Evidence points to breakdown in US / UK Relations

[Revolt426]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5884398.ece

‘Difficult’ Americans hamper G20 efforts to secure a global deal

A rift between Europe and America over the crux of the G20 summit was last night threatening Gordon Brown’s hopes for a deal to rescue the world economy.

The size of the challenge facing the British Government in bringing together world powers was emphasised in a candid admission by Britain’s most senior civil servant that it was proving “unbelievably difficult” to liaise with the Obama Administration to prepare for the meeting. [/color]

There was also growing scepticism over Mr Brown’s call for at least $200 billion for the International Monetary Fund to bail out cash-strapped nations, with no indication that China would come up with the bulk of the funds as some in No 10 hope.

A simmering row about the whole point of the G20 meeting on April 2 burst into the open when Larry Summers, chief economic adviser to President Obama, called on other countries to follow America’s lead in pumping even more money into stimulus plans to revive the world economic system.


The United States’ stimulus package of $787 billion is equivalent to about 5.5 per cent of its annual economic output, although it is spread over three years, whereas the EU has struggled to reach agreements on a sum that barely reaches 1.5 per cent of its total GDP.

Mr Summers’s plea was attacked by Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg Prime Minister, who heads the eurogroup of single currency countries. He declared: “The 16 euro-area ministers agreed that recent American appeals insisting that the Europeans make an additional budgetary effort to combat the effects of the crisis was not to our liking.”

Mr Juncker suggested that the eurozone countries would rather adopt a wait-and-see approach than rush to incur even more debt.

His outspoken words were followed by mystification from Germany. Peer Steinbrück, the German Finance Minister, speaking after EU finance ministers met in Brussels, said: “There was a significant amount of bewilderment about this in our discussion.”

There were the first signs of expectations being managed in Downing Street yesterday as the EU-US position became clear. Mr Brown was still hoping for a “grand bargain” from the summit, a source said, but the message yesterday was on how difficult it could be to achieve one. “We are by no means talking it down but I do not think anyone is suggesting the world’s problems can be solved in a single day,” a government source said.

Meanwhile, in remarks to a Civil Service conference that he probably did not expect to be reported, Sir Gus O’Donnell said that No 10 was finding it “unbelievably difficult” to prepare with the US. The Cabinet Secretary was speaking about the advantages of a permanent civil service and the difficulties of dealing with a Government with hundreds of appointees. “There is nobody there,” Sir Gus said. “You cannot believe how difficult it is.”

Another official said that getting the rest of Europe, let alone China, to do more in the way of fiscal stimulus was “not going to be straightforward”.

Alistair Darling will have the task of trying to steer the G20 back on track in preparatory talks of finance ministers in London on Friday and Saturday. But Mr Brown faces a hard battle next week at the European Council heads of government meeting, where EU countries plan to bind his hands over their objectives for the G20.

A spokesman for the Government urged the EU yesterday to present a united front. “We believe that the EU needs to work together to bring about the recovery we need,” he said.

[Revolt426]

Thx for this article ****. This is pure Murdoch British Propaganda.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4974760/Fox-News-urges-Americans-to-apologise-for-Barack-Obamas-treatment-of-Gordon-Brown.html

Fox News urges Americans to apologise for Barack Obama's 'treatment' of Gordon Brown

Letters from American citizens apologising to the British people for what they see as President Barack Obama's shabby treatment of Gordon Brown have begun to arrive at the British Embassy in Washington and consulates across the United States.

Many of the missives appear to have been prompted by a plea on Monday from Glenn Beck, a Fox News host, for his viewers to write to the British Embassy to tell Britons: "They don't suck. We appreciate them."

He added: "I'd make it a little more flowery than that."

Mr Beck was particularly enraged by Mr Obama's gift of a box set of 25 DVDs, including ET, Psycho and The Wizard of Oz.

Mr Brown gave several historically resonant British presents, including a pen holder fashioned from the timbers of the 19th Century sloop HMS Gannett, used as an anti-slavery vessel.

