They Don’t Know What To Do Or They Don’t Know How To Do It.

[Injin]

Fine, replace the sytem, but do it in a way that doesn't cause huge suffering.

Why would allowing for all debts and liabilities to be factually repaid in a fortnight or so cause widespread suffering?

Edited February 20, 2009 by Injin

[Methinkshe]

Oh stuff the JW.

I am talking about the 144,000 from revelations.

Totaly different, cultwise!

Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.

Unless or until you are prepared to take into account the other verses that mention the great multitude, you cannot even begin to debate the significance of the 144,000.

"After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”"

"Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?” And I said to him, “Sir, you know.” So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”"

Selective quoting will get you nowhere.

[otters]

When you put your money in, did you do so with any sense at all that you were "investing"? Did you feel you were participating in a business venture with the recipient and hoping to benefit from their success, or were you putting the cash somewhere for safe keeping, and getting a modest fee for the favour? The answer to this question guides us better toward our decisions better than terms and titles.

When people bought a house, did they do so with any sense that they were investing? Exactly, which is why they must take the consequences.

In any case, this is only the fine detail of the obvious route which is to provide replacements for retail banking needs and let the old banks fall apart.

Do many deposit account holders regard themselves as investors, most of us just think of ourselves as bank customers, not venture capitalist. I have some gold, some shares and I am aware of the risks involved. I would like to think that should a bank be allowed to fail the administrators will be able to tell the difference between a shareholder and a depositor.

[GregG]

Set religion aside for a minute as it is clouding the discussion. Some of you clearly hate religion so much that you are unable to address the question at hand.

Don't you find it interesting that there is a book, and not just any book but the best selling book of all time, the earliest written copies of which are undisputed must be at least 1600-1800 years old, which predicts a time in the future where a single world economic system will be in place, in which without some type of mark, symbol or authorisation or centrally given permission you will not be able to participate in the economy? And which also says that the person (man) who puts this into place and oversees it will rise to power as a result of a global catastrophy?

I wouldn't care if it were written in a Koran or the writings of a Roman Senator or Greek Philosopher or Persian Mathematician. Just the fact it was written down that long ago I find to be VERY curious. I am not sure what disturbs me more, the idea that I might live through the times described or the fact that so many of my fellow men, posters on this forum are so disinterested and blinkered that they'll give it less serious thought and consideration than Jade's wedding.

Until very recently this global economic system of control would have been impossible to put into place, but now it is not only technically possible, but possibly economically and politically desirable.

Edited February 20, 2009 by GregG

[bogbrush]

Fine, replace the sytem, but do it in a way that doesn't cause huge suffering.

And stealing trillions from us all to pay off their debts (nationalisation) doesn't? Come on................

[Bloo Loo]

Unless or until you are prepared to take into account the other verses that mention the great multitude, you cannot even begin to debate the significance of the 144,000.

"After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!""

Misquote corrected

“Salivation belongs to our dog who sits with a bone, foreleg of Lamb !”"

[KingBingo]

No, with loans and bonds you do not benefit so much from the success of the borrower as the fact they don't go bust. Not really the same thing, but for the sake of your point, I'll accept it. So, to your point - you have just demonstrated that it is a subjective judgement, even if such a judgement exists. So you say to all creditors "did you lend this money as an investment or as a place to park the money". They all say "as a place to park the money, of course!" and you have just wasted a load of everyone's time while nationalising a bank.

Sorry but no, I think you must see this yourself, but just enjoy the argument.

Lets do a quick 1-10

1 Being equity holders

10 being little old ladies putting their life savings into a saving account with their local branch.

As far as I can tell apart from a vehicle for a argument the point of this thread is to determine at what level you draw the line correct or not??

So lets expand that.

1: Ordinary Shares

2: Preference Shares

3: Over the counter traded bonds

4:

5:

6:

7:

8: Savings products (called saving bonds etc)

9: Interest paying instant access saving accounts

10: Current accounts

I would argue that 1-3 should certainly be wiped out, because these you make an active decision to invest in knowing the value can well rise and fall. These investments are traded and are used to make money. Bond investors actively assess bond default risk and rely on rating agencies to draw judgements. A bond issue by a bank with an AAA rating is in itself no different to a bond issue by a dodgy technology firm with a B rating. All the rating does is give an informed view on the likelihood of default, but no guarantee. Default can and should be expected on bonds. The possibly exists on all bonds.

8-10 I would also say that are accessed in a retail environment are primarily used to safeguard cash. A retail investor walking into a high street branch or online page, of course should be treated differently to the assets managed by a bond fund manager.

Your argument seems to imply that because there are intermediate levels it means it is impossible to draw a line, ******** is it.

Investors provide money to the bank for the operations, a duty of investors is to access risk and price their investment accordingly . If I bought RBS at £12 and it turns out not to be worth it I should lose my money, I failed as an investor to evaluate my investment properly.

If I buy RBS bonds for a 1.5% risk premium when actually the probable default rate is much higher, I have failed as an investor. I know that bonds can and do default, I should accept that.

