Gedanken zur Freiheit und den Kapitalmärkten - oder was Staat und Banken davon übrig gelassen haben.
Simple Planet: A Spectre is Still Haunting Europe...:
"But this time it's not necessarily Communism, or any other label used by humans to conveniently understand their complex forms of socioeconomic organization. It's the spectre of an unrelenting reality, emerging from the depths of history, with no plans to follow but its own. What exactly, then, is reality and why does it have its own plans? These are not easy questions to answer, but many brilliant minds have had much to write and say on the topic. It may be safe to say with near certainty that, if nothing else, reality is constantly evolving and always lingering in the furthest boundaries of our comprehension".
Hier spricht der Initiator:
"Company defensively registers hundreds of domain names for its senior
executives and board members.
As Bank of American awaits a possible release of information from WikiLeaks, it wants to ensure that you don’t think its executives suck. Or blow for that matter.
The company has been aggressively registering domain names including its Board of Directors’ and senior executives’ names followed by “sucks” and “blows”.
For example, the company registered a number of domains for CEO Brian Moynihan:
BrianMoynihanBlows.com, BrianMoynihanSucks.com, BrianTMoynihanBlows.com, and BrianTMoynihanSucks.com. Just to be sure, it also picked up the .net version of these names and some .orgs as well.
I count hundreds of such domain name registrations on December 17 alone. They were registered through an intermediary that frequently registers domain names on behalf of large companies.
Some of the other names are for CFO Charles Noski, Chairman of the Board
Charles Holliday, and board member Charles Rossotti (who is also Senior Advisor, The Carlyle Group).
I’m not sure if this strategy will work. You can always go register BrianMoynihanBlows.info."
Zumindest wirkt BoA damit nicht unbedingt den Gerüchten entgegen, daß sie das Ziel der nächsten Wikileaks sein könnte.
Trailer:
Die ganze Rede ist bei Youtube oder hier verlinkt:
http://outerdnn.outer.jhuapl.edu/rethinking/VideoArchives.aspx
Wow, offenbar ein bahnbrechender Gesetzesvorschlag von Dennis Kucinich:
Dennis Kucinich, which many people have (properly) labeled as one step removed from a communist in the past, and who has a reputation as having a hard-core left slant in his politics, has just written up and introduced a bill that will fundamentally restore the free market - for real - to banking and credit.
It will also piss a lot of people off.
His bill would end the process of money issuance by The US Federal Government as a debt instrument. It would thus restore actual "lawful money" as Ron Paul claims to want, but in a form he has never, ever elucidated. It does, however, exactly match up with the base position I have propounded upon, along with Bill Still and a few others.
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/akcs-www?singlepost=2323337
"Der heute 75 Jahre alte Ron Paul machte 2008 international Schlagzeilen, als er sich für die Republikaner um die Präsidentschaft bewarb und dabei scharfe Kritik
am Irak-Krieg äußerte."
Hätte Ron Paul im Jahr 2008 "international Schlagzeilen gemacht", hätte ich mir nicht mit Christoph die Finger wundschreiben müssen, um irgendwie wenigstens etwas Aufmerksamkeit für seine Ansichten und Thesen zu gewinnen. Ich bin überzeugt davon, daß die westlichen Massenmedien die Präsidentschaft von Ron Paul verhindert haben. Durch Unterlassung. Ich hätte niemals einen solchen totalen medialen Black-Out für möglich gehalten, speziell bei dem Schlagzeilen-POTENZIAL der Ron-Paul-Grassroots-Bewegung. Wäre für Obama so etwas enstanden, wäre es gnadenlos ausgeschlachtet worden.
Nein, überhaupt nicht, Herr Piper (PS: Google ist sowas von praktisch...unbedingt ausprobieren!):"Auch sein Engagement gegen die Fed erklärt sich aus diesem libertären Denken
heraus. Paul hält die Fed schlicht für verfassungswidrig. Seine Position ist
dabei historisch und ökonomisch nicht besonders gut begründet. Die
Verfassungsväter der USA beschäftigten sich 1787 überhaupt nicht mit der Frage, wie die Geldordnung aussehen sollte."
"Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice." (letter to J. Bowen, Rhode Island, Jan. 9, 1787) "If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash."
--George Washington
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance."
--Thomas Jefferson, at the Constitutional Convention (1787)
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."
--John Adams, at the Constitutional Convention (1787)
http://aldbook.wikispaces.com/Our+Founding+fathers,+and+others,+about+money+and+banking
Tja, wie sagte schon Matt Taibbi vom Rolling Stone:
Ich verfolge die Aktion von Max Keiser mit einer Mischung aus Sympathie und Skepsis. Don Harrold geht es offenbar genauso:
Das komplette Video gibt es hier:
http://daytradeshow.com/crash.htm
Und ein Addendum:
Das besagte Urteil ist vom 15.06.2010 und ist hier zu finden:
http://bit.ly/iiaRFlStutzig gemacht hat mich diese Passage des wackeren SZ-Kleinsparer-Anwaltes:
"In dem Rechtsstreit forderte eine Filmfondsgesellschaft vergeblich Entschädigung für die ausgebliebene Lizenzzahlung des Bankhauses Lehman Brothers, das 2008 im Zuge der Finanzkrise zahlungsunfähig wurde."
Wie im Urteil, das der SZ-Journalist vermutlich nicht gelesen hat (er wird ja auch nur für`s Schreiben bezahlt) genau dargelegt wird, geht es um eine Teil-Zahlung aus einem Filmvermarktungsvertrag, die Lehman am 22.12.08 hätte bezahlen müssen. Am 28.10.08 hatte das BAFIN Lehman aber bereits für zahlungsunfähig erklärt. Ich bin kein Jurist, aber ich bin mir recht sicher, daß der Entschädigungsfonds der Banken hätte zahlen müssen, wenn Lehman das Geld z.B. bereits auf das Konto des Filmfonds eingezahlt hätte, es also bereits eine Sichteinlage gewesen wäre (dann hätte höchstens noch ein Konkursverwalter Anspruch darauf erheben können, wenn es an der Rechtsgrundlage für die Überweisung gemangelt hätte).
Jedenfalls würde ich aus dem Fall nicht ableiten, daß "Bankkunden bei Pleiten ihres Instituts künftig stärker dem Gutdünken des Bundesverbands deutscher Banken (BdB) ausgesetzt" seien und ich glaube, ich bin bislang nicht als Lobbyist der privaten Bankenlandschaft aufgefallen. Im Gegenteil. Ich finde "Privatbank" ist heutzutage in unserem Bailout-Zombie-Staatskapitalismus so ein Oxymoron, daß man "Privatbanken" auch gleich alle verstaatlichen kann, damit sich wenigstens deren Vorstände nicht bereichern können.
Aus dem Urteil:
50a. Die Voraussetzungen, unter denen eine Zahlung aus dem Einlagensicherungsfonds erfolgen kann, sind in § 6 SEF geregelt. Von entscheidender Bedeutung ist dabei vorliegend die in § 6 Nr. 1 erster Spiegelstrich SEF normierte Voraussetzung. Unter den Einlagensicherungsfonds fallen danach Verbindlichkeiten gegenüber Nicht-Kreditinstituten (insbesondere Privatpersonen, Wirtschaftsunternehmen und öffentliche Stellen), die in der Bilanzposition “Verbindlichkeiten gegenüber Kunden” auszuweisen sind. In der Fußnote 1 zu § 6 SEF findet sich eine Konkretisierung dazu, was unter “Verbindlichkeiten gegenüber Kunden” zu verstehen ist. Dort heißt es:
51“In dieser Position sind im Wesentlichen enthalten Sichteinlagen, Termineinlagen, Spareinlagen einschließlich der auf den Namen lautenden Sparbriefe.”
