US said to designate Assange 'enemy' of the state The US military has allegedly classified Julian Assange as an "enemy", a desigation that could make any member of those forces who communicates with him or WikiLeaks to be liable for the death penalty. According to an article in Thursday's Sydney Morning Herald, this latest elevation of the charges against Assange was …
.........brain-dead chimpazee former president G W Bush said "if you're not with us you're against us". As far as a very particular section of the US body politic is concerned if you do not play ball you are classified as "un-American" or "anti-American" depending on which passport you hold. However, in reality as far as they are concerned this is merely a formal distinction - everybody they don't like is a traitor and should be subject to the "appropriate" penalties.
Maybe they should check Artic Fox for brain death as Bush left office and it is Obambi's buddies passing the "enemy" calssification. When are the Dummicrats like Artic Fox going to stop trying to blame everything on Bush?
"Obambi"
"Dummicrats"
Oh, it's you, Matt! It's so nice to see your opinions again. I mean - Dummicrats! Wow! You're saying that *democrats* are *dumb*! What an incisive political commentary, Matt. I bet you're pretty proud: Biting *and* novel!
You know, you really do have a way with words - you're saying that Obama is just like a small baby deer! So cutting! So witty! Way to slice him down to size, eh? I mean, it's *just* the kind of thing to expect from a fawn, you know? Little wily bastards, aren't they?
I'm telling you, man - it's amazing you aren't writing for the Wall Street Journal. Have you considered applying?
So after all that, are you agreeing that Dummies like Article Fox should stop blaming all Americas actions/ills on George Dubyha, or are you agreeing with him and believing that the Obumbler's administration had nothing to do with it? Perchance, do you agree with A$$nut groupies like Ars$elicker Fox in thinking that A$$nut is above the law? After all, you waded in, it would be a pleasant surprise to see you post an actual opinion. I'm not expecting much, certainly nothing original, but it would be encouraging to at least see you try.
"If you wish to post an ad hominem attack...." is "ad hominem" the new buzz phrase in hippy land? Do you all sit down and get told which "long words to use this week"? Hilarious! If you post such nonsense as trying to blame A$$nut's current predicament on Bush then don't be surprised when you get accused of a low IQ.
Obambi was inaugerated as Prez in January 20, 2009, six months before the airstrikes that formed the basis of the "Collateral Murder" vid, which was released with the rest of the documents stolen by Manning between April and November 2010. Manning was arrested in May 2010. The Swedish authorities started the investigations into A$$nut's Dikileaks problems in August 2010. Now, concentrate, this is the math bit - which number is bigger, 2009 or 2010?
The whole Wikileaks and A$$nut farce has happened completely under Obama's watch. Trying to pretend otherwise is simply beyond childish.
And the whole American sub prime housing bubble happened completely under George Bush's watch. Ask the citizens of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Ireland (and soon France and England) who is responsible for a greater threat to their existence: Julian Assange or Alan Greenspan.
Except for you, we are over the video that Julian released. However, we may NEVER get over the damage that Greenspan did to the world economy during his tenure as Chairman of the Fed. Please don't tell us that you know that the economy will recover by such and such date.
"And the whole American sub prime housing bubble happened completely under George Bush's watch...." Straight out of Socialist Weekly! But if you happened to look at the FACTS instead of just repeating the dogma you have been spoonfed, you would KNOW the subprime mess was caused by Democrat vote-buying. Indeed, it can be traced as far back as the rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 by Bill Clinton, along with changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s. Bush repeatedly warned that Democrat policy in the Democrat-dominated Congress was building a bubble. As early as Bush's first budget, written in 2001 and years before the bubble burst, Bush called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets." But the Democrats, especialy Barney Frank, protected Mae and Mac and tried to hide how they fudged the figures, because it allowed them to bribe poor families with "cheap" mortgages, those poor families often being in the 47% mentioned by Romney.
In November 2003, just two months after Frank said "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," Bush's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, warned that ".....The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs [Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac] matter for the financial system as a whole....." His proposed reforms were also blocked by Democrats eager to protect a system that garnered them votes.
In 2005, after Alan Greenspan pointed out the global implications of the Democrats fudging the books, the Senate Banking Committee issued a bill that would have stopped the matter dead, but Democrats voted along party lines to defeat it. Shortly after the mortgage market collapsed and left the global banking markets in the brown stuff.
