G7 was about Ukraine AND Greece.
Greece MUST stay, whatever it takes.
That is what Tsipras knows and Merkel too.
Why?
First, and this is Obama´s main concern, for the big Hedge funds and billionaires of Wall street and second, that is Merkel´s main concern, the debt must TOTALLY flip from the Banks into the taxpayers´shoulders.
5% pennies on the dollar will finish for the Greek people, the rest will buy the debt from the IMF and big banks.
Where does the money come from?
Of course from "Europe" that means from the ESM which is FROM the taxpayers wallet.
Germany can "spend" up to 190 billions, which is the limit from the Supreme Court and you can bet Merkel will spend it and if necessary even more.
They ALWAYS find the way.
The German people will go into pension at 69, so that the Greek can go at 50.
The minimum wage in Germany will stay at 470 euros so that the Greek can go at 780.
Do not misunderstand me.
I perfectly know the situation of the Greek people, but I also know that a week economy cannot survive if 60% or more are employed in "services" which are the civil jobs that in reality do not make "profit".
It can work for an empire that lives on the job of the colonies, but not for Greece.
This is the simple reason Greece is Broke and won´t get better in a near future.
The only reason they will let it survive is the "transfer" of debt.
Once it will be completed bye, bye, Greece.
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
Saturday, June 06, 2015
The dirty game behind the Greek debt
Once again.
They did it, they postponed.But why? How?
There is a very, very simple explanation.
THIS IS MY THOUGHT. I am NOT a financial guy, I do not invest in financial products, nevertheless I am not too stupid to not understand what is behind ALL.
Why the IMF postponed the payment?
Don´t they understand that Greece is gone, that it will never pay back?
THEY DO, SINCE LONG.
But in the financial world, at least the one of today, it doesn´t matter what IS, it matters what LOOKS.
In my opinion they WILL find an agreement at the last minute, and I will explain why and how.
It is a huge investment, a huge profit, for the BIG investors, the ones behind the scenes.
Whoever has Greek bonds, today, whoever doesn´t really understand, IS WILLING to sell.
Better today at 40 cents on the dollar than tomorrow at 0.
Let´s accept the loss and forget.
But the one who BUYS knows that his investment will prove a very lucrative one.
Especially with bonds that pay 15, 20% (compared to the bunds at negative interest). THEY WILL CERTAINLY propose Greece a hair cut, let´s say 20% or even 30%.
And if Greece accepts?(which they will)
Suppose I bought bonds at 40% of their value. I will see their final value at minimum 70% or 80%, calculate a net profit of 30 or 40%.
Without considering that THEIR value, having an interest rate minimum double of the ones that Greece will sell LATER (thanks to Draghi who will, by buying them lower enormously the interest rate) will increase accordingly .
WHO DO YOU THINK BOUGHT THEM NOW?
THE SAME THAT WILL MAKE the agreement at the end of the month.
Thanks to the IMF, DRAGHI, EU.
AND THE CHEATING goes on....
They did it, they postponed.But why? How?
There is a very, very simple explanation.
THIS IS MY THOUGHT. I am NOT a financial guy, I do not invest in financial products, nevertheless I am not too stupid to not understand what is behind ALL.
Why the IMF postponed the payment?
Don´t they understand that Greece is gone, that it will never pay back?
THEY DO, SINCE LONG.
But in the financial world, at least the one of today, it doesn´t matter what IS, it matters what LOOKS.
In my opinion they WILL find an agreement at the last minute, and I will explain why and how.
It is a huge investment, a huge profit, for the BIG investors, the ones behind the scenes.
Whoever has Greek bonds, today, whoever doesn´t really understand, IS WILLING to sell.
Better today at 40 cents on the dollar than tomorrow at 0.
Let´s accept the loss and forget.
But the one who BUYS knows that his investment will prove a very lucrative one.
Especially with bonds that pay 15, 20% (compared to the bunds at negative interest). THEY WILL CERTAINLY propose Greece a hair cut, let´s say 20% or even 30%.
And if Greece accepts?(which they will)
Suppose I bought bonds at 40% of their value. I will see their final value at minimum 70% or 80%, calculate a net profit of 30 or 40%.
