Financial Crisis

[flying]

Maybe not the best timing ?

China heaps scorn on U.S. tire duties

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNew...lBrandChannel=0

Edited September 14, 2009 by flying

[midas]

Revealed: The ghost fleet of the recession

The biggest and most secretive gathering of ships in maritime history lies at anchor east of Singapore. Never before photographed, it is bigger than the U.S. and British navies combined but has no crew, no cargo and no destination - and is why your Christmas stocking may be on the light side this year

Lights from the fleet of ships illuminate the night-time horizon

There have hardly been any new orders. In 2011 the shipyards will simply run out of ships to build

Edited September 14, 2009 by midas

[flying]

.....ooops wrong thread

Edited September 14, 2009 by flying

[lannarebirth]

It's all good.

Risk-taking is back for banks 1 year after crisis

By STEVENSON JACOBS, AP Business Writer Sun Sep 13, 3:11 pm ET

NEW YORK –

A year after the financial system nearly collapsed, the nation's biggest banks are bigger and regaining their appetite for risk.

Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and others — which have received tens of billions of dollars in federal aid — are once more betting big on bonds, commodities and exotic financial products, trading that nearly stopped during the financial crisis.

That Wall Street is making money again in essentially the same ways that thrust the banking system into chaos last fall is reason for concern on several levels, financial analysts and government officials say.

• There have been no significant changes to the federal rules governing their behavior. Proposals that have been made to better monitor the financial system and to police the products banks sell to consumers have been held up by lobbyists, lawmakers and turf-protecting regulators.

• Through mergers and the failure of Lehman Brothers, the mammoth banks whose near-collapse prompted government rescues have gotten even bigger, increasing the risk they pose to the financial system. And they still make bets that, in the aggregate, are worth far more than the capital they have on hand to cover against potential losses.

• The government's response to last year's meltdown was to spend whatever it takes to protect the financial system from collapse — a precedent that could encourage even greater risk-taking from the private sector.

Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, says an overhaul of financial regulations is needed as soon as possible to keep the financial system safe over the long haul.

"You cannot rely on the scars of past crises to ensure against practices that will lead to future crises," Summers says.

No one is predicting another meltdown from risky trading in the near term. Rather, the concern is what happens over time as banks' confidence grows and the memory of the financial crisis of 2008 fades.

Will they pile on bets to the point that a new asset bubble forms and — as happened with mortgage-backed securities — its undoing endangers banks and the broader economy?

"We're seeing the same kind of behavior from the banks, and that could lead to some huge and scary parallels," says Simon Johnson, former chief economist with the International Monetary Fund.

Some risk-taking is good. When banks are willing to invest in companies or lend to home-buyers, that nurtures economic growth by generating employment and consumer spending, feeding a cycle of expansion.

The problem is when banks' quest for profits leads them to take on too much risk. In the case of the housing bubble, which burst last year, banks lent too freely to consumers with weak credit and wagered too much on complex financial instruments tied to mortgages. As real-estate prices turned south, so did the financial industry's health.

Because the largest banks' trading divisions make their bets with each other, their fortunes are intertwined. The collapse of one can threaten another — and another — if it is unable to pay off its debts.

This so-called counterparty risk is a major reason the Obama administration's regulatory overhaul plan calls for the creation of a "systemic risk regulator."

The administration is also seeking tougher capital requirements for banks, arguing that banks' buying of exotic financial products without keeping enough cash on reserve was a key cause of the crisis. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has urged the Group of 20 nations — which meets this month in Pittsburgh — to agree on new capital levels by the end of 2010 and put them in place two years later. Geithner hasn't said how much extra capital banks should be required to keep on hand.

Data from the April-June quarter show that the banks are leaning heavily again on their trading desks for revenue.

• During the fourth quarter of 2008, when the financial crisis made even the shrewdest bankers risk-averse, Goldman's trading of risky assets nearly stopped. But in the second quarter of 2009, trading revenue had climbed to nearly 50 percent of total revenue, closer to where it was two years ago before the recession began. JP Morgan's reliance on trading revenue has exhibited a similar pattern.