52Zwar ist der Aufzählung in der Fußnote kein abschließender Charakter beizumessen werden, wie bereits aus der dort verwendeten Formulierung “im Wesentlichen” geschlossen werden kann. Dessen ungeachtet ist davon auszugehen, dass Leistungen aus dem Einlagensicherungsfonds nur für Verbindlichkeiten gegenüber Kunden gewährt werden können, welche mit den in der Fußnote aufgezählten Einlagen vergleichbar sind. Es müsste demzufolge eine Vergleichbarkeit gegeben sein zwischen den in der Fußnote 1 zu § 6 SEF genannten Einlagen und der zwischen der Klägerin und der LBBGG vereinbarten Schuldübernahme. Dies ist jedoch nicht der Fall.
53Denn letztlich ist der streitgegenständliche Anspruch der Klägerin, trotz der vorgenommenen Änderung der Zahlungsverpflichtung, weiterhin auf die Zahlung der ursprünglich von dem Filmeverwerter geschuldeten Lizenzgebühren gerichtet. Schließlich vereinbarten die Klägerin und die LBBAG in § 5.1 des Eigenkapital-Schuldübernahmevertrags (Anlage K 19) ausdrücklich, dass es sich lediglich um eine Änderung der übernommenen Zahlungsverpflichtung (und gerade nicht um die Neubegründung einer selbständigen Verbindlichkeit) handeln sollte. Ein Anspruch auf Zahlung von Lizenzgebühren ist jedoch in jedem Fall nicht mit den in der Fußnote 1 zu § 6 SEF angegebenen Einlagen vergleichbar. Dies führt dazu, dass es sich auch nicht um eine “Verbindlichkeit gegenüber Kunden” im Sinne dieser Regelung handelt.
Zuerst Chris Whalen:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Laut Wikipedia bezeichnet sich Tom Flanagan als "Hayekianer"...
Vollständiges Zitat aus dem Forbes-Interview:
You’ve developed a reputation as anti-establishment and anti-institution.
Not at all. Creating a well-run establishment is a difficult thing to do, and I’ve been in countries where institutions are in a state of collapse, so I understand the difficulty of running a company. Institutions don’t come from nowhere.
It’s not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I’ve learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I’m a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.
"Nun meint also Nomura, dereinst die größte Wertpapierfirma der Welt, bevor der große Japancrash die Verhältnisse ein wenig zurecht rückte, dass man den Märkten nicht mehr sagen dürfe, dass sie Märkte sind; dass man den Teilnehmern des kapitalistischen Wettbewerbs nicht mehr verdeutlichen dürfe, dass der Wettbewerb auch Verlierer produziert. Das gilt natürlich auch an den Finanzmärkten, wo der umsichtigere Investor gewinnt und der sorglose Investor untergeht. Die Londoner City ist also der Meinung, man dürfen den Kapitalisten nicht mehr verklickern, wie die rules ihres Spiels lauten. Man dürfe ihnen nur die Goodies zuschanzen, sie aber nicht mit den potenziell negativen Konsequenzen ihres Tuns konfrontieren.
Das Moralisieren ist bekanntlich nicht meines, aber dazu fällt mir wirklich nur eine Bemerkung ein:
Was für eine Unverschämtheit!
Wenn das die vorherrschende Denke ist, dann hören wir besser auf: Pfeif’ auf die Marktwirtschaft, wenn stets nur eine Gruppe gewinnen darf, die noch dazu nicht bereit ist, ihre Risiken zu ertragen. Schumpeters “Ephoren des Kapitalismus” sind offensichtlich zu einer dysfunktionalen Kaste von Free-Lunch-Touristen geworden, die ihren Job als ökonomische Treuhänder der Volkswirtschaften aus den Augen verloren haben.
