Steve wrote: > On 5/17/2010 10:23 AM, Christoph Reuss wrote: > > It is this speculation that steals billions > > I debunked this myth in 1998. Currency and commodity futures & forwards > & spot are zero sum games. The only direct losers are those willingly > playing the game.
Unfortunately, the Wall Street casino is NOT a closed circuit. The global gamblers rip off whole economies, so among the losers are millions of citizens who are UNwillingly participating in the "game". (You talk of "direct losers", but that's misleading -- INdirect losers must pay too!) For example: - The currency swings caused by speculators (especially of the "man who broke the bank of England" kind) cause big losses to the export industries, tourism and the national banks who have to buy billions in the losing currency to compensate the swings -- even outside the Euro zone! (e.g. the Swiss national bank has to buy billions of Euros which will drop nonetheless) - Since the pension funds are involved in the gamble, millions of workers lose. - When the speculators played with food (corn prices in the "bio-fuels" scheme), staple food prices e.g. in Mexico sky-rocketed, so the poor masses had to pay (or even starve) for the billionaires' gains! Also, your assertion about zero-sum among the casino gamblers cannot work out mathematically. Since for the largest gamblers (Soros, Buffett etc.), every move is a win, the smaller gamblers in the casino (which is a limited number) would have to be losing all the time, so they would soon have to leave the game. Soros & Co. making billions every year is ONLY possible by turning "the masses" into losers! One way to achieve that was to enter pension funds, currencies and food into the gamble. This too was done by the Predators, not by the masses. So you and Ed just can't blame the masses for their losses -- you have to blame the large Predators. > I debunked this myth in 1998. Yep, like you "debunked" the "myth" that the billionaires want to shrink the masses, by asserting that their own puppet governments asked for the shrinking. (They need a 'shrink' themselves!) > The government flow of supposed honest stats and news > is challenged by speculators who suspect the veracity of the data. > They are like a 'truth commission.' Laughable -- the mega-thieves are the truth commission... Orwell must be spinning in his grave... > Currency trades require two willing counterparties to transact a deal. > Depending upon the direction and duration held before closure of the > position, one party looks to have made what the other side lost. > But...it is rare that a position is closed with the same counterparty; > and when it is, rare that the counterparty help the position for exactly > the same duration. Banks run 'books' for each currency they trade. These > are floating and involve thousands of trades daily. The losers are "3rd-party", outside the casino! See examples above. ---- > >> > bank bailouts > >> > > That's a symptom of billions stolen by the speculators. (Note that you are > > confusing cause and effect, also in the timeline.) > > Debunked already. Nope, see above. The billions went from involuntary participants into the deep pockets. > > The housing bubble is only a US phenomenon, > > false There were bank bailouts also in countries where the housing bubble is negligible. > I have never supported bailouts of capitalist, for profit businesses. Good! But it happened nonetheless. > The pension plans of millions > are invested in (unwisely if not bailed out) banks, insurance companies, > and auto manufacturers to name a few. If the system let them go under > when they did stupid things, the pensions would decline even more than > they have WITH the bailouts. (another zero sum redistribution, and the > poor lose even more as they have few pensions except govt ones) The mistake was that the pension funds participated in the gambling at all. But that was not an accident, it was a trick for bottom-up redistribution by and for the Predators. > > The key question is: Who could easily make a big difference? > > Discipline re govt spending, envir protection, and controls of usury and > fraudf (as examples) are tough when govts get corrupted which I believe > most are. Corrupted by .... Predators! Not by "the masses"!! Duh! > > The billionaires could stop speculating immediately, > > If a capitalist system had no specs, liquidity would dry up. Bad for any > hedging of future agric. & mining production, shipping costs, weather > risks etc Come on, this is absurd. Speculators are RUINING agric. & mining, not enabling it! The best thing would be to outlaw speculation and let the state lend the necessary money. Would be cheaper too than to bail out banks just so the speculators gain once more. > > and stop charging interest > > (or only very low interest) -- they're philanthropes, after all!? > > interest is set by supply/demand. If artificially low, people borrow > too much and create bubbles like housing or dot com (cheap margin) No, the lenders can define how much they lend. They could lend the same amounts, but charging less or no interest! > > This alone > > would be sufficient to end the crisis (and not have it caused in the first > > place)! > > false see artificially low above False see reply above. > > But guess what, they don't stop because they want to keep making > > billions -- they just can't get enough. > > Some yes, it is a disease/addiction. Nice admission. So you would say that they should get psychiatrist treatment to cure their disease/addiction? ;-) > But many are not like that in my opinion. The biggest ones are like that, and that's sufficient to ruin economies and debunk the myth of "philanthropist billionaires". > > "The masses" (outside the US, anyway) are not significantly indebted. > > The UK and Canada and Australia and others are in pretty much the same > boat as US re consumer debt. Well, no wonder after all they got used to grabbing whole continents for "free"... So let's re-state that as: "The masses" (outside the Anglo area, anyway) are not significantly indebted. In fact, it is sufficient to find a few countries with very low consumer debt but still multi-billion bank bailouts and currency bailouts, to disprove Ed Weick's claim that consumer debt is the cause of bailouts. > > What > > could they do to make a big difference (and do they have to change at all)? > > Consume less? That would make things worse! > > Too many of us chasing limited stuff/energy = conflict and rape of envir. On the contrary: It is an empirical fact that the environment ranks highest in people's priorities when things are going well, but as soon as people have to struggle with essential problems from recession, unemployment, harsh competition and crime (i.a. due to immigration) --i.e. all things fomented by speculators--, then caring for the environment drops way down in people's list of priorities -- then they literally have other problems! > This was a one shot response. In the stone age (or -redo), you need a better marksmanship to survive. ;-) Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
