USA government debt ceiling
USA gov froze its government debt in March this year since they hit the 'statutory maximum' of $18,113,000,080,959.35 (yep, and the 35c). USGov is now in an extraordinary measures situation to be looked at again October 30, 2015. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/150-days-treasury-says... This has happened a few times before, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling but I wonder if there are some real limits being reached, where they'll be unable to practically raise the USGov debt ceiling? Anyone have further info on this?
USA gov froze its government debt in March this year since they hit the 'statutory maximum' of $18,113,000,080,959.35 (yep, and the 35c). USGov is now in an extraordinary measures situation to be looked at again October 30, 2015. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/150-days-treasury-says...
This has happened a few times before, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling
but I wonder if there are some real limits being reached, where they'll be unable to practically raise the USGov debt ceiling? Anyone have further info on this?
That's quite funny. Did you read my mind? Are you the NSA? =) I was about to use the US debt 'ceiling' as an example of what kind of joke 'limited' government is =) (back to replying to your previous message).
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>>USA gov froze its government debt in March this year since they hit
the 'statutory maximum' of $18,113,000,080,959.35 (yep, and the 35c). USGov is now in an extraordinary measures situation to be looked at again October 30, 2015. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/150-days-treasury-says... This has happened a few times before, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling
but I wonder if there are some real limits being reached, where they'll be unable to practically raise the USGov debt ceiling? Anyone have further info on this? I have long believed that instead of raising the debt ceiling all at once (say, $500 billion), Congress should raise it $XYZ-million per day. Thus government is not given a go-ahead to waste huge amounts of money at one time. Further, I think that Congress could, and should, condition the continuation of this $XYZ-million/day increase on, say, a weekly vote of Congress, one in which only a 50% vote in both houses is necessary and sufficient, cannot be filibustered and one which Obama doesn't get to veto. Congress could also interpose any sorts of new restrictions on what this money can be spent for, meaning that any prior directives by Congress (especially by a Democrat-controlled Congress) would be null and void. Effectively, Congress could completely re-write the budget without approval by either the Democrats or Obama. The LACK of such a system is yet another reason I believe that John Boehner is a loser: It is said that Congress has "the power of the purse", but since it doesn't use it, that is becoming a disaster. Jim Bell
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:32 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
(say, $500 billion), Congress should raise it $XYZ-million per day. Thus
Sorry, but debt is supposed to be something incurred in a time of need which you are generally able to repay in a mutually acceptable timeframe. When you start pushing 100yr schedules, you're approaching lifetimes of humans and govts themselves, funny that structuring ;-) The US can't repay $18T to anyone in 10 or 25 or maybe even 50 years without cutting everything else it does to near zero. And that doesn't include it's unfunded liablilties. And for the idiots out there... paying debt out of, or mooting debt via, "growth" is unrealistic... the geopolitical competitive status (and the closed cycle nature of) the planet precludes that kind of growth. Interest rates are backwards, housing is still rape, etc. Economists these days have to be liek WTF bro? Have fun, suckers... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States
a weekly vote of Congress, one in which only a 50% vote in both houses is necessary and sufficient, cannot be filibustered and one which Obama doesn't get to veto. ...
The Govt doesn't agree to your terms. It will have to get seriously fubar before it does. And at that point you're done anyways. History...
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:32 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
(say, $500 billion), Congress should raise it $XYZ-million per day. Thus
Sorry, but debt is supposed to be something incurred in a time of need which you are generally able to repay in a mutually acceptable timeframe. When you start pushing 100yr schedules, you're approaching lifetimes of humans and govts themselves, funny that structuring ;-) I think you misunderstood me. I was not somehow "approving" debt, especially not debt of the magnitude of 18 trillion.Rather, I objected to the practice of raising the debt limit in large instantaneous jumps, in contrast to small, daily raises.And, I also objected to NOT using the debt limit as a further lever by Congress on President Obama, and the minority Democrats in Congress: Congress should allow a daily debt limit rise which is coupled, soon enough, by limits on spending which Obama cannot veto, and which the Democrats in Congress cannot filibuster. Jim Bell
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 11:24 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think you misunderstood me. I was not somehow "approving" debt, especially not debt of the magnitude of 18 trillion. Rather, I objected to the practice of raising the debt limit in large instantaneous jumps, in contrast to small, daily raises.
Daily, monthly, yearly, quadrienally... what's the difference? It's all amortization and signature games under insufficient backing.
And, I also objected to NOT using the debt limit as a further lever by Congress on President Obama, and the minority Democrats in Congress: Congress should allow a daily debt limit rise which is coupled, soon enough, by limits on spending which Obama cannot veto, and which the Democrats in Congress cannot filibuster.
US Congress and their pork doesn't give a fuck, their lives and that of their families are cushily secured past any revolution or massive refactoring... unless they're assassinated in the process ;-) And the President just lives to spend all that is given and ask for more, soundbites excepting. Though hearing what, if any, the supreme judiciary has to say about all this, even in a historical context, would be interesting. Especially since most extant countries on the planet started out on the "incorruptible" gold standard.
