• 123 4 58
  • Page
  • Text Only
Argyll said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   I think they already destroyed their international clientele with this move
Rich people with international funds will flee to a safer haven regardless


They said that one of the two banks involved would close and the other would go into default, meaning depositors would lose most of their money. The government does not have the funds to insure the deposits. So the option was depositors losing all or most of their money or somewhere between 6 and 10%. Which would you choose? Not to mention the first option would mean the collapse of the entire banking system and most of the economy, making any remaining money worth 40% less because of the devaluation of the currency.


That's the government's justificatory, dooms-day "story" for the tax scheme.

I'm just a tad skeptical that the Central Bank called Cyrus & said, "Sup, we're cutting off your liquidity in a couple days. k, mmmm, thanks, bye."

But, hey, guess it's better that the ejaculate of phallic rage be absorbed by propaganda, rather than by buildings & bodies, right?

"He said the tax would only be as much as the interest collected on deposits over two years and stressed that it would only happen once because it would ensure the bailout wouldn’t push the country’s debt to unsustainable levels.

Anastasiades said savers would be compensated with bank shares. Moreover, all those depositors who opt to keep their money in Cypriot banks for at least two years would receive government bonds with a value equal to their losses. The bonds will be backed up by future revenue generated from the country’s newfound offshore gas deposits."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/cyprus-parliament-postpon...

Argyll said:   Rathipon said:   If you had your money in a Spanish, Italian, or Greek bank right now you wouldn't consider moving it out? Cyprus itself is basically irrelevant. But it was the Eurocrats who forced this policy on them. If they can do it in Cyprus they can do it elsewhere. Even if it's unlikely, would you take that risk? Some people have woken up to find that a tenth of their life's accumulation of wealth taken away overnight. Not 10% of income... Savings. On the other hand, if you put your wealth into real estate or equities you aren't responsible at all. That's the danger here. Managing an economy these days has been reduced to a confidence game - and arbitrarily assigning liability for recapitalizing banks on savers is not exactly the best way to maintain confidence in liquid savings? Depositors throughout Europe will be justifiably spooked..

The alternative was to lose 100% of savings. And any money stashed under the mattress would be worth 40% less because of devaluation of the Cypriot currency, and the economy would come to a halt and you wouldn't be able to buy much anyway, nor would you likely have employment.


I don't suppose an alternative could have been to allow bondholders to take the loss... as originally intended.

I'm not a big fan of bailouts - but if you are going to do one, why do it in such a way where in exchange for 6 billion Euros give or take you jeopardize the entire continent's trust and confidence in the banking system? Bailing out the Cypriots in the same manner as the other beleaguered Euro nations is certainly an alternative.

I kind of disagree with the premise that a national bankruptcy or a failure of a nation's banking system halts an economy in such a drastic way as you implied. They seem to more or less be doing ok in Iceland, right?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100561058

Nikkei down some 2% and other Asian markets doing lousy as well on fears that taxing depositors creates a dangerous precedent in the Eurozone.

So I think we can already deem refuted the contention that the Cyprus bailout is "hardly news" or "hardly meaningful"

Argyll said:   "He said the tax would only be as much as the interest collected on deposits over two years and stressed that it would only happen once because it would ensure the bailout wouldn’t push the country’s debt to unsustainable levels.

Anastasiades said savers would be compensated with bank shares. Moreover, all those depositors who opt to keep their money in Cypriot banks for at least two years would receive government bonds with a value equal to their losses. The bonds will be backed up by future revenue generated from the country’s newfound offshore gas deposits."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/cyprus-parliament-postpon...

"A senior government official said it wants to reduce the tax on bank deposits under €100,000, with a corresponding increase in the tax on deposits over that amount. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks."

Good . Hopefully somebody has the same idea I do

I'm from Cyprus, although now living in the US. I fully expect parliament to vote against this agreement, and the country to be in limbo for a while until the next version of the agreement is hammered out. I'm afraid the damage is already done though, as surely the Russians will move their money regardless of the outcome I don't have much to add to what already has been mentioned in this thread, other than there's a strong feeling among Cypriots that the Troika's endgame is to get their hands on the natural gas rights of Cyprus. I'm not sure if this is simply a conspiracy theory, but knowing what Cyprus has been through over the centuries, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an inkling of truth to it.

