Jon, take a deep breath and relax :-). First off I was just kidding
about "gimme my money back before you go belly up ".
Second I am not proposing any conspiracy theories.
Thirdly , you seem to be contradicting yourself:
I think the Bank of England was pretty clear - U.S.
loans represent too high a percentage of British portfolios
(insufficient diversification), and those loans are
too concentrated in riskier instruments (those with
businesses and individuals).
And then in the next breath you say:
The statement says nothing about the relative quality of
U.S. debt.
Of course it says something: You just said it:
those loans are too concentrated in riskier instruments
(those with businesses and individuals).
Am I missing something here?
Of course, " we don't know the quality of this debt " .
The only debt I know is this
brillig.com
<VBG>
Lots of money eeh?? -gggg-
I think The Bank of England is looking at that clock too
and scratching their head....wondering...
" when will I get paid?? "
BTW, do you have a loan with The Bank of England?
You seem very sensitive here, -ggg-
cheers
TA
--------------------------------
Message #55733 from Jon Tara at Jun 29, 2000 11:32 AM ET
I think the Bank of England was pretty clear - U.S. loans represent too high a percentage of British portfolios (insufficient diversification), and those loans are too concentrated in riskier instruments (those with businesses and individuals).
The statement says nothing about the relative quality of U.S. debt. What it addresses is inappropriate choices which would be inappropriate whether they were investing in the U.S. or Tunisia.
To go beyond that to say that "they want their money back before we go belly up" is, once again, moving into the territory of unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
BTW, I have no problem with conspiracy theories - my problem is with UNSUBSTANTIATED ones. I'd like to see some evidence.
What do I mean by evidence? Ask Woodward and Bernstein. A memo, an e-mail, a video tape, a photograph a police blotter. Or a hundred.
Guessing what might be behind some economic move or decision, working back from result to cause, assuming motives other that those stated - this is not evidence - it is speculation.
So, if there is a secret group of men who REALLY run the government, or REALLY set the interest rates, or who have conspired to fleece the public by putting all of their money into bubble investments - let's see who they are, and let's see the minutes of their secret meetings. If somebody is cooking the books, let's have some hard evidence - the secret ledger - instead of just statements that the books are "obviously" wrong.
Otherwise, you ain't got nuthin but another urban legend.
|
