Saturday, February 14, 2009

So is our Justice Department going to investigate

this, or is the work going to have to be done completely by others? And if this isn't the kind of thing they should look into, what is?
On Thursday Sept 15, 2008 at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts.

Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed

I first read about this a day or so ago, and the question Gateway asks is very good:
The catastrophic attack occurred on September 11, 2008?
Why is this news just now getting out?

From the sound of this, it was a deliberate attack. So what's being done about it? And if the people responsible aren't digging into this with all they've got, why the hell not?


GunGeek said...

"The catastrophic attack occurred on September 11, 2008?"

No, it took place on Sept 15th at 11am, not Sept 11th.

Besides, since the Muslim world uses the Hijri Calendar, which is different than our Julian Calendar, the anniversary of 9/11/01 was on June 27th last year. Doing something bad to us on the anniversary using our calendar would be like admitting that our calendar is the correct calendar. There have been many many instances of attacks being committed on the Hijri anniversary of events.

Sigivald said...

I'm missing how drawing down money market accounts is an "attack", exactly?

(And it wasn't "secret", since it was reported in the Post on 9/21/2008.

"According to traders, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, money market funds were inundated with $500 billion in sell orders prior to the opening. The total money-market capitalization was roughly $4 trillion that morning.

The panicked selling was directly linked to the seizing up of the credit markets - including a $52 billion constriction in commercial paper - and the rumors of additional money market funds "breaking the buck," or dropping below $1 net asset value.

Until Kanjorski gets someone else agreeing with him that this ("an organized attack") is what the closed session actually got told, and/or there's other evidence, I'm standing by "he's wrong".

Kanjorski doesn't have anything about it (except presumably video) on his House website, or he's hiding it real well, which makes me think he doesn't actually think it's important.

I'm more inclined to believe he's mangling some facts (or mangling his wording, unintentionally), leaving something out, or just plain wrong, than that there was really an "attack" on the US financial system that "could have collapsed the economy".

In fact, the Post's explanation makes more sense. Overnight sell orders on thought-likely-to-become-worthless money market funds? No surprises there.

To answer Limbaugh's question that Gateway Pundit reposts, there's no need, in that case, to worry about "motive" or "who" - both are transparent and obvious self-interest by the traders involved.

Nor does it seem all that certain (or even likely) that bankrupted money market funds would destroy the American Political System.

(Capitalism Gone Wild's hyperbole and conclusion-jumping explain why I've never paid them any attention, either.

This entire kerfuffle reminds me of the "short sales of airline stocks before 9/11!!!" line. Turns out there were some - and they were by big institutional investors for unrelated reasons, and there were also lots of buys.

Didn't stop people from saying that was an Obvious Smoking Gun Proving Insider Knowledge Or Nefarious Al Quaeda Manipulation, though.)

Sigivald said...

(And to clarify my first paragraph, what I mean is, "unless the withdrawals were done by someone who was stealing from accounts they didn't own".

People withdrawing their funds from a money market simply isn't an "attack".

If the allegation was, rather, that someone was withdrawing other people's funds fraudulently, then that was not mentioned by the Representative very well, was it?)