The Fed: choosing "the controlled disintegration of the world economy"

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, May 19, 2025 16:08
VIEWED: 4838
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, December 5, 2014 9:03 AM

Any higher future interest rates would only be applicable to new debt. The existing debt will still be subject to the same rates that the loans were secured at.

JO753

Friday, December 5, 2014 5:10 PM

You 2 hav a kindergarten level uv understanding on the subject. And JSF, you hav forgotten that it wuz Bush Jr. who turned a bujet surplus into a defisit and piled over a trillion$ on top uv that to get rid uv Saddam.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, December 6, 2014 2:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Any higher future interest rates would only be applicable to new debt. The existing debt will still be subject to the same rates that the loans were secured at.

With maturity terms at around 5 years, that means that every year one fifth of the debt would be subject to the new rate. I wasn't trying to mollify the uneducated, I was trying to point out the ludicrous nature of the situation. Five years in the taxaholic DC is not but a thing.

JONGSSTRAW

Saturday, December 6, 2014 11:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

I wasn't trying to mollify the uneducated

Thank you Mr. Gruber.

How M.I.T.ee white of you.

See you next week in front of the House Committee.

Don't worry though, the MSM will ignore the whole thing as always. Only Fox News will cover it, and their viewers drink American beer. They never heard of an Amstel Light. Can you imagine that?

SIGNYM

Sunday, December 7, 2014 1:04 AM

But the total public debt (money that the Federal government owes to the public, as opposed to intergovernmental loans), while at about 80% of GDP (GPD is about 17$T, so that's about 13$T), is really only a small part of a scary debt picture. Total debt is $60T, which means that the vast majority of debt is NOT held by the Federal government.

There are all kinds of possible debt booby-traps. The Fed - a private bank consortium despite its very government-sounding name - has bought most of the "toxic assets" (non-performing loans) that the private banks created. That "balance sheet" is about $4T.

Businesses and banks themselves have taken out loans hand over fist (And why not? when interest rates are near 0%) not to invest in future production, but to participate in the latest stock market bubble.

But the real problem might be futures. I've heard that the money in futures represents something like 10Xthe world GDP. The other thing that I've read that as far as banks are concerned, in terms of debt seniority, futures come first. So if a bank goes bust and they have to start parsing out money, the first thing they pay is towards futures contracts. YOUR DEPOSIT, which is covered by a PRIVATE insurance called the FDIC, is not your money. It's considered to be an unsecured loan to the bank. So if the insurance runs out, your deposit may be subject to a "bail in", where you get a haircut to make good on the bank's more senior debts. And even if your deposit is protected because it falls under the $250,000 limit, there are many other deposits .... pension funds, credit unions, investment firms ... which may be holding their $$ in a large bank, which are subject to the bail in provision.

I can find the agreement between the FDIC and the Bank of England, BTW, which enshrines the bail-in provision.

Anyway, what it all comes down to is a massive overprinting of money by the Fed and the banks. The Federal deficit doesn't help matters, but it's not the main problem.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, December 7, 2014 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

I wasn't trying to mollify the uneducated

Thank you Mr. Gruber.

How M.I.T.ee white of you.

See you next week in front of the House Committee.

Don't worry though, the MSM will ignore the whole thing as always. Only Fox News will cover it, and their viewers drink American beer. They never heard of an Amstel Light. Can you imagine that?

Be wary and careful. They might find out the ban on absinthe was lifted.

And no, I would be the Un-Gruber. He was working to mollify the uneducated, I was the opposite.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, December 7, 2014 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
YOUR DEPOSIT, which is covered by a PRIVATE insurance called the FDIC, is not your money. It's considered to be an unsecured loan to the bank. So if the insurance runs out, your deposit may be subject to a "bail in", where you get a haircut to make good on the bank's more senior debts. And even if your deposit is protected because it falls under the $250,000 limit, there are many other deposits .... pension funds, credit unions, investment firms ... which may be holding their $$ in a large bank, which are subject to the bail in provision.

I can find the agreement between the FDIC and the Bank of England, BTW, which enshrines the bail-in provision.

Whoa Nelly. You cannot be letting the unwashed masses know this - they might learn to not put their money in the bank. Or they might learn to put their money only in banks which are fiscally responsible, or financially sound - more commonly known as "bought out" by the larger, irresponsible banks of which you speak.

SIGNYM

Sunday, December 7, 2014 3:54 AM

So, if you think that the "bail in" plan is a conspiracy theory, here is the agreement between the BoE and the FDIC on "Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important Finanacial Institutions"

https://www.fdic.gov/about/srac/2012/gsifi.pdf

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, December 10, 2014 5:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, if you think that the "bail in" plan is a conspiracy theory, here is the agreement between the BoE and the FDIC on "Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important Finanacial Institutions"

https://www.fdic.gov/about/srac/2012/gsifi.pdf

Are you trying to tempt them? Has Obama sent in the black helicopters to mute you yet? Where is the nearest re-education camp to you?

SIGNYM

Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:28 PM

All I can say is...

OMFG.
:surprised:

This is in line with my previous post which says that in terms of debt seniority, the holders of futures contracts get paid FIRST. Also, the bail-in provision which allows banks to give all of its depositors a haircut.

Do you know that YOUR BANK engages in financial shenanigans like buying risky corporate bonds, lending money for stock speculation and futures trading, lending themselves money to buy stocks, selling naked shorts on the commodities market, lending into the carry trade ? (You just can't make this up, they've done stuff you'd need a PhD in math to understand.)

Well, the banks were supposed to separate out their FDIC-insured money from their play-money, and put these risky operations into nonbank entities.

The current Congress just blew away that firewall in the current spending bill. Not only can the banks continue to use FDIC-insured deposits for swaps and hedges, the spending bill now makes the Federal government ... that's you and me taxpayer... responsible for shelling out up to $1T to make up the banks' bad guesses.

Just to give you an idea of how much money is in the insurance fund, and how much/ what kind of money those insurance deposits are worth ....

US Deposits In Perspective: $25 Billion In Insurance, $9,283 Billion In Deposits; $297,514 Billion In Derivatives
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-19/us-deposits-perspective-25-bi
llion-insurance-9283-billion-deposits-297514-billion-de

Anyway, here is the original article:

Presenting The $303 Trillion In Derivatives That US Taxpayers Are Now On The Hook For

Quote:
Courtesy of the Cronybus(sic) [aptly-named!] last minute passage, government was provided a quid-pro-quo $1.1 trillion spending allowance with Wall Street's blessing in exchange for assuring banks that taxpayers would be on the hook for yet another bailout, as a result of the swaps push-out provision, after incorporating explicit Citigroup language that allows financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, explicitly putting taxpayers on the hook for losses caused by these contracts.... Unsurprisingly, the main backer of the bill is notorious Wall Street lackey Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a former Goldman Sachs employee who has discovered lobbyist payoffs can be just as lucrative as a career in financial services.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-12/presenting-303-trillion-deriv
atives-us-taxpayers-are-now-hook

Here is the original Mother Jones article, which explains much better than Zerohedge
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/spending-bill-992-derivati
ves-citigroup-lobbyists

Who says the USA isn't an oligarchy?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE