Lehman files! BoA buys Lynch! AIG begging Fed!

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby antiaristo » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:10 am

.

Hotlinking don't work.
The photo is here:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/S ... aulson.png


chlamor,
I'm not sure who you are quoting there, but you've left out a rather important fact.

At the end of last week AIG brought in private equity people, trying to secure some funding.

The PE people offered funding.
But AIG turned it down. Because the PE people would have taken control.

Now the Fed has taken control.

This sequence of events is curious. The fact that private funding WAS available precludes the Fed from involvement: it's clearly flat out illegal.

So what is it about AIG that scares the government? Why is private control verbotten? Why break the rules to prevent outsiders getting a look inside the kimono?

Maybe AIG has been a part of the shadow government all along?

Certainly AIG were deeply involved with the Lloyds fraud that skinned alive so many American "names".

And it was only a week after John Major's stay at Camp David in June 1992 that Sarah McClendon published her infamous newsletter reporting what she overheard Bush say:

"If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched."



http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 308#155308



ADDED ON EDIT

Here is the key part of the Fed's press release:

The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday, with the full support of the Treasury Department, authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend up to $85 billion to the American International Group (AIG) under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The secured loan has terms and conditions designed to protect the interests of the U.S. government and taxpayers.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevent ... 80916a.htm


So what does 13(3) say?

3. Discounts for Individuals, Partnerships, and Corporations

In unusual and exigent circumstances, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the affirmative vote of not less than five members, may authorize any Federal reserve bank, during such periods as the said board may determine, at rates established in accordance with the provisions of section 14, subdivision (d), of this Act, to discount for any individual, partnership, or corporation, notes, drafts, and bills of exchange when such notes, drafts, and bills of exchange are indorsed or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve bank: Provided, That before discounting any such note, draft, or bill of exchange for an individual, partnership, or corporation the Federal reserve bank shall obtain evidence that such individual, partnership, or corporation is unable to secure adequate credit accommodations from other banking institutions. All such discounts for individuals, partnerships, or corporations shall be subject to such limitations, restrictions, and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe.

[12 USC 343. As added by act of July 21, 1932 (47 Stat. 715); and amended by acts of Aug. 23, 1935 (49 Stat. 714) and Dec. 19, 1991 (105 Stat. 2386.]

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section13.htm


I guess they will get away with it because private equity is not a "banking institution".
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby nathan28 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:02 am

The Fed has always been the lender of last resort. This isn't new, except to the extent that it's actually been acted upon. With Bear Stearns the were the lender of first resort, of course, but for AIG it looks like they are actually doing there job.

AIG hasn't defaulted on their loans. Yet. When AIG does, however, the Fed will essentially assume the oversight role over management. Typically the board overseeing corporations is toothless and a servant of, related by blood to, and golf buddy of management (the CEOs, CFOs, etc.). I doubt the Fed will take a buddy-buddy approach with AIG. Now, that's an eerily nationalization of insurance there, and ironic.

and before anyone spouts the "Fed is a private body" crap, the Fed has a congressional mandate. If we cared we would have gotten a grassroots lobby together. Now, "kooky" Ron Paul did give them a stern talking to every time they showed up, and usually rightly so, but the other 91% of Republicans who didn't support him, and who knows how many Democrats, don't seem to care enough about the Fed to rescind the mandate. Likewise, the idea that the Fed bill passed at "midnight" while Congress barely had a quorum may be accurate, but the original backers of the bill--who really were pawns of the "banking conspiracy"--attempted to kill it because it had too much oversight and regulation. Rather than view the Fed like you would some secret rent-seeking cabal, it's more helpful to see it as a quasi-private body or like you would the a transit authority

Don't get me wrong. I don't understand why central bankers get to do what they do, especially in light of Greenspan's comments about gold (or pure fiat, as opposed to debt, money) being "pretty good" as far as currency standards.

...at least right now. The inner circle may yet reveal itself. I get the feeling that this was not only planned but anticipated. Is it part of a planned dismantling? I don't think so. Yet. That opinion may change, and it may change quickly.
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Fed Out of CASH

Postby isachar » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:17 am

ALERT! Fed now seeking help from US Treasury for special T-bill auction to re-build/staunch hemmorhaging of FED's balance sheet.