On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 12:41:14AM +0000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
USA gov froze its government debt in March this year since they hit the 'statutory maximum' of $18,113,000,080,959.35 (yep, and the 35c). USGov is now in an extraordinary measures situation to be looked at again October 30, 2015. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/150-days-treasury-says...
This has happened a few times before, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling
but I wonder if there are some real limits being reached, where they'll be unable to practically raise the USGov debt ceiling? Anyone have further info on this?
This was discussed on the old fulldisclosure list IMHO at least one of these will happen (A) usa kicks the bucket. (B) somebody tries to save the usa, the way this already happens in greece. In (A) almost sure hyperinflation occurs, usa companies sold cheap, affects people in most of the world, but not oligarchs. likely NSA becomes criminal gang not controlled by .gov. (B) likely would be the greek way, but not sure how long it can last before going to (A) (lol, are greeks just beta testers...) In Bulgaria advanced socialism fell in 1989 and basically the (A) scenario happened. I am surprised why the chinese still pour money in a Ponzi scheme, there might be an agreement of some kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States has very outdated data, not sure how worse it is now: The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion (1576% of GDP) and debts of $145.8 trillion (852% of GDP) to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion (723% of GDP,)[a] as of Q1 2014.
Dnia niedziela, 4 października 2015 09:01:00 Georgi Guninski pisze:
In (A) almost sure hyperinflation occurs, usa companies sold cheap, affects people in most of the world, but not oligarchs. likely NSA becomes criminal gang not controlled by .gov.
What do you mean, "becomes". -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
US debt has no theoretical limit. Instead debt value is limited by the amount of inflation incurred. The way the US rents the finances from the FED is confusing and I'm not sure what it means for where the rent goes. Ideally, it just reduces the amount of USD in circulation. The US is not in the situation that it's rent outweighs it's income, and is therefore not killed. Even if it does it mostly means the government and people will have to adopt another currency that's not hyperinflating. Then wait for the USD to devaluate the entire debt to a payable level. (Note: something Bitcoiny would be a pretty good fit for many reasons) As for US politics, LOL WE'RE ALL EFFED
Just found this, which has a fair bit of more current info, for those interested: http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/02-10-2015/132222-usa_debt_bomb-0/
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 02:12:18AM +0000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Just found this, which has a fair bit of more current info, for those interested:
http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/02-10-2015/132222-usa_debt_bomb-0/
From pravda.ru:
==== Now, the government in the USA owes $46 trillion, US corporations owe $15 trillion, US individuals owe $13 trillion plus there are $315 trillion in outstanding wall street derivatives. (Few Americans know what a derivative is, but we as a nation are on the hook for up to $315 trillion in additional debt because of these derivatives.) These debt figures continue to escalate with each passing month ==== Haven't seen the debt about $315T on the interwebs, possibly due to ignorance.
From wikipedia which cites data from 2014 Q1
=== https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Financial_position_of_the_United_States&oldid=661507517 The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion (1576% of GDP) and debts of $145.8 trillion (852% of GDP) to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion (723% of GDP,) [a] as of Q1 2014. === QUESTION: Is there a citable reference for the debt of $315 treeeeelion? I mean, if I troll americans about this and cite .ru they almost surely will call me a commie. I don't trust pravda.ru much, but lying about numbers which can easily be disproved doesn't appear very likely to me.
Dnia poniedziałek, 5 października 2015 15:42:51 Georgi Guninski pisze:
I don't trust pravda.ru much, but lying about numbers which can easily be disproved doesn't appear very likely to me.
Well... ;) -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 12:22:22AM +0200, rysiek wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 5 października 2015 15:42:51 Georgi Guninski pisze:
I don't trust pravda.ru much, but lying about numbers which can easily be disproved doesn't appear very likely to me.
Well... ;)
Again, pravda.ru might have lied about this. But wikipedia is quite outdated on this topic, the permanent link is from 9 May 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Financial_position_of_the_United_States&oldid=661507517
On 10/5/15, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 02:12:18AM +0000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Just found this, which has a fair bit of more current info, for those interested:
http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/02-10-2015/132222-usa_debt_bomb-0/
From pravda.ru:
==== Now, the government in the USA owes $46 trillion, US corporations owe $15 trillion, US individuals owe $13 trillion plus there are $315 trillion in outstanding wall street derivatives. (Few Americans know what a derivative is, but we as a nation are on the hook for up to $315 trillion in additional debt because of these derivatives.) These debt figures continue to escalate with each passing month ====
Haven't seen the debt about $315T on the interwebs, possibly due to ignorance.
From wikipedia which cites data from 2014 Q1
=== https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Financial_position_of_the_United_States&oldid=661507517 The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion (1576% of GDP) and debts of $145.8 trillion (852% of GDP) to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion (723% of GDP,) [a] as of Q1 2014. ===
QUESTION:
Is there a citable reference for the debt of $315 treeeeelion?