This did not outright cause the problems in Spain, Greece, Portugal, etc, but EXPOSED how they had not followed good financial policies (indeed, they broke their own European rules!) as they were too busy living on credit in the socialist European dream. In Greece's case this included deliberately fudging the books just to get on the European dreamtrain in the first place. When the cost of credit went up they were stuffed because of their borrowing habits, not because of Bush or Greenspan nor even directly by the Dummicrats, but by their own stupidity. And what is the European socialists' answer? Give the same people that created the mess in Europe MORE power so they can make a federated European superstate! I don't mind as long as the Germans pay for it (as they are doing now), but I won't support the UK being lumbered with it, and I won't let them pull the wool over my eyes and blame it on Bush.
If you want to believe that then go ahead, just don't be surprised if, when you to try dodging Obambi's part in the A$$nut farce by trying to segway off into some diatribe about Bush "breaking" Europe, you get called for saying something that is simply too stupid for words. When the US do issue a warrant for A$$nut's extradition it will be most probably be by the Obama administration. Unless Romney gets in, in which case he will simply pick up where Obama left off.
We need a new "Uberfail" icon for Local Dupe, please. Maybe one of a donkey's head wearing blinkers?
This post has been deleted by its author
In 20 of the 28 years, from January 1981 to January 2009, Republican Presidents wielded the veto pen in Washington. That is to say Reagan, Bush, Sr. and Bush Jr could have prevented any bill passed by Congress from becoming law. I don't remember seeing that Barney Frank or any other Democrat had a gun to heads of these presidents preventing them from vetoing anything.
In the last 6 years of the Clinton Administration, Republicans controlled the both the House and Senate. No bill reached Clinton's desk except that the Republicans passed it.
Forget Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, and the dull normal George W. Bush when it comes to blame for the sub prime bubble. It was Greenspan. Who later noted, "I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006." Time magazine placed him third on a list of 25 people to blame for the financial crisis"
Here are the top 6: (see any Dems?)
BLAMEWORTHY
Angelo Mozilo
Phil Gramm
Alan Greenspan
Chris Cox
American Consumers
Hank Paulson
"In 2000, Greenspan raised interest rates several times; these actions were believed by many to have caused the bursting of the dot-com bubble. However, according to Nobel laureate Paul Krugman "he didn't raise interest rates to curb the market's enthusiasm; he didn't even seek to impose margin requirements on stock market investors. Instead, he waited until the bubble burst, as it did in 2000, then tried to clean up the mess afterward."
I (moi) pointed that out in a comment to Krugman in his New York Times blog 3 years ago. The fact that Greenspan did not raise margin requirements before he made his 1997 idiot remark about 'irrational exuberance' was criminal.
The repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act was passed by the Republican controlled House and Senate.
There has been a Republican Chairman of the Federal Reserve System since 1987.
If you want to blame the bubble on something other than Republicans or Democrats, be my guest.
"In 2005, after Alan Greenspan pointed out the global implications of the Democrats fudging the books," Then "I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006." If he didn't get it till 2006, your quote is quite worthless. Maybe you better link me to Greenspan pointing out the global implications of the Democrats fudging the books? Gratzi.
"Shortly after (2005) the mortgage market collapsed" What? Did you want the bubble too inflate even more? More sub prime mortgages, more MBSs, more tranches, more CDSs? And you and the missus could have traded your house for a couple of those gorgeous Dutch tulip bulbs. Ah, what might have been!
But your gargantuan ignorance is getting me giddy. I have to go.
The uberfail icon you want should be a picture of you banging on your head, trying to get it to work again.
Ah, a Local Dupe fantasy - like Disney on acid!
".... from January 1981 to January 2009, Republican Presidents wielded the veto..." Cough*BillClinton*cough. Sorry, didn't want to draw attention to the 42nd Prez and the fact he served as such from 1993 to 2001, it might make your whole argument look just stupid.
".....It was Greenspan....." Yes, because he was in control at Freddie and Fannie, giving out those cheap mortgages to the poor (Democrat) voters, and fudging the books to hide the bubble. Oh, hold on a sec, that was Barnie Frank!
".....Time magazine....." Oh puh-lease! If you are going to quote from a rag make sure it's not one that even lefty-liberals like The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald regularly savage for its biased and innaccurate articles. TBH, if you'd quoted "the Beano" it would carry as much weight.
"....But your gargantuan ignorance is getting me giddy....." I suspect it is either the collossal amount of denial you have to live with to function that is making you dizzy, or some illegal substance. Or more likely both.
Matt Bryant says:"".... from January 1981 to January 2009, Republican Presidents wielded the veto..." Cough*BillClinton*cough. Sorry, didn't want to draw attention to the 42nd Prez and the fact he served as such from 1993 to 2001, it might make your whole argument look just stupid."
That in response to LG's: "In 20 of the 28 years, from January 1981 to January 2009, Republican Presidents wielded the veto pen in Washington. That is to say Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr could have prevented any bill passed by Congress from becoming law."
