Financial Crisis

[flying]

How many have been prosecuted so far for this? It seems pretty obvious all this was not caused by above board SOP

Even Bernie.... I almost forget his name.... who had his private version of this mess still resides in comfort afaik

Do you mean Bernie Madoff? Depends on how you define comfort.

Bernie Madoff is in jail. He's pled guilty to an 11-count criminal complaint, admitting to defrauding thousands of investors, and was convicted of operating a Ponzi scheme that has been called the largest investor fraud ever committed by a single person. Federal prosecutors estimated client losses, which included fabricated gains, of almost $65 billion. At his June 29, 2009 sentencing, he faces a possible life sentence in prison, and up to $170 billion in restitution.

Yes sorry I know his name.

It was my ill attempt at humor

[flying]

I dont think a devaluation of a currency necessarily implies devaluation of domestic savings. It does of course imply devaluation of external savings held by foreign countries.

We just see these things very differently.

I see a glass of wine that they then pour a bunch of water into.

I am talking about the practice of printing more fiat.

I see we do agree on that we basically default on our debts to others or as you call them beggars. We get them to accept IOU's for goods then devalue them.

We dont need to go round & round with this I know where you stand.

Thanks though

[flying]

OK this just popped up on my Yahoo mail start page:

"House passes $106 Billion war funding bill"

wtffffffff??!!??$??@?$%??#$?%#$^?%?

Hundreds of billions of dollars used to be a lot in Washington, but now I guess you just push all kinds of money through whenever you please... 700 billion here, 100 billion there... jeez...

That is what I thought when I saw it...Well that & the fact only 5 Repubs voted for it

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...QYASwQD98S3AMO3

Made me think of this thing I saw awhile back.....................

A BILLION SECONDS AGO IT WAS 1959.

A BILLION MINUTES AGO JESUS WAS ALIVE.

A BILLION HOURS AGO DINOSAURS WALKED THE EARTH.

Edited June 17, 2009 by flying

[midas]

OK this just popped up on my Yahoo mail start page:

"House passes $106 Billion war funding bill"

wtffffffff??!!??$??@?$%??#$?%#$^?%?

Hundreds of billions of dollars used to be a lot in Washington, but now I guess you just push all kinds of money through whenever you please... 700 billion here, 100 billion there... jeez...

Another example of a total waste of US taxpayers money and American lives ...............

The Russians couldn't win and neither will USA

The Taliban will ‘never be defeated’

‘Colonel Imam’, the Pakistani agent who trained Mullah Omar and the warlords to fight the Soviets, says the US must negotiate with its enemies

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6445981.ece

[12DrinkMore]

I just wish you and Flying would stop coming up with this China based consumption growth model argument.

Until it is proven one way or another, this will remain my view....

I just hate the argument that because the US based consumption and debt driven economy has imploded, China's economy should now be driven by consumption and debt. It also amounts to an internal combustion growth theory - assume capital, employs lots, they consume whatever you manufacture. If life was that simple wouldnt everybody already have done it.

If you look at Chinese growth this year it is largely reliant on 2 factors (1) a US$568m economic stimulus 15% of GDP (this is being spread over 2 years) and (2) 30% lending growth as of April. As a result the savings glut evident in the past has disappeared. The whole point about China's inherent growth and the US's lack of it is (1) the peg to the dollar allowed it to leach off US growth rates and (2) it has, more importantly, it has a high savings ratio. Now you can maintain the illusion of growth through gearing up your financial sector and consumption but it will end in tears.

Remember....

1) Savings are the engine of growth for any economy. Without foregoing significant levels of current consumption, it is impossible to develop capital. The resources, labor, and capital necessary to fuel further capital formation and hence greater future output can only be freed for future consumption by consuming less today.

2) It is caught in a poverty trap in so far as it has almost infinite population. The amount of capital per person only increases so long as capital is being accumulated. The question for growth in per capita income is whether the net capital accumulation is large enough to keep up with population growth.

In other words to the extent it uses consumption and debt to boost short term growth rates it is simply destroying long term growth.

If you take these basic economic truths literally then the US with no savings (in fact a MPC of 106%) over the last 8 years should have shown no growth, or in fact real GDP should have declined.

I must admit to being unable to find a consistent line through your argument.