I mean, if I troll americans about this and cite .ru they almost surely will call me a commie.
I don't trust pravda.ru much, but lying about numbers which can easily be disproved doesn't appear very likely to me.
More info and explanations of the USA's gig is nearly up (and I'm pretty sure their last estimate of 2023 lates, is certainly much further into the future than the actual reset/collapse of US dollar): http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/08-10-2015/132278-us_treasury_swap... "There are $630 trillion in outstanding derivatives globally according to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland. That is, about $630 trillion in bets placed on about $100 trillion in stocks and bonds." I'm guessing that's the global position - so the USA govt, wall street etc account for about half of all the world's debts and derivatives - I assume these figures are just for US dollars. There are perhaps other, much smaller, currency markets - bitcoin of course, but perhaps other currencies too. Z
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 02:46:21AM +0000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
QUESTION:
Is there a citable reference for the debt of $315 treeeeelion?
More info and explanations of the USA's gig is nearly up (and I'm pretty sure their last estimate of 2023 lates, is certainly much further into the future than the actual reset/collapse of US dollar): http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/08-10-2015/132278-us_treasury_swap...
"There are $630 trillion in outstanding derivatives globally according to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland. That is, about $630 trillion in bets placed on about $100 trillion in stocks and bonds."
Interesting (but doesn't seem citable reference to me). How the financial market is still working? And how such bets survived so far?
2015-10-11 9:07 GMT+02:00 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com>:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 02:46:21AM +0000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
QUESTION:
Is there a citable reference for the debt of $315 treeeeelion?
More info and explanations of the USA's gig is nearly up (and I'm pretty sure their last estimate of 2023 lates, is certainly much further into the future than the actual reset/collapse of US dollar):
http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/08-10-2015/132278-us_treasury_swap...
"There are $630 trillion in outstanding derivatives globally according to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland. That is, about $630 trillion in bets placed on about $100 trillion in stocks and bonds."
Interesting (but doesn't seem citable reference to me).
How the financial market is still working?
And how such bets survived so far?
Counting derivatives as debt is definitely 100% misguided. They're also used to amplify market swings - make or lose more with less motion, therefore the oversizedness is not surprising. It makes markets more accurate, liquid and reliable (except f-ups get amplified too sometimes). Why not just read about this online? It's very public info.
On 10/11/15, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
2015-10-11 9:07 GMT+02:00 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com>:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 02:46:21AM +0000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
QUESTION:
Is there a citable reference for the debt of $315 treeeeelion?
More info and explanations of the USA's gig is nearly up (and I'm pretty sure their last estimate of 2023 lates, is certainly much further into the future than the actual reset/collapse of US dollar):
http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/08-10-2015/132278-us_treasury_swap...
"There are $630 trillion in outstanding derivatives globally according to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland. That is, about $630 trillion in bets placed on about $100 trillion in stocks and bonds."
Interesting (but doesn't seem citable reference to me).
How the financial market is still working?
And how such bets survived so far?
Counting derivatives as debt is definitely 100% misguided. They're also
Futures are derivatives, and potentially very large debts (or gains). This is the nature of leverage - a small outlay, a much larger return or loss. Although the loss is not certain (of course), it is possible, thus...
used to amplify market swings - make or lose more with less motion, therefore the oversizedness is not surprising. It makes markets more accurate, liquid and reliable (except f-ups get amplified too sometimes).
... that's the point ... when the gambles go the wrong way, for too many people, then sometimes very large entities go belly up, as the above article gives examples of. When this reaches a tipping point, there is systemic collapse as we have seen historically. Then those large entities ("too big to fail") can be "bailed out" by the tax payer, or "bailed in" (the newest legislation here in Australia, and possibly in US too) by simply grabbing some portion (up to 100%) of all depositor's deposits. If the big entity insurance (bail in or bail out) cannot compensate adequately for the "debts", then the systemic collapse is a depression/ full reset, rather than just a recession. Whether one names derivatives as debt or not is immateriel - they amplify shit when shit happens.
Why not just read about this online? It's very public info.
Well that's what we're looking for, something a little more definitive/ citable. Z
2015-10-11 14:17 GMT+02:00 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>:
Counting derivatives as debt is definitely 100% misguided. They're also
Futures are derivatives, and potentially very large debts (or gains). This is the nature of leverage - a small outlay, a much larger return or loss. Although the loss is not certain (of course), it is possible, thus...
If you're panscient (know the current state of the world) you could determine the actual risk precisely. Then you multiply value * risk, and you know the likely debt, or debt equivalent. If the gamblers are even a bit conservative (and correct) you will likely find the debt is negative - these derivatives will probably be positive assets. Why else have them? Nobody's panscient, but the people that make these bets try to be. They stake their wealth on their correct guessing. I'd say that gives them the right incentives. It's also quite likely that bets are both ways (one person thinks x, another thinks y), limited in their ability to lose money (stop loss present), etc, etc. Simply counting them as debt is /wrong/.
used to amplify market swings - make or lose more with less motion, therefore the oversizedness is not surprising. It makes markets more accurate, liquid and reliable (except f-ups get amplified too sometimes).
