Someone PLEASE tell me how, in just FOUR SHORT MONTHS, Obama has managed to take over the banks, kick out the CEO of a private company, hand over a private company, financed with OUR money, to a union? Oh, and let’s not forget his handing over CA to another union, SEIU? How?? How has this happened???

Oh, wait – and how about those of us who pay back our credit card bills regularly now being saddled with having to support the losers who act in bad faith? Why do we have to constantly bail out, and ENABLE, those people who go over their means, be it credit cards or mortgages or car loans? And the Senate can stop acting like they give a crap about this issue – Obama VOTED to enable the credit card companies while a senator, along with many other Democrats. So just stop the charade – and stop laying the burden of irresponsible behavior on those of us who have good credit, or else WE might not have that any longer, either.

If you have not already read it, I recommend to you the following post by my good friend, SusanUnPC, “A Personal Note Only For Those Who Voted For Obama.” And I would add, not only “ditto,” but in the most pastoral way possible to those who did vote for Obama, you can just bite me for what you have unleashed on this country. If only there was a way to make only those people support the UAW/GM, pay the ne’er-do-wells’ credit card bills, etc.

Hmm – that’s a thought – let’s figure out how to do just that – let them pay for Obama’s taking over private companies, banks, and kowtowing to the unions (again – I am not anti-union in general, just when they try to take over states or private companies). A pipe dream, I know, but for this moment, it helps to keep my head from exploding…

“Usurers” is a dirty word. In dark streets, we call them “loan sharks.” Otherwise we call them “credit card companies.” It’s shocking that the interest they can charge along with the other little gouging games they play are legal. But we do have little stones to toss at this Goliath…

Legislation may be afoot to bring some measure of control to the ravenous appetites of the already profit-bloated credit card companies. But as Uppity Woman reported earlier, don’t get too excited about real reform from those who are supposed to be watching out for our interests yet.

There is something that could cut into the credit card profits. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, a few legislators want to make it much easier for merchants to charge less to patrons who pay cash for products and services. It’s not that this cannot be done now, but merchants are under totalitarian-like restrictions placed on them by the credit card companies.

The law allows merchants to charge less [1-3%] for using cash, but card companies’ contracts with retailers can make it difficult. Merchants say they’re required to post two prices on every product if they want to charge more for credit card use, and that the credit card price be more prominent. Retailers can face penalties if they don’t.

These merchant/vendor fees, amounting to tens of billions of dollars, are also unfair to every customer who currently pays cash for a product purchased from a merchant who also takes credit cards. Proposed legislation would allow discounts for cash, check, and debit card payments and outlaw any reprisal against merchants who charge less for transactions that do not involve credit cards.

Will this go anywhere? Who knows. But in the meantime paying for things the old fashioned way—with cash– deflates some of that huge profit that credit card companies extract from our backsides.

The one thing consumers have been really angered over isn’t going to change at all in this bill. In fact, interest rate caps are no longer even mentioned. This ensures that the House and Senate can continue to enjoy eating at the contribution trough like the pigs they are –while taking their constituents for fools.

WASHINGTON(Reuters) – A bill to curb sharp practices in the credit card business was on track for approval by the U.S. Senate as early as Tuesday, with President Barack Obama expected to sign it into law before the end of the month.

Enactment of the legislation would mark the crest of a political backlash rising for years against the card industry amid sudden interest rate increases, hidden fees and aggressive marketing programs that have angered consumers, analysts said.

What’s the reaction from the Credit Card Companies?

“This is a tough bill and will hurt the profitability of credit card lenders in our view. But the legislation could have been much worse” for card companies, said Jaret Seiberg, financial services policy analyst at Concept Capital.

Translation: “Whoa! We escaped real regulation again! Write that check to Senator Pig, Clyde!”.

Now that our caring Congress has stepped in, your credit card company has to give you a 45 day warning before it arbitrarily hikes your interest rate whenever they need to gouge you.

The Senate bill would limit, but not prohibit, card issuers’ ability to raise interest rates on existing balances.

It would require 45-day notice of most rate increases; limit rate increases for new and promotional-rate accounts; prohibit certain kinds of fees; and bar extension of credit to consumers under the age of 18, with narrow exceptions.

(congressional snowball in summer)
In other words, you are still screwed.

You can receive a letter from your credit card company at any time telling you that your rate is going to change to any number they choose–in 45 days. Most of them already were giving 30 days notice. So biggggg deal.

You have to hand it to these House and Senate hucksters. They have truly mastered the art of handing out snowballs in the summer that melt right in your hand.

Oh and guess what else they ‘Provided for’ in the bill? Are you sitting down?

In addition, the bill would require more disclosure of the terms of card agreements; require periodic review of a cardholders’ interest rate and open the possibility of lowering it if warranted;

In addition to taking you for a fool, these people are a bunch of comedians, aren’t they? As if your credit card company is just chomping at the bit for “permission” to lower your interest rate! These political whores didn’t even have the integrity to define and direct these banks as to what should warrant a lowering of an interest rate: Like say, your FICO score, for instance! Or years of paying on time without ever missing a payment.

Nothing from Congress. Nada. Zilch. A useless piece of legislation from our useless elected contribution whores. Again.

They did manage to do one “good” thing though, only one wonders why they even let the practice of giving charge cards to 10-year-olds happen to begin with, much less allow it to continue on ”unnoticed” for years.

Senator Byron Dorgan on the Senate floor on Monday criticized card issuers, citing what he said was a marketing pitch by a major issuer for a pink, white and yellow “Hello Kitty” credit card aimed at children 10 to 14 years of age.

“I’d just love to know the person who thought this up and to say, ‘Are you nuts?’” Dorgan said. “What on earth are credit companies doing soliciting young kids to get a credit card?”

Yes Senator, and I would like to know how it is that you and the rest of your buddies looked the other way with your heads up your asses for years while this was going on–and now you suddenly notice, but only because we are watching.

To sum things up, this bill isn’t worth the powder to blow it up with, as usual. It doesn’t address a cap on loan shark rates at all. Nor does it reign in the companies from arbitrarily raising your rates for no reason other than they just want to gouge you some more. Both of these issues got removed from consideration right after your Senator and Congress person tallied up all those campaign contributions. Only 33 senators voted “Yes” in roll call to a bill that would have capped interest rates. Only one of them was a Republican, you should know this the next time you have delusions that this party cares about you any more than the Democrats do. As for the Democrats, the number “32″ is a very interesting statement, don’t you think? The Party of The People? At least Republicans are up-front about letting you know they don’t give a rat’s ass about what their biggest donors are doing to you. (See names of “Yes” voters here)

Not only did both parties let you down AGAIN, but this bill doesn’t take affect immediately. The toothless bill that gums credit card companies to death won’t take affect for nine months after the President ceremoniously signs the useless thing. This gives your credit card company plenty of time to figure out how to shove it up your ass a couple of more times first.

…..with President Barack Obama expected to sign it into law before the end of the month.

Barack Obama will sign this Nothing Bill with great fanfare. He might even say something to the effect that “It’s not perfect but it’s better than nothing”. Too bad it is Nothing. It’s always nice to make a big production when you are really screwing the public. It helps give credibility to the pretense that you care.

Now run along. We wouldn’t want you to miss American Idol!

A precursor to the turmoil roiling our economy and markets today occurred on a smaller, but certainly very dramatic, scale in 1998. The meltdown of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management brought the market to its knees at the time. LTCM was effectively taken over by a consortium of Wall Street banks at the behest of New York Federal Reserve Chairman, William McDonough. The firms injected approximately $3 billion dollars in order to stabilize LTCM and then unwound it in an orderly fashion.

The lessons learned in the LTCM crisis were obviously not learned well enough because we are experiencing them again a multiple hundred fold. The centerpiece of our current fiasco is AIG (known at Sense on Cents as “Ain’t It Great”).

The dramatic story of Long Term Capital Management is captured in a book I strongly recommend for anybody interested in the history of the financial markets. When Genius Failed, by Roger Lowenstein, is a great read and truly captures the intrigue, egos, and tension of that period. As the current turmoil unwinds I look forward to the books published on this period, as well.

While books can be entertaining, they are not the vehicle for learning real lessons. Personal experience is always the best teacher.

I dealt personally with the partners of LTCM during the development of their firm, throughout its 4 year duration, and its downfall. LTCM operated in a totally quantitative style where the models embedded in black boxes dictated transactions. AIG did the same.