On the one hand you admit that China has high levels of savings, and that these are the engine of growth for any economy. But somehow you don't think that this will, in itself, stimulate the Chinese economy. And then you admit that the economy will grow because of the large stimulus package, presumably funded from the massive foreign currency reserves that they have built up, and an increase in lending growth. But that this is not leading to real long term growth.

But surely it means that China is spending money that it has to develop the country's economy? And why should this be just a short term effect? But anyway, in addition to the domestic consumption, they are also developing economic relations with Brasil, Russia, India and other Asian countries. They are also investing in commodities and huge areas of farmland in Africa, where it is forecast that 1,000,000 Chinese workers will be located over time.

And then, moving to the US, you also indicate that you think there has been no economic growth over the last decade and don't see that any growth will appear for another decade.

So, assuming that I have understood your reasoning, it doesn't look like there will be any global recovery anywhere. :D

But I think we definitely agree on the manipulation of the various inflation indices. There are lots of good political reasons for keeping the figures artificially low, it is another hidden stealth tax and a lot of pensions and wage increases are based on it. The big joke is the core price inflation index, supposedly, at least from the name, this should measure the basic inflation we all experience, so mainly (for me) booze, food and fuel (in that order ), but these are exactly the things which the index excludes "because they are too volatile". DUH!

During the last decade I have the feeling that the real personal rate of inflation for the UK has been constantly over 6%, but all the government policies have been geared to the CPI at about 30% of the "real rate".

It's not a government conspiracy, it is a government policy

And how many unemployed are there really?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-w...oyment_158.html

Presumably somewhere between 9 and 20%????

[12DrinkMore]

But if the dollar doesnt go down quite naturally on fundamentals, Bernanke still has several policy tools left to force it down.

Oh gawd, what else does he have up his sleeve? I am sure that Brown would love to try out something else as well.

I wonder if this could turn into a battle of the USD?

If Japan, China, India and Russia decided that they want to keep the USD strong (and that is what they have been talking about recently), I wonder if Bernanke has the weapons, ammunition, resolve and insanity to drive the USD down?

But with currencies I despair at trying to work out exactly what determines whether they should be stronger or weaker. There are just too many conflicting views and interests.

[teletiger]

A much clever ruse by the Chinese would be to issue Chinese denominated yuan bonds abroad. I expect this would finance some decent growth for a while. To me, having some yuan in one portfolio, would seem pretty sensible but then you work out that it takes you over a year to accumulate a reasonable amount and you dont bother. Still presumably this will happen.

China has been sounding out the US to sell "Panda Bonds". A minister was in the US last week peddling the idea.

Another way to divest themselves of US treasuries. If it took off it would create a huge market in Asia.

HSBC have been showing interest.

Regards.

[SoCal]

A little (in fact very little) more on the 134,000,000,000 USDs worth of bonds that turned up in a suitcase in Italy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a62_boqkurbI

Wonder why this hasn't attracted the attention of the main stream media?

Maybe because they are counterfeit?

[Abrak]

12Drinkmore,

I know I write too long posts, so perhaps I cloud my arguments. So I will keep it simple.

1) China's very fast real growth rate resulted from 1) it's peg to the dollar which exported US growth to China and 2) a high savings rate.

2) America doesnt have any savings, so any growth was simply due to debt accumulation and now that has imploded, so inherently must China's potential growth rate have fallen.

3) To the extent they maintain historic growth rates through rising consumption and falling savings they are simply lowering their longer term growth rate even further.

China's current year growth rate reflects politics rather than economics. 30% loan growth into a global recession is a very short cut to a future financial crisis not prosperity.

At no point I am arguing that US fundamentals are better they are not. But the collapse of the US economy has reduced its underlying growth rate and any attempt to maintain it will be to the further detriment of longer term fundamentals.

[Abrak]

I know I said I wasnt going to meant green shoots any more but here is a nice picture...

To me any theory other than there is (1) going to be a 'mechanical bounce' or (2) there is actually going to be a recovery, literally amounts to a conspiracy theory in the light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

While on this thread, I seem to be arguing for a mechanical bounce while others seems to think things are going to go straight down, the real world is rather different. In fact, many people have taken green shoots and already assumed large oak trees and arguing that the Government should reign back spending and tighten monetary policy in order to suppress inflation.

Now as you think I am the one imagining green shoots you probably think I am imagining this. Then just read Paul Krugman's (he is an economics professor and current holder of the nobel prize for economics) op ed in the NY Times.

