page-loading-spinner
by Chris Martenson

A very nice analogy, found here:

[quote]Analogies are never perfect, but here’s one using horse racing. Don’t expect a perfect correspondence to the banking situation, but I think it is close enough for government work.

Joe goes to the track and bets $2 on a horse.

Two guys standing nearby get into a discussion and Fred says to Sam, "I’ll bet you $5 that Joe wins his bet."

Next to them are Bill and Bob. Bill says: "I’ll bet you $10 that Fred welshes on his bet if he loses."

Next to them is Sally. Sally says: "For $3 I’ll guarantee to Bill that if Bob fails to pay off, I’ll make good on the bet."

Sally then goes to Mary and borrows the $7 needed in case she has to ever pay off and promises to pay back $8. She doesn’t expect to ever have to pay since she believes Bob will always make good. So she expects to net $2 no matter what happens to Joe.

A quick calculation indicates that there is now 2+5+10+3+7 = $27 riding on the outcome of the horse race.

Question how much has been "invested" in the horse race?

Answer:

$50,000 by the owner of the horse who is expecting to recoup his investment from the winnings of the horse and other future deals. Everyone else is gambling, not investing.

The issue with the home market is that the only "investor" was the person who bought the home. All those engaged in the meaningless derivatives spun off from this are gambling. You can see how quickly the face value of all these side bets can exceed the underlying investment. Who is holding these side bets?  Not the homeowner. It is the people at the failing investment banks, hedge funds and similar enterprises. Notice that the bailout is being directed at them not the homeowners.

The real world is, of course, even more complicated. Over the last 30 years people have been allowed to place bets on everything starting with the value of stock averages. They might as well bet on the temperature in Newark at 8:00 AM.

So when you hear everybody saying this is a crisis caused by the housing collapse, be skeptical. We are in the midst of a classic pyramid or Ponzi scheme and there is no way out except for people to lose a lot of money. All that is different this time is that it is the taxpayers who are being asked for the cash. [/quote]

The Crisis Explained
by Chris Martenson

A very nice analogy, found here:

[quote]Analogies are never perfect, but here’s one using horse racing. Don’t expect a perfect correspondence to the banking situation, but I think it is close enough for government work.

Joe goes to the track and bets $2 on a horse.

Two guys standing nearby get into a discussion and Fred says to Sam, "I’ll bet you $5 that Joe wins his bet."

Next to them are Bill and Bob. Bill says: "I’ll bet you $10 that Fred welshes on his bet if he loses."

Next to them is Sally. Sally says: "For $3 I’ll guarantee to Bill that if Bob fails to pay off, I’ll make good on the bet."

Sally then goes to Mary and borrows the $7 needed in case she has to ever pay off and promises to pay back $8. She doesn’t expect to ever have to pay since she believes Bob will always make good. So she expects to net $2 no matter what happens to Joe.

A quick calculation indicates that there is now 2+5+10+3+7 = $27 riding on the outcome of the horse race.

Question how much has been "invested" in the horse race?

Answer:

$50,000 by the owner of the horse who is expecting to recoup his investment from the winnings of the horse and other future deals. Everyone else is gambling, not investing.

The issue with the home market is that the only "investor" was the person who bought the home. All those engaged in the meaningless derivatives spun off from this are gambling. You can see how quickly the face value of all these side bets can exceed the underlying investment. Who is holding these side bets?  Not the homeowner. It is the people at the failing investment banks, hedge funds and similar enterprises. Notice that the bailout is being directed at them not the homeowners.

The real world is, of course, even more complicated. Over the last 30 years people have been allowed to place bets on everything starting with the value of stock averages. They might as well bet on the temperature in Newark at 8:00 AM.

So when you hear everybody saying this is a crisis caused by the housing collapse, be skeptical. We are in the midst of a classic pyramid or Ponzi scheme and there is no way out except for people to lose a lot of money. All that is different this time is that it is the taxpayers who are being asked for the cash. [/quote]

by Chris Martenson

Well, we’ve finally done it.

The national debt, which stood at just $5.73 trillion when Bush took office in January of 2001, is now more than $10 trillion.

This is a stunning 75% increase just since the day Bush became the first President ever to forgo the traditional walk to the podium, preferring to ride in his armored car (perhaps the object-throwing crowds had something to do with that).

Think about this increase for a minute.

By the time Bush leaves, it could easily amount to a perfect doubling of the national debt in the span of only eight years.

To those who now want to rescue the credit markets so we can "get back to how things were" are failing to observe that "how things were" was, most recently, not at all how things used to be.

There’s nothing to return to.  A nation that doubles its debts every eight years does not really exist.  It is an illusion built on borrowing. There’s no way to "get back to that," because it was just a crazy party, thrown at great expense. But now the rugs are stained, the lamps are broken, and booze is all gone.

Here’s what it looks like from a historical view.  Bush’s legacy (which is really the legacy of everybody in DC; I do not mean to pick on him alone) is circled in a color I like to call "rug stain yellow."

 

 

All of these wild attempts to "stabilize the markets" with a big government borrowing binge are most certainly destined to be ill-fated.

The only realistic way out of this, from a banking system and government standpoint, is to print, print, print.

