TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Fundamental Change

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 24-11-10, 01:42 AM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default List of Problem Banks Grows Despite Solid Net Income

List of Problem Banks Grows Despite Solid Net Income
Published: Tuesday, 23 Nov 2010 | 10:25 AM ET
Text Size
By: Reuters with CNBC.com

News Headlines

The number of banks on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp's confidential "problem" list grew over the summer even while the overall industry posted solid net income.

The FDIC says its list of troubled banks rose to 860 in the July-September quarter from 829 in the previous quarter.

At the same time, the FDIC says banks earned $14.5 billion during the third quarter. That was a decrease from the previous quarter's result of $21.4 billion, but well above the $2 billion banks earned a year earlier.

The FDIC says banks set aside less money to cover future loan losses than at any time since the October-December quarter of 2007, before the financial crisis. Fewer borrowers were behind on payments for credit cards and construction loans.

U.S. bank industry earnings fell by almost $7 billion in the third quarter but were far better than a year ago as the industry continues to recover from the financial crisis.

"The industry continues making progress in recovering from the financial crisis," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said in a statement. "Credit performance has been improving, and we remain cautiously optimistic about the outlook."

The banking industry has been setting aside less money to guard against losses, helping to boost earnings.

The amount of bad loans, those 90 days or more past due, declined for the second consecutive quarter, the agency said in its latest quarterly report. The balances for these loans declined by 2.1 percent, or $8.3 billion, in the third quarter.

Nearly 19 percent of institutions were unprofitable in the third quarter, however, and almost 36 percent had lower quarterly earnings then a year ago. As of last Friday, 149 institutions had failed so far in 2010.

The number of banks on the agency's "problem list" grew from 829 to 860, which is the highest number since March of 1993 when there were 928 institutions on the list.

"As we continue to emerge from this devastating financial crisis, building capital must remain a priority for insured banks so that they can maintain ready access to funding and continue to serve as credit intermediaries even under adverse conditions," Bair said.
Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 27-11-10, 11:42 AM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

Sheila Bair is apparently a pretty switched-on operative and is doing well. The FDIC is very efficient. When it senses that a small bank is failing, it moves in on a Friday afternoon, completes negotiations over the weekend and on Monday morning the bank reopens under new ownership.

The shareholders of the failing bank have usually lost their equity, the executives have often lost their jobs, but depositors and borrowers are largely made whole.

The big problem in recent times has been the money centre banks ("Wall Street"), which are outside the scope of the FDC. It was not enough in Wall Street for shareholders to lose equity. Bond-holders should have taken a far bigger haircut than they did and I think that is part of the US inchoate rage against the bailout.

In the meantime, the FDIC will require additional federal funding as more banks capsize, but it is a smooth process that is a re-run of the savings & loan crisis of the 1980s.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-10, 01:53 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

This should be interesting...

* November 30, 2010, 5:25 PM ET

Fed to Release Details on Lending Programs Wednesday

By Meena Thiruvengadam

Fed to Release Details on Lending Programs Wednesday - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The U.S. Federal Reserve is expected Wednesday to release data on financial institutions and foreign central banks to which it made more than $2 trillion in emergency loans during the financial crisis, according to a U.S. senator who has long been pushing the Fed to be more transparent in its actions.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I., Vt.) plans to hold a conference call with the media Wednesday afternoon to discuss the data.

Sanders pushed for inclusion in financial overhaul legislation, approved by the Congress earlier this year, of a provision that forces the Fed to disclose the name of every company and foreign central bank that received aid from the Fed since late 2007. The Fed also must disclose the amount of assistance each entity received and disclose the terms under which funds were disbursed.

When the Senate adopted Sanders’ amendment to financial overhaul legislation, he said he hoped it would lift a “veil of secrecy” that surrounds the Fed.

The Fed is required to make the disclosure by Wednesday.
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-10, 10:00 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Fed Documents Breadth of Emergency Measures

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/bu...ess&emc=dlbka2

By SEWELL CHAN and JO CRAVEN McGINTY
Published: December 1, 2010

WASHINGTON — As financial markets shuddered and then nearly imploded in 2008, the Federal Reserve opened its vault to the world on a scope much wider and deeper than previously disclosed.

