This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Weak $25 Billion 10 Year Auction Closes At 3.692%, Massive 13% Direct Take Down, Large Tail
- Yields 3.692% vs. Exp. 3.680%
- Allotted at high 95.17%
- Bid To Cover 2.67 vs. Avg. 2.78 (Prev. 3.00)
- Indirects 33.2% vs. Avg. 43.27% (Prev. 29.0%)
- Indirect Bid To Cover: 1.51
- Indirect Take Down: 33%
- Direct Take Down: Massive 13%
»
- 16698 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
$66.6B tendered. $25B accepted. Is this a failed auction? And if not, then why not?
Just because..
This was only a 25B auction. 66.6B were bids for that amount
Thanks. Much to learn, so little time.
Good question. Back on 3/25, Bloomberg was calling Britain's auction a failure when they only attracted interest of ~1.6B on an offering of 1.75B.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6KhEW.jkmdE&refer=home
Because $25bn was tendered for sale and prospective purchasers made offers totaling $66.8bn.
Not so much that it is a failed auction so to speak, just the warning signs that are signaled. The auction was only for $25B, they almost tendered that even though there was well more bids. The problem is that 95% of the bids were alloted at the HIGH Yield which means no one wants these notes anymore for cheap measly yields anymore. The high direct bid takedown( which is probably the FED buying) shows the yield would have been higher. The 30yr auction is probably going to show the same. The amount of non-tendered bids is evidence people were bidding but they wanted much higher yields to buy the crap they are selling.
Personally, I am sitting back and waiting for treasuries in my Treasury Direct account, and I will buy a ton of 10yr and 30y when the rates reach 7% on the 10yr, and 13%+ on the 30yr, then go all in. Can't lose that way ever, no matter what the crap stock market does. People don't think rates are going that high, but I beg to differ. They may go higher on the 30yr. Hyperinflation is on the way, just like the 80's.
there is zero chance of you reaching those targets anytime soon. 10 yr will not go over 4% with SP at 1070. It might when it is at 400, but more than enough money to keep yields down for a while.
Plus, rising yields are not going to be allowed by the Den of Thiev - i mean - the government, not while they can still get away with QE. Thanks to EUR issues, they can print away right now.
Nic Lenoir, however, was dead on about the short term bands in the 10 yr futures. Good entry point right here to start building a position.
I'm not saying anytime soon, but sooner than most think. I say sometime near end of the year into 2011 we will see rates starting to take that shape and yes S&P will be below last March levels.
oh, 100% agreed then.
I almost shorted japanese rates, but frankly, i want a good risk shake out before i do it. will reverse and short treasuries when 10 yr is at or under 3, but not before.
good articles: http://www.iamned.com
Your web site sucks, Cetin.
yes, ihave always assumed, perhaps and no doubt erroneously, that the gross amount of bids covers offers that are made at rates that are quite in excess of what is accepted. It would be interesting to know the range of bids and resulting rates. but this rate, given the timing, seems 10 basis points higher than I would have expected to hear. Not earth shattering though, and hardly a failed auction.
unless of course the only "real" bids were for much higher rates, and the Shadow Bidder had to step in to make sure the rate stayed on program. I assume such an arrangement is made via some sort of "understanding" among the primary dealers.
we had hyperinflation in the 80s?
Yes, we did. It was a log-normal version of hyperinflation, where the inflation rate that was actually experienced by we consumers was the log of the underlying inflation rate.
That's why you didn't notice it.
Bond vigilantes are almost ready to reverse the trend and break chart patterns. QE II will fail and hence the squeeze on yields, especially given the global fiscal effect and a rising trade deficit. Most of the import rise is for oil, not for goods and services from China.
"QE 2 will fail"
could it be that the high direct bid take down of late is QE 2 'in disguise'? E.g. Bubblenanke's SIV, off the FED's balance sheet, but with new $$ to Treasury?
Most likely, although I'm thinking at some point another proclamation comes from BB. What I mean is,,,,"should" we have a precipitous equity market decline and a decoupling of rates (lower bond prices), he'll come in and announce major size repurchase agreements and flood the system yet again. Frustrating to see this drag on. I'm a "free market" constituent and am playing it accordingly. Problem is, the lying in your face aspect really hurts my patriotic feelings.
zactly there is QE (overt) and then there is QE (covert). Bet on it.
There's your signal Benny.
Cody, $66.6 bid against $25 offered, hence bid cover = 2.67
Thanks. Obviously, I am not a bond vigilante. But I'm learn'in.
problem is most of DC is shut down - the guys buying this stuff on the DL arent around to do it, lol!
Et tu, Global Warming... errr... Climate Change?
Yeah. Funny how they switched the title on their headlines from "Global Warming!!!!" to "Climate Change!!!!" in the past several months as everyone started freezing their asses off. What a joke.
The real joke are those who think the Climate Change has nothing to do with the exploding concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, caused by human activities.
The composition of the atmosphere hasn't changed one iota.
+10
you are fact impaired..
please read this wikipedia entr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
please read this wiki entry? ur jk right? right?
In 1913 the 16th amendment was hatched into existence.
In 1913 there was a syphilis epidemic.
Therefore, syphilis causes income taxes.
Jesus H. Christ. Do I have to explain the Correlation/Causation fallacy again????????????
or try this (for CO2)
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm
then there's the methane increase
http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/highlight1/default.htm
and then nitrous oxide is up 15 plus percent
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/93/930501Arc3285.html
or a summary of all three
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
become a vegatarian and do yourself a favor, but global climate change is BS like Shalom Bernanke.
name calling seems to be your best...only weapon
I did not call you any names. I am a pseudo veggie, as too much meat makes certain hormone levels too high. and weapons? put down your arms sir, we are all family here.
Doelarr is having a hard time breaking above 80. Gold breaks through range. And silver is being totally manipulated by the climate changers...I mean JPMorgan's Market Manipulators. Buy silver. Weapons.....jeesh.
It is highly likely that the rise in CO2 levels are a result, rather than a cause, due to oceans off-gassing due from warmer water.
Why warmer temps? Poor data collection, maybe the sun, outright fraud
Who is John Galt
Occam's Razor asserts that the simplest explanation is often the correct one. If the growth of human industrial activity and the growth of atmospheric CO2 show similar patterns on the same timescale, then unless you want to assert that CO2 levels are causing industrial activity, you are left with a simple explanation which is inconvenient to accept.
Explain the previous ice age. Too many dinosaur farts?
Occam was an asshole that never did a damn bit of science in his life.
Again, logical fallacy.
Occam's razor can't be applied in this instance because the question isn't simple. CO2 is created, and consumed; water releases and absorbs it; solar activity changes; absorption coefficient changes.... The correct answer to the question would be "Possibly", which is a far cry from probably, and a light year from yes.
current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are exceeding by more than 30% anything we have seen or have evidence for in the last million years of earths history
http://planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
Zina, you should check your facts before you make statements. First, 98% of CO2 is emitted by natural causes. Second, CO2 is NOT an efficient greenhouse gas (the most efficient is SO2, sulphur dioxide, which is what volcanos throw out). Third, there is overwhelming evidence that climate change is linked very closely with the solar cycle (sunspots) - google "maunder minimum", then take a look at the solar spots over the last 2.5 years, and you will see we seem to be in an extended and unexpected minima. It is NO wonder the last 2.5 yrs have been quite literally the winter of our discontent, brutally long and cold winters, and very short summers.
Finally, while i am all in favor of reducing consumption, recycling everything, and removing pollutants, the idea that humans have, in 5-15 years, changed the climate on a planet that has been going through massive climate swings is ludicrous.
Also, has it occurred to you that the ideas advanced by Gore et al are retarded? Do you know how much heat solar cells trap??
You and all you other global warming advocates are doing a massive diservice to the world by spreading your ill-founded hysteria, forcing governments to spend epic amounts on what is amounting to nothing. You might as well spend the money on trying to prove the earth is flat.
Damit Oso!
"You and all you other CLIMATE CHANGE advocates.."
Be more careful next time will ya.
your problem is that you have no respect for that insidious little 2% that isnt natural
you have to learn the difference between weather, and climate
while the east coast suffers...the pacific northwest is having the warmest winter in over a half century
"
During the 100,000 year ice age cycle, CO2 varies between a low of approximately 200 ppm during cold periods and a high of 280 ppm during interglacials. Recent human influences have increased this to above 380 ppm. There is a large natural flux of CO2 into and out of the biosphere and oceans. In the pre-industrial era these fluxes were largely in balance. Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans.[11] The ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to emitted CO2 is known as the airborne fraction (Keeling et al., 1995); this varies for short-term averages but is typically about 45% over longer (5 year) periods.
Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. As of 2004[update], around 27 gigatonnes of CO2 are released from fossil fuels per year worldwide, equivalent to about 7.4 gigatonnes of carbon (see List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions); in 2006 8.4 gigatonnes carbon were emitted [1].
This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels.[12]"
wikipedia
so, Mr. Wikipedia.... why were scientists deathly afraid of global "cooling" in the 1970s??
and then why has the warming and cooling (have u noticed all of the norther hemisphere is getting pummeled by this winter??) exactly coincided with sun spot activity?
and again, CO2 is NOT, i repeat, NOT an efficient greenhouse gas by any means. Also, brainiac, trees need CO2, to turn into oxygen. CO2 is not the issue.
further, you understand that the models they are using to map climate change are the same ones that told NYC they would get hit by a blizzard that never came over the weekend?? So, lets see... cant get 2 days in the future correct, but..... we can spend billions on predictions ranging 50-300 yrs in the future from the same models.
brilliant. just brilliant. thanks for coming out, homie.
So 25% increase of CO2 in 250 years is not significant in any way? If you follow the temp/CO2 curve of natural glaciation cycle such change usually takes thousands of years. The level of CO2 at the moment is highest in 400 000 years solely because of human activities.
Normally temp rises in relation to Earth's orbital cycle, and CO2 follows in about 1000 years. When temp has risen enough positive feedback mechanisms release more CO2 until when we reach about +2C avg. temp. Then it all begins to wind down towards new ice age. Glaciers have melted away and sea currents have been disturbed into oblivion.
So first temp rises because of natural cycles, and then CO2 and other greenhouse gases contribute to the eventual global warming, and after the +2C peak cooling down begins.
The issue now is that human processes have made the CO2 rise unexpectedly and unnaturally. It's interesting to see what will happen. You see, the cycle can handle what usually goes on, but human contribution is something new and exceptional.
Bonus issue is that the current interglacial period is exceptionally long and balanced - in the beginning earth didn't breach the +2C critical level. If that had happened we would already be well on our way towards new ice-age and discussing about the state of fur market.
CO2 is an essential ingredient of the natural warming cycle (especially when the CO2 stored in the oceans is released), so it should be evident that extra CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from human activities will also lead to warming. If we manage to warm this place enough a new ice age begins sooner rather than later.
Compared to the 1970s we have a lot of new data, new methods and technology. We know more precisely what has happened, what the state of the affairs is right now. The models are not rigid constructions, but tools that are sharpened every day.
Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a pile of garbage. Sorry. My wife, a college professor, won't allow her students to even think about using it as a source.
Keep trying though. Man-caused global warming is a colossal lie, perpetrated by another bunch of rich elitists who stand to make billions off of it. I figured y'all would have learned from the last group of elitist rich people that crashed the economy.
Actually, I guess it comes down to whether you trust the scientific consensus, whose model predicted more weather extremes by the way with global warming, or those who disagree with that consensus, typically the same folk who blindly vote republican, believe all the right propaganda, ignore the RW errors, and disagree with science. Or the oil sellers who do not want their market share diminished.
If you disagree with the scientists on climate change, then your group includes creationists, birthers, members of the tea bag party, people who think Palin is an intelligent savior (its on her hand). You, really, really ignorant, biased, stupid people who think it makes them smart if they call everyone else retarded. People who think being stupid and ignorant actually makes them really smart. Fox tells them so every night.
Check the roots of the word "idiot."
I suggest those who disagree with the consensus of an overwhelming majority of scientists who study the issue are properly the ones called idiots. Not the other way around.
Ah yes, science. Evolution is clearly supported by science.
We are by defintition the moral equivalent of all other species, some of which would much prefer a cooler or warmer planet. Who are we to deny them such??
And even so, won't man just evolve to adapt to the warmer or cooler climate??
Who is man to try to dictate climate for the benfit of himself?? We think humans know the "correct" temperature of the earth?? How amazingly self-centered and egotistical for a true science believing evolutionist (as all enlightened people are........according to Wikipedia).
you sure are good at describing yourself, albeit thinking you are describing others.....lol
Too bad the movement which disputes the scientific consensus on man-made global warming is run by a different group of rich elitists who are making billions off the status quo. I don't know who to hate here...
Didn't they have to suspend the Wikipedia guy who overlooked the "climate change" issue recently? He was found to be slanting the information, banning "inconvenient truths" and so on?
You could google it...
Gigapedia.
+1
@Oso - clearly, you know more than all of the climate scientists and all national science academies in the developed world. Who have looked at, responded to, incorporated and/or rejected every single point you think you're making. But I'd surely trust you over 95% of people that actually know what they are talking about.
From your living room, you have single-handedly shone a light on the coordinated global 'climate change' conspiracy that benefits....Thank you for your valiant service to us all.
Clueless reactionary ideological anti-science fuckwits like you are going to be the downfall of this country before I'm dead. And then, if I thought I could, I'd haunt you from beyond for your treason.
excuse me? "all the climate scientis and national science academics in developed world"???
are you listening to yourself?!?! every single one of them admits that their models arent nearly strong enough to come anywhere near figuring out what is happening but because you have read the headlines advanced by special interest groups, it DEFINITELY must be true, and everything i ve said is a lie.
Instead of regurgetating headlines that have been advanced by special-interestes (oh, like Al Gore, the self-made global-warming billionaire), and instead of calling me anti-science, go look at the SCIENTIFIC evidence yourself, you fucking idiot.
What you are saying is akin to trusting the national budget because the experts have said that is true - we all know it isnt, and yet, the headlines say its true.
further, to the anonymous moron, if you REALLY wanted to stop any man-made climate change, you would stop eating beef or pork. The sheer amount of METHANE cows and pigs produce to over-feed western civilization far eclipses anything CO2 related.
actually methane comes from a number of industrial sources, rotting vegetation behind huge dam projects are now one of the largest sources. But scientists fear the largest source to come is the accelerating melting of the permafrost (due to rising temperatures)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547976,00.html
well, didnt deny that methane has other sources. also, the permafrost hasnt exactly been melting the last 3 years, quite the opposite.
again, point is, CO2 is not the culprit. i find it hilarious that global warming advocates finish a day of protesting by having a nice steak dinner. How much steak do u think Al Gore eats??
I'm a vegetarian (but mostly for vanity)
It's not that I love animals, I just hate plants.
So, you're saying CO2 isn't important because it's less damaging than other man-made sources of global warming? Or are you saying that global warming isn't happening, and even if it was, Al Gore is a hypocrite so we shouldn't do anything about it?
We're saying you are confused, and when your intellectual argument goes into the crapper you revert to ad hominem vulgar attacks on those who don't agree with you. Emotion subverts your mind's common sense.
Mr. Anon,
You are way off base. A majority of the "scientists" who advocate such crap are the same people getting millions of dollars in funding to push their retarded research through as truth.
You are an idiot if you really don't think that science is politicized as much as anything else in society.
Oso ...
Well done. Finally someone who has done his (or her) homework on this global warming / CO2 link.
It's the sun, stupid (Zina and all other histrionic global warm ... oops, meant to say climate change scammers.
As deep throat said, follow the money. If you do that you'll find a bunch of interested people (as in vested interests) along the way like Phil Jones, Rajendra Pachauri, and the high priest (and most despicable of all) Al Gore, ex US VP and current Sr. Partner at Kleiner Perkins, Silicone Valley venture capitalist firm.
You might be interested in knowing that KP gave Algore $ 300 in advertising money to promote green technology since ... wait for it ... here it comes ... big shock ... KP went all in on green technology.
KPCB hasn't had a big hit since Google, as a result, according Fortune magazine, KPCB has "bet the farm" on green technology. No vested interest there ... no, sir!
So much for trying to save the world ... the leadership of the green movement are all a bunch of money grubbing bastards just like their big bank buddies and Bennie Boy Bernanke.
Wise up Zina ... you're being had. Do some homework and you'll find that Oso is spot on ... it's all about sunspots. Stupid.
i agree that solar output is a consideration
so is orbital attitude of earth around sun (milankovitch cycle)
and so is CO2
your argument that CO2 is not the most efficient green house gas is immaterial
wool is not as efficient an insulator as down but can still keep you warmer than doing without
The "real joke" are those sad-sacks who believe the Al Gore hype.
Really sir? Mr. Gore would have plenty to say about what's up with that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELag3LFbVIc
Al Gore is an elitist oligarch nimwit whose family has been part of the agenda for centuries.
SNL has become propagandist fodder. That video was borderline racist...no wonder Gore wanted in.
"What up wif dat? Ima sing a song masta. Ready masta Gore?"
what hype is that
state a fact he alleges that you disagree with
or is this just about name calling
Zina, I'd love to follow your logic, but the Global Cooling/Global Warming/Climate Change/(next year we'll call it.......) advocates have been doing the rope-a-dope for so long, that they now have ZERO credibility. Why lie and fudge data, unless the truth does not support your cause?
Do humans affect the environment? Sure, but to a small degree. Notwithstanding, it's always a good idea to be a good steward of natural resources.
However, when one massive volcanic eruption can surpass decades of human emissions, we must acquiesce and give nature full credit and respect. All the while being good stewards.
one volcanic eruption surpasses decades of human CO2 production you said?
do you have a link for that...i open minded about dissent
Mount Pinatubo, June 1991.
can also check out El Chichon, 1982
you dont have a link do you
and i found out why
according to USGS all the volcanoes in the world during any given year emit around 130 million tonnes of CO2
man made sources of CO2 amount to around 30 billion metric tonnes
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
and dont give me any of that non sense about how wikipedia isnt an accepted source
all the data in wiki is footnoted with references to USGS, NOAA, universities and other research entities...i look forward to you challenging the numbers cited here
there are undergroung coal seam fires, that have been burning 24/7 some for over 30 years. if the climate vigilantes, were serious about reducing emissions, instead of making money, you would think, they would come up with a plan to extinguish, these major sources of pollution. but no, these problems, are not even mentioned. how many SUV's would it take, to equal 1 coal seam fire?
Referring to Krakatoa in 1883. Estimates of impact vs. humans (all emissions, not just CO2) range from decades to a century. I think the century estimate is a stretch, but possible considering world population at that time.
Here's a blurb from wikipedia regarding K's effect on climate: "Average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius in the year following the eruption. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888."
I'm all for good stewardship, but when nature can do this, humans need to get off their "high-horse" about their impact. Nature ALWAYS has the upper hand. We're just the dominant species, presently.
Finally, global warming stats (ostensibly reflecting CO2 increases) can be validated against ORNL (Oak Ridge National Lab) research. ORNL research strongly correlates warming trends to growing urban areas. Outside the urban areas, the weather is fine.
"ORNL research strongly correlates warming trends to growing urban areas."
The climate modelers have attempted to adjust the data to account for this.
However,
the code which does the adjustment has no comments to explain the methodology
the original data has been lost, we only have the modified numbers
when you feed random garbage into the model it still shows a "hockey stick" output graph
Other than that, this particular issue is well covered.
The "real joke" are those sad-sacks who believe the Al Gore hype.
Poor old Al Gore. Wonder where he would be today if his Dad did not shackle him with a "you will be president" birthright responsibility.
Maybe he would be just a normal guy living in a 10,000 SF mansion, with a large carbon footprint, and not scrambling for some kind of legacy.
Right, as if inventing the Internet and getting a Nobel prize for acting in a movie about climatology wasn't enough. By the way, when is Mark Hamil going to get his Nobel Prize for astronomy?
...unexpectedly...
Ever notice it's cooler at night than during the day,perhaps the sun has more to do w/ climate change than anything else.
It does of course,Sun spot activity warms the Earth than the CO2 increases.Plus there is twice as much O than C hence CO2
+11
The real joke is that there are still fuckwits who think a LAGGING INDICATOR can somehow cause a rise or fall in temperature.
http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+dioxide+is+a+lagging+indicator+glo...
(duplicate removed)
More anthropogenic fantasies.
The real joke is the climate clowns like you who have hijacked science to further you utopian, cultish political views. And that joke isn't funny.
do you know the difference between
weather
and
climate change?
ill be looking for your astute observation this july and august
Ah yes, science. As devout evolutionists we all are, we are by defintition the moral equivalent of all other species, some of which would prefer a cooler or warmer planet. Who are we to deny them such??
And even so, won't man just evolve to adapt to the warmer or cooler climate??
Who is man to try to dictate climate for the benefit of himself?? We think humans know the "correct" temperature of the earth?? How amazingly self-centered and egotistical for a true science believing evolutionist.
I have yet to hear a credible explanation why man should get to choose the earth's temperature.
Heh. Global cooling...
I always get a kick out of watching the ZH crowd derail themselves over AGW.
Them as are not easily offended should read up on the Dunning-Kruger Effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
cougar
I notice you fail to actually present an opinion on AGW, alhough it seems we could imply you think the science is sound. To wit:
http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+dioxide+is+a+lagging+indicator+glo...
...Fuckwit!
Opinions. Everyone has one. Opinions are really only good for horse races.
My opinion is that you have been derailed by complexity. We have hit our cognitive limits beyond which large, sweeping events are invisible. Watching climate change unfold is watching something beautiful and wild let loose into the world that nobody can see and none shall escape. It is darkly amusing, but then I do have a weakness for subtle humor.
Peace.
cougar
Wiki is whack and Russel was a eugenicist. c'mon coug....
Wiki is what it is. Same could be said for the rest of the universe.
All the exits are in your head.
cougar
Gore has a big stake in the carbon credit bullshit, his own company profits from this and since the market is in need of a new derivitive whoola. Climate cycles are probably thousands of yrs. long and our weather data goes back how far? In the 70's they thought we were cooling and were thinking of depositing soil on the icecaps.
currently reading: http://stocknews.freeoda.com... yes crisis will intensify
bennie = the jawbone of an ass.
Rick Santelli gave it a D for Dog
Rick is right. The 30 year tomorrow ought to be one ugly and interesting biotch....
interesting comparison buzz..
bond market beginning to rattle its sabres folks ??
The Household sector is showing a strong hunger
for treasury bonds!
-MobBarley
One idling volcano puts out more toxic gas and particulates in one day than the entire US puts out in one month. We have three or four of these "polluters" cooking right now around the earth. How come no one is putting catalyic converters on them?
Tree huggers should unite as trees "inhale" co2 and exhale oxygen. That was high school biology.
I know isn't sad. The worst part is that many of the professors that taught me at HSU firmly believed this crap. Hell I did for a while too because every single professor was so admint about such information. And its not exactly out in your face, its very subtle like slightly mocking or laughing at some counter arguement etc.
The next thing you Know they will be telling us H2O kills people. Sad really.
While H2O is generally accepted as safe, the real danger is dihydrogen monoxide. http://www.dhmo.org/
haha or maybe a benzene ring smarty pants or if you are feeling really fancy isopropylcyclohexane
I believe it is well known that "di-hydrogen oxide" is WAY dangerous.
[high school biology] Oh you know what, there is actually Biology after high school. Tons of it.
Dunning-Kruger Effect. Look it up.
cougar
The sad thing is the problem was everyone was telling Greece and the World that everything was fine, no problem. So they spent like it. Of course prices have been going up because of the debt for a long time, which exacerbated the problem.
currently reading: http://stocknews.freeoda.com... yes crisis will intensify
dont worry the directs are plugging the hole though curiously the indirects still showed up to play. i wonder if the china policy will have a immediate impact on the auctions. not today it seems.
I gotta funny feeling the direct bidders are a lot smarter
than the equity players.
Glad someone finally mentioned the toxic effects of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) here! Global warming gets all the focus and none of it to the toxicity of ubiquitous DHMO!
http://www.dhmo.org/
* DHMO contributes to global warming and the "Greenhouse Effect", and is one of the so-called "greenhouse gasses."
* DHMO is an "enabling component" of acid rain -- in the absence of sufficient quantities of DHMO, acid rain is not a problem.
* DHMO is a causative agent in most instances of soil erosion -- sufficiently high levels of DHMO exacerbate the negative effects of soil erosion.
* DHMO is present in high levels nearly every creek, stream, pond, river, lake and reservoir in the U.S. and around the world.
* Measurable levels of DHMO have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps.
* Recent massive DHMO exposures have lead to the loss of life and destruction of property in California, the Mid-West, the Philippines, and a number of islands in the Caribbean, to name just a few.
* Research has shown that significant levels of DHMO were found in the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 which killed 230,000 in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and elsewhere, making it the deadliest tsunami in recorded history.
* It is widely believed that the levee failures, flooding and the widespread destruction resulting from Hurricane Katrina along the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005 were caused or exacerbated by excessive DHMO levels found in the Gulf of Mexico, along with other contributing factors.
After reading this ZH article,
read this (pdf warning): http://drschoon.com/articles%5CAEFFrontRunningTheFedInTheTreasuryMarket.pdf
And then read this about banksters complaining about direct bidders: http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/02/primary-dealer-banks-wa...
muahahahahaha
What happens to the notes that the direct brings in? I bet BS is smoking that pay pa, pay pa!
Bloomberg radio interviewee cites ZERO HEDGE today while discussing US treasury bonds in comparison to the last two year decline in the 1950's.
Everywhere you look in the finacial world, TYLER DURDEN and ZERO HEDGE are appearing everywhere.
All hailz and praise to TD and ZH!!!
You reap what you sew ;)
BTW, this radio clip occurred at 4:24 PM EST
reading: http://stocknews.freeoda.com crisis will get worse
Faber today: "All countries will default on debt, including the US." Wow!
http://climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/5950-wikipedia-how-wil...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-tu...
http://www.infowars.dk/content/how-wikipedias-green-doctor-rewrote-5428-...
Wikipedia for any subject is well....VERY "suspect", but for 'Climate Change' it is an absolute JOKE
"Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling.
On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles.
His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand.
When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear."
Large direct takedowns courtesy of Berpanky and his scripted 'testimony'.
"Buy USTs banks, keep them in excess reserves, and we'll kick ya some higher interest. No one wants to borrow, anyway."
regarding "climate change". An interesting fact that I read is that there are currently approximately 16,000 man made satelittes circling the earth right now. Now I'm pretty sure they were not shot up there with big rubber bands, so there is 16,000 holes in the atmosphere. Plus, all the exhaust that is puked into the upper atmosphere from jets flying at 40,000 ft. I remember a time when smog stuck to the ground, but now it somehow is screwing up the weather. The biggest lies pay the best!
Most launch vehicles use liquid oxygen and hydrogen as a fuel, the product being water - not terribly toxic. Solid rockets mostly use aluminum perchlorate, which precipitates out of the atmosphere pretty quickly. Pollution from space launches is negligible.
Now if we had had the balls to stick with Project Orion (giant rocket propelled by the shock fronts of hundreds of low yield nuclear explosions)...
Why has Mars' heating/cooling cycle mirrored Earth's since we've been capable of taking measurements? Mars' ice caps were melting until recently when the red planet began to cool along side earth. They are now both cooling.
Folks, there were grape vineyards in England during the medieval warming period. Maybe the carry-over from Henry the Eighth's legendary gaseous "carbon footprint"?
Really amazing that intelligent people are still buying that garbage..
Bill Still
ucvhost is a leading web site hosting service provider that is known to provide reliable and affordable hosting packages to customers. The company believes in providing absolute and superior control to the customer as well as complete security and flexibility through its many packages. vps Moreover, the company provides technical support as well as customer service 24x7, in order to enable its customers to easily upgrade their software, install it or even solve their problems. ucvhost offers the following different packages to its customers