Man mag sich darüber streiten, ob es sich jemals um ein “fair game” gehandelt hat; unter diesen Voraussetzungen ist es jedenfalls keines mehr. Das ist nur noch der totale Beschiss aller durch eine kleine Minderheit einzelner."
Habe gerade diese Perle bei n-tv entdeckt:
Island mit seinen rund 300.000 Einwohnern wurde wie kaum ein anderes Land von der Finanzkrise getroffen. Das gesamte Bankensystem des Inselstaates im Nordatlantik kollabierte 2008 nach Jahrzehnten der aggressiven Expansion in Übersee innerhalb einer Woche. Nur durch die Verstaatlichung seiner Banken und mit Hilfe ausländischer Darlehen in Milliardenhöhe konnte eine Staatspleite verhindert werden.
Alle Jahre wieder, ein Thema, zwei Sichtweisen, jeder kann sich frei entscheiden:
Der SPIEGEL:
Wie die Pilgerväter den Sozialismus abschafften
Karl Denninger:
The Truth About Thanksgiving
"Haldane argued for the need for so-called macro-prudential tools to prevent crises caused by the collective behavior of banks. Former Citigroup Inc. Chief Executive Officer Charles O. “Chuck” Prince, expressed the dynamic in 2007 by saying his institution would keep lending so long as it had access to liquidity, because “as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.”
“Chuck Prince’s disco inferno causes murder on the dance floor,” said Haldane, who is the Bank of England’s executive director for financial stability.
Quelle:
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alHQxs3agnT0&pos=7
Zurzeit geht es ja wieder hoch her hinter den Kulissen, ich könnte Stundenlang links zu Englischprachigen YT-Videos Reposten, oder sonstige Artikel verlinken, aber im Prinzip ist es genau der selbe Scheiss wie wir ihn schon seit 2 Jahren kennen. Es geht sogar schon so weit, das die US-Blogger ihre alten Artikel rauskramen bissi abstauben, und neue Zahlen einfügen oder nen Absatz hinzufügen, und fertig.
Denninger hat ein Video von der Fraudclosure Anhörung zusammengeschnitten, pure comedy gold!
Kurz zusammengefasst: Bank of America, Chase-Manhattan, Citi und Wells Fargo sind im Prinzip pleite, das umgehen sie dadurch, in dem sie den Foreclosure Prozess verzögern oder nicht Einleiten bzw eine Restrukturierung ( modification of loan ) nicht zulassen.
Explizit erwähnt wird am Schluss des Videos die " second lien loans ", welche geschätzt zu $400 Mrd. Federal Reserve Notes bei den zuvor genannten Banken in den Büchern stehen, und damit, sollten sie hopps gehen, die komplette Marktkapitalisierung dieser Banken auffressen.
p.s. : Hitler is amused
Professor Roger Farmer von der UCLA prescht mutig nach vorne. Der VEB Geldproduktion (aka FED) soll Aktien kaufen!
Ich schlage allerdings vor, daß Genosse Farmer zunächst dafür sorgt, daß die FED kalifornische Kommunalobligationen kauft. Die haben es gerade nötiger:
PS:
Der kapitalistische Agitator Chris Whalen besudelt das Ansehen der sowjetischen Teilrepublik Kalifornien!
"With the QE2 announcement now out of the way, Mr.Bernanke’s game plan is as follows:
Dieser Beitrag soll selbstverständlich keine "Pusher-Kaufempfehlung" sein, sondern nur ein Beispiel dafür, welchen prozentualen Schwankungen Aktienpreise ausgesetzt sein können. Es ist schwer zu erfassen, daß man mit einer Aktie, die an einem Tag um 2.900% teurer geworden ist, trotzdem immernoch 42% unter Einstiegskurs sein kann...Timing is everything :-) 
Knifflige "ethische" Sache, mit diesen Hochfrequenztradern. Wie langsam muß man sein, damit es noch "ethisch sauber" ist?