Citigroup, struggling to stay afloat, sought help from the Fed at least 174 times during one remarkable 13-month period. Barclays, the British bank, at one point owed nearly $48 billion to the Fed. Even better-off banks like Goldman Sachs took advantage of Fed loans offered at rock-bottom rates.

The Fed’s efforts to stave off a financial crisis reached far beyond Wall Street, touching manufacturers like General Electric, the Detroit automakers and Harley-Davidson, central banks from Britain to Japan and insurers and pension funds in Sweden and South Korea.

Under orders from Congress, the Fed on Wednesday released details of more than 21,000 transactions under the array of emergency lending programs and other arrangements it conjured up in response to the crisis.

The disclosures, which the Fed had resisted, offer the most detailed portrait of a panicky period in which the Fed lent money to banks, brokers, businesses and investors to keep the financial system functioning.

The documents show that some of the biggest names in American business were either coming to the Fed in need of a bailout, or trying to make money at a time when the Fed was trying to entice investors back into the markets. Among the latter were prominent investors and entrepreneurs like John A. Paulson and Michael S. Dell, and the pension funds of the Philadelphia Teamsters and Omaha’s teachers, who were betting they could profit if the rescue worked.

At its peak at the end of 2008, the Fed had about $1.5 trillion in outstanding credit on its books. The central bank, in essence, pumped liquidity, the lifeblood of credit markets, into the circulatory system of an economy that was experiencing a potentially fatal heart attack.

“I think our actions prevented an even more disastrous outcome,” said Donald L. Kohn, who was the Fed’s vice chairman during the crisis. Without the Fed’s help, he said, “liquidity would have dried up even more than it did, asset prices would have fallen even more than they did, and economic activity and employment would have fallen further and faster then they did.”

But Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, who wrote a provision in the law requiring the disclosures by Dec. 1, reached a different conclusion.

“After years of stonewalling by the Fed, the American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed’s multitrillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America,” he said. “Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations.”

Mr. Sanders said the Fed should have forced banks to restrict executive pay and reduce the financial burdens on mortgage borrowers as a condition of its aid.

The Fed, already reeling from attacks from both the right and the left over its latest effort to spur the economy, a plan to buy $600 billion in Treasury securities, braced itself for another moment in the spotlight.

In a statement accompanying the disclosure, the Fed said it had fully protected taxpayers. “The Federal Reserve followed sound risk-management practices in administering all of these programs, incurred no credit losses on programs that have been wound down, and expects to incur no credit losses on the few remaining programs,” it said.

The 21,000 transactions span the period from December 2007 to last July.

Even as investors began poring over the disclosures, details emerged from the trove of new data.

From December 2007 to October 2008, the Fed opened swap lines with foreign central banks, allowing them to temporarily trade their currencies for dollars to relieve pressures in their financial markets.

The European Central Bank drew the most heavily on these currency arrangements, the records show, but nine other central banks also made use of them: Australia, Denmark, England, Japan, Mexico, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and Switzerland.

At home, from March 2008 to May 2009, the Fed extended a cumulative total of nearly $9 trillion in short-term loans to 18 financial institutions under a credit program.

Previously, the Fed had only revealed that four financial firms had tapped the special lending program, and did not reveal their identities or the loan amounts.

The data appeared to confirm that Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley were under severe strain after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. All three tapped the program on more than 100 occasions.

The American subsidiaries of several foreign banks also benefited substantially from the program. Those institutions included UBS of Switzerland; Mizuho Securities of Japan; and BNP Paribas of France. The impaired credit markets quickly stretched well beyond Wall Street, engulfing money-market mutual funds and commercial paper — short-term borrowings that companies rely on for day-to-day operations like meeting payroll and paying vendors.

In short order, the Fed set up programs to prop up both markets and get credit flowing again. The new data shows that some of the biggest names in the mutual fund industry sold assets to Fed-financed buyers during the credit crisis, including funds sponsored by Fidelity, BlackRock, Merrill, T. Rowe Price and Oppenheimer.

