Coming Financial Crisis Worse Than ’29?

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,657
Location
Pennsylvania
Another day of panic by stock market investors (understandably so), but supposedly the spot price of silver dropped by almost 14% in a single day?!?!?! And gold dropped by almost 4%? Yeah, right. The manipulators are resorting to every trick they know to try and prevent their corrupt system of usury and debt from collapsing.


This is getting more fun to watch by the day.Edited by: Don Wassall
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,346
Location
Minnesota
We are facing a financial crisis, massive bail-out, and massive debt spending almost insuring future hyperinflation, and precious metals plummet???

When will foreign markets suffer enough to dumb the US dollar??? Are their leaders paid off to continue funding our debt?
 

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
This brief articleabout the present financial is quite interesting. Recently Bernanke admitted the '29' crash and depression were caused by the Federal Reserve.Article written by Hal Lindsey of all people. It is an easily read informative piece. Be sure to check out the names of the private owners I have highlighted in red.


Posted: October 03, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

For over a week, Americans have watched a perilous game being played by the economic powers behind Wall Street and the revolted taxpayers behind the U.S. Congress.
<DIV =Kona vCGLV="true">


Frankly, I believe the average American has needed a drama coach more than a financial expert to understand what is really going on.


A little history gives us the best guide to understand what all of this drama is about. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted at a banquet on Nov. 8, 2002, that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression that began Oct. 24, 1929, and continued all through the decade of the 1930s.


The Fed did this by deliberately tightening up and withholding the money supply for lending, which immediately caused a domino effect. Highly leveraged investors, who were in the stock market on borrowed money, were instantly wiped out when their loans were called in. Banks that had loans out at over 10 times the amount of reserves had to close the doors. The depositors panicked and made a run on the banks to withdraw their assets, only to find there was none left. Businesses, farms, homes and savings were lost on a grand scale.


The Federal Reserve could have printed more money. This was suppose to be their job. They could have immediately alleviated the situation by loosening the available money to back the loans and banks. After all, they sold themselves to the U.S. Congress, when they were unconstitutionally created in 1913, with the argument that as a privately owned, for profit, central bank, they would keep such things as the 1929 Depression from happening.


But that would have defeated their strategy. So industries and businesses collapsed. Many banks went bankrupt. Most Wall Street investors were ruined. Stocks became almost worthless. The average American found himself with no money, no job and no home. Families were split up and displaced. Large families had to put up children for adoption or place them in orphan homes.


And guess who made billions of dollars while Americans went into a horrible depression? The powerful international banking families who own the central bank we know as the Federal Reserve System. They bought up, usually through surrogates, failed banks for pennies on the dollar, centralizing and consolidating their control over more of the U.S. banking system. They did the same thing with many of the best industries and assets of the country.


Now I believe we are seeing the 21st century model of the same thing, only with a little different strategy.


The drama began to publicly unfold when the chiefs of the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, went to the president and the U.S. Congress and laid out an "apocalyptic scenario" of utter economic disaster for the country. They presented what they said was the only way to avert a national and international economic meltdown.


Paulson asked for a $700 billion bailout package immediately, with no strings attached. Such "strings" as no oversight, no accountability and no authorization required as to whom and how the money would be spent. And he gave a deadline of less than a week for this "ransom" to be paid, or it would be too late to avert utter disaster. Now I call that "blackmail" on a heretofore-unprecedented scale.


This caused me to look up the connections of this duo that were asking such a colossal thing with a straight face.


Just before Paulson became the secretary of treasury, he was the chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. These are believed be two of the banking families who are part of the original owners of the Federal Reserve. Though just who the private owners of the Federal Reserve are is a closely guarded secret, it has been widely accepted that Goldman, Sachs, along with such names as Rothschild, Warburg Lehman, Kuhn, Loeb and Seif are private owners. For a normal American, there would be an immediate assumption of "conflict of interest," wouldn't you say?


The moment a man accepts the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve, he becomes responsible to carry out the will and interests of the non-elected, mostly foreign owners of the Fed, not the U.S. government. So Benjamin Bernanke is in that role at this moment, and as such, has a conflict of interest in this bailout, too.