• Also in the second quarter, the five biggest banks' average potential losses from a single day of trading topped $1 billion, up 76 percent from two years ago, according to regulatory filings.

The government hasn't just watched banks resume their freewheeling ways and prosper. It has been an enabler in the process. The Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — during both the Bush and Obama administrations — have made trillions of dollars available to the biggest banks through bailouts, low-cost loans and loss guarantees designed to stabilize the financial system.

The failure of Lehman Brothers — the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history — and the panicky sales of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan and Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, also have transformed Wall Street. The surviving investment banks have fewer competitors and more market share.

Five of the biggest banks — Goldman, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Bank of America — posted second-quarter profits totaling $13 billion. That's more than double what they made in the second quarter of 2008 and nearly two-thirds as much as the $20.7 billion they earned in the second quarter of 2007 — when the economy was strong.

Meanwhile, Bank of America and Wells Fargo today originate 41 percent of all home loans that are backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. The banks made $284 billion in such loans in the first half of this year, up from $124 billion during the same period last year.

"The big banks now are more powerful than before," said Johnson, now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management. "Their market share has grown and they have a lot of clout in Washington."

Wall Street's recovery is also being aided by a stock-market rally that has driven the S&P 500 index up nearly 54 percent since March 9, when it hit a 12-year low.

Despite the return to profitability, these aren't the high-octane days from before the crisis. To qualify for government backing, the biggest Wall Street firms are no longer allowed to supercharge their returns by borrowing up to 30 times the value of their assets to place bets on stocks, bonds and other investments.

Businesses supported by Wall Street bankers and traders say they've also noticed changes. Namely, their customers aren't spending as much on food, drinks and entertainment as they did during the boom years.

At Fraunces Tavern, a high-end bar just around the corner from the New York Stock Exchange, the Wall Street workers who used to drink $25 glasses of port are scarce these days.

"Now we're doing happy hours," says Damon Testaverde, one of the owners of Fraunces Tavern. "We never did that. There's just less bodies around."

But one thing fundamental to Wall Street hasn't changed: Big banks and their traders are still finding creative — some say speculative — ways to profit.

They're still packaging risky mortgages into securities and selling them to investors, who can earn higher returns by purchasing the securities tied to the riskiest mortgages. That was the practice that helped inflate the real estate bubble and eventually spread financial pain around the globe.

In a way, the government has emboldened banks to keep selling risky securities: Since the crisis erupted, federal emergency programs have helped keep the banks from failing. But now, as the financial system recovers, the government plans to phase out these backstops — leaving banks more vulnerable to big bets that go bad.

One investment gaining popularity is a direct descendant of the mortgage-backed securities that devastated many banks last year. To get some lesser performing assets off their books, banks are taking slices of bonds made up of high-risk mortgage securities and pooling them with slices of bonds comprised of low-risk mortgage securities. With the blessing of debt ratings agencies, banks are then selling this class of bonds as a low-risk investment. The market for these products has hit $30 billion, according to Morgan Stanley.

"It may be unpleasant to hear that the traders are riding high," said Walter Bailey, chief executive of boutique merchant banking firm EpiGroup. "But, hey, it's a pay-for-performance thing, and they're performing like mad."

And that means the return of another Wall Street mainstay: Lavish compensation.

After 10 of the largest banks received a $250 billion lifeline from the government last fall, some lawmakers were outraged that employees were being paid seven-figure salaries even though their companies nearly collapsed. A handful of top executives, including Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit, have agreed to accept pay of just $1 this year. But the compensation of most high-performing traders hasn't changed.

Goldman spent $6.6 billion in the second quarter on pay and benefits, 34 percent more than two years ago. And Citigroup, now one-third owned by the government after taking $45 billion in federal money, owes a star energy trader $100 million.

The CEO of Goldman, Lloyd Blankfein, said at a banking conference in Germany last week that excessive banker pay works "against the public interest." He said bonuses are important to attract and retain top talent, but "misapplied, they can also encourage excess."