In the first week of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, the Fed bought more than $225 billion in debt. Companies ranging from Ohio’s Fifth Third Bank to the best-known bank franchises of Europe and Asia, like Royal Bank of Scotland and Sumitomo, were the primary occupants of the new lifeboat, along with the finance arms of the nation’s hard-pressed automakers.

But joining them were issuers of commercial paper with ties to Caterpillar, McDonald’s and Verizon.

The data also show that the commercial paper market was impaired well into the latter half of 2009.

Another Fed program, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, brought the Fed into the unprecedented position of supporting small business, auto, student, and credit card loans. Plentiful helpings of low-cost debt encouraged institutions to ramp up lending and lured back private investors.

Among prominent investors in that program were the businessmen H. Wayne Huizenga and Julian Robertson; Kendrick R. Wilson III, a former Goldman executive who had been a top aide to Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary during the crisis; and Christy K. Mack, the wife of John J. Mack, the former chief executive of Morgan Stanley.

Other surprises emerged from the data. Both the American International Group, the insurer bailed out by the government, and Lehman owned big stakes in funds that bought TALF securities. So did Jonathan S. Sobel, who ran the mortgage department at Goldman Sachs.

Big institutional investors, like Pimco, T. Rowe Price and BlackRock, borrowed from the TALF program. So did the California Public Employees Retirement System, the nation’s largest public pension fund, and several insurers and university endowments.


Sewell Chan reported from Washington, and Jo Craven McGinty from New York. Reporting was contributed by Eric Dash, Diana B. Henriques, Griff Palmer, Ben Protess and Tom Torok in New York.


-----------------------------------------------------

I am sure that a few investors actually made money on borrowing cheap and buying some assets at deeply discounted prices. And, while it certainly look smart/obvious now, it did take balls of steel to do so in March 2009...

OTOH, I think that this examplifies why the 'strategy' recommended by Fredfreson's fav economic writers of 'letting the chip fall where they may' is absolutely suicidal. Is it not the Bible that says something about the rain falling on the just and the unjust alike? Well, a credit crunch like we had is the same as God. It doesn't differentiate and all suffers... Here, good companies would have gone bust just as surely as bad ones... and we would remember this crisis not as the Great Recession but as The End of Modern Times...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Last edited by Gilles de Rais; 02-12-10 at 10:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-10, 08:10 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Quote:
Well, a credit crunch like we had is the same as God. It doesn't differentiate and all suffers... Here, good companies would have gone bust just as surely as bad ones... and we would remember this crisis not as the Great Recession but as The End of Modern Times...
I don't see any sign that we couldn't end up there soon anyways. The underlying issues have not been fixed by any of this, only delayed. In the mean time the "good companies" are being strangled just a surely only they have nothing to work with to try and repair themselves. The good assets are still irretrievably mixed with the bad and all balled up in mountains of debt, sovereign and otherwise. Until that gets sorted out, more "good companies" will continue to be bled to death along with the system itself.

The longer this charade continues the worse the resulting mess will be.

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-10, 08:59 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by FredFredson View Post
I don't see any sign that we couldn't end up there soon anyways.
Sure. But I'd rather die fighting than just say "oh well, it's fucked" and give up.

Quote:
The underlying issues have not been fixed by any of this, only delayed. In the mean time the "good companies" are being strangled just a surely only they have nothing to work with to try and repair themselves. The good assets are still irretrievably mixed with the bad and all balled up in mountains of debt, sovereign and otherwise. Until that gets sorted out, more "good companies" will continue to be bled to death along with the system itself.
Huh? Most companies are doing alright, actually. They had limited debt to start with and have often managed to refinance themselves at decent rates. It gets harder as they get smaller but companies are not in a bad shape per se. The ones that are fucked are the consumers, the banks and the gvt, because they took on so much of the bad debt while their revenues went down...

