http://www.barnabyisright.com/2011/06/29/rba-says-our-banks-are-stuffed-in-other-words/ I did not realise that our banks were playing the Derivative Casino just like the other greedy morons.Our banks have $16.8 trillion (or 15 times our GDP) in off balance sheet derivative transactions and only $2.86 trillion assests.$ 1.76 trillion of these assests are loans often based on inflated asset values.

Our Govt gave Aust Banks guarantees in 2008 that they would be under written by the tax payer but they continued this gambling to maintain share price and their enormous salaries.Where was the RBA in making sure that they reduced their exposure to derivatives?

If our banks collapse,there is no way they can be bailed out.

http://tarpley.net/ As Webster Tarpley observes,15 of the top worlds banks are virtually insolvent.They too have the same derivative cancer.
In The Great Depression of 1932 the Glass Steagall Act separated the casino economy from the real productive one.There is not a single leader in the USA or Europe that have any intent of saving real productive wealth.

We are absolutely stuffed!

These two sentences from Barnaby's page are positively cringeworthy.

"$1.76 Trillion (65.56%) of these 'assets' are actually loans. That’s right – your loan is considered the bank’s 'Asset'."

What else could it possibly be?

The bank lends you ten bucks. At that point, an asset and a liability come into being. You have in your hand ten bucks (which you would surely consider to be an asset) and in the other hand you have an IOU. Which must by definition be a liability. After all, you are "liable to pay" ten bucks at some point.

Meanwhile, the bank has the other part of the IOU. It is worth ten bucks. That is most assuredly an asset, no? After all, if you don't pay it back, they would have lost ten bucks. And if they reckon at some point that they will only get half of it back, they "write down" the asset to five bucks, and record a loss on their P&L.

What else can a loan to you be on their balance sheet, except an asset?

That fundamental misunderstanding is, sadly, the high point of the article. It is all downhill from there. Complete with a misconception of the derivative market that is even more inaccurate than his breathless shock at learning that a loan is an asset.

The "staggering $16.83 Trillion" he gasps over is made up, almost equally, of puts and calls. Any actual financial exposure can only be measured by determining the difference between those numbers. Derivatives, as I have explained before, are a form of insurance, not of gambling.

Mr Joyce at least had the grace to admit that he hadn't the first clue what his "analysis" signified:

"Let us not even bother going into the huge question marks over this"

No, indeed. If you did, you'd quickly discover what a farrago of nonsensical claptrap it is.

Once again, Arjay, I can only suggest that you take a quick course in Finance 101, and stop reading stuff written by hysterical people with a "we're all rooned" agenda, who understand nothing about the mechanics of banking.

No Australian bank is in any danger of falling.
If America and all of Europe gos bankrupt we still may be ok.

I have not read the whole article, I just HATE those light blue text
on white background web pages. It has become a fashion. Very hard to read.

First the blog is not written by Barnaby Joyce.
I am not sure if Barnaby Joyce has any connection to it.
I have often thought that he should ask to have his name removed.
The blog often gives quotes of Joyce in columns in the Canberra Times.
They are always shown as authored by Joyce and this is not shown as a quote.

So far I think the author is making the point that in the present
situation any lending assets the banks may be holding could be really
dodgey if the banking system in Europe or US collapses as those assets
are insured via those derivatives against US and European banks.
This of course is the exact situation that got the US banks into trouble.

When my eyes recover I'll go back and continue reading.

percul-ionary/intrest quote""The bank lends..At that point,
an asset and a liability come into being.""

not so fast[the asset presumable mortgauged]..pregsisted
yes it created a lie-ability..but a promise aint no asset

buty it neatly bypasses..the fact on the banks book its an asset
[when its not a true asset]..only realisable MAYBE as an asset]

""ten bucks/you would surely consider to be an asset""

yes the bank had that 'asset'[of ten bucks]
but not any big money[it gets that money by the fed monetising credit]
AFTER YOU APPLY FOR THE LOAN*

you allready SIGNED[creating THE asset]
then it was monetised[banbk actually LENT nuthing
it got your promise on its books[asset],..thus accessed more credit[IT DIDNT HAVE PRE ITS PUTTING YOUR POMISE..*AS A VALUE[..on its books]

chicken egg
first you beg/ap;ply..that asset is booked
credit is created[they didnt have the tem bucks..TILL YOU GAVE THEM AN ASSET[mark of the beast]

which get bundled.and secritised..on sold
but in court only the ORIGONAL promise has value
BUT..that POTENTIAL*value was exploited..to leverage extra credit

show me how the banks
lent its own money[by your own admission it couldnt be an asset..till it was booked[put onto the books]

bank double dips..cassing in on debt..then onselling its promise of repayment

but also has franchise
OVER how many of that physical MONey/assets..is isued[monetised]
i hold its our promise to pay..

that.""in the other hand you have an IOU.""

the value that was monetised[aproved]

"" Which must by definition be a liability.""