20 of 28 years. Reagan 8, Bush Sr 4, Bush Jr 8 equals 20 years. Clinton equals 8 years.
That's what happens when you watch 'The Princess and the Frog' on acid too much. I thought you were more of a 'Peter Pan' guy.
You may withdraw your ill conceived and dull reply
".....20 of 28 years. Reagan 8, Bush Sr 4, Bush Jr 8 equals 20 years. Clinton equals 8 years....." Except those were the important eight years originally mentioned, when Clinton started the proces of creating the bubble with the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995. You should have gone all the way back to Lincoln and claimed that meant Bill Clinton was only eight years out of 151 years, it would be just as stupid.
Look, these little evasions of yours are just exposing the fact you know very little outside of the usual leftie screaming points. So, if you're so dead set on not discussing A$$nut, would you like to discuss something that has been in the public eye a bit longer, so there is a chance you will have been spoonfed the correct leftie response? How about if we discuss if you think Obama's mentor Bill Ayers should also be classified as an "enemy" of the US due to his involvement with a terrorist bombing campaign by the Weatherman group in the Seventies? Yes, that should get you shrieking and frothly nicely.
To recapitulate, the US Treasury is part of the administration of the President. In the Democratic Clinton Administration Roger Altman and Robert Rubin, two known Democrats, served as Secretaries of the Treasury. They performed the typical Treasury duties of collecting taxes and selling bonds to name but two. Only some one as stupid as Matt Drudge would blame them for the disastrous sub-prime housing bubble.
Just around the corner from the Treasury is the Federal Reserve System of the US. The Chairman of the System is appointed by the sitting President when the previous Chairman's term has expired. In 1987 the chairmanship came up and the Republican President, Ronald Reagan appointed the Republican economist, Alan Greenspan, to become Chairman of the Fed.
The Fed is in charge of monetary policy, which is to say, it determines the interest rates that banks charge their customers. Another important duty is preventing asset bubbles. It was another charge of Republican Alan Greenspan as chairman. Prevent Asset Bubbles. Chairman from 1987 to 2006. Chairman for all the 8 years of Clinton's terms. Alas, the asset Bubble BURST in 2007.
The man was in charge of market interest rates. The man was in charge of mortgage interest rates. Remember, if the mortgage rates were higher most of the sub-prime borrowers could not afford the mortgages that blew up the bubble in all our faces.
THE FED'S CHAIRMAN SETS INTEREST RATES NOT BILL AYRES.
But right here is the name of the game.
"Even Greenspan, who shared the concerns of Treasury officials about the unrestrained growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, refrained for years from using his bully pulpit to urge action. He too wanted a hot housing market."
The man who raised and lowered interest rates wanted a hot housing market. 'Nuff said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302638_3.html
".....The man who raised and lowered interest rates wanted a hot housing market....." He wanted a hot market, not an overheated one. The Democrats justed wanted votes and used Freddie and Fannie as a cruel means of hooking the poor with "affordable housing". The proof is that Barnie Frank moved the oversight committee that oversaw Freddie and Fannie from Congress to a pet department at the Treasury, where he could fudge the figures as long as he liked. Frank defended this move with the quote: "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing." Did you get that - he didn't want anyone else studying the books so he hid them away, so his party could gamble with voters' homes and livelyhoods.
When challenged in July 2008, Frank said in an CNBC interview, "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward." By that point the bubble was massive and just waiting to burst. Campaign contributions from both Freddie and Fannie no doubt had nothing to do with his complicity either....
But that still is no reason to blame the subprime mess for the European crisis, which was due to poor spending plans run by socialist dreamers. And are you going to somehow link Alan Greenspan to A$$nut's escapades in Sweden? Maybe you want to claim Greenspan switched the condoms? LOL!
".....The Chairman of the System is appointed by the sitting President when the previous Chairman's term has expired.....It was another charge of Republican Alan Greenspan......" So, let's do a little math on that point - Alan Greenspan was re-appointed every four years by the POTUS between August 1987 until retiring on January 31, 2006, and Democrat Bill Clinton was Prez for eight of those years.... is that eight divided by four stumping you? Would you like me to draw you a diagram? In crayon?
"....The Fed is in charge of monetary policy, which is to say, it determines the interest rates that banks charge their customers...." Correct. BUT it was Clinton that removed the safeguards that stopped the banks setting mortgages where the interest payments could rise to silly levels. The rise in interest rates were predicted (George Soros made lots of money off it), yet the Democrats pushed through their mortgage plans so Freddie and Frannie could sell more mortgages to low-income (and in some cases, no income!) voters. When the interest rates rose the Democrat-controlled congress blocked every attempt to stop the bubble and went out of their way to cook the books to hide it. And then fed idiots like you the line that the blame was everyone's but their own. All of which in no way relates to the stupid socialist spending sprees in Europe, nor does it to A$$nut's being labelled an enemy of the States.
