“We arrived at this point due to an era of profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, D.C. The result has been a devastating loss of trust and confidence in our economy, our financial markets and our government.”
--President-elect Barack Obama, January 8, 2009
That is a lie...This point was reached due to the US consumers being unable to continue supplying the compounding interest equation with what it demands.
All that the compounding interest equation does is demand more and more tribute...The US consumers finally reached the point after 65 years where they could no longer supply the LORD they worship, aware or not, with the required tribute...and now must suffer the consequences.
Everyone else in the world also worship the same LORD...But they are all dependent upon the USA for their supply since in 1944 The US Dollar was made the global trade medium of exchange.
So basically back in 1944 the world became dependent upon the U.S. consumer to be the supply of U.S. Dollars and the demand for imports while the rest of the world became the supply of imports and the demand for U.S. Dollars.
Because to buy anything from the global system...like oil to sustain your civilization ...You need U.S. Dollars and if you don't have U.S. Dollars you need to sell something to someone that has them...and the ultimate source of US Dollars are...U.S. consumers.
But how do U.S. consumers get US Dollars?
First how does any consumer in the world get their hands on money?
For centuries compounding interest commercial banking credit systems have been in operation.
Currently how the system works is a consumer, in basically any country on Earth or more specifically economic zone, requests a commercial bank directly or indirectly to create money.
It's actually credit...but can be used just like money...So it is money....Because ultimately those with enough power...decree what money is...and that's what money is...or else they will suffer the consequences.
The compounding Interest commercial banking credit system creates money by creating an asset an attaching interest to it and a liability in a ledger.
At the request of a consumer....When a consumer goes to a bank and says...I'd like a loan...They are requesting the bank to issue credit.
Ultimately the money being created...Is the requesters future income...The bank sucks the requesters future income from the future into the present to spend...
Not really but that's a way to look at it...The bank is loaning the requesters future income to them to spend in the present.
The requester uses their current income or an asset inflated in price as collateral for the request.
The current income is composed mostly of previously requested money by all the requesters or consumers in the system including the requester or consumer themselves.
A price inflated asset...Is inflated in price by all the previously requested or created money.
So where does money come from?
A consumer requests a commercial bank to manufacture money using their current income which is mostly previously requested money or an asset inflated in price by previously created money as collateral backing the request.
The bank creates an asset of lets say $250,000 and attaches 5% interest and a liability of $250,000 and amortizes it for 30 years.
The above is credit...It can be spent just like money so it's also money...and because it needs to be paid back...It's also debt.
Money is debt and debt is money...all the money in circulation basically is debt with interest attached and all the consumers of the world rent it.
A consumer in almost any country in the world wants to buy a house but is short $250,000
So they go to a commercial bank and request a loan...The bank checks and the consumers income and assets combined are high enough to back the request.
So the bank creates an asset of $250,000 and attaches 5% interest to it an amortizes it over 30 years an creates a liability of $250,000 and give the consumer a bank draft for $250,000 which is spent into the economy increasing the total money supply by $250,000
The first payment is due an it all works out to...
The consumer pays the bank 1342.05
The principal amount is $300.39
That causes the asset and liability to shrink by that much and they both become $249,699...Basically shrinking the total money supply by $300.39
The Interest portion on $250,000 amortized for 30 years at 5% is $1041.67 That is the banks profit.
That's how a typical commercial bank makes money.
But they do so by consumer request
.
Consumers are the source of all the money creation...If consumers chose to not request commercial banks to manufacture U.S. Dollars...The supply will not increase.
Why would you want the supply of money to increase?
Well lets say you don't don't want to work for a living...But you happen to have $100,000 of savings. And decide to rent out that money and live off the profit.
You attach 10% interest to it...You give everyone $100,000 under the condition that they all give you back $110,000.
Why would you want the money supply to increase by 10%?
The entire money supply of the USA and every country/economic zone on Earth or the entire money supply of the world is debt with interest attached.
In order to continue paying he rent the money supply has to keep increasing because the rent or interest attached to the money supply is causing the demand for more to increase.
The total global money supply is around 200 Trillion Dollars equivalent...at say 5% average interest that means.
In order to just balance the books the global money supply has to grow by 5 Trillion Dollars in that year.
But then the next year 205 Trillion has to grow by 5.25 Trillion at 5%
In 1944 the US money supply was 355 Billion Dollars and it has grown since then to now to 51.5 Trillion Dollars
To accomplish that you would need to attach interest of 7.96% to 355 Billion for 65 years.
Which is basically what happened during the “era” President-elect Barack Obama mentioned on January 8, 2009.
Consumers requested commercial banks to manufacture more and more an more new money to basically supply the demands of the compounding interest equation...Until of course consumers had reached the point at which they could no longer supply the required amount of tribute the LORD you worship, aware or not, was demanding.
The consequences of failure to supply the LORD with what the LORD demands is the end of inflation greater than previous inflation of the global system...or economic growth and the beginning of inflation less than previous inflation of the global system or economic contraction.
It had zero to do with “profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, D.C.”.
