Financial topics

[Reality Check]

The traditional core in banking is regarded as loans and deposits. That is the extent of any future bailout. Proprietary trading will not be bailed out again. The Fed has stated this point-blank to all bankers.

What they say, and what they do, are two different things.

The regulators before the 2008 - 2009 crisis said they were doing their jobs protecting everyone.

As we learned afterward they were part of the problem, not part of the solution. They were not doing their job, even when all the work was done and it was delivered to them on a silver platter ( as in the Bernie Madoff case ).

The liars and crooks in the banks, and the liars and crooks known as government regulators are still their, nothing has changed.

Even if they had adequately changed laws and regulations to avoid self dealing, and they have not.

And, even if they had completed writing the new laws and regulations, and they have not.

The liars and thieves are still the ones enforcing the regulations, so it all means nothing.

To big to fail still exists, and these brave sounding arm chair regulators, will roll out the bail outs the instant there is a whiff of a too big to fail "financial institution" running into trouble.


We may be heading for a dark age, but it will be because the Federal Government announces a bailout, and no one believes that means anything anymore.

[aedens]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94 ... A&index=40 :40 on link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIps ... LGNel9UVBA

This last gas spike has really mangled people in our area and was going to ask a few basic items on what they noted going forward other than the obvious we sure as hell can spend it
on more important issues than the red and blue pill rhetorical nonsense.

http://donny-allen.us/2012/10/23/ill-ni ... b-johnson/

The next shock wave is almost here. Are you even beginning to see it? xx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsoakk3 ... LGNel9UVBA

[Higgenbotham]

To big to fail still exists, and these brave sounding arm chair regulators, will roll out the bail outs the instant there is a whiff of a too big to fail "financial institution" running into trouble.

I think it will depend on what interest rates on US government bonds are doing when it happens. If US government bonds are still being perceived as a safe haven when it happens, and money is still flowing into US government bonds, then I think they will go ahead and do more bailouts. But if money is fleeing US government bonds, and that may well be part of the cause of the next crisis, then they won't be able to do more bailouts without feeding the crisis, because more bailouts would actually cause more money to flee US government bonds.

[John]

When Obamacare was announced in 2009, I called it "a proposal of
economic insanity."

** Obama's health plan, a proposal of economic insanity, appears to be losing support
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e090725

I made this statement because I've seen this movie before. Obamacare
is worse than Nixon's 1970s wage-price controls, and those were an
unmitigated catastrophe.

The 1970s movie is continuing, as the administration postpones the
business mandate for a year. Just as Nixon's wage-price controls were
so disastrous that they collapsed of their own weight, Obamacare is
doing the same.

Unfortunately, they waited so long for this postponement that most of
the damage has already been done. Millions of businesses have already
changed their policies to reduce employment, or to keep part-time
employment below 30 h/w, and they now have no incentive to reverse
direction, since they're facing the same disastrous policy in 2015.
This means that the poor and the minorities will find it even harder
to find jobs, which means that they won't have any health insurance at
all.

The only core thing left is the "individual mandate." So now we're
supposedly going to hear how perfectly young, healthy poor people are
going to be forced to buy a government-endorsed health policy, or pay
a large fine. This disaster is far from over.

[aedens]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsoakk3 ... LGNel9UVBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIps ... LGNel9UVBA

[aedens]

https://twitter.com/ChapmanAnna

Why not some may say. What is the value of 1/Infinity.
I will take delivery in moderation.

[Reality Check]

I made this statement because I've seen this movie before. Obamacare
is worse than Nixon's 1970s wage-price controls, and those were an
unmitigated catastrophe.

The 1970s movie is continuing, as the administration postpones the
business mandate for a year. Just as Nixon's wage-price controls were
so disastrous that they collapsed of their own weight, Obamacare is
doing the same.

I believe this is an attempt to compare Two very different KINDS of things in an Apple to Apple comparison, which is wrong in so many ways that it is meaningless.

Not only are they not the same kind of Fruit, but they are not even both commodities.

If Nixon's wage price controls were Apples, then Obama Care is a farming community where there are apple Orchards, but also Orange groves, banks, irrigation ditches, seed stores, grade schools, and all the things found in every community.

Nixon price controls wanted to control prices - a very simplistic concept.

Obama Care wants ( the federal government ) to manage every aspect of designing, creating, buying, selling, delivering, financing and purchasing health care related goods and services via government taxes, incentives, penalties and police powers ( yes follow their "health care" rules or they will put you in their jails ).

The goal with Obama Care is not to deliver "Affordable", "Quality" Health Care but to gain control of vast portions of the United States economy by the federal government. Even if it fails to deliver the type of health care they implied/promised at an affordable price, the goal of taking over control of huge portions of the economy at the detail level will be achieved. The Soviet Union never failed to deliver some quantity, of some quality, of food to the vast majority of the population of the Soviet Union on some schedule. Obama Care will easily deliver some kind of Health Care to the vast majority of Americans on some schedule and to that degree will be successful. In addition it will achieve the main objective, which was to put the Federal Government in control of the huge portion of the U.S. economy related to creating and delivering health care related goods and services.

So even if the fictitious stated goal fails, the real goal can succeed.

[aedens]

I would counter with when did the dollar nominal value to gold other than the obvious august 15th 1971 window and the Smithsonian accord in 1973 float then facilitate these disconnects and why after that period the middle class was marked for serfdom. In reality it started in 1963 to 1965 and only a few papers seen the carnage to come which we did note in forums. It goes back to political kill switches and by then both party's where essentially one. In 1993 I feel it was game over, and started looking into it in circa 1985.