LTCM thought they had a diversified book of exposures across foreign and domestic sectors of both the credit and equity markets. AIG did the same, although their greatest exposure centered on the sub-prime mortgage space.

LTCM viewed themselves as both bigger and smarter than the market itself. AIG did the same.

LTCM totally mispriced liquidity risk, that is the risk that another human being needed to provide liquidity for the unwinding of a trade. AIG did the same.

LTCM was not officially bailed out. Although the principals and investors in that fund were largely wiped out, the firm did not outright fail as the consortium of banks injected capital. Did the moral hazard of that experience play into the AIG debacle? This point will be debated in the months and years ahead.

One angle of the LTCM meltdown that has received very little public attention over the years was the manner in which Wall Street banks managed their own books and capital during that period. In short, the senior executives of the consortium of banks involved in saving the system during the LTCM meltdown became totally aware of LTCM’s positions. That confidential information was tremendously valuable because those positions obviously needed to be unwound. In layman’s terms, if I know you are in a position of having to sell something, I can drive the market lower in your face so you are forced to sell at an ever lower price. It is widely speculated that Goldman Sachs effectively front ran the unwinding of LTCM’s positions and made hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

Fast forward to today’s situation with AIG. The Wall Street banks certainly know what AIG’s positions are along with the fact that the government is trying to unwind these positions. Do you think Wall Street traders are sitting idly by as AIG tries to unwind this mess? Why has AIG needed an ever increasing amount of government money? Very simply, the markets that AIG has exposure to are continuing to weaken as they try to exit positions. Why are they weakening? It would be naive to think that other Wall Street traders are not once again front running AIG much as Goldman Sachs’ traders supposedly front ran LTCM in 1998.

How can the government prevent any front running on behalf of Wall Street banks? Regulators should be scouring the trading records of every AIG counterparty on a regular basis. Are the regulators doing this? The government and regulators are certainly stretched very thin. Are Wall Street traders taking advantage of the situation? It would be naive to think they are not.

Trust but verify!! Actually, why should we trust a crowd that has provided no basis for trust to this point? Let’s just verify!!

LD

I thank our loyal reader in Michigan, Mr. Fiscal Liberal, for sharing with us a piece written by Simon Johnson, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Mr. Johnson writes about the growing problems in Europe. I am hard pressed to see how the European situation, both in the East and West, can not end badly. There are too many economies that are effectively insolvent or on the brink of insolvency. I believe this is the region of the world which will experience increased economic strife leading to social unrest and political change. Can the problems in Europe be contained given the massively interconnected world of global finance?

Thank you again FL for sharing this very enlightening piece from Simon Johnson!!

G-20s Real Agenda Should be Saving Europe from Itself
By Simon Johnson
Last Updated: 10:28AM GMT 16 Mar 2009

The media coverage of the G20 finance ministers meeting this weekend was dominated by the apparent battle between those who support more fiscal stimulus and those who want to impose more regulations on the financial system.

This, we are led to believe, is the big debate facing the full G20 heads of government summit early next month: the US is pushing for a bigger global fiscal stimulus (2pc extra government spending from everyone, to be monitored by the IMF), while the continental Europeans are holding out for greater regulation. Gordon Brown is trying hard to cast himself as the broker for any apparent deal.

However, don’t be fooled by all this sound and fury. The rival agendas of fiscal stimulus and regulation are both red herrings at this point in time.

The reality is much less promising, for three reasons.

First, co-ordinated fiscal expansion made sense early in 2008, when it was first proposed by the IMF. But the severe downturn that followed the onset of financial panic last September means that very few countries can now afford to spend more or tax less.

And while the hard-headed redesign of regulation should be a top priority going forward, the G20 regulation agenda is weak.

Who really believes that establishing an international “college of supervisors” would achieve anything in terms of reigning in the power of major banks? Always a good principle to keep in mind when evaluating international reform proposals: anything that sounds meaningless is meaningless.

Second, while the conventional official reluctance to discuss unpleasant truths is always awkward, during a major global crisis it’s downright dangerous. Across the industrialised world, the financial sector has become too large and too politically powerful.

How do we break this power and move resources into something more productive and less inherently unstable? How do we deal with the failures of risk management, CEO leadership, and corporate governance in our still massive banks? Can we break them up before they break our economies?

There is not even an inkling of these major issues on the G20 agenda.