"Wie Lord James die britische Wirtschaft retten wollte"
Hoffentlich rückt der Lord endlich die Identität der "Stiftung X" heraus, wenn es wirklich nicht das "UNOITC" sein sollte....
In einem britschen Forum fand ich die Behauptung (!), daß es sich bei der mysteriösen "Stiftung X" ("Foundation X") um die noch mysteriösere Organisation namens "Office of International Treasury Control" handeln solle. Ein mögliches Indiz für diese These ist, daß laut Wikipedia sowohl dieser Verein als auch Baron James in 2005 in die Übernahme von MG Rover verwickelt waren:
"In late 2000, James was appointed as chairman of the ailing Millennium Dome project, a high profile position, and was credited with saving the attraction from financial collapse. In 2005 he attempted to make a bid for troubled carmakers MG Rover.[2] "
Und OITC:
"The OITC and MG Rover
The OITC first came to public attention in 2005 with an attempted bid for the failed MG Rover Group in the United Kingdom. The London Daily Telegraph reported that "a Mr David Sale and a Dr Ray Dam claim to have offered to buy MG Rover for $5 billion." The Financial Times reported that the OITC had given the administrators a deposit of one pound, made out as a postal order.[1] According to Sale and Dam, Rover's administrators PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) were refusing to take their bid seriously even though (according to them) Prime Minister Tony Blair had acknowledged it in a letter. However, PWC told the Telegraph that it had never heard of the OITC and the Prime Minister's office had no record of the OITC's letter.[4] The bid met with considerable skepticism among MG Rover enthusiasts[citation needed] and was evidently discarded by the administrators, as the OITC did not appear on the final list of bidders."
Neben der Tatsache, daß dieser feine Lord sich damit brüstet, Milliarden Pfund Terroristen-Schwarzegeld gewaschen zu haben (IRA und "Nordafrikanische Terroristen"), behauptet er, daß besagte "Stiftung X" über immense Währungsreserven verfüge, die wiederum "goldgedeckt" seien. Einer seiner City-Analysten muß wohl genauere Zahlen bekommen haben, aus denen dieser schlußfolgern konnte, daß es unmöglich sei, weil für diese Deckung mehr Gold benötigt würde, als je gefördert wurde. Baron James kontert und sagt, daß die einzige Quelle für die bisher herumgereichten 165.000 ein Artikel aus dem National Geographic vor 12 Jahren sei. Die wahre Quelle sei der Vatikan.
Und hier lasse ich einfach den Baron sprechen:
"The total value of the Vatican bank reserves would claim to be more than the entire value of gold ever mined in the history of the world. "
Baron James schließt mit diesen schönen Worten:
"We must find out the truth of this situation".
Wie wahr. "Verschwörungstheorien im Parlaments-TV". Interesting Times.
Update: der britische Guardian greift das Thema auf
"...Now, you might think this is all barmy. After all, mystery foundations with vast quantities of gold bullion-backed securities to invest in the British economy don't come along every day. It's tempting to think that James has been the victim of a particularly convincing Nigerian email scam.
But if it is madness, it is madness that has reached the highest levels of government.
After all, not only have members of Foundation X met with the leader of the House of Lords, the Treasury minister, Lord Sassoon, confirmed that he has been in "detailed discussions" on this subject with James, adding that the government "take seriously anyone who wants to invest in our economy".
So what on earth is going on? One thing is for sure.
The truth is out there. "
Weil ich nicht weiß, wie lange diese Meldung online bleibt, stelle ich sie einfach mal unverändert hier rein, obwohl ich meinen Augen nicht traue und daher nicht weiß, ob das ein Riesenfake ist:
UPDATE: ES STEHT WIRKLICH IM ONLINE-PARLAMENTSPROTOKOLL DER UK-REGIERUNG!
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101101-0003.htm#10110215000101
Das ist der Lord, der da spricht:
David James, Baron James of Blackheath
Did somebody just try to buy the British government?