The Obama administration has proposed measures to diminish the risk posed by large banks. They include forcing banks to hold more capital to cover losses and trying to increase the transparency of markets in which banks trade the most complex — and potentially risky — financial products.

One major component of the Obama plan — creating an agency to oversee the marketing of financial products to consumers — will be difficult to pass in Congress. Industry lobbying against it and other proposed financial rules has been fierce.

Lobbyists for hedge funds, the large investment pools that cater to the rich, have been able to fend off proposals that would require them to register with the SEC and regularly disclose their holdings.

And they, too, are profitable again after a dismal 2008. The 1,000 largest hedge funds in Morningstar's database posted average returns of 11.9 percent through July. In 2008, those same funds lost 22 percent on average.

"Have there been changes around the edges?" says Timothy Brog, portfolio manager of New York-based hedge fund Locksmith Capital. "Absolutely. Have their been systematic changes? Absolutely not."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_...old_wall_street

[Naam]

deflation - bring it on!!!!

seconded!²

[LaoPo]

deflation - bring it on!!!!

seconded!²

I was just writing a message, asking: "Where's Naam?" and had it ready to send but...hey..there you are!

Did you receive my PM?

LaoPo

[12DrinkMore]

deflation - bring it on!!!!

seconded!²

Yep, I'll vote for some deflation as well. Sounds very good to me. Unfortunately it is anathema to the loonies Bernanke, Brown and Darling.

But moving on, so what's up here?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/se...s-need-bailouts

Two weeks ago, the Guardian revealed that the Cayman Islands, the capital of the world's hedge fund industry and the fifth biggest banking centre, was so cash-strapped it may not be able to pay its own civil servants.

The Caribbean tax haven was forced to ask the Foreign Office permission to borrow £278m to repair huge deficits. The Foreign Office refused, advising the island's authorities to impose property or payroll taxes. Talks are ongoing over a £30m emergency loan package.

Not wishing to dispute the phrase "fifth biggest banking centre", but how the fuc_k can one of the "world's biggest banking centres" not even manage to pay it's bills through taxing the bastards that it has allowed to operate out of its territory? Incredible.

I suppose the big problem is that these offshore centres are governed by a bunch of naive parochial peasants, descending from a line of subsistence fishermen. Guernsey, Isle of Man, Cayman Islands WAKE UP you VACANTHEADS; TAX the dam_n banks and take a cut as well.

And for once I'm in support of a decision from a government office. These brainless islanders are basically expecting that the UK taxpayer provide a subvention to the dam_n banks once again. UNBELIEVABLE.

Edited September 14, 2009 by 12DrinkMore

[flying]

It's all good.

Risk-taking is back for banks 1 year after crisis

Stiglitz Says Banking Problems Are Now Bigger Than Pre-Lehman

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...d=aYdgQkXu9eBg#

Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize- winning economist, said the U.S. has failed to fix the underlying problems of its banking system after the credit crunch and the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

"In the U.S. and many other countries, the too-big-to-fail banks have become even bigger," Stiglitz said in an interview today in Paris. "The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis."

Stiglitz's views echo those of former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who has advised President Barack Obama's administration to curtail the size of banks, and Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, who suggested last month that governments may want to discourage financial institutions from growing "excessively."

A year after the demise of Lehman forced the Treasury Department to spend billions to shore up the financial system, Bank of America Corp.'s assets have grown and Citigroup Inc. remains intact. In the U.K., Lloyds Banking Group Plc, 43 percent owned by the government, has taken over the activities of HBOS Plc, and in France BNP Paribas SA now owns the Belgian and Luxembourg banking assets of insurer Fortis.

While Obama wants to name some banks as "systemically important" and subject them to stricter oversight, his plan wouldn't force them to shrink or simplify their structure.

Stiglitz said the U.S. government is wary of challenging the financial industry because it is politically difficult, and that he hopes the Group of 20 leaders will cajole the U.S. into tougher action.

G-20 Steps

"We aren't doing anything significant so far, and the banks are pushing back," he said. "The leaders of the G-20 will make some small steps forward, given the power of the banks" and "any step forward is a move in the right direction."