\egsactly

""if you don't pay it back,
they would have lost ten bucks.""

the joke is follow the value*[that created the money]
i contracted with you..not who you onsold the asset to


""What else can a loan..to you be
on their balance sheet,..except an asset?""

a instrument that..that got onsold
or devalued bit by bit..but got OVERVALUED*

[when the promise[to pay]..was in real gold/silver coin
money was a promise to pay in value[an iou]..

now inflation has stolen the value from ther coin[and notes cost only 7 cents each]..and monetisation creating cyber credit..is free

My advice to you one under god is the same as for Arjay: learn a little more from factual textbooks, and a little less from conspiracy web sites.

>>not so fast[the asset presumable mortgauged]..pregsisted
yes it created a lie-ability..but a promise aint no asset<<

Of course a promise - in this context - is an asset. It may come in the form of a simple overdraft facility at your local bank, or a twenty-page loan document describing the terms and conditions, but they are still both assets.

You are confusing the document itself with the security behind it. One of the most well-known forms of loan is indeed the mortgage, where the borrowed money, and its repayment terms, are "secured" against physical property. You default on the loan, the property is no longer yours to dispose of. If you didn't accept that, you wouldn't have the money, and the bank wouldn't have its asset.

It is the same with currency, of course. Once upon a time, the security for a pound note was a fixed amount of a mined mineral deposit. Which of course is a nonsense, as people came to realize that the mined mineral deposit did not itself have a real value, only the artificial one that governments arbitrarily fixed upon.

Floating the currencies to compete against each other was a necessary move. Ask yourself this: what would have been the impact on the economy if gold were still pegged at $35 an ounce?

These days, it is just another mineral, with prices that fluctuate with demand. If you bought a ton of gold this time last year and hidden it away, you would have "earned" 4.43% on your investment.

http://www.goldprice.org/

If you had bought silver over the same time period, you would have lost 23.03%

And each time, the only way you could actually spend that money is to convert it into a negotiable currency. How does that make sense?

When Rudd and his cabinet bailed out the Australian banks they were within a day or so of collapse.

The whole world situation is problematic because the various Basle Agreements have been used, since they replaced the Bretton Woods Agreement, to push back the day of reckoning which has loomed, for some day in the future, since the early seventies when the USA became a debtor nation.

The Australian Banks were in trouble because they borrowed $US short term to fund long term mortgages in $A. American dollars can only be spent buying imports from people willing to accept those dollars in exchange or they can be spent buying foreign assets. Australian banks can always be saved by the sovereign currency of the Australian Government provided they are not too far in debt to foreign lenders.

Barnaby Joyce does not realize that the real alternative to government borrowings are higher taxes on those who can most afford such taxes, that is, those who cannot spend their surplus income without causing asset inflation.

The world needs a means to settle payments for trade in real goods and services that does not consist of only American dollars. Such a system would choke off speculation in the huge pile of $US slopping around the world funding derivatives and swaps. As early as 1972-3 Neil McInnes in the Fin Review wrote a series titled "What do we do with all these worthless American Dollars."

In 1998, I pointed out to John Howard's government that the then "let it rip" policy would result in an asset value bubble which must eventually burst. On 5 June 1998 I wrote,
"A major concern is that everywhere genuine productive activities are being undermined by the rise, in power terms, of basically parasitic financial institutions and the dead load that these institutions and unnecessary service industries impose".

In January, 2007 I sent a long letter to the SMH stating that unless present policies changed we were heading for a cliff.

The world is still too near the edge.

Europe and the USA is on the verge of collapse.This casino derivative economy is integrated and Perciles writes it all to conspiracy theory?

Ostrich economics Pericles is not good policy.World wide the dervivatives are 20 times the GDP of the planet.It is monopoly money backed by nothing that is integrated into our productive economy.Why do you not support a Glass Steagall Act pericles?

Instead of bailing out our banks we should just nationalise them and get the RBA to be the creator of whole sale money instead of the Private Central Banks.

OUG need to talk to you.
In a thread not dissimilar than this you diverted the subject.
Full of wrong information, mistaken ideas you killed it.
And with the same total lack of understanding, propped up with the idea only you understand, you are still at it.
Here are my thoughts.
Can you start a thread about conspiracy theory's?
I will come, armed with some of the funniest ones.
Mate its a fact, threads die when it is no longer possible to remember what they are about.
And when we are asked to adopt ideas our every instinct says are silly.

Are you refusing to listen, Arjay, or simply refusing to hear?

>>Ostrich economics Pericles is not good policy.World wide the dervivatives are 20 times the GDP of the planet<<

If you have derivatives valued at $100 trillion, the actual exposure to the economy is the net figure, after you have subtracted the calls from the puts. So if you have $50 trillion in each category, the economy is not disturbed by one single dollar.

What is it about this simple fact that you dislike so much, that you ignore it in every one of your "we're all rooned" posts? The equivalent in company terms would be to add up the credit and debit sides of the balance sheet, and declare that as a single, entirely meaningless number. The net worth of a company is basically comprised of its assets minus its liabilities, in the same way that your net worth is calculated as your assets - house, car, bank balance etc. - minus your borrowings.

Only when your liabilities exceed your assets should you feel uncomfortable - you are in "negative equity" territory. Even then, your bank might look at your future ability to repay them, e.g. from your salary, business profits or whatever, and lend you some more to keep you going.

>>Instead of bailing out our banks we should just nationalise them<<

One question: given that you would have us believe that they are drowning in worthless derivatives, how much would you pay the current shareholders? Hint: quite a lot of those shareholders keep bank shares in their clients' superannuation portfolio. And a second question: what would you do with all those derivatives that (presumably) the government will acquire when it buys the bank?

>>Why do you not support a Glass Steagall Act pericles?<<

Pretty much the same reason that Senator Carter Glass gave when he tried to later repeal his own Act.

Instead of being a solution, it quickly became part of the problem.

I suppose it must be true, Arjay, "If our banks collapse,there is no way they can be bailed out."

But this is based solely on things you've told us previously… If the only money printing entities (the banks) can't be bothered lifting a finger on their computers to print money with a few more zeros – then they deserve to collapse – or they could just hire a temp who knows how to push the zero button repeatedly six or nine times. And obviously governments (who can't print money) won't be able to bail them out.

You're right not to regard it as a simple conspiracy theory – more of the fantasy variety.

Speaking of fantasies, surely you're aware that it is not true that ostriches stick their heads in the sand?

But it is true that their kick is strong enough to kill a lion.

I'm also annoyed to hear that "We are absolutely stuffed!" when I have no recollection of enjoying being shafted.

Pericles & WMtrevor,have a close look at what Foyle has written.This is not being alarmist.They cannot go on just printing digital money.Eventually it must collapse.

What is wrong with separating the casino economy from the real one? You never risk all your income when gambling.How are banks the exception?

you see things your way belly[rose coloured glasses]
alp is perfect[or will be]..unions lol..super

sure your of the baby boomers
who's retirment..needed a cash injection to the 'super providers'
so we all got lumped together[compulsory super]..KNOWING most mugs like us dont know to get the max govt subsidy[as you did in later years,..putting over one third youyr wages into super

yes mate..its great[but there kis baby boomers GLOBALLY
you might hear about greek pensioners[well they will want their LUMP SUM too]

i note pericules..[what at least replies the topic]..finds gold silver valueless]..so he dont care how the fed nbankers leased it to each other[for the fixed price for au@$44.44cents per oz]

it was LEASED..thus must/could should be called to acount
[return the gold[LEASED]to you[that yuou lot onsold then[for double]
and now never got no hope of ever bying back

STOLEN
thus perry values it as of no value
thats what his mates want[usually do][ie sell high[in the boom]..buy up folowing the bust..[for bonus..not for you]..you best save your super belly..cause your grandkids..wont get nuthin..

im over trying to explain
its not my problem..

just like that enforced greek haircut[sent spanish BANKS broke
ditto the 'bailout'..from cyprus..that straw that sent their banks broke

no to mention the billion EACH day..flowing from greek\[and spanish/cyprus/irish/portugeece/italie banks are collectivly bleeding eiuros[into germaniac banks]..so they can lend it back to govts

to bailout more banks
its time govt renationalised banks..[full stop]
before your high risk gambling..sends ya kids broke..

even worse if leveraging..

