7kontinent

prodao veru za veceru. Pa zar i ti Zagore....

Nisu vise omladinci sto su nekoc bili.

Quote from: Hate mail on December 19, 2009, 01:13:57 AM
Zaboravljas "prodaosise".

Ili jos bolje: zamaleparesteseprodali  :mrgreen:

Ma lepo je kad chovek ume da se raduje...novcu...
To obichno znachi da nema vecih problema u zivotu...ili da je pohlepan :mrgreen:

Ili da se prodao.

Sa novcem ide i pozicija: pozicija da cusnes Shaneequin rezime u smece horog-shutom...

QuoteIli da se prodao.

Svi se "prodaju"...pitanje samo cene koju postignu na trzishtu...
Biti pohlepan znachi biti slep za sve druge aspekte zivota osim materijalnih... a ima ih...

Are you sure you had boarded the right flight when you were emigrating?

I used to ask this of my demented Serbian-American former landlady, who used to spew the same kind of crypto-commie, new age drivel. 'Cause I know I damn sure have. What the hell are all you folks waiting for, rotting away here?? Children in Africa are still dying, Ukraine's orphanages are still living Hell (and full of preying homos),  imperial wars are still raging in resource-rich lands... Go help them out.

And the blacks are still being mistreated here, but that's our prerogative.

Ma ja sam uhvatila dobar avion (il sam mislila da je dobar) :mrgreen:
Meni se samo maloooo ochi otvorile za ovih 15-ak godina zivota ovde. Nisam ( vishe) hipik da pokushavam da reshavam sve na ovoj planeti ali ono shto ugrozava zivot moje porodice, sutra moje dece i unuka i ako ne mogu da reshim mogu barem da primetim...

Casino i dalje radi...yuuuupiiii xdrinka

QuoteNYSE Trading Surges to Record on Expiration, S&P 500 Changes - Bloomberg.com

    Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) -- New York Stock Exchange trading surged to a record 3.15 billion shares as derivatives expiration and changes to the Standard & Poor's 500 Index lifted volume to more than double this year's average.

    Yesterday was the last day of trading for December futures and options on U.S. indexes and stocks. The expiration, a quarterly event known as "quadruple witching," boosts volume because investors and dealers must buy and sell stocks and derivatives to move positions into future months and make corresponding trades to hedge, or cancel out, their risk of loss. Visa Inc. was among five companies that joined the S&P 500 yesterday, forcing funds that track the index to buy shares.

    U.S. trading has slowed as the S&P 500 rebounded from a 12- year low in March, with average monthly volume falling 36 percent. Fewer than 7.87 billion shares changed hands each day on U.S. exchanges during November, the lowest month average since August 2008, Bloomberg data show. Analysts including Mary Ann Bartels at Bank of America Corp. say the slowdown in volume was a bearish sign following the S&P 500's 63 percent surge.



When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Dec 19th, 2009 at 03:56:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

    Re: Economy and Finance (none / 0)
    what a relief, the casino is still pumping bubbles and money.

    i was worried for a while that wall st would have a christmas out in the cold.

    must be nice to know the full faith and power of the state is behind you when the next crash comes, and that unborn generations will pick up the tab on your losses, and let you keep the wins... hell, nice to know you own the only people who could change the situation.

    happy revelling! it'll be a good year for moet and chandon.

While in England... :evil:

QuoteBank of England Calls Bluff of Bankers Who Threaten to Depart UK to Avoid Taxes

    The UK is providing a lesson the US badly needs to learn, that push comes to shove, regulators hold the whip, and have to be willing to use it when necessary. Given how intransigent the financial services industry has become, the time for discipline has come.

    ....

    In response to a 50% bonus supertax, bankers in the UK are threatening to decamp, as if that will move the authorities to relent. They are not blinking. And with good reason. The idea that everyone ensconced in a large financial firm can decamp to a hedge fund or a private equity fund, or start their own boutique is wildly exaggerated. Even though many traders like to cast themselves as solo producers, they have tremendous advantages by operating in a large firm, namely, access to concentrated capital and information flows, and in many cases leverage that either cannot be obtained at all in a smaller firm format or would be far more costly. Similarly, a lot of supposed "talent" in other businesses depends on the firm franchise to a greater degree than they fancy.

