The Big Takeover

[gandalf]

[quote=Veritas]Buy more ammo. You are a survivor.[/quote]

Too funny…

Stock in the firearms industry? 😉

[jpinpb]

[quote=gandalf]If the rest of the world wasn’t failing too, denominating in a foreign currency would be the straightforward answer. I don’t know, perhaps Canadian? Lots of us asking same questions.[/quote]

Canadian, huh? What if their currency becomes part of ours as the talked about Amero? Then we’d be better off buying Pesos. Even the name sounds too much like peasant.

I feel utterly helpless and frustrated. Normally being informed helps guide decision-making. But nowadays I feel more lost.

[jpinpb]

[quote=gandalf]If the rest of the world wasn’t failing too, denominating in a foreign currency would be the straightforward answer. I don’t know, perhaps Canadian? Lots of us asking same questions.[/quote]

Canadian, huh? What if their currency becomes part of ours as the talked about Amero? Then we’d be better off buying Pesos. Even the name sounds too much like peasant.

I feel utterly helpless and frustrated. Normally being informed helps guide decision-making. But nowadays I feel more lost.

[jpinpb]

[quote=gandalf]If the rest of the world wasn’t failing too, denominating in a foreign currency would be the straightforward answer. I don’t know, perhaps Canadian? Lots of us asking same questions.[/quote]

Canadian, huh? What if their currency becomes part of ours as the talked about Amero? Then we’d be better off buying Pesos. Even the name sounds too much like peasant.

I feel utterly helpless and frustrated. Normally being informed helps guide decision-making. But nowadays I feel more lost.

[jpinpb]

[quote=gandalf]If the rest of the world wasn’t failing too, denominating in a foreign currency would be the straightforward answer. I don’t know, perhaps Canadian? Lots of us asking same questions.[/quote]

Canadian, huh? What if their currency becomes part of ours as the talked about Amero? Then we’d be better off buying Pesos. Even the name sounds too much like peasant.

I feel utterly helpless and frustrated. Normally being informed helps guide decision-making. But nowadays I feel more lost.

[jpinpb]

[quote=gandalf]If the rest of the world wasn’t failing too, denominating in a foreign currency would be the straightforward answer. I don’t know, perhaps Canadian? Lots of us asking same questions.[/quote]

Canadian, huh? What if their currency becomes part of ours as the talked about Amero? Then we’d be better off buying Pesos. Even the name sounds too much like peasant.

I feel utterly helpless and frustrated. Normally being informed helps guide decision-making. But nowadays I feel more lost.

[patientrenter]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=gandalf]If the rest of the world wasn’t failing too, denominating in a foreign currency would be the straightforward answer. I don’t know, perhaps Canadian? Lots of us asking same questions.[/quote]

Canadian, huh? What if their currency becomes part of ours as the talked about Amero? Then we’d be better off buying Pesos. Even the name sounds too much like peasant.

I feel utterly helpless and frustrated. Normally being informed helps guide decision-making. But nowadays I feel more lost.[/quote]

JP, No bets are solid, so diversification is still wise. But the yen is not a bad option in a potential inflation storm. Japan suffered through 15+ years of sluggish growth and criticism from everyone. Why? Because their economists and leaders were stupid? No, as a nation of savers, they were adamantly opposed to inflation. As Rich points out in his posts, that contrasts with the US, which is a nation of borrowers. (Broad brush averages here.) If their currency holds on to its domestic purchasing power, it has a better chance of holding on to its international purchasing power over the long haul (=decades).

[patientrenter]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=gandalf]If the rest of the world wasn’t failing too, denominating in a foreign currency would be the straightforward answer. I don’t know, perhaps Canadian? Lots of us asking same questions.[/quote]

Canadian, huh? What if their currency becomes part of ours as the talked about Amero? Then we’d be better off buying Pesos. Even the name sounds too much like peasant.

I feel utterly helpless and frustrated. Normally being informed helps guide decision-making. But nowadays I feel more lost.[/quote]

JP, No bets are solid, so diversification is still wise. But the yen is not a bad option in a potential inflation storm. Japan suffered through 15+ years of sluggish growth and criticism from everyone. Why? Because their economists and leaders were stupid? No, as a nation of savers, they were adamantly opposed to inflation. As Rich points out in his posts, that contrasts with the US, which is a nation of borrowers. (Broad brush averages here.) If their currency holds on to its domestic purchasing power, it has a better chance of holding on to its international purchasing power over the long haul (=decades).

[patientrenter]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=gandalf]If the rest of the world wasn’t failing too, denominating in a foreign currency would be the straightforward answer. I don’t know, perhaps Canadian? Lots of us asking same questions.[/quote]

Canadian, huh? What if their currency becomes part of ours as the talked about Amero? Then we’d be better off buying Pesos. Even the name sounds too much like peasant.

I feel utterly helpless and frustrated. Normally being informed helps guide decision-making. But nowadays I feel more lost.[/quote]

JP, No bets are solid, so diversification is still wise. But the yen is not a bad option in a potential inflation storm. Japan suffered through 15+ years of sluggish growth and criticism from everyone. Why? Because their economists and leaders were stupid? No, as a nation of savers, they were adamantly opposed to inflation. As Rich points out in his posts, that contrasts with the US, which is a nation of borrowers. (Broad brush averages here.) If their currency holds on to its domestic purchasing power, it has a better chance of holding on to its international purchasing power over the long haul (=decades).

[patientrenter]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=gandalf]If the rest of the world wasn’t failing too, denominating in a foreign currency would be the straightforward answer. I don’t know, perhaps Canadian? Lots of us asking same questions.[/quote]

Canadian, huh? What if their currency becomes part of ours as the talked about Amero? Then we’d be better off buying Pesos. Even the name sounds too much like peasant.

I feel utterly helpless and frustrated. Normally being informed helps guide decision-making. But nowadays I feel more lost.[/quote]

JP, No bets are solid, so diversification is still wise. But the yen is not a bad option in a potential inflation storm. Japan suffered through 15+ years of sluggish growth and criticism from everyone. Why? Because their economists and leaders were stupid? No, as a nation of savers, they were adamantly opposed to inflation. As Rich points out in his posts, that contrasts with the US, which is a nation of borrowers. (Broad brush averages here.) If their currency holds on to its domestic purchasing power, it has a better chance of holding on to its international purchasing power over the long haul (=decades).

[patientrenter]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=gandalf]If the rest of the world wasn’t failing too, denominating in a foreign currency would be the straightforward answer. I don’t know, perhaps Canadian? Lots of us asking same questions.[/quote]

Canadian, huh? What if their currency becomes part of ours as the talked about Amero? Then we’d be better off buying Pesos. Even the name sounds too much like peasant.

I feel utterly helpless and frustrated. Normally being informed helps guide decision-making. But nowadays I feel more lost.[/quote]

JP, No bets are solid, so diversification is still wise. But the yen is not a bad option in a potential inflation storm. Japan suffered through 15+ years of sluggish growth and criticism from everyone. Why? Because their economists and leaders were stupid? No, as a nation of savers, they were adamantly opposed to inflation. As Rich points out in his posts, that contrasts with the US, which is a nation of borrowers. (Broad brush averages here.) If their currency holds on to its domestic purchasing power, it has a better chance of holding on to its international purchasing power over the long haul (=decades).

[equalizer]

[quote=Diego Mamani]From the RS article:

“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”

I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.

The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme. [/quote]
Yes, the only loans that should get AAA are those held by govt employees with 15 or more years of service with no chance of layoff.

Dylan Ratigan on CNBC was attempting to take S&P guest to task back last fall and you could tell producers were screaming in his ear to shut up. He was lucky he didnt get fired that day for having the temerity to ask simple questions like how could S&P rate all this junk as AAA?

[equalizer]

[quote=Diego Mamani]From the RS article:

“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”

I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.

The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme. [/quote]
Yes, the only loans that should get AAA are those held by govt employees with 15 or more years of service with no chance of layoff.

Dylan Ratigan on CNBC was attempting to take S&P guest to task back last fall and you could tell producers were screaming in his ear to shut up. He was lucky he didnt get fired that day for having the temerity to ask simple questions like how could S&P rate all this junk as AAA?

[equalizer]

[quote=Diego Mamani]From the RS article:

“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”

I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.

The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme. [/quote]
Yes, the only loans that should get AAA are those held by govt employees with 15 or more years of service with no chance of layoff.

Dylan Ratigan on CNBC was attempting to take S&P guest to task back last fall and you could tell producers were screaming in his ear to shut up. He was lucky he didnt get fired that day for having the temerity to ask simple questions like how could S&P rate all this junk as AAA?

[equalizer]

[quote=Diego Mamani]From the RS article:

“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”

I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.

The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme. [/quote]
Yes, the only loans that should get AAA are those held by govt employees with 15 or more years of service with no chance of layoff.

Dylan Ratigan on CNBC was attempting to take S&P guest to task back last fall and you could tell producers were screaming in his ear to shut up. He was lucky he didnt get fired that day for having the temerity to ask simple questions like how could S&P rate all this junk as AAA?

[Author]

Posts