G-20 leaders gather next week in Pittsburgh and will consider ways of improving regulation of financial markets and in particular how to set tighter limits on remuneration for market operators. Under pressure from France and Germany, G-20 finance ministers last week reached a preliminary accord that included proposals to claw-back cash awards and linking compensation more closely to long-term performance.

"It's an outrage," especially "in the U.S. where we poured so much money into the banks," Stiglitz said. "The administration seems very reluctant to do what is necessary. Yes they'll do something, the question is: Will they do as much as required?"

Global Economy

Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank and member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said the world economy is "far from being out of the woods" even if it has pulled back from the precipice it teetered on after the collapse of Lehman.

"We're going into an extended period of weak economy, of economic malaise," Stiglitz said. The U.S. will "grow but not enough to offset the increase in the population," he said, adding that "if workers do not have income, it's very hard to see how the U.S. will generate the demand that the world economy needs."

The Federal Reserve faces a "quandary" in ending its monetary stimulus programs because doing so may drive up the cost of borrowing for the U.S. government, he said.

"The question then is who is going to finance the U.S. government," Stiglitz said

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

I lived on Cayman for a couple of years and the only tax was a 25% on everything that came into the country. No property tax no sales tax just the 25% duty.

That has worked for a long time (I was there in the early 80's)

[midas]

There is hope

At least we have one public servant who has the balls to do the right thing

A federal judge on Monday rejected a $33 million settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Bank of America Corp., saying the SEC's accusations of inadequate disclosure by the bank over bonuses paid at Merrill Lynch must now go to trial.

bofaorder914.pdf

[flying]

Ron Paul's book is out

http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/...5676&sr=8-3

Edited September 15, 2009 by flying

[12DrinkMore]

I lived on Cayman for a couple of years and the only tax was a 25% on everything that came into the country. No property tax no sales tax just the 25% duty.

That has worked for a long time (I was there in the early 80's)

Clearly it fas failed to work adequately with a 300 million Quid debt, which they now think the already overburdened UK taxpayer should pay.

[flying]

LOL...........This is great !

Watch from the 40 second mark till 3:40.

Rick Santelli I always like watching him because he is a straight talker.

He usually reports the treasury bond sales.

I dont know how long he will have a job at CNBC if he keeps it up.

But listen he says what so many think..........

Embedding of this video is not allowed so you need to watch it on U tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ANCD-Ykk4

Better hurry I doubt CNBC allows it to stay up for long

Edited September 15, 2009 by flying

[12DrinkMore]

The World's safest banks.

http://www.gfmag.com/tools/bank-rankings/2...banks-2009.html

Oh, and where are the UK banks in this list of the top 50? You know, that UK, centre of the world's finance industry.

Well, if you look very closely you will find just TWO, HAH HAH HAH.

Not even Lloyds or Northern Rock with the backing of the UK tax payer feature on the list. Not surprising considering the state of the UK's finances.

UK, purveyor of world class politicians with a world class financial centre and a world class future????

:D

[midas]

LOL...........This is great !

Watch from the 40 second mark till 3:40.

Rick Santelli I always like watching him because he is a straight talker.

He usually reports the treasury bond sales.

I dont know how long he will have a job at CNBC if he keeps it up.

But listen he says what so many think..........

Brilliant !

And i like some of the comments below the video such as " Finally someone on network tells it like it really is.

Rick we need guys like you in Congress, Senate & the oval office. " yes indeed

Even Robert Reich a prominent democrat is prepared to be critical about not fixing the system

and he is on Obamas team.

The Continuing Disaster of Wall Street, One Year Later

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/

And flying I know you dont like Fox news but I really admire what the are doing

under a new program called "Refounders". Fox are providing a private studio for " whistleblowers "

to come forward and tell their stories but they will hide your identity if you want and even

disguise your voice. This will all help fight the corruption.

[12DrinkMore]

The Diamond Bubble: washing away the livelihoods of 400,000 diamond workers in India

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=adeU_YHAT0uQ

Quote of the hour

We took a cash cow and turned it into a credit pig

[midas]

US credit shrinks at Great Depression rate prompting fears of double-dip recession

Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research said US bank loans have fallen at an annual pace of almost 14pc in the three months to August (from $7,147bn to $6,886bn).

