Kerrigan on backstory info on Capitalism and its destruction.
Ross goes at the backroom nods and winks holding ANGLO together.\
Here is a comment from blogger on DMcw’s site. It exemplifies a mindset which I find very revealing. It demonstrates the *rational* behind the debt money system machinations with the back room policy makers. See it below,,
..think all the last 10 years has shown us that booms occur based on the smoke and mirrors of ‘confidence’ and as Greenspan would say, “irrational exuberance”. Then when confidence switches in the herd instinct to fear, we get the big bust.
I am sure that growth will return if and when confidence returns, be it based on actual facts or on nothing more than ‘good sentiment’.
So you see, its not about sorting out Anglo or who pays for it. Its about making it LOOK like we know what we’re at!
Basically the governments plan with Anglo is just a massive bluff at an international card table, if they win international money flows back into the Irish economy based on ‘confidence’ in the Irish plan.
Easier pay for all this if unemployment is 4.5% based on international and laterally i guess, local investment to create jobs…
Here is an interesting reply by a blogger,
..Sorry but your thinking there is part of what got us into the mess.
“So you see, its not about sorting out Anglo or who pays for it. Its about making it LOOK like we know what we’re at!”
No, Its not about looks, that’s for peacocks. It is actually ALL about who pays for it.
As a taxpayer, you and your children and their children will soon enough know about this. If you don’t, S&P will let you know through a series of sliding downgrades that already have begun and we havn’t even started paying for it!
Aided by the celebrated inquiry work of Justice Kelly and good journalism we have some info on Irish banking loans e.g info on Glass Bottle site shenanigins eg drop from €445 ml to aprox valuation now of € 20 ml. But in spite of media work there’s still huge gaps in what we know of Anglo’s toxic loan portfolio. However, because we are on tranche 2 of 5?, we should have concrete information on Anglo, though its still incomplete, perhaps it will be by Feb 2011 or late 2011. Could we have the complete list please of all toxic property loans commercial and residential loans so far processed by NAMA with summary description. Could we also have evidence to prove the loans were actually spent on acquisition development of these properties?
Plus could we have the list of bondholders for Anglo and the other banks with their individual exposure, subordinated and senior debt.
Do we know if bondholders were insured against Anglo losses? Lets know Anglo’s risk policy and inquire Anglo’s risk policy in taking insurance on its loan portfolio?
In particular, there’s deafening silence on Credit Default Swap CDS Anglo liability. Its possible significant losses upward of €13 bn exposure could accrue from this area, let’s know about this. Anybody know if FOI can access this information.
Perhaps some voluntary group needs to be set up to acquire and publish any files/documents relevant to this information on the web? I do recall great anxiety on the setting up of NAMA regarding the powers vested in the minister in particular from the point of view of transparency of NAMA.
ANON: – Post WW II USA POLICY
Firstly the allies probably excessively smashed Europe, including many a French and German town. Historian Howard Zinn spoke several times about an episode when he was a bombadier for the USAF.
They were sent on a bombing mission of a French town towards the end of the war where a few thousand German troops were keeping their heads down, waiting for the final surrender. Zinn said the air force flattened the town and killed God only knows how many civilians needlessly. Apparently the raid was used to test naplam. Zinn visited the town years later where the full horrors of the raid were revealed. We also know from studies that the carpet bombing of Germany did little to nothing to shorten the war.
As for reparations, yes the Versailles treaty was an aberration, French Prime Minister, Clemenceau, commented in 1919 that the deal guaranteed war in 20 years, he was out by a month or two. Keynes spotted the trouble as you correctly state but his common sense could not/would not be heard.
After the Second World War, the US knew that in strategic terms it needed a strong Europe which would act as a bulwark against the Soviet Empire and you couldn’t have a strong Europe without a strong Germany as we all know. They also knew the ending of the war put them in the unprecedented position of world dominance, they were in the unique position of being able to recreate smashed countries in their image and Germany was a willing pupil.