Third, politicians keep repeating something along the lines of “we face a global problem that needs a global solution” – this was Gordon Brown’s refrain in Washington recently. But the most pressing problems in 2009 are not so much global as European.

Back in the 1990s, much of east central Europe put itself on a high risk debt-fuelled growth path, egged on by Brussels. European Union accession countries were told that they could afford to import far more than they export – and that this difference would be financed by capital coming in from Western Europe. This was true, for a while, but now the crash in Eastern Europe threatens to bring down banks in Austria, Greece, Italy and other places that bet big on Hungary and its neighbours getting rich quick.

As Eastern Europe has plummeted into crisis, the West European response has been further bad advice. Countries with fixed exchange rates, such as Latvia, are told to cut wages and prices by 20-30pc, rather than devalue their currency.

Never mind that this is political suicide and bad economics. Brussels considers it better for the West European banks with capital at risk. Almost all of Eastern Europe is in trouble and will need to borrow from the IMF; the massive over-representation of Western Europe on the IMF’s board suggests that this will end badly.

And that’s not all. The crash of real estate in Ireland, Spain, and the UK worsens bank balance sheets that are already damaged from losses incurred in the crazy casino that was the American mortgage market.

The financial sector globally is shrinking, and this will lead to significant job losses in countries like the UK and Switzerland.

It gets worse. The US has banks that can plausibly claim they are Too Big To Fail, and this is bad enough – because it lets them get big bailouts. But Europe has banks that may be Too Big To Rescue – ask Iceland or, more recently, Ireland.

Far from being able to afford government expansion, European economies with big banks see the prospect of budget cutbacks – to persuade the financial markets that their governments are still good credit risks.

European countries face two types of future. On the one hand, countries that still control their own currencies can engage in creative monetary measures, pushing down the exchange rate and raising inflation; the Bank of England leads the way in this regard. Inflation will reduce debt burdens but of course comes with other costs. Think of it as the worst of all possible policy choices, apart from the alternatives.

And those most unpleasant alternatives are faced by Eurozone countries. Their economies are slowing dramatically, their banks are impaired, their budgets are constrained, and their monetary policy is in the hands of the European Central Bank (ECB).

These countries face the prospect of falling wages and prices. Most central bankers would recoil in horror as this deflation threatens further defaults and a deeper recession, but Jean-Claude Trichet, head of the ECB, is actually welcoming this development in Ireland and elsewhere.

The real agenda of the G20 should be helping save Europe from itself, for example by encouraging the creation of a €2-trillion European emergency economic stabilisation fund, funded primarily by richer Eurozone countries, and a major relaxation of Eurozone monetary policy.

Without such measures, we are likely on the path to a bigger slowdown in global growth and a more difficult recovery.

Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He co-founded and contributes to the economics blog The Baseline Scenario.

Part 1
In this clip, Geithner wears both the political and policy hats. While promoting the Obama agenda initially (housing, education, healthcare, energy), he then turns toward the specifics of unlocking the consumer credit securitization markets via the TALF (Term Asset Backed Securities Loan Facility). This facility attempts to restart the securitization market and model which I wrote was broken back on November 12th (The Wall Street Model Is Broken…and Won’t Soon be Fixed). That market provides approximately 40% of the financing to a wide array of consumer finance markets. Geithner attempts to portray a measure of confidence and aggressiveness. The market has currently responded with a vote of no confidence.

Part 2
Geithner addresses further specifics about the TALF and the public/private partnership that would be connected to the effort. The specifics of this public/private partnership are not addressed but, in essence, the government would provide financing (loans) for private entities to purchase asset-backed securities currently clogging bank balance sheets. Geithner does not provide specifics on the terms of the loans and MORE IMPORTANTLY does not address the fact that the government will likely share in the losses on these securities going forward. I believe many private investors are salivating at the potential for this program. Our Economic All Star John Mauldin commented that this partnership is the equivalent of government money coming in the front door and going to hedge funds out the back door. Mauldin proposes a suspension of the “mark to market” accounting rule that forces banks to mark these securities to depressed levels in the presence of no buyers.

Geithner defends his aborted initial delivery on his grand plan as “mismanaged expectations.” He also inaccurately describes mortgage rates as being close to 5%. The “mortgage mirage,” in which many people can not get a mortgage, has 30 year conventional mortgage rates closer to 5.5% and Jumbo rates in the 7% range, but virtually inaccessible.

