Generalized Meltdown of Financial Institutions

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Ran across this article over the weekend. I'm feeling what this dude has to say.

Agree?...Disagree?.....Thoughts?



DOW, S&P, Nasdaq all down today on continuing credit concerns. Analyst appear skeptical of any type of rally to bring it back up




"A Generalized Meltdown of Financial Institutions"
Take a Look at Professor Roubini's Crystal Ball

by Mike Whitney

Global Research, November 24, 2007
Information Clearing House



Reality has finally caught up to the stock market. The American consumer is underwater, the banks are buried in debt, and the housing market is in terminal distress. The Dow is now below its 200-Day Moving Average -- the first big "sell" signal. Anything below 12,500 could trigger program-trading and crash the market. The increased volatility suggests that we are watching a "real time" meltdown.

International Business editor for the UK Telegraph, Ambrose Evans Pritchard, summed up yesterday's action in the Asian markets:

"The global credit crisis has hit Asia with a vengeance for the first time, triggering a massive flight to safety as investors across the region pull out of risky assets. Yields on three-month deposits in China and Korea have plummeted to near 1pc in a spectacular fall over recent days, caused by panic withdrawals from money market funds and credit derivatives.

"'This' is a severe warning sign,' said Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas. 'Asia ignored the credit crunch in August but now we're seeing the poison beginning to paralyze the whole global economy.'" (Credit 'Heart attack' engulfs China and Korea" Ambrose Evans Pritchard,UK Telegraph,)

The credit storm that began in the United States with subprime mortgages has spread to markets across the globe. In fact, the train has already crashed. What we're seeing now is the boxcars piling up on top of each other.

On Tuesday Chinese government officials ordered a complete halt to bank lending to slow the speculative frenzy that has created an enormous equity bubble in the stock market. According to the Wall Street Journal:

"Chinese authorities are slamming the brakes on bank lending, in their latest attempt to curb the runaway investment threatening to overheat what is soon to be the world's third-largest economy. In recent weeks, regulators have quietly ordered China's commercial banks to freeze lending through the end of the year, according to bankers in several cities. The bankers say that to comply, they are canceling loans and credit lines with businesses and individuals." ("China freezes lending to Curb Investing Frenzy" Wall Street Journal)

The move illustrates how concerned the Chinese are that a slowdown in US consumer spending will trigger a crash on the Shanghai stock market. It also shows that the Chinese are having difficulty dealing with the inflation generated by the hundreds of billions of US dollars absorbed via the trade imbalance with the US. China is awash in USDs and that surplus is causing a steady rise in food and energy costs. This could be mitigated by allowing their currency to "float" freely. But a sudden, steep increase in the Chinese yuan's value could also send the world headlong into a global recession. For now, the lending freeze and price fixing appear to be the way out.

Another sign that the markets have reached a "tipping point" appeared in a Reuters article on Wednesday; "Interbank Covered Bond Trading Halted on Volatility":

"Renewed credit turmoil and volatility led the European Covered Bond Council (ECBC) on Wednesday to suspend inter-bank market-making in covered bonds until Monday, Nov. 26.

The move is a sign of the stress in the covered bond market, which is dominated by German institutions that have almost a trillion euros of covered bonds outstanding.

Covered bonds -- backed by pools of assets that remain on the borrower's balance sheet -- are usually highly liquid and typically rated triple-A by ratings agencies. The ECBC's recommendation is aimed at relieving the pressure on market makers who are forced to quote prices at a fixed bid-offer spread.

"In light of the current market situation and in order to avoid undue over-acceleration in the widening of spreads, the 8-to-8 Market-Makers & Issuers Committee recommends that inter-bank market-making be suspended," the ECBC said in a release."

Note: This isn't mortgage-backed junk that's being sold, but highly liquid bonds that are usually easy to cash in. The ECBC's action is a sign of pure desperation and indicates that credit paralysis has infected the entire euro banking system.

Reuters: "Due to general market conditions and the specific mechanics of the inter-dealer market making it even seems possible that inter-dealer market making will not be resumed this year."

That's bad. The mechanism for converting covered bonds into cash has broken down.

