Investment Bankers...

Quote from Seldoon182

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/YUyzWCG.jpg]

Your credibility just went up!

+1 for Alexandre

Quote from killertomato

+1 for Alexandre

That avatar...LMFAO!

It is now clear to me what we must all do.

Buy the exact number of seconds Carmack has been alive in Bitcoins.

I'd take a bit of HP.

bite in french means penis, also if i, richard, take a bit of pinto, it probably creates a blackhole or something

Just wanted to update this to include this important piece of information.

See: http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/28/inv….html?hpt=hp_t2

Quote

It looks like Mt.Gox has finally thrown in the towel.The company filed for bankruptcy protection at a Tokyo court on Friday with debts of 6.5 billion yen ($64 million), Japanese media reported.

This has been going on for the past week as Mt. Gox tumbled down. It should be noted that Mt. Gox controlled a very large marketshare of Bitcoin holdings (above 40% last I checked).

Quote from Pericolos0

reminder that mt.gox stands for magic the gathering online exchange lmfao

I know. So ridiculous.

Quote from Pericolos0

http://pragcap.com/debunking-the-…tory-of-mankind

I didn't take me long watching that video that it's made by someone with an obvious political agenda, and in the end is just a sales pitch for X or Y...

This is true for pretty much every economics analysis out there though Most "experts" will subtly twist the meaning of words to make them fit their agenda, just like the guy in your blog. He is hanging onto semantics and oversimplifications in the original video to dismiss its message.

Example:

Quote

The US government has run budget deficits for the majority of its history. Just to put this in perspective, can you imagine what someone like this narrator would have said back in 1945 when the deficit was over 25% of GDP? Do you remember how the government “stole” all of our prosperity back in the 1940′s? Or did the USA undergo a massive economic boom over the 70 year period since then during which it became, by far, the most prosperous and wealthy nation mankind has EVER seen? A little common sense should make you question the claim that government spending (which has happened for hundreds of years during an extraordinary American wealth boom) necessarily steals future prosperity. Yes, government spending can have negative ramifications and isn’t necessarily always good, but there’s a bit too much hyperbole in the claim that deficit spending “steals” future prosperity. That’s just not true in all cases. The extremely high deficit from 1945 should make that abundantly clear.

“[deficit spending] Steals prosperity out of the future so it can spend it today”

I'm no economics expert and don't claim to be one, but a bit of "common sense" might be enough to dismiss that article as a source of good information. The amount of debt currently being generated is far greater and unparalleled to anything else in history. A single year (1945) can't be used as an argument against that. How can you argue with these graphs?

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/ZukHL30.png]

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/B5tp19e.png]

That guy is just as reliable as any other "conspiracy" bloggers out there, he just has a different agenda

Quote from Pericolos0

of course everyone has a bias but there's a huge difference between an economist with a keynesian bias and a guy who's using scary sounding words to sell you gold lol.

and those graphs sure look scary, can you tell me what they mean?

thank god there are less scary graphs to look at

At frist glance that graph looks less scary than the other ones and might suggest that's just the way things were in the past and everything is going to be fine again. But let's cross it with more data and context:

I looked up what the US GDP was in 1945 and it was a "mere" 2.22 trillion dollars. A lot of money at the time, but remember that the dollar was backed by gold back then so it was much harder to expand the money supply. At the end of that year, the total US debt was equal to 120% of the GDP, or roughly 2.66 trillions.

Fast forward to 2012. The GDP at that year was roughly 15 trillion, so 104% or so of that equals 17 trillion. In between 2000 and 2014, the Debt to GDP ratio went up more than 40%!

Now it's true that the debt to GDP ratio also skyrocketed during the 40s, but because the economy was much smaller back then high fluctuations like that were much easier to happen than nowadays I presume. Considering that we have a much larger volume of money circulating today, a 10% or so increase is several times more drastic than it was in 1945, since it requires a much larger volume of money to happen. That's where the second graph I posted comes into play: Notice the volume of money needed to increase that 40% in the graph you posted.

