I don’t usually follow the, er, ‘specific’ trials of the Euro-Zone because it is commonly acknowledged that the banking system is global, so pointing to problems of a particular geographic region is really a media attempt at deliberate ‘mis-direction’.
But when one is handed Lemons, one strives to turn them into something more palatable.
Under the headline of ‘Euro crisis’ we have this tale of, what else but ‘contagion’…
Dexia’s problems are not entirely caused by Europe’s debt crisis, but some issues in its case are a matter of broader debate. Among them are how much of a bailout banks should get, and the size of the losses they should take on loans that governments cannot repay.
Among Dexia’s biggest trading partners are several large United States institutions, including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter.
To limit damage from Dexia’s collapse, the bailout fashioned by the French and Belgian governments may make these banks and other creditors whole — that is, paid in full for potentially tens of billions of euros they are owed. This would enable Dexia’s creditors and trading partners to avoid losses they might otherwise suffer without the taxpayer rescue.
Whether this sets a precedent if Europe needs to bail out other banks will be closely watched. The debate centers on how much of a burden taxpayers should bear to support banks that made ill-advised loans or trades.
Let us spend a moment and digest what this means to the average individual.
First off is how the government HAS NOT reached into YOUR pocket to make these shiftless bastards ‘whole’. They waved their ’magic wands’ and conjured a bunch of brand new debt into existence…debt that YOU’RE NOT ‘technically’ on the hook for…today.
All of this is being done in the realm of ‘creative accounting’, the, er, bondholders/creditors don’t actually NEED the money, it is all the ‘principle of the thing’ involved.
No irony should be lost on the fact that this is being done to satisfy ‘the rules’ (at the expense of even more important rules…which cannot and will not be, er, ‘avoided’.
This perhaps is one of the most disturbing facets of the current economic environment, the ‘wrong’ principles are being enforced while more basic functions are being ignored.
In the end the, er, ‘historians’ will point to greed and they will be correct.
The real question good citizen is when will we break the boom-bust chain?
Since the question is, at this point, rhetorical we don’t have a definite answer but we do have this curious graphic that is useful more so as a teaching tool than a graphic representation of ‘global fiscal interconnectedness.’
To begin, let’s look at who is being depicted as the ‘Fat Man’ in the room, are any of you wondering why?
In fact the real question is why certain circles are ‘gray’ and why others are ‘red’ for they certainly aren’t representative of the economic well being of the labeled nation’s populace…although the labels start to make more sense when viewed by the ‘percentage of whales/fat cats’ residing in a given nation.
How disturbing is that, good citizen?
Naturally, the thickness of the arrows shows us how much each, er, ‘group of taxpayer supported fat cats’ are on the hook for.
Looks like the US is on the hook for some serious dinero!
How big are those fat cat banker’s balls now?
Let me direct your attention to to a site that has been all over this Euro mess
I leave the choice to visit up to you.
I feel compelled to return to the issue of ‘principles’ and of being ‘on the hook’.
I have frequently asked the (rhetorical) question of ‘what is the PURPOSE of commerce?’
If there is a single issue that defines the ‘political divide’ in this nation, that issue is it.
Since commerce is, by definition, the endeavor established to ‘supply’ society with the essentials of life, we have to ponder where ‘credit scores’ come from?
Worse is being forced into debt to obtain life’s essentials (which are ‘free to the owner’.)
Conservatives (those who wish to preserve the ‘status quo’) are quick to re-direct you to the somewhat insane concept of ‘ownership IS freedom’.
This, somehow, begins with the concept of the ownership of ones’ self…sort of totally missing the whole point of civilization (but it does clearly explain their complete lack of appreciation for the efforts of others, which is brushed off as the ‘stupidity‘ of others, which appears to be the ONLY thing they are genuinely grateful for!)
Well, all of this, er, ‘ill conceived’ debt is exactly that. The ‘investor class’ ran out of opportunity so they ‘created’ one out of the last possible resort, the full faith and credit of the nation!
Take the full faith and credit of the nation and hand it over to people who don’t give a fuck for anything or anybody besides themselves and what do you get?
In a word, Chaos!
Again we return to the initial question, what is the purpose of commerce? Understand, without civilization, commerce doesn’t exist!
Only uncivilized savages exist outside civilization so how do these self-centered conservatives (specifically Libertarians) justify their place in society?
Well, the ‘own’.
Not that ONE of them has a legitimate title to ANYTHING…
But, lo and behold, WHO is a big supporter of ‘government’ now?
Why it is the same assholes that want to abolish ‘government oversight’.
They’re all for ‘starving the government’ until their property rights are jeopardized!
Anyway, in the end what we’re seeing is the cooking of the books at YOUR expense.
When we slip back into a Stone Age level of existence the excuse will be ‘we don’t have the money to pay teachers or maintain the roads’ (or to feed all of you useless bastards!)
We ‘spent’ that money ‘rescuing’ the now defunct banks!
I don’t need to remind anyone that ALL MONEY is FUNNY, do I?
It isn’t the entry on the ledger that dried up the goods in the marketplace, it was the entry in the bank account of those with more than they could spend, who didn’t ‘re-invest’ their income and voted against ‘re-distribution’ of ‘their’ money.
I have opined before that the conventions that prevent us from killing one another on sight are wearing thin…pretty soon it will become the only logical outcome.
I don’t know about you but I didn’t raise my kids to be murderers…
The question here is, did they?
And the answer, at least partially, is they aren’t raising their kids at all!
Thanks for letting me inside your head,
Gegner
No comments:
Post a Comment