So with these two men asking for what in effect is illegal for the U.S. government to do, i.e., to bailout private banking and loan institutions from debts they incurred as a result of reckless and irresponsible loans, should be suspicious in the very extreme.


Wall Street is playing a supporting role in this drama by causing the market to rise or fall based on just how close or not so close the U.S. Congress is to passing the "ransom bailout."


So, they are playing a skillful game of "chicken." I used to play that game with cars as a teenager. You would put up your pink slip with an opponent. Then the two of you would race head-on toward each other. The first one to swerve aside lost. We are in a similar game of "chicken" - only the stakes are much higher. I wonder if the American taxpayer will ever say, "Enough is enough! Throw the bums out."
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Bart, all the names in red sound Germanic but not Christian, I wonder if there is any common thread that connects them and whether they would have some reason to see disaster come to the USA? However I think it would be racist to point it out so let's do like the media and just ignore the whole thing.
smiley7.gif
 

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
jaxvid said:
Bart, all the names in red sound Germanic but not Christian, I wonder if there is any common thread that connects them...


Winston! The Inner Party is displeased with your inquiry. You are hereby ordered to Room 101, for re-education.


"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
 

white is right

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
10,072
This an interesting move concerning bankruptcy and voiding a contract with "Dung" King at the same time....
smiley36.gif
Campbell declares bankruptcy, voids promotional deal with King

By Dan Rafael
ESPN.com
(Archive)

Updated: October 3, 2008, 4:51 PM ET

* Comment
* Email
* Print

When unified lightweight titleholder Nate Campbell's Sept. 13 defense against Joan Guzman was canceled hours before because an overweight Guzman refused to go through with it -- even as a nontitle fight -- neither fighter got paid. No bout, no paychecks.

Without the income he so badly needed, Campbell on Thursday declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Tampa, Fla., adviser and close friend Terry Trekas told ESPN.com.

Married in May, with six children to support, a house he was due to close on and a $110,000 tax issue with the IRS, the money from the fight would have gone a long way toward helping Campbell take care of his responsibilities.

Not only was Campbell out his $300,000 purse, the bout needed to take place in order for him to collect the remaining half of a $200,000 signing bonus in his contract with promoter Don King.

Part of the bankruptcy means that Campbell's contract with King was voided, Trekas said.

Trekas said they attempted to work out something with King to help Campbell get by, but they could not come to terms.

"Nate filed for bankruptcy and notified [Don King Productions] of his actions," Trekas said. "When that fight didn't happen, it hurt. Nate's had a tax issue he's been dealing with and this bankruptcy has been planned for over a year, but was put on hold hoping things could be worked out. But based on what happened with the Guzman fight and not getting the income, and other issues, his attorney and accountant advised him that he had to do it now.

"In the bankruptcy, Nate rejected the King contract. We'll just have to see what they want to do. Technically, Don can challenge it. It's not a winning strategy, but maybe there is something that can be worked out. That will be up to Don."

Trekas said the attorney advised Campbell, 36, that he is free to "do whatever, sign with someone else, talk to whatever promoter he wants. The King contract is dead."

King was in the Dominican Republic attending the WBA's annual convention and was unavailable for comment. King spokesman Alan Hopper had no comment.

Campbell (32-5-1, 25 KOs), with his personality, crowd-pleasing style and three of the lightweight belts, figures to be a hot commodity on the free-agent market. He won his belts via decision by upsetting Juan Diaz on March 8 in Cancun, Mexico.

Campbell's first defense was to have been against Guzman, a former junior lightweight titleholder who relinquished his 130-pound belt to move up to 135 for the shot at Campbell. However, Guzman weighed in at 138½ the day before the Showtime main event in Biloxi, Miss., rendering the bout a nontitle fight. However, the next day, just hours before the fighters were supposed to be in the ring, Guzman elected not to fight.

Trekas said the bankruptcy was legitimate, not merely as a means to get out from his promotional contract.

"Nate was like, 'This kind of sucks, but I can move on,' " Trekas said. "We're going to talk to everybody out there and see what his options are and what is available to him."

Dan Rafael is the boxing writer for ESPN.com.
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
I think it's quite hilarious that within what, 24 hours? the market crashes after the big $700+ billion bailout that was supposed to make everything 'ok.'
smiley36.gif
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
Mad Money's Jim Cramer now says that investors who can't leave their money in the stock market for at least five years should get out now.

link with video here.

some excerpts:
In what Curry called a "dramatic statement," Cramer emphatically urged any investor who has money they may need in the next five years tied to stocks to pull their dough out.