Stay the course

Critics should not give up on us policies that have helped economic recovery

Paul Krugman

THE debate over economic policy has taken a predictable yet ominous turn: The crisis seems to be easing, and a chorus of critics is already demanding that the Federal Reserve and the Barack Obama administration abandon their rescue efforts. For those who know their history, it's déjà vu all over again — literally.

For this is the third time in history that a major economy has found itself in a liquidity trap, a situation in which interest- rate cuts, the conventional way to perk up the economy, have reached their limit. When this happens, unconventional measures are the only way to fight recession. Yet such unconventional measures make the conventionally-minded uncomfortable, and they keep pushing for a return to normalcy.

In previous liquidity-trap episodes, policymakers gave in to these pressures far too soon, plunging the economy back into crisis. And if the critics have their way, we'll do the same thing this time.

One of the first examples of policy in a liquidity trap comes from the 1930s. The US economy grew rapidly from 1933 to 1937, helped along by New Deal policies. America, however, remained well short of full employment.

Yet policymakers stopped worrying about depression and started worrying about inflation. The Fed tightened monetary policy, while Franklin D Roosevelt tried to balance the federal budget. Sure enough, the economy slumped again, and full recovery had to wait for World War II.

On one side, the inflation worriers are harassing the Fed. The latest example: Arthur Laffer, he of the curve, warns that the Fed's policies will cause devastating inflation. He recommends possibly raising banks' reserve requirements, which happens to be exactly what the Fed did in 1936 and 1937 — a move that none other than Milton Friedman condemned as helping to strangle economic recovery.

Meanwhile, there are demands from several directions that President Obama's fiscal stimulus plan be cancelled.

Some, especially in Europe, argue that stimulus isn't needed, because the economy is already turning around. Others claim that government borrowing is driving up interest rates, and that this will derail recovery. And Republicans, providing a bit of comic relief, are saying that the stimulus has failed, because the enabling legislation was passed four months ago — wow, four whole months! — yet unemployment is still rising.

OK, time for some reality checks. First of all, while stock markets have been celebrating the economy's "green shoots", the fact is that unemployment is very high and still rising. It's way too soon to declare victory.

What about the claim that the Fed is risking inflation? It isn't. Mr Laffer seems panicked by a rapid rise in the monetary base, the sum of currency in circulation and the reserves of banks. But a rising monetary base isn't inflationary when you're in a liquidity trap. America's monetary base doubled between 1929 and 1939; prices fell 19 per cent.

What about all that government borrowing? All it's doing is offsetting a plunge in private borrowing — total borrowing is down, not up. If the government weren't running a big deficit right now, the economy would probably be well on its way to a full-fledged depression.

To sum up: A few months ago, the US economy was in danger of falling into depression. Aggressive monetary policy and deficit spending have, for the time being, averted that danger. And suddenly critics are demanding that we call the whole thing off, and revert to business as usual.

Those demands should be ignored. It's much too soon to give up on policies that have, at most, pulled us a few inches back from the edge of the abyss.

[Abrak]

If Japan, China, India and Russia decided that they want to keep the USD strong (and that is what they have been talking about recently), I wonder if Bernanke has the weapons, ammunition, resolve and insanity to drive the USD down?

Monetary 'insanity' is key to Bernanke's monetary theory.

If insane monetary policy doesnt work in terms of depreciating the dollar simply become more insane. In theory you can print infinite amounts of dollars at no significant cost. Although there are finite assets in the world it would seem almost impossible to buy them all without inflation and currency depreciation. This seems a fairly convincing argument.

A more realistic policy short term policy aimed at the usual things - bailing out banks, reviving the economy and depreciating the dollar would be to intervene in the mid end of the bond market by lending 10 year loans at 0% interest rates to the banks. That would sink the dollar in my view and achieve its other goals. As an economist he could even justify it with the excuse 'that my natural assumption is that I will be intervening at the short end indefinitely at 0%'!!

By the way this is his idea not mine. Krugman argues that their is no effective monetary policy at 0% interest rates. He simply isnt being imaginative (or insane) enough.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Abrak

[Naam]

Paul Krugman

To sum up: A few months ago, the US economy was in danger of falling into depression. Aggressive monetary policy and deficit spending have, for the time being, averted that danger. And suddenly critics are demanding that we call the whole thing off, and revert to business as usual.

Those demands should be ignored. It's much too soon to give up on policies that have, at most, pulled us a few inches back from the edge of the abyss.