"They are our greatest allies," Mr Beck said. "What are we doing? If we lose Great Britain, what the heck do we have?" At the end of an eight-minute segment on the issue, Mr Beck read out the address of the British Embassy in Washington.

A British Embassy spokesman said that letters and emails had begun to arrive but currently numbered dozens rather than hundreds.

The Daily Telegraph has received several telephone calls and emails apologising to Mr Brown. "You are side by side with us, and believe me, you are treasured and loved!" emailed Carol Bidleman of London, Ohio.

"Heartfelt thanks for being there for us, with the most sincere respect."

[Revolt426]

Note on the above post, Glenn Beck, a self identified Liberterian is enraged that Obama did not agree to Brown's "Global New Deal"/"Grand Bargain"/"International IMF cash infusions".

You see a pattern here?.

[personguy]

Possible mid-level bickering between spoiled, suck-up children of darkness looking for 'parental' attention to get shinier toy.
Both London and Obama son of Longshanks deeply tied to financial sector.

Also, growing insurrection between citizens of both states shifting blame towards eachother.. Brits blame America for problems and vice versa.
Recommend possible synergic realization of this for use against elites.

[Revolt426]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article5891045.ece

March 12, 2009

It's an emergency: get your act together, Obama
As the world's finance ministers gather in London the greatest danger to the global economy is America's failure of resolve

From The TimesMarch 12, 2009

Anatole Kaletsky

This could be the week when the greatest financial crisis in history finally reached its nadir. Then again, it could merely be another week in which a brief rally in global stock markets has suckered more investors, politicians and commentators into assuming that the worst is over, when the tentative improvement in financial confidence is just another false dawn.

So which will it be? The answer depends, even more than usual, on the finance ministers and central bankers gathering at a potentially chaotic G20 meeting this weekend. The omens are not benign.

It is now understood that the global financial system can be stabilised and economic demand revived only through government intervention. Private businesses and consumers do not have the access to credit or the confidence to start spending and investing again. But government intervention will work only with some degree of international co-operation and that requires leadership from America. Yet despite the mandate won by President Obama, Washington has proved muddled in its economic priorities and indecisive in its financial response to the crisis.

International co-operation is necessary because of the global linkages of trade and finance. Any country that allows a bank to fail spreads financial contagion to every other nation. And any country that cuts taxes or boosts public spending or expands its money supply, creates demand not only for its own businesses and workers, but also for the world as a whole.

The upshot is that financial guarantees, fiscal stimulus and credit expansion, will be much more effective and less expensive for each country if they are implemented in a co-ordinated way. By contrast, imagine a global free-for-all, in which some nations subsidise their banks while others try to punish bankers; in which some central banks print money while others grumble about Zimbabwe and Weimar; in which some governments promise to spend their way out of recession while others denounce this as the road to perdition and call for belt-tightening in the public sector. Not only would such divergent policies cancel one another out at the global level, they would also deal another blow to confidence in the world financial system.

But how can global co-operation be achieved when governments around the world seem to have completely divergent economic philosophies and agendas for this weekend? Gordon Brown wants to close down tax havens, while the Germans want to regulate hedge funds, policies that may or may not be desirable, but which have nothing to do with the present crisis. The US is demanding that Germany, Japan and China announce new programmes of public spending and tax cuts - which is simply not going to happen, either this weekend or at the G20 summit next month. The financial markets, meanwhile, are hoping for a $500billion increase in the IMF funds available to rescue insolvent governments, but this does not seem a high priority for any of the G20 governments, except perhaps the Germans, who fear the cost of bailing out Latvia, Hungary, Austria, Greece and the Irish Republic will otherwise fall on them.