"....THE FED'S CHAIRMAN SETS INTEREST RATES NOT BILL AYRES." I know. Bill Ayres is a talk radio host and Executive Director and co-founder of World Hunger Year. Bill AYERS was the one that allegedly helped set bombs that killed policemen, talked about needing to "eliminate 25 million Americans who would not conform to the new order" after "the revolution", and later acted as Obama's mentor in Chicago. Was those caps you reflexively frothing, as anticipated? LMAO!
BTW, hold onto your hats, I'm told there is a leak doing the rounds on what defence Assange is planning to use in Sweden AND America!
" Alan Greenspan was re-appointed every four years by the POTUS between August 1987 until retiring on January 31, 2006, and Democrat Bill Clinton was Prez for eight of those years.... is that eight divided by four stumping you? Would you like me to draw you a diagram? In crayon?"
Yes, please. Eight what (Clinton years?) divided by four what (presidents?) The answer is two. Two what?
Turtle Doves?
Reagan, appointed him once, Bush Sr once. Bush Jr once. Clinton twice. Five terms. 12 Republican years. 8 Democratic years. And a Conservative Republican chairman of the Fed in a pear tree.
Do you have any evidence that Greenspan ceased to be a conservative Republican economist when he accepted Clinton's appointments? Just asking.
".....Clinton twice..... Do you have any evidence that Greenspan ceased to be a conservative Republican economist when he accepted Clinton's appointments?....." Ah, but what you FAIL (as usual) to do is link Greenspan to any Republican strategy to create a bubble, and then deny that there is evidence that Frank hid one he created by gambling with mortgages. You also FAILED to realise that if Greenspan had been so partisan and bad for the economy WHY would Clinton have re-appointed him twice?
OK, so I was expecting you to fail, but then that is a common thread all your posts. Especially as the original accusation, posted Monday 1st October 2012 19:17 GMT, was that the subprime collapse was the cause of all the European economic woes. I notice you have failed to prove that it was not teh socialist spending policies of those European countries, but what's a little more FAILURE when your whole existance seems to be one big fail?
Now, seeing as we have exposed your massive fail in this conversation, you want to get back to A$$nut so we can carry on laughing at your even more massive fail there? LOL!
"European Banks Bolster Capital With Shunned Bonds: Mortgages
By Esteban Duarte - Jul 1, 2012 3:00 PM PT
"Spanish and Portuguese banks are leading European lenders in buying back their own mortgage- backed securities at distressed prices to bolster capital and stockpile eligible collateral for European Central Bank loans."
When the Tweedle Dumb banks of Europe saw the money the Tweedle Dee American banks were making from mortgage-backed securities, they immediately set up shop. When the bubble burst in America, it took down the world economy. The sub-prime collapse in America is responsible for the 5 year long recession we're still experiencing and forced the US to import more crap from China and less crap from Europe, exacerbating Europe's economic woes. So it wasn't the socialist spending policies that caused the collapse, it was the American global pyramid scheme what done us in.
Shortly after Greenspan became Chairman of the Fed, the markets crashed. "In the days between October 14 and October 19, 1987, major indexes of market valuation in the United States dropped 30 percent or more." Greenspan handled it very well. Then there was "the Savings and Loans Crisis which created the greatest banking collapse since the Great Depression of 1929. By 1989, over half the Savings and Loans had failed, along with the FSLIC fund that was created to insure their deposits." Again Greenspan was credited with a smooth recovery.
"you FAIL (as usual) to do is link Greenspan to any Republican strategy to create a bubble, and then deny that there is evidence that Frank hid one he created by gambling with mortgages. You also FAILED to realise that if Greenspan had been so partisan and bad for the economy WHY would Clinton have re-appointed him twice?
1) It was never my intention to link Greenspan to any Republican strategy to create a bubble. The only bubbles Republicans enjoy are made by blowing soapy water through a small plastic ring. Greenspan and his goon squad were marching to a different drummer.
2) Barney Frank is only one of 435 Representatives in the US Congress and doesn't have the power to singlehandedly create or hide a bubble. He does have a key to the Member's men's room.
3) Clinton looked back at the way Greenspan and the Fed handled the 2 crises, at the shrinking of the budget deficit and the thriving dotcom sector (not yet considered a bubble) and pulled the trigger.
