Koffiekamer Terug naar discussie overzicht

Corné van Zeijl - Het goedkoopste geld

1. [verwijderd] 20 november 2008 11:47

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   ?? zie mijn post niet
2. [verwijderd] 20 november 2008 11:48

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   xcvlgmdslfbm
3. [verwijderd] 20 november 2008 11:49

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   The BIS Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves
   Posted: Nov 19 2008
   By: James Sinclair
   
   First they geek net out about 40% of OTC derivatives, not knowing the credit conditions of the counterparties to these net outs. Apparently winning and losing does not count. Performance ability of a special performance contract counts less.
   
   After that they declare there is no problem with OTC derivatives due to some magic wand of computer technology that forgets about insolvency, taking notional value to real value and expressing the risks inherent in all OTC derivatives as miniscule compared to notional. If these risks are so small what is all the hubbub about?
   
   Truth in statistics simply does not exist in an amoral world where deceit is a virtue and the most successful predator is the person to be admired. It is a world of takers and destroyers, not givers and builders.
   
   The ability to get an honest number on OTC derivatives no longer exists.
   
   Treat the symptoms and hide the problem is the formula for destruction, not correction.
   
   ABX triple-A t/m triple=B
   www.markit.com/information/products/c...
4. [verwijderd] 20 november 2008 13:07

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   JS
   
   The mistaken belief that an up-turn in business activity as an absolutely necessary criterion for the enormous funds now injected and to be injected into the economic system to transmute in an out of control inflation is convenient spin.
   
   Hyperinflation in every case, even those considered political, has been a product of variations of quantitative easing, the process we are now entering.
   
   The key reason why quantitative easing has been so successful at causing hyperinflation is because this method of direct injection is made of liquidity and therefore effectively eliminates and sterilizes the funds so injected.
   
   The reason all historical hyperinflationary events have occurred is due to the failure of attempts to unlock credit lock ups.
   www.bloomberg.com/apps/cbuilder?ticke...
   The Federal Reserve has no other option than moving to quantitative easing because the Federal Reserve Begging Bowl and the TARP have only served the Good Ole Boy’s Club of Banking.
   
   GE is simply too big to fail. GM is simply too big to fail. Quantitative easing can prevent this but as always, with CONSEQUENCES.
   
   So let’s summate what we have discovered by a review of all significant hyperinflationary events in history:
   
   1. The velocity of money increase that transmutes money supply into runaway inflation is currency related in every instance, not business recovering activity related.
   
   2. The tip off to impending hyperinflation is always a currency event. This is without exception and never fails to occur.
   
   3. More than 95% of all hyperinflation events, if not all, started in a business recession or depression, not in a recovery phase of that country’s business activity.
   
   I INVITE YOU TO TRY TO PROVE ME WRONG, KNOWING YOU CANNOT.