The dollar took another pasting on Wednesday, sliding to $1.49 on the euro; another new record. Gold shot up to $814 per ounce. Oil continues to flirt with the $100 per barrel mark, and the yen rose to 107 per dollar forcing a sell-off of hedge fund assets levered through the carry trade.

Jon Basile, economist at Credit Suisse, summed it up like this: "There's a heck of a lot of bad news out there." Indeed.

In California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has joined with four mortgage lenders to freeze adjustable interest rates (ARMs) for some of the state's highest-risk borrowers; another unprecedented move. The Governor hopes to avoid a collapse of the California real estate market which has gone into a tailspin. Home sales have plummeted more than 40 per cent for the last two months. Prices have dropped sharply---roughly 12 per cent statewide. New construction has slowed to a crawl. Layoffs are steadily rising. Jumbo loans (mortgages over $417,000) have been put on the "Endangered Species" list. Even qualified borrowers can't get mortgages. Nothing is selling. California housing is "off the cliff".

Schwarzenegger's plan to keep over-extended subprime mortgage-holders in their homes faces an uncertain future. What incentive is there for homeowners to continue paying exorbitant monthly rates when their payments are not applied to the principle? The homeowners would be better off bailing out, accepting foreclosure, and starting over with a clean slate.

It's unrealistic to thinks that Schwarzenegger can stop the tidal wave of foreclosures that are sweeping across the state. An estimated 3 million homeowners will lose their homes nationwide.

If you want to blame someone; blame Alan Greenspan. He's the one who created this mess. According to the economist Mike Shedlock:

"The Fed caused the credit crunch by slashing interest rates to 1 per cent to bail out its banking buddies in the wake of a dotcom bubble collapse. All the Fed did was create a bigger bubble. This bubble is so big in fact that it cannot even be bailed out. It's the end of the line for a serially bubble blowing Fed.

"So not only was this the biggest credit bubble in history, this was also the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the already enormously wealthy. That is the real travesty of justice regardless of whether or not the price tag is $1 trillion, $2 trillion, or $10 trillion." (Mike Shedlock, "Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis")


The problem has gotten so serious that even Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, is putting up red flags. Last week, Paulson ignited a sell-off on Wall Street when he made this statement:

"The nature of the problem will be significantly bigger next year because 2006 [mortgages] had lower underwriting standards, no amortization, and no down payments....We're never going to be able to process the number of workouts and modifications (to mortgages) that are going to be necessary doing it just sort of one-off. I've talked to enough people now to know that there's no way that's going to work."

The desperation is palpable. Like Schwarzenegger, Paulson is trying to get mortgage-lenders to provide a safety net for struggling borrowers who are defaulting on their loans.

Paulson is calling for emergency legislation that will allow the Federal Housing Administration to play a greater role in the relief effort. The FHA has already expanded its traditional role by taking on hundreds of billions in extra debt just to keep a few "private" mortgage lenders and banks from going bankrupt. Of course, when Paulson's plan goes kaput and the debts pile up; it'll be the taxpayer that foots the bill.

"Paulson also called the Senate's failure to pass legislation overhauling mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac frustrating," saying that the two government-sponsored entities need to be playing a bigger role in the housing market.

"If we ever need them it's during times like today, and they're most valuable when there is distress in the mortgage market," he said. "I'd like to see them playing an even bigger role."(Wall Street Journal)

Fannie and Freddie, have already posted enormous quarterly losses and don't have the capital reserves to put millions of subprime mortgage-holders under their "government-sponsored" umbrella. Paulson is just grabbing at straws.

Similar troubles are brewing in the broader market where late-payments and defaults have spread to credit card debt and new car loans. Every area of "securitized" debt has suddenly veered off the road and into the ditch. Last week the Fed injected more credit into the teetering banking system than anytime since 9-11.