Some other group besides the Republicans are interested in creating a ginormous bubble in the American and global economies. They were responsible for Freddy and Fanny. They were responsible for the repeal of the juicy parts of Glass-Steagall.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? " (Benedict Cumberbatch)
<Sigh> Local Dupe, the bubble just made the global markets depressed. What killed the European PIIGS's economies was their addiction to credit - bad global economy, credit costs high, nwohere for PIIGS to borrow more cash cheaply. The obvious evidence for this is that the German and UK economies still have their triple-A ratings because they did not spend stupidly quite as bad as the PIIGS (though that moron Brown had a pretty good go at spending all the family silver and left us in a much worse position than Germany).
This was added to by the PIIGS's socialist governments all pushing up average wages (which garnered votes) and encouraged consumer credit booms without actually increasing productivity. In Germany's case, wages were kept relatively in-line with productivity increases, so Germany became the export powerhouse in Europe. For your theory to be correct ("it's all the subprime problem and nothing else") then Germany would need to be as badly hit as Greece, especialy as German banks are some of those worst exposed in the PIIGS countires. Maybe you should read some painfully unbiased BBC news rather than just socialist views:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8508136.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2010/06/the_case_against_the_euro.html
Whilst you're there, you may also want to look at some bad news for A$$nut and that old extradition thingummy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19855380
Enjoy!
Show me who lent the PIIGS money and I will show you Capitalism equally as responsible as Socialism for the problem.
"The bubble just made the global markets depressed. What killed the European PIIGS's economies was their addiction to credit"
The falling tree limb just made the hole in the roof. What made it leak was the rain.
You can make a list as long as the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad for what killed the PIIGS economies, but the collapse of the Mortgaged Back Securities is the only correct answer: ONE RING RULES THEM ALL.
The unsustainable losses -- well into double digit trillions -- that the banks around the world suffered from the overpriced derivatives they bought which were based on the value of American real estate as it inflated into a never-before-seen bubble.
"From Moody's
Moody's takes multiple actions on German banks' ratings; most outlooks now stable
Frankfurt am Main, June 06, 2012 -- Moody's Investors Service has today taken various rating actions on seven German banks and their subsidiaries, as well as one German subsidiary of a foreign group. As a result, the long-term debt and deposit ratings for six groups and one German subsidiary of a foreign group have declined by one notch, while the ratings for one group were confirmed. Moody's also downgraded the long-term debt and deposit ratings for several subsidiaries of these groups, by up to three notches. At the same time, the short-term ratings for three groups as well as one German subsidiary of a foreign group have been downgraded by one notch, triggered by the long-term rating downgrades.
Further to these actions, Moody's has assigned stable outlooks to the ratings of most German banks. The ratings of two groups and of one German subsidiary of a foreign bank carry negative outlooks, reflecting bank-specific vulnerabilities to a possible further deterioration of the environment.
The ongoing rating review for Deutsche Bank AG and its subsidiaries will be concluded together with the reviews for other global firms with large capital markets operations.
Today's rating actions are driven by the increased risk of further shocks emanating from the euro area debt crisis, in combination with the banks' limited loss-absorption capacity. The key drivers of today's rating actions on German banks are:
- Increased risks to asset quality for the banks affected by today's actions due to their exposures to asset classes prone to further deterioration if downside risks from the euro area debt crisis and the weakened global economic outlook materialise.
- Limited loss-absorption capacity, given the comparatively small equity cushions relative to total assets (not risk-weighted) and low pre-provision earnings. As a result, many German banks have limited capacity to absorb losses out of earnings, raising the potential that capital could diminish in a stress scenario.
Moody's notes that several factors have caused the ratings of many German banks to decline by less than for other European banks and also less than the initial maximum guidance communicated on 15 February 2012. One mitigating factor is the comparatively benign operating environment in the German home market, supported by below-average unemployment, low household and corporate debt levels and the general resilience of the German economy. Another critical mitigating factor is the modest funding risk of many German banks, underpinned by broadly matched maturity profiles, recurring access to intra-sector funds (for the Landesbanks and the central institutions of the German cooperative banking sector), and improved liquidity buffers. Moreover, Moody's recognises the steps German banks have taken to address past asset quality challenges; however, as stated above, significant downside risks remain.
Todays' rating actions have no impact on debt issued by Landesbanks that is guaranteed by state governments (grandfathered debt). The ratings for this debt continue to reflect the applicable sub-sovereign long-term and short-term ratings."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/moodys-downgrades-six-german-bank-groups-and-their-subsidiaries-three-notches
Tell me about Germany's triple-A ratings after you read it.