... that's the point ... when the gambles go the wrong way, for too many people, then sometimes very large entities go belly up, as the above article gives examples of.
The more competitive you need to be, the riskier your bets need to be. You can abide with little risk, or fly high with intense gambles. Try not to burn your wings.
When this reaches a tipping point, there is systemic collapse as we have seen historically. Then those large entities ("too big to fail") can be "bailed out" by the tax payer, or "bailed in" (the newest legislation here in Australia, and possibly in US too) by simply grabbing some portion (up to 100%) of all depositor's deposits.
This is not the right thing to do. If you remove risk, the system will not be balanced. You will create a system that is overly risk-seeking. If you remove the penalty for taking huge huge gambles, why not stake it? Reduce the penalty for failed bets and you (directly) increase the amount of failed bets. Having this advantage only apply to large corps is an even greater disturbance in the market. Why in gods name would you give big companies incentive to fail? Larger risks, larger profits. Countries as a whole are running on their economic hindlegs - running because they can no longer seem to walk.
If the big entity insurance (bail in or bail out) cannot compensate adequately for the "debts", then the systemic collapse is a depression/ full reset, rather than just a recession.
Recession is when our administrative hacks are realigned with reality. Sometimes causing so much systemic shock that it affects productivity, which is real rather than just administrative. If we all put our faith in a system that did not work, then we deserve the consequences and should strife for greater resilience. Now we've just doubled down on our faith. Very all or nothing.
Whether one names derivatives as debt or not is immateriel - they amplify shit when shit happens.
Unless we give the general public a reason to be critical of financial instruments they will not be critical of financial instruments. If there's no care for something it goes wrong. We're moving towards "communism without compassion" - a world where you're responsible for yourself and your financial situation, but government makes it impossible for the sake of national interests*. An evil system without evil actors. If we're going to plan our economy together, collaboratively, then why do we need to be so sneaky about it? It'd all be fun and games if it weren't my taxes that're being used against my best interests. Don't think there's much helping it, except paying the least taxes possible. (And who pays more tax than he needs to, anyway?) * eg: we have national insurance for salaries, so they may be paid despite bankruptcy. Employees do not suffer even though their labor was bad for society (as determined by the markets). At least, we'd know if the markets weren't already disturbed beyond realism. This leads to companies being less risk adverse than they should be, which leads to a disturbed market in which a legitimate, fair, balanced, honest company cannot operate profitably. Everyone suffers. P.S.: there's plenty of legitimate reasons for how things are, I'm not saying "it's done all wrong" - it's not. By most it's a best effort. This relates to "evil system without evil actors", which I think is often the best way to understand a systemic problem. (it also somewhat limits paranoia)
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:52:37 +0200 Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
An evil system without evil actors.
Priceless.
P.S.: there's plenty of legitimate reasons for how things are, I'm not saying "it's done all wrong" - it's not.
So out of curiosity, what kind of brainwashing is needed to put a thinking person in such as a sorry state as yours? Or perhaps you never were a thinking person to begin with?
By most it's a best effort. This relates to "evil system without evil actors", which I think is often the best way to understand a systemic problem. (it also somewhat limits paranoia)
Sure, buddy, sure.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
If we're going to plan our economy together, collaboratively, then why do we need to be so sneaky about it?
This is interesting in that how often do you see mutual debt cancellation? Where N number of countries / entities get together, disclose evaluate their mutual debt and cancel it such that they rebase in one net direction. I owe you 10, you owe me 5, therefore I owe you 5 and you owe me zero. There are sneaky games behind refusing to even create a table to talk about mutual cancel, in games and refusal to share real data is where instability arises. Everybody is fucking everybody on whether house of cards is made of brick or cardboard. Not good. Suspect most the entities that can't balance their budget or books and haven't done so publicly in long time.
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 01:31:26PM +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/08-10-2015/132278-us_treasury_swap...
"There are $630 trillion in outstanding derivatives globally according to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland. That is, about $630 trillion in bets placed on about $100 trillion in stocks and bonds."
Interesting (but doesn't seem citable reference to me).
How the financial market is still working?
And how such bets survived so far?
Counting derivatives as debt is definitely 100% misguided. They're also
Maybe "Counting derivatives as debt" is indeed not correct. But gambling with something you don't have is serious potential debt problem. Especially, as you note, if the shit is amplified (which is likely in a ponzi scheme like this). Somewhat related (I don't claim it is the same): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barings_Bank&oldid=684442660 --- The bank collapsed in 1995 after suffering losses of £827 million ($1.3 billion) resulting from poor speculative investments, primarily in futures contracts, conducted by an employee named Nick Leeson working at its office in Singapore. ---
China is pulling away from buying the debt of the US and hence pulling away from the dollar as its backed exchange rate ... meaning when a country holds in its banks enough US currency so that it can exchange the currency easily it is backing its money w the US dollar BECAUSE it cant then go to the US and say ok give me chinese yen ... it just has to hold the dollar in its system and therefor ownes the debt Presently the chinese see the futility of the system and are shifting i cant remember into what exactly ... will dig that up when i get a minute but they dont want to be basing econ on debt papers anymore The ever fucker nixon ... with dick cheney in his cabinet took the dollar off the gold standard and kind of fucked the world ... didnt warn anyone or nothin just did it In india the government just ask the people to loan their banks personal items of gold ... people buy it here as a personal investment like real estate such a contrary notion than the US On Oct 14, 2015 3:30 PM, "Georgi Guninski" <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 01:31:26PM +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/08-10-2015/132278-us_treasury_swap...