    ....

    The Guardian tells us that Bank of England officials are telling unhappy bankers that they are free to take a hike, and England may well be better off without them. By contrast, every time US banks have gotten themselves all worked up (the list seems endless, plain vanilla products, mortgage cramdowns, usury ceilings, exiting the TARP so they can pay high bonuses) the US officialdom has caved. And this behavior simply encourages the banks to escalate their demands.

           A senior bank of England official said that bankers moving overseas to avoid the bonus supertax could be price worth paying to achieve lasting reform of the sector.

            Andy Haldane, the bank's head of financial stability, also said that banks had become too big and was sharply critical of a culture where bankers could take huge risks in the knowledge that the taxpayer would bail them out.

            In an interview with the BBC World Service, Haldane said: "Some of the downsides of carrying around a big financial system are now evident to all.

            "If some of that were to migrate overseas that would be unfortunate but given the costs of carrying that financial system around, it may be a price worth paying."

I malo o shefu Casina :

QuoteBernanke Confirmation Headwinds Increasing  Yves Smith

    The party line is that Ben Bernanke's confirmation for a second term as Fed chief is a shoe-in, although he might face an unseemly amount of roughing up, like having to step down briefly if the senators who plan to put a hold on his vote succeed in delaying it beyond the end of January. And then there is also that wee inconvenience that Congress has woken up to the fact that the electorate is seriously unhappy about bailouts without accountability and reform, and the Fed allowed the Treasury to circumvent normal budget approval processed (as Willem Buiter has put it, the Fed acted as a "quasi-fiscal agent" of the Treasury). So a little, perhaps a lot, of curtailment of the Fed's expanded role is in the offing.

    But the sands are shifting against Bernanke. A mere month ago, the idea that he would face a filibuster was inconceivable. Similarly, no one would have thought he would have 30% of the Senate Banking Committee vote against his confirmation.

    But what is particularly telling is that sentiment is continuing to erode. From Politico:

           Six Republicans and one Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee voted Thursday against Ben Bernanke's nomination to a second four-year term as chairman of the Federal Reserve -- signaling to some Fed watchers that President Barack Obama's pick could be in more trouble than previously thought.

            "It's not the foregone conclusion it was a couple of weeks ago," said Brian Gardner, a bank analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.

            Two aspects of the two-hour debate that preceded the committee vote struck Gardner as worrisome for Bernanke: the unenthusiastic -- even apologetic -- tone from some of the senators who voted yes and a dispute over the Fed's refusal to release documents about the bailout of insurance giant American International Group to senators on the committee.

            Sens. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and David Vitter (R-La.), in particular, complained about the Fed's lack of transparency. In the case of AIG, some banking committee staffers were allowed access to documents, Bunning said, but individual senators and the public were not allowed to see the information because the Fed said it was "protected."

            That spat could have legs, Gardner said, and if it resonates with a public already fuming at the Fed, it could sway the votes of yes-leaning senators.

vbo od miliona vesti koje se mogu naci tvoja selekcija najvise govori o tebi.

sto je OK, nisam samo sigurna da li ti zelis da mi znamo ono sto si nam rekla?

Ја не смем ни да помислим шта све пропуштам тиме што не читам ове ВБО уломке & приопћења за тисак.
Јел' може то бре својим речима.... онако, природно...

QuoteЈел' може то бре својим речима.... онако, природно...

