Federal Reserve losing control

[chiggerbit]

2008, is looking to be the new 1927.

So, how different will it be this time, how long before it gets bad?

From wiki:

The Great Depression was not a sudden total collapse. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below the peak of September 1929.[6] Together government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the prior year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the northern summer of 1930.

In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing. By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. Conditions were worst in farming areas where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the American economy was the motor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, like the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, helped to strangle global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.

[isachar]

2008, is looking to be the new 1927.

So, how different will it be this time, how long before it gets bad?

I don't know.

But I'd still rather be back home in I O W A Y when the SHTF.

[antiaristo]

.

Edward George, Baron George
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edward Alan John George, Baron George, GBE, PC, DL (born 16 September 1938, Surrey), known as Eddie George, or "Steady Eddie", was Governor of the Bank of England from 1993 to 2003.

Which is exactly the timespan during which the foundations of this fraud were laid.

And be in no doubt.

The USA will be a shadow of its former self by the time this has run its course.

You could call it payback for undermining the British Empire.

Jeremy Warner's Outlook: Former Bank chief Eddie George steps forward in defence of financial markets

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has admitted that he "didn't quite get it" when he was in office about the dangers posed by the expansion of sub-prime mortgage lending.

Now along comes another retired central banker, Eddie George, former governor of the Bank of England, to say he still doesn't understand many of the complexities created by the credit boom, now so painfully being unwound.

In an essay for the think-tank Politeia, Lord George says that he was aware of sub-prime lending (though not its scale) before he left the Bank, as well as the principle of securitisation, but he still doesn't understand the slicing of debt into different tranches of risk, or how they are related and even rated.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 24665.html


Cute.
Eddie George was Governor of the Bank of England from 1993 to 2003.
Alan Greenspan was Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1989 to 2006.

Both have Knighthoods from Her Majesty. Which means that both have sworn an oath of allegiance to the British Sovereign.

What else have they in common?

Alan Greenspan "didn't quite get it".
The Maestro, who dominated the Fed and put down all dissent for 18 years, "didn't quite get it".

Eddie George "still doesn't understand many of the complexities created by the credit boom".


Did you all know that London is the home of the CDO? New York has nothing to do with it?

That ALL of the $3.5 to 4 Trillion of counterfeit securities came out of London?

That the Special Qualifying Vehicles which were permitted in the IRS code around the turn of the Century are English entities?

That they are in fact CHARITABLE TRUSTS established under the English common law?

Here's a helpful diy guide, courtesy of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs:

CFM20030b - Securitisation: basic structures: example of a master trust structure

Basic master trust structure

Diagram of a basic master trust structure

Text Alternative

A Master Trust Structure is used to enable a series of assets by the same originator.

A trustee company is formed which holds the equity investment in an intermediate investment holding company on behalf of a charitable trust.

The intermediate investment holding company has a number of subsidiaries which would include:

previous securitisation SPVs,
the current securitisation SPVs, and
future securitisation SPVs

In order to raise finance for the purchase of the assets, the current securitisation SPV issues bonds, with interest and principal, to third party investors.

Any residual profit left in the issuer SPV is passed back to the charitable trust.

Home|Main Contents|Manual Contents

Previous Page|Next Page|Top|Menu


| © Crown Copyright | Terms & conditions | Privacy policy | Accessibility |

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cfmmanual/CFM20030b.htm


This is, of course, a huge abuse.

Charitable trusts were established to provide a mechanism that facilitates charitable activity.

They have certain advantages, in law.

They have no directors, who are personally responsible for its activities.

That's why Wall Street liked them.

The boyz could control the trust, but they did not own the trust.

That's what "off-balance sheet" means.

Citibank has somewhere between $500 billion and $1 trillion of these "off-balance sheet" things.



Now I think you will find that, some years hence, everyone will agree that the use of charitable trusts for this purpose was wrong, and should not have been allowed to happen.

Efforts will be made to unwind it all. But of course it will be far too late. The money will be long gone (just like Citibank).

Fingers will be pointed.
Questions will be asked.
"Who was responsible for this abomination?"

Now since they all came out of London, the starting point will be the Bank of England.

So "Steady Eddie" is getting his defence in first.

"I didn't understand any of it at all. Especially that funny slicing of risk thingie. It was not a conspiracy...but a simple mistake"

He's done this before, of course.
With BCCI.

I strongly suggest perusing this thread:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... ci+pollock

What you will find is how the British Establishment hide these things.

Even though the litigants had PROOF that the BoE was lying, the Bingham Inquiry concluded it was "an honest mistake".

When they tried to test this in court, the trial was stopped by chancellor of the high court, Sir Andrew Morritt.

Only Her Majesty can do that sort of thing.

"Steady Eddie" will walk away free.

[Byrne]

Good to see your posts again, Anti.

Fancy this:, on first trading day after the announcement by the US Gov of the 'nationalisation' of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the London Stock Exchange & the London branch of the Intercontinental Exchange (where oil futures are traded) both break down & trading is suspended.

[antiaristo]

Good to see your posts again, Anti.

Fancy this:, on first trading day after the announcement by the US Gov of the 'nationalisation' of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the London Stock Exchange & the London branch of the Intercontinental Exchange (where oil futures are traded) both break down & trading is suspended.

Hi Byrne.
Thanks. Sometimes I wonder if I'm not sounding monotonous.

Thing about the breakdown...we'll never know.

Perhaps if there is a repeat performance tomorrow...

Rush Is On to Prevent Big Insurer From Failing

.......

A.I.G., which is based in New York, has also been under pressure from the derivatives contracts that its London-based financial products unit sold in connection with complex debt securities. Those contracts, called credit default swaps, acted as a type of insurance on the debt securities, making them more attractive to buyers. The swaps also gave speculators an opportunity to bet on the debt securities’ overall creditworthiness, which has declined in response to the turmoil in the housing markets.

.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/busin ... ref=slogin


So many clues...

So few willing to join the dots.

Just last month...

Merrill books loss to London unit and avoids UK tax for decades

By Peter Thal Larsen in London and Francesco Guerrera in,New York
Published: August 15 2008 03:00 | Last updated: August 15 2008 03:00

Merrill Lynch is unlikely to pay corporation tax in the UK for several decades after $29bn of losses suffered by the US investment bank were charged to its London-based subsidiary.

The figures, published in Merrill's regulatory filings, emphasise how the meltdown in the US subprime mortgage market is undermining tax receipts for governments far beyond America's borders. They also offer a rare glimpse into the complex tax management policies of a big global financial institution.

The London losses arose because almost all of Merrill's global activity in the market for collateralised debt obligations - complex debt securities, often backed by subprime mortgages - has been channelled through Merrill Lynch International, its UK-based subsidiary. Merrill has suffered heavy losses on its holdings of CDOs as a result of the credit market turmoil. It last month offloaded securities with a nominal value of $30bn to Lone Star, the US investment group, triggering further writedowns.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56af1850-6a61 ... fd18c.html


You can't do CDO without a "special vehicle".

You can only get those "special vehicles" in London. They are called "charitable trusts".

Under the English common law.
(As interpreted by Her Majesty)


That stuff Eddie George "doesn't really understand..."

[vigilant]

question for antiaristo...

The public is led to believe that Her Majesty has become a figure head with a lot of cash, but doesn't control the country.

I take it from some of your posts that this is not the case?

Is this perception that the Royal Family does not run the country a red herring fed to the public to divert culpability from Royal Family and onto the government?

[antiaristo]

question for antiaristo...

The public is led to believe that Her Majesty has become a figure head with a lot of cash, but doesn't control the country.

I take it from some of your posts that this is not the case?

Is this perception that the Royal Family does not run the country a red herring fed to the public to divert culpability from Royal Family and onto the government?

vigilant,
Yes.

You know, it's a funny thing.
When you have complete control, you can force others to give the appearance that you have no power at all.

It's the underlying gap between perception and reality, and enables many of those other "gaps" that populate our world.

[anothershamus]

sounds like the once in 50 or 100 year events aren't limited to the weather.

Alan Greenspan sounds downright grim:

“First of all, let’s recognize that this [the financial crisis] is a once-in-a-half-century, probably once-in-a-century type of event…,” Greenspan says. “There’s no question that this is in the process of outstripping anything I’ve seen, and it still is not resolved and it still has a way to go.

“I can’t believe we could have a once-in-a-century type of financial crisis without a significant impact on the real economy globally, and I think that indeed is what is in the process of occurring,” Greenspan said.

