http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/11/fed-continues-to-stonewall-in-freedom-of-information-act-suit.html Finance, Economics and Markets Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/11/fed-continues-to-stonewall-in-freedom-of-information-act-suit.html#comment-833 bena gyerek Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:02:59 +0000 http://www.creditwritedowns.com/?p=1586#comment-833 bloomberg should be asking what the haircuts are as well, and whether the loans are non-recourse. the haircut defines how much credit risk the fed is taking on the crappy assets. bloomberg should be asking what the haircuts are as well, and whether the loans are non-recourse. the haircut defines how much credit risk the fed is taking on the crappy assets.

]]> http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/11/fed-continues-to-stonewall-in-freedom-of-information-act-suit.html#comment-806 anon nona Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:48:34 +0000 http://www.creditwritedowns.com/?p=1586#comment-806 I'm surprised that outrage of the American people iand/or criminal process is not triggered by this behaviour, given the last decade or so of social engineering that took place to mold morals in accordance with the new principles of good governance and transparency. Remember the countless public witch-trials that ensued from that (seemingly forgotten) agenda? Remember the scores of masterminds of corruption that were hauled off to jail and the consequent message sent to the public that anyone who used shareholder (or essentially public) funds inappropriately or non-transparently would be imprisoned? Doesn't the present lack of respect for transparency run contrary to our recent programming? Arent' the people behind the fed a little more intricately linked with the fortunes of every person in America than say Martha Stewart, or some CEO that threw a party with an ice-scupture that pissed vodka? Maybe a similar punitive reaction would be presently premature though. Perhaps the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans and other the Lords of the Earth won't make an example of their public puppets until they (the puppets) have 1) siphoned-off the remaining cash of America and 2) manipulated and revitalized the markets sufficiently to raise the level of currency enough so that a healthy percentage of this haul can be converted into some other currency without tanking the market before it is all converted. Perhaps they won't ultimately give their men up to the mob. Number 2) above can be done by these sort of players without any resort to the kind of bailout plans we are being sold. No doubt that the any related upward trend in the market will, however, be gloriously hailed as a result of these sound public policies. We should view any bailout more literally and as meaning aking a bucket, scooping up what's inside our boat and tossing it away. I’m surprised that outrage of the American people iand/or criminal process is not triggered by this behaviour, given the last decade or so of social engineering that took place to mold morals in accordance with the new principles of good governance and transparency. Remember the countless public witch-trials that ensued from that (seemingly forgotten) agenda? Remember the scores of masterminds of corruption that were hauled off to jail and the consequent message sent to the public that anyone who used shareholder (or essentially public) funds inappropriately or non-transparently would be imprisoned? Doesn’t the present lack of respect for transparency run contrary to our recent programming? Arent’ the people behind the fed a little more intricately linked with the fortunes of every person in America than say Martha Stewart, or some CEO that threw a party with an ice-scupture that pissed vodka? Maybe a similar punitive reaction would be presently premature though. Perhaps the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans and other the Lords of the Earth won’t make an example of their public puppets until they (the puppets) have 1) siphoned-off the remaining cash of America and 2) manipulated and revitalized the markets sufficiently to raise the level of currency enough so that a healthy percentage of this haul can be converted into some other currency without tanking the market before it is all converted. Perhaps they won’t ultimately give their men up to the mob. Number 2) above can be done by these sort of players without any resort to the kind of bailout plans we are being sold. No doubt that the any related upward trend in the market will, however, be gloriously hailed as a result of these sound public policies. We should view any bailout more literally and as meaning aking a bucket, scooping up what’s inside our boat and tossing it away.

]]> http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/11/fed-continues-to-stonewall-in-freedom-of-information-act-suit.html#comment-786 Enginerd Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:30:20 +0000 http://www.creditwritedowns.com/?p=1586#comment-786 The Fed is a quasi-public/private institution. Most of the money it has it has created out of thin air, meaning that it's not the taxpayers money specifically, although we all have a stake in the currency. The Fed has borrowed a great deal of money from the Treasury (taxpayer money), but it certainly hasn't borrowed more than a few hundred billion. Most of the trillions that the Fed is lending out have simply been generated. The Fed is a quasi-public/private institution. Most of the money it has it has created out of thin air, meaning that it’s not the taxpayers money specifically, although we all have a stake in the currency. The Fed has borrowed a great deal of money from the Treasury (taxpayer money), but it certainly hasn’t borrowed more than a few hundred billion. Most of the trillions that the Fed is lending out have simply been generated.

]]>