"There are $630 trillion in outstanding derivatives globally
according
to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland. That is, about $630 trillion in bets placed on about $100 trillion in stocks and bonds."
Interesting (but doesn't seem citable reference to me).
How the financial market is still working?
And how such bets survived so far?
Counting derivatives as debt is definitely 100% misguided. They're also
Maybe "Counting derivatives as debt" is indeed not correct.
But gambling with something you don't have is serious potential debt problem.
Especially, as you note, if the shit is amplified (which is likely in a ponzi scheme like this).
Somewhat related (I don't claim it is the same):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barings_Bank&oldid=684442660 --- The bank collapsed in 1995 after suffering losses of £827 million ($1.3 billion) resulting from poor speculative investments, primarily in futures contracts, conducted by an employee named Nick Leeson working at its office in Singapore. ---
http://www.wsj.com/articles/once-the-biggest-buyer-china-starts-dumping-u-s-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
China is pulling away from buying the debt of the US and hence pulling away from the dollar as its backed exchange rate ... meaning when a country holds in its banks enough US currency so that it can exchange the currency easily it is backing its money w the US dollar BECAUSE it cant then go to the US and say ok give me chinese yen ... it just has to hold the dollar in its system and therefor ownes the debt Presently the chinese see the futility of the system and are shifting i cant remember into what exactly ... will dig that up when i get a minute but they dont want to be basing econ on debt papers anymore
The ever fucker nixon ... with dick cheney in his cabinet took the dollar off the gold standard and kind of fucked the world ... didnt warn anyone or nothin just did it
In india the government just ask the people to loan their banks personal items of gold ... people buy it here as a personal investment like real estate such a contrary notion than the US On Oct 14, 2015 3:30 PM, "Georgi Guninski" <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 01:31:26PM +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/08-10-2015/132278-us_treasury_swap...
"There are $630 trillion in outstanding derivatives globally
according
to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland. That is, about $630 trillion in bets placed on about $100 trillion in stocks and bonds."
Interesting (but doesn't seem citable reference to me).
How the financial market is still working?
And how such bets survived so far?
Counting derivatives as debt is definitely 100% misguided. They're also
Maybe "Counting derivatives as debt" is indeed not correct.
But gambling with something you don't have is serious potential debt problem.
Especially, as you note, if the shit is amplified (which is likely in a ponzi scheme like this).
Somewhat related (I don't claim it is the same):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barings_Bank&oldid=684442660 --- The bank collapsed in 1995 after suffering losses of £827 million ($1.3 billion) resulting from poor speculative investments, primarily in futures contracts, conducted by an employee named Nick Leeson working at its office in Singapore. ---
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-exchange_reserves http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040115/reasons-why-china-buys... On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/once-the-biggest-buyer-china-starts-dumping-u-s-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
China is pulling away from buying the debt of the US and hence pulling away from the dollar as its backed exchange rate ... meaning when a country holds in its banks enough US currency so that it can exchange the currency easily it is backing its money w the US dollar BECAUSE it cant then go to the US and say ok give me chinese yen ... it just has to hold the dollar in its system and therefor ownes the debt Presently the chinese see the futility of the system and are shifting i cant remember into what exactly ... will dig that up when i get a minute but they dont want to be basing econ on debt papers anymore
The ever fucker nixon ... with dick cheney in his cabinet took the dollar off the gold standard and kind of fucked the world ... didnt warn anyone or nothin just did it
In india the government just ask the people to loan their banks personal items of gold ... people buy it here as a personal investment like real estate such a contrary notion than the US On Oct 14, 2015 3:30 PM, "Georgi Guninski" <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 01:31:26PM +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/08-10-2015/132278-us_treasury_swap...
"There are $630 trillion in outstanding derivatives globally
according
to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland. That is, about $630 trillion in bets placed on about $100 trillion in stocks and bonds."
Interesting (but doesn't seem citable reference to me).
How the financial market is still working?
And how such bets survived so far?
Counting derivatives as debt is definitely 100% misguided. They're also
Maybe "Counting derivatives as debt" is indeed not correct.
But gambling with something you don't have is serious potential debt problem.
Especially, as you note, if the shit is amplified (which is likely in a ponzi scheme like this).