Without considering that THEIR value, having an interest rate minimum double of the ones that Greece will sell LATER (thanks to Draghi who will, by buying them lower enormously the interest rate) will increase accordingly .
WHO DO YOU THINK BOUGHT THEM NOW?
THE SAME THAT WILL MAKE the agreement at the end of the month.
Thanks to the IMF, DRAGHI, EU.
AND THE CHEATING goes on....
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Read this morning...
(Bloomberg) -- Vladimir Putin is playing for keeps in Ukraine and he might bankrupt the country to get what he wants.
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?"
"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin; "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me."
"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?"
"That cannot be," said the Lamb; "I am only six months old."
"I don't care," snarled the Wolf; "if it was not you it was your father;" and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out:
Moral of Aesops Fable: "Any excuse will serve a tyrant."
Putin bankrupting Ukraine? Wasn´t it already bankroupted?
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?"
"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin; "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me."
"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?"
"That cannot be," said the Lamb; "I am only six months old."
"I don't care," snarled the Wolf; "if it was not you it was your father;" and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out:
Moral of Aesops Fable: "Any excuse will serve a tyrant."
Putin bankrupting Ukraine? Wasn´t it already bankroupted?
Friday, November 28, 2014
Why the Swiss should vote YES
This vote IS NOT about gold.
This vote is about Switzerland being a sovereign nation and the franc being an independent currency.
The Swiss haven’t realized that they are, at every effect, using the euro as currency and NOT an independent franc.
When a currency is "pegged" to another one follows it.
If the euro goes up, so does the franc, if the euro collapses, the Swiss franc won’t have any other choice than follow.
Because BOTH are fiat currency like the Dollar and when one goes down, the others fall too.
Backing the Swiss with gold would mean making it an independent currency, when the others implode, it won’t.
It means the savers will always have their money in the bank and the companies will be sure to get what they deserve.
It means that the state and the citizens will always have the means to go on and so fort.. But I am very pessimist.
Either THEY will be successful and the vote will be NO or the YES will become NO.
It doesn´t matter who votes, it matters WHO counts the votes...
Strong powers ALWAYS win
This vote is about Switzerland being a sovereign nation and the franc being an independent currency.
The Swiss haven’t realized that they are, at every effect, using the euro as currency and NOT an independent franc.
When a currency is "pegged" to another one follows it.
If the euro goes up, so does the franc, if the euro collapses, the Swiss franc won’t have any other choice than follow.
Because BOTH are fiat currency like the Dollar and when one goes down, the others fall too.
Backing the Swiss with gold would mean making it an independent currency, when the others implode, it won’t.
It means the savers will always have their money in the bank and the companies will be sure to get what they deserve.
It means that the state and the citizens will always have the means to go on and so fort.. But I am very pessimist.
Either THEY will be successful and the vote will be NO or the YES will become NO.
It doesn´t matter who votes, it matters WHO counts the votes...
Strong powers ALWAYS win
Thursday, November 27, 2014
A complete take over
Last Thursday, the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Carl Levin, released an alarming 396-page report that details how Wall Street’s too-big-to-fail banks have quietly, and often stealthily through shell companies, gained ownership of a stunning amount of the nation’s critical industrial commodities like oil, aluminum, copper, natural gas, and even uranium. The report said the scale of these bank holdings “appears to be unprecedented in U.S. history.”
Adding to the hubris of the situation, the Wall Street banks’ own regulator, the Federal Reserve, gave its blessing to this unprecedented and dangerous encroachment by banking interests into industrial commodity ownership and has effectively looked the other way as the banks moved into industrial commerce activities like owning pipelines and power plants.
For more than a century, Federal law has encouraged the separation of banking and commerce. The role of banks has been seen as providing prudent corporate lending to facilitate the growth of commerce, not to compete with it through unfair advantage by having access to cheap capital from the Federal Reserve’s lending programs. Additionally, the mega banks are holding trillions of dollars in FDIC insured deposits; if they experienced a catastrophic commercial accident through a ruptured pipeline, tanker oil spill, or power plant explosion, it could once again put the taxpayer on the hook for a bailout.