The truck just went over the cliff. Wiley Coyote still suspended in space with legs a-pumpin'.

http://finance.yahoo.com/marketupdate/overview?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


10:35 am : The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed's request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed's use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters.

The news gives a boost to gold prices (+3.0%), as investors seek to preserve their assets in the perceived value of the precious metal.

The stock market falls to fresh session lows, with the S&P 500 down more than 2%.

Just reported by the Department of Energy, crude inventories for the week ended Sept. 12 fell by 6.3 million barrels, which is a larger drop than the expected decline of 3.5 million. Gasoline inventories fell by 3.3 million barrels. Oil prices were up 3.1% to $94.01 per barrel just prior to the release.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update, 11:36 am est, dow off 326 pts.
Will be down another 20 - 25% within 12 months, I suspect. Could well occur on the short end of that range.
"The simplest evidence is the most unbearable." - Brentos 7/3/08
isachar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby antiaristo » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:41 am

.


isachar,
That's hilarious.
(There was a headline on Yahoo, but now it has disappeared :lol: )

You know what this means?

It means that the Fed has promised a loan to AIG for which it DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY!

The USA is kiting its cheques!

There is ECONOMIC WARFARE going on.


Now, what is it about AIG that puts such fear into the minds of the Brotherhood?

They've broken their own rules
- AIG is NOT a bank and NOT regulated by the Fed. So they fell back on 13(3) - "unusual and exigent circumstances".

- AIG had an offer from private equity. So circumstances cannot be "unusual and exigent circumstances", can they?

They don't have the money themselves.
- They have asked the Treasury for money, and the Treasury itself has none. So it's begging on the international markets.


Presumably on the grounds of "unusual and exigent circumstances".

That they themselves created.

In order to stop a private equity takeover.


WHY?
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby isachar » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:47 am

antiaristo wrote:.
isachar,
That's hilarious.
(There was a headline on Yahoo, but now it has disappeared :lol: )

You know what this means?

It means that the Fed has promised a loan to AIG for which it DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY!

The USA is kiting its cheques!

There is ECONOMIC WARFARE going on.


Now, what is it about AIG that puts such fear into the minds of the Brotherhood?

They've broken their own rules
- AIG is NOT a bank and NOT regulated by the Fed. So they fell back on 13(3) - "unusual and exigent circumstances".

- AIG had an offer from private equity. So circumstances cannot be "unusual and exigent circumstances", can they?

They don't have the money themselves.
- They have asked the Treasury for money, and the Treasury itself has none. So it's begging on the international markets.


Presumably on the grounds of "unusual and exigent circumstances".

That they themselves created.

In order to stop a private equity takeover.

WHY?


Anti, AIG is a front for much scurillous activity. You're right about their books being 'for eyes only'

FED has enough authority to do whatever they want to do at any particular moment. If the PE offer was contingent, not active at the moment, or deemed insufficient, that's all the fig leaf they need.

And despite massive new Treasury borrowing, the price of T's is soaring over the last 36 hours, while the rate is dropping. At the same time gold and silver are staging substantial rebound from oversold (phony too, but too much detail to go into that for now) positions.

Go figure.

Who in their right mind would be buying US T's right now? Let me know when you think it's time to short those muthas.
"The simplest evidence is the most unbearable." - Brentos 7/3/08
isachar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby vigilant » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:53 am

and before anyone spouts the "Fed is a private body" crap, the Fed has a congressional mandate.


You need to do a little more homework nathan. What exactly about a congressional mandate precludes the Fed from being privately owned?

The congress was tricked, paid, or forced, but it gave a mandate to a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. Look it up. Its a privately owned company.

The FED IS NOT A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION
The whole world is a stage...will somebody turn the lights on please?....I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while and assimilate....
vigilant
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Back stage...
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby isachar » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:03 pm

vigilant wrote:and before anyone spouts the "Fed is a private body" crap, the Fed has a congressional mandate.


You need to do a little more homework nathan. What exactly about a congressional mandate precludes the Fed from being privately owned?

The congress was tricked, paid, or forced, but it gave a mandate to a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. Look it up. Its a privately owned company.