Just because bond investors did not see it coming this time is no excuse. If you remember the bond issues from Enron started to have to be issued with ever increasing coupons because bond analyst saw it coming where equity investors did not.

When was I being hostile? When I asked you not to use straw men with me? I said please.... While we're talking about hostile remarks, how does your last sentence here read? Sarcasm - nice....

You know perfectly well that a high street branch offering a saving product called a bond is a marketing term only and not the same thing as a tradable coupon paying bond issue. You know that full well. So don’t pick me up on sarcasm when you have been condescending and needlessly obfuscating for the sake of getting a high page count and argument going.

[Minos]

Oh stuff the JW.

I am talking about the 144,000 from revelations.

Totaly different, cultwise!

Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.

That looks more like mutton to me.

[bogbrush]

Set religion aside for a minute as it is clouding the discussion. Some of you clearly hate religion so much that you are unable to address the question at hand.

Don't you find it interesting that there is a book, and not just any book but the best selling book of all time, the earliest written copies of which are undisputed must be at least 1600-1800 years old, which predicts a time in the future where a single world economic system will be in place, in which without some type of mark, symbol or authorisation or centrally given permission you will not be able to participate in the economy. And the person (man) who puts this into place and oversees it will rise to power as a result of a global catastrophy.

I wouldn't care if it were written in a Koran or the writings of a Roman Senator or Greek Philosopher or Persian Mathematician. Just the fact it was written down that long ago I find to be VERY curious. I am not sure what disturbs me more, the idea that I might live through the times described or the fact that so many of my fellow men, posters on this forum are so disinterested and blinkers that they'll give it less serious thought than Jade's wedding.

Until very recently this global economic system of control would have been impossible to put into place, but now it is not only technically possible, but possibly economically and politically desirable.

You were doing so well, until you spoilt it all at the end

Yes, it's interesting.

[Methinkshe]

OK, fair enough.

I mean, we do need to all realise that all of this - everything that policymakers have done since the crisis began are for practical reasons. It is the system we are trying to save, not the banks or the bankers per se.

Absolutely!

And as you have observed, and I agree, it is looking more and more unsaveable.

[Injin]

Set religion aside for a minute as it is clouding the discussion. Some of you clearly hate religion so much that you are unable to address the question at hand.

Don't you find it interesting that there is a book, and not just any book but the best selling book of all time, the earliest written copies of which are undisputed must be at least 1600-1800 years old, which predicts a time in the future where a single world economic system will be in place, in which without some type of mark, symbol or authorisation or centrally given permission you will not be able to participate in the economy? And which also says that the person (man) who puts this into place and oversees it will rise to power as a result of a global catastrophy?

I wouldn't care if it were written in a Koran or the writings of a Roman Senator or Greek Philosopher or Persian Mathematician. Just the fact it was written down that long ago I find to be VERY curious. I am not sure what disturbs me more, the idea that I might live through the times described or the fact that so many of my fellow men, posters on this forum are so disinterested and blinkered that they'll give it less serious thought and consideration than Jade's wedding.

Until very recently this global economic system of control would have been impossible to put into place, but now it is not only technically possible, but possibly economically and politically desirable.

It's because people who believe all that rubbish have power so are trying to make it happen.

Such is the way of nutters.

[bogbrush]

Do many deposit account holders regard themselves as investors, most of us just think of ourselves as bank customers, not venture capitalist. I have some gold, some shares and I am aware of the risks involved. I would like to think that should a bank be allowed to fail the administrators will be able to tell the difference between a shareholder and a depositor.

This is my point (and Bingos). It's not hard really is it, at least not for most of it?

[GregG]

How do you mean spoilt it.

If the global economy goes into a death spiral (which appears possible) and the supply chains lock up and no government debts are trusted so people are left without the basics of modern life, could you not see a suffering global population agreeing to a global economic system on almost any terms?

I could.

In principle what is the difference beween European Monetary Union and Global Monetary Union?

[bogbrush]

It's because people who believe all that rubbish have power so are trying to make it happen.

Such is the way of nutters.

Although I think religion is the greatest catastrophe ever visited on the human race, I suspect the apparant accuracy of the text is less to do with people trying to make it so, and more to do with the astuteness of the writer.

Just because supernatural beliefs are staggeringly mad doesn't mean I don't think they weren't written by some fairly clever people in many cases.

[bogbrush]

How do you mean spoilt it.

If the global economy goes into a death spiral (which appears possible) and the supply chains lock up and no government debts are trusted so people are left without the basics of modern life, could you not see a suffering global population agreeing to a global economic system on almost any terms?

I could.

In principle what is the difference beween European Monetary Union and Global Monetary Union?

Just that the global one is even more frightening than the European one. Both involve the growth of tyranny and eradication of freedom, the global just looks more final as I couldn't emigrate from it.

The solution to all this horror is in the small, not the large.

Edited February 20, 2009 by bogbrush

[GregG]

It's because people who believe all that rubbish have power so are trying to make it happen.

Such is the way of nutters.

Come, come now. Do you honestly believe that the people who control Wall Street and government or even the shadowy people behind them believe in the truth of the Gospels?

Please!!!

In the middle-ages you might have had a point but Christianity is a derided minority faith precisely because nobody in power believes in it.

[Extradry Martini]

Nah

F*ck 'em

Shoot those banks to Mars fully loaded with their toxic asset payload

I don't believe there's any consensus (as you imply) regarding

- the need for us to get these assets off their balance sheets

I believe that there is a consensus for this among those who understand the problem, yes.

- the need for them to lend again (eg an alternative is to let them fall and use earmarked bailout money to create new banks instead)

And certainly consensus for this.

- the idea that nationalisation is the best route to achieving lending into the economy

I don’t know whether there is consensus for this, it is something that many – including me – think will have to happen.

- the idea that extraordinary legal powers cannot be invoked to engineer other non-nationalisation solutions. For example, force simultaneous cramdowns and haircuts to recapitalise and detoxify afflicted banks coupled with a WWI battlefield-style brutal triage to root out the already dead

This is exactly what I am suggesting - whether you do it through nationalisation or not.

[Cylons]

I dont post on here much. I find it hard to put thoughts into words, and others do it more eloquently than I.

For what its worth I can only echo the comments of the OP,

I have been a Treasury Dealer for over 20 years, seen recessions and "events" come and go,

I have argued in the past that things would go Japanese/deflationary etc, I had an interesting discussion on here that I thought that the Japanese "lost decade" was the best possible outcome (and yes I know they made mistakes on policy, I merely argue that whatever they had done the outcome would have been much the same)

There is now a growing (and quickly) sense that things have gone past the point of no return, that Geithner has no idea what to do, and that wide spread Bank Nationalisation is ahead (indeed this weekend may be Interesting) and god knows what after that.

I too am now worried, not quite TFH worried, but far more worried than at any point in this cycle, There are some solutions but each of them carries equal risk to the problems that they are trying to solve.

take care........

TD

Edited February 20, 2009 by treasurydealer

[Extradry Martini]

Do many deposit account holders regard themselves as investors, most of us just think of ourselves as bank customers, not venture capitalist. I have some gold, some shares and I am aware of the risks involved. I would like to think that should a bank be allowed to fail the administrators will be able to tell the difference between a shareholder and a depositor.

That's not the problem.

[Injin]

I believe that there is a consensus for this among those who understand the problem, yes.

It's not your choice because it's not your stuff.

Why wouldn't cancelling the legal tender law work, btw?

[GregG]

Just that the global one is even more frightening than the European one. Both involve the growth of tyranny and eradication of freedom, the global just looks more final as I couldn't emigrate from it.

The solution to all this horror is in the small, not the large.

I agree with you. But does the average TV watching, beer drinking, non-thinking first world citizen?

I think the mere fact they don't pay their credit card off at the end of each month tells you all you need to know about their willingness to be enslaved for a mess of pottage.

As I said politically and economically desirable (for the common man).

Going small for the common man would be hellish. Far too much like hard work.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

where are savers (eg current account) in the pecking order when a bank goes p-o-p?

pecking order for what?

banks don't have any assets.

[Extradry Martini]

The most practical thing seems to be that rather than arrest the bankers or think about which little guy to protect, we just take all our money and pay off all the bankers debts?

That seems to be the gist of EDMs thinking.

No wonder you're tense.

Can't atack the arguments, so you have a go at the person making them.

Well, I've seen that before.

Look, if you want to have any credibility in this, explain how you sort out the little guys from the others. So far, it's we "feel" or it's separate them by current account, so those who happened to have had he misfortune of opening something called a "deposit account" get wiped out, ot equally arbitrary designations. We are looking for a practical solution, and so far you haven't produced one.

Either way, lay off the ad hom stuff.

[Sledgehead]

What?

exit startegy = reselling the patched up banks

What did you think I meant?

Otherise they are on our balance sheet forever. How much will that cost in borrowing costs?

[Justice]

You've assumed they want to help.

Why?

You are right this was planned to be a global crash as they gave loans to anyone that could sign on the dotted line and they knew it would end in bust. 1913 all over again and we are heading for a global currency or electronic money with no cheques or cash, maybe both.

£33,000 for every man, woman , child in the UK and thats just the public debt and excludes PPP that means we are renting our schools for the next 100 years.

I'm voting Mafia as soon as they get a candidate.

Come, come now. Do you honestly believe that the people who control Wall Street and government or even the shadowy people behind them believe in the truth of the Gospels?

I would agree but these people seem to know something we don't and make no mistake they are the ones that write history and decide what you learn at school and what becomes hidden.

Logic dictates the 9/11 towers came down too fast but your classed a nut jos for pointing out simple laws of physics.

I don't know if they know someething or simply beleive it but it all seems to ancor around israil.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Justice