By Charlie Stross (Hat tip to [REDACTED] over on LJ for spotting this one ...)
(DUE TO THE HEAVY LOAD WE'RE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING, (90,000 page views/hour — just slightly more than this blog usually gets), comment posting may be slow (or fail completely). — cs.)
Hansard is the official printed transcript of the proceedings of the houses of parliament — in other words, the working log of the British government.
It is an authoritative primary source, and records every speech made in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Interestingly, it also records words spoken under parliamentary privilege.
So when an eminent member of the House of Lords stands up six hours into a debate and blows the gaff on a shadowy foreign Foundation making a bid to buy the British state, and this is recorded in Hansard, one tends to sit up and take notice. And one takes even more notice when His Lordship tip-toes around actually naming the Foundation in question, especially after the throw-away about money-laundering for the IRA on behalf of the Bank of England. Parliamentary privilege only stretches so far, it seems, and Foundation X is beyond its reach. I'm going to quote at length below the cut — if you want to read the original, search for "1 Nov 2010 : Column 1538" which is where things begin to tip-toe into Robert Ludlum territory.
(NB: The venue is the House of Lords, at 10:42pm on November 1st, 2010.)
Lord James of Blackheath: At this point, I am going to have to make a very big apology to my noble friend Lord Sassoon [Treasury Minister], because I am about to raise a subject that I should not raise and which is going to be one which I think is now time to put on a higher awareness, and to explain to the House as a whole, as I do not think your Lordships have any knowledge of it. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde [Leader of the House] is not with us at the moment, because this deeply concerns him also.
For the past 20 weeks I have been engaged in a very strange dialogue with the two noble Lords, in the course of which I have been trying to bring to their attention the willing availability of a strange organisation which wishes to make a great deal of money available to assist the recovery of the economy in this country. For want of a better name, I shall call it foundation X. That is not its real name, but it will do for the moment. Foundation X was introduced to me 20 weeks ago last week by an eminent City firm, which is FSA controlled. Its chairman came to me and said, "We have this extraordinary request to assist in a major financial reconstruction. It is megabucks, but we need your help to assist us in understanding whether this business is legitimate". I had the biggest put-down of my life from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde when I told him this story. He said, "Why you? You're not important enough to have the answer to a question like that". He is quite right, I am not important enough, but the answer to the next question was, "You haven't got the experience for it". Yes I do. I have had one of the biggest experiences in the laundering of terrorist money and funny money that anyone has had in the City. I have handled billions of pounds of terrorist money.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham [Labour]: Where did it go to?
Lord James of Blackheath: Not into my pocket. My biggest terrorist client was the IRA and I am pleased to say that I managed to write off more than £1 billion of its money. I have also had extensive connections with north African terrorists, but that was of a far nastier nature, and I do not want to talk about that because it is still a security issue. I hasten to add that it is no good getting the police in, because I shall immediately call the Bank of England as my defence witness, given that it put me in to deal with these problems.
The point is that when I was in the course of doing this strange activity, I had an interesting set of phone numbers and references that I could go to for help when I needed it. So people in the City have known that if they want to check out anything that looks at all odd, they can come to me and I can press a few phone numbers to obtain a reference. The City firm came to me and asked whether I could get a reference and a clearance on foundation X. For 20 weeks, I have been endeavouring to do that. I have come to the absolute conclusion that foundation X is completely genuine and sincere and that it directly wishes to make the United Kingdom one of the principal points that it will use to disseminate its extraordinarily great wealth into the world at this present moment, as part of an attempt to seek the recovery of the global economy.
