It Didn't pass!

[Jay]

Re: It Didn't pass!

Just noticed - Goldman Sachs (GS) is now net long gold on the TOCOM by 48 contracts.

They have never been long as far back as I've been watching and at one time were over 50k contracts short.

Bart, I don't understand half the shit you post, but keep them coming. It is my responsibility to figure it out. The half I get, I listen to.

[sadsack]

Re: It Didn't pass!

Wasn't it the whole idea that the average American doesn't understand what is going on on Wall Street? Cause if (s)he did, there would be torches and pitchforks.:p

Indeed, I think the average politico is appreciating the approching Scylla (financial ruin of this country) and Charabdys (torch and pitchfork wielding voters) . . .

The average American may not understand much (through willfull ignorance), but even he can register umbrage when the lie is both big and obvious enough.

Not one of TPTB wants to come clean. That, hopefully, will be the ultimate quid pro quo underlying (pardon the pun) any bailout - confess ye your sins; then and only then shall shrivness (bailout) be given . . .

[Supercilious]

Re: It Didn't pass!

Just noticed - Goldman Sachs (GS) is now net long gold on the TOCOM by 48 contracts.

They have never been long as far back as I've been watching and at one time were over 50k contracts short.

That was to be expected. But that is only their right hand. It would be interesting if their left hand (funds they control) are also long. That may change significantly their total position...

[bart]

Re: It Didn't pass!

Bart, I don't understand half the shit you post, but keep them coming. It is my responsibility to figure it out. The half I get, I listen to.

Please do ask when you don't understand something - I'm happy to try and explain it as best I can. And that applies to anyone.

I know that, by virtue of me being a short term futures trader and having a tinfoil hat and also running as fast as I can to keep up with all the changes and craziness over the last few years, that I'm far from always clear and understandable. Sometimes my communication skills aren't up to it either, but I'll always try anyhow if I see a question.

Trying to get across what I know about economics and behind the scenes stuff etc. clearly here and on other forums and on my own site is the 2nd most difficult thing I've ever attempted in my entire life - the 1st being having a successful long term relationship with one of the weird creatures called females. ;)

[bart]

Re: It Didn't pass!

That was to be expected. But that is only their right hand. It would be interesting if their left hand (funds they control) are also long. That may change significantly their total position...

Perhaps... but its still a major milestone to see a major international banker be long gold futures.

[Supercilious]

Re: It Didn't pass!

Going back to the subject. Here is a diagram that describe the best the process of getting the Bailout through the Congress:

[Rajiv]

Re: It Didn't pass!

Bart,

Out of curiosity, what were the traded volumes yesterday, and how do they compare to average daily volume both yesterday, and other >3% drop days.

[bart]

Re: It Didn't pass!

Bart,

Out of curiosity, what were the traded volumes yesterday, and how do they compare to average daily volume both yesterday, and other >3% drop days.

Per Yahoo's data, DJIA volume was about 7.3 billion as compared to the all time record of 10 trillion on Thursday before last. Average daily volume in 2008 in the DJIA so far is about 4.5 billion.
I don't track volume comparisons with large drops, sorry.

JesseL at http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/ had a nice chart yesterday on relative drops though - hope it helps:

[Tulpen]

Re: It Didn't pass!

Just noticed - Goldman Sachs (GS) is now net long gold on the TOCOM by 48 contracts.

They have never been long as far back as I've been watching and at one time were over 50k contracts short.

Apart from the fact that we are talking about 48 whopping contracts:

How do you know who owns what contracts on TOCOM?
How do you know if Goldman does not act as a principal on those contracts?

[bart]

Re: It Didn't pass!

Apart from the fact that we are talking about 48 whopping contracts:

How do you know who owns what contracts on TOCOM?
How do you know if Goldman does not act as a principal on those contracts?

TOCOM is not a large exchange for sure, but its the only one that publicly reports large positions on a daily basis. I think its a significant milestone, regardless of actual volume etc., that a major international bank is long gold.

[ocelotl]

Re: It Didn't pass!

I was getting to job when I saw this front page on a newsstand:



Caption: "The US Congress rejected George W. Bush's Bank Rescue Plan and the World Markets throughot the world reacted immediately: they collapsed"

[jtabeb]

Re: It Didn't pass!

In my opinion, the beauty of Jackson and Jefferson's positions wrt central banks, is that both men acted out of PRINCIPLE. I've been trying to think about Paulson's plan and this vote dialectically. The dialectic is based on consensus. Both sides (thesis and antithesis) yielding to synthesis.

Sayings such as "Moderation is best" are dialectical, and can be correct. But not always. If the thesis is "murder" and antithesis is "not-murder", the synthesis "some murder" is not preferable to "not-murder". Some poison is not preferable to no poison. Some fascism is not preferable to no fascism. Basically, some middle ground between good and evil (moderate evil?) is not preferable to good.

In the case of this vote, if the thesis is "big-ass bailout" and the antithesis is "zero bailout", a synthesis might be "some bailout". Whether this is preferable to "zero bailout" or "big-ass bailout" depends on one's PRINCIPLES. Consensus means abandoning one's principles.

The dialectic can be manipulative; you can have a predetermined synthesis as your goal. In this case, you might fabricate intentionally-ridiculous theses and antitheses in order to encourage adoption of your predetermined synthesis.

Consider how absurd Paulson's original draft was (thesis). Consider the subsequent backlash (antithesis). But the whole time the goal was synthesis - some middle ground. He purposely asked for way more than he expected, so that congress and the public would feel satisfied if they achieved "concessions" or some more-moderate legislation through consensus (synthesis).

Edit
---------------
I should have added that energy is directed away from alternatives in these scenarios, as if either thesis & antithesis are inevitable futures without some synthesis. As in, a fallacy of false dilemmas.

Problem-Solution-Reaction? Sounds valid to me.

[don]

Re: It Didn't pass!

Time for a quote from Brecht (on new regulatory laws enacted in the Great Depression) :

‘Do not rejoice in his defeat you men, for though the bastard is dead, the bitch that bore him is again in heat’

Who can't smell the putrescence as Washington and Wall Street snort, bite and groan around the barnyard on this day of recess....

[Starving Steve]

Re: It Didn't pass!

Would not better treatment for bank depositors be the way to save the banks--- instead of bailing-out the banks with federal money?

How about the Fed RAISING interest rates, not lowering them? And how about raising the limit on deposit insurance to $500,000 instead of $100,000? Somehow, this common sense is out of the realm of Fed thinking, especially under Bernankee.

How about penalizing consumption with a federal sales tax? Penalizing consumption, raising interest rates, and rewarding savings.... Oh, my God, this is NOT rocket-science.

How about the Fed raising the value of the dollar and lowering the cost of living? Would not a managed deflation of the economy be the way out of this mess? Then the world could invest in the U.S, and money would be available to lend to entreneurs to re-build the U.S. manufacturing base.

Banks could lend to each other because the Fed would not be in the business of bailing-out insolvent banks and rewarding their bad behaviour. The banking system would be transparent and trustworthy.

Lenders would be compensated for risk. So lenders would have to take only the risks that are most prudent..... This new approach is so simple, and yet it is beyond the grasp of the nut running the Fed.

And what does the current Fed do? It lets the entire financial system freeze-up because no-one is compensated for risk--- because interest rates are far too low. And with the freeze-up in lending, the Fed then wants to lower interest rates further, flood the banking system with more money, or seek bail-outs from the taxpayer.... Unbelieveable!

[D-Mack]

McCain Urges Treasury to Act Without Legislation on Bailout

At least they are open now

McCain Urges Treasury to Act Without Legislation on Bailout

Speaking on morning television, the Arizonan urges the Treasury Department to address the economic crisis on its own by buying $1 trillion in mortgages and tapping its exchange stabilization fund. Also backs raising the FDIC insurance cap to $250,000.

On CNN: “I will do whatever is necessary… We haven’t convinced people that this is a rescue effort not just for Wall Street but for Main Street America.”

On MSNBC: “I think Americans have yet to fully understand this is not in the interests of Wall Street or Washington insiders.”

On Fox: “I’ll put my presidential campaign on the back burner if necessary.”

http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/30/“...answer”/