No one has predicted the downward-spiral in the market more accurately than Nouriel Roubini. Roubini is a Professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University. His analysis appears regularly on his blogsite, Global EconoMonitor. Last week's prediction was particularly dire and is worth reprinting here:

"It is increasingly clear by now that a severe U.S. recession is inevitable in next few months...I now see the risk of a severe and worsening liquidity and credit crunch leading to a generalized meltdown of the financial system of a severity and magnitude like we have never observed before
. In this extreme scenario whose likelihood is increasing we could see a generalized run on some banks; and runs on a couple of weaker (non-bank) broker dealers that may go bankrupt with severe and systemic ripple effects on a mass of highly leveraged derivative instruments that will lead to a seizure of the derivatives markets... massive losses on money market funds with a run on both those sponsored by banks and those not sponsored by banks; ..ever growing defaults and losses ($500 billion plus) in subprime, near prime and prime mortgages with severe knock-on effect on the RMBS and CDOs market; massive losses in consumer credit (auto loans, credit cards); severe problems and losses in commercial real estate...; the drying up of liquidity and credit in a variety of asset backed securities putting the entire model of securitization at risk; runs on hedge funds and other financial institutions that do not have access to the Fed's lender of last resort support; a sharp increase in corporate defaults and credit spreads; and a massive process of re-intermediation into the banking system of activities that were until now altogether securitized." (Nouriel Roubini's Global EconoMonitor)

"A generalized meltdown of the financial system".

Looks like Chicken Little might have gotten it right this time; "The sky IS falling."

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Damn BigUnc. You stay away for a while and then come back to the Board with a damn bang!
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Damn BigUnc. You stay away for a while and then come back to the Board with a damn bang!


Whats Up QueEx? Been keeping my mind on my money and my money on my mind.:lol:.....Shit don't look good bro. I can't find any good spots on the global economic stage.

More bad news

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac down again today

Financial futures down 28 pts. on heavy volume. Over 100,000 shares traded and counting.
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
I agree that shit is dropping, for now at least. But, people still need essentials, and there still are jobs. We will not always live in salad days, but there still is money for circulation. It's just more conservatively circulated, as it should be.
 

nittie

Star
Registered
The problem as I see it is the American public is sitting around waiting for this economy to collapse. It's like a deer stuck in the headlights, we have completely surrendered our power to decide what happens to us. Instead inept, greedy, self serving corporations make deals to fatten their pockets and actually tell people it's 'just business' and nothing is done about it.

The first thing we should do is bankrupt a fortune 500 company. Walmart would be a great choice, throw in Exxon and maybe Google too. For the month of December no one should buy from these companies. After the effects of the boycott are felt a grassroots recall of some high ranking politicians should be organized it doesn't have to work just organize it and see what happens.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
People don't know what will happen in the next couple of years. If these companies lend less, than the real estate market and economy will go down. I just don't understand how these financial institution could make billion dollar decisions based on "market" prices for houses.

Would ML & Citigroup buy a company based on how its buildings looked? They would demand to see a full accounting of the company. Real Estate (3-4x bigger) is like the stock market without financial statments. Buyers should have more information in their hands to make decisions. Hell, I know what a dealer paid for a car; however, I have no clue what a builder spent on a million dollar house. That is why housing speculators make ridiculous profits by slapping on paint, put new shingles, and dry wall to trick the perception of buyers.

For major real estate purchases, "house" financial statements should be created. Capitalize and depreciate all the major components of the house. You put a new roof on, add an addition, or paint, stick it on the books and present the information to the buyer for review. No business person would buy a company without seeing a full accounting. The same mentality of the stock market should apply in real estate, it is the biggest unaccounted asset for many people. If a company just wanted investors to "bid" without showing their books, they would get laughed out of the room.
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
I just don't understand how these financial institution could make billion dollar decisions based on "market" prices for houses.
What other "value" is there except: what a willing buyer and willing seller, at arms lenghth, are willing to trade,which is "Market Value" ???

COINTELPRO said:
Would ML & Citigroup buy a company based on how its buildings looked? They would demand to see a full accounting of the company. Real Estate (3-4x bigger) is like the stock market without financial statments. Buyers should have more information in their hands to make decisions. Hell, I know what a dealer paid for a car; however, I have no clue what a builder spent on a million dollar house. That is why housing speculators make ridiculous profits by slapping on paint, put new shingles, and dry wall to trick the perception of buyers.
[1] What a builder spent building can be known; there are three (3) ways to appraise real property: (a) rental approach; (b) market approach; and (c) cost approach. The cost approach determines value from the 'what the builder has spent'.

