About the financial tsunami III
Two entries on the zerohedge log:
and one that leads me to:
That’s the difference between states and firms. States to make firms suffer and firms have to see how to get out of it with their own money. States never get out of it with “their” own money. They just steal more (that’s called tax)
The booms are introduced by to cheap money. And money without worth. That’s the point. If the US would have to gurantee their currency with something of value. They would not be able to pile up that many debts. So it’s easy, they export Dollars and get something of some real value in return. The Dollar owner just can “hope” that he may be able to buy something with an paper later.
The USA overall lives on the expenses of the world and still they have sky rocketing records of the food ration cards. In the end it means the debts are somewhere cycling around without being used for highering the the real goods output. And that fits perfectly. The debts we have in the states are circled around. Greece can not pay so they got “new money” read “new debts” from the EU. And the banks which take in the money are buying new “bonds” of states. Handing it out as “security” to the central banks and there is it the debt. The so called “assets” (bonds) read debt claim is the highes in all central banks ever in non-war times. So that means the central banks are the biggest holders of “promises” of states to pay back their debt.
Well that’s a neat system isn’t it. The states to guranteee the mony monopoly to the central banks and the central banks take the parity value of the bonds from states as “given”. So how long would you expect such a system to be trust-worthy?