The FED IS NOT A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION


Nathan and Vigilant are both right. The Fed has a congressional mandate, and it is not a government institution.

In fact, the government has become a FED institution.

Update: 12:04pm dow off 360 pts.

12:06 pm dow off 389 pts. Falling like a rock...

12:17 pm, dow rallies back to down 340 pts.

12:42 PM dow off 314 pts.

1:50 pm, dow off 368 pts.
Last edited by isachar on Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"The simplest evidence is the most unbearable." - Brentos 7/3/08
isachar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby bks » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:11 pm

anti,

got any details of the rejected PE offer? My quick googling did not turn up anything.
bks
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby nathan28 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:12 pm

vigilant wrote:and before anyone spouts the "Fed is a private body" crap, the Fed has a congressional mandate.


You need to do a little more homework nathan. What exactly about a congressional mandate precludes the Fed from being privately owned?

The congress was tricked, paid, or forced, but it gave a mandate to a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. Look it up. Its a privately owned company.

The FED IS NOT A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION


No. It's not. You need to throw out your copy of "Money Masters" though. To bank you must belong to the Fed network. Congress has oversight--i.e., it appoints--the Fed Board of Governors. Nearly all the interest the Fed collects is rebated to the Treasury. It is a quasi-private regulatory body with public oversight. Does this mean it is not a tool of elites? Does this make debt-backed money less odious? Of course not.
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby isachar » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:25 pm

nathan28 wrote:
vigilant wrote:and before anyone spouts the "Fed is a private body" crap, the Fed has a congressional mandate.


You need to do a little more homework nathan. What exactly about a congressional mandate precludes the Fed from being privately owned?

The congress was tricked, paid, or forced, but it gave a mandate to a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. Look it up. Its a privately owned company.

The FED IS NOT A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION


No. It's not. You need to throw out your copy of "Money Masters" though. To bank you must belong to the Fed network. Congress has oversight--i.e., it appoints--the Fed Board of Governors. Nearly all the interest the Fed collects is rebated to the Treasury. It is a quasi-private regulatory body with public oversight. Does this mean it is not a tool of elites? Does this make debt-backed money less odious? Of course not.


Nathan, Vig, it don't matter! The fact is they exist and they exert central control over the economy. Free market my ass. Free to the criminals and bloodsuckers (select bankers and financiers) who get bought out and backstopped by the lump and prol taxpayer, and the few savers left amongst us.

What I want to know is why would anyone buy US T's right now? Safety? That's like jumping from a sinking ship onto a burning ship.

Who's buying this trash. Rates are going to have to go up, what with the Treas flooding the market with paper. If so, in another few months, those buying now will be below water.
"The simplest evidence is the most unbearable." - Brentos 7/3/08
isachar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby nathan28 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:31 pm

isachar wrote:
nathan28 wrote:
vigilant wrote:and before anyone spouts the "Fed is a private body" crap, the Fed has a congressional mandate.


You need to do a little more homework nathan. What exactly about a congressional mandate precludes the Fed from being privately owned?

The congress was tricked, paid, or forced, but it gave a mandate to a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. Look it up. Its a privately owned company.

The FED IS NOT A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION


No. It's not. You need to throw out your copy of "Money Masters" though. To bank you must belong to the Fed network. Congress has oversight--i.e., it appoints--the Fed Board of Governors. Nearly all the interest the Fed collects is rebated to the Treasury. It is a quasi-private regulatory body with public oversight. Does this mean it is not a tool of elites? Does this make debt-backed money less odious? Of course not.


Nathan, Vig, it don't matter! The fact is they exist and they exert central control over the economy. Free market my ass. Free to the criminals and bloodsuckers (select bankers and financiers) who get bought out and backstopped by the lump and prol taxpayer, and the few savers left amongst us.

What I want to know is why would anyone buy US T's right now? Safety? That's like jumping from a sinking ship onto a burning ship.

Who's buying this trash. Rates are going to have to go up, what with the Treas flooding the market with paper. If so, in another few months, those buying now will be below water.


