WikiLeaks Cables: The Bankers Theft of Our Money was Planned Well in Advance

[kpete]

WikiLeaks cables: Mervyn King plotted banks bailout by four cash-rich nations

Bank of England governor suggested new group of UK, US, Swiss and Japan could facilitate global bailout, cable shows


WikiLeaks cables: Mervyn King plotted banks bailout by four cash-rich nations

Bank of England governor suggested new group of UK, US, Swiss and Japan could facilitate global bailout, cable shows


The Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, was so concerned about the health of the world's banks in March 2008 that he plotted a secret bailout of the system using funds from cash-rich nations, according to a US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks.


Six months before the world financial crisis reached its peak, forcing taxpayers to rescue collapsing financial institutions, King told US officials in London that the UK, US, Switzerland and Japan could jointly enable a multibillion-pound cash injection into global banks, overriding the "dysfunctional" G7 nations.


The leak may allow King to claim that he – rather than Gordon Brown – was one of the brains behind the bailout of the banks, which took place in October 2008.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-mervyn-king-bank-bailout

Just think about that. 6 months in advance the Bush administration's State department was passing around information on co-ordinating the bailouts of these gambling vagrants. And you can be pretty darned sure the Bush Administration knew about this oncoming train wreck long before even this cable given the suspicious timing of what they did to Eliot Spitzer. You don't believe me?
http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/fact-bankers-theft-our-money-was-planned-well-advance

[rucky]

1. Closest thing to a smoking gun that I've seen from Cablegate. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

5. For the U.S. perhaps. There are plenty of revelations that other countries are pissed off about.

[xchrom]

2. Gasp! You mean they weren't surprised? Nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Since the cable is dated the day after Bear Stearns collapsed, this is hardly surprising

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/146196

We even mentioned it once or twice on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=345913
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=344822
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=345519
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3227691
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3229530

etc.

[Duppers]

17. ....

:thumbsup:

Some do pay attention. Thanks.

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. NOT THE US PAPERS .... SO IT IS NEWS.

BEING BROADCAST NOW...

I really think his statement is shit calling it

HARDLY NEW NEWS.

[Ichingcarpenter]

So You quote only one English paper .......to find what was revealed

That aren't AMERIKAN......

Yes, I read that ....... Now it moves beyond THE GUARDIAN...
TELL ME ONE US SOURCE THAT COVERED THIS SHIT?

[Ichingcarpenter]

40. The Washington Post waas on PAGE 23

YEAH THAT COVERED IN THE USA.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. The Guardian is the main English language conduit for the Wikileaks cables

Of course I quote it; it's the most authoritative media source there is for this. And, what's more, this is about what the British governor of the Bank of England said at the time; the OP quotes The Guardian as well. American papers may not have re-reported this much because it's not that big a deal; what it says is that the British financial authorities were thinking about government bailouts when only Northern Rock and Bear Stearns had failed. This is not that surprising; I'd actually hope that authorities had at least considered such a course at that stage, whether or not it turned out to be the best one. If they hadn't even thought about it, they'd have been incompetent.

But, if you insist that an American source is needed before this can be considered 'not a coverup', I give you AP, via Bloomberg:

WikiLeaks: BoE suggested global bank bailout in 08

LONDON (AP) — U.S. diplomats say Bank of England Governor Mervyn King suggested that Britain, the U.S., Switzerland and possibly Japan bail out the global banking system in March 2008 — some six months before the financial crisis peaked.

In a U.S. embassy cable published by The Guardian on Tuesday, King is reported as telling U.S. ambassador to Britain Robert Tuttle and U.S. Treasury deputy secretary Robert Kimitt that the four countries might form "a temporary new group to jointly develop an effort to bring together sources of capital to recapitalize all major banks."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-14/wikileaks-boe-suggested-global-bank-bailout-in-08.html

Happy?

[JDPriestly]

58. We were assured that Bear Stearns was an anomaly.

Apparently, it was simply allowed to fail. Think of all the people who lost their hard-earned savings when Bear Stearns went down -- innocent folks who deserved to be saved if others were to be rescued.