[tal]

The USA will be a shadow of its former self by the time this has run its course.

You could call it payback for undermining the British Empire.

Welcome back, anti. You've been sorely missed!


I suppose the question of the day would be: isn't the British Empire just as screwed as the US? It would seem that the economic/social condition of the UK is no better than that of the US. So, how, exactly, does this qualify as 'payback' when it seems like murder-suicide to me...

T.S. Eliot - The Hollow Men

Mistah Kurtz -- he dead.




A penny for the Old Guy




I


We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.


II


Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death's dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind's singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.

Let me be no nearer
In death's dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer --

Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom


III


This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.

Is it like this
In death's other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.


IV


The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms

In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.


V


Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow

For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow


Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow

For Thine is the Kingdom


For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

-

[antiaristo]

.

I suppose the question of the day would be: isn't the British Empire just as screwed as the US? It would seem that the economic/social condition of the UK is no better than that of the US. So, how, exactly, does this qualify as 'payback' when it seems like murder-suicide to me...

Hi tal, and thanks.

And thank you, for highlighting the CORE DECEPTION.

You see, there is no British Empire.
There is no British Commonwealth.

A Proclamation is made upon the death of the Sovereign.

A Proclamation is a public decree. It has force of law and cannot be challenged.

When King George VI died...

Upon the intimation that our late Most Gracious Sovereign King George the Sixth had died in his sleep at Sandringham in the early hours of this morning the Lords of the Privy Council assembled this day at St. James's Palace, and gave orders for proclaiming Her present Majesty.

Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God to call to His mercy our late Sovereign Lord King George the Sixth of Blessed and Glorious Memory by whose Decease the Crown is solely and rightfully come to the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary : We, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assisted with these of His late Majesty's Privy Council, with representatives of other members of the Commonwealth, with other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and citizens of London, do now hereby with one Voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart publish and proclaim that the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is now, by the Death of our late Sovereign of happy Memory, become Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of all Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom Her lieges do acknowledge all Faith and constant Obedience, with hearty and humble Affection: beseeching God, by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Princess Elizabeth the Second with long and happy Years to reign over Us.

Given at St. James's Palace, this Sixth day of February in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two.

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty ... Elizabeth2

An illegal Proclamation (because it varied the terms of accession WITHOUT the approval of Parliament) that carries the force of law

all Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

The first great privatization of the post-war years.

It's NOT the British Empire or Commonwealth.

The ONLY connection between the United Kingdom and those countries is that we are all equal subsidiaries in the WINDSOR Empire.

Acting "in God's name".

The UK can go to hell and it won't bother the Windsors. They are Sovereign in fifteen other "Commonwealth Realms"; nice pieces of real estate, like Australia. In fact the Windsors have been sucking the blood out of the country since the coup against Harold Wilson in 1976. The last socialist prime minister.

In fact the UK WILL go to hell: It's a lot weaker than the US.

[Pazdispenser]

Hi anti -

I too very much value your comments.

Thanks!

[vigilant]

antiaristo,

What are the other 15 Commonwealth Realms that they control?

You mentioned UK, U.S., and Australia

[antiaristo]

.

vigilant,
The list is here...

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




Here are a few excerpts to highlight the legal contortions:

Relationship of the realms

“ Any alteration by the United Kingdom Parliament in the law touching the succession to the throne would, except perhaps in the case of Papua New Guinea, be ineffective to alter the succession to the throne in respect of, and in accordance with the law of, any other independent member of the Commonwealth which was within the Queen’s realms at the time of such alteration. Therefore it is more than mere constitutional convention that requires that the assent of the Parliament of each member of the Commonwealth within the Queen’s realms be obtained in respect of any such alteration in the law. ”
—Monarchist League of New Zealand Chairman, Professor Noel Cox

The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy,[6] the succession, and the Queen herself; this means the Commonwealth realms are in personal union with one another.[3] The United Kingdom no longer holds any legislative power over any country besides itself, although some countries continue to use the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as part of their judiciary.


[edit]The Crown in the Commonwealth realms

The personal union of these sovereign states has created the scenario wherein the Crown has both a separate and a shared character, being an institution that operates separately within the jurisdiction of each Commonwealth realm, with the Queen in right of each country being a distinct legal person, acting on the advice only of the government of that state. The Crown is thus unitary through its shared character, but divided in its jurisdictional operation, meaning that in different contexts, Crown may mean the Crown as shared or the Crown in each realm considered separately.