I agree totally, that's why "zOMG teh Fed Conspirashy!111!!!" is less important than "onoz teh trashuries auctions"
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Maurice Greenberg and AIG: China's Imploding US Ally

Postby elpuma » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:23 pm

China's imploding US ally
By Richard Komaiko and Chris Stewart


The collapse of US insurance giant AIG and its US$85 billion takeover by the US government on Tuesday takes the US financial crisis right to the heart of China's development as a capitalist country.

AIG, the world's sixth-largest company by assets and biggest insurer, according to the Forbes Global 2000 list for 2007, is one of the few US institutions to be founded in China, its roots dating from 1919 when Cornelius Vander Starr, a veteran of World War I, founded a small insurance company in Shanghai called American Asiatic Underwriters, later to become AIG.

More famously, Starr's successor, Maurice R Greenberg, built relations with China's leadership from 1975, his first visit to the country predating by several years the revolutionary moves by Deng Xiaoping to open up China to Western influences.

In this, Greenberg proved himself a master of developing guanxi, a term summarized as "connections" and now recognized as holding the key to successful development of business in China.

According to Benjamin A Shobert, reviewing Robert Buderi and Gregory T Huang's book of that name, "guanxi is commonly perceived as partnering and understood to focus the attention of Westerners on the great importance that the Chinese put on relationships. To most Westerners guanxi emphasizes personal relationships in contrast to the contractual, non-relational business practices common in America.

"While a portion of the word's meaning can simply be seen as stressing relationships, the authors emphasize that a better understanding of the word is to emphasize four things: trust, favor, dependence and adaptation - the last what the authors call 'patience and cultivation'."

Greenberg's patience and cultivation of relations with China's leaders saw him play a key role in building links between the US and China, while his company had a front-runner's view as it and China metamorphosed into leading players in the global business world.

Starr was the initial pathbreaker. When he set up shop in Shanghai, there were many other Westerners selling insurance in the city, then as now the country's financial hub. But these potential rivals almost exclusively concentrated their efforts on selling to other Westerners. Starr realized that the Chinese people themselves represented a vast and underserved market for insurance, with relatively low risks. This insight would enable him to become one of the wealthiest men in the world.

Within 10 years, Starr had established offices across China, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Indochina, Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur. In 1926, he opened his first office in the United States. The growth of his company was temporarily disrupted by the Chinese civil war and the general turmoil in East Asia. In 1939, Starr moved the headquarters of his corporate empire to the Empire State - New York. From there, his company and fortune grew many fold.

In 1962, Starr appointed Greenberg to head AIG's then failing North American operations. In a remarkable display of business prowess, Greenberg turned the unit around, a feat that encouraged Starr to name him his successor before passing away in 1968.

Starr bequeathed all his wealth to the C V Starr Foundation, one of the largest foundations in the United States, with over $3 billion in assets. Greenberg became the chairman of this foundation while also assuming the reins at AIG. Under his leadership, the company prospered while he himself became one of the kingpins of American foreign policy.

In 1977, he became a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, arguably America's most influential think-tank, and over the next three decades he would hold numerous leadership positions in the council, culminating in 1997 with the founding of the Greenberg Chair.

Today, the Greenberg Chair "is the senior person directly responsible for the substantive content and management" of the think-tank. Greenberg has also been a member of the board of directors of the New York Stock Exchange; a former chairman, deputy chairman and director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; a member of the US-China Business Council; the chairman of the Asia Society; and a member of the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations to the President of the United States.

With all of these roles, plus his control over the resources of the Starr Foundation and the American International Group, Greenberg's power to shape America's foreign policy was rivaled only by Citizen Kane.

Greenberg's foreign policy views were heavily influenced by two factors. One was his experience in World War II of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau. The other was the legacy of Starr's love for China. This latter factor would ultimately play an enormous role in shaping America's policy toward China for more than a quarter of a century.

In all of his actions and with all of his influence, Greenberg exercised a sanguine desire to foster reconciliation and cooperation between the United States and the People's Republic of China. The impact of this desire can be seen in the fingerprint that Greenberg has left on academic and policy institutions around the United States.

At his discretion, the Starr Foundation has funded numerous fellowships with the Asian Cultural Council, donated $300,000 to Columbia University's East Asian Library and considerably more to Berkeley's C V Starr East Asian Library. Most recently, Greenberg and the Starr Foundation each donated $25 million to Yale University to create the Maurice R Greenberg Yale-China Initiative.