Krugman got it completely wrong! Nobel Prize? economics professor? so what? he should read Flying and Midas!

[Naam]

some of them are rather amused and find it entertaining -not when "folks" want to discuss world events- but when they issue their guilty verdicts left and right, quote a thousand sources which do they same, but neither they nor the quoted sources can present alternative viable solutions

I think I have mentioned before that they should clean up their own stinkin mess eh?

brilliant idea! but how?

Exactly..........So the least they could do is stop mucking it up further. Step aside or better yet step up & slip the noose on.

Which is another question...........Yes I know you prefer answers but....... How many have been prosecuted so far for this? It seems pretty obvious all this was not caused by above board SOP Even Bernie.... I almost forget his name.... who had his private version of this mess still resides in comfort afaik

I think I can honestly say none of the criminals would dare ask the folks on the street/injured parties to clean up the mess. They know what the broom would be.

basically i agree with you. but... what you propose is not a solution. slipping on the noose will not turn back the time and make the toxic sh*t as well as the undercapitalisation of the banks disappear. let the banks fail instead of stabilising them and guarantee deposits? then what about people's hard earned savings? and how many banks would have been left to give out loans with what money? no credit = no economy! as simple as that.

[12DrinkMore]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...gh-1707188.html

Unemployment has soared to a 12-year high of more than 2.2 million after a record number of people lost their jobs in recent months, gloomy new figures showed today.

[midas]

I think it is time you peeps unite, get out of the "Bubble" and stand up.

America has totally lost the plot ........... :

Does the left hand know what the right one is doing ?

On the one hand you have got 213 American Congressmen who are supporting a bill to

audit the Federal Reserve ( justifiably because it's privately owned ) and then the other hand

you have got the US President giving this very questionable institution even more power .

It stinks

Federal Reserve to gain power under plan

The decision to concentrate sweeping new powers at the already overstretched Fed is not without controversy. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which must approve any regulatory overhaul, has raised objections to that approach, and so has Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila C. Bair.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/j...=home_headlines

[Abrak]

let the banks fail instead of stabilising them and guarantee deposits?

See Naam here is what I see as a fraudulent argument on which you made a lot of money (and presumably you see as an obvious precursor to an argument on which you made a lot of money.)

The US banking system is highly leveraged lets say a loan to deposit ratio of 110%. Lets keep it even more simple and take Bear Stearns that wasnt even a bank and therefore didnt have any deposits (I suspect).

So really the whole bank bailout is not about guaranteeing depositors it is about guaranteeing bond holders. Is there any evidence that any bank has actually been bailed out to the extent that it exceeds bond holdings? Now my natural assumption would be that bond holders should absorb losses before the tax payer takes them up before depositors. I am perfectly prepared to accept this view is both naive (and stupid) on the basis that if that happened it would lead to the Government having to finance the entire bank sector leverage (or some other scenario) as long as you admit that this isnt a bailout of deposit holders but bond holders.

And this is what gets me. Goldman Sachs reportedly wants to give up its banking license. Why? Banking actually looks a good business at the moment. Just take deposits at 0.5% short term and buy 10 year treasuries. The reason is that if bond holders are guaranteed by the government it doesnt want to be restricted to 8x leverage (with a bit more off balance sheet), throw away the license and you can leverage 30x.

[flying]

Krugman got it completely wrong! Nobel Prize? economics professor? so what?

Called Point of View.............Noriel Roubini is another

basically i agree with you. but... what you propose is not a solution. slipping on the noose will not turn back the time and make the toxic sh*t as well as the undercapitalisation of the banks disappear. let the banks fail instead of stabilising them and guarantee deposits? then what about people's hard earned savings? and how many banks would have been left to give out loans with what money? no credit = no economy! as simple as that.

The solution is the punishment in some small way fits the crime. Letting the banks fail does not mean the deposits have to be failed. If tehy wanted to Help the FDIC that would at least be something everyone would get behind. It is obvious they have printed enough to do that.

No Credit = No Economy? TO some extent but remember how we got here?

You had said earlier would you rather go back to late 2008 Well......it seems they do....Since they refuse to actually address the cause of the problem. Instead they treat the symtom.

So yes No Frivilous Credit

Credit based on sound principles yes

Folks forget that many many banks & credit unions are fine & were never threatened. Seems they followed sound prnciples.

It is just the "too big to fail banks"

Then again who knows eh? Maybe youhave just come up with "the solution"

Maybe it is not no credit = no economy!

