Question 1: expose the inadequacy of banking rules so that the existing rules were deliberately violated, is not this way convenient to avoid having to punish those responsible?
numerous examples worldwide show that the different actors responsible for ensuring risk control have failed in their mission: rating agencies, risk analysts, audit firms, auditors.
It is therefore inclined to think that the problem is not so much the lack of rules or a lack of control, but in general non-responsibility, perhaps itself due to a general certainty of impunity.
So why call for more regulation, except to cover the abundance of existing breaches?
Our opinion: [The Crisis for Dummies: "Toxic -Cafe: the remedy against the crisis? "]
Question 2: What about official statements concerning the entry of the global economy into a depression?
Predictions official spokespersons of major financial institutions now mention the possibility of a depression:
Dominique Strauss-Kahn to the IMF, Cabinet Brown, Paul Volcker to Obama, Alan Greenspan in his own name, and Finally, most recently, the Bank of England. So far, the commonly shared was expected that a recession or at worst a deep recession in two years. Suddenly, in less than a month, figures among the most important are announcing a worse prognosis, forecasts that governments have not formally responded.
Our opinion: [The Crisis for Dummies " Soon on TV: The great depression of 2009 "]
And also: [The Crisis for Dummies " My God, it's a Depression! " ]
Question 3: The speech by Ben Bernanke this week up the recovery in 2010, just in time to initiate the printing press, is it a true prognosis or a way to give credibility to its policy adjustment quantitative?
Ben Bernanke, Governor U.S. Federal Reserve, said in announcing the new printing of one thousand billion dollars, the recovery was expected for 2010.
What about this huge contradiction with the negative statements of the heavyweights listed in Question 2?
Our opinion: [The Crisis for Dummies: "The shock kung fuck "]
Question 4: The start of printing presses last week he does not feel different if the risk inflation is high? Is deflation now a hypothesis, danger, or already a reality?
Depending on how one interprets the figures for inflation, output and consumption may reflect the three hypotheses.
Our opinion: [The Crisis for Dummies " Deflation: The Bears do not deflate "]
Question 5: Can we ensure the resilience of the system using a monetarist policy?
The quantitative easing is not a substitute does not risk that deflation of hyperinflation? What is the explanation which suggests possible recovery by the currency while industrial indicators continue to collapse to levels catastrophic?
Our opinion: [The Crisis for Dummies: A hole patch to plug the hole wooden leg "]
Question 6: Do we need to tax the excess reserves of banks, or even nationalize them completely, to force them to return the money in circulation?
The new policy of quantitative easing ('quantitative easing') set up by Switzerland, Great Britain and the United States could fail to restart the credit machine. In such cases, assumptions are being considered to revive credit: full nationalization of banks, and taxation of their reserves when they exceed the statutory minimum ratio required to secure their assets.
notice of Scott Sumner, an intelligent monetarist: [The Crisis for Dummies: "The Chuck Norris Federal Reserve "]
Our opinion: [The Crisis for Dummies: "The U.S. open a parachute Relief, that of England already torch? "]
And also: [The Crisis for Dummies" The Bank of England released the parachute. "]
Question 7: Belgium : Statements by MM. Servais and Reynders in September Were they a reflection of their jurisdiction good faith? Otherwise what was their purpose, and should we pursue?
Remember, the statement made by Mr. RTBF. Jean-Paul Servais, spokesman of the CBFA (Belgian regulator), and Didier Reynders Belgian Finance Minister, a few days before the seizure of Fortis
- Servais: "no problem of solvency or liquidity.":
- Reynders: "There is more chance that the sky is falling on the head that one day see solvency problems in a large Belgian bank.
Question 8: Belgium: who knows nothing official about the problem assets at Fortis SV Scaldis and monoline subsidiary FSA Dexia. Is this normal when legitimate doubts can be cast on the recipients of payments made by the Belgian State to offset the losses from these assets?
To recap, the main reasons for the collapse of Fortis and Dexia are vague and include among others to toxic assets held by its subsidiaries. Today, the deficits of these subsidiaries are guaranteed by the Belgian State.
In the case of American insurer AIG, we know that most of the money injected by Bush and Obama served on repay the investment banks that caused the collapse of AIG in the throat of toxic products.
This "bonus abuser" causes a huge scandal in the U.S. and encouraged to question the veil thrown by the Belgian authorities on toxic assets in our banks.
Our opinion: [The Crisis for Dummies " Belgian banking system: the active toxic lead the ball "]
Question 9: Belgium: KBC bailout of the state contrasts with the Flemish the dismemberment of Fortis by the Belgian State. Can you see behind these "two weights, two measures" take shape the future of Belgium?
It seems that self-Flemish is very concretely manifested in the rescue of the KBC, which the Belgian Minister of Finance, the French Reynders, was not even consulted. And solidarity of the Flemish government, in the case of Dexia and Fortis, has not really impressed the crowds.
Should we see a manifestation of separatism or is this a reasonable way to manage the country's problems?
Our opinion: [The Crisis for Dummies " Fortis: Garbage Lippens the care of the taxpayer "]
Question 10: Where would you place today your money in a good family man?
(no comment)
These are our ten questions, you are free to use with your banker, your lawyer, your pawn, your union, your social insurance fund, your boss and your Friends ...
Meanwhile, our questions on the crisis will go to Philip Maystadt, on conclusion of a free public conference, to which you are cordially invited to attend .
.
Crisis for Dummies 
0 comments:
Post a Comment