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. Who were "the people who lost their hard-earned savings when Bear Stearns went down"?

They were investors in its high-risk, high-return hedge funds. Bear Stearns didn't have retail savings accounts. Or they were shareholders in Bear Stearns itself; and they are precisely the people who should lose money if a company 'goes down'. Unless you think taxpayers should bail out the shareholders?

And, no, it wasn't "simply allowed to fail". If you actually read those links I gave, or look up what happened, it was bought by JP Morgan Chase, in a deal orchestrated by the Fed. Much of its operations continued.

[Rex]

73. Sadly American news is incredibly censored and filtered for

this kind of information. DU knowing ain't the same thing as the unwashed masses knowing. I know it is sad, I agree in advance.

[Enthusiast]

81. And this is a dilemma.

"DU knowing ain't the same thing as the unwashed masses knowing."

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. For goodness' sake, all those DU threads were based on mainstream media stories

It was all over the media that weekend. All people had to do was turn on a TV or radio, open a paper, or look at any major web news site.

[druidity33]

92. yes, but...

some people see dots and connect them...

other people just see a bunch of dots.

:shrug:

[Rex]

96. So were a thousand other stories that got no more or less coverage.

DU does NOT represent the mainstream. We always know about these things, most people have no clue and just watch the weather. Wow a whole weekend dedicated to...nevermind I see you don't get it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. Wilful ignorance is not the same as censorship

You claimed the news of this was censored. But it wasn't. This was the top story. Look at the transcripts for 'The Situation Room', a general news program, for the Friday:

Economic 'Tough Time': President Bush Warns Against Overreaction; Michigan Primary Do-Over; McCain's Stance on Earmarks

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

A powerful new punch in the gut for Wall Street today. Just when President Bush was trying once again to be a calming influence on a rocky economy, the Federal Reserve stepped in to bail out the nation's fifth-largest investment bank. The Fed took a Depression-era plan out of mothballs to help Bear Stearns survive a severe cash crisis.

Stocks closed down about 190 points. Investors read the bailout as a sign the nation's credit crunch is getting worse.

And in the midst of all of this, the president gave an economic speech and conceded what even he says is obvious.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our economy obviously is going through a tough time. It's going through a tough time in the housing market, and it's going through a tough time in the financial markets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

And the Monday:

Rescuing the Economy; Democratic Presidential Candidates Duel on Economy; Fmr. President Bill Clinton on Hillary's Campaign; McCain Says Surge is Working in Iraq

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Economic nightmares are coming true for many Americans right now, and the political leadership knows they can't ignore the growing sense of fear that is out there. President Bush and the Democrats who want his job all making a point once again today to talk about issue number one for voters. The urgency fueled in part by drastic new measures to try to prevent a leading investment bank from collapsing.

Our Suzanne Malveaux is covering the Democrats on the economy. But first let's go to the White House. '

Our Ed Henry is standing by to tell us what the president did to try to reassure a very jittery Wall Street and very jittery American public -- Ed.

ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, just like last week, the president is again being cheerleader in chief, trying to be optimistic about the future. But in a sharp departure from his speech on Friday, he's now in favor of more dramatic government intervention, which could be a sign that the White House is getting more nervous about the health of the economy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HENRY (voice-over): The day for President Bush was supposed to be focused on the luck of the Irish. Instead, fearful the economic crisis is spreading, the president made a last-minute change to his schedule, bringing reporters in to a morning meeting just as the markets opened. GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In the long run our economy is going to be fine. Right now we're dealing with a difficult situation.

HENRY: The upbeat tone belies the fact the government took extraordinary action this weekend. The Federal Reserve rushing in with $30 billion in taxpayer money to back JPMorgan Chase's takeover of Bear Stearns, the troubled investment bank that has cratered.

BUSH: We're in challenging times. But another thing is for certain, that we've taken strong and decisive action.

HENRY: Different than what he said Friday, when he warned against the government doing too much to deal with a rough patch on the road.