Quote:
The longer this charade continues the worse the resulting mess will be.
1- You can only die once. There is no "deader than dead"...
2- Japan shows that you can survive as a zombie for a very long time. So long indeed that, who knows, we might slowly erase that debt by devoting our cash flows to running it down...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-10, 12:58 AM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Quote:
Huh? Most companies are doing alright, actually. They had limited debt to start with and have often managed to refinance themselves at decent rates.
And they are the ones who would have been left standing had things imploded in 2008.

The problem now is that even these companies are being strangled as the markets they serve slowly die.
As each quarter passes they are having more problems with cash flow and eventually the inflationary rise in commodities they need to continue will crush them. Doesn't matter how good your books are if there is no market for your product you're screwed.

Quote:
2- Japan shows that you can survive as a zombie for a very long time. So long indeed that, who knows, we might slowly erase that debt by devoting our cash flows to running it down...
As long as you have somebody to buy your stuff. When you are the buyer of said stuff it's a different ballgame.

The reason I think it would have been better to have had a big crash earlier is that the system, for all it's faults was more robust at that time. Now it is getting more and more fragile as pieces of it fail. There is not going to be anyone to pick up the pieces if this goes on too long.

It's death by a thousand cuts and even so called healthy companies are struggling, transportation systems are being shutdown or not maintained, ships mothballed, factories closed, infrastructure allowed to fall into disrepair. At some point the system simply stops being able to do anything more than shuffle bits back and forth.

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-10, 07:41 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Wall Street Banks Are Doing Less and Less Good For Society, Says John CassidyPosted Dec 03, 2010 07:30am EST by Jonathan Light in Investing, Recession, Banking
Related: ^DJI, ^GSPC, GS, XLF, ms, skf, skf
Wall Street Banks Are Doing Less and Less Good For Society, Says John Cassidy: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

According to John Cassidy, Wall Street banks are supposed to act “like a power utility… except they provide money rather than power.”

But what happens when the power utility, instead of focusing on how best to manage and distribute power, decides to focus on using customer funds to make a quick buck?

The answer, as Cassidy explains in his recent New Yorker article, is a financial system pushed to the brink of collapse.

As he explains to Aaron, Wall Street - at its best – serves an important and necessary purpose: to raise capital for businesses, which in turn fuels the economy, creates jobs and improves the overall standard of living. Lloyd Blankfein famously called it "God's Work." The problem is, investment banking isn't the focus anymore.

Instead, the banks engage in a socially worthless pursuit of profits, via trading, creating huge amounts of risk for everyone – except the actual players of the game.

As Cassidy writes in the New Yorker, the banks have “turned themselves from businesses whose profits rose and fell with the capital-raising needs of their clients into immense trading houses whose fortunes depend on their ability to exploit day-to-day movements in the markets.”

And the problem is that, even after bringing about an almost-collapse of our entire financial system, and (as you may have heard) requiring billions of taxpayer dollars to survive, not much has changed.

Consider his finding that “in the first 9 months of this year, sales and trading accounted for 36% of Morgan Stanley’s revenues and a much higher proportion of profits.” The example is even more dramatic in the case of Goldman Sachs – the envy of all Wall Street – where, as Cassidy writes, “trading accounted for 63% of its revenue and corporate finance just 13%” between July and September.

In short, bankers “have done very well for themselves,” he says, but “not very much for the rest of the country.”

Cassidy is not anti-Wall Street. He acknowledges the importance of raising capital to fund businesses. But he maintains that there is an inherent problem with a system that gives condition-free public dollars to an entity that does nothing in return and creates very little societal value.

At the very least, he says, our government should have “insisted on harsher terms” in bailing out these firms. If we had taken a bigger stake in Goldman Sachs, for instance, our tax dollars would have seen an acceptable return.

Instead, we continue to privatize the gains and socialize the losses – while Wall Street and its citizens continue to take as much as "We the People" will give.
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-12-10, 05:11 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Sometimes reading the comment trail on articles can turn up interesting gems.
Like this one for example:
Agent3244

Eric Cantona's bank protest would hurt us all | Deborah Hargreaves | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

23 November 2010 3:03PM
A 'run on the banks'.
Eric Cantona is proposing something that is called a run on a bank, or upon the banknig system in general. He is misinformed because he does not reailise the potential dangers in the proposal.


