Tuesday, September 15, 2009

[coffee] and the necessity to smell it now

You've all seen those films where the small anti-hero stumbles on something but when he tries to do something about it, he's faced by a wall of smug, at first tolerant disbelief. It's a pity that it's a Bruce Willis who gets the revelation in those films, an ordinary man who somehow turns into a die-hard hero because in the real world, it's more often than not a nobody, an amateur who gets it.

We know how, in those films, the wall of officialdom, like the cop big wig who threatens John McClane and tells him to get off the air or the police who jump James Bond at the airport after he's saved the plane from being exploded - how they always get it wrong, quite satisfied in their world view of what is going on. It's only a major event which shakes them out of their complacency and by then it's too late.

We can all feel the utter frustration of not being able to do anything - like Sarah Conner in Terminator 2 who knows what's going down but is then shut up in a loony bin while she sees a child on a swing being obliterated by the nuclear blast. And Sarah Conner is a woman on the edge, a strange, crazy, violent person who has got that way because no one will believe her.

We all believe we've got it right - within our sphere of accounting or finance or law or engineering or whatever, we have the world worked out and are the pub philosophers of the blogosphere. Much of what we've come to believe is right but there's always something to show that we are a bit off in some ways or haven't twigged certain other things.

For example, I was sure that the NAU was the big one and that's how my posts on it read. Now, as a result of info pumped in from outside [you'd understand that many people don't wish to commit themselves in the comments section of a blog], I can see that we've been led down a side path on this one.

OK, OK, hold up for one moment. You'd agree things are not too great out there just now, from the financial crisis through to our children on drugs and prostituted before fourteen, to the lack of respect, to the rise of the new hooligan and so on. We all have our own explanation and our own blog to push it.

This is the single biggest obstacle to any progress on this - we are self-satisfied and won't open ourselves to radically different ideas. It doesn't help when those that have stumbled upon something only have fragments of it and quite understand it ourselves. We're asked to lay down chapter and verse before you and we can't. Ipso facto, in your eyes, we're talking shite.

But we're not - we really did come across those things. Hallucination, explained by natural phenomena - all of this is thrown at us but we know what we saw and what we saw was wrong. That was the case of Obama lying [in yesterday's post]. I knew he lied because I looked at the fine print and at the same time, knew of the SPPNA meetings - I knew of this connect.

There are hundreds out there who know far more than me on this issue, some of them send me things. I check them out. They're actually right or have mysteriously disappeared off the web in the past few days. Obama used the words "dreamed up by the internet". You see what he's doing - inviting the audience, in a spirit of bonhomie, to mock along with him.

The bottom line? Internet = kook, David Icke, wild theorist. Classic propaganda move.

The point of all that

The BIS are effectively stating that nations' taxpayers should be responsible for all derivatives ever written prior to now. And also possibly ongoing. They are unique contracts, incapable of netting. The BIS is showing the net figures.

No exchange can possibly be created to insure this cr-p. Everything going over an exchange becomes ultimately the responsibility of the exchange, that's why counter parties are financially examined for qualification. Balancing is done nightly. Normal exchange accepted contracts are standardised, and are nettable and insurable.

This rubbish isn't. I'd like the financial boys and girls who read this blog in RSS to consider the following:

# Unless financial contracts have standards there is no way to clear them.

# Unless financial instruments have accurate means of daily valuation, there is no way to clear them.

# OTC derivatives outstanding from 1991 to 2008 have no standards.

# OTC derivatives outstanding from 1991 to 2008 have no sound means of true valuation in any time frame, certainly not from day to day.

It's why AIG went down, they had no assets behind the "insurance", derivatives, that they sold OTC. They were fools to get involved with GS, JPM, etc, these were the guys writing this rubbish, they knew they would fail, and given the repealed legislation, they, (GS, JPM, et al) knew the taxpayer, via treasury, would be on the hook!

Greenspan, CFRers et al campaigned for no oversight of these instruments. Meanwhile, the rest of the actual banking world, who understood the implications, were silent. The NAU is a side issue, a distraction. No one is shouting about this and that should tell the story in itself.

Why did gold jump last week? What's happening with gold?

Why did China say it was OK for Chinese Coys to default on certain derivatives, raised by certain western banks? Why has a trade dispute suddenly blown up between China and US? The short position to cap gold, right now, is unbelievable. Those who hold it are the bullion banks, in thrall to the central banks.

