I am offering something to thread - I'm saying you haven't got a ****ing clue.
Just because I can point out that you don't have a clue doesn't mean I have my own explanation. I wouldn't dream of predicting what's going to happen.
PIIGS may default, they may not. It may or may not lead to a structured exit of the Euro. Nobody knows, anyone who claims to know is a liar or an idiot.
The effect of a Euro collapse would be very bad, but it wouldn't lead to the kind of ridiculous nonsense you're going on about.
That's all there is to say about it really.
It wasn't a mistake. When you don't know something and say you don't know something and then go back and fill it in afterwards that's not a mistake. The %age of Greek neo-nazis is not a particularly big part of things though. I picked up on it because it was another illustration of Kwerk's shaky argument. It's the pair of you that have kept on about it.
Kwerk has no solid understanding of the issues - hell I don't have an entirely solid understanding and it's part of my job - he's just seem some fringe doomsayers who won't get any airtime unless they continue to be doomsayers and he's swallowed it all up as the only possible explanation.
No. It's me pointing out he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.
Neo-nazis got 7% not 20%.
A hard right party in France got 20% of the vote. Not Neo-Nazis in Greece.
banking crisis 2.0 ?
scaremongering much?
Let me explain in everyday terms wait could happen when all the sovereign debt stuff implodes.
All these banking assets aren't backed 1:1 by actual collateral, they're backed by other financial instruments back by other instruments backed by other instruments backed by an actual asset, which is probably over-valued from all this money still floating around (like your house).
What inevitably needs to happen is this mish mash has to be deconstructed to something sustainable, it has to de-leverage and the collateral has to be marked to market. That means all the extra "wealth" floating around in computers evaporates. What they have done to postpone it from happening is extract more "wealth" from future tax payers, your kids and grand kids, and insert it in to the banks. That's why everyone was upset. What Greece wants to do is keep that going even further, but to insert it in to the government instead of the banks. Both are stupid ideas. Things need to reset (deleverage) the way they should have in 2008.
So what would that mean to you? Suddenly your bank has way less "wealth" than it thought it did. You go to the cash machine and there's a sign saying you can only withdraw £20 a day. You go to the super market and the shelves are looking bare because the lorry company's line of credit has been canceled and they cant pay the drivers. You get your pension fund statement and it's now worth 20% of what it used to.
The other option is for the government to just print out money and hand it to people in the street. But it's basically the same effect because the money is worthless. The ECB is not allowed to do that anyway.
There's no way out of this except for a massive reset or what Hendry calls in the video "the most profound market clearing moment".
So what would happen then? People with real welath producing assets like farm land, oil wells and the like will go through and buy up all the other assets (like your house) for pennies on the dollar. They will also buy up your LABOUR for pennies on the dollar. In other words you'll start t know first hand what it's like living in China or Romania. You'll be working in a factory, commuting on a bicycle and eating beans on toast for dinner every night. Might not be too different from now for some posters lol.
I think one needs to consider said statement in the context of a mind that believes every conspiracy theory it finds, and when people tell it that the theory is nonsense, that simply reinforces the belief that it's true. Given this context, saying that 'even Castiel can notice', means that this particular theory is so much more obviously true than the other conspiracy theories (which are also true, in this mind), that even someone that is not intelligent enough to realise the others are true, realises that this one is true.What do you mean "Even Castiel can notice"?
What do you mean "Even Castiel can notice"?
I think thats the first time I have actually seen a well reasoned (not that I fully agree mind) well presented querk post.
The system is slowly deleveraging and soon (think its 2013) the banks will be start to be "broken up" although that does lokk likely to be simply ring fencing the bits that cannot be allowed to fail from those bits that can. I say its slowly deleveraging its very slow.
If, and personally I dont think it will be allowed to happen, but if, it all goes into meltdown I disagree with people with assets like land and oil being the ones to gain. That level of complete breakdown would produce so many variables and possible outcomes its impossible to say they will be buying all the wealth.
Years ago, i think about 25 now. I read a study by one of the large oil companies, the most massive failure prediction model they came up with had the rich living in basically militarised fortresses and the vast majority living outside in almost stoneage conditions. The people who would end up in these fortresses were not necessarily people with money, assets, wealth or anythign that is judged as successful in todays world, but they had strong skills needed to protect the life inside these fortresses. No one knows and until its too late we never will.
I mean his pedantry is so obvious that even you are calling it out, as a poster prone to pedantry yourself.
I think one needs to consider said statement in the context of a mind that believes every conspiracy theory it finds, and when people tell it that the theory is nonsense, that simply reinforces the belief that it's true. Given this context, saying that 'even Castiel can notice', means that this particular theory is so much more obviously true than the other conspiracy theories (which are also true, in this mind), that even someone that is not intelligent enough to realise the others are true, realises that this one is true.
The crux of it really is some people think they can maintain "growth" by inflating the banks with the future labour of tax payers. Other people think they can maintain "growth" by inflating the governments with the future labour of tax payers.
All I'm saying is neither of those can maintain growth, in fact all the growth from the last couple of decades was largely imaginary. There isn't going to be any growth, we haven't even paid for the "growth" we already had!
Feel free to argue against that idea.
It probably passed him by that I was not agreeing with his opinion, only saying that despite his usual rhetoric one facet of what he said has some veracity.
Which is what I was explaining to Halk, it is self defeating belabouring kwerks admitted confusion on this one point, especially when there is so much more to be critical about with regard his latest theories.
What's through the round window today