PeakOil is You
SEC bans short-selling in US
Re: SEC bans short-selling in US
by ReverseEngineer » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 03:31:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Koyaanisqatsi', 'T')o each their own - personally, I don't find this reassuring.
I hear you, and what happened to that lady is clearly wrong, but I'm not sure how germane it is to most of us. The things that are several important things that aren't said but are strongly implied in that piece. 1: She hadn't been to the box in a long time. They say in the video that one of the keys to avoiding that is to check in on your property at least annually. 2: She didn't keep the address current on the box records. They point out, and rightly so, that the bank had her current address and contact info on other accounts but should have figured out that it was the same person. 3: She didn't pay the rent on the box when it came due. They say the in the piece that she has records showing she "is the kind of person who pays her bills on time." That's a very carefully worded way to avoid saying that she didn't pay her box rent this time.
BTW, on the last page of the article, they list a website where you can go and search a central database of abandoned property. You guys should check it out. I found an electric company deposit that never got returned to me from a couple of years ago.
I find this thread interesting on a couple of levels personally.
First one is this: About 6 months ago I was contacted by JB Hunt, a company I leased to for 5 years driving my rig. One of the largest trucking companies, along with Schneider National who I also drove for early on.
The reason JB Hunt contacted me was that apparently they found $2000 in my Comdata account, and were looking to return it to me. They actually sent me the check! I would gather now from reading this thread that the auditors were reviewing JB Hunt's books at the time, and they were settling out the accounts. I had no idea that I had money still due me, although I do recall on leaving that a check did not come in, I forgot about it until now. Never pursued it then, because when you quit a job or stop working for someone, I have always found they usually do not send you the last paycheck. I always consider that lost money, to spend the time in the phone calls and trying to get it with lawyers and so forth costs more than its worth.
The second reason this interests me is because I have about $5000 in a checking/savings account down in the lower 48 I rarely check on and never use. I left the money in there because I really did not need it other than setting up for my new life in Alaska, which I did and then stopped using that account and instead use an account up here in a local Credit Union for paying da bills. I suppose I should empty that account now and buy more Ammo before it gets seized as "abandoned property", but good grief this is ridiculous.
I stopped worrying about my "wealth" a while back. I got so little of it relatively speaking it is a pointless waste of my time and energy to worry about such things. How could you possibly think that stores of wealth you have in terms of stocks and bonds or gold or silver you don't actually have in your possesion won't be looted by the bankers? Lose $5000, lose $1,000,000, WTF is the difference here?
Yes indeed, the playing field has been LEVELLED for all below the very top rung of capitalist society, and they are eating each other up at the moment also. They have no wealth. They spent the wealth of their own grandchildren already also.
Reverse Engineer
-
ReverseEngineer - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3352
- Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Re: SEC bans short-selling in US
by Koyaanisqatsi » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 03:45:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '
')I hear you, and what happened to that lady is clearly wrong, but I'm not sure how germane it is to most of us. The things that are several important things that aren't said but are strongly implied in that piece. 1: She hadn't been to the box in a long time. They say in the video that one of the keys to avoiding that is to check in on your property at least annually. 2: She didn't keep the address current on the box records. They point out, and rightly so, that the bank had her current address and contact info on other accounts but should have figured out that it was the same person. 3: She didn't pay the rent on the box when it came due. They say the in the piece that she has records showing she "is the kind of person who pays her bills on time." That's a very carefully worded way to avoid saying that she didn't pay her box rent this time.
')I hear you, and what happened to that lady is clearly wrong, but I'm not sure how germane it is to most of us. The things that are several important things that aren't said but are strongly implied in that piece. 1: She hadn't been to the box in a long time. They say in the video that one of the keys to avoiding that is to check in on your property at least annually. 2: She didn't keep the address current on the box records. They point out, and rightly so, that the bank had her current address and contact info on other accounts but should have figured out that it was the same person. 3: She didn't pay the rent on the box when it came due. They say the in the piece that she has records showing she "is the kind of person who pays her bills on time." That's a very carefully worded way to avoid saying that she didn't pay her box rent this time.
Unfortunately the article could have provided more details than it did. But I would hope that just because one hadn't visited their box recently - why should they need to? - and just because they missed a payment, their valuables would not be stripped and sold.
The bottom line is that when you leave your belongings with someone else, you lose control over them. In this case, you put them in the care of people who are clearly interested in finding any excuse at all to relieve you of those belongings.
-
Koyaanisqatsi - Lignite
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Pacific NW
Re: SEC bans short-selling in US
by EnergyUnlimited » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 04:08:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gorm', 'Y')epp, feel good to be in Sweden rigth now. We will be hit hard by this, but i recon we be better of than the most.
Especially as the chairman of the Bank of Sweden (Stefan Ingves), the chairman of the National Debt Office (Bo Lundgren) and the chairman of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Urban Backstrom) were all working at the very core of the Swedish banking crisis 15 years ago, which the current US crisis is almost a carbon copy of. Lundgren has recently been in New York on the invitation of the Federal Reserve to lecture on how you solve this kind of crisis.
And lo and behold, now the Fed is doing just what we did: nationalise the weakest banks and buy the crappy debt and put it in a special state owned company.
For all the worriers: within three years of the end of the Swedish banking crisis taxpayers had recouped half of the money the bailout costed and eventually it ended up not only neutral but became a profit for the taxpayers.
Sweden is a small economy, which can be temporary fiddled with and as long as global economy works well, it will be fine.
However US economy is the major pillar of a global one, so fiddling around there in Swedish fashion will not necessarily make any good as global capital balance will be affected.
In fact it is unlikely to change much.
So AIG impact on global economy is greater than Swedish GDP.
-
EnergyUnlimited - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7537
- Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