We are in very, very strange times right now, where very weird things, which defy explanation, are going down. They attempted to make Iran the target of a new war and Iran, the nutters, willingly obliged with their provocation. Why? Why did the U.S. shift its position on this in the sense of not going at it as gung ho as before?

The Chinese obviously woke up to this, to what was really behind the U.S. moves at key strategic points in the world and they had their own agenda, which this threatened to derail. Hence their moves in the last decade. I'm sorry to go back to Wilson's dictum again but if it's true, it keeps coming back.

There is clear international financial collusion going on and the question is where the source of it is. Wilson could only see as far as the U.S. itself when he said "Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

It's been said by many others, even by those involved in it. It's there to read and people don't read. It is sheer lunacy to ignore what people on the inside say, when they give out warnings. Eisenhower was a brave man, hence his position in WW2. He gave the same warning , only disguised and muted, when he realized what was going on.

Do you think the things going on in America are normal, usual? Do you think the state control of our rubbish bins and over education in our country here, to the dissolution of England as an entity, is normal and usual?

There are things clearly going down, aren't there?

We know some of the centres of it but even they, the CBs, are just the visible front which can take the flak. You can see the arrogant way in which banks are getting bailed out and top execs, in the past few days, have been revealed to have given themselves huge bonuses. The world is descending into mania, it seems.

No - we are not mad. Not us. The madness is at the top, in Them, the disconnect with normality and morality and it's a very sane mania, predicated on money. Always it comes back to money and who controls the credit.

That's what's going down.

Look a your own situation. Do you have a mortgage? Why? Why isn't the house price within a range which you could pay off in five years? The answer is that the prices have, over the past decades, slipped out of your grasp. Why do mothers work? Two reasons - feminism/suffragettism and economic necessity. Nothing wrong with it but why is it necessary? Why are things so grim, so difficult?

Because they've been made so. Because this is all about control of the population. You call it Statism if you like, you call it the socialist move to break down the free enterprise system. I call it Them. Same thing, different name.

2010/11 is when the major moves come up. Which year did this blog rabbit on about, in its early days? 2012, wasn't it? Why? Because I stumbled upon something - I read some FOMC reports word for word and what was couched in there was jaw-dropping.

It was written on this blog that we'd come out of this recession for some time too before the real crash came, the crash engineered years ago by the simple expedient of sitting back and allowing some things to come to pass, knowing the game well enough to know that they would, must, come to pass. Greenspan is one of the men who did that. There were others. Blind Freddy knew that sub-prime lending must implode and that hedge-funds were fraught with issues.

They knew people would run to metals and voila - gold has shot up. Does anyone seriously say that gold and silver are not controlled?

You, the people, have no mechanisms to hit back, even if you understand it. You are effectively disempowered. There is no democracy, for the simple reason that you cannot effect change. The running of your family and you is in the hands of the government, itself riddled with and in thrall to Them. The departments of state and semi-governmental bodies are riddled with Pod people, all administering the party line.

Only major action would change this but all social upheavals have been anticipated anyway and the funded leaders end up in control again. The Who - meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

We run around blindly in our impotence and frustration but there is someone we can hit immediately and it at least dents the push. That is the combination of Central Banks who are far, far more than financial institutions. All the command and control resides in there. They're powerful but anything human can go down, never forget. Hitler did, Stalin didn't but he died anyway.

Hit the humans behind the CBs, feeling safe behind their firewalls and we have part of the victory back. Then starts the long haul.

So ... who'll bell the cat? We're waiting for a hero to do something about it.

8 comments:

  1. Is this a call to bear arms, a call to give a central banker a bear hug or just a call to recognise that bears crap in the woods? I personally believe that we are in the dead-cat bounce (the sudden reveal of a large part of the hulk and keel of the ship before it finally goes down).

    Are you ready for the Po side-on adventure?

    ReplyDelete
  2. We're in the middle of a lot of swindling right now. From the expenses scandal to the shoddy ethics in the swine flu drugs and the global warming take up by the government, there are scams all over.

    The very biggest scam is the financial one with the private CBs, BIS and so on fuelling it. Mainstream financial commentators are coming out with it now.

    It has ever been the same - destabilization, disillusionment and "the pinch" felt by the population, anger which is misdirected by those causing it, e.g. a "study" trying o say now that teenage sex is due to genes !!!! and so on, then the sudden contraction of money and services [next year] crash, depression and the final stage ...

    War.

    War is the big money spinner. It's when the main players reposition themselves while we go off to be slaughtered.