[2] Even knowing what the previous owner paid for a car is only one (1) aspect of the value of that car. Did the previous owner pay too much? Did the previous owner get a really great deal and pay too little? Did the popularity of the car change such that the car is either less liked or more liked since (or even before) the last purchaser bought the car? Is there something extrinsic to the car thats driving value?

The point is, when you consider all of the above (and a lot I haven't posted or thought of), it still tends to come down to what a given purchaser is willing to pay and what a willing buyer is willing to accept = market value.

COINTELPRO said:
For major real estate purchases, "house" financial statements should be created. Capitalize and depreciate all the major components of the house. You put a new roof on, add an addition, or paint, stick it on the books and present the information to the buyer for review. No business person would buy a company without seeing a full accounting. The same mentality of the stock market should apply in real estate, it is the biggest unaccounted asset for many people. If a company just wanted investors to "bid" without showing their books, they would get laughed out of the room.

[1] I'm really interested in seeing what a "House Financial" would look like.

[2] The things you mentioned as being in the financial are really tax matters. That is, depreciations and deductions. Is the government going to actually give credit to assensions or dissensions in value? - please. LOL

[3] I agree that it would be an excellent idea for the buyer to be able to know whether or when the house was last painted, roofed, etc. Still, it comes down to whether a given buyer is willing to pay "X" because he likes the house, etc., and he/she thinks the house was made more valuable because of the paint, roof, etc. Who said the paint looks good (one person might say yes and the other hates the paint), the new roof looks really fucked up, despite that it protects better, and those great energy saving windows are really fucking great for the power bill, BUT, they look really fucked up! (LOL). Hence, the great additions added shit to the house, but i n fact, they may have actually lowered the house's appeal and, therefore, its value. In the end, isn't that market value ??

QueEx
 

nittie

Star
Registered
How do you do that ???

QueEx



1st let me say bankrupt is going too far I was just making a point that people should be mobilizing and fighting for what's theirs. A organized plan designed to let big business know whos boss should be the goal. It can be done by showing them consumers are willing to take action and influence their bottom line.


If I was in charge of it and was using this board as the jumpoff point I would recruit and organize some of the more activist type people here and see who has the following.

1. big list of friends on Myspace and Facebook
2. active on youtube
3. own their own blogs
4. are popular on this and other message boards and blogs
5. have business or education backgrounds


after that I would start a close chatroom and begin drawing plans to make a example of a few fortune 500 companies. Like I said bankrupting them could do more damage than good but I would want them to know we can and will take action against them.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
1st let me say bankrupt is going too far I was just making a point that people should be mobilizing and fighting for what's theirs.

Like I said bankrupting them could do more damage than good but I would want them to know we can and will take action against them.
???



QueEx
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
I think I understand what nittie is trying to say and it would be satisfying on many different levels to know that as a group we(meaning Black folk) could bring a Fortune 500 Company down.

My rational and thinking side says hell no. There are too many organizational challenges,huge operational difficulties,traps,pitfalls,blowback and a number of other things least of which are the unknown ramifications.

then again nothing ventured = nothing gained, so if we(black folk) are gonna do something then might as well go big.

Anyway nittie I admire your passion try not to lose it
 

nittie

Star
Registered
Actually bringing down a fortune 500 company would have to be a multiracial effort. Blacks only have a combined wealth of 800 billion most fortune 500 companies make that in a quarter. There are several problems with bringing down a big company, the biggest one is when you let that genie out of the bottle you can't put it back, it would start a new era in capitalism that I don't think anyone is ready to deal with. If you look at whats going on with America's economy today part of it has to do with the fact our economy's weak point was exposed on 9-11. I won't go into detail but I believe the reason there hasn't been another major attack on the U.S. is because no one wants to deal with a collapsed world economy. A grassroot effort bankrupting a fortune 500 company would be somewhat akin to terrorist collapsing our economy. But it can be done.
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Actually bringing down a fortune 500 company would have to be a multiracial effort. Blacks only have a combined wealth of 800 billion most fortune 500 companies make that in a quarter. There are several problems with bringing down a big company, the biggest one is when you let that genie out of the bottle you can't put it back, it would start a new era in capitalism that I don't think anyone is ready to deal with. If you look at whats going on with America's economy today part of it has to do with the fact our economy's weak point was exposed on 9-11. I won't go into detail but I believe the reason there hasn't been another major attack on the U.S. is because no one wants to deal with a collapsed world economy. A grassroot effort bankrupting a fortune 500 company would be somewhat akin to terrorist collapsing our economy. But it can be done.

