Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by leicestersq

  1. Mr Miyagi, it is a good article. I have pretty much come to the same conclusion, that they are trying to preserve the banking system, as the assets of the banking system are backed by loans to states that cannot repay. I dont see how they can stop the dam from breaking though. The hedge funds have a duty to maximise returns, and if that means asking for the CDS to payout, they will do that. And if the ISDA says there is no default, it will be taken to court, and they will have to say how getting a 70% haircut isnt a default when those claiming will say that they havent agreed to a haircut. And if anyone tries to claim default, they all will, no point not trying to claim if everyone else is. It is a bit like a bank run, maybe if everyone knows the bank doesnt have enough money and everyone takes a 70% haircut it will work out. But if just one person rushes to the bank to get their full wad, then everyone else has to rush their too. That will almost certainly happen imo. That leaves the powers that be a choice. Monetise the debt, or let the banking system go wiping out the pensions and savings of hundreds of millions of people. Knowing this, I dont understand why the Greeks didnt negotiate a little bit harder. The troika arent even holding a pair, and the Greeks can see their cards.
  2. I was lazily watching Newsnight last night. I wasnt concentrating too much, but wasnt there some guy on representing the private holders of Greek Bonds? He seemed to be saying that the holders he represented were willing to take a big haircut. Paxo asked him why those bondholders with a CDS should ever accept a haircut. This guys reply was that if the CDS holders tried to claim, they would bring the banking system down. Was that correct, did anyone else see it? The implication here is that the CDS industry is one big fraud. A bit like if you took out insurance and the insurer didnt have the assets to cover the risk, you are being defrauded if that happens. Did this interviewee admit to this, Credit Default Swaps are all one big fraud?
  3. They have nearly done it. Pare the debt down for a couple of years, and the reduction compounds quickly until it ceases to become a burden. Good deal for the Glazers.
  4. I can't see CDS not being triggered. Say I have one. I have a bond, no need for me to negotiate, if I don't get paid on the bond, I go to the CDS issuer and ask them to pay. If they don't I go to court. My case is rock solid, even a judge who is corrupt would have trouble judging against me, as everyone would know he was on the take and he would be risking too much to judge against me, and there are many levels of court to corrupt. Mind you, I have read only 2 billion CDS is outstanding. Maybe they bought it all up.
  5. And if they stop lending to Greece, the imbalance goes away.
  6. How will there be any planning if there is no tax to pay for it?
  7. There was a white paper on irrigation controls, but the original proposals have been watered down.
  8. I hope they dont over expand, you dont want more business than you can sandal.
  9. Wasn't there some sort of vote on this in the north east a few years back? It was voted down iirc. People in England don't want more layers of government at the moment, and I agree with the majority. Regional democracy is great, but when you factor in the cost, not so great.
  10. A simple policy to help would be to cut the top levels of pay in the public sector, and use the money saved to employ people directly. Reducing average pay will reduce savings, increasing the multiplier effect. You will also put more people to work with the same money. Cutting pay in the public sector so that average pay is below that of the private sector, would do far more for employment and growth than any increase in deficit spending would.
  11. People use people like Balls as an ad hominem to attack Keynes. If Keynes were alive today, I doubt he would advocate many of the policies his opponents say he would advocate.
  12. You are free to move to where a majority share your views. Stay put, and you have signed up to it.
  13. Maybe I need to read that plan again, it didnt seem like a coherent plan to me. They cant force Greece to stop using Euro's, maybe they can only cut off its involvement in the institutions that make up the Euro. I dont know exactly what the ECB and the national banks inside the Eurozone do, but I suspect they will cease to have that same business with Greece, whatever Greece decides to do about the currency it uses. I am also not sure about all that money printing, it doesnt sound like a German plan. Are they really go to monetise all the debt of the bankrupt nations and banks?
  14. Havent we had previous incarnations of this story? http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2138207 I thought that all government bonds had a central register, almost certainly electronic, which meant that having paper bonds was pretty much a waste of time, unless you wanted to create a fake story.
  15. Which pretty much explains everything. Why is this guy still a Lord?
  16. The sums are so vast that I can see why he wants an investigation. Is any of this true? What is the theory for what is going on here?
  17. You will find that claim difficult to prove. The quality of social housing varies, there are some very poor places, but some surprisingly good places too. I am not sure if Buckingham Palace qualifies as social housing. Though some places are worth a reputed 3/4 million. Not bad.
  18. Ok, I accept that point. From the point of view of the bequeathor, they wish to perpetuate the wealth that they have garnered and would wish that the state takes more in income tax from everyone else rather than taxing what they bequeath. I am not so sure that I agree with all of this. Even if people did dispose of assets prematurely, is that such a bad thing? Makes opportunity for others. I cant imagine anyone ever disposing of all their assets and become dependent upon the state. And when there is destruction of the concentration of wealth at the point of death, it creates opportunities for others to form capital during their own lifetimes, a bit like if you banned Tesco's from the high street, do that and other shops would spring up. I thought that gifts above a certain level were taxed. I guess that you arent going to be able to ever tax all inter-generational transfers, but taxes at the point of death will be pretty effective. I think I am saying that as long as they consume what they produce and gain in returns from investment themselves, they can do as they choose. It is the choice of perpetuating that wealth and power that I think should be restricted. Whilst that is a removal of freedom, I believe that the greater freedom would be for the majority, knowing that the uber wealthy can no longer perpetuate that wealth and power through the generations, creating opportunities for everyone else and for the majority not having to endure the resulting restrictions on their freedom that the perpetuation of wealth and power of the few entails.
  19. If you have a system that allows the perpetuation of wealth through the ages, you end up with a system whereby some children are bequeathed advantages at birth, which by their nature means that others, normally the majority, are left with a relative disadvantage. Is that moral? And if the burden of tax is shifted from incomes to taxation at the point of bereavement, those children experience less tax during their working lives. They havent lost money on average, but instead received the money as lower income tax through their work. Allowing children to obtain the advantage this way, through their work, seems a far more appropriate way to pass wealth through the generations.
  20. Well yes, a smaller state would be a good idea. Yes, cut it, there is a limit to how much you can reduce it by though. Not pro-government at all, you made that up. I am saying though that if you have to choose between taxes on income and taxes on the estate of the deceased, the latter is preferable for reasons of fairness and incentive. The only rational reason for opposing it would be if you were in line for a payout, and would instead like to see others pay more tax on their income so that you can get a work free payoff.
  21. No, I meant the whole of society. All wealth comes from those who work. I dont think I was specifici about the public sector. The distribution of that wealth is another matter entirely. I would like to see wealth distributed in accordance with those who produced it and those who risked their capital to enable it. Perpetual wealth through the generations enables the uber rich to take a goodly proportion of what is produced without having to make a contribution themselves.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.