The 'fractional reserve system' and 'systemic risk.'
We tend to think that banks hold 'our money' on deposit when in actually they use the vast majority of the deposits held in accounts to lend out to borrowers. This relates to something called the 'fractional reserve system.' Basically banks realise that in the normal run of things the majority of depositors will keep their money on deposit and only a small proportion of depositors will ever want to withdreaw all their funds at any given time. So banks only keep a fraction back, say 10%, and put the rest, say 90% to work by lending it to borrowers. So when the majority of borrowers queue outside the bank to withdraw funds the bank does not have enough funds to meet their demands. Cast your mind back to investors queing outside branches of Northern Rock in the fall of 2008. Ba\nks do not maintain liquidity ratios to repay every investor at once. In the business this is called 'systemic risk.'

We do need our banks, but, do we need periodic 'structual risk'?
I agree, Deborah, we do need the banks and we do need the capital that is deposited with them. But when the banks loan money they are repaiid with interest. Now, bearing in mind the real nature of money, that it is created from 'two halves of nothing' being really a sytem of crerating debt based credits, and the fact that people with money lend it and get back more than they lend (principle plus interest) then debt must be proliferated elsewhere. This porcess has been likened to a game of musical chairs. In the 'great money-go-round' a minority of fortunate and well placed folks keep taking chairs from the rest of the 'players'. They end up with more chairs than they need while the chirs are pinched from beneath the posteriors of the less fortunate majority. There is an implicit social contract to 'bnorrow' to replace the deficit of chairs. Beneath the 'great-money-go-round is a relentless undercurrent that permits the accumulation and concentration of great wealth by a few, while the rest of us must suffer the consequences of the proliferation of great debt. When the asymmetry becomes too great, super-extended if you like, certain essential flows of the money-go-round stagnate. I think 'structural rsik' is a fitting term for this inevitable and periodic eventuallity.


Like cereal grains, conventional money constitutes humanitys' 'Double Edged Sword'

While many benefits arose from the age of agrarianism many of the developed western worlds' health problems can be attributed to the domestication and harvesting of cereal grains. Cereal grains could be hoarded and traded in ways that more perishable foods could not. They can be processsed too, then subsequently traded for profit. In many ways agrarianism and the possibilities of the newly domesticated seeds of wild grasses, largely indigestible in the raw, consituite the dawn of merchantism and industrial process.

Conventional moneys' biggest probelm for humanity is that it can be 'hoarded' far in excess of need. The second failing is that it is a debt based credit trick, and the third is that because we are increasingly and proportionately more dependent upon conventional money, ffiat money, for the great majority of our exchanges and transactions we unwiitingly each contribute to the great undercurrent of 'capital flow' that contributes to 'structural risk' as any profitable activity contributes to the greater extension of the asymmetry of capital distribution.
We need the banks; the particular monopoly of a particular medium of exchange, 'fiat money', we could be better without.
We need the banks but we could well do without the general and almost universal monopoly that fiat money has over most transactions because through the undercurrent of capital flow that monopolistic system is so irrational, periodically disastrous, and unable to heal itself by agreeable means.

Prof Bernard Lietaer has devoted the last 15 years of his lfe for 'complemenatary currencies'. His thesis and book, The Fture of Money, is incrediblley prophetic, conceptually challenging, but quite compelling. It is a shame it is out of print.
Nonetheless it can be found.


See also Paul Grignons' 'Money as Debt Film on YouTube.
The workings of the world become a lot clearer off an undestanding of 'food' and of 'money'. Sadly few people properly undertsand either. The 'system' is set against us. The science of nutrition has, according to agrowing view, largely been co-opted to the corporate agenda, or 'capital flow'. The same, I increasingly feel, is also true to a portion of the social science of economics and a proportion of economists.
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-12-10, 05:41 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Money as Debt

Money As Debt

The animation is crap but the info is good.

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 6
contracycle, Francois Cellier, FredFredson, Gilles de Rais, PostmodernProphet, roadkill
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0