There is almost no doubt left in my mind that the printing process is either already humming along in the background, or soon to begin.

Oh, by the way?  My mother-in-law reports that today that she went to take cash out of the bank, but greeting her at the door was a hand-taped sign stating that customers are now limited to $1000 cash per day.

Gold and silver were hit again today in the lightly traded access (paper) markets, but good luck finding any physical to buy. It’s not impossible, by any stretch, but it’s a lot harder than it was last week, and that was harder than last month.  The trend tells the tale.

Congratulations, America, you are now officially a $10 trillion debtor nation. Break out the party hats.

National Debt Officially Over $10 Trillion
by Chris Martenson

Well, we’ve finally done it.

The national debt, which stood at just $5.73 trillion when Bush took office in January of 2001, is now more than $10 trillion.

This is a stunning 75% increase just since the day Bush became the first President ever to forgo the traditional walk to the podium, preferring to ride in his armored car (perhaps the object-throwing crowds had something to do with that).

Think about this increase for a minute.

By the time Bush leaves, it could easily amount to a perfect doubling of the national debt in the span of only eight years.

To those who now want to rescue the credit markets so we can "get back to how things were" are failing to observe that "how things were" was, most recently, not at all how things used to be.

There’s nothing to return to.  A nation that doubles its debts every eight years does not really exist.  It is an illusion built on borrowing. There’s no way to "get back to that," because it was just a crazy party, thrown at great expense. But now the rugs are stained, the lamps are broken, and booze is all gone.

Here’s what it looks like from a historical view.  Bush’s legacy (which is really the legacy of everybody in DC; I do not mean to pick on him alone) is circled in a color I like to call "rug stain yellow."

 

 

All of these wild attempts to "stabilize the markets" with a big government borrowing binge are most certainly destined to be ill-fated.

The only realistic way out of this, from a banking system and government standpoint, is to print, print, print.

There is almost no doubt left in my mind that the printing process is either already humming along in the background, or soon to begin.

Oh, by the way?  My mother-in-law reports that today that she went to take cash out of the bank, but greeting her at the door was a hand-taped sign stating that customers are now limited to $1000 cash per day.

Gold and silver were hit again today in the lightly traded access (paper) markets, but good luck finding any physical to buy. It’s not impossible, by any stretch, but it’s a lot harder than it was last week, and that was harder than last month.  The trend tells the tale.

Congratulations, America, you are now officially a $10 trillion debtor nation. Break out the party hats.

by Chris Martenson
Paulson led bailout of AIG; saved $20 billion for Goldman Sachs
by Chris Martenson
by Chris Martenson

Having watched the currency markets for long enough to know, I am certain that they are among the most regularly interfered-with of them all.  

In this article it is openly speculated that perhaps a joint support of the dollar is in the works:

[quote]Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) — A growing number of currency traders and strategists are starting to speculate that finance ministers from the world’s biggest economies will join to support the dollar.

"We’re getting closer to the right conditions for authorities to step in and prop up the dollar,” said Maxime Tessier, who manages $151 billion as head of foreign exchange in Montreal at Caisse de Depot et Placement. "The nightmare scenario will be a wholesale loss of confidence in the dollar.”

"The central banks of the world have embarked on all sorts of extraordinary interventions,” said Stephen Jen, the global head of currency research at Morgan Stanley in London. "Currency joint intervention would be the least surprising. And it would probably be the cheapest.” [/quote]

Link (Bloomberg)

I find it remarkable that they did not find a single quote from somebody who thought that the 9% gain in the dollar against the Euro was already a clear sign of manipulation.

To me it is utterly improbable that the dollar rose, even as the US lost all but two of its investment banks, bailed out its largest insurance company, and suffered the largest bank failure in history. To explain this, I have to assume that whomever was buying the dollar and selling the Yen and the Euro was doing so for reasons that were not economic in nature.

Dollar Intervention Risk ‘Meaningful’
by Chris Martenson

Having watched the currency markets for long enough to know, I am certain that they are among the most regularly interfered-with of them all.  

In this article it is openly speculated that perhaps a joint support of the dollar is in the works:

[quote]Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) — A growing number of currency traders and strategists are starting to speculate that finance ministers from the world’s biggest economies will join to support the dollar.

"We’re getting closer to the right conditions for authorities to step in and prop up the dollar,” said Maxime Tessier, who manages $151 billion as head of foreign exchange in Montreal at Caisse de Depot et Placement. "The nightmare scenario will be a wholesale loss of confidence in the dollar.”

"The central banks of the world have embarked on all sorts of extraordinary interventions,” said Stephen Jen, the global head of currency research at Morgan Stanley in London. "Currency joint intervention would be the least surprising. And it would probably be the cheapest.” [/quote]

Link (Bloomberg)

I find it remarkable that they did not find a single quote from somebody who thought that the 9% gain in the dollar against the Euro was already a clear sign of manipulation.

To me it is utterly improbable that the dollar rose, even as the US lost all but two of its investment banks, bailed out its largest insurance company, and suffered the largest bank failure in history. To explain this, I have to assume that whomever was buying the dollar and selling the Yen and the Euro was doing so for reasons that were not economic in nature.

Total 5277 items

Daily Digest

Please login to submit a story to the Daily Digest.

View Past Daily Digests