Greenberg's lobbying efforts were a driving factor behind America's decision to support China's admission to the World Trade Organization, which it officially joined in November 2001. Undoubtedly, a fair amount of the credit for the creation of an American policy environment that is favorable to China is due to Greenberg and the resources that were generated by AIG.

AIG's own development in China took various, often ground-breaking, forms. China America Insurance Company was formed in 1980 as a 50-50 joint venture between AIG companies and the People's Insurance Company of China (PICC), the first joint venture between a foreign insurance organization and PICC. Personal ties with future leaders were also forged. In 1990, AIG financed and chaired a financial services conference in Shanghai to assist then city mayor and later country premier Zhu Rongji in introducing the international financial community to investment opportunities in Shanghai.

Two years later, AIG unit American International Insurance (AIA) established a branch office in Shanghai, to become the first foreign-owned life and non-life insurance business to receive a license from the People's Bank of China. In 1995, AIG companies won licenses to extend operations to Guangzhou, the key city in the country's efforts to open up to the outside world of commerce, and a year later it secured a lease allowing it to return in 1998 to the Shanghai Bund, home of C V Starr's original Shanghai insurance companies.

In 2003, by which time AIG's presence in the country extended to several provinces, the insurer acquired a 9.9% stake in PICC Property and Casualty (PICC P&C) when the Chinese company listed in Hong Kong. In 2005, as the Chinese government continued to ease its grip on the financial sector, AIG Private Bank became the first foreign private bank to receive approval to open a representative office in Shanghai.

One immediate effect of AIG's collapse could be on PICC P&C's stock price, which would be at risk if AIG liquidated its stake, Citigroup analyst Bob Leung said in a research note on Tuesday.

Chinese insurers also face a greater counter-party risk from the collapse of AIG than from Lehman Brothers, the other US financial giant that crumpled in the past few days. Lehman, which has filed for bankruptcy has significant exposure in Asia. "Given the very low life insurance accession rate in Asia, "if AIG loses its A- rating or its situation worsens significantly, we expect the financial impact to affect mainly P&C insurers," Leung wrote.

S&P lowered AIG's long-term counterparty rating to 'A-' on Monday.

China's insurance regulator declared that AIG businesses in the country were sound, echoing statements from the rest of the region. This is however a big concern going forward, given the large market share that AIG commands in many Asian markets, and the sheer volume of domestic securities that it holds across the region.

Other insurers in China meanwhile may gain from AIG's loss. "China Life, with a strong balance sheet and limited non-yuan asset exposure (less than US$3 billion and mainly in H-stock [Hong Kong listed shares] and cash) has the strongest balance sheet of all regional insurers and is likely to benefit from a 'flight to quality' perspective," Leung wrote.

The sudden decline of AIG may lead to a reduced influence of the company in international affairs, and a cut in the amount of resources that are lavished on America's foreign policy establishment for the purpose of encouraging China-friendly policy.

As it is, Greenberg's pathfinding and influential role in China has already been superceded to a large extent by the huge influx of other Western business leaders, notable among them Henry Paulson, who as chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs spent much time and and effort building his own relations with the present Chinese leadership.

Paulson's appointment as US Treasury Secretary in 2006 came at a time of simmering tensions between Washington and Beijing over China's reluctance to strengthen its currency and rein in the growing trade surplus it enjoyed with the US. Demands for faster appreciation of the yen continue, but their tenor has become less strident since Paulson took up his government post, with the focus on relations changing through the Strategic Economic Dialogue to broader long-term bilateral economic interests.

Ironically, while the US Federal Reserve played the dominant role in bailing out AIG this week, it was Paulson holding key strings of power in Washington while Maurice Greenberg sat on the sidelines.

In 2005, Greenberg was accused of financial malfeasance. In the ensuing scandal, he was ousted from his leadership role at AIG. Nonetheless, he retained direct ownership of 39 million shares of AIG stock, and an additional 243 million shares through the investment company that he still controls, C V Starr and Co. At the beginning of this year, his shares were worth $15.8 billion. By the close of the market on Tuesday afternoon, they were worth a little more than $1 billion.