Top story, both days that bracket the weekend (since it only transmits on weekdays). This was not some marginal financial story that DU was clever to pick up. It was big, and was covered, by the main American media, as such. I'm sure there were plenty of people who, as you say, just watched the weather. But that's not censorship by the media. That's just a decision to not watch the news, whatever's on it.

Have you wondered why no media site has made much of this? Why the only (tepid) reaction to it is "was it Mervyn King's, or Gordon Brown's, idea to suggest a global coordinated bailout?" and "did King think the G7 was 'dysfunctional'?" That's because it's not surprising at all that things like this were raised when major investment banks were imploding. The only person who thinks it was unusual is an anonymous blogger. Plus the headless chickens of the DU Outrage section, who loves the words 'smoking gun' and fall for any breathless "now the TRUTH is known" hyperbole.

[ConnecticutMan1]

98. Trying to find where it says they are coordinating

bailing out the global banks in those March reports you say are there. But the reference that you say were reported on then do not exist. Right there in the words you provide. Now: Why should this non-anonymous blogger take the words of some crank commenter at DU that says things are there in quoted paragraghs that do not say what they said that it said?

Just sayin... 6 months before the "financial crisis" the State Department was already circulating information on coordinating the largest theft of our money in the history of the world... Pulling out a couple of references to "Bear Stearns" ain't gonna cut it as "they reported it!"

If this ain't a page one story then what good are the media?

They already knew at least 6 months before they unleashed the "we need to bail out the banks now, Now, NOW!" shock doctrine like histrionics on the American public.

[sabrina 1]

102. Where is this information anywhere in your links?

The economic meltdown was reported, but NOT this story about the plans to make tax payers pay the bill for the corruption they had nothing to do with.

What we saw here on the news did not include this information. If I'm missing it in your links, then please it out to me.

This IS a top news story. But there will be more. Wikileaks plans to publish more this month exposing corruption in major banks. They have, Assange has said, over a quarter of a million documents on the 'private sector'. And I wouldn't be surprised if they get more.

[truedelphi]

37. + 1. n/t

[me b zola]

3. Truth out!

Recommended

[L. Coyote]

32. Truth hidden because of the election season. Thank John and Sarah for the meltdown

and send them the bill

[NightWatcher]

4. Mr. Shit I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Fan in 3.. 2..

Pitchforks, git yer pitchforks here

[chimpymustgo]

6. If only... K&R.

[WinkyDink]

76. Dream on.

[Poboy]

7. The financial meltdown was a controlled demolition. -nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. And Now the Citizens are asked for Austerity its Revolting

Speaking of Revolting.............

Wikileaks is News and Journalism and anyone who says it isn't
is lying to themselves and others.

[malaise]

10. True words

The liberty bell crack is now a chasm

[Blue_Tires]

33. +1

[leftstreet]

35. +1

[eowyn_of_rohan]

36. GOOD POINT

[Hydra]

41. + a Holdup

I've been saying it since it happened. Thanks Julian and team for giving me the docs to back up my arguments

:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

60. "The Looting of America" ... Catherine Austen Fitts ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dGHuRExiM

[florida08]

93. this is very good

financial coup d'état

[jtuck004]

74. Was?

respectfully, just a little fyi here -

Everyone is talking as if the crisis is over.

At least one source is speaking as if the blow-up is just in recession, like a cancer. They are still selling these products. Some of the stuff has been renamed, but same game going on. A bill was passed, but quite weak compared to what has become unregulated.

They are still collecting hundreds of billions in interest on assets (t-bills) we loaned them - look for "excess reserves" - these are published figures. There is an 8-9 year backlog of homes owned by the banks, and we still haven't finished with the first 13 million foreclosures. "Banks" are still holding hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, of homes on the books at their value during the height of their "bubble", directed to do this under a ruling from the Financial Accounting Standards board. (else we would likely be in a depression with hundreds of banks failing around our ears). Most foreclosures are in a temporary holiday for Christmas, but it will ramp up again in 2011. And it is pretty likely we won't see unemployment like we were used to for another 15 years, perhaps 20. And the growth will be in low-wage service jobs (unless some miracle drops out of the sky), so all the insolvent states (which is most of them), insolvent cities and towns, insolvent pension funds, etc still have to blow up as well.