This is the same reason why bitcoin will probably never see any other 1000% increase in value in the future (if it ever goes up again). It's one thing to increase 1000% in value when a unit is worth 1 cent, but it's a completely different thing to increase 1000% when its valued at 400 or whatever it is nowadays. Infinite growth isn't sustainable and the main reason why our economic paradigm is completely broken.

Some more interesting facts: The US GDP in 2000 was 10.3 trillion and grew to 16.9 trillion in 2013 (sauce). At the same time, the total debt went from 5.6 trillion to 16.7 trillion. That's more than 10 trillion dollars of debt added in just 10 years, while the economy "only" grew 6 trillion dollars. Can we really expect the economy to grow 10 trillion in the next decade just to catch up with the debt acquired during the past decade? I'd love to believe so, but I haven't seen a single indication towards that possibility. That's the definition of "debt spending steals prosperity from the future" in my opinion.

The guy in that video may be trying to sell you gold and might get some information wrong, but the general message is: the economy is FUBAR and the crazy money that can be made buying debt right now might be worth shit in a few years, while gold is very likely to still have some value in the future

Quote from Pericolos0

At frist glance that graph looks less scary than the other ones and might suggest that's just the way things were in the past and everything is going to be fine again. But let's cross it with more data and context:

I looked up what the US GDP was in 1945 and it was a "mere" 2.22 trillion dollars. A lot of money at the time, but remember that the dollar was backed by gold back then so it was much harder to expand the money supply. At the end of that year, the total US debt was equal to 120% of the GDP, or roughly 2.66 trillions.

Fast forward to 2012. The GDP at that year was roughly 15 trillion, so 104% or so of that equals 17 trillion. In between 2000 and 2014, the Debt to GDP ratio went up more than 40%!

Now it's true that the debt to GDP ratio also skyrocketed during the 40s, but because the economy was much smaller back then high fluctuations like that were much easier to happen than nowadays I presume. Considering that we have a much larger volume of money circulating today, a 10% or so increase is several times more drastic than it was in 1945, since it requires a much larger volume of money to happen. That's where the second graph I posted comes into play: Notice the volume of money needed to increase that 40% in the graph you posted.

This is the same reason why bitcoin will probably never see any other 1000% increase in value in the future (if it ever goes up again). It's one thing to increase 1000% in value when a unit is worth 1 cent, but it's a completely different thing to increase 1000% when its valued at 400 or whatever it is nowadays. Infinite growth isn't sustainable and the main reason why our economic paradigm is completely broken.

Some more interesting facts: The US GDP in 2000 was 10.3 trillion and grew to 16.9 trillion in 2013 (sauce). At the same time, the total debt went from 5.6 trillion to 16.7 trillion. That's more than 10 trillion dollars of debt added in just 10 years, while the economy "only" grew 6 trillion dollars. Can we really expect the economy to grow 10 trillion in the next decade just to catch up with the debt acquired during the past decade? I'd love to believe so, but I haven't seen a single indication towards that possibility. That's the definition of "debt spending steals prosperity from the future" in my opinion.

The guy in that video may be trying to sell you gold and might get some information wrong, but the general message is: the economy is FUBAR and the crazy money that can be made buying debt right now might be worth shit in a few years, while gold is very likely to still have some value in the future

I think the concept of debt is very confusing for a lot of people, and it makes big numbers sound like the end of the world is near. The truth is you dont need 16 trillion dollar to fix 16 trillion dollar worth of debt.

Imagine you, me, seldoon and sentura are a small country of 4 people. I owe you 2$, you own seldoon 2$, and seldoon owes me 2$. together we own 6$ of debt and the debt is not getting fixed because we are all broke. now, sentura buys an apple from me that i've grown for 2$. All of a sudden, i have 2$ to pay off my debt to you, which in turn gives you 2$ to pay off seldoon. Holy shit, our 6$ of debt just evaporated using only 2$!!!!

