e02162b0c7dcb31678a5…

Payday advance loan utah. Why can t i get a payday loan. Payday loan. Payday loan stores. Online payday loan. I need a payday loan immediately….

My eyes glazed over at “market capitalization”.

Seriously, though. How does one buy up a company on Monday for $236M when that company was valued at $3.5B at the close of trading on Friday? Does Bear Stearns hold that much bad debt?

flipflop on March 17, 2008 at 7:55 AM

$3.5B market cap is nothing compared to $30B in debt. They should have gone bankrupt. Instead, we are left footing the bill.

Wake up, Neo…

JP Morgan, LOL! There is no JP Morgan. It was acquired by long time enemy and competitor Chase Manhattan in who was then later acquired by Bank One, who then acquires Bear. It’s call from Chemical Bank.

Egfrow on March 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM

This doesn’t sound funny to me. Why was a fraudulent name used? Who benefits from calling it “JP Morgan” instead of what it really is?

I don’t know the answers to those questions, but my guess is that to the average Joe “JP Morgan” sounds official, whereas the average Joe would say, “Chemical, what’s Chemical?” I feel confident that the Federal Reserve didn’t want people asking that question, or any other question about the $30 Billion bill they just stuck us with.

Follow the money. Find out the truth about what just happened. Who wins? Who loses? Why is it set up that way? Why is the President of the United States “briefed” on this instead of being the decision-maker?

Those who control the money control the real power. Compare the power of the President of the United States to the power of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System. How much power does the President have over the economy?
How much power does the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System have over the economy?

When the President speaks, do the financial markets respond?
When the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System speaks, do the financial markets respond?

Who really has the power, and why?

The Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional. It unconstitutionally hands American sovereignty over to another organization.

Wake up, Neo…

This is a monumentally important story that affects the life of every American. It would have been better for us if Bear Sterns had gone bankrupt! That would have meant that their creditors would have lost their money. Instead, the Federal Reserve Board, which operates independently of our “sovereign” nation’s executive branch, has decided that the creditors should get their money and the American taxpayers should be responsible for paying the bill…up to $30 billion. This decision was not made by the President of the United States. It was made by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who then had the Treasury Secretary “brief” the President. President Bush was deceived into thinking that it was a good thing that the Federal Reserve “rescued” Bear Sterns from bankruptcy and he had his press secretary say how much he appreciates them doing so.

It would be comical if it weren’t for the fact that we just got hit with a $30 billion debt to pay, so that the international bankers behind the Federal Reserve don’t lose their money.

Unbelievable…

And it got less than 24 hours of news attention.

Wake up, Neo…

The reason cited was the expense involved in clearing the balance sheet of bad debts, perhaps a few billion. If you factor in the assumption of bad debt, the price jumps from 236 million to maybe 5-8 billion.
cs89 on March 17, 2008 at 1:25 PM

The market likes the deal that JPM got. They’ve added about $10B in market cap since Friday. So some of the BSC market cap disappeared and some went into the pockets of Jamie Dimon’s shareholders.

Of course, the fed is backing up the process in some (expensive) ways as well.

I’m a skeptic of the Fed and the specialist firms like Bear Stearns. As private corporations, they really only have to disclose what the law requires them to disclose. As private corporations, they are infinitely bestowed with the option to protect their secrets. Does this mean they can protect what foreign interests may control them?

I think home prices will fall enough for us to produce about 20 million people with negative equity. That’s almost a quarter of U.S. homes. We’re probably heading for $6 trillion or $7 trillion in capital losses in housing.

MB4 on March 17, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Good points. In the short term the question is how much of that loss of wealth and consumer spending have the equity markets already discounted for? Longer term, what will be the full impact of that level of decline? Certainly the speculators will be clobbered, moreso in some geographic areas than others. Municipalities in the worst areas will have budget shortfalls. Most people who can afford their mortgage payments will be able to ride the market out for another 5 years. Boomers who were looking to retire based on the forever escalating value of their home may have to postpone that retirement.

Speaking of leverage, I’m still fuzzy on the involvement of the Psychlos, which is why I’ve submitted FOIA requests of every governmental agency in existence. I’ll get to the bottom of this!

Where does the Illuminati fit in…..?

JohnTant on March 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM

I assume you are mocking. Correct?

My preferred metric is the ratio of home prices to rental rates. By that measure, average home prices nationally got way too high. We’ll probably basically retrace all that. So that’s about a 25% decline in overall home prices. Only a fraction of that’s happened so far. Of course, it varies a lot. In places like Houston or Atlanta, where home prices have not risen much compared with underlying rents, the decline will be relatively small. In places like Miami or Los Angeles, you could be looking at 40% or 50% declines.
- Paul Krugman

Trilateral Commission
Red Pill on March 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Other founding members included Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, both eventually heads of the Federal Reserve system.

Well that and falling dollar, rising inflation, rising oil and much of Wall Street being revealed as a highly leveraged House of Cards.

= Fear.

As those issues subside, and gold positions are re-evaluated, the sell-off will deflate the bubble. Many investors understand that they may lose money in the long run with gold, but believe they still need to have some money in it for insurance against financial armaggedon. But as with any bubble, there’s no denying gold is gaining in value in the short term, but that is meaningless unless you time your sale at or near it’s peak.

Housing prices will take years to bottom, having started down two years ago in many places. Gold can drop in weeks or days back to $800 or less. Time it well.

Red Pill on March 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Thanks, now I see where you are coming from even though I may not agree, your argument makes more sense.

They are not “strong” they are broke. If the majority of America understood this we would have a run on all banks and the final nail in the coffin would be closed.

unseen on March 17, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Well the one “saving grace” there is that most Americans Debtmericans don’t have much, if any, money in the banks. Credit Card debt, mortgage debt, car payment debt, well now, that is another matter.

Any link, book, or other data point you can reference would be appreciated. I checked the link you provided and must have missed the part that supports your claim.

DCA on March 17, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Trilateral Commission

fredaa on March 17, 2008 at 10:54 AM

Bingo.

Gold bugs are buying gold for no other reason than fear.

shuzilla on March 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Well that and falling dollar, rising inflation, rising oil and much of Wall Street being revealed as a highly leveraged House of Cards.