It isn't finished. Not by a long shot. The very best case scenario has it dragging on for at least 2 decades. The worst says the economy will come apart.

Happy Holidays!

[malaise]

9. They are terrified that this would be exposed

Go WikiLeaks!

[Recursion]

12. Umm... hasn't the Treasury made money on the bailout?

Sounds like a pretty inept "theft"

[Poboy]

13. No.

[Recursion]

14. Source? Aren't we talking about TARP?

TARP is so far a net plus to the Treasury from everything I've seen. The Fed took a hit, but that was at its own insistence.

[girl gone mad]

19. The loss from TARP is still in the tens of billions. n/t

[eomer]

20. You've got to be kidding: "The Fed took a hit, but that was at its own insistence."

I don't know what point you're trying to make. Sure, the Fed and other parts of the federal government did this stuff voluntarily. So what? They did it voluntarily because they have come to work for the multinational corporations instead of working on our behalf. Yes, they did it voluntarily. That's the problem.

The Fed loaned trillions of dollars at zero or near-zero interest to banks and other corporations, who allegedly used those trillions to buy Treasury Securities from the Fed and in the process make an instant risk-free profit on the difference in interest rates while providing no useful purpose to the economy. The money that the Fed loaned them was not used to finance a recovery, it was used to finance more profits for these corporations who are then sitting on it, except for the part of it that they're shoveling in gross amounts into executive bonuses. The Fed may as well have written them a check for the net profits except that they needed to obfuscate what was really happening.

[Recursion]

21. We're talking about TARP

The Fed was not involved in TARP. When I said "the Fed took a hit" I mean they opened a loan window to investment banks (pre- and mid-TARP) which drove down the returns from their normal lending.

The Fed loaned trillions of dollars at zero or near-zero interest to banks and other corporations

The "trillions" is disingenuous (it was tens of billions daily for many days, paid back each day), and "at zero interest" is an outright falsehood, though I suppose your "near-zero" caveat could be squished to mean whatever you want it to mean.

But, yes: it made those loans. That's a central bank's job.

[eomer]

22. No, you're the one trying to limit the discussion to TARP, which makes no sense.

Look at this key excerpt from the actual cable that was leaked:

It could be a temporary group, and he suggested that perhaps central banks and finance ministers of the U.S., the UK, and Switzerland could coordinate discussions with other countries that have large pools of capital, including sovereign wealth funds, about recycling dollars to recapitalize banks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/146196

I put the bolding of the term "central banks" for you. The central bank of the United States is the Federal Reserve System. So, no the cable is not referring specifically to TARP. In fact if you wanted to be a stickler you could say the cable is not talking about TARP at all since the TARP money did not come from the "central banks".

[PhillySane]

44. They still used the money

to make more money. It's a scam that Treasury is in on. Wish I could get one of those loans. Maybe I'd buy up Tax liens in Florida the way BOA does.

[SOS]

56. $4.72 trillion disbursed, $13.86 trillion max at risk, $1.93 trillion oustanding

Put that $1.1 trillion in Fed MBS purchases back on the bank books and watch 'em fall like dominoes.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Total_Wall_Street_Bailout_Cost

PS: Bank of America has refused Fed demands to buy back their MBS garbage.
That clearly shows who rules this country.

[formercia]

16. The banks made the money to pay off the loans

on the backs of the Working Class.

Where do you think the money came from in the first place? First the FED bails out the Banksters with 'money' it created out of thin air and loaned that to the Banks who made money off those who lost their savings and real property.

Good deal for the banks. they trade funny money for tangible assets.

[Recursion]

18. I think you're mixing up two different things. The Fed is not the Treasury.

Where do you think the money came from in the first place? First the FED bails out the Banksters with 'money' it created out of thin air

Inflation is a good thing (in small amounts) for people who are not rich. The Fed has inflated the money supply over the past 3 years.

The Fed also had nothing to do with TARP; that money was from the Treasury. And as it's shaking out now we're going to do something like break even on TARP, or possibly get a slight net income for the Treasury (it depends on how AIG unwinds; worst case is we're out $10 billion).

and loaned that to the Banks who made money off those who lost their savings and real property.

Not one single person who deposited money in an FDIC-insured bank lost even a penny. People who wanted higher returns than banks offer, and put their savings in less secure instruments, were taking a risk, a risk that in this case didn't pay off well.

[soryang]

43. They still owe > $320 Billion on TARP more than half

The big banks claim that they have paid back all of the bailout money they received, and that the taxpayers have actually made money on the bailouts.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/no-big-banks-have-not-really-paid-back.html


"However, as Barry Ritholtz notes:


Pro Publica has been maintaining a list of bailout recipients, updating the amount lent versus what was repaid.

So far, 938 Recipients have had $607,822,512,238 dollars committed to them, with $553,918,968,267 disbursed. Of that $554b disbursed, less than half — $220,782,546,084 — has been returned.

Whenever you hear pronunciations of how much money the TARP is making, check back and look at this list. It shows the TARP is deeply underwater."


They pay off the TARP with profits from QE donations from the FED and also the subsidy on the zero percent loans they use to buy Federal debt. In other words, the banks are still on life support. They are hoarding their reserve deposits because of their derivative exposure.

[Enthusiast]

82. Don't derivatives

remain a threat to stability even considering new reforms in place? It seems to me these derivatives should have been much more strictly regulated.

[soryang]

88. Derivatives are a threat and must be restricted

Wall Street investment banks can't live without derivatives. Derivatives are something for nothing as most are sold without a valid insurable interest and may be characterized as gambling or naked derivatives.

Wall Steet institutions are in the habit of issuing so many naked derivatives with great leverage that they simply overpower the underlying markets driving the markets in whatever direction the biggest issuer chooses. However, if the market moves the other way because of a so called black swan event, the entire system is threatened becuase there is no way the largest or controlling institution can pay off its bets, which are astronomical in notational value. The key point about derivatives in general is that the largest financial institutions in the aggregate set the legal and financial standards for their issuance, with the collusion of government and the federal reserve.

Derivatives are issued without reserves to back them so they lead to financial catastrophe. As they are called in a financial crisis, all other assets must be sold off to meet the demands of the insured parties. This is why world markets collapse.

Because derivatives are contracts with no intrinsic worth and have no reserve as insurance is required to have, they represent pure profit for the issuer. Alan Greenspan said they represent the "genius of American financial innovation." Because the naked derivative is "something for nothing" they are extremely profitable when everything goes your way. Because the parties that issue them can't pay when the notional value is called for in massive numbers, the Fed, the taxpayer, and the unemployed worker are stuck with the bill.

The derivatives which caused the collapse of 2008 which we are still experiencing were used to insure dubious collaterized debt obligations, principally mortgage backed securities. This combination was undertaken for export to resolve the massive balance of payments deficit caused by the destruction of the American manufacturing sector by "global free trade."

Instead of exporting goods, the corrupt society exports bad paper.

[Enthusiast]

91. Thank you.......nt

[FedUp_Queer]

46. Where exactly do you think money comes from?

It does not come from the treasury. Take a simple look at any dollar bill. It's an IOU the Treasury gives to the Federal Reserve. In other words, the Treasury is indebted to the Federal Reserve for each dollar. In fact, the government borrows money from the Federal Reserve. Now the problem is that too many people measure the "cost" of TARP in mere dollar terms now. The cost of propping up the "too big to fail" model for banks makes TARP a massive failure with costs that are actually no measurable. The 8.2% that many say the government "earned" off TARP is very low as government programs go. In other words, that means that for every dollar the government spent, merely looking at the accounting of the transaction, the government received $1.082 back. On the other hand, infrastructure spending and education spending, for instance, yields ROIs of over 100%. Not only that, it actually helps to build a middle class. Banking does no such thing. It is nothing but paying for someone to shift cash from different piles of money.

http://www.house.gov/jec/educ.htm
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/higher-education-government

[sabrina 1]

61. What they were doing was trying to cover up a failed system

which would have been revealed, as it should have, had it collapsed. They made tax-payers foot the bill for their greedy gambling habit over the past decade. Now, they are trying to make the people pay once again, to help them continue gambling, continue getting huge bonuses, by cutting social programs.