Rathipon said:   Argyll said:   Rathipon said:   If you had your money in a Spanish, Italian, or Greek bank right now you wouldn't consider moving it out? Cyprus itself is basically irrelevant. But it was the Eurocrats who forced this policy on them. If they can do it in Cyprus they can do it elsewhere. Even if it's unlikely, would you take that risk? Some people have woken up to find that a tenth of their life's accumulation of wealth taken away overnight. Not 10% of income... Savings. On the other hand, if you put your wealth into real estate or equities you aren't responsible at all. That's the danger here. Managing an economy these days has been reduced to a confidence game - and arbitrarily assigning liability for recapitalizing banks on savers is not exactly the best way to maintain confidence in liquid savings? Depositors throughout Europe will be justifiably spooked..

The alternative was to lose 100% of savings. And any money stashed under the mattress would be worth 40% less because of devaluation of the Cypriot currency, and the economy would come to a halt and you wouldn't be able to buy much anyway, nor would you likely have employment.


I don't suppose an alternative could have been to allow bondholders to take the loss... as originally intended.

I'm not a big fan of bailouts - but if you are going to do one, why do it in such a way where in exchange for 6 billion Euros give or take you jeopardize the entire continent's trust and confidence in the banking system? Bailing out the Cypriots in the same manner as the other beleaguered Euro nations is certainly an alternative.

I kind of disagree with the premise that a national bankruptcy or a failure of a nation's banking system halts an economy in such a drastic way as you implied. They seem to more or less be doing ok in Iceland, right?


Iceland? Iceland did not do okay. Just prior to the nationalization of the banks the Icelandic króna had declined more than 35% against the euro from January to September 2008. Inflation of consumer prices was running at 14%, and Iceland's interest rates had been raised to 15.5% to deal with the high inflation.

After the nationalization, the national currency fell sharply in value, foreign currency transactions were virtually suspended for weeks, and the market capitalisation of the Icelandic stock exchange fell by more than 90%. As a result of the crisis, Iceland underwent a severe economic recession; the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) dropped by 5.5% in real terms in the first six months of 2010. Outside Iceland, more than half a million depositors (far more than the entire population of Iceland) found their bank accounts frozen, as a result of the foreign branches of the 3 Icelandic banks were thrown into receivership; and a subsequent diplomatic dispute (known as the Icesave dispute) also evolved over repayment of deposit insurance between Iceland at one side versus United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Argyll said:   Iceland? Iceland did not do okay. Just prior to the nationalization of the banks the Icelandic króna had declined more than 35% against the euro from January to September 2008. Inflation of consumer prices was running at 14%, and Iceland's interest rates had been raised to 15.5% to deal with the high inflation.

After the nationalization, the national currency fell sharply in value, foreign currency transactions were virtually suspended for weeks, and the market capitalisation of the Icelandic stock exchange fell by more than 90%. As a result of the crisis, Iceland underwent a severe economic recession; the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) dropped by 5.5% in real terms in the first six months of 2010. Outside Iceland, more than half a million depositors (far more than the entire population of Iceland) found their bank accounts frozen, as a result of the foreign branches of the 3 Icelandic banks were thrown into receivership; and a subsequent diplomatic dispute (known as the Icesave dispute) also evolved over repayment of deposit insurance between Iceland at one side versus United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Out of curiosity, how is the country doing now?

Argyll said:   Rathipon said:   Argyll said:   Rathipon said:   If you had your money in a Spanish, Italian, or Greek bank right now you wouldn't consider moving it out? Cyprus itself is basically irrelevant. But it was the Eurocrats who forced this policy on them. If they can do it in Cyprus they can do it elsewhere. Even if it's unlikely, would you take that risk? Some people have woken up to find that a tenth of their life's accumulation of wealth taken away overnight. Not 10% of income... Savings. On the other hand, if you put your wealth into real estate or equities you aren't responsible at all. That's the danger here. Managing an economy these days has been reduced to a confidence game - and arbitrarily assigning liability for recapitalizing banks on savers is not exactly the best way to maintain confidence in liquid savings? Depositors throughout Europe will be justifiably spooked..

