Deutsche Bank: "Euro collapse is a very likely scenario." Possibility of U.S unemployment at 20%?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>'cutting spending' = 'any rational discussion ends' how should I read that?

?? Any way you like. You made that equivalence; I didn't. Rational discussion ends when the right starts in with the "socialist!" "tax and spend!" soundbites. (And when democrats start in with the "you hate kids!" stuff as well.) I suspect you'd even agree with that if you weren't trying so hard to disagree with me.

yeah - I can agree with that - (reluctantly )


edit - however - here is what you climb on board with, pretty much the 'you hate kids' mantra ---- "Instead of going to war we hire teachers, cops and maybe improve our roads? But i hear the GOP doesn't like that shit so we are fucked? "

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,114]

>But i hear the GOP doesn't like that shit so we are fucked?

To cut through Shah's overly colorful language, yes - cutting spending significantly now will cause us economic pain, just as spending like there's no tomorrow when the economy recovers will cause us problems. But neither side likes compromise so I foresee more of both in our future.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

>'cutting spending' = 'any rational discussion ends' how should I read that?

?? Any way you like. You made that equivalence; I didn't. Rational discussion ends when the right starts in with the "socialist!" "tax and spend!" soundbites. (And when democrats start in with the "you hate kids!" stuff as well.) I suspect you'd even agree with that if you weren't trying so hard to disagree with me.

yeah - I can agree with that - (reluctantly )


edit - however - here is what you climb on board with, pretty much the 'you hate kids' mantra ---- "Instead of going to war we hire teachers, cops and maybe improve our roads? But i hear the GOP doesn't like that shit so we are fucked? "

Q. How many cops and teachers could have been hired if we hadn't invaded Iraq (unnecessarily)?

A. NONE, because Bush's war was unfunded anyway!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

A. NONE, because Bush's war was unfunded anyway!

Ah, that "old familiar lie"...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

A. NONE, because Bush's war was unfunded anyway!

Ah, that "old familiar lie"...

in what way was it funded? The temporary budget 'surplus' was already gone by 2002. (2001, actually)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A. NONE, because Bush's war was unfunded anyway!

Ah, that "old familiar lie"...

in what way was it funded? The temporary budget 'surplus' was already gone by 2002. (2001, actually)

The same as Bosnia and Kosovo were - supplemental appropriations.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

wouldn't those things be more affordable if we didn't subsidize failed/unready green companies, bailout banks, perverted arts, etc etc etc?

And still there seems to be the problem that nobody puts the big money on the table. What is the big money?
(1) Medicare;
(2) Medicaid/Welfare;
(3) Social Security;
(4) Defense; and
(5) Debt servicing.

Them's the big dogs and responsible for, what, 80-85% of the budget? Without making massive structural changes to them, there's no way to be fiscally responsible. And defense is the only one that has any significant discretionary authority for budgeting.

Simpson-Bowles. Simpson-Bowles.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

in what way was it funded? The temporary budget 'surplus' was already gone by 2002. (2001, actually)

The same as Bosnia and Kosovo were - supplemental appropriations.

compare the size of the expense and the size of the deficits in those cases.
Are we talking a factor of 10X here?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

in what way was it funded? The temporary budget 'surplus' was already gone by 2002. (2001, actually)

The same as Bosnia and Kosovo were - supplemental appropriations.

compare the size of the expense and the size of the deficits in those cases.
Are we talking a factor of 10X here?

Find me an example of a 'funded' war and we'll discussion it. Until then, it's just another lame attempt to push the 'off-budget war' bullshit.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Find me an example of a 'funded' war and we'll discussion it. Until then, it's just another lame attempt to push the 'off-budget war' bullshit.

WWII - the feds sold war bonds. With everyone at war, who could lend us the money but ourselves?

You have to acknowledge the dramatic difference in scale between Kosovo and Iraq. The former was hardly different from an extended training exercise they would be doing anyhow. The latter is a trillion dollar deal...

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

>Gov Employees, paid from the taxes, so no "real" revenue.

Right. But that money also goes directly to buy guns, power, oil, paper, clothing, medical supplies etc and goes indirectly to train doctors, technicians, pilots etc - all of which _are_ real revenue. It's why wars are good for economies (as an example.)

OR!
Instead of going to war we hire teachers, cops and maybe improve our roads?

Bad idea.

Wars are good because they remind people that we need a powerful military and that having the most expensive (by a factor of six) isn't such a bad thing. Having other countries to hate also directs attention away from our own leaders' failings.

The big military needs a lot of hardware, which keeps defense contractors in business, which keeps the campaign contributions flowing, which keeps congress critters in power.

Teachers and cops don't have the same huge huge hardware needs that soldiers do so the defense contractors wouldn't be getting their slice of the pork pie, the defense industry would stop paying to get congress critters elected, and the American system would fall apart.

Quote

But i hear the GOP doesn't like that shit so we are fucked?
Or am i wrong?

Don't forget that the Democrats also aren't going to right-size the military.

It's like me deciding to buy a new Ferrari or Porsche 911 Turbo. The Porsche is relatively less expensive, although I can't afford either and my budget would be screwed regardless of the choice I made.

[jumpwally 0]

I don't care what they say,,we are at 20% unemployment now

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Q. How many cops and teachers could have been hired if we hadn't invaded Iraq (unnecessarily)?

A. NONE, because Bush's war was unfunded anyway!

Ah, that "old familiar lie"...

Really, a supplemental appropriation would have been used to hire cops and teachers?

You may delude yourself, but not the rest of us.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

And still there seems to be the problem that nobody puts the big money on the table. What is the big money?
(1) Medicare;
(2) Medicaid/Welfare;
(3) Social Security;
(4) Defense; and
(5) Debt servicing.

absolutely, now, which of those has the cops and teachers in them????

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's like me deciding to buy a new Ferrari or Porsche 911 Turbo. The Porsche is relatively less expensive, although I can't afford either and my budget would be screwed regardless of the choice I made.

here's a chunk of truth

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>'cutting spending' = 'any rational discussion ends' how should I read that?

?? Any way you like. You made that equivalence; I didn't. Rational discussion ends when the right starts in with the "socialist!" "tax and spend!" soundbites. (And when democrats start in with the "you hate kids!" stuff as well.) I suspect you'd even agree with that if you weren't trying so hard to disagree with me.

yeah - I can agree with that - (reluctantly )


edit - however - here is what you climb on board with, pretty much the 'you hate kids' mantra ---- "Instead of going to war we hire teachers, cops and maybe improve our roads? But i hear the GOP doesn't like that shit so we are fucked? "

Q. How many cops and teachers could have been hired if we hadn't invaded Iraq (unnecessarily)?

A. NONE, because Bush's war was unfunded anyway! and the war was a federal expenditure, remember lawrocket already pointed out teachers and Public Safety services is a state and city expense.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Butters 0]

Quote

It sounds like fear-mongering, but if banks like Citigroup/Bank of America/JP Morgan barely survived the Lehman brother collapse, I'm not too sure how they would survive a major Euro Bank collapse.

According to this it's possible that banks like Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan, etc... speed the demise of Lehman Brothers (and Bear Stearns) to remove competition ... they may not have thrived during that period but it's unlikely that they wouldn't have survived.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[weekender 0]

I'm not defending anyone. if you are caught colluding on a securities trade your going to lose your license and go to jail. thats why the phones are recorded. If they did it, i hope they go down.

i could not read the entire article because the author has no understanding of the securities markets. it was hard for me to understand his complete lack of understanding. he kept saying the traders were using "code", which is not true at all. they were speaking in common jargon used in most transactions. for example,"This, basically, is how a lot of the calls went. The provider would tentatively offer a number, and the broker would guide him to a new bid. "You have a little bit of room there," he might say, or "That's gonna put you about a nickel short." Guiding the bidders to the lowest possible bid was called "figuring out the level" or being "in the market"; obtaining information about other bids was called "giving an indicative" or "seeing the market."

all of those comments are legal and normal. this is why i could not read it. if a crime was commited he missed it. it wasnt there. you can tell someone they are outside the market. its like telling a car dealer his offer is way higher than the last dealer you saw. not a crime.

