Mouth Blood Blister Menopause

This is news ..

Ben Shalom Bernanke confirms: "The recession is technically over."
Amen. Indeed, Shalom.

Obama has promised a "profound and comprehensive reform" of the financial system.

But economists operating in the Obama administration, Geithner, Summer, and Ben Bernanke, not heed the advice of experts, including: Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel, Ed Prescott, another Nobel. Glenn Hubbard, dean of economics at Columbia Business School, and Head of Economic Advisers under President Bush. Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Anna Schwartz, nonagenarian lucidisssima, co-author with Milton Friedman (the guru of liberal monetary) capital of the work of Friedman on the Great Depression. Simon Johnson, already the economical to the IMF and now a professor at MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sheila Bar, the director of the FDIC, the government agency that "guarantees" savers' deposits up to one hundred thousand dollars if the banks fail. Camden Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents 5 000 bankers, and that the current financial de-regulation is "a Molotov cocktail." Luigi Zingales, a professor at Chicago Boot highly respected School of Busines, and his friend Nouriel Roubini, in fact, made positively to the contrary: have made the banks "too big to fail" even bigger, allowing or forcing mergers and trapping with banks already have failed.

According to Bloomberg, Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary that Obama has chosen (or was made from the following: Geithner was in Kissinger Associates, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was governor of New York Fed, the most close to the desires of Wall Street) and Lawrence Summers, now director of the National Economic Council of Obama (Clinton's former secretary to the Treasury, and mentor of Geithner) even claim that it had the authority to make a piece big banks, which do not liberal policy is to set limits "to success of a U.S. company, "and that the banking and investment (speculative) are now combined so intricate, that requiring the divestiture of assets or individual units to deepen the chaos.

These excuses only confirm the power that large investment banks have the government say the situation of the financial system is so incestuous and pathological, is based on such a large amount of lies, fraud and illusions, that the U.S. government and Its experts are really scared to put his hand, think that America can not afford to put the system in order, because it would cause the final collapse, and thereby resizing the American economic historian of the same size, now dummy.
What is happening is obvious to any observer with the rivers of money received zero (or below-zero) state, the failed banks are still the most demented and financial speculation profits do well (easy to give money), while pay any money to businesses, and even families. The real economy slowing down more every day.

In reality there would be nothing to be invented. It would suffice as a minimum re-enact the Glass-Steagall Act, which was introduced in the '30s, the height of the Great Depression. This law decreed the separation of banking of trade and investment, ie the mix that caused the crisis of '29. It was the right recipe, because the job of evaluating loans to businesses and craftsmen is completely different from that of pure speculation, and requires different skills, and irreconcilable. In addition, the Glass Steagall dictated that the deposits of savers could not be used in high-risk operations, for these banks 'business' would have to ask for money-conscious investors.

But with speculation that profits are higher exposures or by granting loans (yield pursued for years, was "at least 15%), just why the lobby Financial pressed for the abolition of the Glass Steagall. That was in 1999, under Clinton.
"It is no coincidence that less than ten years after the abolition of the Glass-Steagall, the financial markets are collapsing," said the chairman of the Independent Community Bankers of America.

No, it's no coincidence. The same causes produce the same effects of '29, multiplied in the new version of the size of the immense leverage (debt) that speculators have used to speculate, from the fanciful inventions of creative financing, the colossal figures in the game, globalization, and indebtedness of households combined with the de-industrialization American (and European part).
drought, yet again, those of Obama are just empty words.

That is a tragedy, because the regulations must be agreed upon and accepted by all countries of the world, if possible at the next G-20, if the U.S. will not bend, nothing will be done. E 'to stress that any other State had, like the U.S., caused such a financial disaster, an irreversible loss (loss of levels of gross domestic product of OECD countries is "irreversible" because it is missing a portion of the application was financed by the huge internal debt. The gross domestic products were artificially enlarged by easy credit, and this is the part that goes out (in the U.S., bank lending declined by 14%).
The crisis therefore implies the downward correction of everything that had been designed to artificially high level of GDP. For businesses, this means that should reduce their production capacity (now over) and therefore employment, to the States, which will reduce government expenditure. As firms adapt to the new situation is much faster than that of the States, public finances will degrade sharply (because public officials do not allow themselves to be fired, or cut back salaries). Moreover, the abuse of credit to stimulate demand in Western countries over the past decade has warped "structurally" the economy: goods and sectors related to credit have been exaggerated to the detriment of others. For Western countries, have been favored both the consumer durable goods - which are no longer produced goods, but imported massively (such as plasma TVs, cell phones, computers) - as well as areas related to building interiors and distribution, using unskilled labor force. The decade of easy credit in globalization has been so even this pathological outcome for Europe and the U.S. destroyed the skilled jobs (industries) are replaced when they are, work with little or no skills, such as buildings (one of the reasons why we are being flooded by immigrants, jobs available to non-qualified). These are the thoughts of the French economist Patrick Artus of Natixis (http://cib.natixis.com/flushdoc.aspx?id=48559). For the French economy, we must "reduce the need for return on capital," because if it remains high as before the crisis, the irreversible reduction of growth will require companies to heavily compress wages, to pay the shareholders as before. In the Italian case, it would "reduce the pretense of profitability" of public officials, too numerous, and whose salaries are too high, fixed, during the crisis
) trillions of dollars of wealth worldwide, millions of unemployed, the collapse of 30% of the real economy Western and Japanese, and accumulated a debt absolutely priceless, would be severely disciplined by the international community, and placed under receivership by the Monetary Fund. But it is the biggest military power in the world, has aircraft carriers and nuclear missiles: for this, and for that alone, that other States should agree to become involved in his ruin. Even intellectual (A sign of intellectual failure is the pseudo-diagnosis, born in the USA and repeated here, that the failure of the U.S. Treasury has been "to let Lehman Brothers fail, "because it" created panic, "which triggered the crisis. There under the idea that if he had not "allowed to fail" Lehman, the carousel could continue as before, more than an idea, is a symptom of non-desire to understand what happened, and the inability to think outside imposed only by the thought of speculation. You do not want to admit that if Lehman did not, some other bank would have failed speculative, because the makeup of a population de-leveraged super-industrialized, and therefore a declining income, could not continue indefinitely. Those debts come mixed and packaged by the banks, not to keep the risk in the books accounting, and trimmed to third parties. With this aggravating debt packages mixed in "good" (of solvent debtors) and payables "sub-prime 'insolvency. It 's like that commercial fraud, the butcher that makes sausage grinding fresh pork but adds a hidden 10% of verminous dog meat, the butcher should be in jail. Banks however are surprised - since it is laughter - that their sausages (such bonds from the debt) do not want anyone but if they are made to 90% of good meat! It 's just unjustified panic! (And the State's buy the damaged goods). As intellectual acuity and dignity, this analysis is coupled with that of Berlusconi the cause of the crisis is only due to "mistrust" and just a bit 'of' optimism 'to get back on top).

So we just have to wait for the next explosion of U.S. markets, which dragged down there permanently.
You have some idea of \u200b\u200bwhere the explosion will take place: in the field of mortgages and loans 'interest only'. There are loans where the borrower has chosen, on a bank not to pay back the amount of shares for five, seven or even ten years, and in the meantime to pay only the interest. Only after five, seven or 10 years is beginning to pay off higher interest capital, with a sudden doubling of the rate.
The thing is so insane, you need to ask: who is foolish enough to take out a mortgage "interest only", knowing that after 5 or 10 years, his burden will be doubled?

The fact is that banks were offering loans' interest only 'and even went on the hunt for people to borrow in this way, with this seductive reasoning: the value of real estate is going up, you who have bought the house at 100' interest only "five or ten years before triggering the payment of principal, the sale to 200, making a profit! Revenue also you, beggars, the wonderful world of speculation!
The houses have ceased to lay it on thick since 2007. Indeed, prices have slumped. So, today, the price median of a house in USA is $ 178,000, while the average amount of the mortgage "interest only" is $ 324,000. Borrowers may not sell the house before, or give us a gain, you should keep the house written down and pay us a loan installments at once weighed in at least 30%. Let's say that those who paid $ 1,800 monthly (over 6% on a mortgage of $ 350,000) will pay to hit 2,300, plus with the house is worth half of the loan who has agreed to cover. Simply, it will fail.
And how many mortgages like this? According to credible estimates, they have turned at least 2.8 million Americans, an amount of at least 908 billion dollars. And the first will begin to be burdened with 71 billion share capital (ie living adjustment) in the next 12 months. Needless to say, these loans were explosives in the meantime "securitized" by banks who have invented, which turned into bonds and trimmed by who knows how many funds and investors: make 6%! What more could you want!