Maybe it is no old style credit = no old style corrupt toxic economy

Good Job

[flying]

I know I said I wasnt going to meant green shoots any more but here is a nice picture...

To me any theory other than there is (1) going to be a 'mechanical bounce' or (2) there is actually going to be a recovery, literally amounts to a conspiracy theory in the light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

While on this thread, I seem to be arguing for a mechanical bounce while others seems to think things are going to go straight down, the real world is rather different. In fact, many people have taken green shoots and already assumed large oak trees and arguing that the Government should reign back spending and tighten monetary policy in order to suppress inflation.

Personally I never thought we would go straight down. Too many greedy folks for that & far too early. There is still $$ to be made & there is still $$ to be lost as far as I can see. But the fundamental day to day things we see suggest no recovery from here. I called it a bear rally a few times now.

Why are you limited to these two choices?

Did not even the crash of 29 see a nice 60% greenshoot?

let the banks fail instead of stabilising them and guarantee deposits?

So really the whole bank bailout is not about guaranteeing depositors it is about guaranteeing bond holders.

See there are in fact times I agree with you

Edited June 17, 2009 by flying

[Naam]

let the banks fail instead of stabilising them and guarantee deposits?

See Naam here is what I see as a fraudulent argument on which you made a lot of money (and presumably you see as an obvious precursor to an argument on which you made a lot of money.)

So really the whole bank bailout is not about guaranteeing depositors it is about guaranteeing bond holders. Is there any evidence that any bank has actually been bailed out to the extent that it exceeds bond holdings? Now my natural assumption would be that bond holders should absorb losses before the tax payer takes them up before depositors.

yes Abrak, i made a lot of money this year because i bought and (mostly) sold again bank debt which -like bank shares- were hammered like never before. but none of the cash injections by the governments guaranteed any holder of bank debt that the repayment at maturity or the payment of coupons will be honoured. the guarantees worldwide are exclusively for the creditors who kept and keep cash in the banks instead under their mattresses.

wrong is also your assumption that bondholders did not absorb any losses because those who panicked (and sold to me) realised at the lows a 80-90% loss of their money. those who did not panic and kept their holdings are still 40-60% down. moreover, i was/am dealing in subordinated debt, took and still take the full risk of not getting paid neither interest (payable only when the financial institution makes profit) nor getting my money back at redemption as most subs are undated perpetuals.

needless to say is that i made indeed money piggy-backing on the bailouts but here too i took the risk because i bought BEFORE any bailout. i saw the opportunities, took the risk and cashed in the lion share of the profits.

[Chaimai]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...gh-1707188.html

Unemployment has soared to a 12-year high of more than 2.2 million after a record number of people lost their jobs in recent months, gloomy new figures showed today.

Why the glum face 12D - you know full well that the forecast is for 3.2m so what is the point of false horror at a figure that is only 2/3rds up the mercury scale

Anyway, don't worry Fred the Shred's successor has got his beer goggles on

RBS boss Hester spies green shoots

) - Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS.L - news) boss Stephen Hester believes LONDON (ShareCast the global economy has turned a corner

[Chaimai]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...gh-1707188.html

Unemployment has soared to a 12-year high of more than 2.2 million after a record number of people lost their jobs in recent months, gloomy new figures showed today.

Why the glum face 12D - you know full well that the forecast is for 3.2m so what is the point of false horror at a figure that is only 2/3rds up the mercury scale

Anyway, don't worry Fred the Shred's successor has got his beer goggles on

RBS boss Hester spies green shoots

) - Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS.L - news) boss Stephen Hester believes LONDON (ShareCast the global economy has turned a corner

Wait...... Hold the back page, all bets are off:-

Darling 'confident' of UK recovery

36 mins ago

Chancellor Alistair Darling has expressed confidence that Britain is finally on the road to economic recovery.

[Naam]

let the banks fail instead of stabilising them and guarantee deposits?

See Naam here is what I see as a fraudulent argument on which you made a lot of money (and presumably you see as an obvious precursor to an argument on which you made a lot of money.)

The US banking system is highly leveraged lets say a loan to deposit ratio of 110%. Lets keep it even more simple and take Bear Stearns that wasnt even a bank and therefore didnt have any deposits (I suspect).

