Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

leicestersq

New Members
  • Posts

    5,414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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. um pointless?

    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.

  4. All tax is theft & wrong FULL STOP

    Have voluntary insurance, have charity, have cooperative, but don't force me at gun point or prison.

    Families should be able to pass a modest home to children w/o punitive tax.

    Want more kids, work & build a bigger house.

    And yes planning needs a shake up

    How will there be any planning if there is no tax to pay for it?

  5. I agree.

    Perhaps the establishment's real fear about Scottish independence is that it would kick-start a push for regionalism in other parts of the UK.

    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.

  6. 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.

  7. I expect Greece will at least partially default, but I'm still not convinced that that would automatically lead to a proper exit from the Euro. How could that work - who would trust the new currency? Surely the Greeks on the street would simply carry on using Euros unofficially, as Montenegro does, or as dollars are used as hard currency in many other unstable countries around the world.

    You would need to buy them if you holidayed there.

  8. 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?

  9. Sorry for late reply as was away from internet.

    I found the Godwins law very interesting but own up to be so sad and lazy I got the information from wackypedia.

    I have adopted a habit of equating and relating a person or group of peoples actions and attitudes WRT 'The Nazi's'. I spy for an older bloke. Looking out for satans little helpers in life.

    Anyone I meet, see or read factual articles about have their words, attitudes and actions compared to sociopaths and psychopaths. So someone like kissenger, who have no human empathy and commit mass murder by their words and actions automatically come into the 'category'. kissengers crimes against humanity are well documented.

    Having read Godwins law I can see that I should not by extension ask a forum poster if they are such a creature, as it is un warranted, unfair at best and pathetic at worst. I have to apologise. :unsure:

    Sorry Mr Leister square

    Ned,

    thanks and no problem. Keep the viewpoints coming.

  10. Nope

    You could be opposed because you wish to pass on assets you have worked for, maintained and paid taxes on to someone of your choosing, rather than someone else's

    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.

    As for incentives, IHT encourages people to dispose of assets prematurely and it is therefore an incentive for people to become dependent and a disincentive to investment

    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.

    As for this 'free payoff' thing what is the difference between someone making a gift in their lifetime or in a will. Or are gifts 'free payoffs' that should be taxed as well?

    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.

    In which case, what's the point of supporting the principle that workers and risk takers should be recompensed if they can't distribute that compensation as they choose?

    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.

  11. "There seems to be a prevalent attitude these days of 'every man for himself' and many parents feel no moral duty to their children to leave them something"

    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.

  12. I'd rather give the money to my kids than to a politician, thanks. There's less chance of it being wasted.

    Well yes, a smaller state would be a good idea.

    Why don't we just cut the size of the State, then there's no need to keep stealing from people.

    Yes, cut it, there is a limit to how much you can reduce it by though.

    You're very pro government aren't you? Why exactly is that?

    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.

  13. By 'we', you mean the upper echelons of the Public Sector.

    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.