They successfully, at least temporarily, covered up huge criminal activity, none of which has yet been investigated. But those investigations have begun, in the country that was the first to fall, Iceland. Next, people are clamoring for the investigations that did not happen BEFORE all this money was handed over to save their corrupt rear ends, in other European countries.

Why did they need to be bailed out? Have you asked yourself THAT question? Where did the money go? And why have there been no real investigations into the corruption that caused the collapse of the economies of so many countries?

[JDPriestly]

69. The banks got the money for next to no business, loaned a good part of it

back to the government and made enough money to pay back part of the money given to them as and give themselves big bonuses. Meanwhile ordinary Americans and small businesses are suffering.

[chill_wind]

70. No. And the worst is yet to come.

A nice piece of Washington accounting fiction when you factor in the big picture. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailout cost is likely to rise to $154 billion, agency projects.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102101941.html?sid=ST2010102106905

Not good. Not good. And taxpayers will take it in the shorts.


Banks Get Bailouts, We Get Shared Sacrifice (Marshall Auerback, New Deal 2.0)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=569819#top




Tarp 2 years later.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093006449.html

[kgnu_fan]

15. Kick

[Chimichurri]

23. But according to our media it's the unions and 'entitlement' programs

that are ruining our economy. Pundits say the middle class has to just suck it up.

[truedelphi]

39. That one sentence of yours tells us all why we NEED Wikileaks

When our media isn't devoting hours a day to Lindsay Lohan's arrest dates, and Paris Hilton's latest car caper, our media is LYING through ttheir Corproate-bought and paid for teeth to tell us Untruths that are tearing apart our society.

We need Wikileaks like a guy in the desert needs a canteen of water. I will appreciate Assange and Wikileaks till the day I die.

[Agony]

65. and we _really_need the Bradley Manning's of the world!

Cheers,
Agony

[truedelphi]

95. I am quite guilty of overlooking

Bradley Manning. Thank you for the reminder.

Who is paying the biggest price, and without whom none of this would have happened.

[Enthusiast]

83. I agree with you!

"We need Wikileaks like a guy in the desert needs a canteen of water."

The complicit nature of the U.S. media is now the greatest impediment to justice. We are the victims.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[hfojvt]

25. so? People on the inside knew there was a problem

way before they told us about it. I don't find that to be evidence of some grand conspiracy.

I remember this from November 2007.

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/citibank-lifeline-loan/2007/11/28/

"To recap: Abu Dhabi's sovereign wealth fund (SWF) the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) loans Citibank US$7.5 billion to shore up Citi's capital. Citi pays 11% and the units are convertible to equity at a strike...er...a price of US$31.83 to US$32.74. ADIA gets a 10% premium on the previous day’s close of US$29.79.

Joy ensues on Wall Street as a corner is emphatically turned. We are now on the road to...where exactly?"

That told me there was a problem, and I really didn't think that borrowing money at 11% was gonna help very much.


The problems were a long time coming. And I still think we are better off with our financial system NOT collapsing.

[TheKentuckian]

66. Not if its predatory nature is allowed to continue to run amok.

The vampire sucking every last drop our lifeblood is not going to keep us afloat because it is not sensible enough to use us like a milk cow.

Hey, I agreed with passing TARP even though I openly stated the odds of a stick up were high because I didn't want to see people unable to cash paychecks and all the fun stuff that comes with a collapse would bring be it actual or showing who's got the upperhand and demanding protection money but now after years and "reform" and the banks are more wealthy and free to continue the same practices that got us here as well as to invent new shenanigans.

We got fucked around and are now being sucked dry. The logic of preserving the system takes a mighty hit when it can't be brought into the neighborhood of manageable.
There is no indication that behavior or practices have been modified nor has anyone been given a billy club that has any prayer of getting them in line.