The economy is a very complex web of lots of different entities owing each other debt in various ways. Adding up all the different debts is gonna amount to a scary large number, but that doesn't mean we're so deep in the hole we might as well just give up

Not sure if that's the best example because since it fails to consider the fractional reserve system, which basically requires banks to keep only a very small percentage of deposits in their vaults (3% in the US) at all times and the rest can be used for new loans and so on. Banks can basically make shitloads of "commercial money" out of a single deposit, since they can lend more money on the assumption that depositors won't withdraw all their money at the same time. Example.

Add to that: derivatives market and money being created out of thin air in those QEs and you got something so complex that it's virtually impossible to predict what the fuck will happen. We live in a completely different economic paradigm than in 1945, so we can't really compare our current situation with the past, so yeah, this 16 trillion debt might magically disappear tomorrow, who knows? I certainly don't lol

By the way, can you post some examples of real economic growth in the last few years? I'd love to see those, because the only indicators I saw going up recently were the stock markets and those don't necessarily reflect the "real economy".

I'm going to have to confess that I'm completely biased in this case, since I tend to read more "economic collapse" blogs than keynesian economists' ones, so I might have completely missed positive news.

Quote from Pericolos0

http://pragcap.com/debunking-the-…tory-of-mankind

I didn't take me long watching that video that it's made by someone with an obvious political agenda, and in the end is just a sales pitch for buying gold and silver from the guys company, or his self-help book or whatever. He brings up a lot of things that are very convincing, but in the end is using the facts to bring a very misleading message. They are obviously trying to sell a product, and are going to skew the information because of this. Not the kind of thing you want to get your information from, if you want to be an informed person and understand how the financial system actually works.

TLDR: don't waste your time watching videos about the financial system that are made by guys trying to sell you gold lol

Peris ! Whatever the source they all explain the same !

I would have picked up whatever the video: It's the same! You can also try search "Banking system for dummies": It's the same !!

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit... all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world, no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." — Woodrow Wilson (1913 the date of the the Federal Reserve Act. An Act of Congress that created and set up the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America)

Aslo Minos nailed the point no more to add about Cullen Roche's article...

Also if you really want to reach "neutral" information use appropriate tool such as http://www.duckduckgo.com.

Quote from Pericolos0

At frist glance that graph looks less scary than the other ones and might suggest that's just the way things were in the past and everything is going to be fine again. But let's cross it with more data and context:

I looked up what the US GDP was in 1945 and it was a "mere" 2.22 trillion dollars. A lot of money at the time, but remember that the dollar was backed by gold back then so it was much harder to expand the money supply. At the end of that year, the total US debt was equal to 120% of the GDP, or roughly 2.66 trillions.

Fast forward to 2012. The GDP at that year was roughly 15 trillion, so 104% or so of that equals 17 trillion. In between 2000 and 2014, the Debt to GDP ratio went up more than 40%!

Now it's true that the debt to GDP ratio also skyrocketed during the 40s, but because the economy was much smaller back then high fluctuations like that were much easier to happen than nowadays I presume. Considering that we have a much larger volume of money circulating today, a 10% or so increase is several times more drastic than it was in 1945, since it requires a much larger volume of money to happen. That's where the second graph I posted comes into play: Notice the volume of money needed to increase that 40% in the graph you posted.

This is the same reason why bitcoin will probably never see any other 1000% increase in value in the future (if it ever goes up again). It's one thing to increase 1000% in value when a unit is worth 1 cent, but it's a completely different thing to increase 1000% when its valued at 400 or whatever it is nowadays. Infinite growth isn't sustainable and the main reason why our economic paradigm is completely broken.

Some more interesting facts: The US GDP in 2000 was 10.3 trillion and grew to 16.9 trillion in 2013 (sauce). At the same time, the total debt went from 5.6 trillion to 16.7 trillion. That's more than 10 trillion dollars of debt added in just 10 years, while the economy "only" grew 6 trillion dollars. Can we really expect the economy to grow 10 trillion in the next decade just to catch up with the debt acquired during the past decade? I'd love to believe so, but I haven't seen a single indication towards that possibility. That's the definition of "debt spending steals prosperity from the future" in my opinion.

