"End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Mon May 30, 2011 11:39 am

.

New thread reviews the infamous "Plutonomy" memo from Citigroup:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32220&p=405520#p405520

Nordic wrote:Thought this needed its own thread.

Citigroup documents admits we're living in a Plutonomy, and seems to think it's just great.

I haven't seen this before. A friend of mine posted it on FB:

http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/files/667 ... part-1.pdf

SUMMARY
➤ The World is dividing into two blocs - the Plutonomy and the rest. The U.S.,
UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy.
Continental Europe (ex-Italy) and Japan are in the egalitarian bloc.

➤ Equity risk premium embedded in “global imbalances” are unwarranted. In
plutonomies the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy and have
a massive impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current
account deficits, consumption levels, etc. This imbalance in inequality
expresses itself in the standard scary “ global imbalances”. We worry less.

➤ There is no “average consumer” in a Plutonomy. Consensus analyses focusing
on the “average” consumer are flawed from the start. The Plutonomy Stock
Basket outperformed MSCI AC World by 6.8% per year since 1985. Does
even better if equities beat housing. Select names: Julius Baer, Bulgari,
Richemont, Kuoni, and Toll Brothers.

..........


........ the so called “global imbalances” that worry so
many of our equity clients who may subsequently put a lower multiple on equities due to
these imbalances, is not as dangerous and hostile as one might think. Our economics
team led by Lewis Alexander researches and writes about these issues regularly and they
are the experts. But as we went about our business of finding stock ideas for our clients,
we thought it important to highlight this provocative macro thesis that emerged, and if
correct, could have major implications in terms of how equity investors assess the risk
embedded in equity markets. Sometimes kicking the tires can tell you a lot about the
car-business.

Well, here goes. Little of this note should tally with conventional thinking. Indeed,
traditional thinking is likely to have issues with most of it. We will posit that: 1) the
world is dividing into two blocs - the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered
by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest.


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

2) We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more
income inequality
, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their
economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and
globalization.

..........

4) In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK
consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in
number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.
There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for
surprisingly small bites of the national pie.

.....................
:shock:

And that's just from the first couple of pages!


.

Thanks Nordic.

The Plutonomy memo and all that it signifies is well-covered in The Shock Doctrine, by the way, and I'm pretty sure it figured in Capitalism: A Love Story. Here's a speech transcript on it by Bill Moyers, posted on the Wall Street thread's longest single page:

Bill Moyers: "Welcome to the Plutocracy!"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21495&p=367737#p367737

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Mon May 30, 2011 4:15 pm

.

A fine hour's lesson from Prof. Hudson:


http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/68300

Guns and Butter, for March 16, 2011 - 1:00pm

Download this clip (mp3, 10.27 megabytes)
http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20110316-Wed1300.mp3

Guns and Butter - "The View From Europe" with Michael Hudson.

Financial and fiscal austerity policies; the appeal of economic austerity to bankers; economic depression and war; post-WWII vs. post-cold war economic policy; government to government grants vs. commercial lending; the euro and dollar; privatization in New Zealand and elsewhere; social unrest; speculation and prices; criminalization of the economy; impoverishment of the US.

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Tue May 31, 2011 7:39 pm

semper occultus wrote:How Goldmans cost Gaddafi a $1.3bn fortune

After losing the cash in just a handful of complex trades, the bank was told it had to offer some sort of compensation

By Alistair Dawber
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
www.independent.co.uk

Goldman Sachs managed to lose nearly all of the money it had been given to invest by the Libyan government, which eventually led the giant Wall Street bank to offer shares as compensation that would have effectively made Colonel Gaddafi one of its largest single investors.

The Libyan Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund worth tens of billions of dollars into which the Gaddafi administration poured the money it made from oil sales, handed over $1.3bn to the bank in 2008 with a mandate to invest in foreign currency markets and other structured products. The deal was struck months before the onset of the financial crisis, and sources close to the bank yesterday claimed that the LIA had initially been uninterested when Goldman told it that the value of the investment had lost several hundreds of millions of dollars.

But by early 2009 Goldman Sachs had lost 98 per cent of what it had been given, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. It is believed that senior Goldman Sachs officials were then summoned to Tripoli, and were told that, after losing the cash in just a handful of complex trades, the bank would need to offer some sort of compensation. The bank alleges that its officials were physically threatened during meetings in Tripoli, but denies that it hired bodyguards for its staff.
<..>
Such was the scramble to mollify the LIA that talks on how Goldman should appease Colonel Gaddafi's government were held at the highest level of the bank – including the bank's CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, and Michael Sherwood, its leading executive in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. An offer was eventually made to the regime in Tripoli to take preference shares, a complicated financial instrument that pays a fixed dividend, but which does not necessarily give the holder an equity stake in the bank.

According to sources at Goldman Sachs, talks about how to recompense the Gaddafi regime lasted for more than a year and culminated in a meeting at Goldman Sachs' London headquarters on 23 June last year. Those sources, who declined to be named, said that the bank has had no contact with the Libyan regime or representatives of the LIA since that meeting.

Goldman Sachs and other companies that have LIA holdings could come under pressure to release the Libyan assets to the National Transitional Council, which a number of countries, including France and Qatar, have recognised as the legitimate government in Libya.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby vanlose kid » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:31 am

JackRiddler wrote:
vanlose kid wrote:this is important.
how it's done.
what the endless keynesian printing Stiglitz and Krugman champion is for.

The Greek Bankruptcy: One Year Later - Exposing The Charlatans Formerly Lost In Translation
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/23/2011 15:30 -0400


What a difference a year makes. It was just over a year ago that Greece received its first (and certainly not last) $1 trillion + bailout package from the EU, the ECB and the IMF.


!! The Greek "bailout" was not a trillion! More like $130 bn, if memory serves. A trillion is the total size of the fund for potential bailouts mustered by ECB, EU and IMF.

Just over 12 months later, all those who peddled Greek bonds to the rest of the world (ahem Germany) are now furiously backtracking, having finally realized what we, and everyone else with half a brain said from the beginning: it's over for Greece, for the eurozone in its current configuration, and for the single currency. But fine, let's kick the can down the road for a few more months, which will allow banks, with access to interest-free central bank capital, to literally steal Greece's soon to be privatized assets for pennies on the dollar, and then send the carcass, now picked dry, to the international bankruptcy court.


Very much up to the Greek people to prevent this by forcing a default now, not later.

In the meantime, we would like expose all the idiots, who like various anchors on Comcast's bubblevision channel, pitched Greek paper to hapless investors, only to see losses (this is not some speculative asset - this is fixed income) of over 40% in one year, and for some reason continue to have a podium from which to spread their lunacy, greed and outright stupidity.

From "We are buying Greek Government Bonds!", published in Handelsblatt May 3, 2010:

SNIP (CHOICE QUOTES FROM BANKSTERS PUMPING GREEK BONDS)

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/greek- ... ranslation


So, VK. Hats off to TD for exposing the opportunistic lying of all those who pitched Greek bonds a year ago. I don't get your comment at the start, however, since quotes from Krugman (definitely not my top pick for an expert) or Stiglitz (quite a touch better) aren't included. What are you referring to?

I don't see how these examples of bond-market dominance must relate to Keynes. Keynesianism, which was eschewed and outre for 30 years while the Friedmanites ran riot with their market creed as the cover for total deregulation for bankers and credit markets, has been rediscovered opportunistically since 2008 as a justification for the banker bailouts and QEs. Only since then has the pretense again become loud that "we're all Keynesians," in an Orwellian switch. It's not at all clear how the real Keynes would have viewed these monetary-side measures, especially given how transparent the real motives are (i.e., they're to rescue the banks, any stimulatory effect as advertised is in truth incidental). The only halfway Keynesian or New Deal program was the stimulus package, a straight fiscal measure separate from the bailouts. It was a half-measure at best as it focused almost entirely on aggregate demand (tax credits and bulk spending grants), not on a rational program of investment targeting job creation.

You might love the following two "Keynes vs. Hayek" videos. They are brilliant and really fun as performance and poetry set to music; the skew becomes obvious especially in the second, which is "fixed" to have Hayek win the argument (and it's no surprise as a pro-Austrian think tank is responsible, and both pieces show real production budgets). I think the boom and bust mechanics are described well in the first, while the World War II and postwar history is mangled in the second. I dispute the equation of any stimulus with central planning, or the description of either as "top-down," while freeing markets is "bottom-up." The main fallacy I see is in thinking that the state is a corrupt and insensitive, centralized planning device, but the "market" when unleashed is a means for allowing needs to be met by producers in an organic, ultimately fine-tuned fashion without one big plan.

In fact the market is just as susceptible to centralizing tendencies that leave a relative handful of capital holders commanding a centralized power potentially even more autocratic and unaccountable than the state's (since the latter might be susceptible to democratic control or rule of law). This was the result of the 30-year deregulation advocated by the Friedmanites inspired by Hayek. In reality, the truly powerful central economic institutions of the state -- the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the other major central banks -- are captured and captive to Wall Street and a few other international finance centers (and major corporations, especially the energy, war and pharmaceutical sectors). This is what the "Hayek" character is allowed to say in the second video, but omitting the matter of this being the inevitable result of unregulated market capitalism. Meanwhile, everything else that is "government" is broken into hundreds of local, state and national units that are ineffective in the face of uncontrolled capital flows and are reduced to little more than location managers who compete with each other in trying to offer the most attractive (low) wages and other perks for capital.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk


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



hey Jack,

playing catch up here, but this post (with embedded links) pretty much covers what i've been thinking (author's Austrian School though, i think?):

Guest Post: EU - A Flawed Foundation, But Brilliant Strategy?
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/31/2011 20:25 -0400

Submitted by Gordon T. Long

EU - A Flawed Foundation, But Brilliant Strategy?

Image

It was the perception of getting something of value without any meaningful sacrifice that initially fostered the EU Monetary Union. Though the countries of Europe were fiercely nationalistic they were willing to surrender minor sovereign powers only if it was going to prove advantageous to them. They were certainly unwilling to relinquish sufficient sovereignty to create the requisite political union required for its success.

After a decade long trial period it is now time to pay the price for Monetary Union. I suspect that the EU membership is unwilling to do so. Though they likely will see the price as too high to do so, the price to not do so has become even greater. They have unwittingly been trapped by a well crafted strategy.

Never has a monetary union functioned without a political union with which to control Fiscal Policy. This was well understood by the strategists but not the salivating sovereign leaders looking for cheaper money to finance election candy and avoid unpopular, pressing economic realities.

It was expected that the obstacle of political union would inevitably give way when the pre-ordained and unavoidable political crisis forced the issue. We are presently at the cusp of this crisis in Europe. As we just experienced the Arab Spring we are about the experience the European Summer on an unavoidable path to the American Autumn and World Winter in an unfolding "Age of Rage'.

The initial resolution of sovereign debt defaults by the bailouts of Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain (GIIPS) will eventually be the creation of a Eurobond, in my measured opinion. It is the next move on the strategic chessboard being carefully orchestrated.

A Eurobond will allow the ECB to issue debt. With the ability to issue that debt, the obligatory abilities to pay for it will come. Paying for a Eurobond will mean giving up gradually increasing levels of sovereign taxation.

The current political impediment to political union is that never has a ruling political regime been willing to surrender the golden jewels, specifically public taxation. But this will happen because it is the hidden strategic goal now operating in Europe.

To understand the real European Strategy you need to appreciate the history of Europe and its cultural diversity. Ever since the Roman Empire and Charlemagne, leaders have dreamed of a single Europe. No one in modern times from Napoleon to Hitler has been successful.

The one thing the European nations understand and for a time were successful at, was Mercantile Colonialism. They were the ones that invented it. When I say 'they', I refer to Kings and their financiers. The Kings may now be gone, but the financiers are even more powerful today than ever before.

The colonies are no longer on the other side of foreign seas to be conquered, but rather part of the Euro zone.

Image

The essence of Mercantile Colonialism is to create a need for debt, then finance that debt and eventually exchange that debt for the collateral assets that are the underlying wealth producing assets.

In the Austrian School of Economics, this exchange of printed paper for real assets, is called the Indirect Exchange. It is well understood and well documented but like usury is avoided in polite conversation. Eventually the colonies worked as slaves to pay the debt to their European masters.

Gold is the Money of Kings, Silver the Money of Merchants and Debt the Money of Slaves

The European banks are slowly but surely, through a tactic of Financial Arbitrage, moving more and more sovereign debt to the ECB and EU. Someone must pay for this debt and that will eventually be the entire European taxpayer base. That is the goal.

In the initial stages of the Euro dream everyone was benefiting. Like an initial user of drugs the early stage is euphoric before the issues associated with the addiction surface. This stage fostered tremendous growth in debt - never ending Corniche housing villas in Spain and Portugal, embarrassing pensions and social benefits in Greece, tax advantages for off shoring corporations in Ireland or unjustifiable and hidden local government spending in Italy.

It has been a captive market for the Asian Mercantile Strategy and a financial retail market boon for US financial instruments created from the never ending supply of freshly minted US fiat paper.

I was living in Europe during the debates on the viability of a European Union. I remember only too well what everyone eagerly wanted and fantasized gaining from a European Union.

Citizens:

1. They saw and wanted employment. The EU meant they could go anywhere the jobs were.
2. It meant cheaper goods because tariffs were to be removed,
3. It meant cheaper cost of financing because of a single currency with as Germany the 'anchoring credit'.

None of which have turned out to be as advertised by those wanting the EMU
(except cheap goods which they don't have the jobs nor disposable income now to afford)

Governments:

1. To the sovereign governments it meant cheaper debt since they effectively received German Mark backed debt. Like free liquor to an alcoholic or free drugs to an addict, the politicians couldn't sign up fast enough as long as they kept sovereignty over precious taxation.
2. To make the deal happen, countries were allowed to maintain fiscal sovereignty, though everyone quietly understood that separated Monetary and Fiscal Policy was a flawed concept and eventually would doom anyone attempting it.

Image
Government spending & brazen consumption masquerading as GDP started exactly with the retail launch of the Euro.

Financiers:

1. As pushers of debt, the banks acquired a whole new cadre of addicts.
2. The EU financiers understood only too well that with the free flow of Labor & Capital, came the free flow of Credit and Financialization.
3. To the financiers it was the creation of an immensely profitable fixed currency regime with a known outcome.

Image
"The way to make a lot of money is to invest in a known & predetermined outcome. "
Joseph P Kennedy, (father of President JFK and one of the richest self-made prohibition bootleggers in America).

It was obviously a flawed approach where Monetary Policy would be disconnected from Fiscal Policy. It was expediently swept under the carpet as something to be avoided and left for future political operatives to craft the public response.

Question: "Why would we implement a flawed system?"

It is exactly the same question as why did US banks make liar loans?

Answer 1: Someone else would carry the liability.

.... and the tax payer has.

Answer 2: Because there was a lot of money to be made!

.... and it has been made.

Prior to Greece exploding and knowing the strategy in play, I was prompted to initiate writing two series of articles laying out the levels of hidden debt being rapidly and insidiously created in Europe

EURO EXPERIMENT Series: Detailed the flawed underpinnings of the EU. An experiment that would foster:

a - Extensive use of SWAPS to hide public debt at all levels of government,
b - The broad use of Off Balance Sheet Contingent Liabilities,
c - The epidemic use of PPP-Public Private Partnerships

"All of which is NOT discussed in these public viewed bailouts."


SULTANS OF SWAP Series: Detailed the financial game of Regulatory Arbitrage. A strategy of passing debt to taxpayers through:

a- Bailout,
b- Guarantees,
c- Monetization of Private Losses,
d- Sweetheart, Crony Capitalist deals

PLUS

a- Extensive use of SWAPS to hide public debt at all levels of government,
b- Broad use of Off Balance Sheet Contingent Liabilities,
c - Epidemic use of PPP-Public Private Partnerships


"The EU is built on a FLAWED FOUNDATION but a brilliant STRATEGY ……
…. Unfortunately the People own the foundation & banks the strategy!


Image
Like Colonial Mercantilism the real money in Europe KNEW going in what the debt strategy was.

They also had another card up their sleeve. They knew there was a structural advantage that would predetermine the eventual outcome.

They knew that the core countries, where the financiers were resident, had a competitive structural advantage over the GIIPS that could not be overcome or at least would highly unlikely be overcome.

The core countries had:

1. Higher Export Volumes (a size advantage)
2. Higher Productivity (Labor & Capital Advantage)
3. Dominant Banking Control and therefore cheaper cost of capital

The flawed EU experiment was more like a family father who is responsible, but his kids have unlimited use of Credit Cards and the hapless father is not allowed to police them. The outcome is perfectly predictable.

Image

Do you really believe that major banks would put themselves in a position where they lent endlessly to the kids knowing they would be left holding the bag? They knew the outcome and who was going to be left holding the bag.

It was certainly not going to be those with an army of lawyers, lobbyists, campaign contributions and most importantly, a strategy.

Now the EU has hit a wall. The gig is up.

It is time for the next phase of the Mercantile Strategy, the demand for collateral and the family silver.

As is currently being exposed in Greece, the financiers will now demand the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, Hellenic Transportation, the Greek Telephone company, the Greek Power company, the Gambling ...... and eventually the Parthenon and Acropolis, if the people don't refuse and take a stand similar to the people of Iceland.

There is an old ADAGE that;

When you owe the bank a $100,000 and can't pay it you have a problem.

When you owe the bank a $1 Billion and can't pay, the bank has a problem.


The message here is that at some level the bank is responsible for having made a serious lending error - after all, assessing RISK is the raison d'être of their business.

Though I believe Greece should never have been allowed into the EU, their debt never been accepted by the ECB as collateral and should have been sent to the IMF much sooner, I need to say, what I am now witnessing is what I effectively see as the 'Date Rape' of Greece.

It is not just a matter of Greece being forced to surrender their most precious assets which belong to future generations of Greek children. It is about assets being sold by a Belgium centered fund - whose interests are those of the financiers, not the Greek citizens.

This is the equivalent of having your house sold by the potential buyer's real estate agent with you just seeing the accepted deal. Or maybe more appropriately, the same way a repo happens when they just take it and sell it - you may or may not get any residual equity back. In the case of Greece, they may or may not get what they thought their asset were worth. It is highly unlikely it will be anywhere near the expected price and highly likely to be an exceptional bargain for the politically powerful and connected.

This is the old tried and tested Mercantile Strategy that European financiers know so well.

While Americans are turning to "Strategic Defaults" in waves in the US, if I was living in Greece I would be demanding my government default. It is time for Greece to strategically default like the hapless American homeowner stretched beyond their means and crushed by a shrinking disposable income. This is a direct result of the money printing that is flowing to the banks to engineer this racket that the Gambino's and Gotti's would have simply called a 'lawyered' version of loan sharking, extortion and racketeering.

It must never be forgotten that the banks create their money from your money. It is only time, therefore before as in a children's monopoly game, they own the whole board.

Also it must never be forgotten that this is why banks fight so hard against Tier 1 Capital requirement changes. This is the money they have previously extracted that is now actually at risk.

Be aware that the mercantile financiers are so opposed to risk that operating as the secured bond holders of the banks they make the profit from the banks - not the shareholders. The financiers get first distribution of profits and are always kept whole. The public typically attacks the bank owners, not those who insidiously control and profit from its operations - the senior secured bond holders. It is the senior secured bond holders who must take the Greek 'haircut' but as part of the strategy they have their political mouthpieces vehemently opposing it.

Maria Damanaki, a European Union commissioner and a Greek said publically that “the scenario of removing Greece from the euro is nowon the table.”

Forcing the Greeks to sell all that's left of the family jewels is now seen as a key part of the political solution. But who will want to buy them when there is every possibility of Greece leaving the euro?

Capital is already fleeing Greece as fast as it can; what's the chance of attracting it for Greek assets?

Someone is going to get real fire sale prices.

It's easy as a bookie to make money on a sure thing when the horse race is fixed!


Image

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest- ... t-strategy


asset stripping.

as for Krugman [edit: to clarify re K, i'm sceptical about him] and Stiglitz [edit: as for S, i was wrong, i thought S and K slept in the same tent, it seems they don't. looks like S doesn't back QE to infinity. not that that necessarily makes him a "good guy" in my view.]: fiat til you drop, QE to infinity. by promoting QE they're aiding and abetting access to cheap cash with which to buy government bonds, i.e. debt., to be "repaid" in stripped assets.

ok, knock it down. what am i missing?

*

ps: from a link in the above piece:

The Greek Privatization Agency will be managed from Brussels, foreigners will supervise the key ministries
15 May 2011 / 04:05:58 GRReporter

Image

Desperate from the indecisiveness of the government of George Papandreou, the experts from the supervisory troika are considering limitation of the national sovereignty and the involvement of foreign technocrats in the government of the country. The Greek state to be deprived of the right itself to manage its property and the Privatization Agency to be headquartered in Brussels and managed by a foreign technocrat are suggesting Poul Thomsen, a representative of the International Monetary Fund, Klaus Masuch – representative of the European Central Bank and Matthias Morse from the European Commission. The agency has been writhing for months in labor and its birth, never occurred.

Three experts insist that the Greek state does not take part in the privatization and that for the privatization the signatures of the Greek ministers should not be necessary. Thus on one side the procedure will be faster, and on the other there will be no danger of corruption. Decisions will be taken by a team of experts. Representatives of the creditors believe that the privatization program of the government isn’t moving ahead, it is too general and there is no trace of ambition. The original intention for the privatization program to be part of the updated Memorandum between Greece and the troika is now considered to be an inadequate guarantee. Experts see how many of the set in the current Memorandum commitments of the Greek government remained only on paper.

Revenues from the privatization are expected to be at least 50 billion euros to be allocated for the repayment of the Greek debt by buying back government bonds at a price lowered by about 30-40 percent of their current value. This mechanism is expected to sharply reduce the value of the Greek spread-indicator.

According to the Sunday edition of the newspaper Vima withdrawal of the management of the Agency, as well as the additional cost cutting worth 10 billion euros for 2011 so as for Greece to reach the desired budget deficit are the two conditions which the troika has laid down as obligatory for the Government. What is currently being negotiated with the Office of George Papandreou is the new Memorandum to be voted by Parliament with an absolute majority of 180 votes, so that in case of elections and change of the government, those coming in power to be obliged to implement it. If this proposal is adopted, it would mean that the troika accepts the risk of early elections and calls on the entire political system of Greece to take responsibility for an eventual crash of the country. The leader of the opposition New Democracy Antonis Samaras has openly stated he would not support a new Memorandum and new measures before the elections.

The scent of elections comes from the belief of the team of Ministers of Papandreou, that greater cost reductions are not possible without the closure of state institutions, mass dismissals of civil servants and a new package of reductions of wages and pensions. The troika is clear that medium term economic program, which aimed at a surplus in the budget in 2015 is not specific and does not win any confidence. The opinion becomes widely spread that in order for things to start going as they should in the ministries should be appointed foreigners supervisors who will monitor on daily basis the work and will have the rank of permanent Deputy Minister following the UK experience.

Poul Thomsen, Klaus Masuch and Mathias Morse will remain in Athens until Thursday and they do not conceal their disappointment that Greece has failed in all the major objectives of the Program for fiscal consolidation. They openly declare that they will not give their consent for the payment of the next installment of the 110-billion euros loan to Greece, if Parliament does not support the updated Memorandum with an absolute majority. This means that the troika will pay only the interest on the bonds whose maturity expires in June and will leave the government of PASOK to seek alone money for salaries and pensions.

http://www.grreporter.info/en/greek_pri ... tries/4532


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby vanlose kid » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:59 am

follow up to the above.

Now That The Banker Bailout Plan Is Set, Here Are The Greek Islands About To Hit Ebay And Fund Another Record Wall Street Bonus Season
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/31/2011 18:40 -0400


The description of the Greek bailout plan in the NYT has just one salient paragraph. Here it is: "With great reluctance, European governments have come to the conclusion that an additional €60 billion now, while politically unappealing, would be less costly than the unquantifiable public funds that would be needed if a restructuring of Greece’s debt produced a Lehman Brothers-like contagion that spread not just to Portugal and Ireland but possibly Spain and the financial system as a whole." Ah yes, with "great reluctance" European governments, bought and purchased by bankers, have decided to bail out their sources of capital. As for the conclusion, the only thing that matters is how long before European taxpayers realize that once again they are the mark in this latest pathetic attempt to ignore reality, which incidentally for those who are clueless, is the following: “Greece’s G.D.P. is already declining and now the government will need to cut another €7 billion in spending,” said Jason Manolopoulos, who manages a hedge fund based in Athens and Geneva and is the author of “Greece’s ‘Odious’ Debt: The Looting of the Hellenic Republic by the Euro, the Political Elite and the Investment Community.” “That is only going to make the debt to G.D.P. figures worse,” he said. “There is no getting around it: Greece is insolvent." So while the bankester cartel is dead set on bleeding the last drop of hemoglobin from the petrifying Greek corpse, here, courtesy of the WSJ is what will soon be purchased by special purpose entities controlled by the same banks that are just now getting bailed out.

But before that, here are the details of the latest brilliant "Kick The Can Down The Road" plan:

While the agreement for as much as €60 billion, or $86 billion, would, in theory address Greece’s need for cash this year and next, it puts off for the time being a restructuring, hard or soft, of Greece’s mammoth debt burden

At the deal’s heart would be an informal understanding that the private sector holders of Greek government bonds might be persuaded to roll over their debts, or extend new loans at the time their older obligations come due.

By taking on more dubious Greek risk — backed by new funds from Europe and the International Monetary Fund — exposed banks would not just step back from the precipice of a “haircut,” or a forced loss on their bonds, they might also hope that in another two years, Greece will be in a better position to repay its debts in full.

The expectation that Europe will again come to Greece’s rescue bolstered both the euro and equity markets on Tuesday. Yields on Greek 10-year bonds have dropped sharply, to 15.7 percent Tuesday from a high of 16.8 percent last week.


The plan may be new, but the idiots in charge are the same:

“Restructuring is off the table,” said a senior official in the Greek Finance Ministry. “For now it is all about growth, growth, growth.” This person, who spoke on condition of anonymity while the talks continued, said an announcement from the European Union, the I.M.F. and the European Central Bank could come as soon as Friday or early next week.


What growth? Can someone explain how the country will generate "growth" and, far more importantly, cash, when it is selling off assets?

And for details on that we go to the WSJ:
Image
Now might be your chance to buy that portion of a Greek island you have been coveting.

As part of Greece's privatization plan to raise cash to reduce its mountain of debt, the national government is preparing to sell as much as €30 billion ($42.9 billion) of public property. It is still early in the process, but future sales are likely to include assets ranging from the government's stake in the Mont Parnes Casino resort in Athens, hotels, and even a concession to develop a luxury resort with a world-class golf course on the island of Rhodes.

The Hellenic Public Real Estate Corp., the government body that manages public property, has a list of about 75,000 individual government-owned properties. The corporation has appointed National Bank of Greece SA to lead a consortium of advisers who are now preparing to sell an initial portfolio of 20 to 30 properties, the first of which could be put on the market in the next few months, according to Aristotelis Karytinos, general manager of the real-estate division at National Bank of Greece.

The International Monetary Fund, in its latest report on Greece, estimates that as many as €15 billion could be raised through real-estate sales. Mr. Karytinos says expected proceeds from property sales or leasing is now estimated at between €15 billion and €30 billion. The first step is to sift through the long list of public property, identify the best real estate, and resolve any legal issues to ensure that the property is able to be fully developed by investors.


There is a "plan" to make the sale of the country to the same creditors that the country is bailing out palatable:

"Our strategy is to award concessions, long-term leases of 30 to 40 years, depending on the individual property, but the government will retain ownership of the land," Mr. Karytinos said. "The first properties should come to market in the next few months, but certainly by the end of the year." Long-term leases are attractive partly for political reasons. Development by foreign investors would be more palatable for Greek citizens if the underlying land remains in government hands.


Luckily, the Greeks are idiots, and will never figure outthis bait and switch. But don't worry: Santorini will be sold As Is; with a 7 day overnight FedEx ground (or boat) delivery option. Sold to Goldman. No concessions there. Especially since nobody will agree to the concession route:

"It is too easy for tenants to break leases in Greece, and that adds too much risk to the transaction," says Alistair Calvert, a London-based partner with Northcliffe Asset Management Ltd., an investment firm specializing in sale-and-leaseback transactions.


So now that Germany has sacrificed it ruling class to banker interests, and Europe knows all too well just who is calling the shots, the ball is back in Greek court:

Whatever the next step is in Greece's plan to privatize public real estate, all eyes will be on how Athens handles the first deals that come to market.

"It is extremely important that they get the first couple of projects right," Ms. Agapitidou said. "If the first projects go well, the interest of international investors will increase."


Oh they will get the first projects fine, all right. After all it is JPM, GS, BAC, Citi, UBS, RBS, RBC, CITI, DB et al that are preparing the CIMs that will be ultimately presented to, and used by, individuals at JPM, GS, BAC, Citi, UBS, RBS, RBC, CITI and DB.

posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=21495


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby vanlose kid » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:11 pm

Guest Post: Greece, Please Do The Right Thing: Default Now
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/01/2011 10:34 -0400

Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

Greece, Please Do The Right Thing: Default Now

The big banks' loans to Greece were predatory by design.

There is only one ethically defensible choice for Greece: default now. Before you flame me with emails about the "responsibilities of debtors," please read the entire entry.

Let's look at credit (offered by lenders) and debt (sold to borrowers) from the point of view of predation.

Would you borrow $1 billion if it was offered to you at zero interest, with no collateral required? I would, without hesitation, and I would buy various assets which offered a reasonable return above zero with the "free money," because the lender has no recourse if my investments fail to return the capital.

Who would be dumb enough to make such a loan? The Federal Reserve, of course, and they do so only to their special buddies, the "too big to fail" banks as a way of diverting the national income to recapitalize the banks without directly transferring taxpayer funds.

What does it take for a transaction to become predatory?

1. The lender (if they had sufficient leverage) could change the terms after the fact, for example, demanding more collateral. This would be predatory because the terms of the loan were "too good to be true" and were designed to fail--i.e. a lead-in to a carefully planned predation.

2. The borrower misrepresented his financial circumstance, i.e. committed fraud, which is a type of predation on unwary lenders.

But there is a quantitative difference between the borrower seeking to defraud an unwary lender and a lender planning a predatory loan:

1. The lender is in effect marketing the debt. If a potential borrower declines a loan, life goes on. If a lender doesn't sell loans, it dies. Therefore the incentives to push "too good to be true" or otherwise misrepresented loans are asymmetrically on the lender side.

2. The lender is an institution that is built upon risk management and risk appraisal. The borrower is not, and thus the skills of assessing (and thus of pawning off) risk are asymmetrically on the lender side.

There is an unsavory analogy to lenders offering under-collateralized, low-interest loans with "gotchas" built into the terms: Pushing these types of loans at interest rates which do not reflect prudent risk management is akin to offering an inexperienced young maiden a large sugary drink that is heavily spiked with a tasteless alcohol, with predatory designs.

So when the maiden wakes up groggily the next morning sans clothing in a strange bed, is it really fair to say, tsk, tsk, she should have known better? Doesn't this ethical symmetry miss the reality that the risks of predation were masked and asymmetrical by design?

The banks that lent vast sums to Greece were in essence offering "too good to be true" loans at rates of interest that did not reflect prudent risk management. Anyone who glanced at Greece's history of defaults might have wondered if Greek rates should have been almost as low as those in Germany.

Was the "collateral" any sounder than that offered in the many previous instances of default?

We're left with only two possible conclusions:

1. The big banks which lent stupendous sums of money to Greece at low rates of interest were hapless incompetents when it came to risk assessment and management, or

2. The loans were predatory from the start.

#1 is patently absurd, and so we are left with #2: the banks designed and offered these loans with predatory intent. Now the banks are offering their political lackeys a menu of predation to choose from:

1. Deliver the wealth of the Greek nation directly to the banks via transfer of national assets

2. Deliver the wealth of the nation over time via "austerity" programs that in essence divert the surplus national income to the predatory banks

3. Increase taxes on the "core" Euroland nations' taxpayers to fund a "bailout" of Greece that is in essence a direct transfer of those taxpayers' wealth to the big predatory banks; the "bailout" is just a pass-through to the banks.


If you think this through, there is only one ethical thing for the maiden to do: toss the spiked sugary drink in the face of the predator and deliver a swift, hard kick between his legs "where it counts."

Greece should respond to this planned predation with complete and total default: not a "haircut" or "extended terms," a complete and total refusal to pay any of the debt.

We are constantly warned that the resulting collapse of the "too big to fail" banks would trigger a global implosion. That is false; life would go on after the predators declared bankruptcy and were liquidated. What the predators fear most is an awareness that any disruption in normal life would be brief and relatively painless compared to the vast suffering imposed to render them their pound of flesh.

The banks are in effect imposing Droit du seigneur--"lords rights"-- on Europe. Someone needs to take the predators down, and it might as well be Greece.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest- ... efault-now


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby vanlose kid » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:47 am



Dr. Ron Paul takes on two Fed lawyers as he chairs this hearing of the Domestic Monetary Policy subcommittee on June 1, 2011 entitled, "Federal Reserve Lending Disclosure: FOIA, Dodd-Frank, and the Data Dump."

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:24 pm

Reports: Goldman Sachs subpoenaed

NEW YORK (AP) — Goldman Sachs Group (GS) was subpoenaed by the Manhattan District Attorney's office over the investment bank's activities leading up to the financial crisis, a person familiar with the matter said Thursday.

A spokeswoman for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said the office had no update regarding Goldman. Goldman spokesman David Wells said the company doesn't comment on specific regulatory or legal issues, but cooperates when it receives a subpoena. A subpoena is a request for information and doesn't mean that a company has done anything wrong.

Shares of Goldman initially fell nearly 2% Thursday after Bloomberg News reported that the bank had been subpoenaed. By midday, the stock was down about 1% to $134.47 a share, its lowest level since last July.

"This is just another thorn in Goldman's side," says Peter Henning, a professor of law at Wayne State University in Detroit, referring to the attention Goldman has gotten from government and the media since the financial crisis began three years ago. The government's request for information from Goldman is the first stage of an investigation, Henning says.

STORY: July 2010: Goldman Sachs admits it misled investors, pays $550M fine

The subpoena follows the April release of a 639-page Senate report that showed Goldman had steered investors toward mortgage securities it knew would likely fail.

The report, which was done by a Senate panel investigating the financial crisis, found that Goldman marketed four sets of complex mortgage securities to banks and other investors. The report said the firm failed to tell the banks and investors that the securities were very risky, secretly bet against the investors' positions and deceived the investors about its own positions to shift risk from its balance sheet to those of investors'.

Sen. Carl Levin., D-Mich., who heads the panel, said at the time the report was released that he planned to convey findings to the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible further investigation.

Sen. Levin's spokesman, Bryan Thomas, said the senator had no comment.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby vanlose kid » Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:06 pm

Troica Demands Deep Public Sector Cuts, Higher Taxes As Part Of Greek Bailout #2, Or My Big Fat Greek Anschluss
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/03/2011 11:37 -0400

So here it is:

• EU, IMF: GREECE NEEDS TO REINVIGORATE STRUCTURAL REFORMS (so, fire more people and generate more GDP with whoever is left?)
• EU, IMF: GREECE WILL REDUCE PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT (so, fire even more peple)
• EU, IMF: GREECE TO REDUCE TAX EXEMPTIONS, RAISE PROPERTY TAXES (So, generate more GDP by taxing people more?)
• EU, IMF: `AMBITIOUS' MID-TERM PLAN, WILL MEET 2011-2015 TARGETS (If the targets are all Greek bankruptcy, yes)
• EU, IMF: OVERALL ASSESSMENT GREEK PROGRAM `SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS (uh, where?)
• EU, IMF: GREEK ECONOMY TO STABILISE AT TURN OF YEAR (Idiots)

And now, the people get angry. Expect live webcast from Syntagma square shortly.

Full release:

3 June 2011 - Statement by the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF on the Fourth Review Mission to Greece

Staff teams from the European Commission (EC), European Central Bank (ECB), and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have concluded a mission to Greece to discuss recent economic developments and policies needed to keep the country’s economic program on track. The mission has reached staff-level agreement with the authorities on a set of economic and financial policies needed to meet program objectives. Strict implementation of these will help to restore fiscal sustainability, safeguard financial sector stability, and boost competitiveness to create the conditions for sustained growth and employment.

Overall, significant progress, in particular in the area of fiscal consolidation, has been achieved during the first year of the adjustment program. However, reinvigoration of fiscal and broader structural reforms is necessary to further reduce the deficit and achieve the critical mass of reforms needed to improve the business climate and pave the way for sustainable economic recovery.

Regarding the outlook, the recession in 2010 was slightly more pronounced than what was anticipated. But there have been encouraging signs recently, in particular a notable pick-up in exports. Unit labour costs are set to decline further, supporting the strong export dynamics, and inflation is on a declining trend. We expect the economy to stabilize at the turn of the year.

In the fiscal area, further sustained deficit reduction will require comprehensive fiscal structural reforms. The government has committed to an ambitious medium-term fiscal strategy that will enable it to maintain its 2011 and medium-term fiscal targets. This strategy includes a significant downsizing of public sector employment, restructuring or closure of public entities, and rationalization in entitlements, while protecting vulnerable groups. On the revenue side, the government will reduce tax exemptions, raise property taxation, and step up efforts to fight tax evasion.

The government is committed to significantly accelerate its privatization
program. To this effect it will create a professionally and independently managed privatization agency, and has drawn up a comprehensive list of assets for privatization with the aim of realizing revenues of EUR 50 billion by the end of 2015. The government will assess progress against intermediate quarterly and annual targets.

In the financial sector, liquidity remains tight, but policies are in place to ensure adequate liquidity provision for the banking system. The banking sector remains fundamentally sound and the authorities are increasing capital requirements to further strengthen capital buffers, giving priority to private market-based solutions. However, the Financial Stability Fund is available as a backstop for viable banks that cannot raise capital in the private market.

Further progress has been made with structural reforms. Legislation to modernize public administration, reform healthcare, improve the functioning of the labor market, remove barriers to setting up and operating a business and liberalize transportation and energy has already been passed or is underway. The government will continue to push ahead in these areas, with a particular emphasis in coming months on growth-drivers such as reviving the tourist industry and removing administrative barriers to exports. To make sure that the reform frameworks are effective as soon as possible, the authorities will strengthen the process of implementation, including through technical assistance from the IMF, EU Member States, and the European Commission, and put monitoring mechanisms in place.

Building on the agreed comprehensive policy package, discussions on the financing modalities for Greece’s economic program are expected to take place over the next few weeks. Once this process is concluded and following approval of the IMF’s Executive Board and the Eurogroup, the next tranche will become available, most likely, in early July.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/troica ... -bailout-2


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby 2012 Countdown » Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:54 pm

Catherine Austin Fitts on Alex Jones show: The Political Move to Cut Retirees Payments

Uploaded by TheAlexJonesChannel on Jun 2, 2011

Alex welcomes back to the show the president of Solari, Inc., the publisher of The Solari Report, and the managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, Catherine Austin Fitts. Fitts, a former Wall Street insider, served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration.

====

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGgJHRzm7j8
George Carlin ~ "Its called 'The American Dream', because you have to be asleep to believe it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
User avatar
2012 Countdown
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:27 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby eyeno » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:57 pm

2012 Countdown wrote:Catherine Austin Fitts on Alex Jones show: The Political Move to Cut Retirees Payments

Uploaded by TheAlexJonesChannel on Jun 2, 2011

Alex welcomes back to the show the president of Solari, Inc., the publisher of The Solari Report, and the managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, Catherine Austin Fitts. Fitts, a former Wall Street insider, served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration.

====

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGgJHRzm7j8


I listened to that last night and it pissed me off that he cut her off as if she was some regular phone caller. He barely gave her a chance after she stated, probably correctly, "there will be no sudden economic implosion, this is more like a slow burn".

She didn't fit the "oh my god it will all collapse suddenly one day without warning" motif and he cut her off like she was a school child.

I'm not an AJ basher because I feel like much of what he exposes needs to be exposed, but at the same time, in my opinion this was a terribly poor use of a brilliant mind like Catherine Austin Fitts.
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby 2012 Countdown » Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:35 pm

eyeno wrote:
2012 Countdown wrote:Catherine Austin Fitts on Alex Jones show: The Political Move to Cut Retirees Payments

Uploaded by TheAlexJonesChannel on Jun 2, 2011

Alex welcomes back to the show the president of Solari, Inc., the publisher of The Solari Report, and the managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, Catherine Austin Fitts. Fitts, a former Wall Street insider, served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration.

====

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGgJHRzm7j8


I listened to that last night and it pissed me off that he cut her off as if she was some regular phone caller. He barely gave her a chance after she stated, probably correctly, "there will be no sudden economic implosion, this is more like a slow burn".

She didn't fit the "oh my god it will all collapse suddenly one day without warning" motif and he cut her off like she was a school child.

I'm not an AJ basher because I feel like much of what he exposes needs to be exposed, but at the same time, in my opinion this was a terribly poor use of a brilliant mind like Catherine Austin Fitts.


I agree with you completely. I don't know if it was that, or if it was that she was trying to defend and protect Soc. Sec. & those evil government programs/safety net. Pissed me off too.
Maybe it was something else though. In his defense, he's had her on before and let her go on for a while. I agree though, it was an abrupt end. Maybe he didn't budget his time properly (got off into the weeds with one of his often uncontrollable rants earlier in the show, and failed to budget his time/schedule, and ran out of time). Amateurish, imo.
George Carlin ~ "Its called 'The American Dream', because you have to be asleep to believe it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
User avatar
2012 Countdown
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:27 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby vanlose kid » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:13 pm

PLaTo'S ALLeGoRY of THe EURO
williambanzai7's picture
Submitted by williambanzai7 on 06/03/2011 14:42 -0400

Image

Al

THE ALLEGORY OF THE EURO

FROM PLATO'S DEBT REPUBLIC

[Socrates] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground debt cave, which has a mouth open towards the sun light of solvency and reaching all along the cave; here they have been indebted from their childhood, and have their legs and necks encumbered so that they cannot move, and can only see the spectacle that is projected before them, being prevented by the chains of indebtedness from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a EURO fire is blazing at a distance, and between the EURO fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which bankster marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the Ponzi puppets.

[Glaucon] I see.

[Socrates] And do you see, I said, the banksters passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking derivatives mumbo jumbo, others silent.

[Glaucon] You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners these debt prisoners.

[Socrates] Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own financial shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the EURO fire throws a debt spectacle on the opposite wall of the cave?

[Glaucon] True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

[Socrates] And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

[Glaucon] Yes, he said.

[Socrates] And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

[Glaucon] Very true.

[Socrates] And suppose further that the debt prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

[Glaucon] No question, he replied.

[Socrates] To them, I said, the financial truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the ponzi images.

[Glaucon] That is certain.

[Socrates] And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the debt prisoners are released and disabused of their financial errors.

At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the solvent light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former indebted state he had seen the credit spectacle shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more solvent and real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply?

And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

[Glaucon] Far truer.

[Socrates] And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

[Glaucon] True, he now.

[Socrates] And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the solvent light of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called financial realities.

[Glaucon] Not all in a moment, he said.

[Socrates] He will require to grow accustomed to the austere sight of the solvent world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the solvent light of the sun by day?

[Glaucon] Certainly.

[Socrates] Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him swimming in debts, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not indebted in another; and he will contemplate him as he is, a debt free man.

Image

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/platos ... -euro-cave


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:12 pm

.

Hilarious & instructive run-down on the Goldman-Libya dealings by Taibbi (found by vk, thanks). Which organization is the greater criminal responsible for more suffering in consequence of its actions, Goldman or Gaddafi's state? It's not a remotely close competition. It's funny that Goldman would have been the one to look bad now, if Libya had bought a slice of it.


POSTED: June 2, 10:23 AM ET | By Matt Taibbi
Goldman Tries, Fails to Sell Soul With Libya Deal


It was hard not to be amused to see this story by CNBC’s John Carney the other day with the following provocative headline: “Goldman Dodges a Bullet.”

In the story an unnamed Goldman banker told Carney that there was a widespread feeling of relief within the walls of the bank after news broke that Goldman a few years ago offered to sell Moammar Qaddafi a $3.7 billion equity stake in their company. The relief, it seems, stemmed from the fact that the deal was never struck – and therefore Goldman doesn’t have to answer charges now of having funded repression in the Middle East. From the Carney piece:

“The last thing we need right now would be headlines reading ‘Vampire Squid Profits Funding Libyan Dictator,’” one senior Goldman investment banker told NetNet.


I appreciated the shout-out there, but I also had to laugh: only a Goldman, Sachs executive would fail to see that offering to sell yourself to a ruthless anti-Semitic dictator/terror sponsor is just as bad as actually completing the sale. If anything, it’s worse. There is no modern-day Goethe or Faust with the genius to even invent an anti-hero pathetic enough to not only try to sell his soul to the Devil, but fail! But apparently, this shameful episode is what counts as a PR win for the esteemed i-banking King these days:

"Finally, we dodged a bullet," another person at Goldman told Carney.


The Libya episode is classic Goldman. They made the equity offer in the first place after blowing a giant pile of Qaddafi’s money on a complicated series of option bets, made before the 2008 crisis. In this deal they pulled the standard White-God conquistador routine, sending in a smooth-talking "rock star" salesman to dazzle the aborigines with cuckoo clocks and shiny things. From MarketWatch:

Libya was eager to join the big leagues of finance, and its investors were “awed” by an Arabic-speaking Goldman executive who urged them into an options deal that bet on the fortunes of companies including Citigroup Inc. C +0.23% , Allianz DE:ALV -1.33% and Italy’s UniCredit IT:UCG +2.08% .


The LIA, Libya’s sovereign wealth fund, was charmed by the demonstration and decided to go all-in with a $1.5 billion bet. Goldman very quickly lost them 98 percent of that money.

I never knew it was even possible to lose 98 percent of an investment that quickly. If you sent a blind, three-legged donkey into Caesar’s palace with $1.5 billion in chips, it could probably stay solvent longer than this options package Goldman sold to Qaddafi.

How could the Libyans be enticed to take such a crappy deal? See if this sounds familiar: according to the Wall Street Journal, the Libyan fund manager felt that Goldman had "misrepresented" the fantastic investment opportunity Goldman sold to them, and also made trades "without proper authorization."

But unlike the Australian and South Korean hedge funds who bought into deadly deals like Timberwolf, or the Dutch and German banks who bought into Abacus, all of whom could safely be fucked with without fear of serious reprisal, the Libyans were a threat to do more than just file quixotic lawsuits in captured American courts over the giant losses. At least, Goldman officials thought they were:
Officials at the sovereign-wealth fund accused Goldman of misrepresenting the investment deals and making trades without proper authorization, according to people familiar with the situation. In July 2008, Zarti, the fund's deputy chairman, summoned Kabbaj, Goldman's North Africa chief, to a meeting with the fund's legal and compliance staff, according to Libyan Investment Authority emails reviewed by the Journal.

One person who attended the meeting says Zarti was "like a raging bull," cursing and threatening Kabbaj and another Goldman employee. Goldman arranged for security to protect the employees until they left Libya the next day, according to people familiar with the matter.


Having managed to get their bankers out of Libya with their heads still attached to their shoulders, Goldman decided to make up for losing $1.5 billion of Qaddafi’s money by offering the international pariah a $3.7 billion equity stake that would have made him one of the largest single owners of the bank.

In con-man parlance, this is called the reload. You beat someone in a Ponzi scheme for his life’s savings, and when he shows up at your door with an axe, you get him to mortgage his house to buy a stake in the Brooklyn Bridge. After blowing $1.5 billion of Libya’s money almost instantaneously, Goldman’s solution to the problem was to immediately get Qaddafi reaching back into his pocket for a cash sum over twice the size of the original losses. It’s really hard not to admire the sheer balls of the whole deal.

Goldman apparently spent much of the summer of 2009 trying to entice Qaddafi to bite on various deals. The main proposal involved Goldman giving Qaddafi $5 billion in preferred Goldman shares in return for $3.7 billion in stock. When that fell through, they tried other proposals, including, hilariously, a deal that would have invested the Libyans in credit default swaps. When the Libyans wouldn’t bite on that either, they tried to design a deal that would have had the Libyans investing in an offshore special purpose vehicle containing what are being characterized as “high-quality bonds.” Amusingly, Goldman sweetened this pitch with what I call a "Jefferson County Special," i.e. a fat consulting fee for a fund advisor signing off on the deal:

The deal would pay Libya an annual return of 6% for 20 years, while also promising a $50m payment to be made to an outside fund adviser run by the son-in-law of the head of Libya's state-owned oil company. Officials from Goldman and the sovereign wealth fund met about the deal in June 2010, but it was never completed.


This is classic modern investment banking. You pitch some kind of deal to a city, state, or country, and it may or may not be a good deal for the actual citizens/residents whose money is at stake. But you can make it objectively a great deal for the individual officials with the power to sign off on the deal by sending a big fat check either to the politician in question or to some local slimeball consulting firm of his or her choosing. Anyway, there is some reason why we journalists are not supposed to call things like Goldman's proposed “$50m payment” bribes, but I can’t remember what it is.

Goldman’s share price actually seemed to jump a little – upward – at the Libya news, getting into the 140-142 range for much of the day. So maybe this unnamed banker in Carney’s story was right about dodging a bullet, at least as far as that day went. But as I’m typing this post, Goldman’s shares are plunging again, thanks to yet another dose of bad news: the bank received subpoenas today from a New York prosecutor, who is apparently interested in Levin report matters. Given the avalanche of bad news hitting the bank of late, it’s actually a bit of a surprise that the market still reacts at all to such stories.

One other observation about all of this, and this was pointed out to me this afternoon by a government investigator familiar with the case. In this Libya deal, we see Goldman going through a lot of effort to placate a customer who lost a billion and a half dollars. Which begs the question: why was Goldman so worried about mending fences with Qaddafi, when it seemingly did nothing for the investors who lost $2 billion in the Hudson deal, or the Australian hedge fund that got beat for $100 million in the Timberwolf deal? I've talked to a lot of people who got on the wrong end of a bad Goldman deal, and I never heard any hint of Goldman coming back with flowers and chocolates after the date rape. What makes the Libyans deserve such special attention? One wonders if you get better service from an American investment bank if the threat of beheading is behind your business deals.

More on this later. I’m also scheduled to talk about the story with Eliot Spitzer tonight on In the Arena, so please tune in. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say about the Libya business.

UPDATE: Almost died laughing when I heard about Goldman's official reaction to the news of the Manhattan subpoenas:

“We don’t comment on specific regulatory or legal issues but subpoenas are a normal part of the information request process and, of course, when we receive them we co-operate fully,” Goldman Sachs said.


So subpoenas are a "normal part of the information request process"? If that's what they consider "normal" communication, how do they shake hands in the Goldman offices -- by beating each other with baseball bats? Instead of greeting cards, do they send each other hydrogen bombs on Christmas and Easter? For pure comic relief, these folks really can't be topped.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... l-20110602
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:26 pm

.

Two more from divine men, Black and Hudson.


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/ ... razed-cop-–-the-imf-and-the-ecb.html

Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Bill Black: Bad Cop; Crazed Cop – the IMF and the ECB

By Bill Black, an Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He is a white-collar criminologist, a former senior financial regulator, and the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. Cross posted from http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot ... se-of.html“>New Economic Perspectives


Greetings again from Ireland. One of the many mysteries about the current crisis is why anyone listens to the IMF or anyone that supported its anti-regulatory policies. Prior to the crisis, even the IMF had begun to confess that its austerity programs made poor nations’ financial crises worse. In the lead up to the crisis the IMF was blind to the developing crises. It even praised nations like Ireland during the run up to the crisis, missing the largest bubble (relative to GDP) of any nation, an epidemic of banking control fraud, and the destruction of any pretense to effective Irish banking regulation.

Crises reveal many deficiencies and one of the most glaring was the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB was set up, unlike the Federal Reserve, to have only one mission and one function – securing price stability through monetary policy. The Fed has three missions and three primary functions. The missions are systemic financial stability, price stability, and full employment. The functions are conducting monetary policy, serving as the lender of last resort, and acting as a financial supervisor. The crisis revealed that both dominant forms of central banking could attain their most fervent goal – near total “independence” in determining and conducting monetary policy – and fail abjectly.

The crisis revealed that the ECB’s narrow mission and function left the EU helpless to deal with a severe economic crisis. The ECB could not save Europe. Only the Fed could, and did, save Europe through currency swaps, serving as a lender of last resort (often on the basis of chimerical collateral) to major European banks, and providing liquidity backstops to myriad financial markets.

The central financial crisis caused a series of national crises in the European periphery, initially in Iceland and Latvia. Individual European nations whose creditors were most at risk joined with the IMF to “bail out” these initial failures. The “bail outs,” however, followed the old, destructive IMF playbook. Greece then slid abruptly into crisis when the new socialist government revealed that its predecessor conservative government (sometimes with the aid of God’s dragoons – Goldman Sachs) had been lying about Greece’s budget deficit for years. The bond markets were not amused and demanded far higher interest rates on Greek debt. Far higher interest rates, for a nation already in deep deficit and lacking any sovereign currency, could only create a destructive feedback cycle that would end in default. The EU’s leaders believed that the future of the euro and perhaps the EU were at risk, so they demanded that the ECB step forward to save Greece.

The ECB could not, under its long-held view of its own rules, save Greece. The ECB reinterpreted its rules to create a second mission and a second function to (belatedly) respond to the EU’s sovereign debt crisis. The ECB became a lender of last resort to euro members. (EU members that retain sovereign currencies with floating values such as the UK are not subject to any involuntary default risk. They can always pay debts denominated in their own currency.)

The ECB managed to get nearly everything wrong in its dealings with Greece. Even the IMF is distressed by the ECB’s response to the crises of the periphery. The first problem was the most understandable. The ECB took too long to respond to the Greek crisis. Delay was inevitable because the ECB did not have a “lender of last resort” program and had taken the position that it could not and should not have such a program because its sole mission and function were achieving price stability through monetary policy. Nevertheless, delay was very harmful. Greece twisted slowly in the wind, taking substantial economic damage. The ECB appeared to lack decisiveness. Speculation arose that other nations on the EU periphery would also need help from the ECB, which led to attacks on their sovereign debt issuances and damage to their budgets and economies.

The ECB compounded the problem by “aiding” Greece by making it loans. Greece’s problems included excessive debt and no sovereign currency, so the ECB’s aid deepened its debt crisis. The ECB did not give Greece grants, which is what it needed. Giving Greece real financial aid, rather than loans was a bridge too far for the ECB. Greece popped a second EU bubble. The second bubble was hyper-inflated by hot air from European politicians (particularly the French and Germans) claiming that the EU and euro were leading the member nations to ever greater political integration and, ultimately, a true “union.” Well, no. Not even close. The EU is moving in the opposite direction. As the Irish columnist David McWilliams aptly observed, it turned out that the Germans didn’t think of the Greeks like the rest of America thought of New Orleans when it was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. They weren’t fellow citizens entitled to draw on the nation’s resources to recover.


Actually New Orleans has seen barely any of the aid sent in its direction, literally 99 percent of which has been swallowed by the state of Louisiana and favored contractors, and not used in rebuilding New Orleans, let alone the Ninth Ward. But his point about what Americans thought was happening stands.

The French and Germans, the leading proponents of ever greater European unity and solidarity, viewed the crisis as the Greeks’ fault and they believed that the Greeks should pay a stiff price for resolving the self-inflicted crisis.

The ECB’s third error was to “channel” IMF policies and demand that Greece – a nation is serious recession – adopt financial austerity during the recession. This, predictably, intensified a recession. The ECB insisted on the same medicine for Ireland and Portugal – and increased unemployment in both nations. Spain, which the ECB is pretending is sound, is covering up its banking crisis. By keeping its real estate values massively inflated Spain is preventing the markets from clearing.


Similar strategy to US, though it's not working since these artificial prices keep dropping anyway.

Unemployment is 20 (29% in Andalusia and 45% for you young adults). The ruling Socialist party was just crushed in a series of regional elections and will likely fall once national elections occur. Ireland’s and Portugal’s ruling parties fell. Economic stability generates political instability.

One of the great paradoxes is that the periphery’s generally left-wing governments adopted so enthusiastically the ECB’s ultra-right wing economic nostrums – austerity is an appropriate response to a great recession.


Many decades of beatings, false-flag ops, and red-baiting propaganda designed to destroy the left have turned its nominally-labeled "socialist" remnants into the more reliable vassals to capital, in Europe at least.

Even neoclassical economists know that the ECB’s policies towards the periphery are insane. The IMF and ECB impose pro-cyclical policies that make recessions worse. Embracing theoclassical [sic, but I like it!] economics isn’t simply harmful to the economy, it’s also political suicide. Why left-wing parties embrace the advice of the ultra-right wing economists whose anti-regulatory dogmas helped cause the crisis is one of the great mysteries of life. Their policies are self-destructive to the economy and suicidal politically. Lemmings don’t really follow each other and jump off cliffs – that’s fiction. Left-wing European governments, however, continue to support the ultra-right wing policies that the ECB pushes even when they know those policies will harm the economy and cause the left-wing party to be crushed in the next general election. They watch the ECB’s policies fail and their sister parties lose power and then they step forward to do the same.

Fianna Fail, Ireland’s ruling party during the initial crises is only vaguely left-wing, but it won the prize for the worst response to a banking crisis in modern Europe. It remains so clueless that last I checked its website it still boasted:

The measures we have taken have been commended by international bodies such as the European Central Bank, the European Commission, the IMF and the OECD and the approval of the international markets.


The old, and very true, line is that there is always at least one fool in a poker game and if you cannot identify the fool within five minutes of joining the game it’s because you are the fool. Ireland has played the fool in its response to the banking and sovereign debt crises. Fianna Fail, gratuitously, turned a banking crisis into a budgetary and sovereign debt crisis and a severe recession into a economic trap that threatens to make Ireland a mini-Japan. Fianna Fail – even after it performed disastrously and was crushed in the general election – thinks it’s a good thing that the ECB and the IMF “commended” Fianna Fail’s policies. Fianna Fail would think it was a good thing if its poker rivals “commended” how well it played poker. Unfortunately, the Irish people provided Fianna Fail’s stakes in this real-world poker game with the Irish banks’ creditors, the ECB, and the IMF. Fianna Fail still thinks the ECB is Ireland’s friend. “Naïve” is inadequate as a descriptor.

These three ECB errors combined with the inherent dangers that the euro poses for the periphery. A nation that gives up its sovereign currency by joining the euro gives up the three most effective means of responding to a recession. It cannot devalue its currency to make its exports more competitive. It cannot undertake an expansive monetary policy. It does not have any monetary policy and the EU periphery nations have no meaningful influence on the ECB’s monetary policies. It cannot mount an appropriately expansive fiscal policy because of the restrictions of the EU’s growth and stability pact. The pact is a double oxymoron – preventing effective counter-cyclical fiscal policies harms growth and stability throughout the Eurozone. The additional dangers include the German desire for a very strong euro, which makes it harder for the nations of the periphery to recover through exports. Germany’s ability to export even under a strong euro makes it even harder for the periphery to export. The one area of financial sovereignty that remains for the periphery is debt, and that can easily become a severe threat because, unlike a nation with a sovereign, floating currency, a nation that uses the euro can prove The surging interest expense can cause a feedback into budgetary pressures (brought on by the recession – and aggravated by the ECB austerity) that causes recurrent crises in individual nations and, through contagion, much of the periphery.

The ECB has recently compounded these inherent problems of the euro through six additional blunders. [1] It has ruled out debt restructuring and made the argument against restructuring one of morality. The truth is that Greece and Iceland are insolvent. They cannot repay their liabilities. Trying to make them repay their liabilities will further harm their economies and increase ultimate losses. This is why we have bankruptcy laws. It is why the U.S. has non-draconian bankruptcy laws that allow a “fresh start.” This is one of the acts of American genius. It greatly increases entrepreneurial activity by individuals and businesses. It has allowed tens of millions of Americans and tens of thousands of businesses a second chance. Keeping a nation in a grinding economic crisis for a decade is pointlessly inhumane (particularly in a continent that claims to prize European solidarity). It is also self-destructive. It harms the periphery and the core by reducing economic growth and causing a wide range of severe social problems. It is a terrible policy for those that believe in the expansion of the EU to the remaining candidate states. Allowing a fresh start by restructuring debts (a euphemism for partial default) is simply good business. The ECB was foolish to take the best option off the table and to stigmatize it as a moral failure.

The ECB then made things worse in a third way [I've only counted 1 so far?] by charging Greece and Ireland too much to borrow. The ECB could have finessed the entire “default” and “morality” rhetoric by providing Greece and Ireland with extremely low interest loans repayable over an extremely long time period. This, of course, would have provided a substantial subsidy to Greece and Ireland, which is exactly what they needed (and what the core needed to escape the crisis that was largely created by the core). Instead, the ECB has charged Greece and Ireland relatively high interest rates. Combined with their recessions, budgetary crises, loss of effective sovereign means to counter the recession because they were members of the euro, and the crippling effects of the ECB’s demands for austerity, the effect of the ECB loans has been to make Greece and Ireland’s debt burdens even more unsustainable.

The ECB’s fourth blunder was blaming the crises overwhelmingly on the periphery. That is overstated in the case of Greece and absurd in Ireland’s case. Ireland ran budgetary surpluses during the height of the lead up to the crisis. It has a budgetary crisis for three reasons. The primary reason is the Irish government’s gratuitous guarantee of the Irish banks’ debts. The secondary reason is the effect of a severe recession triggered by the banking crisis and exacerbated by the ECB’s demands for austerity. The banking crisis was largely the product of accounting control fraud by leading Irish banks. I will develop that analysis in future columns. The tertiary reason is the cost of repaying the ECB and IMF debt. Foreign banks played a dominant role in funding the Irish banking crisis and some of the fraudulent Irish banks. Foreign creditors, particularly foreign banks, were the leading beneficiaries of the insane decision by Fianna Fail to have the Irish people guarantee the Irish banks’ debts to these creditors. The ECB “bailout” of Ireland is in truth primarily a bailout of non-Irish creditors of Irish banks. Those non-Irish creditors are overwhelmingly financial institutions and disproportionately German financial institutions. I trust the reasons why Prime Minister Merkel has continued to support the “Irish bailout” despite the political damage it causes her party is now clear – the “Irish bailout” could more aptly be termed the “German bank bailout.”

The ECB should have explained these realities whenever it discussed the Irish crisis. What should have happened in Ireland, at the minimum, is that the four large, insolvent banks should have been treated as insolvent banks, which was the reality. Bank debts represent contracts. The contract that the Irish banks’ lenders entered into with the banks had these basic terms.

1. We recognize that the loans we make to the Irish banks are not protected by deposit insurance except to the extent we make actual deposits in amounts less than or equal to the deposit insurance limit. (It is important to understand that several of the largest Irish banks were exceptional in how few insured deposits they had.)

