US feared global banking collapse if Anglo Irish Bank failed

US feared global banking collapse if Anglo Irish Bank failed - James O’Shea → … 70983.html

We obviously don’t know the full story with Anglo. How could Anglo possible be regarded as systemic?

Twas less than a year ago the real guarantee came into play for Anglo. … nce-sheet/

Anglo Derivatives … ult-swaps/

Just goes to highlight once again the stupidity of the comments (on the Pin as well as else where) which consistently suggest that “the Irish” or “the Greeks” or whomever else are solely responsible for their own plight - and deserve “austerity” as a result.

Partly responsible yes, but it was (and is) the tailoring of public policy to reflect the greed of the 1% through the constant and unending facilitation of global finance which has been ultimately responsible for the near collapse of western economies.

Goldman Sachs, despite bearing a large degree of responsibility for the Greek budget crisis, has yet to suffer any degree of “austerity”. Indeed, it now effectively runs both Greece and Italy, not by proxy, but in reality. Peter Sutherland was a central figure in both conceiving of, and selling, the Irish banking guarantee. One must assume he and his cronies retains strong input into the micro-management of Irish Government policy, beyond the public macro-managing carried out by the Technocrats of the Troika.

Some of us round here have been saying for years that democracy does not exist. The one positive frpom all this seems to be that, finally, this fact is no longer disputable.

Poacher, it is hard to argue with your sentiment or the facts as they pertain to the power of the financial institutions, however, this 1% argument just doesn’t hold. The cold, hard reality is that modern democratic capitalism as experienced in the US and Europe over the past 20+ years was inclusive of allot more than 1%. A good 20% wanted to be part of the club, if they could only get in and another 40% were more than happy to play along nd ride the coat tails, this is the crux of the matter. Capitalism aka, USA/EU is about much more than 1%, it is about the free-loaders, the incredible sense of entitlement, and the lack of morals way beyond the boardroom, the 1% always existied but they have been given carte blanche in recent years, this is the real issue IMO.
China, while not a democratic capitalist society, is a great case in point, 0.01% controls the country but 1% are happy to enrich themselves and 10% are happy to jump on the coat-tails.

What both have in common is that the remainder of society suffers, in the US/EU a mere 40%, in China maybe up to 90%, but they have no voice, the disregard paid to this group in China is understandable but how so in the US, or Spain, or Ireland?? Through welfare, grant, structural funds, medical cards, and gombeen politics, thats how. They are dependant, bethrowed, owned, by not the 1% but by the system.
It is the system that must change, where the Occupy movement has strenght is in that this is their message but they do not propose a typical alternative, they simply identify what does not work, it is subtle but it will pervail IMO, they need to dropthe 1% rhetoric though.

Viewed from a particular perspective you’re right of course. In material terms, it can be argued that many more than the 1% have benefitted from the system as it stands to include welfare recipients, the aspirant “entrepreneurial” nouveau riche as well as the professional and state sectors.

However, where I would differ with this is that I do not necessarily view those who make up the welfare class or the debt-burdened former “entrepreneurs”, or indeed the pension/fear-orientated majority within the state sector as having benefitted from the system in any real terms (even when times were good). Sure they live in a level of material comfort which their parents could never have countenanced. However they are essentially no more than indentured servants running on a treadmill. They have no real stake in the system as it stands other than to rubber stamp the decisions of their betters.

In material terms globally, of course, they (we) are probably a lot closer to being a part of the 1% than the vast majority of the rest of the population. However, if you view the system beyond the parameters of it being simply an economic one - and examine it in terms of the distribution and administration of power ie the choices applied to how the world is actually structured, the 1% title would appear to be quite apt - even more so beyond the societies dubbed “western democracies” (Im unsure what accurate label could be applied at present).

To develop the point further, lets assume that most of the people who make up this group, simplistically referred to as the 1%, are pretty smart/intelligent people (an assumption I know but one which they themselves foster in justification of their position as an elite). We must then assume that the amount of money they accumulate is pretty irrelevant to them on the basis of them currently being pretty much able to accumulate any material items they want with their existing wealth. As intelligent people who already have everything that money can buy such a need for further accumulation of wealth is quite simply stupid is it not? A waste of time and energy.

On that basis, I would argue that it is not money that these people are chasing. It is what the money represents in terms of the interaction between them and those around them ie power. When viewed from such a perspective, it is the mechanics of the system itself which appeals to such people.

So to tie it back to the 1% label, while it may not be stricly accurate in material terms, it has become quite obvious to anyone observing events over the past few years that there is a small elite grouping within human society who exercise an inordinate degree of power over the lives of the rest of the population of the planet. This power is inexorably tied to the mechanics of global finance to include a number of powerful industry lobbies as well as the upper end of the state sector. It would appear to have its roots in the power to accumulate money but as I have pointed suggested above, IMO, thefurther accumulation of money and material items cannot be the ultimate goal because such an approach would mark such people out as idiots - and idiots they most certainly are not. Power in its many forms and manifestations would appear to be the ultimate prize. Why power over others is such a valued commodity would the next point of inquiry.

Suffice to say that we already have a white rabbit in the form of the exposure of the fraud that was/is western democracy/capitalism. However, many of us are still only at the entrance to the rabbit hole. Its red pill/blue pill time…

good post on zero hedge

As The World Crumbles: The ECB Spins, FED Smirks, And US Banks Pillage

it probably should be split up more for easy digestion … ks-pillage

firstly in relation to ireland

Playing Games -

US banks

I hadn’t seen this before. Source?

Seems like a missed opportunity to me to start Tabula rasa.