The guy in that video may be trying to sell you gold and might get some information wrong, but the general message is: the economy is FUBAR and the crazy money that can be made buying debt right now might be worth shit in a few years, while gold is very likely to still have some value in the future

I think the concept of debt is very confusing for a lot of people, and it makes big numbers sound like the end of the world is near. The truth is you dont need 16 trillion dollar to fix 16 trillion dollar worth of debt.

In this system debt is currency. There isn't currency without debt and there isn't debt without currency.

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/7Wo94ZO.jpg]

Quote from Pericolos0

The reality is, the economy is doing just fine, markets have grown back higher than they were pre-2008 recession. 2013 was a year of crazy growth and it doesnt seem to be slowing down yet. US bonds are basically considered risk free, so it's actually REALLY SAFE to buy government debt. Gold goes up and down all the time, your way better off putting your money in stock and bonds, and have it just grow with the market instead. Let your money work for you, the market, over long time periods, always grows.

You might think that while everyone trust in the system everything going right. But if you look closer to what really happen you will notice strange phenomena:

On the first side you read that everything is going right with exportation and such but then when you get the charts on electricity consumption that was used you realize that we haven't consumed what we should have consumed to produce those exportation. Who's lying ?

Let your money work for you... I mean even if they going to take your saving you agreed the debt voted by your politician.

https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=f…ler-867380.html

https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=f…epargnants.html

(Oh my gosh don't read those link !! Those are conspiratorial link! Fire in the hole!)

The system stand for only one reason: China.

https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=f…ies-824657.html

(Keynesian economist writter seal of quality)

Quote

In such a case, the reduction of QE may not be sustainable and Janet Yellen will quickly change direction. Where are the 50 billion sold by the Chinese? ... In Belgium! No my friends, this is not the last Belgian joke, although it resembles furiously.

Obviously, when I learn that China has just sold for $ 50 billion of Treasury bills, I wonder where the money went and who was the recipient ... This is another official source as well This is the U.S. Treasury Department itself teaches us, in its table tracking major foreign holders of Treasuries, indeed China reduced its exposure by about 50 billion while at the same time, in 4th position now ranks Belgium (which has just the most unreal ski in the ranking Treasury Department) since Belgium has spent his position, brace yourself, of 200 to 250 billion in one month ... what is a considerable increase.

So why Belgium? To be honest, mystery and gumdrop, no idea.Moreover is it Belgium, the Central Bank of Belgium or the Belgians?(No, these are not the Belgians began to buy U.S. bonds at the same time each dish moules frites ...) It may also be that since in Brussels ... Europe there is the European Commission and a whole bunch of pharmacies. In short, for the moment, no facts but a lot of speculation and assumptions.

What is certain is that the Chinese 50 billion were absorbed by our Belgian friends I warmly thank for their financial sacrifice because I prefer these bills in Belgium and France. So we have to watch as the milk on the fire changes in the bond market because if China continues its massive release of Treasury bills ... it is not our poor friends Belgians, as nice as they are, that will replace the buyer Chinese become massive seller ... But to take the system a bit more taking advantage of their "power of persuasion", our great American friends may force some nations to buy more of their debt moldy ... and France, a great friend Zaméricains of François who had the red carpet Obama should end up being tempted and make a sublime check to Uncle Sam on the back of French and tax payers that we have all become.

Ahah      

The debt may be huge, not so huge, difficult to refund or not; it won't be the end of the world that's for sure, but it may be for someone. Because someone will have to pay for it, and what matters, is that it is not you

Quote from KoKo5oVaR

The debt may be huge, not so huge, difficult to refund or not; it won't be the end of the world that's for sure, but it may be for someone. Because someone will have to pay for it, and what matters, is that it is not you

Unless your saving your money whatever the amount of money you hold. You voted those debt.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/news-r…rne-des-banques

Quote

Agreement on the "internal bank bailouts" Directive

Parliament's negotiators and the Presidency of the Council reached a political agreement Wednesday on the proposal for a directive on the recovery and resolution of failing banks . This is a first step towards the creation of a European system dedicated to troubled banks. The Directive will introduce in January 2016 by the principle of bail ( bail-in ) , ensuring that taxpayers will not be the first to pay the bank failures .

