The shit has hit the fan:

[jupta]

I'm surprised no one else posted this here.

"Wednesday’s Fed announcement will increase the size of its balance sheet by another $1,150bn to about $3,000bn even before the roll-out of a $1,000bn scheme to finance credit markets. Once this scheme is fully implemented, its balance sheet could approach $4,000bn – nearly a third the size of the US economy."

The federal reserve just began monetizing debt, i.e., they are purchasing US debt, and loaning that back to it as collateral for their endless printing of dollars.

The fed is effectively having the US department of Treasury PURCHASE its citizens treasury bills.

Gold went up $60 in 18 hours.

Can you say "fucked"?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/15eb2de2-13d8 ... ck_check=1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/brea ... ation.html

Glen Beck on this FED move:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltfojz8KkX8

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk71kmrvajo

Banking conspiracy anyone?

[Iolaus]

There's also an article in the Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi that puts into perspective that the bailout money seems to be peanuts compared a trick the fed has been doing which inputs far more cash than this into the monetary system.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st ... over/print

Its in part V, The Repo Men

Well, I've got front row seats and its going to be an interesting show.

[DHodges]

Gold went up $60 in 18 hours.

When did that happen?

The economy is in a precarious state, and it could possibly tip one direction or the other into deflation or hyperinflation, either of which would be disasterous. We haven't hit either scenario yet, but it is a very dangerous situation.

Banking conspiracy anyone?

People act out of their own self-interest. That a bunch of people move in the same direction, because their interests are similar, does not prove a conspiracy. (I'm not going to watch any Glen Beck video, sorry. I hate that guy.)

[jupta]

When did that happen?

The economy is in a precarious state, and it could possibly tip one direction or the other into deflation or hyperinflation, either of which would be disasterous. We haven't hit either scenario yet, but it is a very dangerous situation.

18/03/09. And it WILL happen again.

People act out of their own self-interest. That a bunch of people move in the same direction, because their interests are similar, does not prove a conspiracy.

If feminism, the removal of the gold standard, the credit system, the corporate world, Iraq, America's 60 trillion dollar debt, the yearly deficit of the US and the Stimulus Bill aren't the products of a buttload of stupid, then they're most definitely the product of a buttload of evil.

(I'm not going to watch any Glen Beck video, sorry. I hate that guy.)

I don't like him much either, but he says some good stuff sometimes, including those videos.

[Carl G]

I thought the Glen Beck videos were interesting. Thanks for posting them. I cannot say that I understand how finance works, but it does appear the barn is burning and Obama and crew are dousing the flames with gasoline. If so they are idiots, con men, or both. Time will tell, and it shouldn't be long.

[vicdan]

If feminism, the removal of the gold standard, the credit system, the corporate world, Iraq, America's 60 trillion dollar debt, the yearly deficit of the US and the Stimulus Bill aren't the products of a buttload of stupid, then they're most definitely the product of a buttload of evil.

Feminism, fiat currency, and credit system are evil?..

Care to support that, or are you just vocalizing some subconscious sentiments using vaguely associated terms?

[Foreigner]

I think you guys are letting the finger and not the moon get you all bent out of shape.
Money is not important or valuable, it is just a tool with a job to do.
Did you think a transition to global unity and universal management could occur without many various shake-ups. ;)

Relax already. Dont join in with these russian commies whose only intention is childish revenge. War is impossible until people want it.
If you keep your eyes peeled and your wits about you, be sure to add a dash of patriotism and continue to love your fellow man, you will know what it is you can do and when to do it.


Foreigner

______________

[Carl G]

I think you guys are letting the finger and not the moon get you all bent out of shape.

Nope. It's the moon that is getting me bent.

Money is not important or valuable, it is just a tool with a job to do.

Au Contraire. Tools are important.

Did you think a transition to global unity and universal management could occur without many various shake-ups. ;)

No. Nor did I think they could occur without corruption in a big and overriding way. You believe it's all hunky dory among the leadership? Have you not noticed that they do not have our best interests at heart?

Relax already. Dont join in with these russian commies whose only intention is childish revenge. War is impossible until people want it.

And it is very easy to manipulate people into wanting it.

If you keep your eyes peeled and your wits about you, be sure to add a dash of patriotism and continue to love your fellow man, you will know what it is you can do and when to do it.

Get a pitchfork and head for Washington with my neighbors?

[anastasiax]

Where Can I Locate an Excel Template that Calculates a Balance Sheet? I need to make a Balance Sheet for a Business Plan and all I have are the Start Up Costs, Income Projections and Cash Flow Projections. Is there an Excel template that will calculate this using the data I have? Where can I find this?
____________________
market samurai ~ marketsamurai ~ marketsamurai.com

[Carl G]

Have you tried Google? Microsoft? How about forget excel, just set up a table and then use a fucking hand calculator. It's not like you'll need to change the numbers of your projections later.

Now back the shit hitting the fan. My readings tell me that the trillions in fake money flooding the system via bailouts and stimulus will forestall the U.S. financial collapse for some months, perhaps until the end of this year, but that employment, real estate, and retail will worsen in the meantime, and when the bubble of the false recovery bursts, it will burst with a bigger bang then if all the government 'help' did not happen.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Second half of next year. But normally a world war is summoned first as to mask the terrible sight of that final stage. I mean, someone, somewhere has to pay for the sins?

[Carl G]

Agreed, war is likely, to mask the collapse caused by the looting of the system by the criminals in charge.

Forward, sheep, for God and country!

[maestro]

What if the world regains confidence and optimism, and the economies start functioning as before. That is also a possibility.
On the other hand if china backs away from the US dollar, it would totter on the brink of collapse, then all hell will break loose.

[DHodges]

Second half of next year. But normally a world war is summoned first as to mask the terrible sight of that final stage. I mean, someone, somewhere has to pay for the sins?

There is, in my opinion, a more than negligible chance of this happening in the next few years (up to, say, 2012), but is by no means certain.

A true WORLD war in this age is extremely dangerous. There are still plenty of nukes around. So there might be something more constrained, but still bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States does not provoke wars that could involve a land invasion of the US.

So, if there is a Big War, who are the players? What are the sides? Will China be involved?

What if the world regains confidence and optimism, and the economies start functioning as before. That is also a possibility.

It is a possibility, but at the moment I don't see how it could happen, and it doesn't look like anyone has much of a plan to make it happen. In the US there does seem to be a lot of "talking up" the economy to try to bolster confidence. There's a lot of spin going on. (And the massive dumping of cash into the economy.)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What if the world regains confidence and optimism, and the economies start functioning as before. That is also a possibility.

While confidence and optimism are crucial elements of economical healthy functioning: there are limits. If people would just start to take out more loans which they cannot pay back on the long run, it would only hurt the economy further after a short period of return to former glory. In other words: even confidence needs some sort of substantial backing. What I miss from the official analysis is how this substantial backing would materialize. Just pumping in money, safe-guards and guarantees are quick-fixes and might only deepen or lengthen the crisis until an all-out War becomes the more attractive fix as it cannot help destroying many old institutions, laws and alliances and forge new ones.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A true WORLD war in this age is extremely dangerous. There are still plenty of nukes around. So there might be something more constrained, but still bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States does not provoke wars that could involve a land invasion of the US.

Hmm, indeed. The nature of a new world war would be essentially different. Not only because of the nukes (but some would say the Cold War counts as WW3). And WW2 was essentially different from WWI too in many ways. Although they had in common this focus on land ownership and nationalities which are both not prime drivers anymore with the current state of technology in especially transportation and communication.

So, if there is a Big War, who are the players? What are the sides? Will China be involved?

China is an unlikely participant in the classical sense. Perhaps the nature of this war would be to have many fronts in many countries at the same time. The battle field would be mainly urban. Some describe this as fourth generation warfare: a move from war between states to war between the supposed 'world order' and loose proxies and networks, including homegrown rebels and outcasts.

So while in the Old Wars it was group of states vs group of states, we have now State against Opponents. Bush called it the "Global War on Terror" and each state hooked up in the global community is automatically on the same side, supposedly.

While there are remains of the old ways of war expressed through talk of bombing Iran, North Korea or Syria, eying Venezuela or Russia even, these conflicts are not central to the issue at all and even when acted upon wouldn't change much in the balance of power. The new conflicts are between fast, agile networked people moving on the highway of media, ideology, lobbying and organizing activists in a distributed fashion. The state apparatus is hardly player anymore; it just tries to survive, serving her clients like an experienced whore.

[brokenhead]

It is interesting that China did not prevent North Korea from testing its nuclear weapon capability, including the delivery part of the test. China is a country in which there are too many people. Too many could mean expendable. If provoking at least a regional military conflict is not in their best interest, it seems that preventing one may not be either. Its populace has not become sufficiently bourgeois. It has not grown so westernized that it cannot mobilize. Even with a supposedly expanding middle class, food supply in China is a perennial problem, as is physical space per capita. Throw in a shortage of women, and you have a giant that is becoming even less gentle as the new millennium gets underway.

China's economy has been burgeoning so fast that self-imposed fair-trading practices are not happening. It looks as though favored-nation status might be vulnerable right now. I don't see what else the Obama administration can do about the North Korean WMD tests.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I think if North Korea was swallowed by China, and controlled by the Chinese Regime, it would be better situation. The Chinese are closer to being capitalists, while Kim Jung Ill is from the old school of dictators. Dictators are usually more unpredictable than capitalists. China's economic situation is too important to them to waste money on a war, the chinese are cheap materialists, while Kim Jung Ill has nothing to lose, he is just pissed off that he can't have a big boy seat in the United Nations, bruised egos and universal power are not a good mix.

However, South Korea is a better choice still to take over North Korea, but I don't believe they have the military will or power to do so.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It is interesting that China did not prevent North Korea from testing its nuclear weapon capability, including the delivery part of the test.

As I understood it they were left out of the loop on this one which rather pissed them off. Also the amount of political influence China has in North Korea is way less than you might think. China functions quite differently in terms of foreign policy compared to what we're used to with the US.

While North Korea functions like a geographical buffer between China and South Korea with its US troops, the larger problem is that a collapse of the fragile regime in North Korea would create a large stream of refugees toward the already crowded China. And nation building is something they are not interested in but certainly would not allow a South Korean take-over, bringing the US and Western influences to their borders.

An intriguing game of chess is being played, as usual. China bets on gradual improvement while maintaining most of the status quo. However, North Korea might already be too destabilized, too much hollowed out and isolated to continue in a gradual manner.

[maestro]

While confidence and optimism are crucial elements of economical healthy functioning: there are limits. If people would just start to take out more loans which they cannot pay back on the long run, it would only hurt the economy further after a short period of return to former glory. In other words: even confidence needs some sort of substantial backing. What I miss from the official analysis is how this substantial backing would materialize. Just pumping in money, safe-guards and guarantees are quick-fixes and might only deepen or lengthen the crisis until an all-out War becomes the more attractive fix as it cannot help destroying many old institutions, laws and alliances and forge new ones.

I always saw the American prosperity as one based upon the world's confidence in the dollar. All of the world's growth was based on Americans consuming. If it worked for so long it might start working again.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I always saw the American prosperity as one based upon the world's confidence in the dollar. All of the world's growth was based on Americans consuming. If it worked for so long it might start working again.

There's certainly an element of that. Sometimes called the 'world tax' hidden inside the value of the dollar for foreign currencies.

In general economical growth can happen when there's enough (marketable) resources to cultivate and there are enough suitable means or methods in place. In the past they were mostly natural resources, trade routes and manual labor. In recent centuries people and their initiatives and networks (or the collective intelligence of how to effectively cultivate) have become the most important resource and as such the most tolerant, multicultural, low taxed immigrant friendly policy can cause a place to implement better utilization of the available resources. With the United States it was the brain drain from other countries mostly caused by the US offering more freedom and less obstructions (to enterprise, to climb up, to earn good money). Easier loans were a part of that. Similar thing made e.g. Amsterdam and their trading companies the economic center of Europe in another age.

The United States have lots of natural resources and a good, unique location stretching the width of a whole continent with no internal competition in terms of landmass. Added to that the constant influx of talented and well connected immigrants in the 19th and 20th century and a weakened competition when the rest of the world got hit hard being a theater of war, made it unavoidable the US would reach absolute dominance economically.

Although immigration is still high in the US, it's not comparable to the past in terms of relative talent and dedication of the ones migrating. Many would-be immigrants see their chances elsewhere in the world as well or in their own developed or developing country. Many countries have recovered from the war damages and the information economy has further declined the importance of geography and the value of classical resources like fertile land or strategic location.

The above could explain how an endless looking economical growth would start to decline while at the same time ignored by a culture so ingrained with optimism and the idea that things can and will only get brighter, dominating most speculative markets. In my estimation this is the reason the collapse happened after having built up over the last few decades and the rest of the world of course shares in it, partly because of the interconnections of the banking systems (basically having bought US debts) and in part because many countries were trying to emulate the American culture of it-will-only-get-bigger-than-this-but-even-faster.