Hell, contrary to being on the shitlist they are full "stakeholders" in our system and we are *wrong* to talk harshly of them. These pricks are soooo fucking contrite that they put Obama on top of their most wanted list in the face of record profits and kissing their asses where and when it counted because he wagged his finger and called them irresponsible a few times.

Moving forward the banking system projects to increase in power and threat to the practical economy. It will create far more pain than killing it would. Sure, not all at once but over time the damage is much greater. The political solution and repair job failed pretty badly, not utterly but absolutely failed to even head off the problems from the last meltdown, much less any attempt to nip the next shenanigans in the bud.

The point of saving it last time was to fix it and we have nowhere approaching the will to do any such thing.

[femrap]

26. Of course they saw this coming....

Greatest Heist of the American Taxpayer EVER.

And it continues today...more money for the poor, widdle Rich F*ckers.

Sickening.

[Poboy]

27. .

[robinlynne]

28. oh I believe you!

[katty]

29. well there had to be plan-it did not come out of thin air

although the digi cash casino keeps creating $ out of ones and zeros

[fascisthunter]

30. I Can't Say what I'm Thinking

but yes, there should be a people's revolt. There is no question now of what really is happening.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

49. Many of us are thinking the same thing. n/t

[Kurovski]

34. Hey now, the past is the past.

I think that if you rob a bank, that particular plea will get you out of that pickle now. Maybe Congress will even sign off on a little extra for you after the fact. It's win-win!

America: land of opportunity.

[MisterP]

38. "Obama was against the bailout and should be reelected for saving the country with it!" nt

[sulphurdunn]

45. Many people knew the crash was imminent.

The economic Jeremiads and Cassandras had been warning about it since passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Now, they're warning that nothing is being done to forestall the next collapse. Imagine that. :smoke:

[defendandprotect]

62. EVERYONE who helped overturn NEW DEAL regulations on capitalism....

knew at the time they were doing it that it would spread capitalistic crime and

corruption --

Further, they used private pensions funds to finance the housing bubble -- and

to finance the moving of jobs overseas!

What did they know and when did they know it? They always knew it --


PLUS -- Eliott Spitzer was getting the Governors together to meet and act on the

housing "loans" which finally led to the foreclosures -- W put a stop to that!

[Major Hogwash]

47. Outrageous!!!!

Planning the failure of the banking system - "too big to fail" - what a crock!!!

[Arctic Dave]

48. Sounds like collusion, theft and racketeering?

Wonder what else will be in the bank documents? Cooked books?

[KansDem]

50. KnR!!!

I haven't quite absorbed all of this, but can feel it is HUGE!!!

It'll require some time to digest...

[freshwest]

51. Thanks

Our rulers are hard at work!

[Occam Bandage]

52. Holy shit! People were considering bailouts the week Bear Stearns collapsed?

Wonders never cease.

[MindandSoul]

53. I bet Bush and Cheney were open they could delay the drama until

after November 2, 2008!

[DeSwiss]

54. K&R

Okay, here's an idea. Let's put all the filthy rich people in prison and....

- Hmmm.... guess we'll have to leave them there because I seem to have lost my train of thought.

[SmileyRose]

55. 4 months? Only 4 months?

Some of us that aren't even big time college graduates were predicting this in the 80's and the know it all with Ivy League credentials only bought a clue a few months out?

Gawd help us.

[JDPriestly]

57. Wow! This incriminates everyone involved in this in the governments of the UK

and the US.

They knew and tried to get through November 2008 without blowing the whistle.

I wonder when Obama really became aware of the impending crisis for the first time. Same for others in the leadership in finance in our country.

[Canuckistanian]

59. I'm reminded of Rep. Marcy Kaptur in "Capitalism: A Love Story"

She praised the system for pulling off such a sophisticated con job. The timing (two months before the elections), the arm-twisting of Congress and the "fear fear fear" scenarios of the media.

It really WAS a financial coup d'état.

[bengalherder]

63. K&R n/t

[dem mba]

64. Lehman's collapse began in 2007.

as did Bear Stearns' collapse.

So... a cry for help in March 2008 doesn't seem remarkable to me in any sense. What am I missing?