    It's always been this way. I agree that the ship's going to sink, as you say but to use that analogy, where are we then? Dead?

    No, actually, just destitute and in chains. The difference this time round is that there are a lot of people, mainly on the net, who are awake to these bstds and are calling them out on it.

    From Wat Tyler to DK, from the financial blogs to people like Vox Day, the scams are being called out and the Game Plan has a few problems.

    What we ahve to do is to educate ourselves and be aware. Very hard to manipulate a knowledgeable population, Underdoug.

    ReplyDelete
  3. James, I've copied over part of Jim Sinclairs blog that partly answers your query from the rss financial people.

    Here
    "Dear Jim,

    You say the BIS proposal is a request for central banks to assume the risk of the huge mountain of OTC derivatives. You seem to make a large jump from this request to your position.

    Please explain.

    Respectfully,
    The Green Hornet

    Dear Green Hornet,

    You ask a very important question.

    I owned a first clearing house, James Sinclair Global Clearing. There would be no difference between the risk of a first derivative (futures) clearinghouse and an OTC derivative clearing house, though the OTC derivative clearinghouse is a fraud – a name for something it is not.

    The line of risk is the parties to the transaction, the second risk is to the clearinghouse to the entirety of its capital and in a partnership to the entirety of the General Partner’s capital. It is like the first two signatures on the on a debt.

    The BIS is saying that central banks should put up the capital for past and present OTC derivatives. Therefore the central banks underwrite all the derivatives being cleared because this mountain of paper is a mountain of floating financial corpses and impossible to perform specific performance contracts called OTC derivatives that will eat capital like a condor.

    I am totally correct in the above. I have lived this risk and know it well.

    Your friend,
    Jim

    Dear Jim,

    Thanks for your answer on what a clearinghouse does, and what that means to the creation of money.

    With respect, the article in question was vague on the BIS call for emergency funds access to clear OTC derivative as to if they were referring to all or just new.

    What is the implication of the call for access to emergency funds by the BIS to be used to capitalize a clearinghouse on new Credit Default Derivatives CDS?

    Your friend,
    The Green Hornet

    Dear Green Hornet,

    Excellent, readers with real interest should certainly ask this question. The answers are as follows, assuming the BIS is referring only to recent CDS (credit default OTC derivatives).

    CDS can only be considered safe even with a clearinghouse from normal day to normal day. If the company in question was to enter bankruptcy quickly then there is no way that margin requirements, whatever they are determined to be, could be met even with emergency funding in numbers as high or higher than those so far expended required on the growing size of that arena of disaster.

    Since today greed is a religion and a curse, people do not want simply to make money, but rather to carry the corpse out at zero (options as an example). There is another risk inherent. That risk is you cannot bail out the company because the open interest in the winning side of the CDS would in all probability be larger as the value goes lower, only then to bankrupt the long of CDS position still held due to the instant action of bonds in a rescue. That is a given as the rescue profile so far has been screw the shareholder and make the debtors whole. Think in terms of an operating company, not a financial entity where this is concerned.

    The most important message here is that the private sector, no matter what MOPE you hear, does not want nor can they handle the risk of a clearinghouse on any of these financial weapons of mass destruction. That is both telling and downright scary when you recognize the size of the OTC derivative market is wholly unchanged. All that has changed is the new cartoon means of valuing them which instantly dropped the nominal value by 60%.

    Finally the income a clearinghouse garners versus the money made in the manufacturing of an OTC derivatives is pitiful.

    So why should the private sector take the risk of a clearinghouse? It simply does not pay to do it.

    The manufacturers and distributors of the OTC derivative are not going to part with a dime of their ill gotten gains nor accept the risk of the paper they know has no way of performing under any degree of market pressure.

    Sincerely,
    Jim"

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would also add:-

    Read and compare

    These 2 articles

    It would appear that, the BIS has been attempting, and failed, to clear derivatives shown Here on their website.

    Nevertheless, as you would expect, the BIS is very much encouraging the increased use of these weapons of financial mass destruction, as shown by this article

    Many respected authors have written about the crash, and it's causes.