The links that Greenberg had cultivated over the decades with the Chinese community certainly are also looking frayed when it comes to trust in AIG products in the wake of this week's collapse.

As Chan Akya reports in Asia Times Online on Wednesday ( Waiter, there's a banker in my soup), panic-stricken policyholders lined up all day on Wednesday in Singapore to surrender their policies to secure redemption value.

In Hong Kong, where AIA is the largest life insurer with more than 26% of the market and more than 1.9 million policies sold, more than 1,700 people canceled their insurance policies with AIA on Tuesday. On Wednesday, some 170 policy holders rushed to AIA headquarters to cut their insurance or investments. The Hong Kong government has demanded AIA seek approval before it removes any asset out of the territory.

One 50-year-old woman at the hectic commercial and retailing center of Causeway Bay said she decided to surrender her insurance policy today as she was worried AIA's business might be affected.

"I was supposed to pay premiums this month but I don't want to take any risk now. I am so afraid that I will lose all my money here. To keep as much money as I have in my pocket, I surrender the policy now," she said.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JI18Cb02.html
User avatar
elpuma
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby isachar » Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:47 pm

Bush admin signals more govt bailouts on the way. Lunatic market takes this to be good news and dow recovers approx 130 pts to being down -183 pts at 2:44pm.

Bail outs for billionaires! But if you're having your home foreclosed, you get to go suck on a lemon.

10-yr bond dies on the news giving up half its prodigous gains for the day. Like I said, why would anyone be buying that crap?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_ ... sh_markets

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
59 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The White House gave a newly nuanced description Wednesday of the U.S. economy, calling it a mixed picture and saying it ultimately will weather the current turmoil.

ADVERTISEMENT

Press secretary Dana Perino, President Bush's chief spokeswoman, also defended the extraordinary federal takeover of sinking insurance giant American International Group Inc., while not ruling out further private-sector bailouts by Washington.

Perino told reporters that help for other endangered corporations would be considered by the government on a "case-by-case basis."

Among those pleading for Washington's help, for instance, is the struggling U.S. auto industry, which has suffered massive losses but remains a backbone of the economy. A bill before Congress would give the companies $25 billion in federal loans, a program established but not funded under an energy bill passed last year. Perino said the White House would not comment on that prospect until Congress decides whether to go ahead with approving the money.

Perino refused to repeat the White House's standard line about the U.S. economy, often used by Bush, who has said that its "fundamentals are strong." Republican presidential candidates John McCain used that phrase Monday, earning him ridicule from Democratic opponent Barack Obama as being out of touch. McCain later clarified that he meant that the fundamental strength of the American worker remained strong.

With those accusations and counteraccusations swirling in an election-campaign environment, Perino suggested Wednesday that this assessment no longer stands.

"It's not clear-cut," she said, because of a proliferation of both positive and negative economic indicators, sometimes coming on the same day.

"We are in a position of strength to be able to deal with this crisis," Perino said. "It will take us awhile."

As recently as July 31, Bush said: "I believe the foundations of this economy are strong." In an Aug. 2 radio address, Bush prodded Congress to expand the energy supply so that "our economy remains the strongest, most vibrant and most hopeful in the world."

In the most far-reaching intervention into the private sector ever for the Federal Reserve, the government stepped in Tuesday to rescue American International Group Inc. with an $85 billion injection of taxpayer money. The government will get almost an 80 percent stake in the company.

Perino framed it as another move to protect the economy and save people from further harm.

Given AIG's size and scope, the possible failure of the company appeared to pose a greater risk than the $85 billion loan, she said. But while Perino said the terms require taxpayers to be paid back first, when asked whether taxpayers may not get their money back at all, she said, "That is true."

Bush agreed with the loan for AIG at the White House on Tuesday after being presented with a recommendation from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke during a meeting of economic advisers. Perino said it is more appropriate to describe Bush's role as consulting on the move rather than approving it.

She said she understands why Americans would be confused that the government would be willing to put taxpayer money at risk for some companies and not others, and that putting federal money into the private sector might be seen as at odds with Bush's conservative, free-market economic philosophy.

