Request for comment: Collapse of the U. S. A.

[Undisputedtruth]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>Loz and Hugenot have held the line but

> it's time to close off this thread.

What was their line? I must have blinked and missed it.

[New Nexus]

Most if not all counter-arguments to my original posting, have clearly taken the form of reductio ad absurdum format,

The ad hominem attacks, show a refusal to even consider a paradigm that is outside the norms of mainstream media, data Processing and conditioning.

This was expected and predicted by professionals in anthropology.

[Undisputedtruth]

@Hugo,

Trading without emotion is nothing new.

[Huguenot]

Ha ha ha! NN, you think the arguments against your conclusions are reductio ad absurdum?

There's never been a clearer case of projection!! Ha ha. :)

Contrary to your assertion, it is the fact that so many people have been prepared to consider your 'paradigm that is outside the norms of mainstream media' and under analysis have found it vacuous, that has made you so furious.

As I've said before, your arguments have been scare-mongering based on very few facts and demonstrably poor understanding. You've persistently used fabricated quotes and deliberately misinterpreted the views of other commentators. You have made sweeping, ugly and offensive generalisations about people in certain professions. You've resorted to cutting and pasting material from other websites and bulletin boards without attribution (passing them off as your own).

Despite that, those who have argued against you have done little more than point out that the conclusions you have drawn are simply too extreme and poorly supported to be rational. No-one has said that there aren't bad seeds in banking and politics, but they have said that that cannot justify your extraordinary conclusions.

It was your absolute refusal to accept any of these points, together with the reiteration and escalation of your pre-emptive claims of the destruction of society as we know it that earned you your reputation as a nutter.

[StraferJack]

"Most if not all counter-arguments to my original posting, have clearly taken the form of reductio ad absurdum format,

The ad hominem attacks, show a refusal to even consider a paradigm that is outside the norms of mainstream media, data Processing and conditioning.

This was expected and predicted by professionals in anthropology."

oooh, with language like that, the mask is slipping slightly and a familiar figure starts to take shape

[Undisputedtruth]

Perhaps Channel 4 and BBC are nutters as well, hey Hugo.

Anyway, here are links to the Channel 4's documentary about the mess banks have caused.

Private equity financier Jon Moulton gives a succinct explanation so hopefully this would appeal to some people who didn't have the intellectual capability to understand the points New Nexus was making.

Dispatches: How the Banks Bet your Money (part1/2)

Dispatches: How the Banks Bet your Money (part2/2)

[mockney piers]

"oooh, with language like that, the mask is slipping slightly and a familiar figure starts to take shape"

my thoughts exactly!!!!

[Huguenot]

@Mockers - really, who is it? It seems such a pastiche of views I can't make my mind up.

@UDT Eh? What's the Dispatches programme got to do with anything?

Moving the goalposts again UDT?

This thread is not about what the banks may have got wrong (most posters including me think that the banks and regulators got it wrong) - this thread is about the following extreme assertions made by New Nexus, all before 2014.

It is these assertions that he has failed to substantiate, and it is his peculiar (ir)rationale that made people consider him a nuttter.

-------------------

From New Nexus:

"People will no longer be able to remove cash funds from their bank accounts and all ATM machines will be switched off.

All credit and debit cards will no longer function ? Do not dispose of your credit or debit cards, central governments will use these to setup a rationing system for emergency food and water distribution.

Telecommunication systems will be limited to emergency calls only this will include mobile and land-line.

Internet systems will be re-routed to emergency holding pages only, Email servers will be turned off.

Television programming will be centrally controlled.

Stock markets will go into free-fall then trading will be suspended, but off market trading will decimate stocks.

Hard assets will deflate by 90% this means a house at present costing $500,000.00 will drop to $50,000.00 this drop could be greater if mortgage defaults and delinquency are higher than predicted.

Commodity prices will increase 200% per-day. Commodities like bread, meat and canned goods could increase 400 to 500 percent per-day.

Mains water supply will first drop in pressure before it stops completely.

Petrol and diesel will first be rationed and then very quickly disappear off the open market, any black market supplies will be completely unaffordable.

Rolling blackouts will be common place and gas supplies will be interrupted and intermittent before energy imports completely dry up, most western nations have approximately 60 days of coal reserves. Unfortunately most generating stations have been designed to burn gas not coal.

Large scale looting and civic disorder will ensue.

Social unrest will very quickly usher in martial law. (troops on the streets and curfews imposed)

Further false flag attacks will be instigated to render populations more susceptible to control."

[New Nexus]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ha ha ha! NN, you think the arguments against your

> conclusions are reductio ad absurdum?

>

> There's never been a clearer case of projection!!