Moze:
1. Na Wall streetu je "business as usual" shto ce reci casino radi i nikad im bolje. Lepo je znati da drzava i tax payeri uvek stoje iza tebe :mrgreen:
2. Londonski bankari bash ono pravo ljuti shto hoce da im oporezuju bonuse pa zapretili da ce da se sele. Ovi im poruchili " good luck" i kazu mozda ce nam biti bolje bez vas xrofl . U stvari blefiraju i jedni i drugi :mrgreen:
3.Bernanke the greatest u USA treba da bude izabran opet za  "Fed chief-a"...da dovrshi poso.Medjutim neki su glasali protiv a i oni koji su glasali za bili su neshto sramezljivi.Senat je trazio da Bernanke polozi rachune o parama koje su dali gospodi iz  "insurance giant American International Group"
ali je Bernanke odbio da da informaciju jer je ona "protected."Zashticene informacije o parama tax payera...divne li demokratije :mrgreen:.Poshto javnost vec pizdi na Feds moze se desiti da Bernanke i ne prodje tako lako ( u shta lichno sumnjam).

Jelence naravno da sve shto radimo govori o nama samima. Tako i ovi postovi. Feell free to post happy posts :|

Ben Bernanke zasluzuje spomenik za zivota.

Quote from: zagor te nej on December 21, 2009, 02:48:26 AM
Ben Bernanke zasluzuje spomenik za zivota.

samo zato sto nas je izgleda izvadio iz bule? A sta dobija za to sto nas je u istu uvalio?

S paznjom cu poslushati dijalog vas dvojice ;)

Nije on. Technically, Sir Alan nas je uvalio.

technically, ali je bio jedan od guvernera i bio je uz Greenspana.

Quote from: vbo man on December 21, 2009, 02:45:55 AM

QuoteЈел' може то бре својим речима.... онако, природно...

Moze:
1. Na Wall streetu je "business as usual" shto ce reci casino radi i nikad im bolje. Lepo je znati da drzava i tax payeri uvek stoje iza tebe :mrgreen:
2. Londonski bankari bash ono pravo ljuti shto hoce da im oporezuju bonuse pa zapretili da ce da se sele. Ovi im poruchili " good luck" i kazu mozda ce nam biti bolje bez vas xrofl . U stvari blefiraju i jedni i drugi :mrgreen:
3.Bernanke the greatest u USA treba da bude izabran opet za  "Fed chief-a"...da dovrshi poso.Medjutim neki su glasali protiv a i oni koji su glasali za bili su neshto sramezljivi.Senat je trazio da Bernanke polozi rachune o parama koje su dali gospodi iz  "insurance giant American International Group"
ali je Bernanke odbio da da informaciju jer je ona "protected."Zashticene informacije o parama tax payera...divne li demokratije :mrgreen:.Poshto javnost vec pizdi na Feds moze se desiti da Bernanke i ne prodje tako lako ( u shta lichno sumnjam).

Jelence naravno da sve shto radimo govori o nama samima. Tako i ovi postovi. Feell free to post happy posts :|

Е тако те волим.

4. mars u kuhinju...

Ja reko ti me ignorishesh malisha :mrgreen:

Bernanke je, srecom, celu akademsku karijeru proveo proucavajuci veliku depresiju, i osobito neadekvatne odluke drzavne adminitracije koje su produbile krizu. Ako je postojao iko u Americi idealan da bude na mestu sefa FEDa prosle jeseni, to je bio on. Greenspan je kriv sto je slavinu novca drzao odvrnutu 2-3 godine duze nego sto je trebalo. Bernanke je, slicno Obami, nasledio veoma komplikovanu situaciju u ekonomiji, i njegove reakcije su bile egzemplarne. Uspe li da nadje fini balans izmedju povlacenja stimulativnih mera u ekonomiji, i ohrabrivanja ekonomskog ratsa, cenim da ce u istoriji ostati zabelezen kao veoma, veoma uspesan covek.

