Realcent.org

I heard that china was now buying Italian bonds. I'm not sure if it is true or not, but any information in regards to this would be greatly appreciated.

John_doe wrote:I heard that china was now buying Italian bonds. I'm not sure if it is true or not, but any information in regards to this would be greatly appreciated.

Zero Hedge sz nope, it's all BS.

on paper, Italy has the most gold per capita of any EU country. however, it has long been rumored that the Fed somehow took it to bail out the LTCM guys. BTW, Jim Rickards was LTCM's general counsel at the time.

Ah - LTCM - what a story. Refreshed my memories here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management

Talk about a bunch of people that were full of themselves. Almost all MIT PhDs. Two future (and later discredited) Nobel Prize winners. Connected everywhere. Read that page, and remind yourself that that financial/banking industry is full of the same types of people, who just haven't yet been found out. Love the metaphor repeated there - that their strategies were akin to "picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer".

Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay wrote:

John_doe wrote:I heard that china was now buying Italian bonds. I'm not sure if it is true or not, but any information in regards to this would be greatly appreciated.

Zero Hedge sz nope, it's all BS.

I read that article. It was announced over the radio that it was true (however I believe little to nothing out of the radio or idiot box).

I'll take zh's word for now until I hear something set in stone.

A lead Yahoo finance story notes that the Italians are negotiating with the Chinese about selling some type of national assets, but what type(s) are in play for how much, and whether it is a done deal or not, is up in the air.

Why should the richest guy in town give a worthless, spendthrift wino a loan? Especially one the wino could repudiate?

Can't seem to find the article now.

Last week China pledged to help the Eurozone with the bailout. There werent' a lot of details but it took me by suprise. I think it comes from them wanting to diversify from the Dollar but I could be wrong, since they continue to buy more and more US bonds. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-16/china-boosted-holdings-of-treasuries-to-highest-since-october.html

Also on a side note, this is as hilarious to me as it is scary. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GGGB1YR:IND Greece 1year bonds hit about 140% a couple days ago. they've come back, but wow.

Mossy wrote:Why should the richest guy in town give a worthless, spendthrift wino a loan? Especially one the wino could repudiate?

Because there is or will be a price for it... If the Chinese execute any deal with any of the Europeans, it won't be for the pleasure of it.

68Camaro wrote:A lead Yahoo finance story notes that the Italians are negotiating with the Chinese about selling some type of national assets, but what type(s) are in play for how much, and whether it is a done deal or not, is up in the air.

This just in!! The Italians have sold the Vatican to the Chinese for $300 Billion dollars!!! (NOT!!)

Of course that would mean the Italians would have to own the Vatican, which is a sovereign state in its own right. (Not to mention flush with it's own gold.)

eh in time's like these what's it matter. they went to war with the vatican.

68Camaro wrote:Of course that would mean the Italians would have to own the Vatican, which is a sovereign state in its own right. (Not to mention flush with it's own gold.)

It seems to be the "in" thing for nations to do now. You know, take from the "rich" to give to the "poor". "My needs are more important than your basic human rights" scenario. Like Hugo Chavez nationalizing everything in sight, or NATO taking over Libya, US taking over Iraq, Maxine Waters trying to socialize all oil companies... things like that.

Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay wrote:

68Camaro wrote:Of course that would mean the Italians would have to own the Vatican, which is a sovereign state in its own right. (Not to mention flush with it's own gold.)

It seems to be the "in" thing for nations to do now. You know, take from the "rich" to give to the "poor". "My needs are more important than your basic human rights" scenario. Like Hugo Chavez nationalizing everything in sight, or NATO taking over Libya, US taking over Iraq, Maxine Waters trying to socialize all oil companies... things like that.

I believe the businesses that supply the basic necessities of life should be owned by the puclic.

frugalcanuck wrote:I believe the businesses that supply the basic necessities of life should be owned by the puclic.

Hmmmm, I thought about a reply with content, and finally decided I didn't want to get into a political discussion, so let's just agree to disagree on this and we can each be relatively happy that we live where we do.

68Camaro wrote:

frugalcanuck wrote:I believe the businesses that supply the basic necessities of life should be owned by the puclic.

Hmmmm, I thought about a reply with content, and finally decided I didn't want to get into a political discussion, so let's just agree to disagree on this and we can each be relatively happy that we live where we do.

Master, you walk on rice paper, yet it does not tear. You have great wisdom.

frugalcanuck wrote: I believe the businesses that supply the basic necessities of life should be owned by the puclic.

"The public" means "the government", and that means "politicians", who quickly become despots once they can control the basic necessities. Take a spin around over at this site for what happens next:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

The Irish potato famine and several famines in India and Africa were the result of those in power selling food out of the area so they can make money instead of allowing the locals to have anything to eat. In each case there was plenty of food being grown, but "the public", in the form of politicians in power, decided their own profits were more important.

It is an idealism that I know does not work with "free market" capitalism and thus will not work in many societies.
The food shortages is a great point. The farmers back home were paid to let their produce spoil. They were paid by the government, with our money. This was done in the name of capitalism to help prevent the produce prices from falling. I know this is not free market capitalism but it is the capitalism that we have here.

I think human rights should include water, air, and basic food. I know im on the left of center politically but many of my right wing friends feel the same way.

I grew up in the country where people got their water from a well. I didnt know people had to pay for their water until I moved into a city. I disagree with the ideology of that. I would bet that in the near future even the people living with well water will have to pay for the water they consume. As it is today, we pay a government / municapality for our water. The governments that are being voted in where I live are selling everything they can think of and it wont be long untill we are paying a company for our water.

I think it is wrong but where do you think I put my money when I invest. I put it in the companies that provide the basic necessities for living. That and real money

frugalcanuck wrote:It is an idealism that I know does not work with "free market" capitalism and thus will not work in many societies.
The food shortages is a great point. The farmers back home were paid to let their produce spoil. They were paid by the government, with our money. This was done in the name of capitalism to help prevent the produce prices from falling. I know this is not free market capitalism but it is the capitalism that we have here.

I think human rights should include water, air, and basic food. I know im on the left of center politically but many of my right wing friends feel the same way.

I grew up in the country where people got their water from a well. I didnt know people had to pay for their water until I moved into a city. I disagree with the ideology of that. I would bet that in the near future even the people living with well water will have to pay for the water they consume. As it is today, we pay a government / municapality for our water. The governments that are being voted in where I live are selling everything they can think of and it wont be long untill we are paying a company for our water.

I think it is wrong but where do you think I put my money when I invest. I put it in the companies that provide the basic necessities for living. That and real money

"The trouble with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money." Margarette Thacher

I think we have everything you have mentioned here in the USA as a gov. subsidy. Basic food can be found through at least half a dozen different gov. programs. US gov. food subsidy to Native Americans can be so great they cannot eat it all. Some give it away, some sell it. Water.... some states still have private "riparian water rights", but most have moved over to where the state owns all forms of water in the state. Oklahoma owns all water. Be it in rivers, streams, falling rain still in the air, or ground water. And they are very strict with what you can do with it. It is the "people's water", but if you want to use it, you will pay the OK state government for it.