"There has been nothing like this in the USA since the 1930s," he said. "The rapid destruction of money balances is madness."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...-recession.html

[Chunkton]

"In 1909, the US federal government had an annual budget of $US 0.8 Billion. With this it governed a population of just over 90 million people. The cost of government was about $9 per capita. In 2009, the US federal government has an annual budget of $US 3,550 Billion. With this it governs a population of just over 300 million people. That's a cost of about $11,675 per capita."

But the government now is so much better, is it? If you want to point out inflation as a factor, firstly thinks about why there is inflation allowed as a Fed policy.

[12DrinkMore]

US credit shrinks at Great Depression rate prompting fears of double-dip recession

Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research said US bank loans have fallen at an annual pace of almost 14pc in the three months to August (from $7,147bn to $6,886bn).

"There has been nothing like this in the USA since the 1930s," he said. "The rapid destruction of money balances is madness."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...-recession.html

from the same article

Similar concerns have been raised by David Rosenberg, chief strategist at Gluskin Sheff, who said that over the four weeks up to August 24, bank credit shrank at an "epic" 9pc annual pace, the M2 money supply shrank at 12.2pc and M1 shrank at 6.5pc.

"For the first time in the post-WW2 [second World War] era, we have deflation in credit, wages and rents and, from our lens, this is a toxic brew," he said.

If those figures are correct and can really be "annualised" from just four weeks this is pretty significant. But this is data from only four weeks.

It is unclear why the US Federal Reserve has allowed this to occur.

Chairman Ben Bernanke is an expert on the "credit channel" causes of depressions and has given eloquent speeches about the risks of deflation in the past.

So have others on the "unstoppable" deflation we might be heading towards. And, indeed, a couple on the "hyperinflation".

Maybe we have reached the turning point, where the peeps have individually consciously or otherwise decided that to increase their individual wellbeing they have to pay down debt and liabilities. This collective action of individuals will result in a contraction of the debt based gdp expansion we have had over the last decade. Everything else seems to go up and down, but the magical mystery number gdp just has to go up every year, or else the sun may not rise tomorrow. Why?

US banks are cutting lending by around 1pc a month. A similar process is occurring in the eurozone, where private sector credit has been contracting and M3 has been flat for almost a year.

Mr Congdon said IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn is wrong to argue that the history of financial crises shows that "speedy recovery" depends on "cleansing banks' balance sheets of toxic assets". "The message of all financial crises is that policy-makers' priority must be to stop the quantity of money falling and, ideally, to get it rising again," he said.

He predicted that the Federal Reserve and other central banks will be forced to engage in outright monetisation of government debt by next year, whatever they say now.

I am fed up with statements such as the "banks are cutting lending". Surely there are several factors in play here,

- the peeps do not want to borrow.

- the banks cannot lend because their balance sheets are full of "assets" which cannot be sold at the fictitious price they have been given.

- the banks don't want to lend because they can see which way the economy is heading.

I wonder if Bernanke will be forced to review his economic theories? What if the peeps refuse to take his free money and spend it on stuff but instead pay off debt? Say you received a big chunk of free cash from Ben tomorrow, something substantial like 10,000 Dollars, would you use it to pay off your credit card, mortgage and then save the rest, or would you rush out and buy a bigger house or a new car or a 52 inch lcd TV?

Would a helicopter drop of free cash on a nation up to its neck in debt necessarily result in the purchase of even more stuff or just a reduction in the level of debt?

[flying]

I am fed up with statements such as the "banks are cutting lending". Surely there are several factors in play here,

- the peeps do not want to borrow.

Say you received a big chunk of free cash from Ben tomorrow, something substantial like 10,000 Dollars, would you use it to pay off your credit card, mortgage and then save the rest, or would you rush out and buy a bigger house or a new car or a 52 inch lcd TV?

Would a helicopter drop of free cash on a nation up to its neck in debt necessarily result in the purchase of even more stuff or just a reduction in the level of debt?