Past experience of such international negotiations shows that American leadership is necessary for reaching any kind of agreement. Which brings us to the greatest risk facing the world economy: Mr Obama's failure to present a credible response to the financial crisis or even to assemble a proper economic policy team. After the British Government's leaked messages of despair about nobody answering the phone at the US Treasury in the preparations for the G20, everybody is now aware that Mr Obama has nominated only two out of 18 deputy and assistant Treasury secretaries. What is less widely recognised is that this decision-making vacuum reflects a deeply worrying feature of US economic policy.

American politicians simply don't seem to understand the existential threat that their economy is now facing. Instead of uniting to deal with a national emergency far more threatening to their way of life than the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they have responded by dividing more sharply than ever into hostile partisan camps.

Efforts to revive economic activity and to stabilise the financial system that are clearly indispensable on the basis of any economic analysis, whether Keynesian or monetarist or plain business-sense, have been denounced on the Right for interfering with free markets and on the Left for feather-bedding bankers. Instead of rallying around in a moment of crisis, many Americans are openly expressing their hope that the new President will fail and the economy collapse. Candidates for key Treasury posts have been viciously attacked in the media and Congress for trivial tax and administrative infractions inadvertently committed many years ago or simply for having once worked on Wall Street. As a result, these jobs have become almost impossible to fill.

Mr Obama himself seems to have attached a surprisingly low priority to dealing with the financial crisis. He had, for example, selected key State Department officials, from Hillary Clinton downwards even before his inauguration. He has managed to get dozens of these confirmed by Congress in the past two months and immediately put his personal stamp on US foreign policy. Yet there has been no similar focus on creating a properly functioning economic team or launching a coherent new response to the financial crisis.

The lack of urgency, of focus and of national unity in America's response to the financial crisis is the most surprising - and most dangerous - threat to our chances of recovery. With clear American leadership, a global policy to stabilise the banks and pull the world out of recession could readily be agreed. All the main elements of such a policy - lower taxes, public works programmes, monetary and credit expansion, cast-iron government guarantees for recapitalised banks - are broadly agreed among economists and endorsed by global institutions such as the IMF.

None of these policies would be painful to voters, since they would involve easier financial conditions, lower taxes, more jobs and stronger guarantees for savings. Why then are they proving so hard to put into practice? Is it because many Americans would rather see their economy collapse than a Democratic President succeed? If so, then perhaps the Marxists now enjoying a new lease of life will have been right all along: American capitalism will have proved a decadent civilisation at the end of its global hegemony and doomed to self-destruction.

[David Rothscum]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/03/obama.brown.meeting/index.html
 WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- President Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Tuesday that the global economy would recover from the recent sharp downturn but that it would require a common effort to combat protectionist impulses, coordinate economic stimulus efforts and update antiquated regulatory structures.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown and President Obama met in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

Meeting in the Oval Office, the two leaders added that the "special relationship" between the United States and Great Britain would not only survive the economic turmoil but would be strengthened in the long term.

Obama also dismissed worries spurred by the "day to day gyrations of the stock market," arguing that they were the byproduct of a perfect storm of losses generated by "lax regulation," "massive overleverage" and "huge systemic risks taken by [regulated and] unregulated institutions."

Those losses, Obama said, were now working their way through the system.

"There's going to be a natural reaction," the president noted. "What you're now seeing is [that] profit and earning ratios are getting to the point ... where buying stocks is a good deal if you have a long-term perspective."

Obama added that although businesses were starting to see new hiring potential as the $787 billion stimulus package takes hold, the recovery would not happen overnight.

"We dug a very deep hole for ourselves," he said. The recovery will be "full of fits and starts," though both the American and the world economy will eventually be "better off for it."

The president and the prime minister agreed that the Group of 20 countries needed to more effectively coordinate their economic stimulus plans. The subject is certain to dominate a planned meeting of the G-20 nations in London in April.

The G-20 includes the G-7 leading industrialized nations -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States -- as well as the world's largest developing economies: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea and Turkey, plus the European Union.

Brown reiterated his recent call for "a global New Deal" to retrigger growth, reform global institutions and lay the groundwork for a more environmentally friendly economic future.