"We are dealing with very challenging times," Perino told reporters. "You have a government that is willing to lead, act where appropriate, and govern to make sure that we limit broader financial harm to the economy."

The president has been silent about the market turmoil since Monday. He canceled previously announced plans to talk about it on Tuesday, and Perino said he would not be heard from on the topic on Wednesday, either.

Perino said the president is reluctant to hold a news conference because he believes reporters would try to draw him into the daily back-and-forth between the Democratic and Republican candidates to replace him and that that would be inappropriate.

"I grant you, you haven't heard from him in a while," she said.

Bush has not held a full news conference in two months. His last formal question-and-answer session was abbreviated and permitted only limited questioning more than a month ago in Seoul, South Korea.

And the last time he took any questions from reporters was on Sept. 7, in a brief interview with Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends."
Last edited by isachar on Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The simplest evidence is the most unbearable." - Brentos 7/3/08
isachar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby antiaristo » Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:52 pm

bks wrote:anti,

got any details of the rejected PE offer? My quick googling did not turn up anything.


Hi bks,
Two useful quotes:

AIG turned down a capital infusion from a group of private-equity firms because it would have effectively given them control of the company ... chairman and chief executive, Robert Willumstad, took the extraordinary step of reaching out to the Federal Reserve for help.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122142474136033581.html

During a weekend scramble to shore up its finances, AIG turned down a capital infusion from a group of private-equity firms led by J.C. Flowers & Co. because an option tied to the offer would have effectively given them control of the company, an 89-year-old giant that does business in nearly every corner of the world.

The proposed option would have allowed the firms to acquire AIG for $8bn under certain conditions. That price is just one-fourth of AIG's current market value.

J.C. Flowers didn't respond to messages seeking comment.

When AIG's board rejected the capital infusion, the company's recently appointed chairman and chief executive, Robert Willumstad, took the extraordinary step of reaching out to the Federal Reserve for help. Mr. Willumstad asked New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner if the Fed could backstop some asset sales.

Two other private-equity firms -- Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and TPG -- offered to inject capital into AIG if the Fed agreed to provide the insurer with a bridge loan until its restructuring plan was completed.

http://www.penews.com/today/index/content/2451810164
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby vigilant » Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:55 pm

isachar wrote:
Nathan, Vig, it don't matter! The fact is they exist and they exert central control over the economy. Free market my ass. Free to the criminals and bloodsuckers (select bankers and financiers) who get bought out and backstopped by the lump and prol taxpayer, and the few savers left amongst us.

Take a peek in your phone book. Instead of being listed in the government pages, the Federal Reserve is listed right next to another private corporation in the business section called Federal Express.


Yes it matters a lot to me that this information be correct. This isn't even a secret. Its public information. Its presented in the most confusing way so that it may never be understood, but it isn't "secret knowledge". Its just very misunderstood knowledge. If the public wasn't so uninformed, misinformed, and lied to, they wouldn't get taken advantage of all their lives and be the pack mules for a bunch of parasites that feed on the blood (literally) of society. If peoples labor wasn't stolen from them, they could retire without waiting on a meager handout from the postman who brings the social insecurity check that isn't big enough to survive on. People used to have pensions so that this didn't happen, but the son of a bitches stole those too, and then took them away for good. So yes this IS important.

This deal was done in the dark, and in secret. It was then presented to the public in a light that makes it look like something its not. Even the name was carefully chosen to make it appear as if its an arm of the government. This nation used to issue its own currency until it was tricked into letting the Feds do it, and loan it to the government at interest. Why in the world would a government, that has the capability to issue its own currency, need someone to do it for them, and then have to pay enormous sums of money to the issuer, for the privelage of "not" being able to issue its own currency?

I"ll tell you what the reason was. It was so what is HAPPENING TODAY would not be allowed to happen. It was supposed to be a safety net against the sort of crooked ass activity that gave us the great depression. Then the same damn crooks who hosted the great depression, tricked the country into allowing a safety net to be put in place, so that they could more easily suck the blood out of the country the next time. So here we have it. Isn't it wonderful? Once again, in order to protect us from ourselves, they are doing us harm, while telling us that it is "us" that is harming ourselves because we are all so damn stupid, while they harm us some more.