As for Obama?
say ... follow the money follow the money if you want to really understand how things work. In the case of his election as U.S. president of Barack Obama, it is instructive to apply that rule ... unfortunately.
The Democrat has raised a total of 640 million dollars for his race for the White House, where a very large part of the so-called individual contributions. Certainly it is a great mass of individual donations of ordinary people, activists, groups of volunteers, it is undeniable that have been crucial to the success of their pet. But we can not know what percentage of that money came instead from areas a little less 'clean'. It 'important to remember that the African American has refused all of the federal contribution to his campaign. This note is very uplifting for sure, but if you take a look at other details, the picture changes. You discover things that are of concern, and confirming that it is better to rejoice with caution, a lot.

A first look at the data published by the Federal Election Commission brings out the presence of American 'hawks' of finance on Wall Street among the major groups that have poured into the coffers of the new president, the same that played marbles with the economic future of the planet, until the collapse of These days, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley among others. In the comparison between the two contenders for the White House, Obama beats McCain received $ 2,938,556 to 2,185,869 of commercial banks. When one considers the wildest of American financial speculators, hedge funds, namely, the black president beat the defeated white with a considerable margin: $ 2,637,578 to 1,561,865. This perhaps explains one of the details less edifying of Obama's political past: his vote in Congress in favor of the rescue package by U.S. taxpayers shelled out directly into the pockets of Wall Street a few weeks ago, which not only cost you sweat and pain to millions of citizens for years to come, but that does not solve even one of the structural problems of finance of that country went crazy.

continue. A very bad surprise comes when you meet entries for the pharmaceutical giants: Obama has taken $ 1,662,280 from these giants of speculation on health, compared to McCain's paltry 579,013. The thing is serious, since the interests of Big Pharma are directly related to the maintenance of the privatized American health care system, Because of horrendous social inequalities. Moreover, given that the multinational drug companies are doing in the Third World, where still deny life-saving drugs or discounts on patents to many desperate people, again it is hard to find a moral in this aspect of Obama. It begins to peek here something of the reality behind his rhetoric proclaims. Under
Communications and Electronics is still stunned. The Obama Democrats McCain tears with a sum five times, against $ 21,600,186 4,308,349. The serious thing in this case is in who actually campaigning in that category: some of the most deadly industry of Star Wars American spying and wiretapping. Maybe that's why Obama voted to Congress the infamous FISA law, that which allows spying on Americans or immigrants seen as 'aliens', politically uncomfortable, and that was bitterly contested by all major groups for Civil Rights. In addition, the more specific heading on campaign contributors from industry war, again Obama beats the Republicans, with $ 870,165 against 647,313.

Another area of \u200b\u200bconcern that funding is to fund the health and insurance.
Health reform suggested by the new president to leave things as they are, in essence, with only cosmetic changes. Translated, this means that the big insurance companies will the arbiters of the health of Americans, especially the 44 million of them now have no service. The citizens of that country and desperately calling for a majority in the public health system, free and funded by taxes, which is clearly shown by the polls but not the American press nor from our own. Obama received a grand total of $ 49,408,792 from the fund and health insurance, McCain 33,286,626. I'm not peanuts, and especially not given a grant.
Finally, we arrive at the theme of the influence on the candidates by lobbyists and professions that count. Barack Obama has sought to reassure America that he was the candidate of the interests of the average person, the average family, but also the poor, the disadvantaged. Here are the figures. The influential American lobbyist and law firms (which have enormous power in the U.S.) gave the young candidate victorious three times what they gave to McCain: $ 37,122,161 for the first and only 10,765,423 for the second. These are not idealists with his eyes lost in the clouds, birds of prey are people who see us very well rewarded ... Why Obama?
Source: Federal Election Commission USA