By Philip Aldrick and Jonathan Sibun
     Dec. 28 (Telegraph) -- JP Morgan, the giant US investment bank, has warned the Chancellor it may scrap plans to build a £1.5bn flagship European headquarters in Canary Wharf if politicians don't rein in their attacks on the City.
     Jamie Dimon, chief executive, made the coded warning to Alistair Darling in an angry phone call after the Government revealed its 50pc super-tax on bonuses in the pre-Budget report.
Although Mr Dimon did not explicitly threaten to can the 1.9m square foot Docklands development, he pointedly used it to demonstrate the bank's commitment to London.
     When JP Morgan bought the land for £237m in November last year, it wrote into its contract with Songbird Estates, the owner of Canary Wharf, an option to pull out. A decision has to be made before the option expires by the end of 2010.
     At the time, the bank's ambitious plan for a five-year development that left acres of room to grow was seen as a strong vote of confidence in London, demonstrationg its intention to invest and expand in the UK.
     However, JP Morganis now considering its options, in part as a result of the authorities change in attitude. Concerns have been raised by the Financial Services Authority's (FSA) crackdown on pay, which bankers say is stricter than any other major financial centre, and the 50pc higher rate of income tax, as well as the super-tax on bonuses above £25,000. Global regulatory changes have also contributed.
     Sources close to the bank said scrapping or substantially scaling down the development has been on the cards for the past two months. "Why would you want to make that kind of investment in London now?" a senior insider said. Others claimed that Mr Dimon was so furious with the Treasury about the super-tax – as JP Morgan has not received UK Government support – that "he wanted to lay down a marker".
     Bankers say regulatory pressure and the shifting tax regime have made Britain a far less attractive place to do business.
International banks, which assess where to place their capital at the end of every financial year, now plan to scale back investment in the UK. Even Paris, which has introduced a watered-down version of the super-tax on cash bonuses alone, is stealing a march over its traditionally superior rival, London.
     JP Morgan's implicit threat is the clearest example yet of disquiet. A Treasury spokesman confirmed the call, adding:
"Alistair Darling regularly discusses this type of issue with senior executives. The tax on bonuses is a fair measure because no bank would be left standing without Government intervention."
     A JP Morgan executive stressed: "There were no threats made on the call and we have made no decisions on people or buildings based on the super-tax announcement."
     In addition to the super-tax, bankers have been exasperated by the FSA's new rules on pay, which "are not in line with other countries", one said.
     The FSA defines all bankers on £1m or more as holding "significant influence functions" and demands that 60pc of their bonus is deferred over three years. Certain bankers on £500,000 and above also fall into the category.
     Executives say the FSA definition catches "two to four times as many staff" as qualify under guidelines from the Financial Stability Board, the global regulator. In other countries, under the G20 accord, "it doesn't apply to as big a population", one banker said – further damaging the City's competitiveness in retaining talent.
     This banker expects the super-tax to raise £3bn to £5bn and catch as many as 100,000 bankers, rather than the £550m and 20,000 the Treasury predicts.

QuoteHowever, JP Morganis now considering its options, in part as a result of the authorities change in attitude.
...Sources close to the bank said scrapping or substantially scaling down the development has been on the cards for the past two months. "Why would you want to make that kind of investment in London now?" a senior insider said.

Da to je pitanje? Ali nema mnogo veze sa ovom taksom...
UK je u takvim govnima da je otvaranje ove filijale ne vadi uopshte.Tako da su smeshni xrofl

QuoteInternational banks, which assess where to place their capital at the end of every financial year, now plan to scale back investment in the UK.

Kao shto i sami Englezi kazu: ko zna ( mozda)  zashto je to dobro :mrgreen:

QuoteThis banker expects the super-tax to raise £3bn to £5bn and catch as many as 100,000 bankers, rather than the £550m and 20,000 the Treasury predicts.

Even better...

Al' trabunjas, pa to je revijalno.

Ima se (vremena), moze se...

Quote from: zagor te nej on December 29, 2009, 12:55:13 PM
Al' trabunjas, pa to je revijalno.

Ne kaze se "revijalno" nego "za medalju"  :mrgreen:

 :mrgreen:
:| xyxy

QuoteTelegraph | Goldman Sachs denies betting against its clients on CDOs

    In a rare statement of defence, the American investment bank has offered a detailed explanation of its dealings in mortgage-backed products, particularly regarding collateralised debt obligations (CDOs), in the years preceding the financial crisis.

    The explanation was prompted by an article in the New York Times in which former Goldman employees and debt experts claimed that the bank knew the CDOs it was designing and selling to clients were highly risky. The sources claimed that rather than warning clients of the dangers, Goldman spent millions of dollars "short-selling" the instruments, reaping vast rewards when they imploded.

by Sassafras on Tue Dec 29th, 2009 at 03:42:11 PM EST
----------------------------------
    Well, as Mandy Rice-DAvis once famously said of an outraged denial "well, 'e would, wouldn't 'e ?"

    keep to the Fen Causeway
    by Helen
-----------------------
Quite frankly I have little sympathy for the buyers of GS junk - they should have done their due diligence and analysed what they were buying. I saw one of the GS prospectuses "selling" that kind of paper and if you read the fine print (which IS the job of these buyers) it was all there in painful detail.

    The real scandal is how GS gamed the ratings methodology of the agencies (with their complicity, as they sold "consultancy" services in that respect) to get the supposedly independent stamp of approval of these deals through the high ratings.

    But looking at the deals in detail should have been enough to see these things were not that strong - and many people did do that, and quite a few did make money by betting against them (including GS... - but then it is also a basic question of due diligence as a buyer as to whether the entity selling you some paper keeps some for itself or is keen to get rid of it completely...)
    by Jerome a Paris
-----------------
Yes, it should have been their job to notice that -although some were probably not professional buyers of assets, and rather merely rich people. OK, not the people deserving most sympathy but not necessarily a failure in competence.

        But that is no excuse for the act of selling something while making sure it crashes. It might have been legal (I don't know), it was still unacceptable. The analogy with buying insurance on someone else's home and then committing arson is quite fitting.

        Then of course, they gamed the rating system to claim the house was fireproof so there would be a buyer and they could buy the insurance...
        by Cyrille
----------------

They did not commit arson they bought insurance on a house which was already on fire. The people who sold the insurance should have known better.
            by Jerome a Paris
-----------------------------

Sve je to kur@c spram poruke koju sam dobio onomad... Ok, cirkularna poruka - nisam ja (bio) jedini al' opet - potpisao niko drugi do John Meriwether (aka mr LTCM) licno. Zadnje vreme doslo...

 :D

Quote from: iDemo on December 30, 2009, 03:19:01 PMcirkularna poruka

mr LTCM

8-)  :| xjap :?:

Tako je i samoupravnoj, socijalistickoj odzvonilo kad su poverljive stvari iz "Sluzbenog lista" (i osobito one iz "Internog informatora") pocele da se prepricavaju po ulici...

QuoteRe: Economy and Finance (none / 0)
For Wall St., Question on Top Bonuses Is 7 Figures or 8 - NYTimes.com

    Everyone on Wall Street is fixated on The Number.

    The bank bonus season, that annual rite of big money and bigger egos, begins in earnest this week, and it looks as if it will be one of the largest and most controversial blowouts the industry has ever seen.

    Bank executives are grappling with a question that exasperates, even infuriates, many recession-weary Americans: Just how big should their paydays be? Despite calls for restraint from Washington and a chafed public, resurgent banks are preparing to pay out bonuses that rival those of the boom years. The haul, in cash and stock, will run into many billions of dollars.

    Industry executives acknowledge that the numbers being tossed around -- six-, seven- and even eight-figure sums for some chief executives and top producers -- will probably stun the many Americans still hurting from the financial collapse and ensuing Great Recession.

    Goldman Sachs is expected to pay its employees an average of about $595,000 apiece for 2009, one of the most profitable years in its 141-year history. Workers in the investment bank of JPMorgan Chase stand to collect about $463,000 on average.

Ako ako samo napred...shto gore to bolje...Kazu nikad profitabilniju godinu nisu imali...
Dal ce se (glupi) Ameri pre ili kasnije dosetiti da ih neko ovde zajebava... xsex tj jebe u zdrav mozak. Chemu su onda sluzili bailouts... ma jok...nece se setiti... :P

QuoteRe: Economy and Finance (none / 0)
"Fire Geithner Now!" Guest post on Naked Capitalism

By L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Research Director with the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability and Senior Research Scholar at The Levy Economics Institute, who writes for New Deal 2.0.

    There is a growing consensus that it is time for President Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. While he is at it, he needs to clean house by firing Larry Summers, by banning Robert Rubin from Washington, and by appointing a replacement for Chairman Bernanke. It is time for a fresh start.

    Geithner is facing renewed scrutiny due to his questionable actions while at the NYFed. As reported on Bloomberg and in the NYT, secret emails show that the NYFed under Geithner's command prohibited AIG from reporting that it was passing government bail-out funds directly to counterparties, including Goldman Sachs. AIG had been negotiating with the banks, asking them to take as little as 40 cents on the dollar against bad CDOs they held. AIG was the biggest insurer in the country and had provided $62 billion of credit default "insurance" to these banks. The CDOs went bad and AIG could not cover claims. It was forced into insolvency and the government came to the rescue, with $182 billion of bailout funds through last June. By all rights, its counterparties should have lost big on their bad bets. Apparently, Geithner arranged the bailout of AIG with full knowledge that it would pass the bailout funds directly to the banks. Whether or not some protection should have been provided to the banks, it clearly was not good public policy to provide dollar-for-dollar protection to them. If you are a favored Wall Street bank, no bet can go bad!

    Geithner's relations with Wall Street bankers have always been incestuous, raising serious questions about his intentions. Note that Geithner worked with then Treasury Secretary Paulson to broker the AIG deal. Paulson, of course, had been the CEO of Goldman. Geithner is the protégé of Clinton's Treasury Secretary Rubin, also from Goldman, and he got his job at the NYFed through the efforts of Pete Peterson. In addition to the AIG deal, Geithner had the NYFed provide $29 billion of funding for J.P Morgan Chase's hostile takeover of Bear Stearns. In the deal, the NYFed got $30 billion of questionable collateral. Geithner hired Blackrock in a no-bid contract to manage these assets. Blackrock is a spin-off of Pete Peterson's Blackstone Group, and was 49% owned by Merrill Lynch, headed by John Thain (another Goldman alum). As head of the NYFed, Geithner's closest advisors were Thain, William McDonough (Vice Chairman at Merrill), Gerald Corrigan (Managing Director at Goldman), Jamie Dimon (JP Morgan), and Richard Fuld of Lehman's. The head of the NYFed's Board of Directors was Stephen Friedman, former Goldman Sachs Chairman. As Gary Weiss put it back in 2008, "Thus Geithner reports to a board that is composed of people who are not only under his purview but would also benefit from any potential bailouts. The structure of the New York Fed's board bears more than a passing resemblance to that of the New York Stock Exchange in the bad old days, when member firms, regulated by the N.Y.S.E., were heavily represented on its board". The AIG deal seems to have been business as usual for Geithner.

    According to Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, "It appears that the New York Fed deliberately pressured AIG to restrict and delay the disclosure of important information to the S.E.C.". Not only did Geithner want to keep this information from the public, but also from fellow regulators. (Whoops, Geithner admitted he was never a regulator while at the NYFed.) Indeed, at the time, Geithner refused to even tell Congress who the counterparties were-until overwhelming pressure required that he release the names. This smells fishy because it is.

    The Fed's justification for such secrecy was that it was trying to preserve the value of the taxpayer's investment in AIG. (Vice President Donald Kohn explicitly made this argument before the Senate.) But that is nonsense-there was no value to preserve. This was just a give-away to protect Goldman and other counterparties. We now kLater when AIG's executives demanded that compensation limits be lifted so that they could get their bonuses, Geithner came to their rescue, arguing that contracts are contracts no matter how putrid they might appear.   We now know that the executives were demanding cash rather than stocks in their own firm because they expect the stocks will prove to be worthless-they are managing a firm that will never have any value and they know it. This is something Geithner refuses to tell the public.