> Ha ha. :)

>

> Contrary to your assertion, it is the fact that so

> many people have been prepared to consider your

> 'paradigm that is outside the norms of mainstream

> media' and under analysis have found it vacuous,

> that has made you so furious.

>

> As I've said before, your arguments have been

> scare-mongering based on very few facts and

> demonstrably poor understanding. You've

> persistently used fabricated quotes and

> deliberately misinterpreted the views of other

> commentators. You have made sweeping, ugly and

> offensive generalisations about people in certain

> professions. You've resorted to cutting and

> pasting material from other websites and bulletin

> boards without attribution (passing them off as

> your own).

>

> Despite that, those who have argued against you

> have done little more than point out that the

> conclusions you have drawn are simply too extreme

> and poorly supported to be rational. No-one has

> said that there aren't bad seeds in banking and

> politics, but they have said that that cannot

> justify your extraordinary conclusions.

>

> It was your absolute refusal to accept any of

> these points, together with the reiteration and

> escalation of your pre-emptive claims of the

> destruction of society as we know it that earned

> you your reputation as a nutter.

You really could have just said, Post-hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Undisputedtruth]

@Hugo,

Watch the programme fully. I think you would enjoy it. :)

Happy to discuss afterwards including the points you have raised.

Dispatches: How the Banks Bet your Money (part1/2)

Dispatches: How the Banks Bet your Money (part2/2)

[StraferJack]

I'm sorry dave...I'm afraid I can't do that

[Huguenot]

"You really could have just said, Post-hoc ergo propter hoc."

You'll have to exaplin that UDT - using Latin doesn't make it any more relevant? NN was christened a nutter after he behaved like a nutter? That's obvious - but a few of you are insisting NN didn't behave like a nutter, so I was highlighting a few salient points.

I don't see much point in discussing the Dispatches programme. Like I said, most people agree that the financial markets and the regulators got it wrong. There were many reasons for this.

I'm not really interested in a string of apocalyptic disaster scenarios. I've already pointed out until I was bored that if you take every possibility to an extreme and coincidental end point that all things are 'possible'.

Possible doesn't meand plausible or probable. The most likely outcome by a considerable margin is that we all stumble along as usual.

So all this apocalypse talk is just tedious bullshit.

[Undisputedtruth]

@hugo,

I think it's worth watching because I'm not convinced you understand the scale of the financial disaster/risk and makes it more difficult to have a serious discussion.

I fisrt watched the programme in 2008 and it also talks about where the next financial crisis would happened. Most people assumes the regulators and financial markets would learn from their lessons but the Dispatches programme explains otherwise in that there are no mechanisms in place to stop the next financial bubble. The super rich are taking huge bets and taking the huge gains while taxpayers, like ourselves, are paying for the losses. The question then becomes how much more able the taxpayers can cover the losses and at what point society starts breaking down when the country stretches itself to pay for these losses. Normal rules of capitalism doesn't seem to apply to either the bankers or the super rich, in that they are not responsible for their losses.

[Scylla100]

@Huguenot - I don't think we can stumble along as usual. That's the point. I'm a big fan of Nicole Foss like NN (and people like her.) I read some of the end of the world predictions on your post and I do see your point; house prices going down 90 percent? It has gone down 90 percent or (or more even) in some places like Detroit or Cleveland but we seem to be having the opposite problem here in London. Television is centrally controlled? That prediction seems a little silly, like scaring people with central planning Communism - shock horror! False Flag? Oh dear. People who talk about 9/11 being an inside job talk about stuff like that.

There is a difference between people who think our economy has gone past the point of no return and something very bad is likely to happen as a result (me) and people who think the Bilderberg Group secretly runs the world (not me and not Nicole Foss either).

I feel like I should add some Latin to the end of this just to show how serious I am so here goes: Semper Ubi Sub Ubi.

Scylla

[Huguenot]

I understand the 'scale of the risk' probably better than you do UDT - because I don't look at it through the distorted lenses of envy, misanthropy and anti-establishment propaganda, and I'm not locked into an onanist relationship with the word 'disaster'.

This is just silly for example: "The question then becomes how much more able the taxpayers can cover the losses and at what point society starts breaking down when the country stretches itself to pay for these losses.". not only is it speculation, but it's completely disproportionate.

You've been driven into a hysterical orgy of fear by media reporting of the numbers. The final cost to the UK taxpayer of the last crisis was relatively insignificant, and most of the investments have already delivered greater returns than the original payout.

What I can recognise, and you seemingly cannot, is that the banking industry is one of a myriad of interlocking systems that keep our society functioning.

All of the factors that are thrown into the arena for the forthcoming apocalypse applied equally before the sub-prime fiasco (and probably more so because they were unanticipated).

The outcome was mitigated by everything from government interventionism to the actions of individuals.

This will apply equally to any future scenario.

I don't know why I bother telling you this - because you'ver tipped so far into irrationalism that you're no longer listening.

[Undisputedtruth]

@Hugo,

I think you've proven my point that it's very difficult to have a serious discussion.

The person commenting in the Dispatches programmes is a well known corporate financier. He is hardly a journalist is he now, Hugo? He understands the city a great deal more than you do.

Dispatches: How the Banks Bet your Money (part1/2)

Dispatches: How the Banks Bet your Money (part2/2)

[Huguenot]

@Scylla: Nicole Foss makes a huge number of predictions that make one key false assumption - that governments are not interventionist.

From her perspective the forecasts are based on 'all things being equal'. History tells us this is not the case.

Amercians get themselves in a huge steaming funk over this, but in Europe we have a much more socialist outlook and we don't associate interventionism with jackboots, media control and the end of society.

Let us also remember that Nicole generates her income from her lecture tour, and you don't get paid for being balanced. She is also a psychologist and environmentalist, not an economist.

If the banks had their way then the Euro would be dead already. A far more likely scenario is the EU becoming so exasperated with self-serving banking activity that they regulate them into impotence. This is the nature of interventionism.

[Huguenot]

UDT, you are absolutely blind to the fact that it's your apocalypse obsession that renders a sensible discussion impossible.

Time and again on this site you've been found to make outrageous assertions that turn out to be unsubstantiated and finally incorrect. When this is revealed you try and pretend the conversation was about something else.

I do not doubt that corporate financiers know the city better than I, I have never claimed otherwise - so why do you refute a point I have never made? This is typical of you.

What I've said, again and again, is that there are any number of possible outcomes, and that global apocalypse on the scale of NN's scenario is one of the least likely. Disaster scenarios nevertheless make good telly.

[Undisputedtruth]

I really don't understand your commotion.

All you need to do is to watch the Dispatches programmes and then I'll be delighted to answer questions.

Dispatches: How the Banks Bet your Money (part1/2)

Dispatches: How the Banks Bet your Money (part2/2)

[Frankito]

Full time armchair fanatic, I envy the lifestyle.. *sighs* >:D

[Huguenot]

Ha ha! 'Delighted to answer questions'.

What delusions of grandeur are you suffering from that you imagine you have any answers? I thought we'd already established that the only answers you're likely to have are hackneyed apocalyptic cliche. In times of trouble shall we all come kneel at the feet of UDT?

Why would anyone have any questions for you? :))

[Yahira77]

;;;

[Santerme]

Fascinating thread, I think.

[New Nexus]

FT.com

China calls for new reserve currency

By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing

Published: March 23 2009 12:16 | Last updated: March 24 2009 00:06

China?s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

In an essay posted on the People?s Bank of China?s website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank?s governor, said the goal would be to create a reserve currency ?that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies?.

Analysts said the proposal was an indication of Beijing?s fears that actions being taken to save the domestic US economy would have a negative impact on China.

?This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money,? said Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC.

Although Mr Zhou did not mention the US dollar, the essay gave a pointed critique of the current dollar-dominated monetary system.

?The outbreak of the [current] crisis and its spillover to the entire world reflected the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system,? Mr Zhou wrote.

China has little choice but to hold the bulk of its $2,000bn of foreign exchange reserves in US dollars, and this is unlikely to change in the near future.

To replace the current system, Mr Zhou suggested expanding the role of special drawing rights, which were introduced by the IMF in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime but became less relevant once that collapsed in the 1970s.

Today, the value of SDRs is based on a basket of four currencies ? the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling ? and they are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and some other international organisations.

China?s proposal would expand the basket of currencies forming the basis of SDR valuation to all major economies and set up a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies so they could be used in international trade and financial transactions.

Countries would entrust a portion of their SDR reserves to the IMF to manage collectively on their behalf and SDRs would gradually replace existing reserve currencies.

Mr Zhou said the proposal would require ?extraordinary political vision and courage? and acknowledged a debt to John Maynard Keynes, who made a similar suggestion in the 1940s.

[Huguenot]

New Nexus, your doomsday scenario was based upon the fact that China rejects use of Special Drawing Rights and would destroy Society as we know it to prevent their use.

Are you now changing your mind?

I'm reassured that finally you accept that SDR is not a currency, but a loan system from a basket of currencies. And of course the devaluation of the US$ through QE is something I explicitly recognize and support. There is no surprise that China are unenthusiastic about it, but that's not the same as the end of the world.

Turns out I seem to understand what I'm talking about eh?

Pray tell, what else have you changed your mind about? ;-)