>Do you make these things up, are you just remarkably ignorant, or are you just >going on >blind faith in government? If none of the above, please list how the >$700B bailout slush >fund has been spent so far. Hopefully “these things” are not made up and the generation of youth including these on this board will be in tune with the difference between the banking balance and personal or micro-economic balance sheets. The basic difference is that the personal balance sheet tend to measure the creation of wealth and that of the bank tend to measure the creation of money. Money is not wealth but the means to transfer wealth. Money have various functions among these are a measure to count value, a store of wealth, medium of exchange. It is the varying functions which might create confusion in the general public and lend to the ease in which money is used as a tool of theft by inflation and the collapses of banks like the colossal failures which the world is using to transfer the wealth of nations back to the capitalist, socialist moguls or what ever you wish to call them. The difference between the personal balance sheet and the bank balance sheet is based upon what these sheets measure. In the case where the balance sheet analyze wealth we discover an asset to be real property, commodities, inventories, money on hand [only in a short time period call the current period] ect the bank balance sheet evaluate these things in retrospect [deposites loaned out to purchase personal assets]. In this view present evaluations use money to count the assets. It may be considered ignorant to miss this point but yet a person might be smarter than a fifth grader and yet have problem with this sharp different. Accounting FASB allow accountants to differ widely in these evaluations while the banking institutions must use more strict measure like interest [prime lending rates] to structure their asset evaluations. Ultimately bank assets drive the expansion of money between member banks and the Federal Reserve Banks. General Assets create contractions by absorbing money. We might see these facts in the various segments of accounting i.e. general as apposed to financial accounting. Again even the experts tend to differ but a good president should be smarter than a fifth grader and grasp these sharp differences and if he/she is not then hold your jockey strap you are in for a ruff ride. A=L+E now become two different monsters. The A in the general accounting term need L/E to measure the debt equity ratio and determine the production of wealth. This formula is a key to understanding the problem which America faces when wealth occurs and very little E is in the hands of a few private citizens. The source of E is the existence of real income which is the difference between gross income and the cost to produce this income divided by inflation in t1 against an index bread basket cost. The private American suffer because the tools for producing wealth [capital, labor, the mix] keep slipping from his grasp. The plantation economy in America pooled wealth in the hands of a few gentlemen planters. The Washington’s and Jefferson’s were not the only creators of wealth because houses up north were being built by slave labor and the expansions of industry was fuel by the very genius which wished to break away yet be a part of the slave system creating the wealth. The duality of early American wealth evolve from the slave freemen bureaucracy. In some spheres free men contributed to the creations wealth which they claimed as their possessions. The slave holders gained the advantages from the triangle of trade which drove the industries of Europe and transferred 87 years unchallenged wealth to the Founders and their kind. The industries of steel and oil came to be molded after the images of Fulton, Stevenson, AJ McCoy, Grandville T. Woods and many men of various hue and tint. These men again struggle to compete for their own intellectual wealth as they fueled the Civil War. The new politics for the wage slave rose from these new enterprise. The nations first order of business after the 13th, 14th, and 15th, amendments was the 16th amendment. This income tax act tied the A of the private citizen to ownership by those in control of the government. Although we wish to say representative government again an advantage was given to some citizens over others. The break away republic was fashioned well before the 16th amendment because a new world order had taken place and the politics of the time needed to catch up. Money and banking grew by leaps and bounds during this period and the wealth of America was measured by the expansion of the A&P systems which opposed the gentleman planters and Masons. So the perfect person to lead the nation was Abe Lincoln not because of his love for the slave or his desire to see him free but because he was a railroad lawyer turn congressman who could cool the abolitionist movement. The golden spike was more a symbol of war between the old and new than of triumph of steel over slavery. This is the history of money and banking in America and the gold rushes of California and silver lode of Colorado was just as symbolic as Obama and the hordes ascending upon the blue mountains to acclaim Yes We Can. These golden ages come to man and challenge his visions much like the Nat Turners or Rev Wrights of their area. The Alexander Hamilton as much as the JP Morgan became the primary fixers of money and banking. The loses of the Lemans and the Stern Barons are all about the return of wealth to the old American Capitalist. The housing stocks and Equipment and industrial accumulations is the wealth of America. Watch the direction of the flow of the A in the A=L+E formulae to determine who is being fleeced. The banking instructions after the collapse of various down streams banks was to provide 700 billion in dollars to grease the grimy wheels of commerce. What is really your question. Is it how 700 billion has been spent or where did it go? I find it easier to talk in economic and historic terms. But before I do I will pose a question to answer you. Who spend the section eight monies the welfare recipient of the middle class real estate owner or the construction worker who builds the house? These symbiotic relationships drove the present concepts of deficit spending. The belief that a nation could spend its way out of a depression found a practical basis in these relationships. So we find Roosevelt more fit to lead than Hoover. It become more those who are fit to steal than those fit to lead. The A in the money and banking case was fuel first by the gold rush and hence the gold standard. By 1935 with new deals and schemes we come to the floating currency and Keynes famous theory of deficit spending ruled the day. This was not a problem and serve to match money to production of wealth as it fueled new holders of wealth. These days were closely tied so that the A in both formula attempted to be evaluated by controlling the production of wealth and its measure with banking regulations and the expansion of money. Friedman and Greenback Span comes along and unhitch a number of assumptions and standards. For a time Americans have lived on run away credit. The youth wish to blame their elders--hell we know better. We know about the education loans, housing loans with down payments, credit card lines in front of the colleges and universities and even those complaining Neo-cons got enough credit cards to create a span across the golden gate bridge. The credit of the last three generations since 1945 in America has seen this idea grow that the world owe what the slaves could not pay. The ideas that steel and oil should be the stuff which pre-emptive strikes should be made of and the blacker the water [oil] the more perfect the operations. See http://www.buy.com/prod/ghettonomics-vol-1-man-myth-the-religion-of-racism/q/loc/106/33906837.html The present world crisis has tested the Euro and the construction of a new world order is stalled. The slide has transferred basic real assets now occur openly to those with the golden parachutes. The neo-Anglo-thors are worshiped in their extra-terra societies. God bless um and let us all say aum aum but don’t hide behind the ultimate ignorance--Da Lie--the thief can’t pass good title Ah Ha. Weel it ain’t nothing to laugh about but in wage slave terms even a fifth grader can divide 15 million dollars by 50,000 dollars. It don’t take a master of economics or one with cum lade status to figure how many salaries this represent? 300; and at $25,000 it represent 600 employees earnings. Do you realize what the lay-off actually represent up front? The greatest losers in this crisis is the American Creditors who had an invested interest in the wealth which they created. The American citizen must look at new ways to create wealth beyond the oil and fossil fuel and base the currency on these new wealth. Name calling is a good thing when it is imaginary and visionary. As far as the bail-out and slush funds accounted at 700 billion dollars; look at the cost of the war in Iraq with that price tag. What wealth has it created. How was that spent? What about $990 hammers? The idea of a continuing war will cost a great deal more. Don’t let the Xbox get you down. We have money to burn and ignorance has been our calling card for too long. -------------- Original message from "John Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: --------------
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Dan M wrote: > > Well, I looked on this balance sheet, and didn't see that. Further, isn't > > senior debt a debt, not an asset? What I think you mean is that it's big > > enough to absorb all the loss involved in liquidating assets. > > > > So, to look at that, I looked up "deutsche bank senior debt" and got > > > > http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2008/q2/notes/informationonthebalances > > > > heetunaudited/long-termdebt.html > > > > http://tinyurl.com/62cgfg > > > > > > We see that subordinate + senior debt is less than 200 billion Euros. > > Sorry, I assumed from the way you were speaking that you had a decent > understanding of the balance sheets of banks, so I was speaking > loosely. I'll be a bit more precise now. > > A bank's balance sheet may be divided into assets and liabilities. > Assets can be loans, mortgage backed securities, cash, etc. The > liabilities include deposits, REPO's, long-term debt, etc. It is an > accounting identity that assets = liabilities + equity (that is the > "balance" part of the name). If the assets lose value (for example, > bad MBS's) then the balance is maintained by reducing the equity. If > the equity becomes negative, the firm is insolvent. I'm not familiar > with the bankruptcy laws in Europe, but if they are anything like the > US then all the debt holders will lose their money before the > depositors. Basically there is an ordering of the liabilities, with > the depositors near the top, and in bankruptcy, after all assets have > been liquidated, the depositors are paid off first, then the next > creditor on down the line until the money runs out. > > The balance sheet you referenced has total assets of nearly 2 trillion > euros, and 422 billion euros of deposits under liabilities. As long as > the losses on the assets do not exceed about 79% (loss of 1.6 > trillion), then the depositors could get their money back. > > > You just brushed off the essential problem at the heart of bank runs with a > > "it would just". > > I'm not talking about preventing bank runs. The issue I am addressing > is whether the depositors would be able to get their money back in > bankruptcy. If the depositors won't be able to get their money back > eventually, then that is a more severe crisis than just an insolvent > bank. > > > Second, when bank failures have happened in the US, it's been a big bank > > taking over a smaller bank with the US government eating the bad assets as > > part of the deal. > > That is a gross oversimplification. But there are two huge mistakes > that the government can make that contribute greatly to the problem: > > 1) Bailing out the bondholders. If banks find it harder to borrow, > then they will have a more difficult time reaching excessive leverage. > But if the government bails out the bondholders, then the bondholders > will be eager to lend to the banks even if they have excessive > leverage. > > 2) Not charging high enough premiums for insurance. One thing that is > obvious from the past year is that the government considers some > financial institutions too big to fail. If that was the case, the > government should have been charging much higher insurance premiums > (in some cases, higher than zero) for insuring these institutions. Big > mistake. Government excels at big mistakes. > > > > I'll go back to another example of this: the fact that the spread between > > interest on A and AA paper jumped up to almost 5% as the bailout was being > > passed, and is now dropping as it is being implemented. > > Do you make these things up, are you just remarkably ignorant, or are > you just going on blind faith in government? > > If none of the above, please list how the $700B bailout slush fund has > been spent so far. > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