The Americans provided the Marshall plan, but it was not some giant give away, they rebuilt economies along Western capitalist lines and thus created new markets for US exports, so the money given out came back through European consumption. For the harder side of US power during that period, see Western intervention in Italy and Greece post 1945, where hundreds of thousands of people (especially those on the left were slaughtered).
The extent to which the US could play hard ball with ‘allies’ was best illustrated when Britain sent an economic negotiating team to the US to plead for funds designed to prevent complete bankruptcy. The Americans sought to break up the British Empire (potential competitor) and thus drove a very hard bargain. The negotiations were so difficult and stressful that Andrew Marr in his interesting series on the history of Britain in the 20th century, comments that they killed off Keynes (he died very soon after the negotiations were completed).
The US then created the postwar institutions known as the Bretton Woods system – the UN, GATT etc – again attempting to remake the world in its image.
“The favored illustration of “generosity and goodwill” is the Marshall Plan. That merits examination, on the “strongest case” principle. The inquiry again quickly yields facts “that `it wouldn’t do’ to mention.” For example, the fact that “as the Marshall Plan went into full gear the amount of American dollars being pumped into France and the Netherlands was approximately equaled by the funds being siphoned from their treasuries to finance their expeditionary forces in Southeast Asia,” to carry out terrible crimes. And that the tied aid provisions help explain why the U.S. share in world trade in grains increased from less than 10% before the war to more than half by 1950, while Argentine exports reduced by two-thirds. And that under U.S. influence Europe was reconstructed in a particular mode, not quite that sought by the anti-fascist resistance, though fascist and Nazi collaborators were generally satisfied. And that the generosity was overwhelmingly bestowed by American taxpayers upon the corporate sector, which was duly appreciative, recognizing years later that the Marshall Plan “set the stage for large amounts of private U.S. direct investment in Europe,” establishing the basis for the modern Transnational Corporations, which “prospered and expanded on overseas orders,…fueled initially by the dollars of the Marshall Plan” and protected from “negative developments” by “the umbrella of American power.”
Oil defining Policy, across the political spectrum.
In the UK, something similar is in the works but has not leaked yet, and officials keep it secret.
However, the german study can be summarized as follows:
The political and economical results of peak oil for germany were the main concerns of this study, and as such they can be described as a first.
The key statements are:
Oil will be the deciding factor in the ways international relations are currently transformed. The relative importance of the oil countries will increase in an international context.
The oil countries will utilize the increased importance and advantages to push their current and foreign political agendas, to exploit and enhance their power structures in a local context or even strive for a leading global position.
For Oil exporting countries more competition on the remaining resources will open opportunities for them, because the countries competing for these resources will try to please them.
This is a “small window of opportunity” they can use to enforce their own political, economical or ideological agendas. Because by nature, this window of opportunity is time restricted and has relatively narrow time frame, a more aggressive approach to push their agendas can be expected.
As a further result of the declining resources and the sub consequent difficulty to supply, the Liberalization of the markets will decline. The percentage of free traded oil on international markets will be reduced, and the percentage of bi-national contracts will increase.
The global market for oil will no longer follow free market rules, but bilateral, conditional and privileged trading partners will become more important again.
The authors paint a bleak picture as a result of peak oil. The transport of goods is dependent on oil, hence the trade of goods will become much more expensive. As a result severe supply problems will start to hit countries all over the world. The supply of food is critical and endangered by the described effects.
Because oil is directly or indirectly required for the production of 95% of all industrial goods, price shocks can be expected in all aspects of industry production. In the mid term, first single markets and then the entire global markets will collapse. the entire organized global economy will collapse.
A shift to other forms of production, more independent of oil will not be possible in all regions of the world. Many countries will not be able to secure the required investments. The economical collapse in other parts of the world will have severe implications on Germany as well. Germany is a closely linked factor in the complex economical structures.
Further, the think tank is clearly worried on the future of Democracy. Parts of the population could understand the dramatic changes that peak oil will trigger as a system inherent crisis, this can give them the scope for ideological extremist ideas to be suggested as an alternative to democracy.
A fragmentation and polarization of the people will more than likely become a direct result, and open conflicts could become a reality as well in a worst case scenario.
re similar thread earlier,
To make this even more clear, have a look at the excellent Kathleen Barrington post here: http://bit.ly/ddqpNO
regarding ‘AAA’ Dutch ACCBank on tracker bonds.
But the fact is ACCBank are going after developer loans.
We have virtual silence from Anglo, AIB, BOI, INBS etc in the pursuit of their developer loans.
Who is providing cover for developers in the Irish banks guarding developers from pursuit of their debts and/or bankruptcy proceedings. Surely the courts should be full of proceedings such as above on a daily basis?
Plainly another set of lies!
ITEM 8: LANDLORD system
In Greece and Italy too towards the latter days of the war this was the case, and these groups began implementing policies which sought to end the fascist-landlord system (private ownership etc) which so threatened the Western powers. British and US intervention in Greece certainly turned politics to violence, and Greece suffered later under military (Western backed) dictatorship and now again.
nteresting article. Retribution results in revenge. A cycle of militarist folly formally started in the 1600s with the Richelieu doctrine, based losely on Machavelli’s The Prince. (Incidentally Mussolini was so in love with Machavelli’s work that he insisted on writing the preface at one stage). With Richelieu, barbarism became a fine art, a mark of sophistication, and a study in grandeuer. The knightly class were made technologically obsolete by the invention of the musket, and the long pike. It was a serious problem. A means was required to justify the lifestyle requirements of aristocrats, and there were only so many aristicrats any territory (and it’s peasantry) could support. England and Spain could send them to the New World. Holland could make them into merchants. But other societies need a new career path for people who did not want to get their hands dirty. That career path was the military. Within a generation every country in Europe was playing games of intrigue, deceipt, aggression and militarism. Mostly it was the concern of young aristocrats who did not inherit land and who were not interested in religion. The military became the business of state of all Europe’s states. It played out for three hundred years until it reached the point that no slogan-maker or propaganda artist could cover up the misery it created. In the end the entire society was playing the game, under Fasism. The people got played out with state imperialist misadventure. In this period the state became the career option of preference for opportunists, and stayed that way for a long time. And in many ways it still is. State power, a class who needed war to access resources, and a culture of militarism were a cocktail that proved a disaster. It was a recipe for meglamania getting the better of civilization on repeated occasions.
The lesson was that the structure of society, and the stupidities that it creates for itself can result in disaster. Short term stability can create long term ruin.
As Churchill commented “We shape our houses and they shape us”.
Thank God the yanks had to good sense to put an end to it. The Americans had a different concept of state power, and a different concept of civil society from the nonsense prevalent in Europe. In the countries that were previously Fascist, they created Federal structures, with decentralised power, constitutional limits to militarism. They also required former enemnies to co-operate and see good sense. And there was far more free trade than before.
Currently, ordinary Americans are in trouble, and Europe might decide to do the honourable thing and help them out in return. This is not the same as bailing out an administration that is ignoring the concerns of the citizenry so as to serve the interests of a clique. In other words America has sucumbed to the intellectual disease that ruined Europe. As Eisenhower prophesized – “the military industrial complex”.
The problem with Europe from 1600 to 1945 is that it needed war, or fear of war, to keep the governing class in a position that they could access the level of resources that they were accustomed to in their aristocratic upbringing. If there was no war, then things would change. As a result intellectual culture became subservient to the need for war. If you wanted to dissent you could leave. Eventually the intellectual culture was totally poisoned to the point that Fascism could be seen as a respectable political option. Of course in different eras there will be different political diseases.
Intellectual dissent is necessary, especially any critiques of the motives and agendas of those who are drawn to state power. We need intellectual dissent to tackle the behaviour of cliques who are driven by the ’something for nothing’ approach to using the state as a means of extorting resources from others. We need intellectual dissent to ensure public debate and to undermine any deceit that exists to justify abuse of power and influence. In particular we need intellectual dissent to prevent the dumbing down of society, and the consequent concentration of power in the han