The Rothschilds are famous in taking control of crucial areas of macroeconomic importance and to think even generations ahead. They would even marry within the family to keep control and switched at a given time to marry other powerful sources. The Rothschilds have mingled with Goldmans and many other powerful families, as I written in an earlier blog. Do not think there are coincidences, especially when it comes to Mr. Greenspan's legacy. It's also not a coincidence that the Mr. Spitzer (ex Governor of NY) affair with a call girl became public - not that I like this guy or want to defend him, but he got punished since almost anyone in politics has a secret file of all his/her non-mainstream activities. That's one way to keep the guys under control - the other is by corruption. Actually, that goes hand in hand.
In any case, there were plenty of warnings for this disaster to happen and, for anyone with common sense and some knowledge of the economic system, it was obvious the disaster was coming. Politicians who make those hearings to 'grill ' whomever are basically as much responsible as the acting persons in executive positions.
See it from the position of human society over thousands of years (at least the parts we get to know about) - since history books are as manipulated as everything else. Always an elite saw themselves in the rightful position to live a priviledged life on the back of the commoners. In the last centuries they were called the aristocracy. We now have the same basic concepts under every systematic camouflage system, call it democracy, capitalism or communism. The only thing that changed was the fact that the kingdoms were eliminated, since through so-called democracy, powerful groups could take care of their interests much better. They just had to sponsor the opposition or other such disturbing elements in a particular society if they could not take control of the current government.
Globalization is a product of this strategy, since everything is now webbed and interlinked. One hundred years ago, the mortgage probem of the USA would have stayed a US problem by 90%. Or why does the failure of Lehman rattle the whole global financial system so severely? These days, as people are angry about what Wall Street did to them and yet Wall Street gets away with a huge bailout - and still dare to payout $108 bil. in bonuses as they get $125 bil. in aid. Politicians are trying to fool the public by making these demands that those bailouts should be used to lend. If an individual taxpayer does not pay his taxes, the government will play hardball - Wall Street ruins the world with stupid greedy bets and gets even the bonuses sponsered by taxpayers. That's a reason to make a fuss - every voter independent for whom he votes should demand that this can not happen.
As I even do not hear from Obama the decisive demand for such measures except for blaming, which is a populist thing to do. I have to agree with Jim Rogers and Marc Faber, both candidates are not the right choices and the world will have to pay a high price as all of the democratic leaders these days are just puppets who have to obey their master's orders. Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' says "there is something rotten in Denmark" - these days he would say the same thing for the 'developed' world.
Excerpt:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=aYJZOB_gZi0I
Greenspan Slept as Off-Books Debt Escaped Scrutiny (Update1)
By Alan Katz and Ian Katz
Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- As George Miller welcomed 60 bankers to the chandeliered Charlotte City Club one evening in September, the focus was on more than the recent bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. From their 31st-floor perch, members of the American Securitization Forum, which Miller leads, fretted about the future of their $10.7 trillion industry.
The bankers were warned that a Financial Accounting Standards Board plan would force trillions of dollars back onto balance sheets, requiring cash reserves to soar. Their business of pooling and reselling assets had dropped 47 percent in the first six months of the year, and the industry couldn't afford another setback.
The next day, Miller, 39, the forum's executive director, took that message from North Carolina to a Senate hearing in Washington examining the buildup of off-balance-sheet assets. ``There are great risks to the financial markets and to the economy of moving forward quickly with bad rules,'' he said of FASB's proposal.
Miller was trying to preserve an accounting rule for off- the-books assets that helped U.S. banks export toxic debt around the world. It is a loophole that Jack Reed, the Rhode Island Democrat who chairs the Senate securities subcommittee, said had contributed ``to the severity of the current crisis.''
The damage to date: more than $680 billion dollars in losses and writedowns, about one-third of that by European banks.
Unregulated Derivatives
Efforts by lobbyists have delayed FASB decisions and kept key parts of the American financial system beyond the reach of regulators. Their victories included ensuring that over-the- counter derivatives stayed unregulated and persuading the Securities and Exchange Commission to let investment banks' broker-dealer units reduce capital requirements. That allowed them to increase borrowing and magnify profits. Bank watchdogs also didn't move to tighten mortgage-industry standards until after the collapse of the subprime market.
Today, a road snakes from the foreclosed homes of California and Ohio to the capital cities of Europe, where politicians and bankers have struggled to contain a widening credit crisis by pumping hundreds of billions of euros into the financial system. The road was paved with decisions like ones by FASB that allowed banks to keep shifting assets into blind spots outside the view of shareholders and industry overseers.
`Magic Trick'
``I've always regarded it as a bit of a magic trick,'' Pauline Wallace, a partner at PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP and team leader in London for financial instruments, said of off-balance- sheet accounting. ``Magicians come to parties, and they make things seem to disappear. The risk is somewhere, but you never knew where.''
Pushed by taxpayers angry about financing a bailout of Wall Street while their retirement accounts wither, Congress is likely to shake up bank and securities regulation, giving the Federal Reserve more power.
``I wouldn't be surprised if the Fed ends up officially becoming our systemic-risk regulator,'' said Robert Litan, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
That's ironic to Donald Young, an investor advocate and FASB board member from 2005 until June 30. He testified at the same Senate hearing on Sept. 18 that both the Fed and the SEC joined the banks they oversaw in resisting proposals for more disclosure of off-the-books assets.
``There was an unending lobbying of FASB'' by companies and regulators, Young told the committee.
`Lack of Transparency'
The former FASB board member made a similar point in a June 26 letter to Senator Reed. ``We lacked the ability to overcome the lobbying efforts that effectively argued that if we made substantive changes we would hamper the credit markets and hurt business,'' Young wrote. ``Our inaction did not hamper credit markets -- it helped to destroy them.''
No comments:
Post a Comment