Finally, about the relative strength of the UK, Germany and France. One word covers both German and France: Triage. Germany and France have the two largest economies on the Continent and must be saved even at the great expense of the others. Elementary, my dear Bryant.
As far as the UK goes, two words covers them: Printing press. The UK printed its way to economic recovery. Just like the US.
Is this where you got your statement that:" the German and UK economies still have their triple-A ratings because they did not spend stupidly quite as bad as the PIIGS ?"
"GERMANY"S AAA RATING & STABLE OUTLOOK AFFIRMED
Rating agency Fitch has just affirmed Germany's credit rating at AAA with a stable outlook.
Fitch said Germany's underlying economic situation was good, pointing out that it is the only major advanced economy which had a lower unemployment rate in the first half of this year than in 2007.
The affirmation reflects Germany's longstanding credit strengths and robust economic performance over the past two years. Against the background of fragile global recovery and the intensification of the eurozone crisis, Germany has recorded strong GDP growth and a declining trend in unemployment, partly as a result of previous structural reforms.
Several factors contribute to Germany's solid macroeconomic position. Germany is the only major advanced economy which had lower unemployment rate in H112 than it had in 2007. The level of German GDP has increased by a cumulative 5.8% since the beginning of 2010, compared to 2.3% for the eurozone. The monetary conditions set for the entire eurozone by the ECB are commodative for Germany given the strong cyclical position of its economy. As a consequence of safe-haven capital inflows, yields are also at extremely low levels. Furthermore, Germany has a strong net external creditor position and a large, albeit gradually declining, current account surplus."
You can find the rest here http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/08/eurozone-crisis-bank-of-england-greece#block-502268e295cb77f057201c0d @14:25 BST
.
"Credit rating agencies such as Fitch Ratings have been subject to criticism in the wake of large losses in the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market that occurred despite being assigned top ratings by the CRAs. For instance, losses on $340.7 million worth of collateralized debt obligations (CDO) issued by Credit Suisse Group added up to about $125 million, despite being rated AAA by Fitch."
If Draghi, Bernanke, or Osborne asked the 3 rating agencies, Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investors and Fitch, to atone for their avaricious deceit in rating the CDOs during the inflation of the sub-prime bubble by repeating that same deceit today by exaggerating the ratings of the countries whose well being is sine qua non to any recovery whatsoever, do you have any doubt what their answer would be?
Do you have any doubt that Draghi, Bernanke, or Osborne, or their agents, would ask such a thing?
In October 2007 the Dow had a close of 14,164, an all time high. Yesterday the Dow closed at 13,610. Do you think that's an honest measure of whatever it is that the Dow Average pretends to measure?
<ZZzzzzzz> Crap, I actually did fall asleep reading that post! Local Dupe, I know you're just thrashing around in angst at the thought of A$$nut being destined for a Swedish prison cell followed shortly after by an Amercian one, but trying to rewrite history by saying the PIIGS only failed due to alleged backscratching between ratings agencies and a few politicians is not sillines beyond comparison but also denial on both counts. The PIIGS got f*cked by popularist socialist politicians both in their own countries and in the Democratic party in the US, and A$$nut is going to go to an US prison eventually due to the process that has been kicked off by a Democrat administration. Enjoy!
".....Guinness Extra Stout....." Haven't drunk Guiness in the UK for years, it just doesn't taste right compared to the proper Irish stuff. But I suggest St Jules should ask his buddies in the Ecuadorean embassy to order him some in as he won't be able to drink ANY alcohol other than jail hooch soon!
<Yawn> Sorry, nearly fell asleep waiting for you to make a pertinent point.
"....The falling tree limb just made the hole in the roof. What made it leak was the rain...." A rather pointless response. In your scenario you need both the hole and the rain to cause water damage to the inside of the house. Simply saying one wthout the other caused the damage is obviously incorrect. The problems with the PIIGSs' economies were that the economic downturn caused by subprime mortgage bubble bursting meant the price of credit went up at a time when they their policies meant they were reliant on the continued availability of cheap credit. Your own reply in paragraph fourteen states that Germany was different due to better economic policies, so I will have to assume that is you stating you were wrong just not admitting it.
BTW, do you think A$$nut thinks he can beat Abu Hamza's eight years of extardition blocking lawfare when Sweden apparently has a much more streamlined extradition system?
"the economic downturn caused by subprime mortgage bubble bursting meant the price of credit went up at a time when they their policies meant they were reliant on the continued availability of cheap credit." So The Price Of Credit Went Up Because The Sub-Prime Mortgage Bubble Burst.
"At A Time When..." Do you mean that period of time in 2009 when the Earth was spinning off its axis until Bernanke started printing money?
Why do you pretend that doesn't mean exactly what I have been saying?
