« | »

December New Home Sales Worst On Record

From an unfazed Associated Press:

US new-home sales fell in Dec., finish dismal 2011

DEREK KRAVITZ – Associated Press
January 26, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fewer Americans bought new homes in December, making 2011 the worst sales year on record.

The Commerce Department says new-home sales fell last month to a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 307,000. The pace is less than half the 700,000 that economists say must be sold in a healthy economy.

Total sales last year were less than the 323,000 sold in 2010, making it the worst year on records dating back to 1963.

The median sales prices for new homes dropped in December, as builders continued to slash prices. It fell 2.5 percent to $210,300.

The decline in sales comes as other signs suggest the depressed housing market is starting to recover. Construction picked up, sales of previously occupied homes are rising, and builders are slightly more confident.

Meanwhile, we have more housing news from the Associated Press:

Foreclosures made up 20 pct. of home sales in 3Q

By ALEX VEIGA | Associated Press
January 26, 2012

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Foreclosures made up a smaller slice of all U.S. homes sold in last year’s third quarter, as banks delayed placing properties for sale and home sales slowed.

Which is to say, this number is only down because banks are holding back to avoid flooding the market and driving down prices even more.

Despite the decline, foreclosures still represented 20 percent of all homes sold in the July-September period — about four times more than at the height of the housing boom, foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday

In 2005 and 2006, when housing was still flying high, foreclosures made up less than 5 percent of all home sales, the firm said. They peaked in 2009 at 37.4 percent.

As a portion of all homes purchased, foreclosure sales declined in the third quarter from 22 percent in the April-June period. They were down from 30 percent in the third quarter of 2010, RealtyTrac said…

Why isn’t any of this in the headlines? Why aren’t there even any Republican debate questions about this?

Where is the outrage?

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, January 26th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “December New Home Sales Worst On Record”

  1. tranquil.night says:

    I guess Newt’s heresies against Reagan 15 years ago are far more destructive to the country.

    • proreason says:

      Drudge isn’t the only word on Newt’s heresies.


      There are a number of clips in that article that seem to contradict Mr. Drudge.

      Is propaganda any better when it comes from our side?

    • tranquil.night says:

      Wow, Rush calls up this Dan Riehl post: http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/video-of-newt-bashing-reagan-is-bogus.html

      The main clip they’re running with has been selectively edited, allegedly.

      Thanks for linking that Jacobson post, Pro.

    • proreason says:

      thanks tn. Everybody should view the clip.

      Your link is the perfect example of why I turned on RoveRomney. It didn’t have much to do with their positions at all. I view them as both big government republicans, with lots of flaws, and different strengths. Romney is an executive and Newt is a visionary. Either style can work.

      What bugs the hell out of me is why we should let Romney pull this kind of crap and then jump on the other guy for responding. It’s like the little sister who prods her brother into responding and then the boy gets punished…on a grand scale…with the fate of the country hanging in the balance.

      And then I get criticized for defending the boy.

      I hate dishonesty. Hate it double when it comes from our side.

    • Steve says:

      “The main clip they’re running with has been selectively edited, allegedly.”

      I saw nothing selectively edited. Neither did I see anything out of context.

      I did Newt saying that the biggest issue in the 1988 campaign would be cocaine. Cocaine?

      That said, I would appreciate it if people would only post comments that apply to the topic of the thread.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Yessir, won’t happen again.

    • Steve says:

      “Yessir, won’t happen again.”

      NBD. I probably wouldn’t have even mentioned it if the ‘move’ software wasn’t acting up.

  2. proreason says:

    My house is for sale. Not quite a forced sale…more like a pre-forced sale. I’m doing it now because I don’t want to have to do it at the point of a gun in a few years.

    We didn’t have a single showing in December, in an area where in most years there have been dozens of sales a month, and where about 10% of the homes have usually been for sale at any point in time. On a long street with about 80 houses, mine is the only one for sale right now. (hunkerin in the bunkers). There were two sales in the larger community in December, both about 25% below what houses were selling for in the mid 2000’s. If I have to take that price, I’ll be effectively bankrupt, and our lifestyle will plunge even more than the dive it already has. And I live in a state where the real estate market is relatively strong.

    January has picked up a little bit, at least from the shopping perspective, thank goodness. I’m expecting that any offer will be akin to the two that sold in December. It will be a gut-wrenching decision.

    • GetBackJack says:

      Pro, if there was any way to do it and KNOW it’s you, I’d happily send you GPS coordinates to the Last Stand bug out location we’ve prepared, but I cannot think of any way to do it securely.

      That said, plant a St.Joseph in your yard. You will guffaw and dismiss me as a kook – which I am – but it works.

      That and That further said, back to the article …

      Yes, home sales are off. Housing on steroids has served it’s purpose. Precisely because the economy has been sufficiently inflated to cover the mind-blowing expense of carrying on two unnecessary wars simultaneously while carrying a third of the nation on our backs who won’t work and are here illegally even as the population ages and Medicare Medicaid are underfunded.

      The money-supply had to increase dramatically in order to have enough to spend. This was “Managed-Risk” balanced against an economy goaded to grow enough to cover the costs of the debt incurred and the consequent deflation of buying power of the dollar. Or, did none of you study how Keynes and his acolytes structured the post-WWII banking and economic system in order to create enough capital out of thin air to rebuild a quarter of Europe while simultaneously fighting off Communism? (Hint – forfait credit, Napoleanic Law, Keynes “Economic Consequences of Peace”)

      This is what just happened the past decade. There wasn’t enough money in circulation and you can’t just print it and circulate it without it first being borrowed and then spent. That was the purpose off the R.E. boom out of nowhere. It wasn’t demand for nine bedroom 12,000 sqft cheaply made houses for Ma and Pa’s retirement tax write off. It was to generate enough money to circulate through the Treasury in order to pay for two wars.

      Now, we’re scaling back on Wars. Out of vogue right now. So we have a glut of debt, the money has drained off into undefined holes and we’re stuck with a National Expectation that this Sudden Real Estate Syndrome is the new normal.


      Bovine Scatology.

      Follow The Freaking Money people.

      In fact, chew on this …

    • proreason says:

      Thanks for the support GBJ. Maybe I’ll take you up on the offer one day.

      At the moment, I still have options. Like many, we’ve found ways to make do, and are hardly destitute. We’re better off than most frankly. It just bugs me that Ms Reason doesn’t feel secure after a lifetime of working toward exactly that goal, but security was probably a fantasy anyway.

      I don’t usually give a lot of personal info, just thought it might be interesting to some to hear a story from the front lines in reaction to the housing story. When it’s bad where it’s probably as good as it gets, you know it’s really bad.

  3. GetBackJack says:

    I hear you,sir.

    Meanwhile, back to my … chew on this…..

    The world at war in 1944 – Europe except for Switzerland, is pounding its
    infrastructure, manufacturing base and population into dust. Asia is locked into a
    monumental struggle that is destroying Japan, China and the Pacific Rim countries.
    North Africa, the Baltics, and the Mediterranean countries are struggling to throw off
    the yoke of occupation, A world gone mad. Economic destruction, human misery and
    dislocation exist on a scale never before experienced in history. The problem, How
    could the world rebuild and recover from this devastation? How could another war be

    This was the world as it existed in July of 1944 when a relatively small group
    numbering 730 of the western world’s most accomplished economic social and
    political minds met in upstate New Hampshire at a small resort town called Bretton
    Woods. John Maynard Keynes, the man who predicted the current catastrophe in his
    book, “The Economic Consequences of Peace”, written in 1920, was about to
    become the principle architect of the post World War II reconstruction. Keynes
    presented a radical plan to rebuild the worlds economy, and attempt to avoid a third
    world war. This time the world listened, for Keynes and his supporters were the only
    ones who had a plan that in all aspects seemed grand enough in foresight and scope
    to have a chance at being successful. Keynes had to fight hard to convince those
    rooted in conventional economic theories and in partisan political doctrines to adopt
    his proposals. In the end, Keynes was able to sell about two thirds of his proposals
    through sheer force and will and with the support of our then United States Secretary
    of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White.

    At the heart of the Keynes proposals were two basic principles: the first being, the
    Allies must rebuild the Axis Countries, not exploit them, as had been the case after
    WWI. Also, a new international monetary system must be established, headed by a
    strong international banking system and a common world currency not tied to the gold

    Keynes reasoned that Europe and Asia were in complete economic devastation with
    their means of production all but destroyed, their trade economies vanished and their
    treasuries plundered and deep in debt. If the world economy were to emerge from its
    current state, it would obviously have to expand. This expansion would be limited if
    paper currency were still anchored to gold.

    The United States, Canada, Switzerland and Australia were the only industrialized
    western countries to have their economies, banking systems and treasuries intact
    and fully operational. The enormous issue at the Bretton Woods Convention in 1944
    was how to rebuild the European and Asian economies on a sufficiently
    solid basis to foster the establishment of stable, prosperous pro-democratic
    governments at the end of the war.

    At the time, the majority of the world’s gold supply, hence its wealth, was concentrated
    in the hands of the United States, Switzerland and Canada. A system had to be
    established to democratize trade and wealth and thus redistribute, or recycle the
    currency from strong trade surplus countries back into countries with weak or with
    negative trade surpluses. Otherwise, the majority of the world’s wealth would remain
    concentrated in the hands of a few nations, while the rest of the world would remain in

    Keynes and White proposed that the United States supported by Canada and
    Switzerland would become the banker to the world; the U.S. Dollar would replace the
    Pound Sterling as the medium of international trade. Keynes also suggested that the
    dollar’s value be tied to the good faith and credit of the U.S. Government and not to
    gold or silver, as traditionally had been the support of a nation’s currency.

    Keynes concept to accomplish all of this was radical for its time yet it was based upon
    the centuries old framework of import/export finance. This form of finance was used to
    support certain sectors of international commerce that did not use gold as collateral,
    but rather used their own good faith and credit, backed by letters of credit, “aval” (an
    endorsement guaranteeing payment), or guarantees.

    Keynes reasoned that even if his plans to rebuild the world’s economy were adopted
    at the Bretton Woods Convention, remaining on a gold standard would seriously
    restrict the flexibility of governments to increase the money supply. The rate of
    increase of currency would not be sufficient to insure the continued successful
    expansion of international commerce necessary over the long term- This condition
    could lead to a severe economic crisis, which in turn, could lead to another world war.
    However, the economic ministers and politicians present at the convention feared
    loss of control over their own national economies and destinies, as well as runaway
    inflation unless a “hard currency” standard were adopted.

    The convention accepted Keynes’ basic economic plan, but opted for a gold-backed
    currency as a standard of exchange. The “official” price of gold was set at its pre WWII
    level of $35.00 per ounce. One U.S. Dollar would purchase 1/35 an ounce of gold. The
    U.S. dollar would become the standard world currency, and the value of all other
    currencies in the western noncommunist world would be tied to the U.S. dollar as the
    medium of exchange.


    The Bretton Woods Convention produced the Marshall Plan, the Bank for
    Reconstruction and Development known as the World Bank, the International
    Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS)- These four
    would reestablish and revitalize the economies of the western nations. The World
    Bank would borrow from rich nations and lend to poorer nations. The IMF working
    closely with the World Bank, with a pool of funds controlled by a board of governors,
    would initiate currency adjustments and maintain exchange rates among national
    currencies within defined limits. The Bank of International Settlements would then
    function as a “central bank” to the world.

    The International Monetary Fund was to be a lender to the central bank of countries
    that were experiencing a deficit in their balance of payments. By lending money to that
    country’s central bank, the IMF provided currency, allowing the underdeveloped country to continue in business, building up it’s export base until it achieved a positive
    balance of payments. Then, that nation’s central bank could repay the money
    borrowed from the IMF, with a small amount of interest, and continue on its own as an
    economically viable nation. If the country experienced an economic contraction, the
    IMF would be standing ready to make another loan to carry it through.


    The Bank of International settlements (BIS) was created as a new central bank to the
    central banks of each nation. It was organized along the lines of the U.S. Federal
    Reserve System and it is principally responsible for the orderly settlement of
    transactions among the central banks of individual countries. In addition, it sets
    standards for capital adequacy among the central banks and coordinates the orderly
    distribution of a sufficient supply of currency in circulation necessary to support
    international trade and commerce.

    The Basal Committee which, in turn, is comprised of the ministers sent from each of
    the G-10 nations central banks controls the Bank of International Settlements. It has
    been traditional for the individual ministers appointed to the Basal Committee to be
    the equivalent of the New York “Fed” chairperson, controlling the open market desk.


    The World bank organized along the lines of more traditional commercial banks, was
    formed to be lender to the world, initially to rebuild the infrastructure, manufacturing
    and service sectors of the European and Asian Economies, the economies of Latin
    America and ultimately to support the development of Third World nations and their

    The depositors to the World Bank are nations rather than individuals. However, the
    Bank’s economic “ripple system” uses the same general banking principles that have
    proven effective over the centuries in the history of banking.

    The directors of both banks are controlled by the ministers from each of the G~10
    countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden,
    Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Luxembourg.

    By 1961, the plans adopted at the Bretton Woods convention of 1947 were
    succeeding beyond anyone’s expectation, proving that Keynes was correct.

    Unfortunately, Keynes was also right in his prediction of a world monetary crisis. It
    was brought on by lack of sufficient currency (U.S. dollars) in world circulation to
    support rapidly expanding international commerce. The solution to this crisis lay in the
    hands of the Kennedy Administration, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank of
    International Settlements. The world needed more U.S. Dollars to facilitate trade,
    however, the U.S. was faced with a dwindling gold supply to back such additional
    dollars. Printing more dollars would violate the gold standard established by the
    Bretton Woods Agreements. To break treaty would potentially destroy the stable core
    at the center of the world’s economy, leading to international discord, trade wars, lack
    of trust and possibly to outright war. The crisis further aggravated by the fact that the
    majority of the dollars then in circulation were not concentrated in the coffers of
    sovereign governments, but rather in the vaults or treasuries of private banks,
    multinational corporations, private businesses and individual personal bank
    accounts. A mere agreement or directive issued by governments among themselves
    would not prevent the looming crisis. Some mechanism was needed to encourage
    the private sector to willingly exchange their U.S. Dollar currency holdings for some
    other form of currency.

    The problem was solved by using the framework of a “forfait finance”, a method used
    to underwrite certain import/export transactions which relies upon guarantee or aval (a
    form of guarantee under Napoleonic law) issued by a major bank in the form of either
    documentary or standby letters of credit or bills of exchange which are then used to
    assure an exporter of future payment for the goods or services provided to an
    importer. The system was well established for centuries and understood by private
    banks, governments and the business communities worldwide. The documents used
    in such financing were standardized and controlled by international accord,
    administered by the members of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
    headquartered in Paris. There would be no need to create another world agency to
    monitor the system if already approved and readily available documentation, laws and
    procedure provided by the ICC were adopted. The International Chamber of
    Commerce is a private non-governmental, worldwide organization, that has evolved
    over time into a well recognized, organized, respected and most of all, trusted
    association. Its members include the world’s major banks, importers, exporters,
    merchants and retailers who subscribe to well-defined conventions, bylaws and
    codes of conduct established over time. The ICC has hammered out pre-approved
    documentation and procedures to promote and settle international
    commercial transactions.

    In the ICC and forfait systems lay the seeds of a resolution to the looming crisis.
    Recycling the current number of dollars back into the world commerce would solve
    the problem by avoiding the printing of more U.S. Dollars and would leave the Bretton
    Woods Agreements intact. If currency or dollars could be drawn back into circulation
    through the private international banking system and redistributed through the well
    known “bank ripple effect”, no new dollars would need to be printed, and the world
    would have adequate currency supplies. The private international banking system
    required an investment vehicle that could be used to access dollar accounts, thereby
    recycling substantial dollar deposits. This vehicle would have to be viewed by the
    private market to be so secure and safe that it would be comparable with the U.S.
    Treasuries that had a reputation for instant liquidity and safety. Given the “newness” of
    whatever instrument might be created, the private sector would prefer to exchange
    their dollars for a “proven” instrument (United States Treasuries), but selling new
    Treasury issues to the world would not solve the problem. In fact, it would exacerbate
    the looming crisis by taking more dollars out of circulation. The world needed more
    dollars in circulation.

    The answer was to encourage the most respected and creditworthy of the world’s
    private banks to issue a financial instrument guaranteed by the faith and credit of the
    issuing bank, with the support from the central banks, IMF and the Bank of
    International Settlement. The world’s private investment and business sector would
    view new investments issued in this manner as “safe”. To encourage their purchase
    over Treasuries, the investor yield on the new issues would have to be superior to the
    yield on Treasuries. If the instruments could be viewed as both safe and providing
    superior yields over Treasuries, the private sector would purchase these instruments
    without hesitation.

    The crises was prevented by encouraging the international private banking sector to
    issue letters of credit and bank guarantees, in large denominations, at yields superior
    to U.S. Treasuries

    To offset the increased output to the issuing banks due to the higher yields
    accompanying these bank instruments, banking regulations within countries involved
    were modified in such a way as to encourage and or allow the following:
    1- Reduce reserve requirements via offshore transactions
    2- Support of the program by the central banks, World Bank, IMF and Bank of
    International Settlements
    3- Off-balance sheet accounting by the banks involved
    4- Instruments to be legally ranked “parapassu” (on the same level) with depositor
    5- The banks obtaining these depositor funds would be allowed to leverage these
    funds with the applicable central bank of the country of domicile in such a way as to
    obtain the equivalent of Federal funds at a much lower cost. When these “leveraged
    funds” are blended with all other accessed funds, the overall blended rate cost of
    funds to the issuing bank is substantially diminished, thus offsetting the high yield
    given to attract the investor with substantial funds to deposit.

    The bank instruments offered to investors were sold in large denominations, often
    $100 millions, through a well-established and very efficient market mechanism,
    substantially reducing the cost of accessing the funds. Thus, the reduced costs offset
    the higher yields paid by the issuing banks.


    Obviously, it did not take very long for the major commercial banks to realize that these
    instruments could serve as more than a “funds recycling and redistribution tool” as
    originally envisioned. For the issuing bank, they could provide a means of resolving
    two of the bankers major problems being, interest rate risks over the term of the loan,
    and the disintermediation of depositor funds (the switching by large depositors from
    low- paying deposits to those with much larger profits). Bankers, for the very first time,
    had available a reliable method of accessing large amounts of monies in a very cost
    efficient manner. These funds could be held as deposits at a predetermined cost over
    a specific period of time. This new system to promote currency redistribution had also
    given private banks a way to pass on to third parties the interest rate and
    disintermediation risks formerly borne by the bank.

    The use of these instruments providing instant liquidity and safety has worked
    amazingly well since 1961. It is one of the principal factors, which has served to
    prevent another financial crisis in the world economies

    In recent years, smaller banks not ranked among the top 100 have been using their
    own instruments. Considering the dollar volume and the number of instruments
    issued daily, the system has worked extremely well.

    There have been few instances where a major bank has had a financial problem. In
    all cases the central bank of the G-10 country concerned and the Bank of International
    Settlements have moved immediately to financially stabilize the bank insuring its
    ability to honor its commitments. Funds invested in these instruments rank para
    passu with depositor’s accounts, and thus, their integrity and protection are
    considered by all the institutions involved as fundamental to a sound international
    banking system

    The bank instruments program designed under the Kennedy Administration is still
    used very effectively to assist in the recycling and necessary redistribution of currency
    to meet the world’s demand for commerce.


    Another significant strain of the Bretton Woods Agreement occurred in 1971, when the
    volume of world trade using U.S. Dollars as the medium of exchange finally exceeded
    the ability of the United States to support its currency with gold. The restraints of the
    gold standard at $35 per ounce established under the Bretton Woods Agreements,
    placed the United States in a most precarious position. As Keynes had predicted,
    there was not enough gold in the U.S. Treasury to back the actual number of U.S.
    dollars then in circulation. In fact, the Treasury was not really sure how many paper
    dollars actually were in circulation. What they did know however, there was not
    enough gold in Fort Knox or New York to back them. The problem being the U.S.
    Treasury was not the only institution aware of this fact; all G-10 countries were also
    aware of this. If demand were placed upon the U.S. Treasury at any one time to
    exchange all the Eurodollars for gold, the U.S. Treasury would be forced to default,
    thereby effectively bankrupting the United States Government.

    France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan were concerned about substantial
    holdings in U.S. dollars. A meeting was held between their ambassadors to the U.S.,
    then Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Connelly and the Undersecretary of the Treasury
    Paul Volker. Connelly listened to the very concerned ambassadors and said, “I will
    answer you tomorrow”.

    Nixon, Connelly and Volker, met at Camp David in an ultra-secret weekend meeting
    with the brightest of the nation bankers and economists, gathered to ponder
    “tomorrows” answer. Honoring the demand meant certain death to the U.S. as an
    economic super power. Not meeting the demand would have catastrophic results.
    This meeting was detailed by Paul Volker in a 1994 article in the New York Times. He
    said the dilemma was what if the U.S. unilaterally abandoned the gold standard and
    let its currency float in the market? Nixon and his advisors, including Volker viewed the
    dilemma in terms of two mutually exclusive alternatives, increasing the value of U.S.
    gold reserves and maintaining a gold-backed economy, or considering the
    repercussions to the worlds economies if the U.S. Dollar were no longer backed by
    gold. In order to solve the crises the U.S. needed to unilaterally abandon efforts to
    maintain the official price of gold at an artificial level of $35 per ounce, the same price
    that existed in 1933. Gold in 1971 had a market value a/approximately $350 to $400
    per ounce in the commercial world market, or about 10 times the official price. By
    letting gold seek its market price, the U.S. Treasury’s gold would automatically
    become worth approximately 10 times its value at the official world price. Under these
    circumstances, any government bank or private investor would exchange $350 to
    $400 U.S. Dollars/or an ounce of gold at the market price rather than one U.S. dollar to
    acquire 1/35* of an ounce of gold at the old official price. An ounce of gold would rise
    in exchange value by a factor often, and the U.S. Treasury’s gold supply would
    increase correspondingly.

    In addition, once the gold standard established at Bretton Woods at $35 per ounce
    was abandoned, why reestablish it at $350 an ounce? The same problem would
    eventually arise again, and Keynes would be right again. Why not adopt Keynes
    original idea of a currency backed by the good faith and credit of its government, its
    people, the natural resources and its production capacity? This idea was suggested
    by a very young Wall Street wizard by the name of Robert Rubin, who later became the Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration and authored the solution for the Pacific Rim economic crisis. He said the United States needed to let its currency
    “float” in value against all other world currencies and not tie it to gold. Market forces
    would set the dollar’s value through its exchange rate with other foreign currencies.
    Rubin further explained that business worldwide had long ceased conducting
    international trade through gold and silver exchanges. Therefore, taking the dollar off
    the gold standard and allowing its value to float in relation to other world currencies
    would create currency risks for international trade transactions; however, it would not
    preclude or stall international commerce. The world of international business had, in
    practice, already abandoned the gold standard years before, considering it
    cumbersome and unworkable. Moreover, the other western nations had neither the
    economic nor military power to force the U.S. to honor its commitment to the gold
    standard and therefore, could not prevent it from abandoning the standard.
    Based upon a clear understanding of these two interrelated realities. Nixon and his
    advisors, taking the initiative offered by Rubin determined to abandon the gold
    standard and allow the U.S. Dollar to “float” in relation to other national currencies.
    The exchange rate would no longer be determined by an artificially maintained gold
    standard, but rather by the value placed on each currency in the foreign exchange

    The system for controlling currency supplies, established by the Kennedy
    Administration, became an indispensable tool to the Nixon Administration. The IMF
    and the Bank of International Settlements insured that the U.S. Dollar would hold its
    value in the international market and was recycled from countries with a positive
    balance of payments back into the world economy- The illusion of U.S. Dollar backed
    gold was gone.

    In the United States of America the supply of money or credit is regulated by the
    Federal Reserve, an independent body which came into existence by an Act of
    Congress in 1913, and in part, by means of the recognition and authorization granted
    by the International Chamber of Commerce and certain key International Money
    Center Banks. These Money Center Banks are comprised of the top 50 banks
    worldwide, as ranked by net assets, long term stability and sound management. The
    Money Center Banks are also referred to the “Top 50” or fewer (as for example the
    Fortune 500 or Fortune 100) and are authorized to issue blocks (aggregate amounts)
    of Bank Debentures such as Bank Purchase Orders (BPOs), Medium Term
    Debentures (MTD) such as Promissory Notes (PBNs), Zero Coupon Bonds (Zeros),
    Documentary Letters of Credit (DLCs, Stand By Letters of Credit (SLCs) or Bank
    Debenture Instruments (DBFs) issued under the International Chamber of
    Commerce. It is the worldwide regulatory body for the international banking
    community. The ICC sets policies, which governs the activities and procedures of all
    banks conducting business at the international level.

    This information was correct at the time of writing, cir. 1990. Since 9/11 vast changes have occurred in banking, credit, instruments, purpose, strategies, lending, capital requirements, collateral and inter-agency, inter-national cooperation and wholly new forms of inflating money supplies had to be created, and rapidly. What’s not caught up yet to the ability to staggeringly inflate the money supply in order to spend for two wars simultaneously and all the adjunct spending that comes with that is a rational workable Plan to absorb all this money and subsume the debts incurred.

    But that’s a story for another day.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »