This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
ZH Vs. All Comers
Readers of the blogs know that ZH is in the middle of another brouhaha with the rest of the press. This time from Reuters, NY Post, Naked Capitalism and Across the curve.
I made the following comment on NC. I stick with it.
"Eight months ago I started writing financial blogs. I am happy to say that some have appeared on NC and some at ZH.
I put my own name on this from the start. Big mistake. I wish I knew what I know now. The stuff that comes to me off the grid is scary. (I don't care what the comments are). I have written about some personal stuff and that has come to haunt me too. I have problems as a result of some of the stuff I wrote re: Swiss banks.
I thought that I had a fairly good level of contact with the significant (and not so significant) writers in the straight press. Since I started contributing to ZH they don't return my emails.
So I have paid a price for being out there. If I had to do it over again, I would be Anon."
Across the Curve does a fantastic job of reporting the bond market story. But that is all it does. Just the numbers. AC does not pose questions. It does not question policy.
Naked Capitalism does. Every day NC bangs away on the critical issues. They pose tough questions and challenge policy choices in every country. But Yves Smith is just a made up name. So I am not clear why the have taken the position they have.
ZH goes deeper than any other media outlet. Does anyone believe that Chuck Schumer or Mary Schapiro would be talking about HFT if it were not for ZH? Not a chance.
The flap about the FED/POMO and the dealers is misplaced. The Fed is buying 1.5 Trillion of paper from the dealers. They will do that in less than 9 months. This is the biggest transaction in recorded history. The dealers are getting rich off this business. There is no doubt about that is there? Does anyone think they are taking losses doing the Fed buy backs? Don’t be silly. ZH did not call this a conspiracy. But if one watches the timing of these POMO buys it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that the Fed and the dealers are on the same page. This might not be a conspiracy, but the relationship of the PDs to the Open Market Desk should make everyone nervous.
If GS is in the sights of ZH’s gun it is because GS is too powerful and needs to be brought down a few notches. They have no competition. LEH, BST are gone. Merrill is nothing compared to what they once were. Citi has been gutted and Morgan Stanley has admitted it is “no longer taking risks”. So GS is running the risk world of finance. And the only significant voice out there that is raising a stink on a regular basis is ZH. We owe them for that.
We will all be worse off if ZH changes what it has been doing. This flap convinces me that they are correct. Stay behind the curtain, but make one hell of a racket. Please.
»
- advertisements -
Anonymous blogs, and ZH is far ahead of everyone else, is our only true hope. If they can truly stay anonymous, they are safe from physical threat, and the politics of personal attacks and "kill the messenger, if you cannot kill the message".
We are all guilty of it as well. Cramer, Kneadle, Liesman, they are all idiots! Well, yes, but wasting any time on personal attacks, instead of dissecting their message, and showing point by point, the fallacies, is wasted effort and a distraction. Stay on message, keep your eye on the prize.
Every time I turn to & read ZH I realize that - I LOVE AMERICA. None, absolutely no other media source makes me feel that way.
Jim Rogers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwIncF3yrpQ
Much obliged...
It's nature. When the crust gets too crusty and hard, it flakes off. Suffice to say, there is much of what is currently "mainstream" in that category. What do these people think they are going to do when the dollar bubble does pop? Japan hobbled on because they sell Sonys and Toyotas. If the rest of the world doesn't want our money, what do we have to sell? F-22s and Michael Jackson videos?
This from "Clusterstock"
For now, the money we're borrowing is coming from somewhere, thankfully. But it's not coming from China, which has funded our spending for most of the past decade. As you can see in the chart above from the NYT, China's absolute purchases of Treasury debt continued to rise through last year, but the percentage of our borrowing that China is funding is shrinking fast.
"....the money is coming from somewhere,thankfully. "
"Thankfully" ZH is on the job to give us a clue where the money is coming from.
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-uh-oh-china-doesnt-want-to-...
Isn't this the very nature of a shrinking current account deficit?
Americans consume less, save more. Their savings are then channeled into the bond market (via banks, insurance cos, etc) without transiting through the China reserves.
My guess as to where some of the money comes from would have to be from the flow of drugs across the southern border. Shocker! Nyet! Anybody remember Barry Seal, Bill Clinton, Bush I, the CIA, a Boeing AC 130 and a little known airstrip in Arkansas. Always suspected Clinton was ramped as high as a kite on inauguration night. How else could one flit from inauguration ball to inauguration ball until the wee hours of the morning after a grueling day of being sworn in as POTUS. But I digress. Can't imagine why the political elites won't finish that f'in fence down along the border, I guess it might impede the flow of billions into offshore accounts in the Caymen Islands. Drugs, the best form of mind control known to man, next to unbuttoned blouses on CNBC.
Your comment is truly silly and shows a complete lack of perspective. Sorry to be so blunt, but such comments as yours defile the greater argument here, which is funding a massive deficit much of which is geared towards bailouts of favored/failed institutions and companies.
Look at that number again:
$2,000,000,000,000
It's big. What is NOT big, in comparison, is the entire world's illicit drug trade, which---to be overly generous---might reach $10 billion a year. Of that amount, a large portion comes from Afghan warlords and Taliban types in the heroin trade, and a lesser portion from Golden Triangle warlords in the United Wa State Army and other tribal groups (heroin, opium, yaa baa). Then there is Mexico and Colombia, which account for a few billion dollars in cocaine and marijuana. Even if shadow organizations like the CIA tried to fund themselves from drug sales (they do not have to because their budget is part of the massive Defence Appropriations Bill), they would have a small piece of a relatively small pie. You might as well say the USG has a bake sale on a Saturday morning in front of a church, as the impact it would have on the deficit is about as significant.
In contrast to this entire worldwide drug trade number, Goldman Sachs received $12.7 billion JUST FROM the 100% payout on AIG CDS', never mind all the other goodies it got.
Let's have some perspective.
i think you have made a mountain out of a grain
of sand....i don't think anyone here thinks that
drug money could fund 2t usd...
beyond that your facts are plain wrong or misleading
2.According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "[T]he value of the global illicit drug market for the year 2003 was estimated at US$13 bn [billion] at the production level, at $94 bn at the wholesale level (taking seizures into account), and at US$322bn based on retail prices and taking seizures and other losses into account. This indicates that despite seizures and losses, the value of the drugs increase substantially as they move from producer to consumer."
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report 2005 (Vienna, Austria: UNODC, June 2005), p. 127.
i remember mena, barry seal and bush 1, et. al
very well....
what is so shocking is that the wsj published
a long series on this in 1990s but it went absolutely
nowhere.....you couldn't find a flying pig
in the universe who gave a crap about the crime
story of the decade....clinton was up to eyeballs
in cocaine smuggling which is why as a good
rhodes scholar he was made governor of arkansas....
if you want to know who ran iran-contra it
was george bush running it straight out of the
white house.....reagan took the rap for it....
in fact bush was good friends with the hinkleys
with whom he dined the night of reagan's
assassination....bush had ordered reagan
assassinated but that effort failed...
cia / bush also murdered lennon.....
the fence will never be built....the plutocrats
need cheap labor and cheap drugs....i used to
think that maxine waters was whack when she
talked about the government spreading drugs in
la but she spoke the truth.....
Keep up the good work Bruce!
anonymike:
From a European perspective, the United Gates of America has ONE political party with two right wings.
It looks that way from here lately too, as the financial oligarchy (including large foreign entities) asserts its control...
We Need A Revolution, ASAP
From a European perspective, the United Gates of America has ONE political party with two right wings.
the usa is indeed a one party state....the
chimera of democrap and republicant is part of
the vast roman circus used to stultify the mind....
each wing of totalitarianism is controlled by the plutocratic oligarchy....
when it wants a president gone, he is gone...
jfk, rmh, rwr (failed), jc....
This has to be handled deep throat stile, lets talk again about identities in 80 years.
If they "discover" something: just say. me? Wrong guess ! and move on !
Paul,
One word describes it: intimidation.
Challenging the power structure always comes with the risk of intimidation. Pointing to invested interests as the source of intimidation is obvious. Less obvious is that those who are not the "target" of aggressive investigative reporting, can inadvertently join with the intimidators. It might be because they are feeling pressure, or they come under the spell that association with ZH taints them. Now they too are feeling intimidated. In other cases, natural allies label the aggressive reporting as strident, going too far, thus placing at risk the credibility of those critics who are less aggressive. Thus the need to create distance to protect their credibility.
Ironically, my thoughts presented here will be considered by some as evidence of the extent to which conspiracy orientated thinking has taken hold . . . of even the causal observer.
Readers of ZH appreciate the humor, the sarcasm, even the secrecy. It adds to the power of ZH's aggressive reporting. So it should be expected that it will also add to the attempts to discredit, considering such a tone signifies lack of seriousness, and thus credibility.
Rather than challenge the reporting, some shoot from the hip, declaring the reporting to be motivated by conspiracy theories. All of this is intended to publicly discredit those doing the aggressive investigative reporting and advocating change. Once publicly discredited, then the intimidation has succeeded, often with the unintended aid of those who are not of the power structure.
Success in intimidation can be measured by the extent to which public discourse and debate has shifted from the critique of the powerful to the legitimacy of the investigator. This shift must be avoided. To much effort given to defending the motives and credibility of the critical investigator instead of keeping up with the aggressive investigating, signifies the success of intimidation. Best keep up the pressure, to maintain the aggressive position.
As for you personally, you can go to Anon from this point out. Simply drop out, by dropping your name from your writing.
Paul,
One word describes it: intimidation.
Challenging the power structure always comes with the risk of intimidation. Pointing to invested interests as the source of intimidation is obvious. Less obvious is that those who are not the "target" of aggressive investigative reporting, can inadvertently join with the intimidators. It might be because they are feeling pressure, or they come under the spell that association with ZH taints them. Now they too are feeling intimidated. In other cases, natural allies label the aggressive reporting as strident, going too far, thus placing at risk the credibility of those critics who are less aggressive. Thus the need to create distance to protect their credibility.
Ironically, my thoughts presented here will be considered by some as evidence of the extent to which conspiracy orientated thinking has taken hold . . . of even the causal observer.
Readers of ZH appreciate the humor, the sarcasm, even the secrecy. It adds to the power of ZH's aggressive reporting. So it should be expected that it will also add to the attempts to discredit, considering such a tone signifies lack of seriousness, and thus credibility.
Rather than challenge the reporting, some shoot from the hip, declaring the reporting to be motivated by conspiracy theories. All of this is intended to publicly discredit those doing the aggressive investigative reporting and advocating change. Once publicly discredited, then the intimidation has succeeded, often with the unintended aid of those who are not of the power structure.
Success in intimidation can be measured by the extent to which public discourse and debate has shifted from the critique of the powerful to the legitimacy of the investigator. This shift must be avoided. To much effort given to defending the motives and credibility of the critical investigator instead of keeping up with the aggressive investigating, signifies the success of intimidation. Best keep up the pressure, to maintain the aggressive position.
As for you personally, you can go to Anon from this point out. Simply drop out, by dropping your name from your writing.
When I was a little girl, the older boy next door whom I secretly had a huge crush on went off for a very long time, and when he came back he was screwed up beyond belief. Being only six years old at the time, I didn't understand that he had been off fighting in the Vietnam War.
I also had a cousin that the government tried to drag into the war. They would catch him, get him as far as San Francisco to be shipped overseas to Vietnam, he would manage to escape, hitchhike across the USA, stay under the radar until they would get word of him again and he would disappear into the mist.
My father spent a good deal of time helping both of these guys, and as a result, both of them have had a good deal of influence on me and how I see the world.
Both of them had a saying that I will repeat that applies here perfectly:
"F*** 'em if they can't take a joke."
They used it when it appeared that "the man" was going to have the last word, or the last laugh on them- and just as quickly they would come up with something quirky or out of left field to turn the tables.
So, Bruce, keep on rockin' in the free world. And keep your mind open to opportunities to turn the tables.
Paul,
One word describes it: intimidation.
Challenging the power structure always comes with the risk of intimidation. Pointing to invested interests as the source of intimidation is obvious. Less obvious is that those who are not the "target" of aggressive investigative reporting, can inadvertently join with the intimidators. It might be because they are feeling pressure, or they come under the spell that association with ZH taints them. Now they too are feeling intimidated. In other cases, natural allies label the aggressive reporting as strident, going too far, thus placing at risk the credibility of those critics who are less aggressive. Thus the need to create distance to protect their credibility.
Ironically, my thoughts presented here will be considered by some as evidence of the extent to which conspiracy orientated thinking has taken hold . . . of even the causal observer.
Readers of ZH appreciate the humor, the sarcasm, even the secrecy. It adds to the power of ZH's aggressive reporting. So it should be expected that it will also add to the attempts to discredit, considering such a tone signifies lack of seriousness, and thus credibility.
Rather than challenge the reporting, some shoot from the hip, declaring the reporting to be motivated by conspiracy theories. All of this is intended to publicly discredit those doing the aggressive investigative reporting and advocating change. Once publicly discredited, then the intimidation has succeeded, often with the unintended aid of those who are not of the power structure.
Success in intimidation can be measured by the extent to which public discourse and debate has shifted from the critique of the powerful to the legitimacy of the investigator. This shift must be avoided. To much effort given to defending the motives and credibility of the critical investigator instead of keeping up with the aggressive investigating, signifies the success of intimidation. Best keep up the pressure, to maintain the aggressive position.
As for you personally, you can go to Anon from this point out. Simply drop out, by dropping your name from your writing.
What is ZH thinking of changing? Anonymity?
Paul,
One word describes it: intimidation.
Challenging the power structure always comes with the risk of intimidation. Pointing to invested interests as the source of intimidation is obvious. Less obvious is that those who are not the "target" of aggressive investigative reporting, can inadvertently join with the intimidators. It might be because they are feeling pressure, or they come under the spell that association with ZH taints them. Now they too are feeling intimidated. In other cases, natural allies label the aggressive reporting as strident, going too far, thus placing at risk the credibility of those critics who are less aggressive. Thus the need to create distance to protect their credibility.
Ironically, my thoughts presented here will be considered by some as evidence of the extent to which conspiracy orientated thinking has taken hold . . . of even the causal observer.
Readers of ZH appreciate the humor, the sarcasm, even the secrecy. It adds to the power of ZH's aggressive reporting. So it should be expected that it will also add to the attempts to discredit, considering such a tone signifies lack of seriousness, and thus credibility.
Rather than challenge the reporting, some shoot from the hip, declaring the reporting to be motivated by conspiracy theories. All of this is intended to publicly discredit those doing the aggressive investigative reporting and advocating change. Once publicly discredited, then the intimidation has succeeded, often with the unintended aid of those who are not of the power structure.
Success in intimidation can be measured by the extent to which public discourse and debate has shifted from the critique of the powerful to the legitimacy of the investigator. This shift must be avoided. To much effort given to defending the motives and credibility of the critical investigator instead of keeping up with the aggressive investigating, signifies the success of intimidation. Best keep up the pressure, to maintain the aggressive position.
As for you personally, you can go to Anon from this point out. Simply drop out, by dropping your name from your writing.
Thank you for your reply Anony! What a perfect Goldilocks reply! You hit the bullseye!
"Success in intimidation can be measured by the extent to which public discourse and debate has shifted from the critique of the powerful to the legitimacy of the investigator."
Absolutely spot on and the heart of the matter. This needs to be stressed over and over at every opportunity and in whatever form befits the occasion. And it should be remembered that although the powerful posture in the same old way as though their credibility remained intact, in fact that credibility is everywhere put in question by the masses. There is a real crisis of credibility for power. Witness the responses on blogs that have joined in the attacks on ZH. The majority of these comments throw the credibility question straight back at writers and charge them with not doing their job in alerting the public to the shennanigans going on at the top.
In light of this the intimidation must surely backfire. The roll of those professions distrusted by the public grows larger every day: Politicians, Lawyers, Bankers, and now a large chunk of the MSM. In fact all of the modern high-priesthood and in a manner reminiscent of the decline of the feudal order.
Paul,
One word describes it: intimidation.
Challenging the power structure always comes with the risk of intimidation. Pointing to invested interests as the source of intimidation is obvious. Less obvious is that those who are not the "target" of aggressive investigative reporting, can inadvertently join with the intimidators. It might be because they are feeling pressure, or they come under the spell that association with ZH taints them. Now they too are feeling intimidated. In other cases, natural allies label the aggressive reporting as strident, going too far, thus placing at risk the credibility of those critics who are less aggressive. Thus the need to create distance to protect their credibility.
Ironically, my thoughts presented here will be considered by some as evidence of the extent to which conspiracy orientated thinking has taken hold . . . of even the causal observer.
Readers of ZH appreciate the humor, the sarcasm, even the secrecy. It adds to the power of ZH's aggressive reporting. So it should be expected that it will also add to the attempts to discredit, considering such a tone signifies lack of seriousness, and thus credibility.
Rather than challenge the reporting, some shoot from the hip, declaring the reporting to be motivated by conspiracy theories. All of this is intended to publicly discredit those doing the aggressive investigative reporting and advocating change. Once publicly discredited, then the intimidation has succeeded, often with the unintended aid of those who are not of the power structure.
Success in intimidation can be measured by the extent to which public discourse and debate has shifted from the critique of the powerful to the legitimacy of the investigator. This shift must be avoided. To much effort given to defending the motives and credibility of the critical investigator instead of keeping up with the aggressive investigating, signifies the success of intimidation. Best keep up the pressure, to maintain the aggressive position.
As for you personally, you can go to Anon from this point out. Simply drop out, by dropping your name from your writing.
Yes, we have to keep banging away at the financial oligarchy and its primary agents, the two major US political parties and Federal Reserve, until they are all reduced in power enough for true democracy to return to our country. The two-party political system has failed to protect the people against the financial oligarchy, and is the root cause of the financial crisis. It's sad that so many in our country have become intolerant and the government has even encouraged this by its own intolerant actions by both major parties. Unfortunately, for now, anonymity is a necessary defence for true patriots exercising their constitutional right of freedom of speech. We need the freedom to educate the masses sufficiently enough for a successful uprising against both major political parties. We need at least one more major political party to bring better balance to our system of government and its stewardship of the economy. Maybe more major parties can facilitate much less central government, allowing more economic prosperity.
We Need A Revolution, ASAP
Not sure that will have the outcome you want... let's use New Zealand as an example.
A while back they used to have the two party system and it was much like here, several years in power for one crew then a swap for a few years etc.,etc. Since 1996 they have had mixed member proportional representation. People are now well represented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_New_Zealand
However all is not as well as it seems. The major parties now have to form a coalition with smaller parties to form a government. That's OK except that what then happens is that similarly aligned parties then form a government and you are back mostly where you started, with one group of people who may only represent 51% controlling the others.
I'm not familiar with the state of financial oligarchy down there but on the surface it seems the politicians are just as in the pocket of vested interests as anywhere.
That said, I still think proportional representation is a better way to go than the current system. In particular MMP gives a very broad form of representation so that many sectors of society are represented. The representative system is easy to understand but the vote counting not as obvious and may require Perot style education of the masses with scenarios and graphs to help them understand the system and why it benefits them. Once in though questions about the way it works could be used for captcha here on ZH :D
Nothing's perfect. What we have now sucks really bad. The lunatic fringe on both sides seem to have disproportionate control of both major parties, bickering over petty issues, while our country is pillaged by the financial oligarchy that has bought both sides. Allowing more sectors of society to be better represented with something like MMP should be better for the country. Who knows, with more choices we might have someone to vote for based on something better than the potential of causing the least harm...
You certainly would have someone to vote for who would represent your interests more closely but that may not get your voice heard any more than now except occasionally. Unless they are the rulers and then its no different than now.
I like the idea of so many parties (1 per voter...) that they can't reach agreement on any but the most major of issues and therefore are grid-locked most of the time. That way we are freed from government interference until it is absolutely vital which is not often.
Somehow before the peelers, people used to get by without a local constabulary. Of course the tyrants thugs would turn up every now and then to collect a tithe or a pound of flesh but most of the time free to do your thing. Gets back to the exchange that Ben Franklin is so often quoted for.
You'd think that with HFT we might also as an offshoot have an algorithmic democracy, no parties, just citizens voting constantly, but only on what interests them. A highly technological society. Chance would be a fine thing. I won't hold my breath.
"I thought that I had a fairly good level of contact with the significant (and not so significant) writers in the straight press. Since I started contributing to ZH they don't return my emails."
Don't give a f--k. As a result of your honest contributions on ZH, you have A LOT MORE credibility than all the "reporters" of the "straight press" combined. I wouldn't trust them with my garbage. Once I got to know what real, honest reporting and analysis looks like (courtesy ZH and certain other blogs/writers) - I completely stopped watching and reading all the mainstream outlets (except for the occasional entertainment and keeping track of what the-powers-that-be want the sheeple to believe, what is their agenda and the extent of lying occurring).
And "straight press"? Oh come on...ZH is the straight press, the ones you refer to are the twisted ones.
A demonstrably brilliant one once told me..."I only read the [news]papers to find-out what people think is happening".
ZH reads as s/o very close to insiders; [s]he is willing to educate listeners to 1st-hand observations of what ThePowersThatBe are up to. Reminds me of George Seldes, one of whose workproducts was Tell The Truth And Run...advised reading for truly 1st-hand [insider] views.
If anonymity has demonstrated workability, continue unless certain that change is needed. Let TPTB continue to stew in a ZH-mystery-sandwich that only grates on them because ZH is causing a BIG effect on them...and stealing their attention.
Protect the good people.
Second that, GG.
AO
You read my mind. Keep ZH alive and the curtains closed. Without ZH a whole lot of "insider" information would never get public scrutiny. We need more ZH and less of mindless comments and non-news that NC is.
Before I knew of ZH I would browse NC and CR but they are mostly irrelevant now. ZH has transformed financial blogging as far as I am concerned.
Jealousy is the tribute midiocrity pays to genius.
I agree and would go further to say I would probably pay for it if it went subscription based (hopefully never). Don't think I've ever said that about any online content.