Let’s assume that like me, you’re no economist or market player but you have a brain.
So you’re not going to get a lot out of this talk of TINA and LBMA but enough detail comes through to make a layman really wonder about the extent of the fraud and the utter lies being told to the public, let alone programmes on the truth being pulled or never aired on investigative programmes.
Now the very look of this post will have most shying away, putting it in either the too hard basket or else they just don’t want to know. I did want to know though so I struggled through the shenanigans at the beginning and finally got to the meat:
One very interesting reference in there was the downgrading of wages in the UK by 30% or so. Ho ho ho, that’ a nice Christmas present for everyone. If you can spare the eight minutes, try just the 12:45 to about 20:00 segment – grab a coffee and then reflect on Osborne today in the context of that.
Meanwhile, across the pond, Karl notes:
Analysts will blame the employment sag on Sandy, but I’m not buying that. The softness indications have been there for more than six months at this point in my leading indicator set (notably the regional fed indices) and as such that the ISM employment figures are now reflecting what leading indicators had foretold is coming to fruition does not surprise me one bit.
When the recession is formally proclaimed early next year you’ll hear “nobody saw it coming” along with various elements of the blame game aimed at this or that.
The fact of the matter is that it’s quite a bit simpler — the “tools” used to cover up the stinking dead fish are now becoming permeated with rotting fish guts and thus are no longer effective.
And at the same time, Jesse’s just running Max. Oh dear, when the guys that know are telling us this …
In these situations, one turns to “trusted sources”, three of them mentioned above and Zero Hedge seem to know too, plus Market Oracle. One I’ll always turn to is Janet Tavakoli on derivatives and she’s interviewed on Chris Martenson and it was only at the beginning and end of that that I really understood the extent of what we’re up against.
1. She made a scathing reference to Jamie Dimon and we’re used to these references, are we not? You know, banksters bad, it’s all fraud, regulators appointed by the players and so on. I don’t want to go down that path because if you deny self-regulation, then you can also get into restricted press freedom.
However, she went into just what Dimon did in London and it was truly kindergarten stuff – he basically underestimated the size of the shoddy agreements he’d made, something no one actually in the game and certainly not at his level, should have made.
So we’re not just getting someone playing fast and loose but actually not understanding the market as well, although the spin he put on it glossed it over. And have you heard anything since about that? Is it front and square in the media?
Because we feel it’s nothing to do with us personally.
2. She made reference to these contracts though as being like shiny tiles in a new bathroom but the homeowner can see that the grouting is cracked and crumbling and the backing material to the tiles is substandard and also crumbling.
So it doesn’t matter just how new and shiny the tiles are – the whole thing’s going to implode on the homeowner, he knows it but still they insist all is well.
So what have I presented here that’s new? Not a lot but for me, perhaps there was just a bit deeper understanding of what was going on. And the immediate question is – where were the regulators? Bought off? Or are trojan horses in the first place?
And the dismaying thing is this plays right into the hands of the socialists and left-liberals who want the whole cankerous mess brought down and a regulated economy put in its place, which is precisely what must never be because all regulated economies to that extent have always failed and have caused massive economic and social hardship, e.g. the USSR.
And therein, yes, are the horns of the dilemma. The globalists are sitting back waiting for the mass of people to demand an end to these wild excesses and the globalists [Cameron, Osborne, the EU], waltz in and say: “Your wish is our command,” and start their own regulation of who trades and how – out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Yet we keep certain truths close to our hearts – that before this age of excess, people were trading perfectly well and the regulatory system was keeping things pretty well within limits. Someone opened a business, he had customers and what was wrong with that?
Now we have the prospect of this wild swing from one contrived extreme – and I believe the Dimons were encouraged to do these things for political reasons – to the other of totalitarian control.