Let's look at Credit Default Swaps.A seller of a CDS will compensate the buyer in the event of a loan default or other adverse credit event.The buyer of a CDS makes a series of payments to the seller and in exchange receives a payoff if the loan defaults.In the event of a default,the buyer of the CDS receives compensation ( usually the face value of the loan ) and the seller takes possession of the defaulted loan.The seller can repossess the collateral put up against the loan.

So in this situation, it is the interest of the buyer and seller to have a faultering economy.They both can make money on a collapse.In the case of Fannie and Freddie 95% of all the loans according to Prof William K Black were fraudulent.This is how Soros attacked Greece.So now the bwankers take possession of all the public utilities and bring in austerity so they can reap more profits.

Much of the Fannie and Freddie loans were also bundled up as safe assets which our super funds bought into.Why were not the credit agencies brought to account?

These criminal activities are not being addressed.Even those who work in derivatives don't fully understand them.They've been made purposefully complex to con people and evade the regulators.

Arjay I favour your version on this issue. There are two major changes which occurred in the seventies which have led to the present global financial mess. Both of these events started in America. The first was the congress decision to dismantle the Glass/Steggall act which had been the basis of unprecedented global growth and stability since it was adopted to counter the great depression. The second and most disastrous change was the Reagon/Thatcher adoption of the Milton Friedmann theory of unfetterd free market capitalism. This meant that any country including Australia which fell for this mantra removed any and all control mechanisms which inhibited free trade. The problem is that in doing so we also relinquished the very instruments by which we could control and determine the future of our country. We are now at the mercy of an all powerful and giant corporate conglomerate which is also largely supported by the very governments which we elect to act in our best interests. As for derivatives a more accurate name would be imaginatives.
Den 71

DEN71,I have a suspicion that pericles trades in derivatives.They are not just an insurance policy as he would have us believe.When they have so much leverage in terms of counterfeit money they can steal real assets legally.

Note that pericles does not mention how the derivative market became 20 times the GDP of the planet.When they went off the gold standard in 1975 the banks went into overdrive creating money from nothing.Much of this money went into the derivative market.When Clinton removed Glass Steagall the markets when crazy with greed.

Note that the US Fed has created $15 trillion for bailouts and war putting the US people in huge debt.A partial audit found another $16 trillion created from nothing that went to our banks and institutions all around the planet.They just made the derivative market even bigger.

There will be more "quantative easing" in the USA but they are just delaying the day of reckoning.

I heard Nigel Farage talking to Alan Jones this morning.He said that people in Greece look like taking up arms.When you lose everything,you lose it.This is one of the reasons why these elites are pushing for war with China/Russia.They have the pollies in their back pockets and have controlling shares in all the major corporations.

It's impressive that you managed to type "CDS" into Google, Arjay, and fantastic that you were then able to find the Wikipedia entry:

"A credit default swap (CDS) is a financial swap agreement that the seller of the CDS will compensate the buyer in the event of a loan default or other credit event. The buyer of the CDS makes a series of payments (the CDS "fee" or "spread") to the seller and, in exchange, receives a payoff if the loan defaults. In the event of default the buyer of the CDS receives compensation (usually the face value of the loan), and the seller of the CDS takes possession of the defaulted loan."

Even more impressive is your ability to cut'n'paste it into your post.

What you failed to do, however, was to give even the vaguest indication that you understood that which you had carefully researched and reprinted here.

>>So in this situation, it is the interest of the buyer and seller to have a faultering economy.They both can make money on a collapse<<

That is so fundamentally wrong, and demonstrates beyond conjecture that you didn't understand the Wikipedia entry.

What would be interesting, though, would be to hear your explanation of how you managed to draw this conclusion. Who would make money, and where exactly would it come from?

Here's what actually happens:

The original borrower would have lost the property he borrowed the money in order to buy. The CDS buyer - the owner of the loan - would be compensated with the face value, but would have lost the amount of the spread. The CDS seller would have the collateral, but by this time it would be of a lower value than the face value of the loan.

So nobody makes money on the transactions. Nobody.

That, in a nutshell, is how the CDS market became a key pillar of the GFC. As the assets devalued, and the rate of default increased, everybody involved, lost.

It is always most instructive to follow the money.

Pericles not everyone one lost.If you have worthless monopoly money that can be used to hedge real assets,even if that asset depreciates by half,you have moved from monopoly money to a real asset.

Sorry about this OUG
Will you forgive me for being honest?
I have not got a clue what you are talking about.
But am sure you do not either.
Just this, how come you want to talk about the Greek crisis here?
But thought it was bought about by Australian superannuation system in the now dead thread.
You laugh too much at your own jokes and the rhyming stuff just makes it harder to read.

Thought I'd try something different for a change… Here's something to chew over – with apologies to Azimov.

• Zeroth Law - "A banker may not harm a government, or, by inaction, allow a government to come to harm."
• First Law - "A banker may not injure a corporate customer or, through inaction, allow a corporate customer to come to harm."
• Second Law - "A banker must obey orders placed by human customers except where such orders would conflict with the First Law."
• Third Law - "A banker must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."

Don't be fooled by the apparent sequence of preferential treatment. That Third Law is a potential logic trap.

Alternatively – with apologies to my grandmother – we could:

Out Law One - "Do not borrow money you cannot afford to repay."
Out Law Two - "Do not loan money you cannot afford to lose."

Hi Belly, amongst other things Eliot Wigginton might have had Greece in mind when he said,

"Life isn’t worth living unless you’re willing to take some big chances and go for broke."

If the entire world goes bankrupt, no one will be in debt any more.
So all countries can start from scratch and accumulate more debt.
This debt will be different, because it will be fresh debt.

That's a logical inconsistency, Arjay.

>>Pericles not everyone one lost.If you have worthless monopoly money that can be used to hedge real assets,even if that asset depreciates by half,you have moved from monopoly money to a real asset.<<

It is a close variant of the one-under-god fallacy, which states that "if you can touch it, it is by definition more valuable than paper money". He uses it to describe gold (as have you, in times past), but it applies equally to property.

The only opportunity you would have to exploit the value of the asset you have, is to turn it into "monopoly money", as you call it. For example, they reckon that it will take forty years for the Irish population to grow enough to fill the empty houses (assets) that were built during the Celtic Tiger days.

Everyone lost. There were no winners. You can't eat houses, or exchange them for a meal down the pub.

But, offer the pub "monopoly money", and hey presto!

Grub's up.

thats ok mr bell
so lets begin with explaining perries/quote..

"""A credit default swap (CDS)
is a financial swap agreement..""

a financial SWAP agreement
ok pery..so what they swapping..is derived from other financial instrunments{THAT HAVE DEFAULTED}>...[its like me swapping my bad debt..for your bad debts[and because we both thing them valueless

I BOUGHT YOUR BAD DEBT
you bought mine[it muddies the waters

think..greece and its secret...plus the one who dun it bying bonds KNOWING they will default

and deefault they did
other bankers too a haircut..NOW THEY NEED A BAILOUT

cause debt is debt
not value

""that the seller of the CDS will compensate the buyer
in the event of a loan default or other credit event.""

what was grece[pa credit event?]
of a debit payoff?

the deefault shoulda worked
BUT IT DIDDNT..its not govt who should be bailing out..BUT THE DERIVITAVES[greece sue them that got the derived proffits]

GREECE>>"'The buyer of the CDS makes a series of payments (the CDS "fee" or "spread") to the seller and, in exchange, receives a payoff if the loan defaults.""

sop greece deefaulted
and what?[govt lol puts the debt onto the people..lol
not the derivitives SUPOPOSED TO PFROTRECT AGAINST DEFAULT

""In the event of default the buyer of the CDS receives compensation (usually the face value of the loan), and the seller of the CDS takes possession of the defaulted loan."

vase closed
PAY of the derivitaves[pay back govt
CONNED into gifting away all public service and pensions
for auterity..when its derived debt..upon debt iupon debt..you recognised as value..[but missed seeing the truth for the greed..]

you wanted high rates
meaning send some other mug broke

[went broke]..
then you..valued the debt as a deriviative[securtised]
BUT DEBT*..from go to woe*..its to clever by half..[just like howard thuinbk greedy carbon taxation..and juliar deliverd it

look belly
forget definitions

think...you know what words mean

what it...""credit'?
its having a lot of something
be it land..or other asset..cash or other

ok now say you owe me..something

if you default..what do it get?..nuthing
you de-faulted

so lets join together
A credit plus a default..
so what does default of credit indicate?

now say you got a ton of defaults
and so do i ...

say i value mine at full face value
[DEFAULTED ON ALLREADY..ie irrecoverable debt...
and SWAP IT..for your fully defaulted debt...lol

we got a debt swap
both got NOTHING!..yet we can sell it
put value on our irrecoverable debt lol

*SWOP
my debt for your debt

we will call it
A credit default swap (CDS)

and then we sell them as value..for quick bon*us

[and hope they buy a insurance..underwriting them
as rerally being traded debt swops..[that pays out
when debt became super debt..[or A credit default swap (CDS)]

but no their too clever
the scam is too big to fail

govts will accept the debt swaps and love it
SEIZE BACK THEIR ASSETS..lock em up for treason

or visit the wikiseed/wikigeld
next year will be truelly hell[the end times long predicted]
if we dont wake up...hell on earth..natzies got nuthing on what happens next[just like way back in ww1

http://youtu.be/WWc8-P29wIc

dont say you didnt know
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWc8-P29wIc&feature=player_embedded

Yes OUG Soros and others used CDS to attack Greece.According to Pericles they were insurance against default.Why did the people have to pay if there was insurance against default?

You still have not answered my question Pericles.Where did all this derivative money come from to be 20 times the GDP of the planet? The world has a GDP of $60 trillion and derivatives $1200 trillion.How can we have financial insurance polices worth 20 times more than all the goods and services on the planet? Who created all this money from nothing?

It is Wikipedia's explanation, one under god, not mine.

>>so lets begin with explaining perries/quote.<<

If you want to take issue with it, talk to Wikipedia.

Or ask Arjay to explain.

But while I'm here, I'll just point out the most obvious flaw in your argument.

>>so what they swapping..is derived from other financial instrunments{THAT HAVE DEFAULTED}<<

Not so. At the time that the CDS is entered into, the loan is not in default. All that has happened is that the risk of default is factored into the spread.

While it is possible that some scavengers might buy up a bunch of bad loans with the intent of strong-arming some money out of the defaulters, i) they would pay only a couple of cents on the dollar, and ii) they would use methods not sanctioned by the banking code of conduct, in order to get their money.

barkleys bank has been fiddling its cost of money
geez am i surprised

yes arjay they supposedly had insurance
but a swap is a swap...[so me swapping my irrecoverable debt..for yours...gives us a teqnical trick...ALLmost as if we both sold something of value..but being irrecoverable debt to begin with..its insuring a ghost

win win
but as clever as charging weightless c02 gas
by the ton...[how much of nuthing makes not nuthing][a ton]

i value my debt..plus deefaulted cost
you value your debt plus defaulted charges

and we swap it..[teqnicly we both traded nuthing..for somethin

but when it comes undone..
we see its derived off spin

pers/quote..""At the time that the CDS is entered into,
the loan is not in default.""

im not talking about loans
just defaulted credit..sitting dead on the books
ALL OF A SUDDEN HAVING A VALUE*..[yet still only DEFAUTED DEBT*]

debt you couldnt recover!
for debt they couldnt recover!
traded equally cause its equally valueless
its just booked in as millions of nuthing for a clear loss..[allready re-claimed on taxes]

how serious can we take your words
if your begin point is defaulted debt is value and gold aint

""All that has happened is that the risk of default
is factored into the spread.""

its defaulted long ago
it was deemed irerecoverable..
factering a 'risk of default'..is a joke

the debt was defaulted..long ago...
we just swaped..as if of value..dead asset-stripped debt notes
mixed in with other rubbish sold as AAA+gold..when its a clear scam.

rose the dead
made the dead be the value
that conned the living into austerity hell

well done son..

OUR banks strongly support the ETS since they will have another deivative to trade and rip us off.I wonder if Pericles believes AGW because it is a convenient way of ripping off yet again.

You can easily tell what people re about by what they refuse to debate.

If we put a 1% tobin tax on all the banks derivaties of $16.8 trillion,then our Govt would collect $ 168 billion in tax.Gillard would not need a CO2 tax.

Ah,the problem being no one wants to buy a derivative that has no worth backing it and we have bailed these bastards out.

This is getting a little silly, Arjay.

>>OUR banks strongly support the ETS since they will have another deivative to trade and rip us off<<

In what way are you, or anyone, being "ripped off" by derivatives? How does the transaction adversely affect you, in any way, shape or form?

>>Ah,the problem being no one wants to buy a derivative that has no worth backing it and we have bailed these bastards out.<<

Who is "bailing out" derivatives? If there are so many of them around, with such a massive value on them, how can they be "bailed out" anyway?

You are discussing financial instruments of which you know precisely nothing. Which is why none of your statements about them bears any relation whatsoever to reality.

I think pericles has cognitive dissonance.We know how Soros used CDS'sto attack Greece.We know they have no wealth backing them.We know they are being used to steal money from the real productive economy.We should have a Glass Steagall Act to isolate this insidious cancer.