The alternative was to lose 100% of savings. And any money stashed under the mattress would be worth 40% less because of devaluation of the Cypriot currency, and the economy would come to a halt and you wouldn't be able to buy much anyway, nor would you likely have employment.


I don't suppose an alternative could have been to allow bondholders to take the loss... as originally intended.

I'm not a big fan of bailouts - but if you are going to do one, why do it in such a way where in exchange for 6 billion Euros give or take you jeopardize the entire continent's trust and confidence in the banking system? Bailing out the Cypriots in the same manner as the other beleaguered Euro nations is certainly an alternative.

I kind of disagree with the premise that a national bankruptcy or a failure of a nation's banking system halts an economy in such a drastic way as you implied. They seem to more or less be doing ok in Iceland, right?


Iceland? Iceland did not do okay. Just prior to the nationalization of the banks the Icelandic króna had declined more than 35% against the euro from January to September 2008. Inflation of consumer prices was running at 14%, and Iceland's interest rates had been raised to 15.5% to deal with the high inflation.

After the nationalization, the national currency fell sharply in value, foreign currency transactions were virtually suspended for weeks, and the market capitalisation of the Icelandic stock exchange fell by more than 90%. As a result of the crisis, Iceland underwent a severe economic recession; the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) dropped by 5.5% in real terms in the first six months of 2010. Outside Iceland, more than half a million depositors (far more than the entire population of Iceland) found their bank accounts frozen, as a result of the foreign branches of the 3 Icelandic banks were thrown into receivership; and a subsequent diplomatic dispute (known as the Icesave dispute) also evolved over repayment of deposit insurance between Iceland at one side versus United Kingdom and the Netherlands.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-26/is-remedy-for-next-cris...

Money quote: Devaluation of the kind Iceland suffered is never fun. Reneging on debts leaves a legacy of violated trust. But it still looks better than recession with no obvious way out.

And that's basically the point isn't it? The proverbial shit will hit the fan in Cyprus no matter what. Or rather, it already has. My point is that a debt default on a national level, while not pretty, doesn't necessarily imply the type of economic catastrophe you implied, as demonstrated by Iceland's recent experience.

Another money quote:

Few countries blew up more spectacularly than Iceland in the 2008 financial crisis. The local stock market plunged 90 percent; unemployment rose ninefold; inflation shot to more than 18 percent; the country’s biggest banks all failed.

This was no post-Lehman Brothers recession: It was a depression.

Since then, Iceland has turned in a pretty impressive performance. It has repaid International Monetary Fund rescue loans ahead of schedule. Growth this year will be about 2.5 percent, better than most developed economies. Unemployment has fallen by half. In February, Fitch Ratings restored the country’s investment-grade status, approvingly citing its “unorthodox crisis policy response.”

GotRocks said:    Would you come to Cyprus if the economy was in turmoil?

Of course! Good way to score a deal!

theospurs said:   I'm from Cyprus, although now living in the US. I fully expect parliament to vote against this agreement, and the country to be in limbo for a while until the next version of the agreement is hammered out. I'm afraid the damage is already done though, as surely the Russians will move their money regardless of the outcome I don't have much to add to what already has been mentioned in this thread, other than there's a strong feeling among Cypriots that the Troika's endgame is to get their hands on the natural gas rights of Cyprus. I'm not sure if this is simply a conspiracy theory, but knowing what Cyprus has been through over the centuries, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an inkling of truth to it.

They wont vote it down it would be suicide. They can only play a game of 'let's alter this just enough to not scare away the bailout tranche'. Those 2 financial institutions fail and Cyprus is f@cked! If you think depositor flight would have been bad under 7% tax just think how bad it would be when the government of Cyprus doesn't even have enough money to pay the depositors of those 2 institutions and they take huge haircuts and everybody else goes "Well if they can't pay for them they surely can't pay to cover my deposits in x institution, I'm out of here!"

They didn't have a choice and they don't have a choice. Maybe they can tweak it and still get their bailout, but when your the recipient the alternative is worse.

