Skip to main content

Updated and republished
Written by an American Expat living in the E.U.

The mainstream publication Der Spiegel truthfully reported that the Wall Street banksters committed "a monumental insider bank robbery" for which no one went to jail. Since the date of publication, 2 years ago the US for-profit plutocrat owned media has ignored this story but more to the point perhaps is the fact that not only did they ignore the story, they failed to report it in the first place.  Why is that? Here's why, because it's going to happen again. The needed regulation to prevent it from happening again has never been put in place. There's too much money to be made by too many people for it not to happen again. Therefore as it is incentivized, it will happen again. In fact the only question the smart money is asking is when will the next crash occur?

Just like the last time, there's no downside for the banksters, no one will go to jail and it will be tax payer bailouts, bonuses for CEOs and golden parachutes as far as the eye can see.

As an American expat who holds an MBA degree in marketing, currently living in European Union, I was struck once again by the reality that the job of the American media doesn't seem to be about really informing us but rather to sell commercial advertising space as a marketing profit center. I've learned through truthful reporting to rely on the European mainstream media sources like Germany's Der Spiegel and Britain's BBC networks. What I have also learned is that we have to reach out to our fellow Americans and citizens of the world in alternative media and ask each of our readers to help us get the word out through email and social networking sites like Facebook in order to get the truth out. The truth is, we have just gone through the most expensive elections in history that cost $2 billion dollars, paid for by private capital, primarily Wall Street financial capital. Exactly what did Wall Street get for their money. Clearly they got the financially deregulated market that existed in 2008, now in 2012, therein leaving us vulnerable again. Just like the Spiegel article points out.

To that end, will you help us get the word out?

The reason we need your help is because the German Spiegel magazine also reported that the Wall Street banksters are at it again, behaving just as shamelessly as they did before the crash. To which I would ask how long before a second Wall Street crash and how long before a second tax payer bail out?  Why don't we have new regulations to prevent a 2nd crash? Why?

Here is the simple truth. The Glass-Steagal act needs to be restored. We know that banks routinely overvalue their assets and additionally are still holding trillions of dollars in high risk assets. These things are routinely hidden using accounting tricks which are routinely uncovered when the government takes over insolvent banks. Assets that are overvalued and are over leveraged have shown that these banks, had an honest accounting been given were in fact bankrupt many years before ever being taken over by the government. That's why we need better banking regulation throughout the banking industry to protect the American people from fraud. Dodd-Frank doesn't go nearly far enough. Generally the markets are as deregulated today as they were in 2008.

It doesn't seem to matter if it's an artificially created deficit in Wisconsin which results in union busting mania or the Wall Street banksters plundering our financial institutions. The solution is always the same and that is to balance the budget or pay for the bail out on the backs of working class America rather than asking those responsible to be held accountable. God forbid that America's rich would ever be asked to pay their fair share of taxes to help correct these problems. Additionally in America, we have a media which is owned by the plutocracy who too often ignores the truth.

The truth is the Wall Street banksters are in the process of creating a second crash that you will be asked to pay for. There is one important difference this time major mainstream European news organizations like Der Spiegel have warned us of a coming second crash.

(Quote from Der Spiegel: "From Wall Street to be thrown onto the street")
 
"The stockbrokers are celebrating the end of the crisis. While the crisis is beginning to repeat itself, the banks are just as shameless in their speculation as they were before the crash.

The lobbyists are just as powerful as they ever were. The last 2 years were nothing more than a monumental insider bank robbery, which is long since forgotten. Not a single defendant from senior management was criminally charged. Instead the US Dept of Justice would rather pursue many swindlers who are small fish whose unbridled avarice made them mini-Bernie Madoffs. Bernie Madoff whilst in jail was notified of his son’s suicide." (Block quote based on writer’s paraphrased interpretation of the German text of the German magazine Spiegel December 30th 2010)

http://www.spiegel.de/...

When we were suddenly taken off our feet (sucker punched if you will) by the Wall Street banksters during the last crash, many of us reacted in a state of shock and disbelief. The banking crisis took millions by surprise. Here's the truth, this time we won't be able to say that.

This time mainstream European media sources have warned us of a coming second crash, which is being engineered at this moment by the Wall Street banksters.

(Quote from Der Spiegel: "From Wall Street to be thrown onto the street")
"For many families the American dream became the American nightmare. Their falling into poverty placed them outside of the consciousness of American politicians, who placed greater value on campaign contributions than on the worries of the silent majority.

America seems to have a short memory. Brokers are celebrating the end of the crisis. While the crisis is beginning to repeat itself, the banks are just as shameless in their speculation as they were before the crash." (Block quote based on writer’s paraphrased interpretation of German text of the magazine Spiegel December 30th 2010 issue)

http://www.spiegel.de/...

Of course in America  the rich can never be asked to pay their fair share of the income taxes.
Also even worse most wealthy Americans income comes from investments which are taxed at  lower 15% rate under capital gains tax! Clearly in America  the rich can never be asked to pay their fair share of the taxes.
 

Can the American social safety net survive yet again Wall Street bankster engineered crash?
Every problem that is engineered by the plutocracy has to be fixed on the backs of the American working class through austerity measures, that take away medical treatment that has been earned and reduce pensions that have been earned just like what we're seeing in the Tea Party led model in Wisconsin which if successful will ensure that no union in America will ever be safe again from the Tea Party. At the same time we see the dangers of a second Wall Street crash being reported by mainstream European media outlets.

The truth is in the minds of millions, America already has the weakest social safety net of any major industrialized country. Unlike every country in the European Union, America does not mandate medical care or dental care nor does it mandate paid sick leave, paid annual leave, paid maternity leave. This is in sharp contrast to the European Union which mandates all of these benefits even for low wage workers. In America there are 59 million who don't have health insurance; 132 million who don't have dental insurance; 60 million who don't have any paid sick leave; 40 million who are on food stamps. If that wasn't bad enough, the Tea Party led class warfare now intents to go on a nation wide union busting spree starting with the state of Wisconsin which will seek to weaken even further the American working class dream.

These reports are being ignored by the US media. Will you ignore them also??

Will you ignore the facts that banks through fraudulent account practices when taken over by the government have shown that they have over valued their assets by about a quarter. The instance of this is substantial enough to provide for responsible estimates of inflation of assets throughout the banking system, which if proven accurate would show that the American banking system by an honest accounting may well be already bankrupt and is dependent on your "consumer confidence" to keep it from going under. Please let's remember, consumer confidence is not a tangible asset. It is instead merely a thought process and it is the belief that is embodied by this thought process that is the only thing standing between the survival and collapse of the American banking system today.

Also as there's too much money being printed in America today, is that something that we can likewise continue to ignore? Or do you think we can continue to print our way out of this problem?

Let's please remember something important. We have to date 1.2 Trillion dollars in underwater mortgages in America today. 1 in 3 mortgages in America are underwater today. When workers salaries in America are flat for over 30 years, Wall Street convinced home owners to turn their homes into an ATM machine. Before the 2008 housing bubble, 70% of Americans were home owners. After the underwater mortgage crisis, it's closer to 40%. Let's understand that Wall Street in equity stripping sucked $750 Billion dollars out of the housing market. America has changed. Before 1982, there were no adjustable mortgages in America. Also we have close to $1 trillion dollars in outstanding student loans. This is just the left overs from the 2008 crisis, without commonsense financial regulations. The financial markets in 2013 will have as little protection as they did in 2008. Worse, they won't even restore the Glass-Steagal act. That is why I left America. That's why I believe the Spiegel financial writers and so should you. The smart money says there will be a second financial crash, it isn't a question of whether but when, and you can take that to the Bank!!

Originally posted to Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 03:32 AM PST.

Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement and Occupy Wall Street.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Your table of tax rates is misleadingly high. (16+ / 0-)

    The very wealthy manage to take a large proportion of their income in the form of capital gains, 15% tax rate, use other tax avoidance strategies or outright tax fraud.

    "Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down." Bill Clinton

    by irate on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:17:06 AM PST

    •  To irate thanks for rec. (14+ / 0-)

      Yes you right. But it is a income tax chart. Not a capital gains tax chart. Most people know that cap gains favor the rich. But they don't know that in 1965 the income tax rate was 53.3 and 2010 it's only 32.4

      sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

      by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:46:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The top marginal tax rate,,,, (11+ / 0-)

        is always much higher than what the wealthy really pay. Why do you suppose Romney made such an issue about releasing past tax returns? The year he did release he paid around 15% total taxes, the years he didn't release he may have paid nothing, perhaps legally without even considering the money he hides off-shore from Uncle Sam and the LDS church hierarchy.

        "Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down." Bill Clinton

        by irate on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:57:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Very interesting diary, as always. (4+ / 0-)

        Your reports from Europe are illuminating and have spurred several dinner conversations at my table. I do have a somewhat different take on the economic issues, but we come to the same conclusion. I look at much of this in terms of Modern Monetary Theory. In MMT, taxes imposed by a central government in a nation like the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, ect., nations that issue a sovereign non-convertible currency, do NOT fund central government spending. This is not true of state and local governments which are not issuers of the currency. It is also not true for the European Monetary Union because ECB was formed without a fiscal union to back it up. Nevertheless, taxes are vitally important in MMT as it is their existence that requires citizens to obtain dollars to extinguish their liability to the government. That imparts fundamental value to the currency. Taxes also serve to regulate the economy. When there is excess aggregate demand producing inflation (demand-push inflation) taxes reduce the private sector money available to spend. This reduces demand. Taxes are directed to provide incentives and disincentives for various societal behaviors. Sin taxes are an example. Some taxes aim to increase economic activity. These are taxes that discourage economic "leakages" such as expenditures on imports, money hoarding, and rent taking (unearned income). It is on this last point I find agreement with your sentiments. The income tax as originally imposed affected only the top 1% and it was largely focused on unearned income and hoarding - what today we call capital gains and accumulated financial wealth. Money that remains in the productive economy (the cycle of production and consumption) should almost never be taxed. Such taxes are anti-economic.  Social security taxes, for example, withdraw 1/8 of the earnings of productive workers/consumers from the economy. Now, that's idiotic!

        •  So, you don't like Social Security? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan

          Alternatives?

          Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

          by Pescadero Bill on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:17:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really, is that what you read? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            katiec
            Money that remains in the productive economy (the cycle of production and consumption) should almost never be taxed. Such taxes are anti-economic.  Social security taxes, for example, withdraw 1/8 of the earnings of productive workers/consumers from the economy. Now, that's idiotic!
            Social Security payments very definitely remain in the production/consumption cycle with only minor leakages. It's not the transfer payment that MMT objects to, it's the uneconomic tax on workers and the bogus accounting that says those tax dollars are "saved" for the system's future obligations. What a stupid concept. The government doesn't store and save its own currency. It creates it as necessary. Pay your taxes with cash and watch them shred the money. Tax dollars do not finance spending. Money taken in taxes is extinguished because all dollars are govt IOU's. What do you do with your IOU when you get it back?  
      •  Actually, it's "effective tax rate". That's the (3+ / 0-)

        sum total of all taxes as a percentage of income.  If it were income ("marginal") tax rates it would be higher (it was in the 90's in the postwar period) and if it were federal taxes it would be lower to account for capital gains rates.  "Effective" means all taxes including state and local.

        "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

        by nailbender on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:17:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Goldman Sachs rules the world (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      katiec, aliasalias

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:46:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  trying to stock up on a few things and get some (63+ / 0-)

    Dental work before a second crash.

    Have learned from previous stints of joblessness that I should plan for long downtime.

    Sick of being fucked by the rich.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:58:31 AM PST

    •  Please recommend xxdr zombiexx comment! Thanks! (17+ / 0-)

      You Sir are 100% right!

      sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

      by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 03:02:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hear you, zombie. (6+ / 0-)

      Day before yesterday I forked over $500 to the lawyer I had to retain to have my legal name changed to my legal name, because the Patriot Act of 2006 imposed a requirement that all forms of identification match one's Social Security card (not an official form of identification) exactly. And mine didn't, despite all names on all forms of identification being my legal names.

      Had to wait more than 6 years so my Mother-in-Law could die and bequeath us enough money to actually do that. In the meantime I have been unable to drive (no license renewal), have a bank account, work outside the home, fly on an airliner or ride on a bus or train.

      Does the government have to cover the cost of this hardship they have arbitrarily imposed on a little old lady for no other reason than they're scared of little old ladies? ...nope. And if I never had a 'spare' $500 to have my name changed to my name, I wouldn't even have been able to get my Social Security - or Medicare - at all when the time came. As I was told when this all came about, while standing right in front of state and federal bureaucrats trying to straighten it out while carrying a file folder chock full of perfectly legal identification records from birth certificate to school records (from kindergarten on) and medical records...

      "You do not exist."

      I was kind of getting used to it, am going to miss being a legislatively-defined outlaw a little bit.

  •  The cause of the crash was overvalued assets. (26+ / 0-)

    Especially housing.  What's overvalued now?  Crashes don't just happen on a lark--they have reasons.  What's the alleged coming reason?  People said it would be commercial real estate but there's no evidence of that; and we've heard things as unlikely as student loans (which can't crash because there's no underlying asset). For ideological reasons some people are positively fishing for the next crash and it's a distraction from real reform.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 03:48:07 AM PST

    •  Here's a place you don't want to store your wealth (6+ / 0-)


      A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

      by Pluto on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:10:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  To Rich in PA - You're flat wrong (10+ / 0-)

      It's just like the Spiegel said, the lobbyists are as powerful as they ever were and the brokers are betting just as shamelessly as they ever have. Plus there's no new regulations to act as a safe guard that are substantial, why the hell shouldn't there be another crash. There's no downside for the Wall Streeters. They make money no matter what they do. When they force another crash, it's tax payer bailouts and bonuses and golden parachutes all around as far as the eye can see.

      Plus, as the diary said, guess what.....no one went to jail. Hehe. Whee! Let's do it again. They've given incentives for fraud and they're doing it again. And that laughter  that you're hearing Rich in PA, is them laughing all the way to the bank with your money. In which case, you may be 'Poor in PA'.

      Oh and the one third of American home owners that are underwater, well, they're not happy are they? I mean, this is to the tune of 1.2 Trillion dollars. That number is getting bigger! The next crash is coming, we can be certain of that. The only question is when.

      sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

      by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:06:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The diary has zero rationale for (20+ / 0-)

      a crash - other than that the "banksters" are not being regulated enough to prevent them from accomplishing their goal of crashing again (so that they can be bailed out). Why is it that people here mistake the positives of a bailout to Wall Street once they've crashed with the idea that crashing itself is a positive, and something every Wall Street firm wishes to do? If, as you say, they are not stacking up overvalued assets in a highly leveraged way on their balance sheets, there is not even the threat of a blow up.

      •  Plus the diary refers to an article from 2010. (7+ / 0-)

        Apart from that, I think the statements are about fears that when the next market bubble is created (there will always be new market bubbles forming), the banks will largely be caught up in the same gambling things that the financial reform that did pass wouldn't be able to prevent.

        Whether or not that's the case, I have no idea, but the diary doesn't attempt to address that.

      •  Please read your American history (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lunachickie, carver, katiec

        Large crashes are inherently hugely profitable to moneyed interests by design. See First National bank of the United States. See Second National bank of the United States. Read about Andrew Jackson's fight against central banking.Learn what J.P. Morgan was up to during his life. How about the Schiff family ? History is replete with examples. We would be foolish to ignore that.

      •  The BIS says different. (0+ / 0-)


        The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

        by Jim P on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:43:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  doc2 Are you living in denial if I could please (0+ / 0-)

        ask. I honestly can't understand your post. Why would anyone who isn't living in denial believe such a thing? In fact it was people who were living in denial that allowed the '08 crash to happen in the first place.  They were in denial that commonsense regulation of the market was actually necessary. They were in denial that Wall Street banksters couldn't be trusted to steal everything that wasn't nailed down.

        Beyond that is the issue that we know, there is over 1.2 trillion dollars in toxic assets on the books of Wall Street banks in terms of underwater mortgages and that persons like yourself don't want to address. Still further we know that when the government takes over banks, the assets of those banks are overinflated in value to the point where if their over inflation had become known through an honest book keeping, that bank would have been bankrupt years earlier. This truth was kept hidden through accounting fraud which on Wall Street given the lack of regulation is completely rampant. I guess you missed that part of my diary.

        Additionally we have over a trillion dollar student loan bubble staring us in the face. Also bank fraud continues to be incentivized on Wall Street, in a clear case by way of example, in the '08 crash no one went to jail. A lot of people got very rich with tax payer bail outs paying for bonuses and golden parachutes as far as the eye can see.

        sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

        by Democrats Ramshield on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 10:18:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  We need more/better regulation (6+ / 0-)

      No question.  In the long term, we have not set up the regulations to prevent the next bubble, the next crash, and whatnot....but right now I can't think about what asset is overvalued in the US.  That does not mean we are not in danger of another crash.  We are.  And we know who is gonna start it, and why--the German government in collusion with German bankers through the idiotic austerity measures they are imposing on the peripheral EU countries.

      Christ I wish the Germans would wake the fuck up and stop punishing and killing the Irish, Greeks, Spanish, etc., etc. etc.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:10:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How about a self inflicted crisis that deflates... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MrBigDaddy

      ....a recovery which was built on an inflationary QE bubble?

      Pull yourself up by your Mittstraps: borrow a few million dollars from your parents!

      by xynz on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:56:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  too late (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vote4Obamain2012

        economy is growing on it's own now.  in 2013 we can stop doing QE.

        and QE asset purchases have been making a profit.

        so your theory is b.s.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:16:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Busted-out bars also make a profit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          katiec

          all the way through the final fire to get the insurance money. Short-term profit is a poor indicator of overall health.

          The "economy is growing" is an odd statement to make, as the number of people on food stamps is growing, the number of people falling into poverty is growing, the number of children falling into poverty is growing by leaps and bounds, the number of people claiming disability benefits for the first time far outstrip the number of people who are getting new jobs, the number of new jobs paying less than the jobs lost is growing, the number of people who count themselves as permanently out of the job market is growing, the number of people who skip early medical treatment for lack of funds/coverage is growing, the number of people with underwater mortgages is growing.... for a partial listing.

          U3 has unemployment down to 7.x% or so, but U6 has it at 14.4% (up to one year of looking for work but not getting it), and if you count the people who have been looking for work for more than a year (official figures drop them out of the "pool" when figuring their %ages) it's over 22%.

          So when you say "economy" are you talking about real people having real money, or something else? I'm pretty sure it's something else, and you might want to dig a little further before repeating this foolish thing someone told you.


          The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

          by Jim P on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:53:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the economy as a whole is growing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Hamlet

            GDP is growing.  we still have serious issues.

            but you do yourself no favors by ignoring the total story.

            anybody can cherry pick.  the truth is US GDP is growing.  growth is picking up, not going down.  these are important in these discussions.  just as income inequality is important.

            there is no recession on the horizon.  it's going to get better.  we really need to win the house in order to address some of those issues.  you can thank insane republicans for the disparity.  without them making the recovery more difficult, things would be a lot better for most.  

            things are not a lot better for all and they seldom tend to.  however things are better for us overall.  it's an important distinction.  we still have work to do.  defeating republicans in 2014 being number 1 on the list.

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:27:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  GDP is a joke as far as determining (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              health of an economy. People dying of cancer, car crashes, and tooth-pulling helps the GDP figures, as well as Hurricane Sandy wiping out communities. Doesn't show a thing about the quality of human life.

              The spreading immiseration of the population, btw, is not cherry-picking. It's the worsening condition of the humans who live here, which thing an economy is supposed to serve. There are, and have been, no reversals in any of these trends toward poverty the average American is experiencing.

              But from your various remarks I see further interaction with you is pointless. Believe what you will.


              The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

              by Jim P on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:57:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  The Bank of International Settlements (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias

      aka "The Bankers Central Bank" -- you might have heard of them, they seem to be some kind of experts on banking, what, being at the heart of the banking system and all for the last few decades, and having predicted the 2008 crash, and the reasons -- says in their Dec. 2012 the overvalued assets are a global credit bubble.

      ...Now the Switzerland-based BIS is warning that another bubble has formed in the bond market, the largest liquidity pool on the planet.

      ...Blame the global central banks and their low interest rate regimes. ‘Some asset prices appeared highly valued in a historical context relative to indicators of their riskiness,’ concludes the latest BIS report.

