a devaluation of the derivative fantasy total, then an unpredictable collapse and eventually a revaluation of everything along more practical lines. (The bozo who hosts the chart on Zero Hedge thinks it's an argument for buying gold before it hits one million dollars an ounce!)

The higher up the inverse pyramid you go, the more you're in a sick realm of bankster fantasy.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ej510 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
120. I've known about JP Morgan for a while, and I have I warned others about
financial entities going under in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
135. Thanks, Max! Practically NO ONE has talked about any estimate of the total $$$ amounts lost, since
Thom Hartmann did for a week or two after the '08 Derivative Crash.

Thank you for the work you do for ALL of us, Max.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
138. The bigger they come, the harder they fall. - K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
139. Take the giant squid with you when you go.
One of these days there's going to be a derivative implosion that will finally end our corrupt banking and federal reserve system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #139
152. They've been saying that here for years now
The collapse was just about to happen in January 2009.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kornovol Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
169. Better colonize
Better colonize our next planet, this is like the biggest backstab in history
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #169
252. dont worry,the Mars Stock Exchange will defo have co-located JPM/GS high-frequency trading computers
and black pools of capital, structured investment instruments, synthetic derivatives, CDS, CDOs-squared, and utterly no transparency.

And the guns, technetronic track-trace-database control grid, and a willing media to back it up.

kinda like the USA/world now :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
257. Lots of links to abstract websites and a couple pictures - Check!
Wording to look like the authors "know" what they are talking about - Check!

Very dire predictions and and "backup" assertations from additional blogs - Check!



Damn dude, you should try out for the dungeon :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #257
258. Isn't it a hoot? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoryK Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
268. Why is there a time limit on recommendations?
Well, stockholmer, I tried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #268
272. Must keep the topics moving, ya know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 27th 2021, 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC