Actually, it wasn't JCT on the bid. Apparently, a whole bunch of PFs (including a large chunk of IRISH that went straight into a Scandi account). Moreover, it's a well-known fact that the ECB has pared back its buying a lot recently (they increased a bit last week, but still very small).
BTW, with all due respect, Misthos, you're a bit too much of a doom-monger, IMHO. I like the most recent paper by the Reinharts a bit more. Obv, there's also the Reinhart and Rogoff book, but the paper is a bit more recent. You can find it here: http://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/sympos/2010/2010-08-17-reinhart.pdf
You don't have to attack someone or piss him off (neither of which you have ever done, Sir) for him to be able to observe and say, "you're a loser" -- this conclusion comes from your posts ... see below As for "what is wrong with you and what mental dysfunction do you suffer from?" .... I'll throw that right back at you and the others here. thusly .... Think about how a newbie must certainly feel if he came in here and started reading the thread from top down. I know more than most newbies and if I felt that way, be damned sure they do too. I read the whole thread - twice - before even posting the first post. The lot of you say nothing concrete, give nothing that bears any original thought, you just dance and pose around issues and wax wise. Reminding you that this thread is in the Economics section. Subject matter, i.e. Thread Title, scores a 10 out of a possible 10 because it is a highly appropriate question to ask. Content value = -100 ... i.e. minus 100. Now do you have any further objections that I expressed my opinion and warned new fellows to watch out for such posers, pretenders and total fckin losers? ... that sign indicates a smile, OK ?
Thanks, I'll read it. I was called a "doomer" from early 2007. Since then, AIG, Citi, Lehman, Bear, General Motors, Chrysler, countless smaller banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and counteless countries have needed extraordinary financial help. All monetary systems are debt-based. Fiat monetary systems are debt based from their inception. That is, whereas gold created money in the past as well as fractional reserve lending, today, both the private banking system and sovereigns create money thru loans. I respectfully disagree with the "doomer" term. I don't think it's "doomish" to conclude that mathematically speaking, the system takes on Ponzi characteristics, and the debt growth assumes a geometric progression far larger than the productive economy can handle. Such systems inevitable reach a "reset" period. The collapse of the sovereign bond market - and it is a collapse if it weren't for Central Bank involvement, and the collapse of such large financial institutions could be reasonably characterized as "doomish" developments, no? If I'm a "doomer" it's because I believe that nothing has been done to address the issues. We've papered over the issues with the same paper that got us into this mess. And I'm not saying that gold is the solution. It will be a solution, but not one that is a voluntary solution. It's a natural progression/reversion. Hope that makes sense.
Misthos is not on the list - excellent post. He alone has saved this doomed thread. All the other latecomers are posers and don't know doodly. Greetings once again to wallace for excellent helpful info and posts elsewhere.
Well, I'll have to respectfully disagree with your disagreement. While I certainly see the merits of the theory that suggests cycles of bad debt accumulation followed by "resets", I just don't see how a complete collapse of fiat money and fractional-reserve banking inevitably follows. Collapse of some financial institutions and some sovereigns, for sure, but I just don't see why/how the transition to a total meltdown is a foregone conclusion. Moreover, my view is that the problems the world economies face at the moment isn't anything as trivial as "too much debt". The real structural issues are different and a lot more difficult to deal with. Specifically, as you and I have discussed before, to me it's all about imbalances created by political incentives and demographics.
as the respect for humankind decreases(deadbrokes comment, a perfect mirror of the care and concern for the fellow man felt by the largest of business partners)and the lack of any convictions or even investigations increases,the largest will get their way and more power will be in less hands,the doom and gloom breakdown scenario is obvious but first more debt and embarassment has to be revealed ,more control taken,and more deals have to be made with the devil,so that when it happens,he will be holding all the cards,the 09 rally might be evidence of that,the fall of lehman and bear and merrill, the fall of aig and fannie and freddie,the fall of the piggs, ...we are still holding up