I made the phone call to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on a Sunday afternoon—I think he was sitting on his lawn, poor man—and he did the quickest ball pass that I have ever witnessed. If England can do anything like it at Twickenham on Saturday, we will have a chance against the All Blacks. The next think I knew, I had my noble friend Lord Sassoon on the phone. From the outset, he took the proper defensive attitude of total scepticism, and said, "This cannot possibly be right". During the following weeks, my noble friend said, "Go and talk to the Bank of England". So I phoned the governor and asked whether he could check this out for me. After about three days, he came back and said, "You can get lost. I'm not touching this with a bargepole; it is far too difficult. Take it back to the Treasury". So I did. Within another day, my noble friend Lord Sassoon had come back and said, "This is rubbish. It can't possibly be right". I said, "I am going to work more on it". Then I brought one of the senior executives from foundation X to meet my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I have to say that, as first dates go, it was not a great success. Neither of them ended up by inviting the other out for a coffee or drink at the end of the evening, and they did not exchange telephone numbers in order to follow up the meeting.
I found myself between a rock and a hard place that were totally paranoid about each other, because the foundation X people have an amazing obsession with their own security. They expect to be contacted only by someone equal to head of state status or someone with an international security rating equal to the top six people in the world. This is a strange situation. My noble friends Lord Sassoon and Lord Strathclyde both came up with what should have been an absolute killer argument as to why this could not be true and that we should forget it. My noble friend Lord Sassoon's argument was that these people claimed to have evidence that last year they had lodged £5 billion with British banks. They gave transfer dates and the details of these transfers. As my noble friend Lord Sassoon, said, if that were true it would stick out like a sore thumb. You could not have £5 billion popping out of a bank account without it disrupting the balance sheet completely. But I remember that at about the same time as those transfers were being made the noble Lord, Lord Myners [former Labour Treasury Minister], was indulging in his game of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic of the British banking community. If he had three banks at that time, which had had, say, a deficiency of £1.5 million each, then you would pretty well have absorbed the entire £5 billion, and you would not have had the sore thumb stick out at that time; you would have taken £1.5 billion into each of three banks and you would have absorbed the lot. That would be a logical explanation—I do not know.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde came up with a very different argument. He said that this cannot be right because these people said at the meeting with him that they were still effectively on the gold standard from back in the 1920s and that their entire currency holdings throughout the world, which were very large, were backed by bullion. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde came back and said to me that he had an analyst working on it and that this had to be stuff and nonsense. He said that they had come up with a figure for the amount of bullion that would be needed to cover their currency reserves, as claimed, which would be more than the entire value of bullion that had ever been mined in the history of the world. I am sorry but my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is wrong; his analysts are wrong. He had tapped into the sources that are available and there is only one definitive source for the amount of bullion that has ever been taken from the earth's crust. That was a National Geographic magazine article 12 years ago. Whatever figure it was that was quoted was then quoted again on six other sites on the internet—on Google. Everyone is quoting one original source; there is no other confirming authority. But if you tap into the Vatican accounts—of the Vatican bank--— come up with a claim of total bullion—
Lord De Mauley [Government Whip]: The noble Lord is into his fifteenth minute. I wonder whether he can draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Lord James of Blackheath: The total value of the Vatican bank reserves would claim to be more than the entire value of gold ever mined in the history of the world. My point on all of this is that we have not proven any of this. Foundation X is saying at this moment that it is prepared to put up the entire £5 billion for the funding of the three Is recreation; the British Government can have the entire independent management and control of it—foundation X does not want anything to do with it; there will be no interest charged; and, by the way, if the British Government would like it as well, if it will help, the foundation will be prepared to put up money for funding hospitals, schools, the building of Crossrail immediately with £17 billion transfer by Christmas, if requested, and all these other things. These things can be done, if wished, but a senior member of the Government has to accept the invitation to a phone call to the chairman of foundation X—and then we can get into business. This is too big an issue. I am just an ageing, obsessive old Peer and I am easily dispensable, but getting to the truth is not. We need to know what really is happening here. We must find out the truth of this situation.
I am left rubbing my eyes.
Did a not-obviously-insane member of the government — a corporate troubleshooter and Conservative life peer — really just stand up in the House of Lords and announce that a shadowy Foundation (that might or might not represent the Vatican) was offering the British government an investment of umpty-billion pounds in order to reboot the economy — free, gratis, with no strings attached?
Or am I just imagining the "no strings attached" clause?
Danke an Ron-Paul-Blog für`s unermüdliche Weiterbloggen!
http://ronpaulblog.de/blog/2010/11/03/rand-paul-hat-es-geschafft/
Reggie Middleton erscheint ab Min. 12h20, für alle, die sich den immer etwas überdrehten Max Keiser sparen wollen. Inhaltlich kann ich Keisers Wut nachvollziehen, aber seine Scherze gehen mir manchmal zu weit.
Update: Sorry, Doku verwechselt, die war stinklangweilig, spart Euch die Wiederholung!
Wenn ich mich nicht irre, habe ich die Doku schon im Netz gesehen und damals für sehenswert befunden:
PHOENIX:
Verschwörung in Amerika
Ein Film von Jeff Martin, Jeniffer Maiotti und Anne Johnsos
Sendetermine:
Sa, 30.10.10, 20.15 Uhr
So, 31.10.10, 18.00 Uhr
Sa, 06.11.10, 13.15 Uhr
Jawohl, nicht OMO,
sondern POMO 
Quelle: Barry Ritholtz, der sonst gerne dabei ist, sowas als "Verschwörungstheorie" zu verarschen.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/pomo-still-matters/
Straight Talk with Mike Shedlock (aka "Mish") - Blogs at Chris Martenson
"Today marks the launch of our new and (hopefully) regularly recurring "Straight Talk" series, featuring thinking from notable minds the ChrisMartenson.com audience has indicated it wants to learn more about. Readers submit the questions they want addressed and our guests take their best crack at answering. Our hopes are high you'll enjoy the expert insights and alternative perspectives this new series brings.
Our inaugural Straight Talk contributor is Mike Shedlock, author of Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis, one of the most visited and respected economic blogs on the Web. Mish is an outspoken deflationist and outlines his rationale for being so in his answers to our questions. He is also a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management..."
Der Physiker Harald Lesch bei "Abenteuer Forschung" im ZDF. Ich habe meinen Ohren nicht getraut:
PS:
Was ist eigentlich "Käsch"?
"Käsch (englisch Cash, chin. 文, wén, jap. mon, kor. mun) ist die Bezeichnung für chinesische, japanische, koreanische und vietnamesische alte Kursmünzen aus Messing, Bronze, Kupfer oder sehr selten Eisen bzw. Zinn oder Blei mit einem meist quadratischen und selten runden Loch in der Mitte. Diese Münzart war von Anfang an eine meist uneinlösbare Scheidemünze der unteren Bevölkerungsschichten. Gold oder Silber wurden daher auch für Käschmünzen niemals verwendet. Siehe ergänzend Tael und Lochmünzen..."
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4sch
Ezra Klein: What’s happening here? Why are we suddenly faced with a crisis that wasn’t apparent two weeks ago?
Janet Tavakoli: This is the biggest fraud in the history of the capital markets. And it’s not something that happened last week. It happened when these loans were originated, in some cases years ago. Loans have representations and warranties that have to be met. In the past, you had a certain period of time, 60 to 90 days, where you sort through these loans and, if they’re bad, you kick them back. If the documentation wasn’t correct, you’d kick it back. If you found the incomes of the buyers had been overstated, or the houses had been appraised at twice their worth, you’d kick it back. But that didn’t happen here. And it turned out there were loan files that were missing required documentation. Part of putting the deal together is that the securitization professional, and in this case that’s banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, has to watch for this stuff. It’s called perfecting the security interest, and it’s not optional.
Weiter unter:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/this_is_the_biggest_fraud_in_t.html
Posts
Alle Kommentare