Ja ovo nishta ne razumem jer moze neko da objasni malo :? :evil:

I josh...makar vi ne chitali :x. Ovo je samo jedno mishljenje...nije moje :idea:

QuoteRandall Wray then lists his disederata for a new economic team:

   We need an economic team that recognizes the following:

       1. Banks do not face a liquidity crisis, rather they are massively insolvent. Reported profits are due entirely to trading activities-which amount to nothing more than a game of Old Maid, with institutions selling bad assets to each other at inflated prices on a quid-pro-quo basis. As such, they need to be shut down and resolved. Geithner is not the right person to head such an effort because his past resolutions have always been designed to protect Wall Street, not Mainstreet.

       2. Saving financial institutions does not save the economy. The financialization of the economy promoted by Greenspan and Rubin has led to a financial sector that is at least three orders of magnitude too big. If anything, all the efforts directed toward saving Wall Street have only made the economy more fragile. Another financial crash is inevitable because the financial system is still too large to be supported by the economy-even if the economy could recover. We need a Treasury Secretary who recognizes that the best course of action is to downsize the financial system. Geithner is not that guy.

       3. As such, all of the bail-outs and guarantees provided to financial institutions (over $20 trillion) need to be unwound. Not because we cannot "afford" them but because they are dangerous. Unfortunately, Congress has come to see all of these trillions of dollars committed to Wall Street as a barrier to spending more on Mainstreet. Thus, even if the Wall Street bail-outs were not dangerous, they need to be reversed to generate fiscal policy space for another economic stimulus package. It will not be easy to convince Congress that the solution to our economic crisis is more government spending. And Geithner is not the Treasury Secretary to lead such an effort because he has lost the confidence of Congress and the public.

       4. Finally, we need an economic team that understands government finance. The current team is hopelessly confused, led and misguided by Robert Rubin. He thinks government is nothing but a big household, which must balance its budget. He continues to believe that the Clinton boom was due to federal budget surpluses, not recognizing that it was actually due to an unsustainable boom of household borrowing. Indeed, as Clinton's Treasury Secretary, he oversaw the creation of the conditions that led to this current crisis. The new team must have no connection to Rubin (or Pete Peterson) and his anti-deficit hysteria. The Great Depression of the 1930s only ended with the massive spending of WWII, when the budget deficit reached 25% of GDP. Our current situation is not yet that severe, and it is likely that a sustained recovery can be obtained long before the budget deficit reaches such a level. However, the longer that Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, and Rubin remain in charge, the greater the probability that this could still turn into another Great Depression. (My bold.)

Evo pochelo ih (valjda) chardzirati i 'apsiti ( bar da se zamazu malo ochi svetini) :

QuoteBofA, ex-CEO Lewis charged with fraud | Reuters

    NEW YORK/ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - New York's attorney general charged Bank of America Corp, former Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis and former Chief Financial Officer Joe Price with fraud for allegedly misleading shareholders about the bank's acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co.

    Separately, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said the largest U.S. bank agreed to pay a $150 million (95 million pounds) civil fine and strengthen disclosure and corporate governance to settle its two lawsuits alleging poor disclosure of Merrill's losses and bonus payouts. The accord requires court approval.

QuoteInsider trading case of 2007 led to Galleon | World | Reuters

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - The cooperation of two former hedge fund managers in a 2007 insider trading case led to the arrest of seven traders and lawyers last November in the wide-ranging Galleon prosecutions, a U.S. prosecutor said on Thursday.

    During a sentencing proceeding for former Chelsey Capital hedge fund manager Mark Lenowitz in the 2007 case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Fish told the judge that Lenowitz's cooperation led to the prosecution and cooperation of his onetime colleague at Chelsey Capital, David Slaine.