I wouldn't mind if you went into detail about this. Has the potential to be a great thread. Read some stuff on how to collapse a economy, it's very interesting.
 

nittie

Star
Registered
Hey Man believe me this ain't the place to go into detail. Twice I was on the business board kicking some ideas about organizing and it didn't go very well.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
(1) I'm not into collapsing our economy; and (2) why would we (Black people) want to do that, in the first instance ???

QueEx
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
(1) I'm not into collapsing our economy; and (2) why would we (Black people) want to do that, in the first instance ???

QueEx

Just a general discussion thats all. Doesn't need to apply to a specific country.
 

nittie

Star
Registered
Collapsing our economy isn't the goal, having a fair equal distribution of wealth and power is the objective. As it stands now Big Business owns the business and political process they need to be brought down a peg or two. It was bad enough when we were a national economy but in a global economy the average American is just a pawn if that much. If people had a way of punishing business that over-stepped their boundaries, didn't keep the business/community partnership then we could use the political process from what it was intended, a way to promote the common good, not as a way to promote business interest.
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Collapsing our economy isn't the goal, having a fair equal distribution of wealth and power is the objective. As it stands now Big Business owns the business and political process they need to be brought down a peg or two. It was bad enough when we were a national economy but in a global economy the average American is just a pawn if that much. If people had a way of punishing business that over-stepped their boundaries, didn't keep the business/community partnership then we could use the political process from what it was intended, a way to promote the common good, not as a way to promote business interest.

From what I know of this a total collapse is not the goal during disputes within a country. just enough to undermine the sense of authority the government has with the population making it much easier to change the governing structure.

1.Is that correct?
2.How far is too far?
3.Could collapsing an economy undermine the entire governing structure leading to chaos? which would take me back to #2
 

nittie

Star
Registered
It would be 3. Could collapsing an economy undermine the entire governing structure leading to chaos.

A new order would come from the chaos but no one wants to deal with chaos. Don't want to get too graphic but if the economy collapsed the streets would run red with blood. The prison system would shut down, there would be 2 million criminals on the streets. Look at what happened in NOLA after the flood, multiply that by 2 million.


undermine the sense of authority the government has with the population


Should be the goal imo. Look at what happened today. The fed gave banks 7 billion to help with credit, they are hinting at a rate cut. This money is going to people who have already fucked up the mortgage industry, not counting the 10 trillion they got in tax cuts with the Bush tax plan. Meanwhile 2 million Americans are facing foreclosure and they don't get nothing.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
nittie said:
Look at what happened today. The fed gave banks 7 billion to help with credit, they are hinting at a rate cut. This money is going to people who have already fucked up the mortgage industry, not counting the 10 trillion they got in tax cuts with the Bush tax plan. Meanwhile 2 million Americans are facing foreclosure and they don't get nothing.

So, are you saying fix it, especially for the little man hurt; or are you saying shock it, to punish the big guy knowing full well that the little man will hurt even more?

QueEx
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
OK all this presupposes that a fairly large group of people are fed up with their government and want it changed:

any idea on what percentage of the population that would have to buy into this idea to have a chance of success?

I am supposing that tactics such as boycotts, general strikes and tax revolts would be necessary. Wouldn't some kind of underground economy need to be in place to service the needs of the population affected?
 

nittie

Star
Registered
So, are you saying fix it, especially for the little man hurt; or are you saying shock it, to punish the big guy knowing full well that the little man will hurt even more?

QueEx

Thats a loaded question but I am saying 'shock it' punish the big guy. The idea of a quiet, peaceful, pain free revolution is nonsense. And I do mean revolution because that is what it will take to change this. The big guy doesn't have to get the breaks. If you remember when Bush came into office one of his steps in reviving the economy was giving people $300. I didn't get a check but I remember how it made peope feel, why can't that be the normal way of dealing with wealth distribution. If 7 billion is going to someone why can't the little guy get half? Why? Because the little guy is afraid of getting hurt and the big guy knows it.
 

nittie

Star
Registered
OK all this presupposes that a fairly large group of people are fed up with their government and want it changed:

any idea on what percentage of the population that would have to buy into this idea to have a chance of success?

I am supposing that tactics such as boycotts, general strikes and tax revolts would be necessary. Wouldn't some kind of underground economy need to be in place to service the needs of the population affected?


The thing is a underground economy is already in place, it's so big it's threatening to collapse the legit market. I've said in a couple of post that organized crime had profits of 2 trillion last year. How in America today gangbangers out number police, the National Guard was patrolling 3 U.S. cities. One of the problems with a global economy is it will produce a global underground economy, that's ok if the illegal economy isn't to vibrant but a robust underground will corrupt not just the economy but the people as well. When analyst talk about the volitivity in the market they always use the excuse it's 'foriegn money' or 'undocumented money' they try pin it on day traders but that money is coming from organized crime.


But to answer your question about the number needed to send a message to a fortune 500 company and the government as well it wouldn't take as many people as you might think. I believe you can make a good lasting impression with a few thousand people. The thing is the effort has to be well organized, targeted and specific.
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
The thing is a underground economy is already in place, it's so big it's threatening to collapse the legit market. I've said in a couple of post that organized crime had profits of 2 trillion last year. How in America today gangbangers out number police, the National Guard was patrolling 3 U.S. cities. One of the problems with a global economy is it will produce a global underground economy, that's ok if the illegal economy isn't to vibrant but a robust underground will corrupt not just the economy but the people as well. When analyst talk about the volitivity in the market they always use the excuse it's 'foriegn money' or 'undocumented money' they try pin it on day traders but that money is coming from organized crime.


But to answer your question about the number needed to send a message to a fortune 500 company and the government as well it wouldn't take as many people as you might think. I believe you can make a good lasting impression with a few thousand people. The thing is the effort has to be well organized, targeted and specific.

Doesn't the underground economy still pay taxes on the purchase of legitimate items (i.e. food, clothing, et al.) ?
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
wouldn't relying on the economy of organized crime strengthen them with the possibility of them taking advantage of a weakened government to gain even more power.This hypothetical organization thats trying to partially collapse a countries economy to gain political advantages is the new kid on the block. shouldn't they develop their own underground economy to keep other groups from benefiting from their actions?
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
What says - the fact that the underground economy pay taxes on 'above-board-economy' transactions means the underground is actually strengthened ??? Doesn't that make the underground more beholden and/or exposed to the establishment? - i.e., they become known to the establishment; they can be tracked and gathered up by the establishment and subjected to its criminal justice system; and, in a worse case scenario, it is vulnerable to its military/paramilitary and intelligentsia.

QueEx
 

nittie

Star
Registered
About the growing criminal underground and it's threat to our way of life. When you define what is a criminal enterprise we normally think of mafia, gangs, etc but that is changing. More and more governments and terrorist organizations are involved in the underground economy. We been kinda hard on China lately and it's not really fair imo, but their economy is troubling. Those replicas flooding the world are dragging down prices for legitimate brands, intellectual property theft is another problem, really they are openly engaging in criminal activity. The Taliban gets it's money from drug distribution, they along with Al Qaeda have a global organization, throw in Cuba, Venezeula, Iran, North Korea, and you have a new definition of criminal underground. They along with the traditional crime groups are selling everything you want and a lot of the money is being used to undermine our economy.
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
I'm gonna shift gears a little and bring up the recent events that occurred in France. To me it seems that what happened in France was a mild kind of collapsing an economy or the threat of harming the economy unless their demands are met.

Would you agree or disagree?

My apologies for picking your brain but I am interested in this topic. I think this method is something that should be looked at and used if it becomes necessary.
 

nittie

Star
Registered
Those riots in France were a knee jerk reaction to years of racism, maybe they could have hurt the economy if they lasted long enough. But they also put the government in a postion to react and that's the last thing you want to do because it gives government too many options.

Ideally protesters should choose the battleground, shape the debate, set the agenda so government has to play by their rules.
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Those riots in France were a knee jerk reaction to years of racism, maybe they could have hurt the economy if they lasted long enough. But they also put the government in a postion to react and that's the last thing you want to do because it gives government too many options.

Ideally protesters should choose the battleground, shape the debate, set the agenda so government has to play by their rules.



Don't know how it all came about . the point is they reacted swiftly, strong and nationwide and in the end seems as though they got what they wanted. Also workers in France have a long history of striking, demonstrating,etc. Maybe it seemed knee-jerk or maybe they're just used to hitting the streets at a moments notice when something pisses them off.A quick reaction force if I may use that analogy.

With us in this country something happens,we complain, someone organizes a march or whatever, some claim it ain't gonna work or whine about who is in front getting face time with the media etc etc blah blah blah. If by chance a march comes off it's limited in scope and purpose. There is no direct confrontation. Everyone or most evryone feels better and goes back to the same ole same ole.
 

nittie

Star
Registered
I don't think the situation of Muslims in France is a fair comparison to what Black in America deal with. France has 5 million Muslims, Islam has more followers than Christianity in Europe, the French adopted a policy of appeasement. That policy won't really help Muslims because they don't own anything. They might get some concessions from a cash strapped government that doesn't have much to give but that's about it.

It's different in America. Blacks are about 13% of the population, we have 800 billion in income. Seriously if Whites had the option of losing 800 billion and getting rid of Blacks or keeping the money and us too which option do you think they would take.

We have to be innovative, those marches have to be directed and specific. I give Rev Sharpton credit on the last march because he directed it towards the Justice Department not taking action on hate crimes.

We need goals, like strengthening the Black family. We could be petitioning the government to give tax breaks for child support payments, we could marching for laws protecting the rights of single parents to see their kids. We could lower the unemplyment rate for Blacks by demanding the government hire people instead of outsourcing to contractors who don't offer permanent jobs and benefits. There's things we can do besides collapsing the economy.
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Of course there are differences between what's going on in France and the situation here. I'm not thinking in terms of demographics but in strategy and tactics to achieve goals. I think there are lessons to be learned on how other people organize and confront their governments.
 

nittie

Star
Registered
I think there is a world of opportunity for us if we just take action. I don't think we have to look to others for ideas because we specialize in ideas. We have James Brown, Jack Johnson, MLK, CJ Walker. We can do it without any outside interference. The problem as I see it is we lost the energy, we bought into the trinkets Whites offer, we started believing in matrialism and forgot family. When I look at the resources available here I can't help wondering why nothing comes from the consensus we form on these issues. I know there's a lot of whites here but I believe there are enough Black people here to do some things. The resources to start a Black think tank, a cross-section to find a community with the right deomgraphics to experiment with ideas to organize our community are here. The debate about every issue facing us has been discussed here. Yet no plans much less actions have come from it. Should we wait for someone else to do it for us?
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
I can agree that the issues facing black folk in this country has been discussed to the point of being senseless and useless to engage in it anymore. we possess all of the skill sets to accomplish whatever the group as a whole or sub groups decide to do. We have substantial resources, whether it's enough to go toe to toe with what the dominate culture can amass is open to debate but shouldn't deter a group or groups from doing what they gotta do.

As far trying to get people off their ass and do something about what they are complaining about I'm reminded of the scene in the movie I'm Gonna Get You Sucka when the militant brother was talking about what happened to the movement and he said....the government gave them all jobs:lol:.....funny as shit but true. I think that plays into why folk won't get off the couch and handle their biz if they truly are upset with how things are. Maybe they're angry about what's going on but not enough to jeopardize their comfort zone.
 
Last edited:

fourth_retired

Support BGOL
Registered
its looking real bad right now for everybody. I dont know what this will spark if anyting. There has been bubbles like this b4 but it looks like theres more on the plate of the US this time around. sadly I think most of the world will pass this buy but I think the US will have a harder time getting through. All this talk makes me want to move to another country...
 
Top