Somewhat related (I don't claim it is the same):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barings_Bank&oldid=684442660 --- The bank collapsed in 1995 after suffering losses of £827 million ($1.3 billion) resulting from poor speculative investments, primarily in futures contracts, conducted by an employee named Nick Leeson working at its office in Singapore. ---
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>
7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187
Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:28:48 +0300 Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040115/reasons-why-china-buys...
that article is 100% americunt fascist bullshit. "The Bottom Line : this type of economic arrangement is actually a win-win for both nations. " translation : the arrangement benefits both GOVERNMENTS and screws the serfs.
Yes reading econ is a super horror ... i have to go back and read naomi klein to get equalibrium ... and think about shit that is happening on the ground despite the parasitic cannibal mafia that pretends to be government Towns even have their own currencies so it could be even more facsistic than it is currently The US has been buidling the present global econ structure for a long long time and unfortunately when i have tried to talk people out of the system ... like in the middle east ... out of trying to assymilate to the current rating system etc they just are baffled i ask them to make their own system ... they dont think on these terms because the US has indocrinated everyone with hegemony for their own benefit its a horror and sick people could have many more criteria for rating etc change the system... especially the rating system it is complete mafia On Oct 14, 2015 9:48 PM, "Juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:28:48 +0300 Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040115/reasons-why-china-buys...
that article is 100% americunt fascist bullshit.
"The Bottom Line : this type of economic arrangement is actually a win-win for both nations. "
translation : the arrangement benefits both GOVERNMENTS and screws the serfs.
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:55:56 +0300 Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes reading econ is a super horror ... i have to go back and read naomi klein to get equalibrium ...
For completness sake, I should add that the concept of 'balance of trade' is mercantilistic/corporatist propaganda. It only makes sense from the point of view of governments and companies that interfere with trade and currency markets. In a real free market individuals would trade in a 'peer to peer' fashion and their 'nationality' would be irrelevant. The reasons why the chinese government plays along with the US government are basically two : 1) self-interest 2) nukes pointed at them.
and think about shit that is happening on the ground despite the parasitic cannibal mafia that pretends to be government
Towns even have their own currencies so it could be even more facsistic than it is currently
The US has been buidling the present global econ structure for a long long time
Yes. And western colonialism is even older. Dutch. French. English, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. and unfortunately when i have tried to talk people out of
the system ... like in the middle east ... out of trying to assymilate to the current rating system etc they just are baffled i ask them to make their own system ... they dont think on these terms because the US has indocrinated everyone with hegemony for their own benefit its a horror and sick people could have many more criteria for rating etc change the system... especially the rating system it is complete mafia
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
Presently the chinese see the futility of the system and are shifting i cant remember into what exactly
Bitcoin. When all your base are based on fiat, you must shift to something real and not readily printable. Gold / silver / commodities are decent but have physical and time transacting issues (whcih can be good too). https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/search?q=china&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all This is why when the post wwii "leader" of the free world shifted from real to fiat it's a big and not always so good deal. Now that people have decades of settling time graphs to look at, maybe they being to wonder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=M1 https://www.google.com/search?q=money+supply On and on...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:38:39 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
Presently the chinese see the futility of the system and are shifting i cant remember into what exactly
Bitcoin.
And your source is?
On 10/20/2015 04:29 PM, Juan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:38:39 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
Presently the chinese see the futility of the system and are shifting i cant remember into what exactly
Bitcoin.
And your source is?
2011-12-28: https://web.archive.org/web/20111228130809/http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/v... 2012-12-26: https://web.archive.org/web/20121226054925/http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/v... 2013-07-09: https://web.archive.org/web/20130709013421/http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/v... 2013-09-09: https://web.archive.org/web/20130909224220/http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/v... 2013-10-14: https://web.archive.org/web/20131014214310/http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/v... 2013-11-10: https://web.archive.org/web/20131110031355/http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/v... 2013-12-04: https://web.archive.org/web/20131204084008/http://www.bitcoincharts.com/char... 2014-12-23: https://web.archive.org/web/20141223041208/http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/v... 2015-10-20: https://www.bitcoincharts.com/charts/volumepie/
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:32:46 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 10/20/2015 04:29 PM, Juan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:38:39 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
Presently the chinese see the futility of the system and are shifting i cant remember into what exactly
Bitcoin.
And your source is?
2015-10-20: https://www.bitcoincharts.com/charts/volumepie/
Thanks. I wasn't aware that ~70% of btc trades are denominated in chinese fiat. Assuming the data is correct (which seems to be debated) Anyway, the original discussion was about the US and chinese governments manipulating their own monopoly tickets. The chinese government isn't moving away from fiat although there seems to be rumours of them linking the yuan to gold somehow. As to common people in china, maybe they are buying more bitcoins (and gold?), but the amount of fiat that's been turned into btc isn't exactly big, I would guess. So, saying that the chinese are shifting into bitcoin seems overly optimistic.
On 10/20/2015 09:48 PM, Juan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:32:46 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 10/20/2015 04:29 PM, Juan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:38:39 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
Presently the chinese see the futility of the system and are shifting i cant remember into what exactly
Bitcoin.