"I thought about this all weekend," Cramer told Curry. "I do not want to say these things on TV.


"Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now."
 

Solomon Kane

Mentor
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
783
Yes, and Cramer is historically very very bullish. In fact, he's the same guy who touted Bear Stearns a week before it plummeted. If he's turned Bearish...
 

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
Solomon Kane said:
Yes, and Cramer is historically very very bullish. In fact, he's the same guy who touted Bear Stearns a week before it plummeted. If he's turned Bearish...


Cramer is the last person on earth I would trust. His track record sucks. Yes, he was still hyping the banks, and brokerage firms as recently as a few months ago. Can we say pump 'n' dump? Who knows what the future holds, I certainly don't.But ... ifthat reptileis telling us to bail, it could meanwe will see a turnaround in the near future. Edited by: Bart
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,657
Location
Pennsylvania
Cramer was for a long time an inside, parasitical trader. He's worth some $500 million, not from products he's made but from trading stocks. Remember the famous 1987 movie "Wall Street"? It was based on Cramer and friends. He claims to be "reformed" now and I do find him and his show entertaining and informative, but like Bart wrote he's inherently untrustworthy. Edited by: Don Wassall
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,346
Location
Minnesota
Youtube is littered with bad calls by Cramer followed by "I told you so." His flip-flopping and false self-promotion is legendary.
 

Menelik

Mentor
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,175
Location
Georgia
Timely article posted on lewrockwell.com:

Blame the Government
by Murray Sabrin

If America were a laissez faire economy, it would be impossible to create the financial bubble we have just experienced.

Critics of President Bush as well as some pundits in the media claim that deregulation and our "laissez faire" economy have been responsible for the financial markets' meltdown. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here's what President Bush recently told a visiting group of journalists in the Oval Office about the recent $700 billion bailout package:

"We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action."

You may be wondering how our grammatically challenged president came up with such an articulate response to a question about his administration's reaction to the financial crisis.

Well, the above was not uttered by Bush but by another president who has been vilified by historians and others as a "do nothing" president, Herbert Hoover. Hoover accepted the Republican nomination for president in 1932 to seek another term in the midst of the financial meltdown that engulfed the United States more than 75 years ago; he made the above remarks in accepting his party's presidential nomination.

The historical record is clear, according to the late economist and historian Murray Rothbard in his classic America's Great Depression. Hoover intervened massively in the economy from the time of the stock market crash in October 1929 up until he left office in March 1933.

Easy money policies

As Rothbard documents in his 1963 study, the financial bubble of the 1920s was caused by the Federal Reserve's easy money policy that pumped up real estate and stock market prices. When the bubble burst in 1929, Hoover did all he could to prop up prices in the name of stability and recovery.

All his efforts failed.

The economy continued to spiral downward. Hoover's legacy was sealed.

However, court historians and mainstream economists have been blaming Hoover's "inaction" for nearly eight decades instead of his big government policies that turned a much needed correction into a full-scale panic and massive depression.

If America were a laissez faire economy (and limited government society), it would be impossible to create the financial bubble we have just experienced. For example, in a laissez faire economy, the federal government would not be able to subsidize housing for families who could not afford mortgages.

In addition, there would be no government-created entities like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac that could buy subprime mortgages from banks. And banks would not be forced by laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act to lower lending standards for low-income families, many of whom are now defaulting on their mortgages.

So history is repeating itself in terms of the cause and effects of another Federal Reserve-created bubble. How do we end once and for all the booms and busts that have characterized the American economy for decades?

First, a laissez faire economy would end the moral hazard of the financial system and the mortgage market. In a laissez faire economy, banks would not be able to borrow short and lend long, creating a huge amount of leverage in the banking system. There would be no FDIC, which means depositors would have to be vigilant about how their banks are lending their money.

Banks therefore would extend credit only to the lowest-risk borrowers so depositors would have confidence in uninsured banks, knowing that depositors would not tolerate lax lending practices.

Second, in a laissez faire economy there would be no barriers for entrepreneurs to enter the banking business as there are today. More competition would mean stronger banks. Wal-Mart or other enterprises could enter the banking business and compete against the entrenched subsidized financial elites.

No central banks

Third, in a laissez faire economy, there would be no central bank like the Federal Reserve that could print money out of thin air and manipulate interest rates to ridiculously low levels. Instead, interest rates would be set by savers and borrowers, not by the actions of a few unelected members of the Fed's open market committee.

In a laissez faire economy, inflation would be abolished because the dollar would once again be as "good as gold." All dollars therefore would be convertible into real money.

With both McCain and Obama voting for the bailout bill, there is indeed virtually no difference between the GOP and Democratic presidential standard bearers. They are both subservient to the financial elites who influence the federal government's policy agenda.

Make no mistake, we still have one-party rule in D.C., the Washington Party, an observation I made in 1971, when another Republican president, Richard Nixon, turned his back on limited government principles and imposed wage-and-price controls and severed the last link between the dollar and gold.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,657
Location
Pennsylvania
Silver is down another 17% just today even as the stock market continues to crash. It's now under $10/oz. Gold is down over 7% in the last 24 hours. Yet everything I read says that silver is extremely difficult to find, and is being sold well over the spot price. This is brazenly open market manipulation of a metal that has been manipulated for many years, being done in order to quell the ongoing panic and keep even more people from abandoning the stock market for precious metals.
 

Freethinker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
7,093
Location
Suffolk County, NY
Very true Don. I recently purchased silver bars because every dealer is out of coins. It is being manipulated but that can only last for so long. When the dollar crashes we could see gold and silver at unfathomable highs. Silver was at $20/oz in March. I anticipate it breaking that within the next 6 months regardless of what Washington does. Experts with sense say don't ask why silver is so low, just buy it up and be thankful it was available for such a bargain.
 

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
Don Wassall said:
Silver is down another 17% just today even as the stock market continues to crash. It's now under $10/oz. Gold is down over 7% in the last 24 hours.


It's been a good ride, but silver has really gone backwards.Several months ago, a friend told me he was going to back up the truck, as they say, and load up at every dip, as he expected prices to explode even higher.The high was something like 21-22 bucks, now it is under ten.Manipulation is a possibility of course, but something else may be going on. Commodities have been trending down, while the stock market has been tanking. Gold and silver should be going through the roof, but it 's not happening.Despite all the money printing, deflationary presure may be stronger than suspected.OR maybe the big boys are ready to pounce on all the bargain basement stocks. There are still many companies with good balance sheets that have been hammered and have got to skyrocket IF this is not the end of the world as we know it.
smiley36.gif
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,346
Location
Minnesota
Silver and Gold manipulated? No doubt. But don't complain about it just keep buying what you can (I can only find 90% silver these days) - just try to stay away from buying on margins.

The whole deflation trend is just a head-fake. The market has been wrong before and that part of it is wrong again. If it weren't for the people who were wrong, us who are right would never make money. Eventually the market will right itself. Hyperinflation is coming.

My strategy that has actually worked out OK considering the market was to buy long on the Shorts or Ultrashorts on sectors of the Market while I buy up Precious metal stocks as they get cheaper. I don't know what the bottom in PM's is so I buy everytime it seems to have bellied. Eventually all my buys will seems like a deal.

This perverse converse relationship between the market and precious metals at some time will reverse to an inverse relationship. In the meantime as PM's are manipulated down, at least I have gained on the Shorts.

I say always be patient and know where the market is heading even if it takes awhile to get there. Nothing happens as quickly as we would like it to, but we do all know where this is heading. Don't let them shake you out of your silver and gold. Right now I think the moneychangers are very frustrated with people continuing to store away their PM's. Hang tough.
 

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
Warren Buffet bought up a lot of silver a few years back then dumped it mid 2006. Herealized someprofit, but soldall of his stash before thebig run up. Why did he sell 130million ozs? Makes me wonder if hesuspected weakness further down the road, and decided to play it safe.Yes, he has made mistakes, but he is still recognized as being very shrewd.
 