I think you have it right they do not want to borrow.... Except maybe for those whose mortgage if you can call it that is re-setting...I think if allowed those would like to get into a fixed rate.....That is if they have a job to qualify & make the payments.

Many are already realizing their asset is so far underwater it has drowned & will not be resuscitated in their lifetime.

I have no debt except a small fraction of a mortgage I hold on purpose.

But in your scenario I think most would pay down debt.

I would trade the federal reserve paper IOU's for real money myself

[LaoPo]

Fasten your seatbelts

'We're going to have zombie capitalism for the next 15-20 years,' says Jim Rogers

Author: BI-ME staff Source: BI-ME

Published: Mon September 14, 2009 4:03 pm

Legendary global investor and chairman of Singapore- based Rogers Holdings, Jim Rogers said the Fed and the US Treasury should have let 10 banks fail, not just Lehman Brothers, for the financial system to clean itself up.

Speaking to CNBC Wordwide Exchange today Rogers said "All the government officials and bureaucrats loved the fact Lehman failed, because they could all jump in and support banks."

"This whole problem was not caused by Lehman Brothers or Lehman Brothers failure. Lehman was an effect not a cause."

"The real problem over the past 10-15 years has been that regulators have not let people fail. Had they let people fail we would have solved this problem a long time ago. I don't know why they're not in jail," Rogers said.

Reiterating his view about US monetary policy and their effect on the Dollar, Rogers warned. "I would expect there to be a currency crisis or a semi-crisis this fall or next year. It's crony capitalism, Bernanke and Greenspan have brought crony capitalism to America … but that's not going to solve the world's problems."

"We're going to have zombie capitalism for the next 15-20 years. How long are you going to let the bureaucrats run the thing so we can't have a clean system?," he added.

"Banks have been going bankrupt for a few hundreds years. The way the system works is when somebody fails you let him fail. What we're doing now is we're taking the assets away from the competent people and giving them to incompetent people and telling them now you can compete with competent people with their money."

Addressing debt & consumption and how more of the same can solve the problem, a theme that has become classic Rogers rants, he said: "How can the solution for debt and consumption be more debt and more consumption? How can that be the solution to our problems?"

"What we're doing now is we're taking the assets away from the competent people and giving them to incompetent people and telling them 'now you can compete with competent people with their money,'" Rogers added.

http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=40249&amp...;cg=4&mset=

LaoPo

[flying]

the Fed and the US Treasury should have let 10 banks fail,

Had they let people fail we would have solved this problem a long time ago. I don't know why they're not in jail,

We're going to have zombie capitalism for the next 15-20 years.

The way the system works is when somebody fails you let him fail. What we're doing now is we're taking the assets away from the competent people and giving them to incompetent people and telling them now you can compete with competent people with their money."

"What we're doing now is we're taking the assets away from the competent people and giving them to incompetent people and telling them 'now you can compete with competent people with their money,'" Rogers added.

Many have said just that from the beginning & I always agreed. I do not agree with him that we would have been all better now. But I do think it was the better route & at least we would be on the road to recovery. All we have done so far is worsen the inevitable.

In fact the majority voted no bail out. They over rode our votes & continued on their own based on fear put into them ( Congress & Senate ) By the likes of Paulson et al.

He is also right in what we are doing now is supporting the cause of the crisis. But it is not sustainable & what we will ultimately lose will be much much greater.

Then again I still believe we have not been shown the truth from day one. It was not just the banks & toxic derivatives. There was a Congress man that let it slip in a interview that what also was happening in short order was a massive withdrawal of wealth from the system. It was that which they had to shore up immediately.

Not the claim that they needed to remove toxic assets. If it was as Paulson said then why a year later has it not been addressed? Yet the need to sign the bailout was explained as we were staring into the abyss. The abyss was the massive withdrawals not the toxic assets on the books. They are still there!

It was tied to the toxic only in a sense that whom ever the whales that were moving massive amounts that day saw as a cause to move. They were moving because they saw a collapse was coming. In the same way a run on the banks by even the middle class could cause collapse. They just had the inside view & were jumping ship sooner.