Its one of the oldest scams in the book, and the book is open for everybody to read for themselves.

The Federal Reserve is not a "reserve owned by the federal government", it is a "reserve for the federal government." There is an enormous difference. Federal Express is not a government institution, but it sounds like one doesn't it?





nathan28 wrote:
No. It's not. You need to throw out your copy of "Money Masters" though. To bank you must belong to the Fed network. Congress has oversight--i.e., it appoints--the Fed Board of Governors. Nearly all the interest the Fed collects is rebated to the Treasury. It is a quasi-private regulatory body with public oversight. Does this mean it is not a tool of elites? Does this make debt-backed money less odious? Of course not.

Take a peek in your phone book. Instead of being listed in the government pages, the Federal Reserve is listed right next to another private corporation in the business section called Federal Express.


Yes. Yes it is and you are talking in circles. You are usually very pragmatic. Are you having a bad day? I didn't say anything at all about banks being part of the Fed network. Everybody knows there are banks that are part of the Fed network. Somebody, like "people" own banks though right? Of course they do. Shell companies acting as fronts own companies too, which are owned by "people" as well.

I said explicitly, "The Fed is not a government institution, and it is privately owned, by private individuals and families."

Simply because the Fed has other banks in its network, that precludes it from being privately owned? No, no it does not, in any shape form or fashion. That just guarantees that they have total power and control of the U.S. banking industry. Law says there has to be participating banks in the network. How convenient huh? That guarantees that nobody can become big enough to compete with the Fed, because the Fed has the "law" on its side. The Fed is the law, and they make damn sure the laws that get put in place are in their favor.

When you have total control over a nation's money, you own and control the nation. This is not a difficult concept to understand. Mayor Rothschild said it very plainly, "Give me control over a nations money, and I care not who makes it laws." As long as nobody in Congress tries to question the authority of the (anthrax) Fed, or make laws that hinder their supreme rulership, they could care less about the little ground squabbles these Congressman have or don't have in their day to day magic show they put on for the people (pack mules) of this country.


Congress has oversight--i.e., it appoints--the Fed Board of Governors.


Yes "technically" only, but not in practice. Congress has oversight over the Fed appointed President (carnival barker) too, but that didn't stop them from going to war without Congressional blessings did it? The Fed owns the congress, because the Fed owns this country for all practical purposes. And since when did congress ever do its job? Congress is a weak child hiding in the corner compared to the Fed anyway. The congress is scared to death (anthrax) of the Fed.

With this "bailout" the Fed just bought Wall Street for pennies on the dollar, and that was the plan from the beginning. They just bought the biggest cash machine on earth with a hostile takeover, in which this entire nation is being held mentally hostage by fear of something that doesn't even exist, except in their minds.

Appointing governers has nothing to do with the "owners" of the Fed. The governors are not the owners. The governors are window dressing, just like the curtains in the Wizard Of Oz to give the impression that someone is looking out for the people (pack mules) of the country.

Deflecting attention away from themselves is the new perception management tool of the elite. Societal control mechanisms do not remain static. They evolve with the times. The days of the King riding down main street to show his authority have been over for a long time. The elite have learned that if you "put up a front" and give it a "name", and pretend that the same "name" has all the authority and power, that the people (pack mules) will direct their anger in the wrong direction, and thus the rulers themselves remain safely hidden behind the curtain so that no harm comes to them. It also serves to keep people going in the wrong direction (circles) so that their efforts for change and justice are never achieved, because if it were achieved, it would mean the end of the parasites (elite rulers) free ride.


Nearly all the interest the Fed collects is rebated to the Treasury

Its nothing but a paper shuffle, and we have no idea what really goes on behind the curtain in Oz, because telling the truth to the pack mules is something that they never, ever do, and they never have.

Take the FDIC for instance. They do what the Fed says. If the Fed says give AIG "our taxpayer" money, because we don't want to own this dog, then they do.

If the Fed says give AIG Fed money, because "this one" we actually want to own, because its valuable in some way, or its a cash cow, then they do.
The whole world is a stage...will somebody turn the lights on please?....I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while and assimilate....
vigilant
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Back stage...
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 157 guests