A "green, low-carbon" recovery is possible, he said. If countries such as the United States and Britain work together, "the opportunities are there."

The two leaders agreed that a turn towards protectionism would only accelerate the economic decline.

"Globalization can be an enormous force for good," Obama said. But it is a mistake to keep a "1930s regulatory system in place in most countries" when "trillions of dollars ... can now move at the speed of light."

Brown noted that the "special relationship" between the United States and Britain remained a strong "partnership is purpose that is borne out of shared values [and] driven forward by the need to act in unity to address world's problems."

Obama agreed, adding that the relationship, bolstered by a common language and culture is "a link, a bond there that will not break."

[Revolt426]

David check date on article. It's over a week old.

There is no plan at all and now BRIC is rebelling against the IMF.

[David Rothscum]

David check date on article. It's over a week old.

There is no plan at all and now BRIC is rebelling against the IMF.

Agreed. The thing is, I'm starting to believe they're just holding an act in front of us. Brown is the old greying alpha wolf that will be replaced by the "young" wolf Cameron any moment now so why not let him look like a fool in front of us. Chances are Obama is going to do something horrible anyway (when they build a guy up like this it always ends up going horribly wrong, they destroy the people they build up for some reason) so it's better for the UK-US "special relationship" to be downplayed now anyway.

[Revolt426]

I believe London is going to sabatoge the G-20 Meeting to prevent any opposition from BRIC , or Obama if he begins listening to Paul Volcker (of all people) above Larry Summers. I also believe they are using various press mechanisms to do so right now and will continue to do so.

The last thing they want is their US zombie banks to be cut in half by Glass Steagall thus dumping all of the Derivatives from the Commercial Banking Sector right into the investment banking sector.

[Dig]

I believe London is going to sabatoge the G-20 Meeting to prevent any opposition from BRIC , or Obama if he begins listening to Paul Volcker (of all people) above Larry Summers. I also believe they are using various press mechanisms to do so right now and will continue to do so.

The last thing they want is their US zombie banks to be cut in half by Glass Steagall thus dumping all of the Derivatives from the Commercial Banking Sector right into the investment banking sector.

They executed Mumbai to try and stop BRIC.  I guess it did not work due to all of the MI6 weapons found everywhere.

[Revolt426]

They executed Mumbai to try and stop BRIC.  I guess it did not work due to all of the MI6 weapons found everywhere.

The British Links to Mumbai are jaw dropping if you look at all of them. It does appear that a rogue element of  RAW was in on this as well, however - moles.

These days intelligence agencies have tremendous rogue elements that are not under Government control.

On a lighter note, the U.S. is sending high level representatives to a Moscow conference on the Afghanistan Drug Trafficking and consiquent terrorist funding issue. China and India represenatives will be attending as well, that is BRIC without the B and + the US.......... It does not appear that the UK will be attending.

"Russia, which is now chairing the SCO, has invited India and Turkey to attend the Moscow conference. It has also been confirmed that NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer will attend, Itar-Tass reported March 5. SCO members are Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, while Mongolia, India, Iran, and Pakistan all have Observer status."

[Godfather77]

We haven't fallen out with America, insists Darling
14th March 2009
Full article:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161908/We-havent-fallen-America-insists-Darling.html

Alistair Darling yesterday played down talk of a transatlantic rift over the G20 economic summit. The Chancellor denied claims that the UK and U.S. have fallen out over what can realistically be achieved in the 24-hour gathering next month.

Expectations for the summit of world leaders in London on April 2 have taken a beating amid fears that it will produce little more than warm words on the economic crisis.

Barack Obama's Treasury secretary Tim Geithner will hold talks with Mr Darling and other G20 finance ministers in Sussex today in advance of the main summit. He has called for countries to pump cash - equal to two per cent of their respective total outputs - into their economies, perhaps through tax cuts or a boost in public spending. But EU nations such as France and Germany have made it clear they oppose the plan because they do not want to add to their already high levels of national debt.