The monarchy is therefore no longer an exclusively British institution, although it may often be called British for historical reasons, for convenience, or for political (usually republican) purposes.[7] One Canadian constitutional scholar, Dr. Richard Toporoski, stated on this: "I am perfectly prepared to concede, even happily affirm, that the British Crown no longer exists in Canada, but that is because legal reality indicates to me that in one sense, the British Crown no longer exists in Britain: the Crown transcends Britain just as much as it does Canada. One can therefore speak of 'the British Crown' or 'the Canadian Crown' or indeed the 'Barbadian' or 'Tuvaluan' Crown, but what one will mean by the term is the Crown acting or expressing itself within the context of that particular jurisdiction".[8] Expressing this concept, through the proclamation of Elizabeth II's new titles in 1952, in each realm the Queen is known by the title appropriate for that realm; for example, in Barbados she is known as "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Barbados," or, simply, the Queen of Barbados.

AND

Three portraits of Queen Elizabeth II illustrating her different positions as sovereign. Left: as Queen of New Zealand, wearing the Order of New Zealand, the Queen's Service Order, and the sash and the star of the New Zealand Order of Merit; centre: as Queen of Canada, wearing the Sovereign's insignia of the Order of Canada and the Order of Military Merit; right: as Queen of the United Kingdom, wearing the insignia of the Order of the Garter and the Royal Family Orders of King George V and King George VI.

Only five percent of the people of Canada are aware that Queen Elizabeth is Head of State.

I'd guess that less than one percent know that she is Sovereign of their country


By contrast with the proclamation in 1952, here is the relevant part by which her father became King in 1936:

...That the High and Mighty Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George, is now become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord George the Sixth by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India: To whom we do acknowledge all Faith and constant Obedience, with all hearty and humble Affection: beseeching God, by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Prince George the Sixth, with long and happy years to reign over Us.

Given at St. James's Palace, this Twelfth day of December in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and thirty-six.

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty ... tm#George6


See how

of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King,

became

Queen of this Realm and of all Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth...

Great Britain and Ireland got downgraded to "this Realm".

"British Dominions" somehow became "Her other Realms and Territories."

The British Empire did not die.
It simply became the Windsor Empire.


How many people know these things?
These stupendous facts?

So ask yourself, as an American Citizen:

"Who is hoodwinking my country?"

[madeupname452]

This may be off topic slightly but ...
my dad just sent me a link to a website/blog
that deals with issues relating to English common law
(Charter of Liberties 1100, Magna Carta 1215 ,Treason Act 1351 ,Declaration of Rights 1688/9 etc. )
,The Monarchy & The Laws of the Constitution.

http://www.tpuc.org/

Topics covered include the erosion of our freedom and sovereignty,resisting iniquitous taxes like the TV "license" etc.

Have not yet read thoroughly but I found this site interesting and informative.

[madeupname452]

heres a snippet

1. The Laws of the Constitution provide that Our Allegiance to the Crown must be Absolute,
and in return for this allegiance, we are guaranteed the protection of the Crown – and all Servants & Ministers of the Crown
- in all meaningful areas of our lives. (Declaration & Bill of Rights, 1689).

2. We are legally empowered to enter into Lawful Rebellion against the Crown,
if the Laws of Our Constitution are broken
– on the clear understanding that we must return to our obedience, when Right has been restored (Magna Carta, 1215);

3. That it is an Act of Treason to remove the Sovereign from the full; lawful and Supreme exercise of Government.
(Treason Act 1351 & Treason & Felony Act, 1848):

4. That it is an Act of Treason to provide Aid &/or Comfort to Traitors
(Treason & Felony Act, 1848):

5. That the People of England (&, by extension, of the UK) may NOT be subjected to the Temporal
(ie Civil) or Spiritual Rule of Foreign Princes;
Prelates;
States or Potentates
(Declaration & Bill of Rights, 1689 & The Privy Council Oath that is sworn by all
Cabinet Members of Every Government, whenever any person is admitted to ANY Cabinet by ANY Sovereign or Prime Minister).

http://www.tpuc.org/node/153