And your source is?
2015-10-20: https://www.bitcoincharts.com/charts/volumepie/
Thanks. I wasn't aware that ~70% of btc trades are denominated in chinese fiat. Assuming the data is correct (which seems to be debated)
De nada :) As I recall, it's also true for IPs, but I didn't find a source. One could sumif the blockchain data by IP, and then get country from MaxMind etc. There aren't too many Tor or VPN exits in China.
Anyway, the original discussion was about the US and chinese governments manipulating their own monopoly tickets.
Right. I was taking "the chinese" more as the Chinese people. Or whoever's buying Bitcoin, anyway. But regarding the thread overall, I do believe that the Chinese government is divesting US bonds. They don't want to fuck up the US economy by doing that quickly. But they also don't want their investments to be devalued as the US prints money, ever faster and faster.
The chinese government isn't moving away from fiat although there seems to be rumours of them linking the yuan to gold somehow.
Long term, as I understand it, they plan for yuan to replace dollar as global fiat. They do own lots of gold, but I don't recall anything about going gold standard. If you have cites, that would be cool.
As to common people in china, maybe they are buying more bitcoins (and gold?), but the amount of fiat that's been turned into btc isn't exactly big, I would guess. So, saying that the chinese are shifting into bitcoin seems overly optimistic.
It's my impression that Chinese people are generally very into saving. But judging by the stock craziness, they aren't very sane about what they invest in. Gold has always been popular. Bitcoins were a fad for a while, but that's cooled off since the Mt Gox bubble collapsed in early 2014. The current ~70% share maybe just reflects population.
On 10/21/15, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
The chinese government isn't moving away from fiat although there seems to be rumours of them linking the yuan to gold somehow.
"September 10th, 2015: China’s Shanghai Gold Exchange announces that physical gold bullion will be allowed to be used as collateral on future’s contracts, beginning September 29th, 2015. “This development is an important one for the gold market and is bullish for gold. It shows, once again, that gold is slowly but surely becoming a cash equivalent and as money again. Gold’s re-monetisation in the international financial and monetary system continues.” " from here: http://themindunleashed.org/2015/10/part-3-20-more-signs-that-the-global-eli... I may have posted the following a while back, not sure: Russia Reserve Bank buys the majority (all?) of internal/Russia mined gold, most/all of internal consumer gold is imported; the internal production is roughly 20 tonnes a month, and I think Russia's reserves are around 1300 tonnes at this point. This is just the publicly official amount, real amounts may be different. China is stockpiling gold similarly rapidly. It certainly goes hand in hand with their evident intention to jump ship off the petro dollar, with BRICS, AIIB, SCO, EEU etc. And with the US govt now 6 months bankrupt, without a further extension of emergency funding measures and without an increase in the debt ceiling we will see the full reset to some new "US reserve note/fiat" on or shortly after October 30 (when the USGov next assesses their emergency funding/ debt ceiling situation). Frankly, now that there is so much selling of USGov securities: Also: (Feb 20 2014) http://www.dailywealth.com/2669/the-chinese-are-selling-us-debt-and-buying-g... Russia Shorts the Dollar, Bets on Gold http://russia-insider.com/en/politics_business/2014/11/17/11-36-00pm/putin_b... "Sanctions have stalled Russia gold exports enabling the central bank to add to its reserves on the cheap" China and Russia are Finally Dumping US Treasuries http://russia-insider.com/en/2014/12/16/1938 Russia Sells More US Bonds, Buys More Gold. De-Dollarization Marches On http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/01/19/2552 Russia Dumps a Fifth of Its US Treasuries, China Reduces Holdings to a Two-Year Low http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/2015/02/20/3709 The PetroYuan Is Born! Gazprom Now Settling All Crude to China in Renminbi (11 Jun 2015) http://russia-insider.com/en/petroyuan-born-gazprom-now-settling-all-crude-s... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-27/china-said-to-sell-treasur... (China selling down USD reserves at $40billion per month, ongoing, with the odd larger spike) "China dumping Treasurys? Here's what you must know" http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/28/china-dumping-treasurys-heres-what-you-must-k... And a very recent commentary: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/what-china-selling-us-treasurys-really-means-... which interestingly concludes interestingly "In other words, the world is not choking on U.S. debt, instead, there is a relative shortage of it." We'll see in time. I have no doubt they (USG/Federal Reserve Bank) can QE (print money) their way for another round or three, the only question is what is in their (maximal) interest - reset now, or QE again.
As to common people in china, maybe they are buying more bitcoins (and gold?), but the amount of fiat that's been turned into btc isn't exactly big, I would guess. So, saying that the chinese are shifting into bitcoin seems overly optimistic.
"Diversification" in the face of a soon to collapse world reserve currency, USD, makes sense though. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-09/another-petro-state-throws-towel-la... Z
Okay, so, cool your hats, Chinese exchanges lie about volume. Others may too, but it's less clear. The Chinese exchanges also charge no commission on trades - inflating the amounts. (There may/may not also be other money schemes) China is growing, and therefore should accumulate any sort of wealth. I have no quality info on it accumulating strangely.