Mr Brown wants to secure G20 agreement for a 'global new deal' which he claims will provide the concerted international action needed to restore growth. But a spokesman for President Obama appeared to suggest that such a deal was unlikely to be reached in London.

Mr Darling acknowledged that differences remain between the summit's participants - who together represent 80 per cent of the world's economic activity. But he told Radio 4's World at One: 'I don't actually think that the divisions between the European countries and the U.S. are anything like what has been described over the last few days. 'On both sides of the Atlantic - and also, for that matter, in other parts of the world - there is a commitment to ensure that we support people, support businesses and our economies.'

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is holding talks with Mr Brown at Chequers this weekend, said on Thursday that 'the issue is not spending more' but introducing better regulation to 'prevent the economic catastrophe that the world is experiencing from being repeated'.

Mr Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs said yesterday that the President was not aiming to negotiate a 'specific commitment' in London. His comments sparked speculation that Washington expects the summit to produce no more than a statement of common principles, rather than a substantive plan.

Downing Street yesterday said it was not going to get involved in an 'absurd media expectations game' over the outcome of the meeting.

Embarrassment for Foreign office over downgrading of countries

The Foreign Office was left embarrassed last night after it emerged it had secretly downgraded seven of the major countries attending next month's G20 summit. A leaked memo on the Government's priorities for the meeting consigned Russia, Canada and Australia to a ' second division', while 13 countries, including South Africa and South Korea, were on a 'priority' list.

William Hague, Tory foreign spokesman, said: 'The downgrading of some participants before they have even set foot in London sends completely the wrong message.'

A Foreign Office spokesman said the list was not a 'firm hierarchy of the most important states for political relations'.

[Revolt426]

That is the rift right there in the US too. Geithner/Summers and Volcker are infighting.

Whatever Geithner says at the pre-meeting is irrelivent


We are going to have to wait for the actual G20 to find out what Obama will really say because no one knows who he has alligned himself with in the administration. Volcker is pushing for Glass Steagall and Summers/Geithner are pushing for IMF Bailouts.

I suppose infighting was inevitable at end game time.

[TahoeBlue]

This seems to apply to the New Financial Order that is being formed up to the G20 summit meeting coming up... a new Bretton Woods?....

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=93272.0
 IMF Poised To Print Billions Of Dollars
Published on 03-15-2009
Source: Telegraph
...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4986287/IMF-poised-to-print-billions-of-dollars-in-global-quantitative-easing.html
...
Alistair Darling and senior figures in the US Treasury have been encouraging the Fund to issue hundreds of billions of dollars worth of so-called Special Drawing Rights in the coming months as part of its campaign to prevent the recession from turning into a global depression.

Should the move, which is up for discussion by the summit of G20 finance ministers this weekend, be adopted, it will represent a global equivalent of the Bank of England's plan to pump extra cash into the UK economy.

However, economists warned that the scheme could cause a major swell of inflation around the world as the newly-created money filters through the system. The idea has been suggested by a number of key figures, including billionaire investor George Soros and US Treasury adviser Ted Truman.

Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the IMF, said: "The principle behind it is that everyone would get bonus dollars and instead of the Federal Reserve having to print them, everyone gets them.

"The objective is to create a windfall of cash. However if everybody goes out and spends the money it could be very inflationary."

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm

 Factsheet - February 2009
Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)

Why was the SDR created and what is it used for today?
The Special Drawing Right (SDR) was created by the IMF in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system. A country participating in this system needed official reserves—government or central bank holdings of gold and widely accepted foreign currencies—that could be used to purchase the domestic currency in world foreign exchange markets, as required to maintain its exchange rate. But the international supply of two key reserve assets— gold and the U.S. dollar—proved inadequate for supporting the expansion of world trade and financial development that was taking place. Therefore, the international community decided to create a new international reserve asset under the auspices of the IMF.

However, only a few years later, the Bretton Woods system collapsed and the major currencies shifted to a floating exchange rate regime. In addition, the growth in international capital markets facilitated borrowing by creditworthy governments. Both of these developments lessened the need for SDRs.

Today, the SDR has only limited use as a reserve asset, and its main function is to serve as theunit of account of the IMF and some other international organizations. The SDR is neither a currency, nor a claim on the IMF. Rather, it is a potential claim on the freely usable currencies of IMF members. Holders of SDRs can obtain these currencies in exchange for their SDRs in two ways: first, through the arrangement of voluntary exchanges between members; and second, by the IMF designating members with strong external positions to purchase SDRs from members with weak external positions.

SDR valuation
The value of the SDR was initially defined as equivalent to 0.888671 grams of fine gold—which, at the time, was also equivalent to one U.S. dollar. After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1973, however, the SDR was redefined as a basket of currencies,today consisting of the euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling, and U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar-value of the SDR is posted daily on the IMF's website. It is calculated as the sum of specific amounts of the four currencies valued in U.S. dollars, on the basis of exchange rates quoted at noon each day in the London market.

The basket composition is reviewed every five years to ensure that it reflects the relative importance of currencies in the world's trading and financial systems. In the most recent review in November 2005, the weights of the currencies in the SDR basket were revised based on the value of the exports of goods and services and the amount of reserves denominated in the respective currencies which were held by other members of the IMF. These changes became effective on January 1, 2006. The next review by the Executive Board will take place in late 2010.

The SDR interest rate
The SDR interest rate provides the basis for calculating the interest charged to members on regular (non-concessional) IMF loans, the interest paid and charged to members on their SDR holdings, and the interest paid to members on a portion of their quota subscriptions. The SDR interest rate is determined weekly and is based on a weighted average of representative interest rates on short-term debt in the money markets of the SDR basket currencies.

[Revolt426]

The insanely wierd thing about this whole mess is that Paul Volcker is advocating Glass Steagall and Blaming Summers and Geithner for the Lack of Economic Recovery.

So you have Geithner and Summers on one side of Obama cheering for the IMF and Volcker on the other side trying to split the banks in half and isolate the Derivative Crisis.

Now, the Fiancial Ministers can say whatever the hell they want with no result until the actual representatives show up at the actual G-20 Meeting.

The question is , Is obama going to follow Paul Volckers guidence or Larry Summers guidence.

[TahoeBlue]

The insanely wierd thing about this whole mess is that Paul Volcker is advocating Glass Steagall and Blaming Summers and Geithner for the Lack of Economic Recovery.
...
The question is , Is obama going to follow Paul Volckers guidence or Larry Summers guidence.

SEC approves ICE credit-default swap clearing plan

Just-In-Time for the New Financial Order and the G20 Summit meetings is a clearing house for the Credit Derivitives market. The debate/question seems to be how much and how long will the U.S. pay the NWO for the Derivitives "Funny Money"?

Will the U.S. be kept on the hook for 60+ trillion dollars? Are we that stupid?

It seems the logical move for the U.S. is to reinstitute Glass/Steagall  which will get us off the hook for trillions . Soros and company wants to make us beholden to Europe (Rothschild?) and pay the NWO FOREVER...
...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/sec-approves-ice-credit-default-swap/story.aspx?guid=%7B09B88530-658B-4D25-A216-A80969515DC3%7D&dist=msr_2

SEC approves ICE credit-default swap clearing plan

By Sarah N. Lynch
Last update: 8:27 a.m. EDT March 9, 2009
(This article was originally published Friday.)
4:00pm 03/13/2009

ICE  plan to clear credit-default swap trades received the final approval it needed from the Securities and Exchange Commission Friday, paving the way for it to become the first operational clearinghouse for credit-default swaps in the United States.

The company said in a release that its new clearinghouse, dubbed ICE US Trust, will start offering clearing on Monday for credit-default swap index transactions before it branches out to other types of credit-default swap contracts.

The SEC's approval of ICE US Trust, which exempts the clearinghouse from certain securities laws, marks a big step toward the U.S. government's efforts to offer clearing for over-the-counter derivatives like credit-default swaps, which alone make up an estimated $27 trillion market.

[Revolt426]

Wait this is clearing as in, WIPING them out? AS in Bankruptcy Court?.

[Revolt426]

Holy shit....... you realize that the re-enstatement of Glass/Steagall followed by the elimination (if this is what i am reading correctly) of the Credit Default Swaps would isolate the entire derivative bubble to speculative institutions that could be put through bankruptcy reorganization or liquidation (Whatever).

The Credit Default Swaps are the greatest danger to the world, AIG is the heart, with 30+ Trillion Dollars in Write downs.

It would also END the entire privatized Derivative Casino because banks are depending on those Credit Default Swaps in order to settle their other Derivative obligations (Mortgage Backed Securities and Collaterized Debt Obligations).

If AIG's CDS portfolio is destroyed it could potentially be reorganized and sold back to the Private Sector too.

Is this going to be a selective enforcement type of deal or are the bankers caving into reality finally?.

[TahoeBlue]

Wait this is clearing as in, WIPING them out? AS in Bankruptcy Court?.

Yes, this is like an ResolutionTrustCo for derivatives.

Depending on what the investments trade for,example, Let's say the CDO's trade for 50 cents on the dollar and the market is 30 trillion, then the U.S. would be obligated for 15 trillion.

Using the IMF's "The Special Drawing Right" 's (SDR) would be used to collateralize (cover) the obligations.

No one will really see what's going on here. I think that's the point. We still really don't know "WHO" the REAL creditors are.

Is this going to be a selective enforcement type of deal?

This is what all the in-fighting seems to be about. Who are the "weiners" and who are the losers.

Selective? absolutely.

[Revolt426]

If Glass Steagall is re-enacted there is not a possibility of selective enforcement because all of the Derivatives will be isolated into Speculation Houses.

Then again, who knows if it will be re-enacted or if it will be re-enacted as the SAME law FDR passed. It will have to be put through the Congress where Barney Frank and Pelosi can manipulate it , even if it makes it that far.

I suppose this will all have to occur (one way or the other) within the next 2 weeks (Before G-20)

[Revolt426]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/5011941/Gordon-Brown-is-frustrated-by-Psycho-in-No-10.html

Gordon Brown is frustrated by 'Psycho' in No 10
 
While not exactly a film buff, Gordon Brown was touched when Barack Obama gave him a set of 25 classic American movies – including Psycho, starring Anthony Perkins on his recent visit to Washington.
 
Tim Walker
Last Updated: 4:31PM GMT 18 Mar 2009
Alas, when the PM settled down to begin watching them the other night, he found there was a problem.

The films only worked in DVD players made in North America and the words "wrong region" came up on his screen. Although he mournfully had to put the popcorn away, he is unlikely to jeopardise the special relationship – or "special partnership", as we are now supposed to call it – by registering a complaint.


Barack Obama 'too tired' to give proper welcome to Gordon Brown The love is still there, but I can't work out why
Just how special will the relationship between Barack Obama and Gordon Brown be?A Downing Street spokesman said he was "confident" that any gift Obama gave Brown would have been "well thought through," but referred me to the White House for assistance on the "technical aspects".

A White House spokesman sniggered when I put the story to him and he was still looking into the matter when my deadline came last night.

By the way, when Obama's unlikely gift was disclosed, a reader emailed me to ask if Clueless was among the films. Funnily enough, it was not.

Brown, on the other hand, presented a rather more thoughtful gift to the American President in the form of a penholder carved from the timbers of an anti-slavery ship. The sister ship, in fact, of the one that was broken up and turned into the desk in the Oval Office.

[TahoeBlue]

Interesting they are bringing this up again now a year later.....

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee/facpn280310.cfm
28 March 2010

Global Security: UK-US relations

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee today (Sunday 28 March) publishes its report: Global Security: UK-US Relations, the first time the Committee has looked specifically into the topic of relations between the United Kingdom and the United States since 2001.