Menelik

Mentor
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,175
Location
Georgia
Wow, it looks like the market is making a rebound. I thought that we were about to enter into a serious recession. Is this just a blip or are the "global bankers" looking after their own?
 

white is right

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
10,072
I think NYC bankers are spending their bonuses on this.... Prostitution has not suffered drop-off despite economic meltdown

BY BARBARA ROSS and LARRY McSHANE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Monday, October 13th 2008, 9:25 AM
Hermann for News

Escorts Dylan, Nadia and Sarah know when a story's got legs.

It's still a good time to be morally bankrupt.

The plunging Dow Jones and panicky investors are hardly a problem for the world's oldest profession, where business is still brisk.

"The market is down, business is down, but we feel it less," said Dylan, 24, a promotional model-turned-Manhattan prostitute. "We're still busy."
EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA TELLS NEWS HOW HE'LL FIX THE ECONOMY

The long-haired, long-legged hooker then explained why the red-light district remains a blue-chip commodity: "If men are horny, they're going to come in here."

Take that, Ben Bernanke.


Dylan works for a Manhattan madam who runs a pair of prostitution dens north of Wall Street. Unlike the $4,000-an-hour girls of male fantasies or gubernatorial road trips, Madam Sadie's employees charge $260 for 60 minutes - or $160 for 30 minutes.

"The $1,000-an-hour girls are just not making it" with the economic downturn, the madam said. The faltering economy actually drove two of her newer employees to the madam's sex-peddling service from other careers.
RELATED: NBC ACCIDENTALLY CUTS OFF BUSH ECON SPEECH

Shana, 42, lost her $45,000-a-year job as a secretary last year. Sienna was laid off in July from her job as an executive assistant with a travel agency.

Shana, who worked briefly as a waitress before hooking up with her current gig, is putting her son through college.

"He's trying to get an engineering degree," she explained. "With the economy the way it is, how is my son going to get a loan? And he's going to finish college."

Co-worker Sara, a 26-year-old former hairstylist, said her services provide businessmen with a break from the grim realities of their 9-to-5 jobs.

"Some of them seem depressed, and they just want a place to get away from it," said the petite, dark-haired woman.

Sadie admits her business has suffered a bit in the fiscal crisis. Some clients are cutting back on their spending, and some aren't returning, she said.

Sienna, who's earning a graduate degree in English literature, mentioned a Manhattan banker who's among her regulars. He now spends less time and money - although he doesn't miss his regular appointments.

"He used to spend at least an hour or two," she said. "Lately he's down to a half-hour, and he's no longer a big tipper."

But Dylan said business was steadier in her new position than when she was chasing down modeling jobs.

"The money is good in that field," she said, "but you don't always get the work."

lmcshane@nydailynews.com Edited by: white is right
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
this comes as no surprise, i'll bet. but here is a video that shows how much Goldman Sachs paid the politicians who pushed through the bail-out bill. "for our own good," of course.

the bail-out was bought and paid for.

i hate these guys.
smiley7.gif
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,657
Location
Pennsylvania
I was watching the CNBC financial network for a while this afternoon (which should change its name to the Alice in Wonderland network). The main talking point was that the stock market had its best week since 2003, going up 4.7%! Going up 4.7% after going down a third or so over the past month is nothing, the same kind of gobbledy******* used to lure investors into the market in the first place. Brokers were probably using the same propaganda line in 1931.


And then a few minutes ago they were interviewingan establishment "expert" whose job is to soothe and exhort. His main spiel was that the U.S. had the opportunity to come out of this better prepared to maintain its world dominance economically and militarily. Part of his prescription was to allow "massive new immigration." At this the fiveregular panelists on the show all clucked their heads in agreement,with the female one opiningthat allowingmassive immigrationwould get the housing market going again, because "new buyers" were needed topurchase the empty houses sitting on the market.


It was giving mortgages to massive numbers of unqualified minorities and legal and illegal immigrants that in great part caused the domino effect we're currently seeing. Just shows again how clueless these airhead TV hosts are.
 

white is right

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
10,072
In the past few weeks the US dollar has appreciated 15 percent against the Euro, Pound and Canuck buck. Considering the US economy is the sickest of these countries/political unions. This doesn't make any sense at all. Day traders and hedge funds are making money here.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
1,248
Location
Illinois
Oh, oh. The economy is in bad shape. When the economy is bad these guys will sell their boats, their estates, but the bimbos are the last to go.
 
Top