[fasttense]

84. Yeah, Bear was pretty well toast by March 2008 but this is interesting.

"King appeared before the Treasury select committee later in March 2008 and warned MPs that the financial crisis had "moved into a new different phase."

A new different phase as compared to the old same phase? How many phases were there? How long before March 2008 were the phases being discussed?

And of course the only solution was to bail them out?

The banksters take the money we get "austerity", that's what I call greed on steroids.

[alfredo]

67. kick it

[grasswire]

68. where's that photo of Congressional leaders and Paulson?

The one where no one can look directly at the camera?

[gateley]

71. So this must be the "bank bazooka" they talked about releasing. Wow! If nothing

is done about this, we aren't America.

First strong-arming foreign countries to back off Bushco, now this. This sickens me. :puke:

Motherfuckers.

[WinkyDink]

75. NOTHING WILL BE DONE. It is not even a topic of conversation.

[gateley]

78. Today, for a number of reasons, I reached my tipping point. I'm done caring,

I'm done trying, and I despise these people for making me feel this hatred, disgust and despair.

[MattSh]

94. Of course something will be done...

they're tightening the screws...on you! Can you feel it? Not yet? Just wait...

[Rex]

72. There will be no big criminal proceeding from this, Obama has made it clear

by not doing anything about the last criminals to sit in the WH. America can fail if it means being 'right', is the message imo.

[autorank]

77. #202 - you rock! This is THE issue

We'll have short or no attention span from corporate media on this unless some politician picks up the flag, and I dearly hope one does.

[undergroundpanther]

79. Hmm remember the M3 index anyone??

When it was no longer published?


* For decades, the Federal Reserve has published data on the money supply, and for many years the Fed set targets for money supply growth.

* In the past two decades, a number of developments have broken down the relationship between money supply growth and the performance of the U.S. economy.

* In July 2000, the Federal Reserve announced that it was no longer setting target ranges for money supply growth.

* In March 2006, the Board of Governors ceased publishing the M3 monetary aggregate.

The Federal Reserve System and public- and private-sector analysts have long monitored the growth of the money supply because of the effects that money supply growth is believed to have on real economic activity and on the price level.


Wonder WHY??

http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html


Stopping Release of M3 Money Supply Data
Saturday, November 12, 2005
I am beginning to lose my respect for the Federal Reserve. At a time when money supply (link to Wikipedia) has been exploding and weekly figures provide a nasty experience week after week, month after month, the Fed put out a short, flat notice last Thursday, saying that it will discontinue publication of M3 figures after March 2006. Such a step may fit in the policy of the current Bush administration but certainly not a supposedly independent central bank.
M3 is the most important money aggregate for economists, analysts and Fed watchers to get an idea at what speed the (electronic) printing press is running.

http://prudentinvestor.blogspot.com/2005/11/unpleasant-trend-fed-counters-by.html





Unilaterally and without reasonable explanation, the Fed has decided to stop reporting money supply M3, the broadest of the monetary aggregates and probably the most important statistic published by the U.S. central bank. The decision comes as a shock to many in the financial community and apparently to other central banks, which reportedly were not consulted.

One obvious explanation that makes sense is that the Fed does not want anyone to see what Presumptive Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is going to do to broad money growth. Suggestions that Mr. Bernanke has the odor of an inflationist about him are not going to help quell the speculation. Something is terribly afoul at the Fed, but the popular financial press offers little but moronic platitudes and attacks on "conspiracy theorists" who dare to question the sanctity of the Federal Reserve Board.

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/aa712
Check this..
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/doemoff/govinfo/intl/gov_trtygde.html

[myrna minx]

80. K&R n/t

[RoccoR5955]

85. I KNEW IT!

They all orchestrated this shit, and then when Spitzer came out against them, WHAM! Hit him like a ton of bricks with a sex scandal. If it was a RepubliCON in the SAME KIND of sex scandal, they would have pinned a medal on him, and called him a hero.

[Joanne98]

86. WOW

[TBF]

87. We knew they were looting - but it's nice to have confirmation. nt

[mdmc]

99. ..

[bobthedrummer]

100. kick

:argh:

[Bluebear]

101. me too