2.As to insured deposits, the contract was that Ireland, in the event the bank failed, would repay us the full amount of our deposit up to the insurance limit. In return, as insured depositors we accepted a lower interest rate from the banks because deposit insurance reduced our risk of loss if the bank failed.

3. To the extent that we lend money to the bank other than through insured deposits we are at greater risk of loss if the bank fails so we are compensated for that risk by receiving a higher rate of interest than do insured depositors. If the bank fails we only get repaid a portion of our debts. That portion depends on how insolvent the banks prove to be. If the banks’ losses on assets are 60% (roughly the loss rate at the worst three Irish banks), then we will receive under 40 cents on the euro (because the administrative expenses of receivership will reduce the pro rata recovery of unsecured creditors). The recovery rate for general creditors becomes even smaller when the bank has secured creditors or other creditors with higher priorities (which can include depositors in the U.S. context). The Irish banks’ general creditor, therefore, already received compensation in the form of higher yield that they deemed adequate recompense for the taking the risk of catastrophic loss in the event the bank failed. To pay general creditors in full when the bank is deeply insolvent is to provide them with a windfall – and to create perverse incentives that would further erode “private market discipline” and make future crises more likely and more severe. The Irish banks’ creditors were supposed to suffer catastrophic losses when the banks failed – that was the deal they made and they decided that the extra yield was sufficient. No one made the creditors loan to the Irish banks. The creditors voluntarily did so to make a lot of euros.

4. To the extent that we lent money to Irish banks on a subordinated basis the deal we made was that we would be wiped out entirely if the bank became insolvent. Indeed, that is why subordinated debt is allowed to be treated as tier II capital under the Basel accords. Again, neoclassical economists have claimed that subordinated (“sub”) debt provides the ideal form of capital because it self-selects for financially sophisticated lenders who have superb incentives and ability to provide effective private market discipline precisely because they know they will lose everything if the bank becomes insolvent. In practice, sub debt never provides effective private market discipline, but neoclassical economists cannot admit that. Neoclassical economists, therefore, argue that bailing out sub debt creates perverse incentives and makes future crises more likely and more destructive. Ireland provided a governmental guarantee that covered even the great bulk of the sub debt. (One potentially confusing term from the U.S. perspective used in Ireland is “senior debt.” Irish reports on their banks use this term to refer to general creditors’ claims that have no special priority. They are “senior” only relative to sub debt, not other general creditors.)


The overall impact of all of this is that if the ECB insists on talking in terms of morality and honoring contracts the uninsured creditors should have been the ones to bear the overwhelming bulk of the losses caused by the Irish banks’ insolvency. That’s what their contracts provided. Instead, they are reaping a massive windfall at the direct expense of the Irish people.


It's the same story in the US, of course. Except here for morality (what's that?) substitute "free market capitalism," the only ethical code the banksters recognize. They got to write the rules and then made contracts under those rules, which failed. So they blackmailed their way into bailouts and passed the debts on to the government. To show their gratitude, they now get to whine about deficits and downgrade the US debt they caused.

Black is back wrote:I must mention in passing a new analysis by Goldman Sachs related to this issue that is so exceptionally bad that it demands response.

State default would wipe out Ireland’s banks

Goldman figures show banks would take €12bn hit

By Nick Webb
Sunday May 29 2011

“IRISH banks would be all but wiped out if the Government was to default or restructure the State’s borrowings because of their vast holdings of Irish bonds and sovereign debt.

Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank could face loses of as much as €11.4bn if a major haircut was part of any deal, according to a new report from Goldman Sachs, which has been obtained by the Sunday Independent.”


The only thing that these figures on Irish bond holdings demonstrate (which Goldman misses entirely) is what I have been explaining. The Irish government gratuitously bailed out massively insolvent Irish banks. The direct beneficiaries of this bailout included many foreign creditors, particularly banks, and more particularly German banks. The Irish government, because it lacks a sovereign currency and because it has guaranteed these massive debts, is short of euros. The Irish government, therefore, gave the banks Irish bonds. The Irish banks already had some Irish bonds in portfolio. Irish bonds have large market losses because Ireland is insolvent and if it follows the ECB’s austerity dictates it will become more insolvent. (Eurozone bank stress tests excluded sovereign debt risks because they were designed not to be very stressful.)

The title of the article, therefore, is misleading. Ireland’s insolvent banks were “wiped out” years ago when they made epic bad and fraudulent loans. Ireland is insolvent and it does not have a sovereign currency; it cannot afford to convert currently its sovereign debt held by its banks into euros. Ireland’s problem, therefore, is not the consequences of defaulting, but the consequences of failing to default.

Goldman is doubly wrong about a debt default causing the failure of the banks. I’ve explained why this claim reverses causality. One, it was the failure of the banks and the insane guarantee that caused the budgetary and sovereign debt crisis and the greatly increased “funding” of the banks with Irish bonds. It was the failure of the banks and the guarantee that made Ireland insolvent and (absent real aid from the EU) makes some form of Irish default inevitable.

Two, an Irish debt default would not cause the banks to fail (assuming counterfactually that they hadn’t already failed). If Ireland leaves the euro and reestablishes a floating, sovereign currency the Irish banks’ holdings of Irish bonds will be irrelevant. The fact that AIB and the Bank of Ireland hold Irish debt does not impose any net cost on the Irish government of repudiating debt. Ireland, should it find it desirable, can simply provide AIB and the Bank of Ireland with new Irish bonds or with the new, sovereign Irish currency. The only real issue is whether, and to what extent, it makes sense for the Irish government to subsidize AIB and the Bank of Ireland and what it should receive in return for such aid.

The fifth EU blunder has not been limited to the ECB. A series of EU representatives and parliamentarians of individual nation states have decided to demonize the periphery and to “suggest” that the periphery act in a manner designed to humiliate the nations, impair their sovereignty, and create intense enmity towards the core nations. Greece has been told to sell it islands and beaches. This has led to media speculation that it is being asked to sell its national archeological treasures. Prominent representatives of the core nations regularly deride the purported national character flaws of the periphery. The ECB strategy for the recovery of the periphery is for those nations to engage in a “race to the bottom” of wages to “restore competitiveness.” The core has consigned the periphery to a second track – and their track is the road to Bangladeshi salaries.

The sixth EU blunder is to threaten not only the periphery but other EU and transnational institutions. The ECB, last week, threatened to cut off all credit to the periphery if Greece entered into a debt restructuring deal brokered by the G-8 or any similar group. The ECB, the least democratic institution in the EU system, seeks to arrogate to itself unprecedented power over EU member nations when they are in crisis. This will produce riots, mass protests, and the return of anarchism in many parts of Europe. The one thing that the citizens of the core and the periphery share is the conviction that “the other” is acting wretchedly and in contravention of ideals underlying the formation and expansion of the EU. Neither the core nor the periphery understands the others’ perspective. The ECB has no idea how much rage it has created in the periphery and the passionate divisions it is creating among Europeans. If the ECB is not curbed it will destroy the European project. The ultimate irony is that it will be the Germans and French who dominate the ECB and represent the two nations that have been the strongest proponents of an ever closer union, who will fracture the union unless they give up their theoclassical dogmas.



I see now, he means to spell it "theoclassical."

A funny story by Don DeLillo in December 2010 Harper's, "Hammer and Sickle," includes two young sisters giving playful Wall Street news reports on a cable TV program, which becomes a popular show at a minimum security prison for white collar criminals. Here's a relevant passage:

"All of Europe is looking south.
What do they see?”
“They see Greece.”
“They see fiscal instability, enormous
debt burden, possible default.”
“Crisis is a Greek word.”
“Is Greece hiding its public debt?”
“Is the crisis spreading at lightning
speed to the rest of the southern tier,
to the eurozone in general, to emerging
markets everywhere?”
“Does Greece need a bailout?”
“Will Greece abandon the euro?”
“Did Greece hide the nature of
its debt?”
“What is Wall Street’s role in this
critical matter?”
“What is a credit-default swap?
What is a sovereign default? What is
a special-purpose entity?”
“We don’t know. Do you know? Do
you care?”
“What is Wall Street? Who is
Wall Street?”
Tense laughter from pockets in
the audience.
“Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy.”
“Stocks plunge worldwide.”
“The Dow, the NASDAQ, the
euro, the pound.”
“But where are the walkouts, the
work stoppages, the job actions?”
“Look at Greece. Look in the
streets.”
“Riots, strikes, protests, pickets.”
“All of Europe is looking at
Greece.”
“Chaos is a Greek word.”
“Canceled flights, burning flags,
stones flying this way, tear gas sailing
that way.”
“Workers are angry. Workers are
marching.”
“Blame the worker. Bury the worker.”
“Freeze their pay. Increase their tax.”
“Steal from the worker. Screw
the worker.”
“Any day now, wait and see.”
“New flags, new banners.”
“Hammer and sickle.”
“Hammer and sickle.”
Their mother had the girls delivering
lines in a balanced flow, a cadence.
They weren’t just reading, they
were acting, showing facial expression,
having serious fun. Screw the
worker, Kate had said. At least their
mother had assigned the
vulgar line to the older girl.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Political

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests