by frog
Published in THE ISSUES by frog on Sun, June 24th, 2012
Tags: general debate
General debate, June 24, 2012
Published: June 24, 2012
Comment via Facebook
44 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
No mandate for asset sales
If National is not willing to wait a few months for the result of a referendum, they will damage their party. This is because a number of scientific polls have shown the vast majority of New Zealanders and even a majority of National supporters don’t want asset sales…
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/wrap-around-services-unraveling.html
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
“Back in 2010, the government tried to dig up our national parks. Now they’re back for another try, with a plan to conduct mineral surveys of the Te Wahipounamu South West New Zealand world heritage area. This is an area we have made an international commitment to protect. It should be in Schedule 4 and protected against such activity, but oversight by previous governments has left it unprotected. The only reason to survey is so it can be dug up – something which would breach that commitment and destroy our already shaky international reputation.”
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/government-of-orcs-act-ii.html
I would add that identifying an area that would/should not be mined as one where there is a known mineral resource, is a device to promote the country as owning an untapped wealth – its to encourage greed in the public and suggest an unaffordable cost to preserving the environment/keeping international commitments.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Party views on buying back any assets sold by National.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10815246
I would add that National says the money from the sales is to be set aside for future spending, so most of it will be sitting in an account in 2014 – yet to be spent.
If not, it has not been set aside for future spending at all, but has been looted to cover deficits or repay debt.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
@SPC 8:23 PM
As a Green member I tend to agree with Russel that we can’t set a decision in stone this early in the election cycle. I think that if the energy companies are sold it is vitally important that they are bought back.
But if the Nats leave such a shit economy behind them as they are looking like doing when they lose the 2014 election, maybe we need to hold the energy company buy-back off for one parliamentary term and move funding towards job creation and poverty alleviation as a priority.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
It will be much harder to buy back assets at the sale price if
1. you don’t say this before the assets are sold.
2. it is not done as soon as possible.
Posing an affordability to buying them back implies an implied acceptance
of an economic need to sell them.
If the assets generate more revenue than any borrowing cost to buy them back what is the affordability problem?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Make it THAT clear, and the sale will have trouble no matter that National thinks it is in business as opposed to being in government.
We are a sovereign nation NOT to be run like a corporation.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
bjchip says “Make it clear. Buy this and after the next election, you’ll have to give it back.”
A good way to add a big “EXTEMIST” label to the Greens to chase away moderate voters. Even Mike Williams said a political party would have to be insane to suggest such a thing.
The Greens had a decade to get Labour to start buying back Contact Energy, or the banks, or to protest against the sale of mines to overseas interests like the left wing govt did in 07, but we didn’t hear a whisper.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Jackal says “If National is not willing to wait a few months for the result of a referendum, they will damage their party.”
Not by a lot. There’s only a 6% difference between those opposed to selling them and those who want to buy (60% vs 66%). From SPCs link…
“60 per cent wanted to buy shares if they could afford it – including 52 per cent of Green voters”
That’s fantastic.
It could be the first time in quarter of a century that a reasonable number of Kiwis are considering investing in the productive sector instead of their houses.
That would be hugely beneficial in so many ways (higher exports, lower debt, more affordable housing, more jobs, less unemployment, higher wages, higher tax intake, etc etc).
It’s exactly what we need. Confidence that there’s low risk share market investments that will give solid and reliable returns.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
bjchip – buying the shares back at anything less than the sale price would be nationalisation.
Allowing buyers to make an (untaxed) realised CG by buying them at the then market price or at whatever price was required to induce sale is unaffordable – specially when it is likely Naitonal will price them at a value to ensure a CG is made – to prevent government re-purchase.
The only way to ensure that re-purchasee is affordable is at the price the shares were sold for by the government in the first place – that requires Greens and Labour to commit to this and declare that position before the shares were sold. This might well place the sales process at risk and back up the petition – require the government to get a mandate before proceeding.
A position short of this is posturing opposition, not real opposition. The shares will not be bought back on the current course by Labour and Greens.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
photonz, how does the private sector (local and foreign) buy up of state owned shares in utilities grow the productive sector?
It only allows the government to spend money on something else – funding public use infrastrucutre spending by asset sales rather than borrowing.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
BJ
Making that a clear election issue will result in Greens joining NZ First in becoming a sitting target for Labour and National.
Expand the re-nationalisation of assets and you can easily picture a Labour or National campaign along the lines of
First your shares, next your house, next your employer.
All accompanied by Muldoon inspired dancing cossacks adverts. Add to that Russel Norman former membership of the socialist workers party and the Greens will be fighting the next election on the back foot.
Stategically not smart. Fighting to be seen as green while refuting red.
Am suprised at the numbers of people willing to buy shares but expect this will drop of significantly. However the sentiment to at least be considering to buy shares is representative of how far the Greens can push this.
At least the Greens have not followed NZ Firsts by signaling to raid private Kiwisaver funds to buy back shares.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
One of the big problems with selling off the electricity companies is that it makes it harde to control them. Already we have had reports of the companies “gaming” the system, forcing other companies to cut back on generation by holding back reserves. In addition, research on harnessing resources such as possible hydro schemes is held by each company and isn’t available in the public domain.
One way to reduce the attractiveness of these companies’ shares is to threaten to regulate the market more stringently to reduce the profits and incidentally to make it easier to achieve higher levels of renewable generation.
Another way of driving down the share price of some of the electricity companies is to threaten to increase the royalties on gas and coal. The effect on the economy could be neutralised by returning the increase to the productive sector, e.g. by paying it to ACC so ACC levies can be reduced.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
toad
Seconded. National had a chance to show they were not totally ideologically blind by accepting a few of the amendments to the Mixed Ownership Model Bill that would have retained some public transparency. I think it is a bad sign that shows the assets will not be managed properly, so it will be inevitable that they will need to be purchased back. However it’s prudent not to make such a pledge prior to knowing how badly National has left the books.
photonz1
If you want people to invest in the productive sector instead of housing, you should support a CGT on investment properties.
How will selling our power companies make housing more affordable or increase exports? It’s likely to mean less jobs as the private investors demand a return on their investment, which usually means cost cutting by laying of workers.
History has shown us this is one of the main ways privatized companies maximise their profits… as well as running down infrastructure through a lack of maintenance and asset stripping. The same can also be said of wages, whereby they are usually slashed. It’s also likely to mean less exports because productivity will decline with less money in public circulation.
There might be more tax because people are paying more for their electricity, but that will just remove money from those least able to afford it, and therefore cause even more inequality and hardship, which comes at a huge social and economic cost to the country.
MOM privatization won’t reduce public debt either:
The overwhelming public opposition to Nationals MOM privatization is well known but being ignored by NACT and UnitedFuture. However the referendum will give the required leverage to ensure that public sentiment cannot be so readily ignored by the rightwing. The political damage to National is likely worse if they continue to ignore the public instead of doing the right thing.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
@ Gerrit
Making that a clear election issue will result in Greens joining NZ First in becoming a sitting target for Labour and National.
I concur. The most effective option for the Party is to;
(i) continue to strongly oppose the sale on a rational cost benefit basis
(ii) signal a desire to regulate both the wholesale and retail electricity markets early which will both send a price signal to the market to correctly value risk @ IPO, and allow a significant lever to manage the performance and organisational behavior of the divested PowerCos via the primacy of Parliament.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
If you declare this before the sale, and people are fool enough to buy anyway, it is THEIR problem. Nor is it “nationalisation” in the usual form. The asset sale is DE-nationalisation and this would be RE-nationalisation, but as long as you issue the warning ahead, it is on their own heads.
The purpose is not to actually buy back or nationalise… The purpose is to make it clear that the sale itself CANNOT be regarded as having a “mandate” as it does not, and to prevent it from actually going ahead.
In other words, making such a declaration would make it fundamentally impossible for National to actually find buyers outside of an asylum, and point up the fact that they did NOT get a mandate for what they are doing.
I think I would issue the warning folks. What we ACTUALLY would do in the event could be different, the object is to arrange some FUD among the people who think to make a killing here.
If you do it after the sale, without warning, THEN it is rude and “nationalisation” and wrong.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
BJ,
I doubt the Greens will issue any such declaration. Leaves then open to many avenues of attack from Labour and National.
Question such as where will the money come from, is this the start of re-nationalisation (your terminology) of other privately held assets, are the Greens in argeement with NZ Firsts that private KiwiSaver accounts will be accessed to repay for the re-nationalisation, how save is the ACC nestegg, etc.?
Russel Norman had a perfect opportunity on TV to expound the Greens position AFTER a sale but did not mutter a word.
So am not holding my breath that your idea will gather much support.
Especially after a number of Green voters actually showed an inclination to buy shares.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have been out there collecting signatures for this petition. I often think I am wasting my time. The number of working class people who don’t care or are deluded petty-bourgeois National supporters – leaves me thinking the only way they will learn is to suffer the consequences of their foolishness. I now have the equipment to go off grid and am living as cheaply as I can so I can afford to buy more solar panels to increase my capacity. Ultimately when the government is arrogant and corrupt, and a large proportion of the population supports them, the only option left is to individually and in small groups look after our own backyards – generate our own electricity, grow our own food etc.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Jackal, you say it’s inevitable that the assets will need to be bought back, but that it is not prudent to make any pledge to do so until we know how badly National has left the books.
The first error with this position is that it negates claims that the assets return more than any debt cost – thus owning them (rebuying them) is positive for the books.
The second error is that lack of notice to buyers undermines the essential justice of the government buying the shares back at issue price. Owners would demand the then market price or use legal means to block re-purchase.
Third reliance on regulatory moves post 2014 presumes there is nothing in the TPP that would prevent government acting in ways that impacted on corporates operating on the sharemarket.
At this stage it looks as if both Greens and Labour are seeking to make National pay a political price for the asset sales but no more than that. Talk of each having other priorities post election – suggests each wants to spend the asset sale money as much as National does. One to afford the tax cuts and the other two to afford rebuilding government capacity.
But if/as owning the assets delivered more return than the debt cost the only reason for this position would be to hold down the total public debt figure without factoring in the lower net debt figure in holding onto all of the assets.
In the end Greens and Labour really have to explain their reasoning here, as delaying any decision leaves a buy-back at the the market price – as it is likely to rise (the government will under-price to ensure happy buyers) – and it is the economic and political problem of taking an economic loss on the buy-back that would prevent any re-purchase. Their position makes this a fait acompli and they must realsie this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greogr W
How can Greens credibly oppose asset sales on a rational cost benefit basis if they question the affordability of rebuying the assets? This position is only tenable if it is buying shares back at the then market price that is the issue ofthe affordability.
The issue then is – why are the Greens deciding not to buy back at the issue price on the float and signalling this before they go on offer?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I do support the idea of Labour and Greens deciding to act together to
“signal a desire to regulate both the wholesale and retail electricity markets early which will both send a price signal to the market to correctly value risk @ IPO, and allow a significant lever to manage the performance and organisational behavior of the divested PowerCos via the primacy of Parliament.”
The problem is all share owners will soon have a motive to support the government position on supporting the USA agenda for corporate protection from regulatory cost/loss via the TPP.
All the more reason to signal to buyers that the shares will be bought back at issue price before any sale.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
How can Greens credibly oppose asset sales on a rational cost benefit basis if they question the affordability of rebuying the assets? This position is only tenable if it is buying shares back at the then market price that is the issue ofthe affordability.
IMO, the only credible measure of effective monopoly infrastructure and distribution asset value is the replacement cost, not the nominal value on any given day based on potential future earnings. Therefore it is possible to oppose on the grounds that the economic costs have not been accurately portrayed and the benefits overstated.
Futhermore, intangible costs (i.e. non-monetarised) are not included in the government’s calculations. These arguments can be sensibly framed in conversations around public good.
The issue then is – why are the Greens deciding not to buy back at the issue price on the float and signalling this before they go on offer?
Because by the time the GP may have a mandate, the cupboard will be bare as a result of the inevitable National Party lolly scramble to buy votes in the 2014 election (i.e. further middle class tax cuts). Not a cent will be spent on the projects Key is currently positioning – all of the school upgrades etc. will be paid for out of the operating budget – exactly as they should be.
The problem is all share owners will soon have a motive to support the government position on supporting the USA agenda for corporate protection from regulatory cost/loss via the TPP.
To a certain extent, but the TPP in no way abrogates the Primacy of Parliament. Worst case (and I mean worst from a free market sense), the door is always open for nationalisation without remedy a la Argentina, Venezuela.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
@ SPC 2:35 PM
I don’t think the position is in error because to signal a repurchase now would reduce the initial potential share price (but not halt the sales), so what is the point in that? National has not announced exactly how many peanuts we will get and will likely keep it low anyway to attract investors and give their mates a good deal.
Labour and the Greens need to be careful not to politically disadvantage themselves, and National needs to be allowed to fail on their own terms.
Firstly because there are overheads that mean it will not be a simple pound for pound repurchase arrangement. There is also no straight forward equation at time of repurchase of owning the assets being positive for the books compared to the debt incurred to repurchase. Things change and the shares will likely need to be repurchased for actual price.
Secondly it’s a huge political mistake to be seen to undermine the governments potential income from the initial float, especially when there is time enough for the share price to increase investors paper money before the government changes and any repurchase becomes feasible. There’s more of a legal claim if the then government does not want to pay actual price, even if they have previously indicated this.
It’s also likely that many investors (some being National MPs) will fight any repurchase arrangement through the courts whether the Labour and/or Greens signal a policy to repurchase in advance or not.
Thirdly the TPP can be changed with a change of the government. In fact protecting New Zealand’s sovereignty from overseas corporates and upholding the Treaty of Waitangi should be one of the first things Labour and the Greens do.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Jackal, you say it would be a huge political mistake to be seen to undermine the governments potential income from the initial float – oh the irony; because the government, in signalling a need to sell to fund its future spending from asset sales (rather than the usual mix of tax revenues and borrowing), is selling at the buyers bid price.
Normally a willing seller waits for the right price before doing so, here the government in signalling a large release of assets onto the market (in a rush before it loses power) a nd not when the market is valuing assets highly – something that normally occurs in a receivership fire sale.
Of course the government is determined to enable those well to do to make some good untaxed CG from a low sale price, and use the money raised to temporarily sustain the government budget after they reduced tax revenues.
Are people who oppose the asset sales, and who are being asked to sign the petition, to be happy that Greens and Labour have resigned themselves to living with the fait acompli of their sale and will not use any petititon referendum mandate to do anything?
A referendum where a majority oppose asset sales will not prevent a future government selling more assets. Only the Greens and Labour saying now that they would buy back assets on the basis of a referendum result would.
What does on the basis of affordability really mean? We will use the money for other things, or we won’t pay market price for them – coz they will rise in value after issue?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
SPC @ 7:50 PM
The referendum will do something, it will likely show that there is no public mandate to sell assets despite National being elected in 2011… an election held on numerous issues and not just MOM privatisation.
If at the time the financial argument is good and the assets can be purchased back, then Labour and the Greens should do so, being that the referendum will likely show there was no mandate to sell them in the first place. It needs to be a financial decision though.
In the mean time, it’s not a good look to make a promise you’re not sure to keep. Leave that to the political parties that think the populace is stupid and cannot remember broken promises.
It’s probably worthwhile mentioning that New Zealand’s foreign currency rating was downgraded twice under National, and it’s likely to occur again before a change in government. This increases interest repayments on debt, and therefore our borrowing potential, which has been badly abused by Nationals financial bungling!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Whatever spin we try and put on it – National+Act won the election with a declared policy of asset sales. The “why” is clear. A whole lot of non-National potential voter base couldn’t be assed voting and now they and everyone else in the 99% will pay the price.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I didn’t follow United Future’s electioneering. Did Peter Dunne make it clear he would support asset sales? Without him, National and Act wouldn’t have passed this legislation.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jackal says “If you want people to invest in the productive sector instead of housing, you should support a CGT on investment properties.”
You’d need CGT on ALL housing, and NOT shares, for that to work.
CGT only on rental properties has the following effects –
1/ Landlords have to increase rents to still make money from their investment. Currently rents don’t cover the interest, insurance and maintenance on the average house. Effectively landlords currently subsidise rents and lose on them, offset by their capital gains.
2/ It shifts money into the family home (i.e. even LESS productive than anything else), and 101 loopholes that make a rental a family home, at least temporarily, or for the offspring.
3/ House prices go up because of the mansion syndrome.
4/ We make our hsoues even LESS affordable than they were before. This is what happened to Australia when they brought in CGT only on rentals, and now ALL their main cities are near the top of the list of least affordable cities.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
Jackal says “The referendum will do something,..”
Why do you think it will do something when the anti-smacking referendum had 87.5% opposed to the law, and Labour and the Greens completely ignored the overwhelming will of the people?
Why should National act any differently to Labour and Greens?
You could alway have the ultimate referendum, and make it a major election issue.
Oh that’s right – we already did that.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
I guess whether something is popular is determined by the party that once opposed the policy then adopting it. Such as interest free loans and WFF of Labour in the case of National.
Will Labour and Greens refuse to sell any shares in assets themselves and continue to oppose future National governments selling any more. Quite likely given public support for this position. However expecting them to buy back shares – such as with Air New Zealand and Kiwi Rail – seems to be asking too much of them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz – the premise behind a CGT is to tax all income equally, whether from work or investment. Business profit whether from (labour) production profit or investment profit is taxed the same, so why not for other taxpayers?
Resident home owners do not make any income from ownership at sale because housing is a continuing necessity, not an investment (one could make an exception for estate property). The only way to separate the two with housing is to exempt one property up to say 2 times the average property value (c$800,000) – either a residential home or a rental property (this because for many a first buy in rental is their step into property ownership).
Of course the reason why no country includes CGT on all residential homes (common use of an exemption level if there is no blanket exemption for occupier residences) is because the CGT paid on the sale of the home reduces property equity and causes hardship everytime someone moves location – such would undermine labour mobility also.
PS While there is an average property value increase in Oz from newly built MacMansions, this does not increase the median price so much – so affordability statistics may be misleading. And the reason for the property value increase there, is the same as here, access to offshore loans at up to 100% value – of course exacerbated by their higher wages.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Photonz1
You might not recall that at the time that John Key also critisized the wording of the Anti Smacking referendum, which asked:
Unfortunately the Anti Smacking referendum was incorrectly worded, and the law change was to do with the use of reasonable force as a defence in court when a child is maimed or killed, there was no intention to criminalise parents who lightly smack their children. Therefore the previous referendum was rightfully ignored.
There was more time spent by the MSM on the teapot tapes than debating the pros and CONS of asset sales prior to the last election. We could always have a referendum to see if there is a mandate to sell… oh that’s right we are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photon said “and Labour and the Greens completely ignored the overwhelming will of the people”
Jackal has pointed out why the ‘overwhelming will’ part is incorrect. I would like to remind you that about 92% of MPs voted for S39 (including your party).
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
With the 1 vote majority that just stole power from the people to be put in the hands of those that can afford it (the rich); I am reminded of the voice of PhilU who pointed out the unintended outcome of standing a Green candidate in Epsum and the Dunne electrate.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
@jackal “No mandate for asset sales”
So, just to clarify, you are saying that when the Green party gets into government, they won’t be able to implement any of their policies (they wont have a mandate) unless they, and they alone, have 51% or more of the total number of registered voters.
Really?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
For something completely different.
The LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) which has been used for decades to set little things like mortgage rates for everyone on the planet…
… has been gamed for decades by the bankers who set it.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-27/barclays-451-million-libor-fine-paves-the-way-for-competitors
Who did John Key work for? Merrill-Lynch.
Per wiki –
“He began a career in the foreign exchange market in New Zealand before moving overseas to work for Merrill Lynch, in which he became head of global foreign exchange in 1995, a position he would hold for six years. In 1999 he was appointed a member of the Foreign Exchange Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York until leaving in 2001.”
Would you bet he didn’t know this was happening…
He did say “I know how this stuff works” didn’t he?
I guess that at SOME level he actually does.
Trusting him is a mistake though.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Judging by the numbers in the room, the passion and the quality of those leading the protest…the government should be worried. This could be the “Save Manapouri Campaign” for this generation:
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/te-anau-turmoil-and-tunnel.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jackal says “and the law change was to do with the use of reasonable force as a defence in court when a child is maimed or killed”
What total nonsense. It is, and has always been, highly illegal to kill and maim children.
Jackal says ” there was no intention to criminalise parents who lightly smack their children.”
More nonsense. When Bradford was asked if a parent should be arrested for smacking their child, her answer was “yes”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
@photonz1
Jackal is not suggesting maiming / killing children was never legal.
He is stating the fact that ‘reasonable force for the purpose of correction’ was used (sometime effectively) as a defence ploy in cases of abuse, in the same way that ‘provocation’ was, until the Weatherston case, occasionally used in defending a murder charge to facilitate a ruling of either diminished responsibility or innocence.
Also, I can’t find any quote on Google that supports your Bradford quote but happy to be corrected.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
OneTrack
There have been numerous scientific polls done that show a majority of New Zealanders don’t want asset sales. It’s therefore of significance that there is a referendum, being that an election is held on numerous issues.
I very much doubt the Greens (while in government) will ever propose a policy change that was not generally supported by the public. They at least base their policy on economic principles, which is a lot more than can be said for National’s asset sales.
photonz1
The smacking referendum could have asked: Should a smack that causes a child to be maimed or killed be defendable as reasonable force in a court of law? That would’ve been a relevant question in relation to the law change, and I think any reasonable person would answer no!
I also cannot find any reference to your Sue Bradford quote… You’re not making things up again are you photonz1?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jackal – Ant-smacking legislation – 80% public opposition – Greens know best and will tell the plebs what to do.
The anti-smacking law states that it is Illegal to give a Child a light smack. Parents are being investigated by the police after complaints all the time. You see some poor parents who get caught out with a stroppy kid in the supermarket who just needs a smack around the backside to get them into line, but now, thanks to your law, they are caught in the headlights of the people around then looking at them either thinking, why doesn’t she shut her kid up, or if she smacks he kid I am gong to report her to the police.
So, no, your assertion that the Green party will listen to the will of the people is already proven false.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jackal – when it comes down to it the Greens voted against 87.5% of referendum voters.
That they expect the govt to abide by ANY referendum, on ANY topic, is PURE HYPOCRASY.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
However that may be gentlemen, this is more far reaching. S59 can be changed without anyone’s money being wasted. It was about protecting children rather than stealing from them, and had little actual effect on most people in our society. The differences leave us far short of the claim of hypocrisy.
I went through this knock-down-drag-out fight on THIS forum, and internally, and with private correspondence with Sue. I predicted the results accurately at the time. Those predictions are part of this forum’s history. This thread is now a further confirmation of one of them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-huge-break-in-the-libor-banking-investigation-20120628#ixzz1z8DGJuJm
- is so completely ignored by the media.
Just about every dollar borrowed on this planet ( which is every dollar on this planet given our stupid monetary definitions ) is tied to LIBOR and these guys were gaming it.
… and they haven’t been crucified yet?
The fix is so far in that we’re gagging on it as it passes our tonsils on the way out, and the press says nothing. The pollies say nothing.
We are SO pwned by the bankers.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)