Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (92114)	7/3/2012 9:18:21 AM
From: carranza2	1 Recommendation Respond to of 217700

If any of you decide to become members of a class action against Barclay's, et al, beware: you might have to pay its legal fees even if you win. Yep, hidden from view in the ultra fine print in many of the mailings you get from banks defining the terms of your deal might lurk a provision requiring you to pay the bank's legal fees if you sue and win. This is getting beyond bizarre. articles.latimes.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (92114)	7/3/2012 9:39:37 AM
From: elmatador	1 Recommendation Respond to of 217700

I sat in Halifax N.S café in 1986 reading a paper. The Bank of Nova Scotia stated that results are bad due to losses in Brazil. Then I thought that banks were conveniently hiding the losses under the Brazilian debt carpet. Later I confirmed that and discovered that they were making money with Brazil and on top of that using it as a scapegoat. I firmly believe that the practices that were used to fleece developing countries started being used in thier local markets by their bankers as developing countries paid their debts and no longer were exporting capital. Aftert the worldwide recession of the early 1980s brought plummeting commodity prices and double-digit interest rates, the cost of servicing the debt sharply increased. Banks abruptly cut lending to most developing countries, leaving many nations on the brink of default. The commercial banks had a concerted action. The IMF and World Bank acted together. The G-7 nations also act together. LDCs borrowers were a disparate bunch with different interests and different levels of leverage. And they are living off interest payments (of course in tandem with the governing elites of debtors' countriers) while the debtors' populations languished. “...at 10% rates , a dollar of interest relief is worth ten times as much as a dollar of principal relief. The Economist, Apr. 8, 1989. p. 94. Since most of the loans are based on floating rates, a decline in U.S. interest rates could help ease the debt-service burden. There was no let up then, amigo. No matter how much lip service is paid to the debt crisis; with the G-7 acting more as a currency cartel a decline of interest rates isn’t going to happen. A decline interest rates could help ease the debt-service burden but governors of central banks in LDCs do not take into consideration LDCs when changing interest rates. As the U.S. government running budget deficits totalling $1.3 trillion over the past seven years, it has to rely on heavily on foreigners to provide the capital it needs to operate. This plus the cost of integrating East Germany interest rates are bound to shot up. I was there (late 80s) watching and logging all that. I knew for sure one day that would changed. And it did.

To: carranza2 who wrote (92114)	7/3/2012 11:11:35 AM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217700

The preface to the recent book, Unintended Consequences (which can be read as a Kindle free sample) lays out everything you and I think in preparation for refuting it. The first chapter shows that U. S. productivity for employed persons has much exceeded other countries. I await the rest of the book which a friend of mine got free from the author. It costs about $12 from Kindle. google.com EDIT after reading one review I am glad I saved my money.