• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

OneWingedBird

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Messages
15,431
This story has surprised me as I'd have to confess I never even realised this was possible, whereas it now seems a number of banks have been at it.

I'd certainly welcome input here from those who know more about how this works than I do.

The trader at the centre of the Libor rate-rigging trial tried to influence other banks to manipulate the key benchmark rate to suit his own trading positions, a jury at Southwark Crown Court has heard.

Tom Hayes allegedly told one trader that he had managed to keep the three-month Libor rate "artificially high".

Mr Hayes, 35, a former UBS and Citigroup trader, is facing eight counts of conspiracy to defraud.

He denies the charges.

Mr Hayes is accused of acting in "a thoroughly dishonest manner" in his alleged attempts to rig the benchmark rate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32903415

Sounds like a number of or perhaps even all the banks were at it - but how far does it go?
 
This is another of these reported episodes of supposed stratospheric financial fraud that just stretches credulity beyond breaking point. Either we accept that world economic and financial systems are effectively fictional observances, which they are:

- inflation and deflation are both, simultaneously, bad, good and essential;

- quantitative easing is the literal printing of more money;

- banks must be regulated by government, independant from government, underwritten by goverment;

- every country in the world needs to show export and not import;

- recent reports bemoan that a lack of consumer borrowing and purchasing is causing a deflation spiral, yet we are constantly told that the western world is beset by over-extended credit and over-consumption.

....or we wake up. But we won't, because we can't truly stop our dependancy.

Every so often the media wheels-out a setpiece, a saviour or a villain. The Lehman Brothers, Emron, Nick Leeson, Barings, Equitable, Icelandics, Mark Carney, Tech bubble, Dot com bubble, Fred the Shred.

This is all just a fabricated self-propelled soap-opera. The whole market, derivatives trading, toxic assets, PPP....all of it only 'works' as long as, like Wiley E Coyote, nobody looks down as they run out from the cliff. It's just a silk and honeycomb synthesis of collaborative nothingness, a game that we all conspire to depend upon.

And with that curious, infuriating, enlightening and incomprehensible Robert Peston acting as BBC Chief Economics Editor, at least we've got a good handle on things. Remember: inarticulate eloquence and a wide tonal range will sell you anything from astrology to zoroastrianism:

 
I find it really hard to get my head round our financial and banking system, let alone these complex frauds. I wonder if a lot of people have the same problem, which is why there isn't more anger over this. It's easy enough to understand an MP fiddling their expenses or a benefits cheat doing some cash-in-hand work, but when it comes to making bets on borrowing rates it all seems rather esoteric.

I have a vague notion that money is essentially a fictional product brought into existence through creating debt, but that's about as far as I can get with the whole shebang.
 
I have a vague notion that money is essentially a fictional product brought into existence through creating debt, but that's about as far as I can get with the whole shebang.
Pretty much it, as I understand it. Theoretically, anyone could go to the Bank of England with a £20 note and ask for the equivalent value in gold. However, if everyone did so, they'd run out of gold way before everyone was served. So yes, much of our money is, in effect, imaginary. By printing more - Quantitive Easing - it becomes even more imaginary. But if you make up your own money, also imaginary, the powers that be will treat it very seriously. Making up imaginary money is naughty, if you're not the Treasury.

It's a laugh, innit?
 
Pretty much it, as I understand it. Theoretically, anyone could go to the Bank of England with a £20 note and ask for the equivalent value in gold. However, if everyone did so, they'd run out of gold way before everyone was served. So yes, much of our money is, in effect, imaginary. By printing more - Quantitive Easing - it becomes even more imaginary. But if you make up your own money, also imaginary, the powers that be will treat it very seriously. Making up imaginary money is naughty, if you're not the Treasury.

It's a laugh, innit?

OT, but there is a book called "your money or your life" (by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin) that pretty much validates your point about money being imaginary and encourages the reader to think of money in tems of units of personal energy instead. As in, money is what's exchanged for the energy you put into your labor, and asking oneself "how much of my energy is this worth" rather than how much money it's worth. (My inlaws retired early thanks to that book, and IMO, it's not such a bad way of looking at it.)

Anyway, I know nothing about English banks, so I have nothing to add to the subject, but the situation with American banks has driven me to keep my money in my mattress and the wealthiest person I know is pretty much doing the same. The corruption that's been exposed is appalling.
 
One of my favourite loonies, David Icke, is actually very good on the banking system. He does a good rant about it on one of his videos. (No time to look for it now.)
 
Pretty much it, as I understand it. Theoretically, anyone could go to the Bank of England with a £20 note and ask for the equivalent value in gold. However, if everyone did so, they'd run out of gold way before everyone was served.

As far as I can follow this, historically the money was backed by the weight of the metal the currency was manufactured in, and the value of the metal was determined by it's scarcity.

If I understand quantitative easing correctly, it isn't just printing more money but also devaluing all the existing money by increasing the overall amount of money in circulation without increasing whatever is backing it.

I feel like it's important I understand how the fraud with the rates works just because of the magnitude of it, but I can't quite figure it out.
 
Quanitative easing (3) is even worse than printing money. They are digitizing money to buy all those toxic bonds. :mad:
 
As far as I can follow this, historically the money was backed by the weight of the metal the currency was manufactured in, and the value of the metal was determined by it's scarcity.

You might enjoy "The Ascent of Money" by Niall Ferguson. There's a good bit in it about what happened to the value of silver when the Spaniards discovered Cerro Rico.
 
I might give that a look at, tbh I was thinking of the situation with the Spanish and South America, which may be similar to what you're meaning.

The net result I suppose is very similar to quantitative easing in that the person with the 'new' money is ok while the value of everyone elses dosh shrinks.
 
I was under the impression that money (in the West anyway) was no longer linked to gold or any other precious metal. You can no longer go to the Bank of England and request the value in gold. The only basis for money having any value now is international confidence (whatever that means ) and who the arbiters of that are God alone knows. Presumably the likes of Standard and Poor who determine a nations credit rating. (Who runs them I'd like to know)
I suspect the reason no-one in the non banking world can follow what it's all about is because finance is deliberately made more complicated than it needs to be precisely to ensure that only a few can follow it. THe rest of us are pursuing other careers and interests while the self proclaimed Masters of the Universe make their billions (and even award it to themselves rather than pay it to their shareholders!).
 
ICieR said:
Presumably the likes of Standard and Poor who determine a nations credit rating. (Who runs them I'd like to know)

↑ This. I need someone to explain to me, convincingly, why such an evocatively-named agency was never ever media-mentioned (say) more than 5 years ago? Similarly, 'Libor' , the implausibly-propitious acronym for inter-banking lending rates. Come on, seriously....Lib/Lab, Labour, Lie, Bliar...is this a media backronym, an insider joke (on us, and the 'sector')?

The heights and depths of my skepticism know no limits. One of the few real truths is that, in truth, there are none. Only acceptances, conventions, connivances, observances and perspectives.
 
Last edited:
↑ This. I need someone to explain to me, convincingly, why such an evocatively-named agency was never ever media-mentioned (say) more than 5 years ago? Similarly, 'Libor' , the implausibly-propitious acronym for inter-banking lending rates. Come on, seriously....Lib/Lab, Labour, Lie, Bliar...is this a media backronym, an insider joke (on us, and the 'sector')?

The heights and depths of my skepticism know no limits. One of the few real truths is that, in truth, there are none. Only acceptances, conventions, connivances, observances and perspectives.
I recall it being mentioned in the media years and years ago.
And it's named after one of its founders, Mr Poor.
 
S&P downgraded USA a few years ago and got sued by the US government in return. I think they settled the case.
 
Back
Top