The Directive will enter into force on 1 January 2015 and the system of bail on 1 January 2016. Welcoming the agreement , Gunnar Hökmark (EPP, SE) , in charge of the legislation through Parliament , said: " We now have a robust system for bail The message is clear . These are the shareholders and creditors banks who will bear the loss in case of problems , not the taxpayers. We also set clear rules for the most exceptional cases that threaten overall financial stability. " Basics bail The Directive establishes a system of internal bailout to ensure that taxpayers are the last to be taken into account to pay the bills of a bank in difficulty. During a bail , creditors , according to a predefined hierarchy , abandon some or all of their assets to keep the bank afloat . This system will apply from 1 January 2016. The instrument of bail set by the Directive oblige shareholders and bondholders to collect the first shots . Unsecured deposits ( over € 100,000 ) would be affected last and in many cases after the intervention financed by the bank and the national system of deposit guarantee in the country where the bank resolution funds in to stabilize the bank. Smaller depositors would in all cases explicitly excluded from bail . To improve the prospects for recovery of a troubled bank and promote economic stability in general internal bailouts would apply to at least 8% of all total assets lost. In most cases, this would mean that as many shareholders and bondholders should intervene. Beyond this threshold, the bank resolution authority may authorize the bank to have access to financing resolution fund to a maximum of 5% of the bank's assets . A Member State could apply for the European Commission to exempt certain creditors bail in exceptional circumstances and on a case by case basis. The Commission would have the right to oppose it . Despite these exemptions , the bank should always find 8% of its assets to bail before we can hope to use other funds. National resolution funds For each Member State , a fund will be established to help banks to help their reorganization or liquidation. The fund would consist of bank contributions and should reach 2025 1% of covered deposits of banks in the country . Use of public funds The Directive recognizes that , in exceptional circumstances , the provision of public funds, especially in the form of bank recapitalizations, may be necessary and beneficial. However , the extent of such interventions is strictly defined. The " stabilization tools governments " , which allow public intervention will be possible only in exceptional cases and only after that 8% of a bank's assets have been used to bail . A " recapitalization as a precautionary measure " would only be a last resort. Within six months after the entry into force of the Directive, the European Banking Authority will present guidelines on the circumstances in which a recapitalization as a precautionary measure could take place. Finally, by 2018 , the European Commission will undertake a review to determine whether to continue to allow the use of this tool recapitalization. next Steps The agreement must now be finalized at the technical level and will then be formally approved by the Council and Parliament in plenary. It shall enter into force on 1 January 2015. Work on the second part of the legislation relating to the liquidation of banks is ongoing. Next week, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliament and the ECOFIN Council should both make their position on the rules establishing the single authority of bank resolution and resolution funds . Negotiations will begin in January 2014.

All is not rosy, the lack of transparency may be a problem, and less risk of bankruptcy may raise more financial risk to the banks.

Quote from Seldoon182

Unless your saving your money whatever the amount of money you hold. You voted those debt.

i voted white

I mean you can vote left or right democrate or republican they are both the same nowadays. (even blank vote) If you believe there is difference between those both you're fooled.

In France 0.068 % of people take decision for 68 M people... France is for sure a republic. Who still saying France is a democracy...

Quote from Pericolos0

I dont even know what to say to that.. of course currency is debt. That's. the. point.

money is literally an IOU. That's what it's always been lol.

Scaring people that don't understand currency by saying "money is debt" is a good way to sell gold though .

[Blocked Image: http://www.troll.me/images/yeah-sure/yeaaa-suuure.jpg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money