The ECB aren't idiots. They're "loaning" fake money to get more "fake" money. They don't have anything to lose unless the People, in Greece, in the USA, in the western world, awake to the massive theft happening. The need the theater to continue.

The good news is, the show must end, and the people responsible will stand before God Almighty and be judged.

(Also, property that belongs to you cannot be sold, that's called theft. This idea of collective Greek property, or collective American property, or Collective "Fill in the Blank" property simply doesn't exist in reality. The Government owns property which it purchases and maintains by taking the People's property via taxes.)

This is precisely the scenario I most fear - divestiture of assets held in the public trust to satisfy creditors. I know a number of folks on this forum believe that public ownership of assets is antithetical to capitalism. Really? Would you truly wish for Disney Corp. to own Yosemite? Would you fight to prevent it? Many would I suspect. This must be stopped.

I bid $100 for the Parthenon.

"Was that sarcasm? Or do you know something we don't?" - Ktosper

If you are asking if I have inside information, no. If you are asking how I know it's just pattern recognition. (Taking a bunch of eclectic data putting it togther and predicting the outcome.) I also see a world war coming too, then something that I won't discuss.

Gen, is this when the Greeks need to start "voting from the rooftops?"

I'd argue that it would be.

Certainly... if EITHER side of the aisle proposes something similar to this, it WILL be time for us to do so. I also consider it treason of the highest order.

The USA will soon be hiring the Troica to make the decisions that the lawmakers cannot.

The template is already in place.
+++

This strategy includes a significant downsizing of public sector employment, restructuring or closure of public entities, and rationalization in entitlements, while protecting vulnerable groups. On the revenue side, the government will reduce tax exemptions, raise property taxation, and step up efforts to fight tax evasion.
The government is committed to significantly accelerate its privatization program. To this effect it will create a professionally and independently managed privatization agency, and has drawn up a comprehensive list of assets for privatization with the aim of realizing revenues of EUR 50 billion by the end of 2015. The government will assess progress against intermediate quarterly and annual targets.
===
The Saudies might be interested in buying a fully operational aircraft carrier with a full complement of well trained mercenaries.

Quote:

Lets see if the people rise up or take what the banksters dish out.

You are being sarcastic, right?

This is a slow boil going on here. The "banksters" aren't stupid. "Give me control of the money, and I care not who makes the laws". Wasn't that the quote some hundred + years ago. It holds as true now as it ever has. The "financiers" don't care about Greece, Ireland, US, UK. They really don't care about the money. They want the control the money brings. With that, everything else falls in place.

Seems very seldom do the people rise up and take back control. It usually takes a major revolution for that to happen, and many people will die. Strikes and marches aren't going to cut it. It might change a few politicians, but as we can attest here, that matters little. For the people to regain control from the "bankers" and politicians, countries will fall, not strikes will commence. Do you really think people are at that point? The store shelves are still full. The items might cost a little more, but they're still there. When that disappears, then you will see problems. Unless some black swan appears, the "bankers" aren't dumb enough to allow that to happen. A slow boil as they take a little bit here, and a little bit there, until one day we wake up and they own most everything and we gave it up for a little "safety". And before long, we have neither.

"The template is already in place.
+++"

Ha! Best of luck on that one in the US.

"A slow boil as they take a little bit here, and a little bit there, until one day we wake up and they own most everything and we gave it up for a little "safety". And before long, we have neither.


Pessimist! hehe " It will only take 3% in the US to kick the bankers to the curb. They want you to believe you are helpless, but you are not. You can be if you want.

Quote:

This is a slow boil going on here. The "banksters" aren't stupid. "Give me control of the money, and I care not who makes the laws".

It is no wonder that soon after democracy started to emerge in the 19th century - central banks came into the world.

Do we even know what is going on in Greece anymore? Yesterday the demonstrators stormed the financial ministry and occupied it, not letting any workers get in etc.

But does mainstream media news tell us ANY of this? Only happy joy joy news, nothing of what really is going on there? People have risen up, they are fighting actively, but not a peep from media?

Quote:

This is precisely the scenario I most fear - divestiture of assets held in the public trust to satisfy creditors. I know a number of folks on this forum believe that public ownership of assets is antithetical to capitalism. Really? Would you truly wish for Disney Corp. to own Yosemite?

What is money? Money is now debt, a promise to pay. Each Federal Reserve note is backed by collateral. When we were on the gold standard, it was backed by gold. Here is the transition we have taken over the years of our Federal Reserve note collateral.

Gold
Gold and US Treasuries
Gold, US Treasuries and mortgage backed securities.

But ultimately when the government issues debt what is it? It is a future claim against the citizens and corporations of the United States, taxation if you will. What can they tax? Anything they damn well please.

Your claim to assets held in the public trust.. Well if the public is unable to come up with the taxes to pay the debt, then the assets held in the public trust must be sold to pay the lenders. After all, the public blew the money. And the public should have thought about this issue before going on a spending binge. What does the government hold in the public trust? Pension funds, land etc and the right to tax your ass until you bleed. When congress issued that debt, they issued a claim against you.

The same goes for state debt. The difference is (so far) that states do not have a direct claim against your future earnings, you can always move to another state or country and avoid that altogether. States too will be parted out to pay their debts as well. Same deal, if people do not have the cash to pay the bills, then those assets held in trust as you like to call it will be sold to pay the creditors.

The only thing keeping states alive at the moment is GDP is manufactured at the Federal level by the issuance of debt (claim against you and your offspring) to the tune of 12% plus the multiplier of that money as it flows through the economy. This temporarily props up the employment and taxation in the states allowing them to make their budgets.

Why is the Federal spending out of control? Because we hire people to represent our states and our states are broke, so they are in effect going to Washington to bail themselves out.

Why is the Federal Reserve putting treasuries on the balance sheet? Because there is not enough money in the world to fund our spending without our rates shooting up Greek style.

In effect we already are Greece, and the only way to keep the facade going is for the Fed to keep funding the deficits.

.

Quote:

Your claim to assets held in the public trust.. Well if the public is unable to come up with the taxes to pay the debt, then the assets held in the public trust must be sold to pay the lenders.

No. Why would the state do this? They are sovereigns with armies and such. Bankers have no power over states sovereignity, unless bankers can wage a war against one and win. Even so it might not be worth it.

Banks should have been much, much more cautious about making loans everywhere. When the inevitable happens, they won't get paid in full, unless nations give up their sovereignity in the process. And I see no reason for anyone in any nation to support this.

If banks demanded real interests based on real risk analysis, we would not get so deeply into these messes in the first place. No nation could load up this much debt because interest payments would kill their revenues much before that. And then, if nation defaulted, it would not collapse banks either, since their total amount of loans not paid in full would not be that huge, just some losses.

But ZIRP is killing capitalism, it kills capital formation and savings, it pushes too much debt everywhere, too much risk everywhere, and to top it off, bankers steal much from that way too big amoung of liquidity in their bonuses before all collapses. Everything that is wrong would be fixed with natural interest rates. It would hurt of course, it will hurt anyway. It's just question of from how deep hole we dig before we start rebuilding sound economy again.

Think of Greece for example. Their natural interest rates are +20% now. That means, their nation could not really take any debt at the moment. And they should not be able, either. But they still get more because of all sorts of "rescue packages". Without any of these, problem would solve itself fast.

EDIT: Lending should always have some risk in it, that alone forces the bankers to do their due diligence. When we promise to save banks from their stupidity, things turn upside down. That is, banks will want to lend too much to insolvent nations - when things blow up, they get to buy firesales in privatization process, and they get their foolish loans sold to central banks at full price at the same time. Win-win for the bankers. And to top it off, they get to keep profits made earlier from loans. Zero risk, and the more they make bad loans, the more they stand to win. At the end, banks own everything.

So: no mercy for stupid lending practices.

This strategy includes a significant downsizing of public sector employment, restructuring or closure of public entities, and rationalization in entitlements, while protecting vulnerable groups.

Translation: Do means testing for the social safety net. Those who can afford to pay their own way don't get their Greek Social Security or Medicare.

Coming to a country near you. Best to lower your financial footprint before then.

Even the ultimate "Get 'er done" administration cowered before the bankers.

It never fails to amaze me how people long to be enslaved. At work for instance our software production is quite good, yet there are nitwits who continue to try and promote "SCRUM", a system that shackles software developers to the whims of management. I would understand if management was promoting this, but the programmers?

Steelhead23 wrote..

This is precisely the scenario I most fear - divestiture of assets held in the public trust to satisfy creditors. I know a number of folks on this forum believe that public ownership of assets is antithetical to capitalism. Really? Would you truly wish for Disney Corp. to own Yosemite? Would you fight to prevent it? Many would I suspect. This must be stopped.

Certainly nobody wants to see Disney take over Yosemite or Six Flags take over the Lincoln Memorial, but on the other hand the Federal government owns vast amounts of land, especially in the West. A lot of that ought to be in private hands.

What has been concerning me for a while now is the way that our domestic natural resources are being systematically placed off-limits to Americans. It's as if they are being saved for somebody. But who?

Pay the creditors off with assets, then re-nationalize them!

I don't see what the problem is here. It's not like anyone can prevent the U.S. government from doing whatever it wants.

Problem solved. Now where's my Nobel prize for economics?

Quote:

It does not matter if you eliminate it through spending cuts or tax increases; a tax increase reduces either "C" or "I" (pick one) by the exact identical amount, since it's money that a person or entity can no longer spend or invest.

As I've explained previously, this statement is false. A tax increase does *not* necessarily reduce C+I "dollar for dollar". If the tax increase is targetted toward those who would otherwise use the money to buy Treasury bonds, then the tax increase has no impact on the economy whatsoever and all that happens is that the federal government issues fewer Treasury bonds. As you like to say, the above is not theory or speculation, it's simple math.

Project 60 is interesting. already here

Quote:

As I've explained previously, this statement is false. A tax increase does *not* necessarily reduce C+I "dollar for dollar". If the tax increase is targetted toward those who would otherwise use the money to buy Treasury bonds, then the tax increase has no impact on the economy whatsoever and all that happens is that the federal government issues fewer Treasury bonds. As you like to say, the above is not theory or speculation, it's simple math.

Nonsense, as I've previously explained.

A tax "targeted" at people who would otherwise buy Treasuries permanently removes capital from the Treasury buyer. Having done so he can never expend that capital as either "C" or "I".

The stock of Treasuries (if they really are "risk free" and stable in value) is nothing more than "savings"; those funds are in fact part of the base from which capital is formed. Treasuries are highly-marginable for this very reason. Taxing the person who would otherwise buy them reduces his capital formation capacity dollar-for-dollar; this mathematically must reduce either "C" or "I", although it may not do so instantly (e.g. saved capital may or may not collateralize or be used for either "C" or "I" immediately, but it's removal from the person who holds it must inevitably reduce it on a dollar-for-dollar basis over time.

I have a very strong dislike of dishonest people, and those who run the "money fairy" meme around here fall into that category.

Quote:

We and Greece weren't forced into borrowing money.

For sure on that they were elected.

Quote:

They are sovereigns with armies and such. Bankers have no power over states sovereignity, unless bankers can wage a war against one and win. Even so it might not be worth it.

Banks should have been much, much more cautious about making loans everywhere. When the inevitable happens, they won't get paid in full, unless nations give up their sovereignity in the process. And I see no reason for anyone in any nation to support this.

I think you are confusing what should be for what is. Anyone who has read this blog over the last several years should now have full understanding that bankers run this country. I have not seen an instance yet where bankers have not come out on top of a bad situation at your expense. Show me once where the bankers lost.

Quote:

I have a very strong dislike of dishonest people, and those who run the "money fairy" meme around here fall into that category.

Karl, it's obvious to me you're going to "banish" me eventually, so you may as well just do it now. I will say that any unbiased reader of the relatively small number of comments I've left on your forum would say they've been informed, added value, and were well written. But I understand that you don't like me and that banishment is coming. Well it's your website, and you obviously have the right to do that, so if that's what you want to do go right ahead.

I am archiving that press release. To me, it reads like a declaration of financial war. The use of the verb "will" as regards actions the Greek government has not yet implemented reads like a direct usurpation of authority.

I wish to remind the Greek people of their heritage - gentle in love and fierce in war.