0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It seems that we agree that there should be regulation. I think where we differ is that you think it should have been obvious that there was going to be a banking crisis so that measures should have been taken to prevent it, where I think that this was not so easy to foresee (except for wily Scotsmen like Geezer). I agree that giving independence to the Bank of England to make decisions was not a good idea, but then I don't think that any government has any real capability to make any better decisions.
It was a surprising decision for a Labour government to make.
There was a big change in the nature of banking (at least in the UK) from the 1970s.
Banking was a very conservative (small c) business where no risks were taken. It was also quite non-centralised with branch managers in charge of their own budgets for lending to local businesses.
This changed considerably with a number of mergers and a high degree of centralisation.
Many building societies converted to banks and their shareholders (mostly ordinary investors) profited, though not as much as the directors. This was the go-get-rich Thatcher era. The banks all moved in the same way in this regard. It was not a good thing in my opinion, but once this sort of dynamic is in place, there is no room for non-conformists.
It is also true that there is a majority of people on the boards of the banks, and many other companies, whose prime concern is making money for themselves.
Shareholders have very little power and customers even less. There is some incentive to keep the gravy train rolling, however. Whilst these companies were doing well and seemingly successful there was no need to change. On the inside there developed a culture of risk taking and this was felt by the individuals concerned to be necessary for the bank, and therefore themselves, to maximise profits.
It became the norm for money from savings accounts to be used to invest in areas which were high risk. This would not have happened 30 years earlier. Whilst there was an expanding economy, this worked fine.
But like the crash in 1926 and the East India Company, few saw it coming. Not the Bank of England nor the Federal Reserve. Any who had concerns would be swept aside because getting off the train too early could leave them left behind and uncompetitive.
A failure of a bank is not just damaging to its management and shareholders, but also to its many savers. It also can have damaging consequences to future trust in institutions where such trust is necessary.
The consequences of letting banks fail is far reaching.
To what extent this was something that Bank directors relied on, I don't know, but it is not an assumption I would make. It galls everyone that these same people are raking in huge bonuses still but there is no mechanism to control this in the banks that received no bail out (like Barclays for example). There have been limited measures in the other banks and these are, arguably, insufficient because there is fear that key staff will leave. Changing the culture could take a long time and I doubt that there is a willingness to take the risk of damaging the net wealth creating capability of the City of London. There is a classic "prisoner's dilemma" problem here: controlling the banks only works properly on an international scale.
So understand when you see mass inflation, know it's because the oligarchy has decided to pour all their money into all the comodities they can.
Interesting about JPMorgan acquiring gold against loans to its owners. They claim it is a "service" in storing gold (people see it as a hedge against a falling dollar) but critics say they may be reselling it in exchange for gold price derivatives. This is where I lose touch with reality. I can see that they may have some maths worked out so that they can't lose but I can also see that not everyone can win. Actually, I don't know that anyone outside really knows what they are doing.
The rumours all come from a limited range of sources. I think the concern is that if the dollar crashes and JPM have not actually got the gold, then JPM crashes and the people lose their gold too. It has certainly been the case that national banks like JPM (you can think that JPM is linked with the federal reserve) or the Bank of England don't actually keep gold to cover the money in circulation anymore. The promise that they "will pay the bearer ..." on your used tenner has long ceased to be a reality. I would be grateful of a clear explanation of what anyone thinks is going on (allbeit a theory) and also for an explanation from JPM's perspective.
By the way, can you get higher order derivatives? Like betting on the rate of change of price of a derivative, or even betting on the rate of change of the rate of change?
Quote from: graham.d on 12/05/2011 13:32:45The rumours all come from a limited range of sources. I think the concern is that if the dollar crashes and JPM have not actually got the gold, then JPM crashes and the people lose their gold too. It has certainly been the case that national banks like JPM (you can think that JPM is linked with the federal reserve) or the Bank of England don't actually keep gold to cover the money in circulation anymore. The promise that they "will pay the bearer ..." on your used tenner has long ceased to be a reality. I would be grateful of a clear explanation of what anyone thinks is going on (allbeit a theory) and also for an explanation from JPM's perspective.It's not Gold but silver, JPM is mainly trading in or was, thanks to buy silver crash JPM campaign, they have moved more into gold, but as a slight explanation, JPM is a member of the silver users association they are in bed together for what ever reason, the SUA use silver in their products, so they want a low silver price, JPM is helping them get one. all the over selling is keeping the price low, but it's not just JPM other members of the SUA are doing the same.If a market is rational it's broken, as someone is deciding and dictating, so it's no longer free, it's controlled. But who doesn't know that anyway, only fools and horses.To use a quote from JFK the film "First we had Castro with us then we tried to wack him, it's all mutual interest" It's called a cartel, and all the banks are in it together.
The trouble is most of the web comments is based on Max Keiser. I have not heard JPM's side of the story. While I can believe that there are such machinations, even to the extent of crashing the dollar, and even, maybe, that the Federal Reserve is in on it, but tying this in to the Knights Templar is really a bridge too far.
Geezer must be involved too. A Scot, living in the US and who sold his house in California just at the right time... spooky. Free Masonry is a hangover and certainly a mutual backscratching organisation (in my opinion). I know a couple of Freemasons and I knew someone (a scotsman and not a mason and sadly deceased) who held a very senior position in a Scottish Bank (now part of Barclays). None of these people are or were up to anything untoward. Very decent guys in fact. I used to wind up one of the masons because he was a lord high stag (or some such thing) and he didn't agree with me that the masons were just a mutual backscratching society.
There are a whole load of pressure groups, lobbyists, religious fanatics, political groups etc., some of which are well organised and can and do influence the way the world is run. I struggle to see it in this case, unless you can provide some good evidence of course.
You maybe right that JPM is betting on the dollar being overvalued and that their actions, being so large and influential, may help to amplify the effects so as to exaggerate any adjustment into being a sudden fall. But you could argue that what they are doing is common sense from their perspective and nothing more devious than that. Afterall, people could just hang on to their Gold and Silver if they want to;
in fact if it thought likely that the dollar will collapse, they should do.
Geezer must be involved too. A Scot, living in the US and who sold his house in California just at the right time... spooky.
Quote from: graham.d on 12/05/2011 17:32:31Geezer must be involved too. A Scot, living in the US and who sold his house in California just at the right time... spooky. Strangely enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_RiteI had never even heard of this lot till I moved to the US. Personally, I take a pretty dim view of any organization that requires you to subject yourself to an initiation ceremony without revealing the details in advance.Signed: Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret
Well, you can say what you like about Pike, but at least he knew how to make a good video.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o
You maybe right that JPM is betting on the dollar being overvalued and that their actions, being so large and influential, may help to amplify the effects so as to exaggerate any adjustment into being a sudden fall. But you could argue that what they are doing is common sense from their perspective and nothing more devious than that.
Do you all want to see something beautiful?Here watch thisMax Keiser: breif report:- for today//www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSU3T3eex7I