The Levin report addresses the element of catastrophic risk, noting:
“While the likelihood of an actual catastrophe remained remote, those activities carried risks that banks normally avoided altogether. Goldman, for example, bought a uranium business that carried the risk of a nuclear incident, as well as open pit coal mines that carried potential risks of methane explosions, mining mishaps, and air and water pollution…Morgan Stanley owned and invested in extensive oil storage and transport facilities and a natural gas pipeline company which, together, carried risks of fire, pipeline ruptures, natural gas explosions, and oil spills. JPMorgan bought dozens of power plants whose risks included fire, explosions, and air and water pollution. Throughout most of their history, U.S. banks have not incurred those types of catastrophic event risks.”
One would think that the mega banks’ regulator, the Federal Reserve, would be the first line of defense against this type of dangerous sprawl by banks. According to the Levin Subcommittee report, the Federal Reserve was actually the facilitator of the sprawl by the banks.
The report notes:
“Without the complementary orders and letters issued by the Federal Reserve, many of those physical commodity activities would not otherwise have been permissible ‘financial’ activities under federal banking law. By issuing those complementary orders, the Federal Reserve directly facilitated the expansion of financial holding companies into new physical commodity activities.”
After the Wall Street financial collapse of 2008, which galvanized the public and Congress to the trillions in taxpayer dollars that was required to shore up the financial system from out of control global casinos masquerading as banks, the Federal Reserve quietly commissioned a study to determine just how sprawling the commodity holdings and operations of the mega banks had become. The study was conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Commodities Team. It appears that Senator Levin’s Subcommittee has only been allowed to see a “2012 Summary Report” of that study and the public is not being allowed to see even that. The Levin report makes multiple references to the document, each time noting that it is “sealed.”
Dewayne-Net
Adding to the hubris of the situation, the Wall Street banks’ own regulator, the Federal Reserve, gave its blessing to this unprecedented and dangerous encroachment by banking interests into industrial commodity ownership and has effectively looked the other way as the banks moved into industrial commerce activities like owning pipelines and power plants.
For more than a century, Federal law has encouraged the separation of banking and commerce. The role of banks has been seen as providing prudent corporate lending to facilitate the growth of commerce, not to compete with it through unfair advantage by having access to cheap capital from the Federal Reserve’s lending programs. Additionally, the mega banks are holding trillions of dollars in FDIC insured deposits; if they experienced a catastrophic commercial accident through a ruptured pipeline, tanker oil spill, or power plant explosion, it could once again put the taxpayer on the hook for a bailout.
The Levin report addresses the element of catastrophic risk, noting:
“While the likelihood of an actual catastrophe remained remote, those activities carried risks that banks normally avoided altogether. Goldman, for example, bought a uranium business that carried the risk of a nuclear incident, as well as open pit coal mines that carried potential risks of methane explosions, mining mishaps, and air and water pollution…Morgan Stanley owned and invested in extensive oil storage and transport facilities and a natural gas pipeline company which, together, carried risks of fire, pipeline ruptures, natural gas explosions, and oil spills. JPMorgan bought dozens of power plants whose risks included fire, explosions, and air and water pollution. Throughout most of their history, U.S. banks have not incurred those types of catastrophic event risks.”
One would think that the mega banks’ regulator, the Federal Reserve, would be the first line of defense against this type of dangerous sprawl by banks. According to the Levin Subcommittee report, the Federal Reserve was actually the facilitator of the sprawl by the banks.
The report notes:
“Without the complementary orders and letters issued by the Federal Reserve, many of those physical commodity activities would not otherwise have been permissible ‘financial’ activities under federal banking law. By issuing those complementary orders, the Federal Reserve directly facilitated the expansion of financial holding companies into new physical commodity activities.”
After the Wall Street financial collapse of 2008, which galvanized the public and Congress to the trillions in taxpayer dollars that was required to shore up the financial system from out of control global casinos masquerading as banks, the Federal Reserve quietly commissioned a study to determine just how sprawling the commodity holdings and operations of the mega banks had become. The study was conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Commodities Team. It appears that Senator Levin’s Subcommittee has only been allowed to see a “2012 Summary Report” of that study and the public is not being allowed to see even that. The Levin report makes multiple references to the document, each time noting that it is “sealed.”
Dewayne-Net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stumble It!