Part 3
Geithner is forceful in this clip in stating that the government will stand behind the 20 largest banking institutions. These banks represent approximately 70% of the banking industry and – without using the phrase – Geithner is saying they’re “too big to fail.” He defends the capital injected as ultimately being in the best interests of the economy and taxpayers. He rails on the mismanagement and gross compensation practices at many of these institutions. He appreciates the anger and outrage of responsible people who are sufferring from the damage caused by those who have been irresponsible. All good.

When addressing the need for global regulatory changes as well as domestic regulatory changes, I suggest Secretary Geithner listen to former Australian Prime Minister and Treasurer Paul Keating who undressed him this past weekend. Keating opines that the IMF and World Bank will see a massive shift in power to the surplus economies of the East from the debtor economies of the West. Here at home, when Geithner talks about focused accountability, let’s see if he and the Obama administration effect the necessary changes in the corrosive influence of lobbyists as well as addressing the incompetence displayed at the SEC and FINRA.

Part 4
Geithner attempts to make the case that investors, both foreign and domestic, will continue to invest in our country and our U.S. government debt if they have confidence. The administration has the obligation to maintain that confidence. The first step in maintaining the confidence is displayed in the budget proposed by President Obama. Geithner puts his political hat back on in promoting the Obama agenda as being economically sound, laced with fiscal discipline, and promoting their moral obligation.

Investors are less sure about Geithner’s feelings and have voiced their indecision by exiting the markets since this budget was proposed.

Geithner further addresses the necessity for individuals, corporations, and governments to live within their means. Investors have roundly responded that they believe this administration and Congress are doing anything but living within their means given the undisciplined spending in the Stimulus plan, the budget, and the Omnibus Bill.

Geithner uses the lessons of the ’90s as justification for raising taxes going forward. He prefaces his remarks that taxes will only be raised “when the economy recovers.” Charlie Rose appropriately challeneges him on the overly optimistic economic assumptions utilized in the budget. I would ask why the base case GDP in the Bank Stress Test of 2% growth in 2010 is not the same level of GDP used in Obama’s budget. The budget assumes 3.2% !!

Part 5
In this clip, Geithner is largely wearing his political hat. He defends the Administration’s vetting process as he staffs Treasury. He further pushes the Obama agenda. In regards to criticism he has experienced, he responds that it is purely part of the job.

On the auto front, he dodges the question of bankruptcy.

Charlie Rose then questions him on what he has learned so far in his role as Treasury Secretary. Geithner responds that many may not know that he spent a large part of his career at Treasury serving under Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. He holds them in very high regard and seems to promote that respect for them is universal. He does not address that Rubin was at the core of the lack of regulatory oversight that we have had for the last decade, as well as being the prime architect of the massive systemic risk that Citibank has developed.

When asked if he could see the problems developing that now envelop our economy, Geithner ducks in stating that most people missed it.

Part 6
Geithner remarks that both capitalism and our financial system have already changed and will continue to change as the necessary regulatory systems are put in place.

Geithner further adds that he is confident America will respond to this crisis because it is not a question of ability but a question of will. He believes this Administration possesses the will to make every necessary move to restore our economy.

In my personal opinion, it is also most definitely about ability as well. Do we have the measure of integrity and quality in our elected officials? Chuck Hagel, Leon Panetta and others have railed on the corrupt system of lobbying, campaign contributions, and persistent fundraising that has polluted our country and the process of government. While the Obama Administration has spoken about addressing parts of these issues, their actions and policy proposals to date indicate otherwise.

I found the Geithner interview to be interesting, while not exactly enlightening.

He is both politician and policy maven. To this point, the markets have graded him as decidedly mediocre. Although, to be fair, Washington as a whole is graded no better.

LD

Video provided by CheneyWatch.org for NoQuarterUsa.net YouTube channel

We watch daily hearings on Capitol Hill in the spirit of doing what is right for our country. Please!! Spare me the nonsense and pandering. While collectively we deal with markets that are now down over 50%, the pols and the bankers have effectively robbed the bank and left the taxpayers with the bill to clean up the mess. Barron’s wrote a brief piece on this topic: how the Financial Sector Spent $5 Billion Lobbying Washington Over the Last Decade!!

It is high time we attach names and faces to those politicians and lobbyists who fed at this trough!!

LD

Cartoon by David Fitzsimmons, Arizona Daily Star

While I have written twice over the last week about eastern Europe being the weakest link in the world of global finance, Mauldin and his colleague Niels Jensen of Absolute Return Partners provided insights and analysis that is numbing.

Why is George Soros short the euro? Let me provide a synopsis of Mauldin’s and Jensen’s “Europe On the Ropes.” This piece is somewhat lengthy, but a MUST READ!! A link is provided at the end of my review.

Jensen initially provides a backdrop of the collective guilt across all market participants in this global economic meltdown. The U.K. government is targeted by Jensen for their total lack of fiscal discipline in the process. He further adds that the outlandish banking compensation was a direct correlation of the leverage employed. Jensen focuses on the preponderance of supposed AAA rated CLOs (Collateralized Loan Obligations) backed by corporate loans and credit cards. The leverage employed by the European banks dwarfed the leverage employed by U.S. banks.

To this point Jensen’s analysis is enlightening but not earth shattering. He then enters into the rate of expected defaults on the European banks’ balance sheets, the exposures to eastern Europe, and the specifics of mortgage borrowing by eastern European citizens from European banks. I started to get a little queasy.

Jensen’s comparisons of the details in this crisis relative to the Asian crisis experienced in the late 90’s is scary. His focus specifically on Austria and the level of their debt exposure is also daunting. My queasiness increased.

Please read the Mauldin/Jensen report in its entirety so you can gain a further appreciation of the pressure in that part of the world and the implications for these economies, countries, and their political stability. Last Sunday evening on NQR’s Dollars & Sense, I spoke at length about the global government funding needs. On that very topic, Jensen writes:

Public debt to rise and rise

. . . the banking sector cannot, in the current environment at least, raise sufficient capital to stay afloat, so more, possibly a lot more, tax payers’ money will have to be put forward. This can only mean one thing. Public debt will rise and rise. The official estimate for the UK for next year is already approaching 10% of GDP, an estimate which will almost certainly rise further. We probably have to get used to running 10-15% deficits for a few years, a fact which seriously undermines the notion of government bonds being next to risk-free.

BCA Research has calculated the effect on public debt in a number of countries, as a result of further bank losses being underwritten by tax payers. Obviously, those countries with the largest banking industries (as a % of GDP) will be hit the hardest.

Mauldin and Jensen are clearly on the cutting edge of the weakest link in the global economy today. In light of this color, there is no surprise why George Soros is short the Euro.

I would never raise undue anxiety, but this situation is very fluid and needs to be watched daily. I will be doing that as I try to help you navigate the economic landscape!!

LD

The dynamic at work in the weekend’s emergency meeting held in Brussels is a play on beggar-thy-neighbor policies implemented during times of economic stress.

There are actually a number of factors influencing the European Union’s refusal to provide bailout money to these eastern European nations. Included in these factors are the following:

1. lack of coordination even within the eastern European countries themselves. Certain countries, such as Poland, are in better shape than others. Beggar-thy-neighbor within a beggar-thy-neighbor framework!!

2. a desire by some of these eastern European nations to accelerate their formal acceptance into the European Union fell on deaf ears. The acceptance into the EU would have helped them gain the stability of the common currency, the Euro.

3. problems within the EU itself as certain countries, such as Ireland and Portugal, are already massively stressed with their own financial problems.

Where do these eastern European countries go now to get help? They will likely solicit the IMF, International Monetary Fund initially. The IMF is already hard strapped for funding.

While the EU Rejects a Rescue of Faltering Eastern Europe, my concern is that ultimately this stress will cause the eastern European nations to become more isolated from their western European neighbors. In the process of aligning themselves more with their Asian neighbors to the east, we may see heightened political tensions and instability as well. It may be premature to make the assumption that this situation ultimately leads to increased politcal tensions in this part of the world, but that assumption is not a stretch by any means.

Clearly in the German mindset is the desire to maintain strict support for its currency, the Euro. I can never get away from the fact that embedded deep in the German culture is the experience of hyperinflation after the Weimar Republic. That experience was truly the precursor to the German fascist state, which led to WWII.

It is very conceivable that we will see other political changes develop during this time of turmoil. I will be monitoring in an attempt to help us all navigate the economic landscape.