Rathipon said:   Another money quote:

Few countries blew up more spectacularly than Iceland in the 2008 financial crisis. The local stock market plunged 90 percent; unemployment rose ninefold; inflation shot to more than 18 percent; the country’s biggest banks all failed.

This was no post-Lehman Brothers recession: It was a depression.

Since then, Iceland has turned in a pretty impressive performance. It has repaid International Monetary Fund rescue loans ahead of schedule. Growth this year will be about 2.5 percent, better than most developed economies. Unemployment has fallen by half. In February, Fitch Ratings restored the country’s investment-grade status, approvingly citing its “unorthodox crisis policy response.”


When you're competitive(a la not Greece) you would be surprised how fast you can bounce back when smart investors rush into your distressed assets. Same happened with Ireland.

When you're Greece or Italy and your government is nothing more than a vampire squid on your national economy than not so much!

Argyll said:   
They said that one of the two banks involved would close and the other would go into default, meaning depositors would lose most of their money. The government does not have the funds to insure the deposits. So the option was depositors losing all or most of their money or somewhere between 6 and 10%. Which would you choose? Not to mention the first option would mean the collapse of the entire banking system and most of the economy, making any remaining money worth 40% less because of the devaluation of the currency.
Devalue what, euro ? Cyprus president would give his right hand for the opportunity to devalue.

Man, do you understand that the entire EuroMorass happened exactly because the single currency removed the opportunity for a weaker, less efficient economies to devalue and thus adjust.

Now about Cyprus banking system - I just don't see how they'd open their banks to the unlimited withdrawals any time soon - they'd have a bank run now either way, with or without levy. The logical thing would be now to restrict access to the currency a-la Argentina, but tragically they'd have to restrict the access to their own money choking the economy.

The law of unintended consequences at it's best - when the desire to save six billions would cost EU tenfold easily.

This would never happen in the United States. Now raiding 401k's of people under 60, with a one time 10% tax, I could see the government doing.

neophyte said:   
The law of unintended consequences at it's best - when the desire to save six billions would cost EU tenfold easily.


But of course this presumes that the 'tenfold quantity' isn't already lost one way or another and just looking for something to trigger it. It also presumes that this 'tenfold number' isn't growing the longer the Eurozone waits to deal with it.

So as messed up as this sounds its quite conceivable that if this were to become a watershed moment that it will actually save the Eurozone money by dealing with these problems today relative to the amount of money they would have to spend to deal with these problems next year or the year after.

Still doesn't mean I agree with the notion of taxing deposits, but in a very weird way I want to see the Eurozone deal with their problems now while they're cheaper than next year so that me and others don't have effectively boycott the long side of their entire financial markets because of these issues they refuse to deal with.

I think it was Zeno (of Citium) who said "extravagance is its own destroyer."

Nothing quite like being the low man on the totem pole when bigger fish are in trouble. Cyprus now feels the full meaning of the phrase 'the Euro stops here'.

GotRocks said:   President (of Cyprus) speaks of state of emergency Cyprus is facing

Love the pro-point list, especially item 6:
>> It does not cause any further recession and averts the danger of a second bailout agreement.

Then followed it up with this gem: "We are not beautifying the situation."

Just because some political wonks can put lipstick on a pig, doesn't mean the public won't notice. Or is this admittance that the turmoil to follow is going to be recast as 'in the pipeline' and therefore not a 'further' degree of economic distress than would have been seen in any scenario? Theft and blatant lies go hand in hand here. Maybe they needed this statement to help convince themselves of their own lie...if so, it's gonna need a lot of repeating in the near future.

HawkeyeNFO said:   This is probably a small test run, before it is attempted on a larger scale, perhaps in Italy or Spain. A tax on wealth, which directly benefits the elite. If this goes down peacefully, we'll see it again.
For all but the most power elite among us, this situation should raise the hairs on the back of our collective necks.

I see parallels in the occasional suggestion that the U.S. may go after private retirement accounts. It's not hard to imagine congress requiring that such funds be redirected into treasuries once no willing buyers remain. Upon reaching a practical limit on the creation of money from nothing and attending accounting shell games, such measures may well be recast as attractive 'solutions'.

riznick said:   Argyll said:   Iceland? Iceland did not do okay. Just prior to the nationalization of the banks the Icelandic króna had declined more than 35% against the euro from January to September 2008. Inflation of consumer prices was running at 14%, and Iceland's interest rates had been raised to 15.5% to deal with the high inflation.

After the nationalization, the national currency fell sharply in value, foreign currency transactions were virtually suspended for weeks, and the market capitalisation of the Icelandic stock exchange fell by more than 90%. As a result of the crisis, Iceland underwent a severe economic recession; the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) dropped by 5.5% in real terms in the first six months of 2010. Outside Iceland, more than half a million depositors (far more than the entire population of Iceland) found their bank accounts frozen, as a result of the foreign branches of the 3 Icelandic banks were thrown into receivership; and a subsequent diplomatic dispute (known as the Icesave dispute) also evolved over repayment of deposit insurance between Iceland at one side versus United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Out of curiosity, how is the country doing now?
You guys should listen to this podcast. The fact of the matter is that default is a faster, easier way to financial health than slowly paying off your debts (on the personal scale) or national recession (on the national scale). The results don't lie.....

Cyprus interest rates

Interest rates in one local Cyprus bank were up to 11% on 5 year CD and around 3.5% on 30 day deposits. I'd be interested if the Cyprus based posters could shed some light on these interest rates. Some websites say depositers were getting around 7% per annum, not sure about the conditions. Also, pretty well known these banks were insolvent, but there was a FDIC-like protection of 100k deposits or less.

Still an unusual action to "confiscate" or tax a substantial portion of any size deposit with no warning.

dshibb said:   theospurs said:   I'm from Cyprus, although now living in the US. I fully expect parliament to vote against this agreement, and the country to be in limbo for a while until the next version of the agreement is hammered out. I'm afraid the damage is already done though, as surely the Russians will move their money regardless of the outcome I don't have much to add to what already has been mentioned in this thread, other than there's a strong feeling among Cypriots that the Troika's endgame is to get their hands on the natural gas rights of Cyprus. I'm not sure if this is simply a conspiracy theory, but knowing what Cyprus has been through over the centuries, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an inkling of truth to it.

They wont vote it down it would be suicide. They can only play a game of 'let's alter this just enough to not scare away the bailout tranche'. Those 2 financial institutions fail and Cyprus is f@cked! If you think depositor flight would have been bad under 7% tax just think how bad it would be when the government of Cyprus doesn't even have enough money to pay the depositors of those 2 institutions and they take huge haircuts and everybody else goes "Well if they can't pay for them they surely can't pay to cover my deposits in x institution, I'm out of here!"

They didn't have a choice and they don't have a choice. Maybe they can tweak it and still get their bailout, but when your the recipient the alternative is worse.



You don't know politicians in Cyprus if you think that they won't vote against it just on principal or for posturing purposes. I fully expect a modified deal though, possibily one that is either guaranteed by natural gas revenues in 5-10 years, or one that has Cyprus giving up some of the natural gas rights up front.

riznick said:   Argyll said:   Iceland? Iceland did not do okay. Just prior to the nationalization of the banks the Icelandic króna had declined more than 35% against the euro from January to September 2008. Inflation of consumer prices was running at 14%, and Iceland's interest rates had been raised to 15.5% to deal with the high inflation.

After the nationalization, the national currency fell sharply in value, foreign currency transactions were virtually suspended for weeks, and the market capitalisation of the Icelandic stock exchange fell by more than 90%. As a result of the crisis, Iceland underwent a severe economic recession; the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) dropped by 5.5% in real terms in the first six months of 2010. Outside Iceland, more than half a million depositors (far more than the entire population of Iceland) found their bank accounts frozen, as a result of the foreign branches of the 3 Icelandic banks were thrown into receivership; and a subsequent diplomatic dispute (known as the Icesave dispute) also evolved over repayment of deposit insurance between Iceland at one side versus United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Out of curiosity, how is the country doing now?


Well, all things considered. Iceland was the quintessential small offshore finance bubble economy, with not much of a real export sector to back things up. But by taking the harsh devaluation approach, their economy cleaned up its balance sheet relatively quickly. The unemployment rate is now at 5.8% and GDP is above 2004 levels and growing back at trend. Of course it will be a while until it exceeds the crazy bubble levels (GDP grew 54% from 2004 to 2007). Then again those GDP figures were never sustainable.

NPR Planet Money had a number of great episodes on Iceland and how they handled the financial crisis. Well worth checking out and full of lessons for the rest of us:

2011 - The Island That Ran Out of Money
2012 - Should Iceland Kill the Krona?
2013 - A New Mom and the President of Iceland

So the important question is, where will the Russians move the money, Real Estate in NYC or London? Maybe banking through Dubai?
Just want to know how I can profit from this.

The Bank of Cyprus website is up like nothing is happening. Should I open an account? Competitive interest rates.

Anyway, things are still in flux. I would be very surprised if this plan materializes the way it was announced. If they want to create bank runs in Italy, Greece and Spain, this is the perfect plan.

magika said:   motuwallet said:    if they try this in Greece, Italy, or Spain there will be war overnight. is this why DHS is buying 5 bullets for every man, woman, and child in America? anyone who has been remotely paying attention over the past few months has to be wondering why TPTB are moving so quickly ...

Why is it every time a federal agency buys ammo for its agents (who have a perfectly valid use for it in target practice, which they must conduct to meet training requirements), this comes up? Its the same argument every 6 months - as it was six months ago when the Social Security Administration bought ammo for its law enforcement agents. By the way, I can use google and go back to 2005 and every time the DHS or another federal agency buys ammo, the "OMG WW3" doom nuts come out of the woodwork. Could it just be perfectly normal agency operations?


Please tell me why the Social Security Administration needs 1.6 billion hollowpoint rounds eventually.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/why-is-department-hom...

So they cited that they attaining 175k for 295 agents to qualify with initially. So close to 600 rounds each? That seems pretty high. Little by little the stockpiles grow as long as they can sorta explain and keep it under the radar. Rinse repeat, hoard.

600 rounds goes by pretty fast when you're training.

DamnoIT said:   magika said:   motuwallet said:    if they try this in Greece, Italy, or Spain there will be war overnight. is this why DHS is buying 5 bullets for every man, woman, and child in America? anyone who has been remotely paying attention over the past few months has to be wondering why TPTB are moving so quickly ...

Why is it every time a federal agency buys ammo for its agents (who have a perfectly valid use for it in target practice, which they must conduct to meet training requirements), this comes up? Its the same argument every 6 months - as it was six months ago when the Social Security Administration bought ammo for its law enforcement agents. By the way, I can use google and go back to 2005 and every time the DHS or another federal agency buys ammo, the "OMG WW3" doom nuts come out of the woodwork. Could it just be perfectly normal agency operations?


Please tell me why the Social Security Administration needs 1.6 billion hollowpoint rounds eventually.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/why-is-department-hom...

So they cited that they attaining 175k for 295 agents to qualify with initially. So close to 600 rounds each? That seems pretty high. Little by little the stockpiles grow as long as they can sorta explain and keep it under the radar. Rinse repeat, hoard.


Or better yet why does the SSA need armed agents? It's duplication waste... in the unlikely event that they encounter a situation that requires weaponry they could defer that responsibility to the FBI or local law enforcement.

I'd hazard a guess that they do law enforcement against social security fraud, needing guns in the process. Why does the navy, and the army need their own aircraft - couldn't they defer to one specialized branch that does planes and such?

Edit:
As much overlap as it creates, each department probably wants as much control over their own operations as they could possibly get. Not every department will set your operation's priority as high as you want it to be.

burgerwars said:   The Bank of Cyprus website is up like nothing is happening. Should I open an account? Competitive interest rates.
.


Greek bond investors did well last year... Roll the dice

brettdoyle said:   Or better yet why does the SSA need armed agents? It's duplication waste...

Ever been to D.C.? There are at least 20-25 different law enforcement agencies within the boundaries of the district.

Asked today for reactions to this situation, a White House spokesman announced O'Bama has no comment.

I think he wants to draw as little attention to this as possible, while keeping his options open.

Incidentally, the spelling of the man's name, above, is in deference to his Irish roots and the proximity of St. Patrick's Day.

This is all BS crap. Banks can make much more money by helicopter Ben's printing m/c than confiscating some piddly deposit fractions. US deposit rates are so minuscule anyway.

DamnoIT said:   
Please tell me why the Social Security Administration needs 1.6 billion hollowpoint rounds eventually.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/why-is-department-hom...

So they cited that they attaining 175k for 295 agents to qualify with initially. So close to 600 rounds each? That seems pretty high. Little by little the stockpiles grow as long as they can sorta explain and keep it under the radar. Rinse repeat, hoard.


Ye gods. If you're going to be a conspiracy nut, at least have the decency to check Snopes. SSA Bullets

They requested a quote for 174,000 bullets. Now stop getting your news from a tabloid (Fox).

brettdoyle said:   
Or better yet why does the SSA need armed agents? It's duplication waste... in the unlikely event that they encounter a situation that requires weaponry they could defer that responsibility to the FBI or local law enforcement.


They have an Office of Investigations to crack down on fraud, abuse, waste, and misuse of official resources. They already coordinate with the FBI and other LE agencies.

I love how a couple posters thought this was no big deal because Cyprus is just some podunk country and this is the biggest news today all over the world.

So much for the notion that this was unimportant.

dshibb said:   I love how a couple posters thought this was no big deal because Cyprus is just some podunk country and this is the biggest news today all over the world.

So much for the notion that this was unimportant.


You in Canada or something? I really cannot imagine where you are. Course if you're in Europe your post makes sense.

Here in the USA this story is receiving scarce mention in our mainstream media, and no emphasis. Heck, the Lindsay Lohan story overshadows this by a couple orders of magnitude. In the United States this is not the sort of story the "powers that be" wish to be brought to the attention of average people.

shinobi1 said:   dshibb said:   I love how a couple posters thought this was no big deal because Cyprus is just some podunk country and this is the biggest news today all over the world.

So much for the notion that this was unimportant.


You in Canada or something? I really cannot imagine where you are. Course if you're in Europe your post makes sense.

Here in the USA this story is receiving scarce mention in our mainstream media, and no emphasis. Heck, the Lindsay Lohan story overshadows this by a couple orders of magnitude. In the United States this is not the sort of story the "powers that be" wish to be brought to the attention of average people.


Sure about that? It's 98% of CNBC's coverage today!

Headline of wall street journal today.

Drudge's primary headline all day has been this.

It's littered the entire page of RealClearMarket's links

It's been about 1/10th of StreetSleuth's headlines all day which aggregates all the major financial news players and posts their last 8 headlines out of those sources.


I'm sure your preferred watching of E! doesn't have anything on it, but for news that counts in this space(financial news) this is the whole story today.

dshibb said:   shinobi1 said:   dshibb said:   I love how a couple posters thought this was no big deal because Cyprus is just some podunk country and this is the biggest news today all over the world.

So much for the notion that this was unimportant.


You in Canada or something? I really cannot imagine where you are. Course if you're in Europe your post makes sense.

Here in the USA this story is receiving scarce mention in our mainstream media, and no emphasis. Heck, the Lindsay Lohan story overshadows this by a couple orders of magnitude. In the United States this is not the sort of story the "powers that be" wish to be brought to the attention of average people.


Sure about that? It's 98% of CNBC's coverage today!

Headline of wall street journal today.

Drudge's primary headline all day has been this.

It's littered the entire page of RealClearMarket's links

It's been about 1/10th of StreetSleuth's headlines all day which aggregates all the major financial news players and posts their last 8 headlines out of those sources.


I'm sure your preferred watching of E! doesn't have anything on it, but for news that counts in this space(financial news) this is the whole story today.


It's also the top trend on CNN, although (interestingly enough) their front page only has 2 other mentions of it right now.

In the past few weeks/months, I noticed that Yahoo has ceased to be a news portal, focusing instead on entertainment news



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014