Unless he means choosing to worship the compounding interest equation...But in the rest of the speech there is no mention of the equation as the cause of the effects.
Well why is the rest of the world caving in?
Because every economic zone on Earth needs U.S. Dollars to sustain the continued inflation greater than previous inflation of their economic zones.
With the source of U.S. Dollars, The US consumer, maxed out after 65 years of supplying the Bretton Woods Global trade system with the required amount of money the rest of the world needs...
The rest of the economic zones on Earth have stopped inflating greater than previous inflation...or experiencing economic growth and are now beginning to inflate less than previous inflation...or experiencing economic contraction.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

21 comments:
Hype, I gotta new gig for ya.
Explain "Peak Oil" for the masses.
I'm telling my kinfolk (idiots that they are) that we've used up 1trillion barrels of oil so far and the total amount on earth is 7 trillion. I tell'em we got lotsa oil. They say price of oil is so fackin cheap its ridiculous and they are investing ALL their money into oil funds of some sort FOR THE LONG TERM ONLY because the recent price of oil hit $140. I told them "YOU'RE GONNA LOSE YOUR FRACKEN SHIRTS" and disowned them.
Hyper, did I do the right thing?
The price of oil has collapsed because of global demand destruction...
Buy low and sell high works...they will only lose their shirt if they fail to buy and sell at the right time.
So hyper, can share any tips to us what to do with our remaining savings? what to buy or what to sell now?
That's the question he never answers. I guess only the top can make money because they know events before they happen? He has eluded to gold several times..
In this implosion, all asset classes will continue to drop. So hold dollars then, right? Nope, they're losing their value too.
If believe HT, and you believe the top will eventually start the whole game over again after this implosion, then your best bet is to hold currency in the country that will be the new demand engine of the economy. Which one?
I bet HT believes the price of oil went to $140 because of global demand too. Har Har Har
I've just invented the HyperTiger Post Compression Utility software program and used to compress the current post to just 9 words.
Good summing up of it all, but NOTHING NEW that you havn't told us 50 times before.
Hype ledge all lead gents tooth if lag, off the you knighted kuwaits of unmiracle, ant too be repugnant, four witches tanned, won notion under gaurd, wit libertine gestures fear awl.
Possession is 9/10th of the law. HT doesn't give much of an answer to the oil problem, but I would suspect that what he is saying is that timing is everything. Also, the top will have what is called money when this game enters a new inning. If you were sitting on the toilet the moment the house blew up, would you have been the one that caused the explosion? George Bush merely ran out of time and time probably ran out in general in 1998 or 1999, with only the absurdity of CDO's and equity extraction left to propel the money supply upward. I keep hearing they need to get the consumer going? Is the rest of the world going to continue to work so the average Joe in the US, who has run out of credit have more extended to him indirectly through more US government bonds that are bought by the producers? The point here is the growth in credit necessary to avoid implosion and to continue to drive demand cannot go higher. They continue to push on a string to get home lending going again, but the key component is home equity, which has vanished, thus you can't create new money, only roll old money. At some point, dollars against earning capacity mean something. It is clear that the guarantees behind FNM and FRE aren't the same as the guarantees behind the US treasury or the rates would be closer together. It is also clear that the next stage of international finance is going to be the taking of US assets or the reverse, the selling of US assets to raise more cash.
The idea of what you own is complex. For one, who says you will be able to own anything when all this is done? Second, they are going to have to implode all the currencies in the world because the debt behind them is not collectable or payable and the dollars will begin to swell or increase in value, creating a deflation spiral. Mineral demand is going to drop and capital spending is going to drop. Without mineral demand and capital spending, how much demand for oil is there?
A year ago, they were preaching a disconnect idea. Today they are preaching that 5% growth in China is a recession and that they will get that. Next year they will find out that 0% is a depression and they won't get that.
Why would you think that dollars will increase in value? Is that a typo? Countries with deficits always see their currencies decline, while countries with surpluses see their currencies gain.
The only reason the dollar has held as well as it has is because we are in a severe deflation and cash is king. Soon we will still be in a deflation, but all these stimulus dollars will destroy the currency.
As you said, the consumer is maxed out and so implosion is the only way. There will be no "hyper inflation", only a massive deflation. However we will see a massive currency devaluation as the US cannot meet its debt obligations.
This is why we are about to witness the armageddon scenario. Rapid and deadly price deflation combined with an Argentina-style collapse of the currency.
Bad times ahead, indeed.
When it is said, "Rapid and deadly price deflation combined with an Argentina-style collapse of the currency" are they meaning dollar price deflation and dollar collapse simultaniously? It seems like the one must precede the other, at least for a few days or hours. Why can't people see that a jubilee of all debt is the only answer? Most of the rich got it through fraud. Let em get a shovel and start to work on all out public work projects or anything productive, ,aybe like digging graves for their human milk cows.
actually there's nothing wrong repeating the same thing 50 times. it's worth repeating 5000 times indeed.
compounding interest is just unsustainable..
Your take on "bad banks" set up to handle "toxic assets" please?