      ...The over-lending of the banks has been replaced by a bubble in bond credit. It is having the same impact, driving up asset prices against a falling economic background, that is directly causing inflation of asset prices.

      When the bond bubble bursts it will therefore have a very similar impact to the 2008-9 bust, with the bond holders most badly burnt. Their creditors may actually feel better off without these liabilities that have depressed certain asset prices in the debtor nations.

      I could only find European and Arabic and Gold Nuts reporting on what the BIS said, maybe someone in the US reported it on page 68 or something, but you can read the BIS Dec. 2012 Quarterly Review yourself here


      The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

      by Jim P on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:41:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  that is laughable (0+ / 0-)
        When the bond bubble bursts it will therefore have a very similar impact to the 2008-9 bust
        Not.even.close.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:31:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah. So you know nothing about (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias

          the economic system at all, then, or its players.

          Do you have a search engine available to you?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          As an organization of central banks, the BIS seeks to make monetary policy more predictable and transparent among its 58 member central banks. While monetary policy is determined by each sovereign nation, it is subject to central and private banking scrutiny and potentially to speculation that affects foreign exchange rates and especially the fate of export economies. Failures to keep monetary policy in line with reality and make monetary reforms in time, preferably as a simultaneous policy among all 58 member banks and also involving the International Monetary Fund, have historically led to losses in the billions as banks try to maintain a policy using open market methods that have proven to be based on unrealistic assumptions.

          Central banks do not unilaterally "set" rates, rather they set goals and intervene using their massive financial resources and regulatory powers to achieve monetary targets they set. One reason to coordinate policy closely is to ensure that this does not become too expensive and that opportunities for private arbitrage exploiting shifts in policy or difference in policy, are rare and quickly removed.

          Two aspects of monetary policy have proven to be particularly sensitive, and the BIS therefore has two specific goals: to regulate capital adequacy and make reserve requirements transparent.


          The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

          by Jim P on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:47:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  sure nothing at all (0+ / 0-)

            i haven't been losing money.

            those betting on the collapse are.

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:27:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Krugman is right (0+ / 0-)

            the austerity folks are wrong.  a deflationary cycle isn't helpful.  the correction in the bond market will mean more money in the stock market.  also gold moving further south.

            i find that you know next to nothing about this.

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:36:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nobody is intending a deflationary (0+ / 0-)

              cycle. The Krugman posts you link below are from August of 2010. That was then, BIS was from about 10 days ago.

              And oh, even in your quotes where Krugman was scoffing at sovereign debt collapse in Greece...

              Two years in a cave on sabbatical, were you?  Clearly not a cave in Ireland, Iceland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Cyprus, Latvia, Poland, etc etc etc

              The BIS, which was formed by the world's major Central Banks to warn them of trouble coming, told them that trouble is coming. Why would you dismiss that?

              Are you saying they don't know their job? That their 2007 prediction was not a prediction? That they just make shit up? That when you make money, for now, then everybody must be making money?

              Good grief man. Do you think that the US is floating out there all on its lonesome, a magical, exceptional place?

              http://www.google.com/...

              France and Germany tumbling towards recession, economists warn as crisis in eurozone deepens
              PUBLISHED: 12:24 EST, 24 October 2012

              Osborne needs positive forecasts to avoid triple-dip recession
              Friday 7 December 2012

              Eurozone slips back into recession
              CNNMoney November 15, 2012

              Just care about the US, then? Well, speaking of GDP, which for some reason you think is improving -- hey! remember "Green Shoots" going back nearly five years now? --
              From just 3 months ago:
              Gross domestic product expanded at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the slowest pace since the third quarter of 2011 and down from last month's 1.7 percent estimate, the Commerce Department said in its final estimate on Thursday.

              Output was also revised down to reflect weaker rates of consumer and business spending than previously estimated. Outlays on residential construction export growth were also not as robust as had been previously estimated.


              The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

              by Jim P on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 12:43:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  it is still applicable (0+ / 0-)

                germany is on track for growth in 2013 as are we.

                this time next year will you be saying same things? especially when no recession or collapse comes?

                or will you move the goal posts again?

                -You want to change the system, run for office.

                by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 01:00:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I guess the Bundesbank is stupid (0+ / 0-)

                  too. From last Friday

                  In a report released Friday, the Bundesbank cut its growth forecast for the nation and said that Europe's most successful economy is likely to enter a recession next year. The bank projects 0.7 percent growth this year and 0.4 percent next year. That estimate is significantly more pessimistic than its June outlook, when the Bundesbank forecast 1 percent growth for 2012 and 1.6 percent in 2013.

                  A recession -- defined as two consecutive quarters of shrinking gross domestic product - has likely already started in Germany, according to the report. The bank expects final economic numbers for the year to show that the country's growth fell over the final quarter of the year, a trend it expects to continue through at least the first quarter of 2013.

                  This outlook seemed to be confirmed by a separate report Friday from the German economic ministry that said industrial output fell 2.6 percent in October, with production of investment goods and construction slumping. This comes on the heels of a 1.3 percent drop in September and amounts to the sharpest monthly decline in this activity in Germany since mid-2009.

                  "October's drop in German industrial production provides a very weak start to [the fourth quarter], suggesting that the economy will probably dip back into recession," said Jennifer McKeown, an analyst at Capital Economics, in a research note. "The 2.6 percent monthly fall was much weaker than the consensus forecast of -0.5 percent, and even our own more downbeat projection of -1 percent. It will have come as a particularly nasty surprise after data yesterday revealed an increase in industrial orders."

                  Quoting Krugman repeatedly, and I admire the man but am surprised to hear he was made Pope, after you've seen he was completely wrong on the sovereign debt collapse, no matter how many times you do it, will not make 2 + 2 equal Albania Singing on The Moon. Nor, should you hit 100 Krugman posts, will this go away:

                  US 2013 recession from the WSJ, the Atlantic Monthly, IMF, CNBC, and the Bloody CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.

                  You make these claims, you quote Krugman, then you don't address any thing which shows your claims are not reality-based.

                  Bye.

                  PS: We just added 1,000,000 people to the food stamp roles in the last two months. We had more people file for disability benefits than got jobs this year.


                  The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

                  by Jim P on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 01:49:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  more recent (0+ / 0-)

                http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...

                Second, there is no good reason to believe that there is a bond bubble. The question you should ask is, do long-term rates make sense given the likely future path of short-term rates? And if you consider the outlook for unemployment (high) and inflation (low), short rates should stay low for a long time.

                -You want to change the system, run for office.

                by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 01:02:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  more (0+ / 0-)

                -You want to change the system, run for office.

                by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 01:03:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  more (0+ / 0-)
                It’s quite remarkable: our policy discourse remains largely dominated by fears of an event that the fear-mongers can’t explain in theory, and for which they can offer no historical examples in practice.
                http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...

                http://www.economonitor.com/...

                Krugman goes on to argue that the inflation mongers (including gold bugs) are also wrong. There’s no significant inflation on the horizon.

                -You want to change the system, run for office.

                by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 01:10:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  read Krugman (0+ / 0-)

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:41:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  more (0+ / 0-)

            http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...

            And some of the scenarios being proposed were just plain bizarre: the bond bubble will burst, and this will plunge us into recession, and the Fed will have to buy up government debt, and this will mean inflation too. Really.

            And then the whole story shifted: suddenly it wasn’t the carry trade, it was sovereign debt risks, we’re all Greece.

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  600T in credit wealth in a approx. 70T world? (0+ / 0-)
    •  Assets are valued at what people (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Democrats Ramshield

      will/can pay for them. Unless one is bank and those rules (mark-to-Market) no longer apply.  If we were able to compare what a bank values a mortgage and the underlying collateral against what it would sell for then you would see that real-estate is still way overvalued in the most vulnerable way. It's overvalued on a Banks balance sheet thereby making the bank vulnerable to any dislocations in the real-estate market  that are always the first to go in any downward moves in the economy at large.

      Further , evidence shows us Banks also class "other" loans in default as performing loans. That means the student loans, non-revolving loans and revolving loans. It's a well known fact that credit cards that have not paid are left on the balance sheet as a performing receivable for up to 6 months after the last payment. In addition the late fees, over credit-line fees and accumulated interest is added to income on the Income statement.

      Finally, in what has to be one of the great ironies of all, Bank debt , in the form of bonds are marked to market when the bank debt is trading in the secondary market below par value. That means if a Bank sold bonds using aforementioned credit card receivables as the underlying collateral and the bonds started trading at 50% of par value, then the bank would claim they only owe 50% of what they actually borrowed and then add that to profits on their income statement that suggest that assets are fairly valued.

      Assets are not valued at their fair value except those that have been released to the market. The banks hold a shadow inventory of homes that are either empty of the former home-owner is renting or living in if they are paying ,maintenance and property taxes. Yet still they are many boarded up homers that have been through the midnight strip and seizure process that hold full value.

      We know all this because there is one constant that the FDIC has run into when they do have enough money to take over a bank and that is the bank overvalues assets by a minimum of 30%. Consider a bank that does that who has 100 Billion in Tangible assets holding up two trillion in at risk assets. That means they are levered up to the gill and if even a 5% discount to those assets were taken they would be bankrupt.

      The first crisis created the second crisis. At one point , in 2008 banks like Citi and B of A were constantly looking for equity capital.  They were selling assets on the cheap until finally the govt propped them up with TARP. That wasn't close to what was needed so FASB was threatened by a Democratic Congressman by saying "we will legislate you out of existence" if they didn't get rid of the mark-to-market accounting rule as it had become politically untenable for the Govt to give them direct infusions of equity.

      Banks were (and are) insolvent.  Kanjorski, a Congressman, threatens FASB, the accounting standards board, telling them in open congressional hearing that if they do not change the accounting rules so that black-letter false values for "assets" - that is, fraud - is not made legal Congress will pass a law to make it so.  They fold, of course - how do you stop Congress when it intends to legislate you out of existence unless you do what it wants?  This results in a huge stock market rally but the rotting fish in these loans is still there and still rotting.
      I know I shouldn't be surprised that many people have fallen for this, especially here, as all of it is seen through a political lens and no one likes to look through a lens that has been dipped in shit. Yet, if one were looking for the reason banks have not been prosecuted it would be right at the point that Govt conspired with banks to give us fraudulent financial statements breaking all kinds of laws including Sarbanes and Oxley.

      In short we are still at the same precipice. There is a reason Bernanke is printing money to buy 40B/month in Mortgage backed securities. Most of it is agency securities, but then again the GSEs were getting ready to do put backs because the mortgages in the securities were toxic waste. That would have shown in a very clear light how much the banks have been lying and how much they continue to lie and why the Fed has to constantly print money. The crisis has been revised and expanded. One bad move in the economy that the fed can't cover through printing and all of this will come falling down.

      "Profit is an accounting concept"
      "Cash flow is an Operating term"

  •  Seems like banksters are determined to make (0+ / 0-)

    all that money they're earning worthless.

    "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

    by progdog on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 03:50:05 AM PST

  •  How is the next crash being engineered? (11+ / 0-)

    What form will it take? A derivatives crash again?

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:21:45 AM PST

  •  "taxpayer" and "bailout" are both (12+ / 0-)

    dysphemisms -- positive words given a negative connotation. Dysphemisms are, like euphemisms, a favorite Uncle Con ploy. Their object is to use language to deceive, much as the Fox in the various fables routinely does.
    Deception is a basic instinct. Birds do it (the killdeer), even pitcher plants do it. That humans would use their unique talent (speech) to do it, is to be expected, especially when their lack of other talents leave them no choice.
    Indeed, it may be the lengthy period of human gestation in utero and the relative physical immaturity at birth which promotes the evolution of linguistic ability to compensate for being physically inept. An infant that articulates it's needs by howling is more likely to be fed than one that placidly waits until it starves. Since we were all children, we assume children are wanted by their parents and naturally nurtured without question. But, that's wishful thinking we indulge after the fact of having survived. Infants who die in their cribs or starve to death would know better, if they could think.
    Anyway, "taxpayer" and "bailout" are words being used to segregate and encourage dissent. They are being used to spread antagonisms and distract from the entities that are rightly to blame -- i.e. the managers of our currency, Congress. Congress, you see is tasked with disbursing our currency. Instead, the Congress has chosen to ration our currency via a strategy of indirection. Instead of distributing dollars directly to compensate work that is desired to be done, the Congress has been funneling dollars through Wall Street so the banksters and lenders can get a cut (for doing nothing), thereby obscuring their own responsibility for the mismanagement.
    If not a scam, the crisis of 2008 was manufactured to scare the electorate into doing right at the ballot box. Since the vote didn't go right, the electorate needed to be punished until they came to their senses. 2010 looked like they had, but then that turned out to be a fluke and the 85 freshmen in the house were not what the old Cons thought they were getting. Seems like the class of 2010 actually likes the idea of engineering Armageddon. Perhaps because they agree with the likes of Cheney that planned destruction is better than the random kind.
    Anyway, 2010 was an aberration and the Uncle Cons are back to the dilemma of 2008. Shall they perpetuate the collapse or admit it was all a farce? Either way, the jig is up. Jiggling the currency is not going to work anymore.  Which is why there is a proposal to transfer the scam known as the "debt ceiling" to the executive. Strangling the economy with the purse strings has about run its course.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:22:06 AM PST

    •  Shorter version . . . (15+ / 0-)

      When the government prints money they give it to the rich so the rich can lend it to the poor.  For interest . . . (gosh, somebody has to do the hard work of passing out the loans, don't they?).

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:45:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's even better than that (3+ / 0-)

        The Federal Reserve is owned by the big banks, not the public. The money they create out of nothing is all lent at interest charged to taxpayers (us). And they collect fees for lending it. Oh great America! Master of Ponzi!

        •  Actually, the Federal Reserve is chartered by (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, Words In Action, MrJersey

          Congress and the members of the Board are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate.

          What Congress has made, it can unmake, just as state legislatures are demonstrating with unions. Ron Paul was not whistling through his hat, but he was mistaken about where the problem lies. The problem lies with trying to use money to regulate the economy, of confusing the gas peddal and brake for the oil reservoir in the engine. Oil makes the engine run better or grind to a halt.  It does not make it run faster and once the oil has run out, filling it to overflow won't undo the ruin.

          We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

          by hannah on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:22:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You make a lot of good points but still (5+ / 0-)

      no one has answered Rich in PA's question: What are the overvalued assets that will bankrupt the Wall St. giants this time? Is it mortgage-backed securities and CDSs again?

      For someone like myself, with little knowledge of the FIRE sector of our economy, can the coming crash be viewed simply like this?

      The dollars in circulation, or represented by certificates or other paper, or that only exist as bits on a RAID server in a Wall St. data center, these dollars far exceed the value of the actual goods and services they are supposed to represent. Like a game of musical chairs where each go-around leaves someone without a seat, each financial crash will leave someone (probably pension holders) holding worthless assets.
      Again, that is my question not my assertion. I'm a lay person when it comes to finance.

      Also, your post would be even better with line breaks between paragraphs.

      Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

      by FrY10cK on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:38:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm just guessing, but student loans. Yes, there (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrY10cK, lunachickie

        is nothing tangible attached to loans.  But, they are all backstopped by the US gov't.  The loans are issued/money paid out by the banks themselves.  Deferment/grace periods are running out on thousands of these loans.  The banks will want their money and interest on top of that sooner than later.

        Again, that's just my guess.

        •  There is an alternative: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nchristine, FrY10cK, Words In Action

          http://www.direct.ed.gov/

          It is not well publicized, but as part of the ACA, the Department of Education was authorized to manage college student loans directly.  As a consequence, the Treasury now "owns" $905 billion in student loans, where they used to own $53 billion in 2007.
          The banks have been stripped of the revenue stream from guaranteed student loans which they issued for students to attend institutions set up and run by their friends. The banks' unhappiness with this turn of events is one of the main objections to the ACA. The implementation of the loan program switch was supposed to be delayed until 2013, but I think the Department of Education was ready to implement in 2012 and so the President moved the effective date up, giving the money bags even more reason to be unhappy.

          We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

          by hannah on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:07:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But, still the banks loaned the money - the Fed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MrJersey

            gov't bought the loan - the loans are still being paid for by the tax payer, with interest to the banks.  They're still making loads of money (principle + interest + fees sold to the gov't - where the gov't would get the 'extras' of additional interest accumulation and fees) on loans that they don't have to really vet.  

            This is not to say that I'm against a federal program to help pay for college expenses, but the banks are being the middlemen and getting a cut.  Sounds like the old time mobsters.

            •  Yes, but originally, the money comes from the (3+ / 0-)

              federal government. Passing it out to the banks and letting them take a cut before they lend it back by buying bonds is an arrangement designed to obfuscate who's actually responsible for what.

              Think of a teacher using a ruler to wack students fingers when they don't write nicely.
              Congress is using the purse strings equally inappropriately by trying to strangle the states so they'll have to borrow from the banks and pay dividends on bonds to the same people who don't want to be taxed.

              We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

              by hannah on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:27:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  If goods and services are valued in dollars, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Words In Action

        then the dollars involved are their value.

        If your waist measures 36 inches, then that's the distance around your waste.
        Dollars measure relative value as inches measure distance or the notes on a score represent sounds.

        If people have promised to deliver a certain number of dollars on a certain date and they don't, then they are dishonest. That's true whether the Congress or individuals do. We elect individuals to represent us honestly.  If they don't, if they are untrustworthy stewards, as Jesus described in the parable

        Luke 16:1-13

        then they need to be fired. Since they have been authorized to dispose of our assets, it's hard to get what they have disposed of (minerals, forests, fresh water resources) back. When they dispose of our symbolic assets, it's not as bad.  We can always make more dollars.
        The Bureau of Engraving and Printing does it every day.
        Nor, for that matter, do the dollars have to pass through banks. Letting the Department of Education dispense dollars for higher education directly is proof of that.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:57:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's close to what I was thinking (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TX Unmuzzled
        dollars far exceed the value of the actual goods and services they are supposed to represent
        What's been going up, up, up? Do you think the underlying value of American corporations has increased in proportion to stock prices?

        “Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” -- Ronald Reagan, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale

        by RJDixon74135 on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:01:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The only value is the value we register in dollars (0+ / 0-)

          Except when there is an initial public offering, what people pay for stock does not go into company coffers. They're simply giving money who spent (usually less) money earlier. Presumably, the money people spend on stock is money they don't need for something more useful, like food and shelter and transport.
          One should never lend money one can't afford to lose.

          We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

          by hannah on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:31:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  In a word: Debt (0+ / 0-)

        The last crash was overvalued houses, but really overvalued debt related to houses.  With QE and ultra low rates we see a ballooning amount of private debt outside the housing field.  This includes medical, student, auto, etc.  Banks have been moving it around for a while and unlike mortgages it's relatively unsecured, that means it has a long, long way it can fall.

        The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:36:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  got a timeframe? (4+ / 0-)

    So when's this next crisis coming?

    History will be kind to us because we will write it.

    by Sky Net on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:28:59 AM PST

  •  why did you delete yesterday's (29+ / 0-)

    diary and put up more crap from Der Spiegel? And on top of that, an article from 2010?

    And a lot of this seems without evidence. What's going to crash again? There, at least in Europe and North America, are no bubbles big enough to sink us at present.

    China? Well, that's a different story.

    pseudoscience can kill

    by terrypinder on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:52:42 AM PST

    •  Good point. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fiddlegirl, kefauver, ruscle

      I don't dismiss out of hand that another crash may be coming, but this article quoted above is NOT very timely.  Perhaps something written more recently would be more relevant?

      "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

      by Brian A on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:16:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  To terrypinder - Thanks for your post (3+ / 0-)

      Of course there's going to be another Wall Street crash, there is no proper regulation in place to prevent another one. There is too much money to be made in engineering a second crash. Just as the diary said, there's no downside for the Wall Street banksters in engineering a crash because even when the crash comes, (and it will come), no one is going to go to jail. Just like last time. It will be tax payer bailouts, bonuses and golden parachutes as far as the eye can see.  

      A lot of people got their lives wrecked last time. As the government isn't protecting us with common sense regulations and criminal prosecutions of the banksters, it's just a matter of time and unlike fine wine this problem will not get better with time, it will get worse.

      sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

      by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:17:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You've given precisely no evidence (18+ / 0-)

        for this occuring, particularly the deliberate engineering part.

        There will be a property bubble crash in China at some point in the near to medium term. There is plenty of evidence for that, and you don't have to look far to look for it. They've built entire cities that are standing empty. Entirely empty. Central Business districts, malls, neighborhoods, universities, suburban sprawl subdivisions...empty.

        I am not dismissing another crash at hand. I'm asking for evidence of such--from this year, and not 2010. Given austerity measures both across the EU and North America, I just don't see another crash being "engineered", not in the 'West' for some time.

        I'm actually thinking of industries and markets that might cause a crash and I'm coming up empty. Student loans, maybe. Natural gas? Market has an oversupply. Oil? Well that crash is well underway and will be for the next 50 years. But you (and others here) keep talking about some "bankster engineered" crash that does not appear to be in evidence right now. It veers close to conspiracy theory, I'm sorry to say.

        pseudoscience can kill

        by terrypinder on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:48:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't you guys read stuff around here (5+ / 0-)

          like this diary?

          The price of higher education has been going up faster than inflation for decades now. The return on investment is falling because of this, yet prices are rising ever more rapidly. Meanwhile wages for entry-level jobs are falling. The gap is being filled by ever larger amounts of debt.
          Do you dispute that bankers aren't trying to fuck us all over again? If you are then please say so, and show us what you're basing that on.

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:52:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that's not evidence of a bankster engineered (13+ / 0-)

            bubble crisis. It is evidence of a bubble and a significant one--which I (and others) did acknowledge. That's not what I'm asking for.

            this diary and others like it keep alleging there's a deep and organized conspiracy. That is the evidence I'm asking for.

            and this diary didn't use that evidence. It used a 2 year old article.

            pseudoscience can kill

            by terrypinder on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:07:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  terrypinder -I guess you didn't read my post above (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Words In Action, lostinamerica

              You do make some good points but there are so many things out there, let's talk for a minute about the 1.2 Trillion dollars in underwater mortgages in America. Where is their bailout? 1 in 3 home owners in America is under water. This gives new meaning the words waterfront property. When you're paying for an underwater mortgage by definition you're paying for nothing.

              Just how much longer do you think these people are going to continue to pay for nothing? And that's just from the last '08 fraud which was engineered out of mind and out of sight, given a deregulated Wall Street that existed in 2008. Now if my diary is a conspiracy theory then your posts are a "in denial theory" that we need common sense banking regulation on Wall Street because that's the only way to prevent another crash. It's the only way to prevent banking fraud. Do you agree or not?

              Also did you forget that they have incentivized banking fraud on Wall Street in 2012, just like they did in 2008 in a clear case where there is no protective substantial new banking regulation.

              sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

              by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:17:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I do not see this as good enough evidence. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan, ruscle, emobile, BoiseBlue

                I will maintain that "Wall Street" won't force the world back into recession--China will, when its property bubble pops.

                Or, alternately, the Student loan market falls to bits. Or maybe both. There's lots of evidence for both, and no, I won't give dates because I don't know when (or even if) it'll happen.

                but the "they're not regulated therefore they'll just steal again just because" doesn't scan for me, right now, not without substantial evidence. This isn't hard.

                pseudoscience can kill

                by terrypinder on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:26:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  To terrypinder - Ok answer this please (3+ / 0-)

                  Would proper regulation prevented the 2008 crisis? And absent regulation in 2012, are we protected better then we were in 2008? If we have no protection then aren't we down to the good will of the Wall Street banksters, just how far are you willing to go on their goodwill? Are you saying that we don't need to regulate them further because we can trust them?  Please clarify what are you saying.

                  sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

                  by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:31:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  no, I don't think proper regulation (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Deep Texan, johnny wurster, emobile

                    would have prevented the 2008 crisis. It likely might have blunted its depth, and perhaps the EU wouldn't be undergoing the severe austerity it is, but I don't think it  would have prevented it, in its entirety, at all.

                    pseudoscience can kill

                    by terrypinder on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:36:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  To terrypinder - Please tell us a bit more. Thanks (0+ / 0-)

                      sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

                      by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:40:46 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  And with what EVIDENCE (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Words In Action

                      RIGHT NOW, do you draw that conclusion?

                      Be specific, please. You demand that of others, it's only fair.

                      It is time to #Occupy Media.

                      by lunachickie on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:41:22 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  the operative word here is "think." (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        GoGoGoEverton, gchaucer2, Deep Texan

                        I'm not even hypothesizing or alleging anything here; unlike others, who insist on a grand banker conspiracy to take all the money. They insist that this is actually real. I am offering an opinion, based on two decades of observation and a parent who worked in the banking industry.

                        We happen to think banking regulation is great, btw. (Also, some have been passed, which also negates this diaries thesis that nothing has been done. They aren't great, they aren't even good, but they are a start.)

                        regulations might have stopped predatory lending. might have stopped the shadow banking system Paul Krugman wrote about, and the credit swaps, and all the other econ-mumbojumbo that most people do not understand, but would it have stopped the housing and credit bubble? I really don't think so.

                        I am incapable in believing in conspiracy theories.

                        pseudoscience can kill

                        by terrypinder on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:35:16 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  To terrypinder - Please explain why. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lostinamerica, aliasalias

                      Regulation is a protection. So are you saying that we are better off without regulatory protections from banking fraud and if so, why? What is your case for that? Please help us to understand. Thank you.

                      sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

                      by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:42:46 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  To terrypinder - Could you please see my update (0+ / 0-)

                      I have updated the diary. Thank you.

                      sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

                      by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:58:02 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  terrypinder There's no downside for banksters in a (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lostinamerica

                  crash. There's a downside for Main Streeters in a crash but no downside for Wall Streeters. Big difference, right.

                  sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

                  by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:33:26 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Why is it hard to differentiate between (5+ / 0-)

            substantiated claims about one thing (return on education investment falling) and an unfounded doomsday claim of a soon-incoming market crash?

          •  The diary only tells us to panic about a collapse. (4+ / 0-)

            To look anything like the last collapse would require a market bubble.  Evidence and argument for what the bubble is should only be more obvious after 2 years of predicted calamity.  It should at least be obvious what is causing the bubble, if the Der Spiegel article has a valid point.  This diary gives me the impression the Der Spiegel article did not mention a market bubble.

            I don't know how to tell what a bubble might be, but a feature of them is that they're not easy to identify until they're a big problem (if they weren't, well, the bubble wouldn't be able to occur in the first place).

            But this diary doesn't say what is experiencing a market bubble, leading the reader to draw their own conclusions.  Another angle that could've been taken (but wasn't) was to point out why the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill is not sufficient to prevent the next market bubble from blowing up the banking sector.

            Also, the bank thing happened because lots of people who thought they were really smart at making money turned out to be self-serving idiots.  It was an accident that should've been preventable, but it WAS an accident.

            •  I don't see where (3+ / 0-)

              this diary says "You Must Panic, NOW!"

              And seriously, it's troubling to read that there are perfectly-intelligent people here who somehow think any of this stuff is accidental...

              It is time to #Occupy Media.

              by lunachickie on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:45:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The tone of the diary is perfectly clear. (3+ / 0-)

                Also...

                It is generally better to assume incompetence over malice.

                •  No, it's not (4+ / 0-)
                  It is generally better to assume incompetence over malice.
                  not when you're talking about these bankers that should be in goddamn jail for what they have already, demonstrably done. But that never happened, and a lot of the same conditions that led to the last milking of our economy still exist.

                  Maybe for your peace of mind it's better to pretend it was all a big OOPS. But, to each his own, I suppose....

                  It is time to #Occupy Media.

                  by lunachickie on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:03:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm open to the idea. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Deep Texan, terrypinder

                    I've just not seen any evidence to suggest that the people doing these things weren't just idiots who were self-serving and institutionally corrupt.

                    It just happened that the practice of corrupt behavior added up over time into a multitude of faulty loans.  When were turned into faulty derivatives, and cascaded, blah-blah-blah.

                    They'd have to at least be moderately intelligent to predict that their self-interested, corrupt behavior could lead to an impending, global economic collapse.  Then, of course, expect that they could be saved from calamity by the actions of an outside agency. (government)

                    I just don't give them enough credit to think they're that smart.  Things seem obvious now, but things always seem obvious in retrospect.

                    These people just believed in the libertarian fantasy of economics, and libertarianism makes people stupid.

                  •  Here's the deal. The banksters don't have to (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Deep Texan

                    crash the economy. All they have to do is say "We need 'help', otherwise we will fail and the economy will crash." Then, the government throws money at them. The alleged Student Loan crisis is a perfect excuse.

                    You can say they're still living off extortion collateral from the last crash.

                    And while we're on the subject, the last crash took years and years to develop starting with usurping Congress through various means of corruption and having them deregulate the banking industry. Then the banksters came up with the mortgage scheme and started the housing bubble.

                    Though Congress is still corrupt by Big Banking (among others), there's no evidence of a new scheme/scam being run on investors/suckers. And nor do the banksters need one as I've suggested here. At least not yet.

                    Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

                    by Pescadero Bill on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:49:53 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  "demonstrably" like the latest slap on the wrist? (0+ / 0-)

                    of HSBC Which amounts to two months profits and will be paid by shareholders , not the guilty that banksters.

                    Here’s an example of what HBSC and its employees did, taken from the Statement of Facts attached to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (thanks, USA Today).
                    [D]rug traffickers were depositing hundreds of thousands of dollars in bulk U.S. currency each day into HSBC Mexico accounts. In order to efficiently move this volume of cash through the teller windows at HSBC Mexico branches, drug traffickers designed specially shaped boxes that fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows. The drug traffickers would send numerous boxes filled with cash through the teller windows for deposit into HSBC Mexico accounts. After the cash was deposited in the accounts, peso brokers then wire transferred the U.S. dollars to various exporters located in New York City and other locations throughout the United States to purchase goods for Colombian businesses. The U.S. exporters then sent the goods directly to the businesses in Colombia.
                    “As bad as HSBC’s conduct was, this is not a case where the HSBC people intended — intended — to create money laundering,” he said. “They did not have the controls in place that they needed.”
                    One of the relevant statutes, 18 USC §1956, can be found here. In short, it’s a crime
                    “…knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, [to] conduct or attempt to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity [and]
                     …
                     (B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part—
                     (i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; [grammatical changes to make readable.]
                     …
                     As used in this section—
                     (1) the term “knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity” means that the person knew the property involved in the transaction represented proceeds from some form, though not necessarily which form, of activity that constitutes a felony under State, Federal, or foreign law, regardless of whether or not such activity is specified in paragraph (7);
                     …
                     (f) There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section if—
                     (1) the conduct is by a United States citizen or, in the case of a non-United States citizen, the conduct occurs in part in the United States; and
                     (2) the transaction or series of related transactions involves funds or monetary instruments of a value exceeding $10,000.

                    without the ants the rainforest dies

                    by aliasalias on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 12:05:16 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  btw (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Words In Action

                  tone is in the eye and mind of each reader. But that's a whole other subject...

                  It is time to #Occupy Media.

                  by lunachickie on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:04:50 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Quoting exclusively the bolded text. (3+ / 0-)
                    The mainstream publication Der Spiegel truthfully reported that the Wall Street banksters committed "a monumental insider bank robbery" for which no one went to jail.

                    Why is that?

                    Just like the last time, there's no downside for the banksters, no one will go to jail and it will be tax payer bailouts, bonuses for CEOs and golden parachutes as far as the eye can see.

                    To that end, will you help us get the word out?

                    Why don't we have new regulations to prevent a 2nd crash?

                    The truth is the Wall Street banksters are in the process of creating a second crash that you will be asked to pay for. There is one important difference this time major mainstream European news organizations like Der Spiegel have warned us of a coming second crash.

                    This time mainstream European media sources have warned us of a coming second crash, which is being engineered at this moment by the Wall Street banksters.

                    Of course in America  the rich can never be asked to pay their fair share of the income taxes.

                    Can the American social safety net survive yet again Wall Street bankster engineered crash?

                    At the same time we see the dangers of a second Wall Street crash being reported by...(bolding ends here)

                    These reports are being ignored by the US media. Will you ignore them also??

                    Keep in mind that bolding is generally used in writing to accent a point or stress important information.

                    Hopefully my perspective makes more sense now.

            •  To Paul Rogers - You've made a lot of good points (3+ / 0-)

              Let me make one or two, why was the financial market deregulated? Did the deregulation of the financial markets allow the '08 crash?

              Why in 2012 does the financial markets on Wall Street continue to be deregulated precisely in the same way as they were in 2008? So let's have a discussion about this.

              sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

              by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:47:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I remain skeptical. (5+ / 0-)

                I would guess that you're referring to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.  That happened because people who thought they were really smart said it would be a good idea.  To encourage economic growth and stuff.

                If you believe otherwise, present evidence to me that the case is otherwise.

                And I'm not sure you're aware of this, but there was an attempt at financial reform that passed in 2010, in direct response to the whole '08 thingy.  It was called Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  I linked to it up above.

                I have no idea if that law is sufficient to address what exactly went wrong in '08.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  But I'm not going to be convinced of something based on fear.

        •  To terrypinder - Denial isn't the answer (3+ / 0-)

          Here is the truth. Let's remember that since the Depression era crash, we've known that regulation will prevent that type of thing from happening again. Now that the markets have been deregulated even after the 2008 crash, you cannot find any substantial new regulation put in place to protect the American people and to protect the financial markets on Wall Street. You can't find it because it doesn't exist and it won't exist because our law makers have been bought off.

          Point and fact, the last election that cost $2 Billion dollars was paid for by private capital, primarily financial capital. Now just what the hell do we think these people got for their money. I'll tell you what they got, the same deregulated Wall Street in 2012 that existed in 2008. And just like in 2008, people like yourself couldn't see the fraud coming. That's why it was successful in '08. People couldn't see what was happening. Even John McCain 2 days before the crash of 08 said famously 'the fundamentals of the economy are sound'. You can't see fraud taking hold, that's why you need regulation to prevent it.

          There is no regulation, there's no protection. No one goes to jail, tax payer bailout as far as the eye can see. Bonuses for all of the CEOs and golden parachutes as far as the eye can see. That's what the Spiegel reported on in 2010 and nothing has changed since then. If you want to trust the Wall Street bankster just like you did in 2008, go ahead. As for me, I put my money with the Spiegel's financial analysts. That's why I live in the European Union now, so I put my money where my mouth is. How about you? Where's your money. Thanks for the great post and the great questions. Please keep the good thoughts coming.

          sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

          by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:01:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't agree (7+ / 0-)

            that regulations will prevent crises in capitalism.  I don't agree that there is evidence to support that - not at all and considerable to the contrary.

            I am not sure how living in the EU is evidence  of economic wisdom, given their propensity towards austerity programs.

            Justice For Will Will spent his brief, courageous life fighting for the rights we all take for granted. Please share his story to support the fight!

            by KibbutzAmiad on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:09:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  but evidence apparently does exist (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kefauver, Deep Texan, exlrrp, gchaucer2

            lunachickie posted some just above, of the bubble most likely to pop--and in my comment to you I identified that bubble too.

            Asking for evidence is NOT denial. In 2008 there was tons of evidence, just floating around, about that bubble that popped. People started writing about it almost six years earlier--I read Billmon and bonddad back then and they were 100% right. BUT they both gave plenty of evidence, timely to when they wrote.

            I want evidence, timely to now. It does exist---look upthread!

            as for where my money is: not in the EU (or "wall street" for that matter).

            pseudoscience can kill

            by terrypinder on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:19:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  exactly right, there was tons of evidence (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jiffypop, terrypinder, exlrrp

              in 2006, 2007 and by 2008 rolled around we were seeing it in real time by March.

              we were discussing the magnitude of the event back in 2006.

              plenty of people figured out it was going to happen.  the data was available and provable.  

              these theories have no factual basis.

              -You want to change the system, run for office.

              by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:52:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Fine, all that is true, so far as it goes. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        Der Spiegel writes another searing indictment of the American economy/foreign policy/social values -- more power to it. But again, I find myself wondering whether Der Spiegel is as critical of German complicity in Europe's contemporary economic woes.

        If there is to be another onrushing financial catastrophe, it seems to me that ongoing deliberations over the sovereign debt crisis, the PIGS, and the miserliness of German austerity measures might have a little something to do with it.

        Perhaps once Der Spiegel and the BBC have brought Angela Merkel and David Cameron to account for their Scrooge-like behavior, they can then turn their attention to their friends "across the pond."

        Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

        by Dale on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:21:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Senator Warren's seat on the Banking Committee... (10+ / 0-)

    will hopefully prove to be a major impediment to irresponsible behavior on Wall Street.

    draw a window on the wall to remind you of the silkrain that makes things grow - Yoko Ono

    by quinn on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:20:36 AM PST

  •  I am curious (9+ / 0-)

    about a few things.

    1. How would one "get ready" for a second, undefined and undated, Wall Street Crash and "bailout"?

    2. Given that capitalism is going to have periodic crises, there is no risk in predicting such things.  As a friend once said of the CPUSA, they correctly predicted 178 of the last 12 crises.  How is this different.

    Justice For Will Will spent his brief, courageous life fighting for the rights we all take for granted. Please share his story to support the fight!

    by KibbutzAmiad on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:25:32 AM PST

    •  To KibbutzAmiad - There will be another crash (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrY10cK, lostinamerica

      The bottom line is, we've always known how to prevent fraud on Wall Street. You do it through regulation. That's what protects the American people. So for this reason, they did not put the necessary regulations in place to protect the American people. This has allowed the same behavior that we saw in the '08 crash.

      The Spiegel is right, there will be a second crash. There's too much money in not creating one. The people who create it, there's no consequences and no one goes to jail. In the end, there will be another tax payer bailout just like last time. Get ready for it because it's coming. In fact the smart money isn't even arguing about whether or not this will happen. The only argument seems to be when will it happen.

      sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

      by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:37:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The fetishization of a magazine is what gets me. (8+ / 0-)

        Can you please step outside yourself for a minute and consider what this looks like?  I know you have your fans and they're making you a cozy bubble, but still.

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:52:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you watch the documentary film (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lostinamerica

          "Inside Job" they say exactly what the diarist is saying. But they back it up with a lot of facts that I can't recite.

          I don't know finance, only saw the film once, and it was more than a year ago that I saw it.

          Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

          by FrY10cK on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:09:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  so in other words (0+ / 0-)

          some of you are simply annoyed by the diarist?

          Wow...what a way to stifle a discussion...

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:57:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  is it? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan

            the diarist is doing a rather excellent job at continuing the discussion.

            pseudoscience can kill

            by terrypinder on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:57:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well, again, it might be a bit easier to take (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tacet, Deep Texan

            these diaries seriously if they didn't come loaded with a liberal overlay of smug European cultural, economic, and social superiority.

            I suppose you could dismiss that as me being annoyed about the diarist. But it's worth inquiring into what gets left out of these discussions when the overwhelming focus is on the United States. How, for example, do we reckon with austerity measures in Europe -- which, given their enactment by center-right coalitions in Germany and the UK, are by many measures more draconian than anything going on here, at least at the federal level? (Last time I checked, Obama was trying to ameliorate the situation surrounding high student tuition, not make matters worse -- which is what David Cameron is busy doing.)

            Moreover, if there is going to be another economic calamity, it may in fact be precipitated by the decisions of Cameron, Merkel, et al. in imposing these austerity measures.

            None of which is to say that the US doesn't have its problems. Oversight of Wall Street in the lead up to and after the economic crisis of 2008 has been abysmal, due in part to the gutting of agencies by the Bush administration (and, to be sure, by less than swift action by the Attorney General's office of the present administration). The financial regulatory bill that did get passed is riddled with compromises, and may not prevent another onrushing catastrophe. As to Europe's merits, I would indeed be deliriously happy if tomorrow, against all the currents of American history and social complexity, a social democratic state with bullet trains, cradle-to-grave daycare and universal health care could be installed from above by Presidential fiat.

            But to pretend, as the diarist seems to, that Europe can weigh in on economic matters from a position of inherent superiority is not only wrong, it's potentially dangerous: we ignore Europe's economic travails at our peril.

            Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

            by Dale on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:38:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, there will, one day (7+ / 0-)

        be another crisis.  That is the nature of capitalism.  There will be crises in Europe, too.  

        Not sure how this is helpful or much analysis, though.

        There will be fires, floods, and earthquakes as well.

        Justice For Will Will spent his brief, courageous life fighting for the rights we all take for granted. Please share his story to support the fight!

        by KibbutzAmiad on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:03:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  yeah and the world is going to end (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KibbutzAmiad

        eventually

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:52:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  But...but... (8+ / 0-)

    Didn't Obama regulate Wall Street? [/snark]

      You know when I post a diary with a bunch of charts proving my point that things are not getting better, it gets ignored.
       Maybe I should just cut to the chase like you did.

    ¡Cállate o despertarás la izquierda! - protest sign in Spain

    by gjohnsit on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:38:28 AM PST

  •  HSBC paid only a fine -- no jail time (8+ / 0-)

    And this for laundering drug cartel money. However, if Anaheim or Oakland police see a black guy they think might be dealing drugs --- BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG!!!!! Instant justice.
    The US government has made it clear no Wall Streeter or big CEO will ever be criminally charged for bilking the economy of billions. So why WON'T they try again? Make $70B doing dirty deeds, get caught, pay $3B fine ...the recipe for success.

    Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizzam!

    by fourthcornerman on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:42:55 AM PST

  •  What part of the financial markets will crash? (8+ / 0-)

    What part is deliberately being inflated, oversold, overvalued or overlevereged? You can't have a crash without one or more of these. Is this a general prediction based entitely on past actions or do they have specifics?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:43:03 AM PST

  •  I don't buy it. (8+ / 0-)

    This story is long on breathless fear and short on details.  Some of us are able to understand exactly how the subprime crisis and collateralized debt obligations worked.  

    Are there secretly more subprime loans being written?  Where are they?  How come nobody I know can get one?  If that's not the driver of the impending doom, what is?  Don't just say "bank robbery."  That inflammatory language might get some people happy, but it's not an analysis.

    These reports are being ignored by the US media. Will you ignore them also??
    Yes, yes I will!!

    Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

    by Boundegar on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:52:08 AM PST

  •  Did you know that if you click on the menu tab (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton

    to get the English version of Spiegel, that the story about Wall Street disappears.  Fuckers.  I'll use the Google translator to read it anyway, but still - what an aggravation.

  •  You have some good points. It's too bad you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, kefauver, terrypinder

    undermine them by using an overstated style that borders on hysteria.  Writing is like other arts where a balance creates the interest and tension of the unexpected.  In cooking, sweet and sour, salty and sweet are far more enticing together than any one of them would be on its own.  

    As for your questions, the American media no longer informs the public because its corporate owned and it would be ratting itself out.  More accurately, it relies on advertising by corporations to make a profit and it can't risk pissing them off.  It's only reason for existing is to make a profit.  You know that, right?

    When you say "the smart money" is asking when the next crash will occur, you didn't convince that you speak for "the smart money."  When you say "we need your help," who is "we."  Is there more than one of you or as some might say, "Is there a mouse in your pocket?"

    Lastly, why don't we have new regulation?  But we do.  The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act created the FHFA and authorizes it to conduct oversight which to a large extent would prevent some key elements that contributed to the economic meltdown from happening again.  Other legislation was passed and regulations are being added all the time.  

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

    by leftreborn on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:15:30 AM PST

    •  Just curious if you've seen the film "Inside Job" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles

      and what your opinion of it was.

      It's full of facts (that I'm unable to recite) and the film maker's conclusion is that there will be another crash and Wall St. will come looking for another handout.

      Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

      by FrY10cK on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:34:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't rely on popular media to decide for me (4+ / 0-)

        what to think and believe.  I use my intellect and logic and I'm selective about my sources of information.   I've seen that flick and it's ok as far as it goes.  I wouldn't call it a true to life representation of reality because I'm in finance.  I have my own observations and opinions.  What happened with the 2008 meltdown wasn't a surprise.  The tech bubble 10 years earlier was a precursor.  Then came a parade of spectacular flameouts unrelated to the tech bubble.  Enron, Worldcomm, HealthSouth, and many others.  

        The dotcom bubble, then the "accounting" scandals were like two seismic shocks that hit the economy hard and the third was beginning as the real estate bubble inflated. In 2005 in some markets (Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego) there was 50% appreciation in a year.  By April-May 2006 the market topped out and the bubble began to deflate, slowly at first.

        There's far too much that the public doesn't understand.  
        The mortgage industry, introduction of non-traditional products that made credit easier, the lack of oversight, the resulting fraud, how the originators got off the hook by "selling" the fraudulent mortgages to Freddie and Fannie which were obligated by law to buy them and package or securitize them for sale to investors, and how they were sold as guaranteed by the US Government (aka taxpayers), the role of Wall Street investment bankers as distributors of the securitized mortgage backed investments, and what they did when they realized in 2007 they were sitting on a mountain of assets that would soon go worthless, how AIG, an insurance company, wrote contracts to insure other non-government issues that were also turning toxic without having the claims paying ability to cover.   The public only saw the final stage of the collapse and the bailout.

        I don't pretend to predict the future.  There are plenty of ways that the economy could be crashed.  It's unlikely to repeat the same way again.   It would be worthwhile for the public to inform itself about the financial system so that it can play a more active role in getting public policy that functions for the good of all.

        "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

        by leftreborn on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:20:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The diary is just a recycle of old material (4+ / 0-)

    and states nothing more than media sucks, big banks suck and the whole thing is going to collapse.  All while not stating why except things are the same as before. What bubble is going to bust that hasn't?  

    Romney is George W. Bush without brains.

    by thestructureguy on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:41:34 AM PST

    •  it's going to just because, don't you know! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vote4Obamain2012, pollyusa

      have to laugh at these types of diaries.  

      but i do think they should be refuted.  it's not real analysis.

      it's not serious analysis.  the people that warned us before are saying we are turning a corner.  it's been a long time coming.

      and it was helped by stimulus and QE.  these aren't bad things.  Ask Krugman.

      -You want to change the system, run for office.

      by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:58:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  extremely misleading (4+ / 0-)

    there is not another crash in the works.

    QE is not a bailout.  the assets purchased will likely return a profit.  

    we will see the positive feedback loop kicking into gear next year.  growth cannot be stopped at this point.

    that's real growth.  which was helped by the stimulus and QE.  we prevented a depression and are seeing the beginnings of the positive feedback loop.  

    there will be no crash.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:43:10 AM PST

    •  republicans would have inherited (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vote4Obamain2012, pollyusa

      a working economy.  one that was on the rise and looking great compared to a lot of other countries.

      thankfully, they did not.  we get the credit.  Obama deserves the credit.  it's going to get better.

      -You want to change the system, run for office.

      by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:26:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Every morning the rooster crows and the sun (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, Vote4Obamain2012

      comes up.  You're not going to deny that the rooster's crowing makes it happen are you.  It happens every morning.  

      On another matter, slightly O/T, do you know whether masa can be substituted for regular yellow corn meal in a corn bread recipe?  I'm hungry.

      "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

      by leftreborn on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:28:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  hmmm I'm all for Wall Street regulation (4+ / 0-)

    a transfer tax on trades sounds good to me. I hate the Wall Street requires huge profits on everything, including newspapers, hospitals, etc. no doubt, those at the top, as usual, don't pay the price for their crimes. Not exactly "news," sad to say, although I disagree that in this particular case it hasn't been reported in the traditional media. Reputable newspapers, that is, not the idiot bobbleheads on TV.

    but I don't actually see much in your diary that is a "report" that media is ignoring. I see some editorial comments by Der Spiegel (a good source, to be sure, as is the BBC). I see a brief phrase re: "beginning to repeat itself." that's not much of a "report."

    If there's specifics, about what is going to crash, please summarize and share.

    And what about the latest news on AIG: $27 billion profit to taxpayers actually at this point, with the latest sale.

    Here's a 12-11/12 story with a different viewpoint: "Wall Street Is Bracing for the Dodd-Frank Rules to Kick In"

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/...

  •  This is a much worse diary than I expect from (5+ / 0-)

    you. You refer to a very old article that talks about 'coming crash'. Well, if it was coming 2 years ago shouldn't it be here by now? And you provide no data on what exactly is overvalued and going to crash. I don't think you will find too many people here who like the fact that bankers didn't go to jail for their role in the previous crash. But prophesizing a coming crash based on nothing whatsoever is another thing entirely.

  •  This Place Sure Could Use Bonddad Now. (5+ / 0-)

    I'll take hard data over a single magazine source any day.

    For anyone who is skeptical of the repetitive "economic doom" diaries that have been constantly posted here (and consistently wrong) for the last 3 years, just check the bonddad blog for more accurate and level-headed analysis.

    If I had taken some of the various "economic experts" here seriously over the past few years, I would have lost all of my savings.

    Shame on you people for pushing this hysterical nonsense.

    Obamacare is upheld by the SCOTUS. Time for some Kossacks to eat a plate of crow.

    by kefauver on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:50:35 AM PST

  •  The irony of Obama's refusal to hold bankers (4+ / 0-)

    accountable for the financial meltdown, either by prosecuting the bad actors or passing serious regulatory reforms, is that Wall Street completely snubbed him.  Look at the top 15 campaign donors for both candidates:

    Romney

    Goldman Sachs    $1,028,204
    Bank of America    $1,008,403
    Morgan Stanley    $908,805
    JPMorgan Chase & Co    $833,096
    Wells Fargo    $670,578
    Credit Suisse Group    $641,124
    Deloitte LLP    $608,876
    Kirkland & Ellis    $515,541
    Citigroup Inc    $507,699
    PricewaterhouseCoopers    $458,400
    UBS AG    $447,040
    Barclays    $446,000
    Ernst & Young    $389,242
    HIG Capital    $382,904
    Blackstone Group    $366,275

    Obama

    University of California    $1,203,532
    Microsoft Corp    $815,435
    Google Inc    $805,119
    US Government    $720,449
    Harvard University    $663,608
    Kaiser Permanente    $580,785
    Stanford University    $511,921
    Columbia University    $452,203
    Deloitte LLP    $450,525
    Time Warner    $437,771
    Sidley Austin LLP    $401,795
    DLA Piper    $400,390
    IBM Corp    $371,309
    Walt Disney Co    $367,612
    University of Chicago     $354,589

    It looks like playing nice with Wall St yielded exactly the same results that playing nice with Republicans did.  Complete indifference and disdain.

    Oregon: Sure...it's cold. But it's a damp cold.

    by Keith930 on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:17:53 AM PST

    •  Why he doesn't run a straight populist agenda (0+ / 0-)

      is astounding. All we can assume is that to a substantial degree he actually believes and agrees with the financial elites doing all the raping and pillaging.

      And no, his position in the fiscal cliff negotiation is not a populist position. It's an incremental one. He could (and should) demand much more and would be loved for it.

      The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

      by Words In Action on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:27:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If they dont return to sanity, eventually.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Words In Action

    ... the Filthy Rich (tm), the Plutocrats are....

    ... GOING TO DIE.

    Purely from a system design standpoint, the trend cannot continue. Every time in history that the gap between the rich and poor (everyone else) has gotten much beyond where we are headed, it has ended very very badly.

    People generally won't agree to just crawl under a rock and starve to death. For some reason, they tend to refuse to go along with that plan. So, every continued step toward that end that the Republicans and the rich take, is historically a step toward a violent traumatic demise.

    Not advocating.... much ... just pointing out history.

    1789.

  •  Because Der Spiegel said so. And it happened (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver, johnny wurster, Deep Texan

    once before.   Just like the rooster crowing makes the sun come up.  It happens every morning so it must be so.

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

    by leftreborn on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:22:55 AM PST

  •  Crash again? The first one never ended! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Words In Action, lostinamerica

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:56:59 AM PST

    •  We just segue from one bubble to the next n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action, lostinamerica

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:01:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To bobswern - You're 100% correct (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobswern, lostinamerica

        Well said.

        sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

        by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:29:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That literally can't be correct, so... (0+ / 0-)

        what was your point, again?

        •  There have been volumes written by economists... (2+ / 0-)

          ...about this. Do a search on the our: "Bubble Economy."

          As far as the Great Recession not ending's concerned, that's a different issue, altogether. "Literally," depending upon whom you read, or how you apply the numbers, the answers will most certainly vary. Some swear by the NBER definition of the term, but even folks like Krugman and Stiglitz are constantly reminding us that for at least half of U.S. society, the Great Recession never ended. Metrics are established by various groups to "comfortably categorize" and/or label numbers. But, numbers are like words; they're used/manipulated to tell/sell a "story." a/k/a SPIN. Do a search on "Edward Tufte" to learn more about this from the acknowledged master of the craft.

          Take Ben Bernanke's recent announcement about continuing the current round of Quantitative Easing ("QE") until the unemployment rate drops to 6.5%. The story that's NOT being told here lacks two critical pieces of information:

          1.) Over the course of the past few years we've "moved" to a much higher "natural rate of unemployment/employment," or so the narrative would have us believe such (the natural rate of unemployment/employment, in a healthy economy until the past few years, was 4.0%-5.0%). When, in fact, this rewrites the definition so that society accepts the fact that the definition is no longer what it used to mean;

          2.) the concept of a "recovery" is absurd in light of housing that's still at record lows (when on includes inflation over the past 80+ years) far surpassing what happened in the Great Depression; income inequality that's still worse than it was during that time period; and, millions upon millions of forgotten souls in long-term unemployment, which is also at record levels have never been reasonably quantified as high as they are now, too.

          In short, the very use of the word, "recovery" is, in and of itself, SPIN. Especially when one understands that estimates concerning frequency of Recessions are increasing. And, when combined with estimates with returns to "normalcy" in many metrics telling us that, statistically speaking, we'll experience another Recession before things ever return to "normal."

          Therein lies the path to the status quo's very definition of "the new normal." In and of itself, it IS the very definition of SPIN!

          We have been on a very slippery slope for a very lengthy period of time. And, to understand where we're going, we may only reference where we've been. "Forward?"

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:14:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK...'crash' is not a synonym for 'recession'. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pollyusa, Deep Texan

            The subthreaded started on your comment that used 'crash'.

            'Recession' literally means 2 quarters of negative growth in GDP, correct? Whether people choose to use the word 'recession' emotionally is certainly their choice but that's all it is, not the specific economic term.

            You can 'forward' all you want, but short of a revolution (which would put us all on our asses for decades anyway), it took 20+ years to get us into this state of terrible income inequality, and will not only take 4-8 years to get us back to what most of us would consider an acceptable standard.

            •  Literally? (2+ / 0-)

              From about.com:

              Recession? Depression? What's the Difference?

              “…If you ask 100 different economists to define the terms recession and depression, you would get at least 100 different answers…”

              And, for the record, the word: "recession," in terms of its economic meaning, just came into use in the 1930's. Up until then, all economic downswings were referred to as "depressions."

              Wikipedia would have us believe otherwise. And, Krugman and Stiglitz, et al; agree more with my explanation(s) than with Wikipedia.

              Meanwhile, refer to various facts in my previous comment.

              "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

              by bobswern on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:32:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And, another basic fact... (3+ / 0-)

                ...the very measurement of Gross Domestic Product (i.e.: "GDP"), which is the key indicator used for definitions of recession and depressions, is now widely considered to be EXTREMELY FLAWED by many in the economics community (a/k/a "the dismal science"). Stiglitz has spent a good portion of the past decade seeking newer, more accuate societal economic indicators; and, he's done so working with governments around the world on this matter, too. And, much has been written about it, even here, at Daily Kos. Refer to Meteor Blades commentary, or even my own, in past posts and comments, for more on this.

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:38:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  To bobswern - Great post (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bobswern, lostinamerica

            and very true. We are definitely being spun. When I left America and had access to the European media, I could definitely see that. Also you're absolutely right, this isn't cyclical, it's permanent.

            sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

            by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:43:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  As with Climate Change, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobswern

      there's no rule in Disaster Capitalism that says a new disaster has to wait until the last disaster is cleaned up!

      The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

      by Words In Action on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:32:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry, (4+ / 0-)

    but this is simply a bullcrap diary.

    No evidence to support any of this hysterical hype is presented.

    The fundamentals of the last crash are simply not there.
    Lets see what the regulators say in Feb when the big banks petition to do major buybacks of their own stock.
    They will undergo a rigorous exam to get permission from the SEC.

    The regulation is not in place,but the banks but the casino derivatives has been reined in by capital requirements.

    Bring us something more current than a 2 year old Speigal article.

    •  To Hawkjt - How about the lack of regulation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostinamerica

      This lack of regulation has led to Wall Street taking big over leveraged bets of the kind Spiegel reported on just 2 years ago, because fraud has become a way of life on Wall Street and has a become a way of life in the futures market. There simply isn't adequate regulation in place. In other words, the fix is in on the short sell of the US tax payer who they're going to stick with the (opps!) bill.

      Banks continue to have $1.2 trillion in toxic assets on their books, just as it pertains to equity stripping in the underwater mortgage market. This trend started in 1978, when the federal government killed all of the state usury and allowed for adjustable rate mortgages between '82 and '84.  

      I mean, how many times can you buy something in America and then have them change the price on you after you've bought it. Let's face it friends. The fix is in. They have convinced Americans to turn their homes into piggy banks to keep money in the economy. In consideration of the fact that 59,000 plants in America have been closed. Still better, the baby boomer generation is getting ready to retire now and that's really bad news, because they're going to retire straight into poverty because Wall Street has stolen their retirement savings. This is the gift that keeps on giving to the Wall Streeters. If you guys want to defend Wall Street, go ahead. While that may be alright for some, it's not for this cowboy.  

      sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

      by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:06:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Has TARP been paid back? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      There seems to be a difference of opinion on that the last time I resorted to Googling it. It looks to me like it has been, except for some part that went to helping fix some people's mortgage problems, and that part was not expected to be paid back. It was about $46B if I recall correctly.

      Anyway, it looks like the bailout hasn't cost all that many taxpayer dollars despite what the tea party and this diarist seems to think.

      As for the next crash, well, I suppose it will happen for some time and some reason. Not holding my breath currently.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:06:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  German Banksters (4+ / 0-)

    The diarist always idealizes Germany (as filtered through Der Spiegel) but fails to note that Deutsche Bank has been one of the greatest offenders, both in the US and in Germany.  

    In fact, Deutsche Bank headquarters in Frankfurt were raided by German authorities yesterday, looking for evidence of massive tax evasion.  

    http://www.dw.de/...

    The opposite of "good" is "good intention" - Kurt Tucholsky

    by DowneastDem on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:50:40 AM PST

  •  Same thing happened in Euro banks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollyusa, Deep Texan

    nobody went to jail there either except in Iceland, but some of the very worst were the German banks who gleefully participated in credit default swap ponzi schemes that wrecked the Spanish and Greek economies. These are some of the same people who disapprovingly shake their fingers at southern Europe while all the while profiting from their misery.

    I think the Europeans need to get their own house in order before condescending ours, that includes expats with MBA degrees living in Europe.

    "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

    by Phil In Denver on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:05:48 AM PST

  •  Just to point out (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollyusa, Deep Texan

    you're citing articles from Der Spiegel which are 2 years old.

    "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

    by Publius2008 on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:05:50 AM PST

  •  Good diary and correct (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Democrats Ramshield

    Allowing the TBTF banks to exist and get bigger guarantees another systemic breakdown sooner or later. The banks should have been broken up and Glass-Steagal restored. Instead the same idiot pundits will shriek "We never saw it coming". The problem with a clown shoes wearing corp media is they are always stepping on rakes and paying no price for it, while the super rich laugh all the way to their next bailout.

    It's gonna happen again. We've done NOTHING to prevent the exact same collapse we just went thru in 2008. Dodd-Frank helps a bit but doesn't go nearly far enough. Wonder what they blame it on next time. Probably socialism.

    Rec'd as always

    Regulate banks, not vaginas

    by MinistryOfTruth on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:51:48 AM PST

    •  To MinistryOfTruth - Thank you for your support (0+ / 0-)

      Thanks also for the great comment. I could not possibly agree more. You sir are 100% correct. Sadly this will happen again. Thank you for your support. Happy holidays to you!

      sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

      by Democrats Ramshield on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:33:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tipped and Rec'd. Thank heavens our mortgage is.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Democrats Ramshield

    paid in full.  At least we won't be on the street, and we can live off our savings and with a very large garden.  Bartering will go a long way where we live as well.

    Here's today "gem" from Der Spiegel about Germany's Deutsche bank, and tax evasion...

    http://www.spiegel.de/...

    It seems that banks can go unpunished everywhere in the world.

    “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    by LamontCranston on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:03:34 AM PST

  •  (smile) (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks everyone for your support.

    sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

    by Democrats Ramshield on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 10:18:57 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site