anyway, i dont know what happened but i wanted to say that the article is so poorly written by someone who doesnt understand the crime that it makes it hard for me to believe his "facts". he will not be working at the NYT or WSJ anytime soon unless he does some more work understanding what he is writing about.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Butters 0]

Quote

I'm not defending anyone. if you are caught colluding on a securities trade your going to lose your license and go to jail. thats why the phones are recorded. If they did it, i hope they go down.

i could not read the entire article because the author has no understanding of the securities markets. it was hard for me to understand his complete lack of understanding. he kept saying the traders were using "code", which is not true at all. they were speaking in common jargon used in most transactions. for example,"This, basically, is how a lot of the calls went. The provider would tentatively offer a number, and the broker would guide him to a new bid. "You have a little bit of room there," he might say, or "That's gonna put you about a nickel short." Guiding the bidders to the lowest possible bid was called "figuring out the level" or being "in the market"; obtaining information about other bids was called "giving an indicative" or "seeing the market."

all of those comments are legal and normal. this is why i could not read it. if a crime was commited he missed it. it wasnt there. you can tell someone they are outside the market. its like telling a car dealer his offer is way higher than the last dealer you saw. not a crime.

The broker was not allowed to disclose competing bids. Thus using code (or as you suggest, common jargon) such as "... you're about a nickel short" or "... you're about a dime high" to let the competition know that their bid was too low or high so that they could adjust it and win the bid with the minimum required amount was a crime (hence the convictions and fines).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not defending anyone. if you are caught colluding on a securities trade your going to lose your license and go to jail. thats why the phones are recorded. If they did it, i hope they go down.

i could not read the entire article because the author has no understanding of the securities markets. it was hard for me to understand his complete lack of understanding. he kept saying the traders were using "code", which is not true at all. they were speaking in common jargon used in most transactions. for example,"This, basically, is how a lot of the calls went. The provider would tentatively offer a number, and the broker would guide him to a new bid. "You have a little bit of room there," he might say, or "That's gonna put you about a nickel short." Guiding the bidders to the lowest possible bid was called "figuring out the level" or being "in the market"; obtaining information about other bids was called "giving an indicative" or "seeing the market."

all of those comments are legal and normal. this is why i could not read it. if a crime was commited he missed it. it wasnt there. you can tell someone they are outside the market. its like telling a car dealer his offer is way higher than the last dealer you saw. not a crime.

The broker was not allowed to disclose competing bids. Thus using code (or as you suggest, common jargon) such as "... you're about a nickel short" or "... you're about a dime high" to let the competition know that their bid was too low or high so that they could adjust it and win the bid with the minimum required amount was a crime (hence the convictions and fines).

colluding is purposely moving your market to disadvantage your customer. that is a crime. it is NOT a crime to do any of the things in the paragraph i quoted. THOSE comments were not the crime. giving "levels" is not showing bids because they are not firm. he missed that. thus i found his article unreadable.

I know it sounds like I'm being pedantic but in trading the language can be very confusing to a lay person. the author was confused.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Find me an example of a 'funded' war and we'll discussion it. Until then, it's just another lame attempt to push the 'off-budget war' bullshit.

WWII - the feds sold war bonds. With everyone at war, who could lend us the money but ourselves?

Those didn't fund it completely, there was still a deficit.

Quote

You have to acknowledge the dramatic difference in scale between Kosovo and Iraq. The former was hardly different from an extended training exercise they would be doing anyhow. The latter is a trillion dollar deal...

Nope...both paid for by appropriations bills.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Q. How many cops and teachers could have been hired if we hadn't invaded Iraq (unnecessarily)?

A. NONE, because Bush's war was unfunded anyway!

Ah, that "old familiar lie"...

Really, a supplemental appropriation would have been used to hire cops and teachers?

You may delude yourself, but not the rest of us.

Nice dodge - as you say, you may delude yourself but not the rest of us.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Butters 0]

Quote

colluding is purposely moving your market to disadvantage your customer. that is a crime. it is NOT a crime to do any of the things in the paragraph i quoted. THOSE comments were not the crime. giving "levels" is not showing bids because they are not firm. he missed that. thus i found his article unreadable.

Are you stating that the broker telling the bidder that "... you're about a nickel short" to inform the bidder that they were 0.05 percent below the winning bid or "... you're about a dime high" to inform the bidder that they were 0.1 percent above the winning bid was not the same as showing bids?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

According to the study, if Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy joined Greece in leaving the euro, 29 large European banks would see a total capital shortfall of about €410 billion. "If the peripheral countries withdraw from the euro zone, a few of the large, publicly traded banks would come to a standstill," reads the analysts' sobering conclusion. In their predictions, the experts did not even take into account the likelihood that France would come under pressure if Italy withdrew from the euro.

Banks in the crisis-ridden countries would be especially hard-hit, but so would investment banks like Deutsche Bank. According to Credit Suisse, the market leader in Europe's largest economy, which prides itself in having survived the financial crisis without government assistance, would face such heavy loses that it would suffer a capital shortfall of €35 billion.

Whereas Greece is now almost irrelevant for Deutsche Bank, Italy and Spain account for a tenth of its European private and corporate banking business. The bank estimates the credit risks in these countries at about €18 billion (Italy) and €12 billion (Spain).

...

Economists with the Dutch bank ING have calculated that in the first two years following a collapse, the countries in the euro zone would lose 12 percent of their economic output. This corresponds to the loss of more than €1 trillion. It would make the recession that followed the bankruptcy of investment bank Lehmann Brothers seem like a minor industrial accident by comparison. Even after five years, say the ING experts, economic output in the euro zone would still be significantly lower than normal.

Many of us are pretty unhappy with 8% unemployment (which we should rightfully be). However, there was a study (from C) that mentioned in the event that EuroBanks collapsed (keyword: the Banks), U.S unemployment would rise to around 20-30%.. It was approximately the same figure given by Hank Paulson (George Bush's secretary of treasury back in November 2008).

It sounds like fear-mongering, but if banks like Citigroup/Bank of America/JP Morgan barely survived the Lehman brother collapse, I'm not too sure how they would survive a major Euro Bank collapse.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/fears-grow-of-consequences-of-potential-euro-collapse-a-840634.html


And for our friends at the Bundesbank:

Quote

The German Finance Ministry's prognosis is even grimmer than that of the ING experts. According to their scenarios, in the first year following a euro collapse, the German economy would shrink by up to 10 percent and the ranks of the unemployed would swell to more than 5 million people. The officials were so horrified by their conclusions that they kept all of their analyses under lock and key, for fear that the costs of rescuing the euro could spin out of control.

Cheers!
Shc

And there we have it. The mess. Only because of you.

One (smaller and pretty unknown) American ranking agency lowered our credibility, ours! How could they dare!?!?!?

Jeez, guy. You present yourself quite informed. But, as most "informed" people, you're a pretty one-sided.

The links you provided just underline your personal preoccupation.

I am working in a large bank. Go on telling us what to do. (Perhaps w/o links, we know them).

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

colluding is purposely moving your market to disadvantage your customer. that is a crime. it is NOT a crime to do any of the things in the paragraph i quoted. THOSE comments were not the crime. giving "levels" is not showing bids because they are not firm. he missed that. thus i found his article unreadable.

Are you stating that the broker telling the bidder that "... you're about a nickel short" to inform the bidder that they were 0.05 percent below the winning bid or "... you're about a dime high" to inform the bidder that they were 0.1 percent above the winning bid was not the same as showing bids?

no i am not really saying that because that is not what they are saying. the conversation that the author quoted was not the one where collusion takes place. that was my point. he missed the actual crime.colluding is getting people to move their FIRM bids and offers so you can then purposely give your customer a worse price to benefit yourself. I'm not saying that didnt happen but it didnt happen in the convo i quoted.

i will try to explain. in order to trade non quoted OTC securities, as these were. you call people and ask for a level. NON firm. so their bid and offer quote is only for informational purposes. rule of thumb you must call at least three to get a fair market. if one guy is out of wack with the others you can tell him he is not inline. Using whatever jargon you chose. that is legal and what he claims is illegal through a lack of understanding.

the collution would have taken place during a firm transaction. the second phone call he did not quote.

to be clear i am NOT defending anyone. My point all along is that the author does not understand the subject and quoted a legal converstation as illegal. so i dont trust his "facts".

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante