It does not take a genius to see some correlations from the following list of events:
(1) Early 2007, Goldman Sachs decided to dump hundreds of billions of ABS tied to subprime and Alt-A mortgage. This event is illustrated in Kevin Spacy's movie -- "Margin Call". The sudden sell-at-all-cost caused severe liquidity issue in ABS dealer market and unusual deterioration of the quoted prices. Usually such bonds traded at 90s. But after dump, the prices crashed to 60s.
(2) Mid 2007, Two of the Bear Stearn high grade hedge fund collapsed due to being forced to mark-to-market to the prices in 60s.
(3) About the same time, NYSE and NASDAQ decide to repeal the "up-tick shorting" rule, which was established after the Great Depression in the 1930s. There is not good reason given for its repeal. Interestingly. John Thain, an ex Godman Sachs executive, was the head of NYSE at that time.
(4) Fast forward to Sept 2008, Stock prices of Lehman Brothers, AIG, FRE, FNM, WAMU, etc collapsed toward zero, which forced the Treasury Department to come up a rescue plan. Lehman Brother and WaMu were forced to liquidate, while AIG was bailout so that it can pay 100% to the otherwise worthless CDS contracts to several global banks, including Goldman Sachs. The decision was made largely by then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.
While LEH and WM shareholders were getting nothing, Merrill Lynch, which is likely also insolvent, was sold to Bank of America at $50 billion. Guess who was the Merrill Lynch CEO, John Thain, the ex-NYSE CEO, and ex Goldman Sachs COO. John Thain served together with Hank Paulson in Goldman Sachs.
Do I need to say more? The big question is what they have in store for us next??? ;-))
I wonder whether the so-called banking crisis in Portugal is just an warning shot by global bank cartels against Germany's recent expelling CIA station chief in Berlin?
It is part of chess game between the Superpower US and 2nd subjugated regional power Germany.
If institutions have to hire people to monitor Yahoo message board and delete the posts deemed "damaging their reputation" but actually contains all factual events, then what reputation do they have?
Maybe they consider reputation is just another kind of commodity. ;-))
My advice: do not worry! Your reputation will not be damaged by the slanders if you always choose to do the right things.
If you had not made the right choice, then worrying about your reputation will not resolve the problem.
I wonder they Yahoo did not delete some of the posts which almost advocate murder?
Because Jamie Dimon did not hire people to police the message board to delete the post, because he does not think he is guilty of anything and he does not care.
So hiring people to monitor the message board could be an indirect evidence of feeling of guilt inside. Unfortunately, when you have that guilty feeling, even if all the truth posts were deleted, that feeling will eventually do its work. That is the LAW. ;-))
It is obvious judging from the timeline of the event. But it is still a hypothesis.
Given the fact that post containing such hypothesis got deleted very quickly, I have to wonder if they are not guilty, why do they have to hire people to monitor the Internet community post for unwanted truth telling posts to delete?