Posted on 4th May 2015 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

“There has been a redoubling of efforts to inflate and distort the global market bubble. Interest rates are pushed down to negative territory, digital currencies are touted as supreme, cash & gold or silver, i.e., anything that can create benchmarks, are denied as valid. Meanwhile, we’re told ill-managed banks have passed stress tests, when in reality, they wouldn’t pass any reasonable examination.”

Janet Tavakoli


1 comment

Posted on 8th April 2015 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

“The U.S. went off the gold standard in August 1971. With no benchmark, central banks could print money and debase currencies. That opened the door for huge bailouts after big banks screwed up in a big way. Taxpayers—not incompetent bankers—paid the price.

By [the late 1980’s], the Federal Reserve Bank and large U.S. banks had established a pattern to control the public relations damage each time banks had a major screw-up: accountants and regulators let banks lie about the size of the problem to stall for time; the Federal Reserve blew smoke at the media; finally, the Fed would bail out the banks in a way that most taxpayers would not understand.

Banks didn’t have to get smarter or more competent. The Fed trained the banks that uninformed taxpayers would eat the losses, and fake accounting would let bank officers keep their positions and their money.”

If ‘rule under law’ were more than just a slogan in the United States, men who occupied the senior-most positions in too-big-to-fail banks would have been disgraced, prosecuted, and jailed. But no bank executive was held accountable.”

Janet Tavakoli

Decisions: Life And Death On Wall Street


Posted on 6th April 2015 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, ,

Guest Post by Karl Denninger


When Janet Tavakoli decided to release a new book called Decisions: Live And Death On Wall Street, I knew it would be an interesting read — and it is.

Let me just cite one small paragraph:

Why have we allowed crime without punishment? When I asked Democrats close to the top of the Obama administration, their answers were so similar I thought they had memorized a script: The administration made a bargain, and I’m not sure it was the right decision. The world was teetering on the edge of collapse. There was a crisis of confidence. There would have been unimaginable consequences.

I believe you would have gotten a similar answer whether you asked a Republican or a Democrat; it was a bipartisan betrayal of taxpayers.

Yeah, there you go.

There would have been “unimaginable” consequences.  Janet is, of course, talking about the 2008/2009 financial market panic.

She goes on to say:

Did our representatives in Washington make the right decision for the country? They did not. They were wrong. They were dangerously and recklessly wrong. The administration tried to hide the personal benefits of this egregiously wrong decision behind a mythical idea of a “crisis of confidence” if we prosecuted, arrested, and imprisoned crooks.

There is a crisis of confidence today, but that crisis of confidence is because we did not prosecute and imprison people who defrauded the global financial markets and taxpayers.

It’s more than that, I’d argue.