 Chair of the Committee, Mike Gapes MP, says

 "The UK needs to adopt a more hard-headed political approach towards our relationship with the US with a realistic sense of our own limits and our national interests.

 "Certainly the UK must continue to position itself closely alongside the US but there is a need to be less deferential and more willing to say no where our interests diverge. In a sense, the UK foreign policy approach this Committee is advocating is in many ways similar to the more pragmatic tone which President Obama has adopted towards the UK.

 "The UK and US have a close and valuable relationship not only in terms of intelligence and security but also in terms of our profound and historic cultural and trading links and commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. But the use of the phrase 'the special relationship' in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided.

"Yes, we have a special relationship with the US, but we must remember that so too do other countries including regional neighbours, strategic allies and partners. British and European politicians have been guilty of over-optimism about the extent of influence they have over the US. We must be realistic and accept that globalisation, structural changes and shifts in geopolitical power will inevitably affect the UK-US relationship. It is entirely logical for the US to pursue relationships with other partners who can provide support that the UK cannot. Having said that, recent minor disagreements between the UK and US do not threaten the relationship. Rather they highlight a need for better understanding between our governments to maintain its strength.

"It is likely that the extent of political influence which the UK has exercised on US decision-making as a consequence of its military commitments is likely to diminish. Over the longer-term the UK is unlikely to be able to influence the US to the extent it has in the past.

"We must be mindful of the FCO's high reputation in the US which is currently under threat through unacceptable financial pressure from the Treasury. Having previously shed fat and muscle, the FCO's US network is now being forced to cut into bone. Any additional cuts will diminish the FCO's ability to exercise influence in the US and have a knock-on effect on the UK's global standing."

| --------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7533755/America-and-Britain-A-relationship-that-has-stood-the-test-of-time.html

America and Britain: A relationship that has stood the test of time
Telegraph View: The special relationship first proclaimed in 1945 has proved durable, but neither country should take it for granted

Published: 7:42AM BST 29 Mar 2010

The special relationship, a special relationship, or just the normal kind of relationship you would expect between allies? That is the question posed by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in its report on Anglo-American ties published yesterday. It concludes, coyly, that the first of these characterisations, coined by Winston Churchill more than 60 years ago, is best avoided in favour of the second as a true description of an "ever-evolving" phenomenon.

The invasion of Iraq casts a shadow over the committee's findings, the assumption being that Tony Blair played "poodle" to George W Bush. Rather, flushed with liberal interventionist successes in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, the Prime Minister was just as gung-ho as the President, choosing to overlook the lack of a coherent plan for occupation in his rush to topple Saddam Hussein. The domestic opposition to that decision can still be felt, notably through the Chilcot Inquiry. Meanwhile, a man who opposed the invasion has captured the White House. It is, therefore, not surprising that the committee should warn against presuming that America views its relationship with Britain in the same way as politicians and the media are wont to do here, and should encourage the Government to be less deferential to Washington.

In fact, the relationship can be characterised in all three of the ways mentioned above. The first is illustrated by Britain's unique dependence on America for its ultimate deterrent, the Trident missile system. To that must be added co-operation in the field of intelligence, made all the more vital by the Islamist outrages of 9/11 and 7/7. The second can be seen in Afghanistan, where the British presence is second only to the American, and Britons fill the posts of both deputy commander of the Nato-led force and the alliance's senior civilian representative. It is also apparent in the deep historical and cultural ties between the two countries, which come from a common language. Beyond that, the relationship is more like the links between America and other close allies, such as Germany or Japan, whether on matters economic, ecological or nuclear. The special relationship first proclaimed in 1945 has proved durable, but neither country should take it for granted. In his submission to the committee, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former UN ambassador and special envoy in Iraq, described it as "an asset that has to be nurtured and worked ate_SLps We do not think it special unless we are introducing substance to make it special". That gets it right – and leaves room for honest disagreement amongst old friends.