[flying]

Brilliant !

And i like some of the comments below the video such as " Finally someone on network tells it like it really is.

Rick we need guys like you in Congress, Senate & the oval office. " yes indeed

Did you happen to catch his sarcasm about the Tea Party in Washington? When he said what demonstration? I didn't see anything on network TV news did you?

What he is alluding to is the attempt by the obviously controlled media to down play the whole thing. They constantly say a few thousand misfits showed up.

Robert Gibbs, press secretary to President Barack Obama, went so far as to say they were not even aware a rally was scheduled. PULEEZE...the tea party express was watched closely as it converged on DC.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cburgard...tion-has-begun/

For them to claim they did not see it or that Obama was not aware of it is to show how little they care about what the public is saying. When Obama flew over it in Marine 1 on his way to Minnesota to push his health care I am sure he may have noticed the crowd from the window seat.

Edited September 15, 2009 by flying

[losworld]

LOL...........This is great !

Watch from the 40 second mark till 3:40.

Rick Santelli I always like watching him because he is a straight talker.

He usually reports the treasury bond sales.

I dont know how long he will have a job at CNBC if he keeps it up.

But listen he says what so many think..........

Embedding of this video is not allowed so you need to watch it on U tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ANCD-Ykk4

Better hurry I doubt CNBC allows it to stay up for long

Great piece. Unfortunately this guy probably won't be around for too long. He's full of fire like all Americans really should be but complacency and the dumbing down of the American population is keeping them in their seats watching reality tv (at least think it is reality).

[quiksilva]

Relax the "Recession is 'over' says Bernanke"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8257552.stm

[badge]

LOL...........This is great !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ANCD-Ykk4

Better hurry I doubt CNBC allows it to stay up for long

Great piece. Unfortunately this guy probably won't be around for too long. [...]

Are you suggesting that the airing of this guys comments was a surprising accident?

His is hardly a controversial view.

If you watch financial TV channels or read finance sites, or better still follow sentiment surveys, you'll see theres lots of bears out there... feeding the advance in risk appetite

[flying]

Are you suggesting that the airing of this guys comments was a surprising accident?

His is hardly a controversial view.

If you watch financial TV channels or read finance sites, or better still follow sentiment surveys, you'll see theres lots of bears out there... feeding the advance in risk appetite

No because Santelli is a respected member but....trust me I read tons & watch many shows.

You will be hard pressed to duplicate his view on CNBC home of Kneale the shill Cramer the village idiot etc. Never would you see anyone on MSNBC saying such truths. Also you will hear nothing about the media blackout from the DC Tea Party only will you hear lies about the size of the crowds.

Then again the truth was never popular but the tide is turning. Especially on the pump the bull stations. Now that truth will become painfully obvious many will want to be on the right side of reporting.

Late to the party

Edited September 16, 2009 by flying

[flying]

Have a look at this one. http://www.wisevid.com/view_video.php?view...s0gvvkw0a61616#

Hey Alex..... I finally had some time to watch that 1 hour dramatization of Lehman's fail. It was quite entertaining. James Cromwell is a pretty big actor to be in a short show like that.

[12DrinkMore]

Six months down the line and

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...eTabs%3Darticle

The Stimulus Didn't Work

The data show government transfers and rebates have not increased consumption at all.

Edited September 17, 2009 by 12DrinkMore

[12DrinkMore]

And another 48,000,000,000 Quid awarded by the tax payers to the banks for reckless behaviour.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/eu...ts-1788715.html

Five High street banks in Ireland are to be paid £48bn by a state agency to cover their toxic debts in the biggest financial rescue in the country's history. Bonds issued by the National Assets Management Agency (Nama) will provide the struggling banks with £7bn more than the current £41bn value of their toxic debts.

Note that the tax payers are remarkably generous in overpaying by 7,000,000,000 the current (and falling) value of the toxic property.

Why can't they just let the banks fail, as a company in any other sector would?

But anyway, let's hope the Irish vote down the Lisbon Treaty in October.