bailouts, banking, bonds, Capitalism, credit default swaps, Cricket Diane C Sparky Phillips, cricketdiane, Economics, Economy, Federal Reserve, finance, financial derivative instruments, free market economy, Global Economy, how did I know where to find the information I posted o, IMF, International Concerns, Inventing Solutions For America, investment banking, life in America, Macro-economic analysis 2008, macro-economic future forecasting, Money, mortgage backed securities, personal stories, Reality-based Analysis, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, stock market, US Congress, US economic crisis, US Government, US government policy, US Treasury, Wall Street, World Banks
Your special tonight on FoxNews about the bailouts / rescue packages and its consequence from the mortgages involved, etc. –
I do get the part where a house is purchased, about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac packaging them as a lot to sell them, then using that money, make more loans (which drove up housing demand and prices.)
The question that I have is, who was purchasing them from Fannie Mae, then restructuring the lot to be resold? And who made the credit insurance backing up the lot?
Or was it implied that the best of the lot were repackaged together as AAA, or something, and those of a riskier nature, such as the sub-prime mortgages placed into another packaged lot for sale at a different grade? Were these resold by investment houses, hedge funds, Wall Street brokers, banking clearinghouses or who?
And, isn’t there an ethics committee as well as these other committees that are supposed to keep up with the financial benefits received from personal assets where decisions are being rendered by which officials can profit?
I didn’t get the information about the IMF / Economic Summits / Financial Stability Forum / European Union Finance Ministers / Economic Committee / and similar sources from the UN and others because someone told me, nor because I happened upon some internet site perpetrating it as a conspiracy, though I know they are prevalent.
In 1982, I stumbled upon the World Bank projects forum that was hosted in Atlanta (although, I don’t think that was its proper title). There were a lots of things I discovered about the US that I had not really put together about the movement of moneys, resources and influences through our State Department, Banking System, ( well, and other places / agencies and branches of our government, too.) The little that I knew about the IMF and World Bank was from my high school government and economics studies professors in California, prior to 1976 because of basically bad arguments and dumb questions with some of my government and English teachers. There was a rough idea that was either already somewhat formed or being formed for the model of these international economic teams, that would combine economics, finance, scientific research, social and sociological study teams to get into areas for the purposes of developing economies and problem solving in place for the local populations in need.
Tonight, for the first time, I looked up the 1982 summit / caucus that was in Atlanta, but only found the pride with which they were showing off their – “Informing the discussion is the experience gained by the World Bank in helping to finance some 800 agricultural and rural development projects in more than 70 countries – experience supported by its broad, intensive programs of economic, scientific, and social research . . .” and the website was found through a basic Google search, I don’t know if it tells the schedule for that year or not, but this document was found –
Anyway, the point of this is to say that I never found the information about the US involvement in the credit products that were faulty and of questionable value being sold as true assets, in the information about the US from the US. I found it because I was using my opportunity to have a computer available to look up an article from a long time ago, its probably here somewhere in a folder, about the IMF standards forced upon countries whose treasuries and national budgets were to be shored up by their monetary assistance. Typically, the article explained, there was an entire set of “belt-tightening” measures of economic prudence and processes that were enforced as part of the agreements. These provided comprehensive solutions to otherwise insolvent economies but was much hated by local populations subjected to it around the world.
That opportunity to have private access to my own computer and the internet came in 1999 / 2000, although I had looked up some other elements about these things in between. There was evident concern about some of the financial products coming out of the US, I think as early as 2001 and it was expressed to the President’s economic advisors from several international teams pretty early on – and obviously the Secretary of the Treasury knew and the Federal Reserve Chairman knew and Bernanke was at some points, on the Presidents’ economic council in the White House before becoming Fed Chairman – so he and others knew.
There is no way that this much time would’ve passed without these things getting done that were suggested to correct the matters and insure solvency of large lending institutions, investment houses and our national economy. At many different points, the Central Banks expressed concern, as did the UN economic counsel, IMF arbitrators, Financial Stability Forum economists and advisors, and even World Bank executives and legal / accounting department reports were found indicating they were concerned about these matters that turned up even during some of those legal go-rounds with the World Bank over the years.
One of the biggest concerns about the US had to do with imprudent and injudicious accounting practices that had been started during the Reagan years by (maybe the package he signed that your show was discussing), I don’t know – but because of something done at that time. And there was something else along those lines that came up as a topic of discussion every time the commissions, “summits”, councils and meetings happened. It seemed like it was never reconciled to the satisfaction of the international community and it’s a wonder they ever invested their money in the US at all.
Inasmuch as you did not need to know any of this, what irks me most of all is that our President and in particular, our Treasury and Congress would have not done any and every measure of effective action on this much sooner and taken to task all those involved in manufacturing this mess. They had to know what was at risk because they were told from many respected sources.
It so happened that I had already known where to look – so it seemed that maybe since most people were either getting news about it which was “synergistically surprised” on cable and internet sources or the strangely warped conspiracy variety that appears to be partly propaganda and partly explanations that simply miss the point or put them together like a treatise on paranoia, that I should make the places to look available to people online.
I have yet to understand why our Congressional leaders acted so surprised. The Speaker of the House and Majority Leaders of the House and Senate would’ve most certainly entertained these subjects long before today, or this session, or this year or even three or four years ago. There is no way they could’ve not known the dangers because they are given their information directly from these sources and economic summits, etc. The immediate concerns and risks are typically highlighted for them or placed on a front page with bold emphasis on potential and likely risks.
The things I’ve been sending along, I thought would’ve helped to bring a better awareness of the subject matter but it only occurred to me yesterday that many of the interpretations made from these sources are commonly given some conspiracy based analysis rather than what is there. It tells me, when I see that these President’s Working Group members are involved in the task force summits on economic matters, that they knew as of that moment, the seriousness of the situation. And, I really don’t understand why the presentation of this information and these facts from them to anyone else could leave any question about what is at stake or how quickly it could happen.
I also figure, that if I can understand that it is a real concern of a genuine nature, that I am able to read through it with ease and comprehension, and that since I, not being a legitimized researcher can make sense of it – that those in positions of leadership and decision-making in our Congress and in our government can also do so. But, I didn’t know the extent to which many in these positions of power, decision-making and influence are deferring to those of expertise, specialty or credentials.
It was my belief that those bring to the table their expertise which the leaders then take, apply reason, principles, ideology and application by specifics of the situation. There is no way, I could’ve believed for a moment that those elements would be left to experts that require little, if any, understanding of leadership and the import of their decisions on greater populations.
– Cricket Diane C “Sparky” Phillips, 10-04-08, USA