Before the bubble burst: Financial institutions flush with assets, cash and liquid CDOs and MBSs.
After the bubble burst: Financial institutions suffer huge losses, CDOs and MBSs no longer liquid, cash assets needed for day to day operations. Receivables slower and later. Supply of money available to be lent out shrinks considerably, demand for loans expands.
Law of Supply and Demand affects Price of Credit.
If you want to blame the 'socialist' governments of the PIIGS, fine. I don't. The extremely 'unsocialist' behavior of the the large financial institutions on Wall St, and in London, Paris, Frankfurt, etc. are more responsible for today's mess. It's not debatable.
"Germany was different due to better economic policies" "The obvious evidence for this is that the German and UK economies still have their triple-A ratings."
If the CRAs want to assign an AAA rating to Germany, they should make it clear to all that they're grading on the curve (in our 5 year old recession) and not the way they ordinarily do.
Your argument that the bursting of the sub-prime bubble had nothing to do with the price of credit is a lot like saying that dropping the atomic bomb out of the bomb bay had nothing to do the nuclear explosion that destroyed Hiroshima.
"Twinkle, twinkle little Matt. How I wonder where you're at?"
Whatever, Local Dupe, you're just boring now. First you insist that the crash that drove up the price of credit is all Wall Streets fault, then you insist that the fact the PIIGS needed cheap credit was Wall Streets' fault too! Hilarious! It's the same old Dem mantra - "Nothing is our fault, blame it all on Bush/Reagan/Wall Street!" I must say that trying to stretch it to excuse the actions of your comrades in Europe is new.
Next, you'll insist that A$$nut can't be guilty of stealing and selling US secrets because it's The Man's fault for having secrets in the first place! Oh, hold on a sec - I think you did propose that silliness here not too long ago.
Cause it's just like the inside of your head.
While bubbles are inflating, things look great and everyone invests his life savings (just like his neighbor, co-worker, friend, etc) in fantastic ventures which soon will make them all very rich. Some eager investors actually borrow money at the going rate to invest money that is not theirs in these 'can't lose' deals.
After the last uninvested dollar is invested, a couple of traders sell some holdings to take profits. That early selling, like the butterfly wings flapping in the Himalayas, snowballs and soon everybody with a profit decides to sell, the early birds get out and the whole thing unwinds.
In 1929, the margin rate was 10%. (Investors put up 10% of the price of the stock they bought and owed 90%. When the price of their stock declined 10% from the purchase price, their broker sold them out. That triggered more margin calls, which in turned triggered more calls.)
This time around the sub-prime mortgage bubble burst when some mortgage holders couldn't pay their monthly mortgage payment or even walked away from their homes. Without these payments, the MBSs, which owned the mortgages in default, couldn't pay the interest it owed to it's large corporate investors who owned tranches of the MBS.
"It was the socialist governments in the PIIGS countries that caused all the trouble in Europe", says Matt Bryant, tongue in shriek. He knows all too well that no one held a gun at the heads of the bankers from New York, London, Paris, Frankfurt to make now irrecoverable loans to socialistic governments in Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.
No, Matt, it was Fed who permitted the lax creation of mortgages, not just for the sub-prime borrower, but for richies and their million dollar homes. And with all the mortgage paper that was created the Fed allowed Wall Street to package it together into derivatives, slice them into smaller units and peddle them any place in the world that had an airport.
When your grandchildren are old enough, you can tell them this.
"While bubbles are inflating, things look great and everyone invests his life savings....." Yes, that's pretty much how all cons work - sell a good story, hook the marks, then run away with their cash. Of course, not everyone falls for a con. And the "con" of the subprime mortgages was not only legal, thanks to the regulation of the Democrats, but also warned about (by Bush) and then still defended by the Democrats!
".....He knows all too well that no one held a gun at the heads of the bankers from New York, London, Paris, Frankfurt....." Just stop for a second and consider that no-one was holding a gun to the heads of the PIIGS socialist politicians that built their economies on cheap credit. It is completely astounding that you cannot see that the Europeans put themselves in the position. They had a choice - build responsibly or borrow lots of credit, and they CHOSE the credit option because it was easier.
".....any place in the world that had an airport....." You really do need to stop shooting yourself in the foot with every post! One of the biggest scandals in Spain is the ludicrous number of airport projects run up by socialists in the "good times" of cheap credit, that have now been abandoned half-built or closed since the cost of credit went up. Please go read some of the following links before even thinking of displaying such obtuseness again:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/10/spanish-politician-accused-megalomania-monument
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/ciudad-real-international_n_1667526.html
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2009/gb20091111_227985.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18277681
This post has been deleted by its author
So, I point out the responsibility of the PIIGS governments and their spending policies base don cheap credit, and you somehow STILL try and blame it on the Bush? Did Bush travel around Europe writing out their fiscal programs for them all individually? You mention intention, well you have to ask what was the intention of running up a massive deficit with social programs if not to buy votes? And then when I point out concrete examples of their rediculous programs you just ignore it and start whittering on about MBS? Truly you are blinded by your politics.