A sensationalist sounding piece about Deutsche Bank perhaps about to fail, with numerical comparison to Enron and more: http://www.silverdoctors.com/here-we-go-fund-manager-warns-something-just-bl... "Glencore was originally said to have $30 billion of debt. However, that number did not include the $50 billion in bank credit lines outstanding plus an undetermined amount of unsecured trade finance deals. The total exposure to Glencore debt by banks and investors is now estimated to be as high as $100 billion – LINK. To put this in perspective, Enron had $13 billion in debt at the time of its collapse. Moody’s continued to assign a triple-A debt rating to Enron until shortly before it filed for bankruptcy. I mention this to illustrate the unreliability of “expert” hear-say analysis." (with graph) ...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:06:40 +0000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On 10/21/15, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
The chinese government isn't moving away from fiat although there seems to be rumours of them linking the yuan to gold somehow.
"September 10th, 2015: China’s Shanghai Gold Exchange announces that physical gold bullion will be allowed to be used as collateral on future’s contracts, beginning September 29th, 2015. “This development is an important one for the gold market and is bullish for gold. It shows, once again, that gold is slowly but surely becoming a cash equivalent and as money again. Gold’s re-monetisation in the international financial and monetary system continues.”
That's an interesting piece of news. Regardless, I don't think any government is going to rock the boat too much or promote a system that restricts their own ability to inflate (i.e. to steal).
We'll see in time. I have no doubt they (USG/Federal Reserve Bank) can QE (print money) their way for another round or three, the only question is what is in their (maximal) interest - reset now, or QE again.
Yep. The dollar economy is big and it's impossible to make any definitive forecast about its collapse.
As to common people in china, maybe they are buying more bitcoins (and gold?), but the amount of fiat that's been turned into btc isn't exactly big, I would guess. So, saying that the chinese are shifting into bitcoin seems overly optimistic.
"Diversification" in the face of a soon to collapse world reserve currency, USD, makes sense though.
Yes.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-09/another-petro-state-throws-towel-la...
Z
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 07:32:46PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
2015-10-20: https://www.bitcoincharts.com/charts/volumepie/
I have very vague idea how bitcoin works. Isn't dishonest actor with enough resources danger to the integrity of bitcoins? According to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nisdy/were_glenn_greenwald_and_janin... --- Nope. The way bitcoin is run requires 51% of "agreement" before you can break the system. It would cost well into the hundreds of millions of dollars to get that now, so the system is pretty safe. ... Minor correction, apparently it would be about $500 million to execute a 51% attack - which is pretty huge. --- The above was written two years ago, so the number is likely larger now. Later was claimed that such 51% attack will be rolled back. How is stuff rolled back in decentralized system of which >=51% is dishonest?
On 10/21/2015 12:30 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 07:32:46PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
2015-10-20: https://www.bitcoincharts.com/charts/volumepie/
I have very vague idea how bitcoin works.
Isn't dishonest actor with enough resources danger to the integrity of bitcoins?
Yes. But this is about block mining, not Bitcoin ownership.
According to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nisdy/were_glenn_greenwald_and_janin...
--- Nope. The way bitcoin is run requires 51% of "agreement" before you can break the system. It would cost well into the hundreds of millions of dollars to get that now, so the system is pretty safe. ... Minor correction, apparently it would be about $500 million to execute a 51% attack - which is pretty huge. ---
The above was written two years ago, so the number is likely larger now.
Later was claimed that such 51% attack will be rolled back.
How is stuff rolled back in decentralized system of which >=51% is dishonest?
The system would fork. There would be chaos. Because payments would be unmade. People would need to sort it out.
As I read the usa credit rating according to S&P, Moody's, Fitch it is excellent: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/rating United States AA+ STABLE Aaa STABLE AAA STABLE
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:22:36 +0300 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
As I read the usa credit rating according to S&P, Moody's, Fitch it is excellent: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/rating United States AA+ STABLE Aaa STABLE AAA STABLE
Do you think the banking mafia, which is nothing but an arm of the state, is going to 'downgrade' itself? I'm not sure if I already linked this. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=0 Oh yes. The credit rating of all those scumbags is aaaa++++doubleplusgood because....they can print all the money they 'need'. Now, obviously, such a game can't last forever, but, you are not going to arrive to any solid forecast by browsing the interwebz.
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 04:54:59AM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:22:36 +0300 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
As I read the usa credit rating according to S&P, Moody's, Fitch it is excellent: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/rating United States AA+ STABLE Aaa STABLE AAA STABLE
Do you think the banking mafia, which is nothing but an arm of the state, is going to 'downgrade' itself?
IIRC these titans of economics/finance predictions failed to predict any of the usa crisis after 1990 and someone like them even got „punished“ by a laughable fine.
participants (10)
-
Cari Machet -
dan＠geer.org -
Georgi Guninski -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Juan -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
Mirimir -
rysiek -
Zenaan Harkness