I've asked several times before, whether any country could have played it differently and avoided getting involved in The Crash. Then I read this article (htp: Jesse) about ex-BIS economist William White, and near the end there's an indication that maybe it's not simply about baddies and goodies:
White is more concerned about the things he doesn't understand. New Zealand is a case in point. Interest rates were raised early in the crisis there, and yet the central bank was unable to come to grips with the credit bubble. Investors were apparently borrowing cheap money from foreign lenders.
This is the sort of thing that worries him. "That's when you have to ask yourself: Who exactly is controlling the whole thing anymore?"
Perhaps his model has a flaw in that regard. Could it be possible that central bankers today have far less influence than he assumes?
The thought causes him to wrinkle his brow for a moment. Then he smiles, says his goodbyes and quickly disappears into a Paris Metro station.
...this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.
10 comments:
Another interesting aspect of NZ is that they don't have their own banks - they are all Aussie. So presumably the NZ government won't be ruining its own credit by rescuing banks. Should I buy some more Kiwi dollars, I wonder.
Not all NZ banks are Australian, just the big ones offering ordinary consumer accounts.
This is the sort of thing that worries him. "That's when you have to ask yourself: Who exactly is controlling the whole thing anymore?"
Precisely and the answer to that has been laid out regularly and without alteration at many sites, including mine.
There is no mystery whatsoever in this matter and nothing has occurred in the past year to alter that perception one iota.
Hi James - perhaps you could take this opportunity to leave here the addresses of your favourite 2 or 3 key posts on this subject?
"Who exactly is controlling the whole thing..."
Therein lies his problem. If he thinks in such terms he is never going to understand the world.
It's many years since Uncle Milt explained to us why having anyone "controlling the whole thing" is not only undesirable, but actually impossible; and still some people have not taken the message in.
Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it, as a great man said. The trouble is, in these days of the Leviathan state, they take the rest of us down with them.
Thanks, anon: I dare say that "the big ones offering ordinary consumer accounts" are the ones to worry about, or, in this case, not.
As suggested, Sackers:
In this one, the post itself is not important but the comments by Anon are worth looking at.
Here again, my post is not the important thing but the comments of Anon and xlbrl are worth perusing. They bring us closer to identifying these people.
This one gives another angle within the narrow focus of the economic community.
The Sonus articles [6] start here and are a must read for understanding the interrelation between the different elements of Them.
This is an early article of mine concerning Them.
Xlbrl was right in saying that it isn’t specifically Goldman Sachs or Morgan or CP and it isn’t specifically Davignon and Véronique Morali’s Force Femme or Thomas Friedman – they’re along for the ride.
It’s the main money behind the global push who are the problem and have always been – as Xlbrl said, for 250 years. If you were to suddenly wipe them out, the whole face of society would change.
Well, I've now scanned Sonus' series, but I must say brevity is the soul of wit.
Isn't it just the usual story of greed and lust for power? The eternal quest to live a life of luxury and avoid hard work?
"If you were to suddenly wipe them out, the whole face of society would change." You'd just get another lot.
The fact that no-one is in charge may be the problem. This way, no-one is responsible.
Think you've got a point there, Padders - no name, no pack drill.
Post a Comment