"......Have you tried to get it together with meditation?" Your record of debunked arguments, evasions and denial show it is you that is very obviously living in a drug-addled fantasy World. I seriously worry for your personal safety when A$$nut does get locked up.
"......"In the boom years they (regional governments) spent lavishly on new infrastructure and big projects like airports and swimming pools."....." Yes, and you completely failed to read the bit about which political persuasion those overspending local governments belonged to. I won't give you a chance to guess as you'll just embarrass yourself. Let's just say they were from the left-of-center and leave it at that.
So, Sherlock, you eliminated the impossible and what remained was the truth. Yep, the Spanish airports is what done in the global economy.
Pay no attention to these 14 digit figures.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/LD13Dj05.html
Someone emailed me - either your wife or your shrink - and said you were on the brink and could I let you win this one. So I'm not even going to mention the fact that the loans for the airports probably had a lag time of 3 or 4 years and were contracted during the high and palmy days of the early Bush bubble.
Forget that I said that.
You win.
"..... So I'm not even going to mention the fact that the loans for the airports probably had a lag time of 3 or 4 years and were contracted during the high and palmy days of the early Bush bubble....." Neatly ignoring the airports that COMPLETED and were opened long before being abandoned due to no-one using them. Now, Local Dupe ignoring facts, where have we seen that before? Oh, just about EVERY post he makes.
"Spain's story illustrates the fact that the eurozone's problems run far deeper than the issue of excessive borrowing by ill-disciplined governments."
"Greece, Portugal and Italy all had way too much debt."
"But the Spanish government's borrowing was under control - that is, it ran a balanced budget on average every year until the eve of the 2008 financial crisis."
"And as Spain's economy grew rapidly before 2008, its debt-to-GDP ratio was falling. Germany's, by contrast, continued to rise."
And the airports aren't even a federal problem.
"In the boom years they (regional governments) spent lavishly on new infrastructure and big projects like airports and swimming pools."
"Valencia, which built an airport at which not a single plane has landed, has now asked the central government in Madrid for financial aid."
"So too has Spain's largest regional economy Catalonia, as well as Murcia and Andalucia."
If Barsetshire borrowed money for airports and swimming pools and couldn't pay for them, do you blame the UK for it?
All was well until 2008, when the MBSs melted down. The opposite of your sad argument.
Have you thought of finding another line of work?
<<" the "con" of the subprime mortgages was not only legal, thanks to the regulation of the Democrats, but also warned about (by Bush)">> MB
Wikipedia: "In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992." There were 44 Republicans in the Senate then, enough to filibuster the Act. And Bush could have vetoed it. Barney Frank did not threaten to come out of the closet if the President didn't sign the Act.
<<"They had a choice - build responsibly or borrow lots of credit, and they CHOSE the credit option">>MB
So the PIIGS just stood there hat in hand and said "Give us your money."
" the first obligation on the part of the lender, is to suffer the borrower to use and enjoy the thing loaned during the time of the loan, according to the original intention."
The Original Intention. Do you think the bankers, who had everything to lose, asked the borrowing nations, who had nothing to lose, what they were going to do with the the proceeds of the loan? Did they get a satisfactory answer? Or did the bankers just give the PIIGS a blank check?
<<"One of the biggest scandals in Spain is the ludicrous number of airport projects run up by socialists in the "good times" of cheap credit.">> MB
The Pain of Spain is you ranting about airports
Here's what I said: "package it together into derivatives, slice them into smaller units and peddle them any place in the world that had an airport."
My reference was to the worthless MBS which were being sold to any tin pot dictator who had a couple of million in cash and a dirt runway.
Have you tried to get it together with meditation?
The pertinent point is at the top of your head. You can down vote me for that. Duh.
One of my neighbors is world class at channeling the departed. I asked her if she could channel Freud and ask him about someone with a severe case of Assangexia Nervosa.
If you wash your hands several times an hour, it's probably just guilt.
".....If you wash your hands several times an hour, it's probably just guilt." Well, I wonder how many times A$$nut has to wash his hands when he thinks of the sh*t he dropped Manning in. Of course, that preposes that A$$nut has a consceince, which is doubtful given his remarks about not caring about exposing informers to the Taleban.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