So really the whole bank bailout is not about guaranteeing depositors it is about guaranteeing bond holders.

i forgot a rebuttal to this statement Abrak. leave aside Bear Sterns and answer my [rhetorical] question "what is the difference between an investor who deposits cash in a bank and an investor who buys a bond of that bank?"

the answer is "there is none!". both investors take a risk by loaning their money to a bank without having any influence how the bloody bankers "dispose" of that money. in fact the bondholder, even if he holds senior bonds, takes a higher risk than the cash investor who can withdraw his dough any time he wants. the bondholder has to rely on the market and a buyer who is willing to buy his bond in exchange for a value the buyer thinks that covers the risk. the depositor's cash does not fluctuate in value, the bondholder's value does.

my question, which is not rhetorical, is " where the fàck do you see a fraudulent argument?"

[flying]

"what is the difference between an investor who deposits cash in a bank and an investor who buys a bond of that bank?"

the answer is "there is none!".

I would say there is a BIG difference.

Savers/ Depositors Put their money in a bank with the idea nothing is safer.

They are not investors the interest not only amounts to nothing but is nothing in most minds. They never think of the bank as the guarantee as much as they know it comes from a insurance called FDIC & the NCUA

Investors on the other hand looking for profits in stocks or bonds know full well going in there is no guarantee at the end of the day that they will make money or for that matter that they may loose it all.

Edited June 17, 2009 by flying

[Naam]

"what is the difference between an investor who deposits cash in a bank and an investor who buys a bond of that bank?"

the answer is "there is none!".

I would say there is a BIG difference. Savers/ Depositors Put their money in a bank with the idea nothing is safer. They are not investors the interest not only amounts to nothing but is nothing in most minds. They never think of the bank as the guarantee as much as they know it comes from a insurance called FDIC & the NCUA

Investors on the other hand looking for profits in stocks or bonds know full well going in there is no guarantee at the end of the day that they will make money or for that matter that they may loose it all.

you are missing the point completely Flying and this time you present nothing but irrelevant bla-bla bypassing my statement "what is the difference between an investor who deposits cash in a bank and an investor who buys a bond of that bank?".

savers are investors too and that they get nowadays hardly any interest for their cash is a temporary thing. no saver rejected 10 and 12% (and more) interest when it was paid and was happy that his money was FDIC insured. savers/depositors get less interest as you rightly stated because their dough is GUARANTEED and the value does not fluctuate or is exposed to any risk. why the EFF is Thaivisa full of complaints "low interest"? isn't it enough that

quote: "Savers/ Depositors Put their money in a bank with the idea nothing is safer"

the bottom line is those who buy any asset or keep their cash in a financial institution and expect a return are investors. the natural difference is that they take different risks and will therefore receive different returns. those who put their money in an asset and expect no return are either (_o_) or goddàmn liars.

[flying]

Kaw Toot Krup

Edited June 18, 2009 by flying

[Naam]

Flying, "simplified" is that you answered a question which i asked Abrak and either did not read his and my previous postings or you "simply" did not understand what we were talking about

[flying]

"House passes $106 Billion war funding bill"

Another example of a total waste of US taxpayers money and American lives

I so wish RP had somehow become President

On June 15, Ron Paul gave the following speech in opposition to HR 2346, a $106 billion war funding bill, which was later passed 226-202.

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the War Supplemental Appropriations. I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.

This conference report, being a Washington-style compromise, reflects one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this “compromise” bill spends 15 percent more than the president requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and $14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this final version — in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote harmful economic policies overseas.

As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu.”

Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If one looks at the original authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, it is clear that the ongoing and expanding nation-building mission there has nothing to do with our goal of capturing and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact it undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to defeat this reckless conference report.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-06-17/ron-paul...opriations-act/

[badge]

Any headway being made in the analysis here?

...No.

[flying]

Any headway being made in the analysis here?

...No.

If you think this is bad check this out.....................

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Global-Finan...ts-t249302.html

More like a blog site though.....

[midas]

Why the glum face 12D - you know full well that the forecast is for 3.2m so what is the point of false horror at a figure that is only 2/3rds up the mercury scale

Wait...... Hold the back page, all bets are off:-

Darling 'confident' of UK recovery

Bleak prospect for school leavers as youth unemployment soars

The number of young people claiming benefits has soared by 80 per cent to 456,400 in the year to May. Economists have warned that businesses are unlikely to start recruiting again in earnest for at least a year. ( why ?what miracle is going to happen in a year? )

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6524374.ece

Edited June 18, 2009 by midas