    The article referred to in the text, by a previous creator of these derivatives, at the request of the Fed Jackson Hole conference of 2008, is here, and quite a PDF read.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you read the bottom para, on page 1 of the PDf, which carries onto page 2, you will understand the evolution of the shadow banking system (sketchily), but more important is the fact that the run-off started in the shadow banking system, the derivatives, and migrated to the normal banking system

    No-one would lend, because no one could understand.
    No-one could understand because of the opacity of OTC activities.
    Activities deliberately kept private, in deep pools.
    The BIS is saying, we've (BIS)failed, you (central bank) carry the financial responsibility, pass it to the taxpayer, via inflation and the creation of covering finance!

    Oh, and by the way, we (BIS) think derivatives are good news!

    Good news for bankers, that is.

    View any of the PDF tables here to see the values and understand.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The cover story for every war is a lie. All wars are engineered for syndicate profits. Any economic system that competes with syndicate profits or models a successful alternative to “finance capitalism” is brutally crushed and eradicated. Any form of populism that asserts the right of the people to own and control their own resources is covertly destabilized and suppressed by intelligence networks or overtly destroyed with military force

    The “parasitic system” of central banking infects 186 countries. Those outside the system are attacked, financially and physically, until they are destroyed, financially and physically.

    Fred Bergsten, a US Treasury official and founding member of the Trilateral Commission and globalist Peterson Institute, accurately conveyed the ramifications of abandoning national currencies:
    “The adoption of a common currency is by far the boldest chapter of European integration. Money traditionally has been an integral element of national sovereignty … and the decision by Germany and France to give up their mark and franc … represents the most dramatic voluntary surrender of sovereignty in recorded history. The European Central Bank that will manage the euro is a truly supranational institution.” ~ C. Fred Bergsten, 1999[6]
    Bergsten rightly acknowledges that, “money is an integral element of national sovereignty.” Therefore, the private ownership of one global currency strips all countries of their national sovereignty in one broad stroke and what better way to shorten the process than to engineer the ‘disintegration of the world financial system,’ with a global derivatives Ponzi scheme.

    In 1974, international banker, Trilateralist and CFR member, Richard N. Gardner outlined a comprehensive strategy for the new world order in an influential article in Foreign Affairs entitled “The Hard Road to World Order.” He stated:
    “In short, the ‘house of world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great confusion, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gardner’s strategy for demolishing national sovereignty lays out a sweeping program for successfully setting up world government: strengthening the International Monetary Fund with leverage to wreck the economies of entire countries, as it did to Argentina in 2001; rewriting the ground rules for international trade through GATT (forerunner of the WTO), that “will subject countries to an unprecedented degree of international surveillance over, up to now, sacrosanct ‘domestic’ policies;” creating transnational trade regimes as pretexts for world control, such as the EU, NAFTA and a Free Trade Area of the Americas that would create a massive outflow of jobs and factories from the US and lead, over time, to a complete subordination of American government to a continental corporate authority; giving the United Nations ultimate jurisdiction over the oceans, atmosphere, electromagnetic spectrum, and outer space; disarming all nations to such an extent that, eventually, “no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force” – under whose authority the first Gulf War, and its 12-year aftermath of bombing raids and crippling sanctions, was carried out. From Somalia to the Balkans to Sierra Leone to Afghanistan, United Nations “peacekeepers” have become nearly ubiquitous enforcers of world order out of the barrel of a gun.
    Steve Bonta's analysis of Gardner’s strategy concludes:
    “If the insiders could have accomplished overtly and instantly what they are now piecing together through stealth and patient gradualism, they surely would have done so. They’ve had to proceed slowly and cautiously on their “Hard Road to World Order,” and their slowness and caution shows that they fear awakening the American people if they try to do too much too fast.”

    ReplyDelete
  8. The central bank syndicate, a shareholder-owned consortium of private banks, headquartered in Switzerland at the Bank for International Settlements was created in 1930. The BIS obscures its criminal activities, and those of it agents, with astounding claims of legal immunity that prohibit any form of oversight, intrusion or prosecution The Bank functioned as a Nazi money laundering operation in World War II. Today it serves as the cashier’s window for the global casino. Each central bank member has an exclusive monopoly on its own government’s monetary system, with the power to create public debt and expand or contract the host’s economy at will. Coordinating their monetary policies with each other through the Bank for International Settlements, the central bankers meet behind closed doors, appoint their own governors and set their own rules. Their books are not subject to audit by the governments that host them. They work in concert to protect their fraternity, sharing the credo that a threat to one member is an attack on them all.
    President John F. Kennedy defied the central bankers when he issued debt-free Treasury Notes. He was assassinated five months later. He had also made the mistake of declaring that Israel should not become a nuclear state.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.