The 50 year returns for holding physical gold are much higher than the 50 year returns for the Dow Jones Industrial Average. This is not a joke and has serious implications for any investor that is actually trying to turn a profit in this environment. I would increase slowly until we see a bottom and not in the Dow either ruse.

I have some paper and some metals in various regions with some paper claims to dividends. The only ratio increase is into delivered since you have to be blind not to see the paper tigers are on the verge of paper burn as we noted ever so long ago and they the one eyed kings in the land of the blind which has a script as we say on affairs some note rather accurately.

As for the price supports and economy shift then, yes we remember who and why and how things where then since we covered that here a few pages back on the 200 year plan from the democrats and asset stripping operations also that was my friends familys. Romney greatly expanded the size of state government while governor. His first state budget, for fiscal year 1963, was $550 million, a $20 million increase over that of his predecessor Swainson. Romney had also inherited an $85 million budget deficit, but left office with a surplus. In the following fiscal years, the state budget increased to $684 million for 1964, $820 million for 1965, $1 billion for 1966, $1.1 billion for 1967, and was proposed as $1.3 billion for 1968. Romney led the way for a large increase in state spending on education, and Michigan began to develop one of the nation's most comprehensive systems of higher education.

The rent seeking problem is still a educational issue in our state on costs of the first self licking ice creams cones who just polished the model today now a blind man can see on educational debt bubble. As we speak the "next to covet" will be water and if you look carefully it already being done. Deficit spending IS asset stripping and the taxpayers are dullards.
http://www.onlygold.com/TutorialPages/p ... 0yrsfs.htm

From 1960 to 1994, the number of people receiving AFDC had grown almost five-fold, from about 3 million to 14 million
In 1993, 87 percent of mothers receiving AFDC did not have a husband present (48 percent were single, 23 percent were widowed or divorced, and 17 percent were separated)
In 1993, 5 percent of mothers receiving AFDC were aged 15–19
In 1993, 55 percent of mothers receiving AFDC were white and 39 percent black
From 1969 to 1994 the size of the average welfare household had fallen, from 4.0 members to 2.9
From 1970 to 1994, federal and state welfare spending combined and adjusted for inflation had climbed from $16 billion to more than $25 billion; the peak was $27 billion, in 1977

If we are to be annotated as misguided it is the reference material called real life survival. Our state in my view went over the wire in 1968 and the statist never looked back.
It was done for many reasons in that recession good or bad it simply was the end of responsible people and since Jack the total loss of innocence as we see today truly what is the branches from a root issue. In the eighty's with social policy it was easier to outsource and they did just that as we observe at ground level discussions but ignore over arching reality's they simply do not get it yet.
I will post a example to fungible capital discussions ongoing. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=maxin+waters+response+to+oil
Nothing changes. I just want things left the way they find them when they leave unlike the favela discussions since most modern favelas appeared in the 1970s due to rural exodus.
And that was asset stripping debt operations designs. http://winterman-am.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... miths.html

Ask Cyprus about the 10 trillion dollar Levant question. Our hemisphere is still suffering from liberation theology dullards from the 1980's as Egypt today try's to cling to sanity.

[John]

> If Nixon's wage price controls were Apples, then Obama Care is a
> farming community where there are apple Orchards, but also Orange
> groves, banks, irrigation ditches, seed stores, grade schools, and
> all the things found in every community.

> Nixon price controls wanted to control prices - a very simplistic
> concept.

> Obama Care wants to manage every aspect of buying, selling,
> delivering, financing and purchasing health care related goods and
> services via government taxes, incentives, penalties and police
> powers ( yes follow their "health care" rules or they will put you
> in their jails ).

You're looking at the trees, rather than the forest. Yes, Nixon just
wanted to control prices, and Obama wants to control a lot more than
prices. But if you want to control the prices of apples, then you
also have to control prices of all the inputs that go into the apples,
and so you're still trying to control the apple orchards.

In Nixon's Camelot, a law was passed a distant moon ago, July and
August cannot be too hot, and there's a legal limit to the snow. In
Obama's Camelot, they also passed a law to control the inputs from
every tree, home and business in the world.

What all these disasters have in common is the thinking that:

- All you have to do to control the markets is pass a law.

- If it doesn't work it's because you haven't done a good
enough sales job.

The real reason it doesn't work is because, in the end, you can't
control all the inputs.

Richard Nixon and George Meany actually did do a pretty good job of
selling wage/price controls, but they failed anyway because you can't
pass a law to control either the weather or the markets.

> Not only are they not the same kind of Fruit, but they are not
> even both commodities.

An ironic remark, since one reason that Nixon's plan failed was
because commodity prices couldn't be controlled.

> In addition it will achieve the main objective, which was to put
> the Federal Government in control of Medical Care Delivery. So
> even if the fictitious stated goal fails, the real goal can
> succeed.

I can't imagine why you believe that. The government can't
run anything, and everyone knows it. When Nixon's wage-price
controls collapsed, they were totally discredited, as opposed
to giving the government total control of all busines.

Even Mao was discredited when his Great Leap Forward, which was a
similar misguided attempt to control all the markets, ended up killing
tens of millions of Chinese from starvation.

The collapse of Obamacare doesn't mean that people are going to say,
let's let the government run everything. What's going to happen is
that the whole idea will be discredited.

[Higgenbotham]

The S&P futures are up about 1% this morning versus the early close of cash trading yesterday, mostly on some comments from Mario Draghi. This would be a typical pattern from which a crash could begin. A crash typically begins after the market has moved down about 10% over 2-4 weeks, then attempts a rebound for a few days that retraces about 1/2 to 2/3 of the loss, then fails.