http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America Here are the details from wikipedia Pericles.This is the second source confirming what I said."Forbes listed 3rd biggest company in the World."It is enormous and I've now seen several sources saying that it is insolvent.

What do your sources say Pericles?

Your Wikipedia extract is out of date, just in case you hadn't noticed.

"In 2010, Forbes listed Bank of America as the 3rd biggest company in the world"

The footnote refers to the Forbes 2000 listing - which, quite frankly, has to be one of the more slapdash set of rankings imaginable.

But if Forbes is your ultimate source, then you should know that Bank of America now occupies position 375 on that same list.

http://www.forbes.com/global2000/#p_1_s_arank_MajorBanks_All_UnitedStates

It took quite a while to track them down, since the site lists them ten-to-a-page. I finally had to resort to narrowing the search to Major US Banks.

And yes, I am aware of the "Bank of America is insolvent" movement. It has been going on for quite a while now, so I'm a little surprised you have only just caught up with it.

http://traderscrucible.com/2011/08/23/bank-of-america-insolvent-and-everyone-knows-it-now/

The predictions that they will not be able to work through the toxic stuff on their balance sheet are all very interesting. But more interesting are the suggested cures...

Do some (better) homework on that topic, Arjay, and then explain how you see it occurring - if, that is, it happens at all. For extra credit, explain who is going to suffer most if your explanation is implemented.

The new government..of Iraq has made it clear
they will not grant immunity..for war crimes to American/troops

and any remaining..in Iraq
after Dec 31..(other than embassy guards) are subject to arrest.

In denying immunity,..the new Iraqi government..has shown the US to the door..and handed them their hat, er,..their helmet.

In other words,..the United States
just lost the Iraq war.

1...We never got Saddam's nuclear weapons,
because..they did not have any.

2...We did not revenge 9-11
because Iraq had nothing to do with it.

3. We did not punish Iraq for supporting Al Qaeda
because..Saddam and Al Qaeda were enemies.

4. We did not get all that much oil
because the new government of Iraq..is made up of people the US tortured,..or of people..who know people the US tortured,..and the oil contracts were handed out to everyone else.

and they just told the US to get out,
or face war crimes charges!

There is no real tangible way to claim that this war was a win for the United States. Billions spent, hundreds of thousands dead.

The only real winners are the bankers
to whom both sides are now deeply in debt.

now for ww3

how about gadfly[gladduffy]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc&feature=relmfu

THE MARK OF THE SLAVE
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/themarkoftheaslave.php

On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, to make all men free.

On December 23rd, 1913, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, to make all men slaves again.

When the dog dies, the fleas merely jump to a new dog."
http://lonestarwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/10/federal-reserve-bank-is-moral-hazard-to.html

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/the-real-reason-for-the-uprisings/
http://www.zcommunications.org/a-movement-too-big-to-fail-by-chris-hedges

police realise they too are the 99
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/10/veterans-and-police-officers-support-occupy-wall-street-protesters.html

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/10/paul-were-witnessing-failure-of_24.html
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=23487
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-24/swiss-banks-said-ready-to-pay-billions-disclose-customer-names.html

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45013499

the odious debt bet

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7494
http://dailybail.com/home/paul-volcker-its-time-to-regulate-money-market-funds-and-get.html

http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/2649739:BlogPost:693228
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/10/real-reason-why-gadaffi-was-killed-why.html
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/10/five-things-you-may-not-know-about.html
http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/10/did-john-bolton-just-admit-all-these.html

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-would-happen-if-goldman-sachs.html
http://dailybail.com/home/occupy-ireland-make-bank-bondholders-pay-if-they-didnt-share.html
http://usmfreepress.org/2011/10/chemical-bomb-thrown-at-occupy-maine-camp-early-sunday-morning/
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=16436

fed audit
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/10/european-union-chiefs-are-drawing-up.html
http://publicbanking.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/state-bank-trifold9-20110807.pdf

prediction?
http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=4808

Why is it that you guys (yes, you Arjay and one under god) never actually care enough to look at the source documents? Instead, you rely on others who share your views on "global conspiracy" to draw inferences, and publish them as fact.

I was a little intrigued by your "revelation", one under god, that:

>>the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression<<

The first thing I found was that you had simply cut'n'pasted the words - including the somewhat clumsy "whopping" - without any questioning or editing. That's just lazy. If you publish something - even if you just re-publish it - you should at the very least find out a little bit more about the topic. Otherwise, you just look foolish.

Here's the source document, that I uncovered with great difficulty from the bowels of the web, in less than sixty seconds.

http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf

I know, it's very long - 266 pages in all - and very detailed. But the key findings were very straightforward.

1. The loans were not in any way "secret". In fact, our own Banks took a couple of slices, which were most definitely covered in local documents. Given the terms, they did well to do so.

2. Whatever the gross amount of those loans may have been - and $16 trillion is as good a number as any - the peak amount outstanding at any one time was a shade over one trillion.

3. The only significant amounts that remain on the balance sheet are those resulting from domestic transactions, primarily purchases of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), a programme that was designed to allow the unwinding of toxic assets in a more leisurely, and less panicky, manner.

I doubt that much of that made sense to either of you, did it? You would much prefer the naked hysteria of your pet conspiracy sites, they are so much more fun than reality.

Audit the Fed! Audit the Fed!

Oh.

They just did.

per ridicules..cheap shots

quote..""the key findings were very straightforward.""

ok lets look at yours

""1...The loans were not in any way "secret"."'

yey you claim..""Here's the source document,
that I uncovered with great difficulty from the bowels of the web,""

ok i will read it

""In fact,..our own Banks took a couple of slices,
which were most definitely covered..in local documents.""

are we still talking about yopur link
or just 'local documents..[please name them]

""Given the terms,..they did well to do so."'

not sure what yoyur saying
are you refering to the cash govt pays 2%..intrest on
or the cash it lends out intrest free

were talking about a half a century..
are each loan terms/intrst the same great terms
or wont generalities cover all them..ONGOING bailouts?

""Whatever the gross amount..of those loans may have been""

lol you didnt find that in your sloppy reading of the 'link'?

""the peak amount outstanding
at any one time""...

cloever phrasology ol mate
at anyone time..were talking about totals
your talking about anyonetime...lol

ANYONETIME..outstanding 'loans
""was a shade over one trillion.""

""The only significant amounts
that remain..on the balance sheet a
re those resulting from domestic transactions,""

oh mate...thats a broadbrush..
domestic..like private banker/money trader..business?

""primarily purchases..of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS),""
made into securities..AAA..then not mortgauge..but securities

[did you notice that link saying all home repo's based on bundeled mortgauges..WERE FRAUD..high ccourts have decided they were illegally seized[ie your banker mates lost the money and the asset

seems when they onsold..the rights didnt transphere
because they wernt a secured party..![no contract..no mortgauge paper
means some bankers are going to go bust..raising the values to re=emberse criminal seizure

the next..""a programme
that was designed to allow the unwinding of toxic assets""

lol

think WHY..""in a more leisurely,
and less panicky, manner.""

cause its odious debt mate
not able to be collected cause of fraud terms

"Cheap shots", one under god? Hardly.

It's called keeping you honest. And asking that you actually look into these things, instead of just regurgitating the hysterical nonsense you read on your favourite conspiracy sites.

All the information you need is in my last post.

You clearly don't grasp the difference between the gross amount of loans, and the amount outstanding at any point in time.

If I lend a million dollars a day, the gross amount in a year will be $365m. If I lend on the basis that each loan will be repaid after seven days, my peak exposure is $7m. Does that make it clearer for you, or would you like me to explain what loans are, how interest payments work, and what happens when a loan is repaid?

So, please forgive me for not counting up every single individual transaction in order to show whether or not the $16 trillion is precisely accurate or not. Feel free to undertake this chore if you like, but be aware that it is a largely irrelevant number.

No-one is arguing - including me - that unwinding themselves from the over-lending that the Banks indulged in will not take time and patience. Nor denying that there are a lot of people who over-borrowed, are in considerable financial strife, and who will need help. If that help means that their loans will be written off, then so be it. But be aware that if the "cure" is to implement that programme overnight, it may well prove worse than the disease. Property prices would take yet another dive, exposing a whole new raft of negative-equity assets, and another round of hardship for millions.

So - painful as it may be for you to consider - while the Banks may have been carriers of the disease, they are also an important part of the cure.

Hence my suggestion: don't panic.