Seems they are pulling this out as their answer.
Supposedly Sweden did it in the early 90's and it worked.
Could you comment on this?
Thank you
There will be no "hyper inflation", only a massive deflation
As HT and others have pointed out, there are always two ways to go, either supply the LORD (compound interest) or suffer the consequences. This is always true.
So we know that "The rest of the economic zones on Earth have stopped inflating greater than previous inflation", but there is still time for one last trick to temporarily stop this. In 2002, there was a similar "deflation scare" but Greenscam made sure to blow a bigger bubble to replace the one that had collapsed. This is what is meant by "The US has been imploding for years." We have been on the verge of deflationary collapse for at least 10 years and possible longer. The Asian currency crises of 1997 shows that the currency regime has come close to imploding before. But they lit off the dot-bomb, and then the housing bubble. These bubbles were each larger than the last so the inflate-or-die scheme wasn't violated.
Can you say for sure they won't try this again? As long as they can inflate greater than previous inflation, it still keeps the Ponzi alive.
So what could they possibly blow to outdo a housing bubble? A housing bubble is a real bitch (and way worse than the dot-bomb) because it has such a large debt component, so now the money destruction is happening very fast, and only one thing can stop this imho - hyperinflation.
That's why I still think there could be a (short-lived) hyperinflationary spike right before the deflationary collapse. It sure seems like the way the top wants to play it. And this has happened before historically.
Either way it ends the same but the interim period could be very different indeed, and your positioning would have to be different. Like you said, only the top knows precisely when and how this will play out. And at the end of it, the bottom will be wiped out regardless.
Look at the mass rioting on the TV people...they're gunning them down on the streets....its unimaginably bad...murder suicides everywhere...
Uh I DONT SEE FUCK ALL HYPERTIGER
Wheres the beef DUDE?
"
"
WTF...
Try this again..
your take on "bad banks" please?
toxic assets into bad banks: the solution.
this will be major talking point and become a mainstream usage in the financial mews analysis...so i thimk it is important to know what it really means.
once obama makes it part of the "solution", everyone will be discussing it.
so, your take?
thanks
arm operation...pecking with ome hand..sorry
ok let me set it up then...maybe if i do some work you will then deign to comment...since asking politely isn't enough: not like you need to tend to YOUR blog...ignore the comments at YOUR blog and go off to GIM to post unsolicited comments instead. i mean wtf??
...so here is what I am asking about as it relates to your philosophy:
"Stockholm syndrome
Nov 27th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Bad banks were a big part of Sweden’s 1990s rescue package
“US OLD guys are really being dusted off at the moment,” jokes one architect of Sweden’s successful bank bail-out in the early 1990s. Maybe so, but policymakers, particularly in America, are still taking an age to learn their Swedish lessons. The country took a comprehensive approach to its crisis, not only guaranteeing debts and injecting government cash into banks that could not raise private capital, but also setting up “bad banks” to manage institutions’ toxic assets. The Citigroup rescue edged in this direction; UBS is setting up a bad bank with Swiss government money. But there is further to go.
The idea of a bad bank, a separate entity which takes ownership of non-performing assets and then manages them in order to maximise their value, is simple enough. The Swedes set up two bad banks (with the reassuringly solid names of “Securum” and “Retriva”) to handle the crummier assets of Nordbanken and Gota Bank, two nationalised institutions. And very effective they were (indeed, some borrowers complained they were too ruthless). Their efforts to restructure and sell distressed loans helped Sweden to keep the eventual cost of its bail-out below 2% of GDP.
One advantage of the bad-bank structure is neatness. Taking toxic assets off the balance-sheet leaves behind a cleaner bank which should find it easier to raise capital or attract buyers. Another is specialisation. According to Jonathan Macey, a professor at Yale University, the genius of the Swedish scheme was that it allowed people who were good at restructuring bad loans to focus on that job, and those who were better at running banks to concentrate their efforts there.
Things are more difficult today. The Swedish loans were much less complex than modern securitised assets. Pricing the assets was also easier because taxpayers were on both sides of the deal, owning both the nationalised good banks and the bad banks. Nor was the rescue a panacea: Swedish bank lending to the private sector contracted for years after the intervention. But ugly as they sound, bad banks are a good idea."
Anyone else wanna tackle it? HT doesn't have time for us here. Here at his blog.
"Look at the mass rioting on the TV people"
Some things take time...
EU states monitor spread of civil unrest
Friday, January 23, 2009
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU member states are “intensively” monitoring the risk of spreading civil unrest in Europe, as riots over the economic crisis erupt in Iceland following street clashes in Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Greece.
The worst street disturbances for 50 years struck Reykjavik on Thursday (22 January), as police streamed a hardcore of a few hundred anti-government protesters in the early morning with pepper spray and then tear gas after an earlier crowd of around 2,000 gathered outside the Althingi, the country’s parliament, to demand the government resign.
The crowds surrounded the building while banging pots and pans and shooting off fireworks. The demonstrators also lobbed paving stones, rolls of toilet paper and shoes.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7848
Post a Comment