Nostradamus as financial pundit/guru?

[jim4silver]

I have always been interested in him and the "predictions". Just posting this to see if anyone else has seen this.

This comes from Century 8, quatrain 28:

Les simulacres d'or & argent enflez,
Qu'apres le rapt au lac furent gettez
Au desouvert estaincts tous & troublez.
Au marbre script prescript intergetez.

The copies of gold and silver inflated,
which after the theft were thrown into the lake,
at the discovery that all is exhausted and dissipated
by the debt.
All scrips and bonds will be wiped out.


Kind of sounds like what we have been watching over the past few years? Someone from his era would seem to call derivatives and such "copies of gold and silver" since they didn't have things like that then, at least not like today.

Jim

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Marchas45]

"which after the theft were thrown into the lake,"

Bloody hell Jim, he predicted where my stack is. ****. LMAO Keep Stacking

 

[jim4silver]

Just wanted to bump this thread. The quatrain cited in my original post is amazing. He wrote this in the 1500s but to me is relevant today.

Seems to me what he would mean by "copies of gold and silver" would be paper investments and such. Back in his day gold and silver were still the premium form of money although there were paper types of "script" and such.

Perhaps after a derivative meltdown, this quatrain would be fulfilled in that it would probably take such an event to awaken the sheeple at least for a moment or two.

On the subject of derivatives, I have posted a link showing an article that discusses the new proposed spending bill. Just for fun, scroll down to the section marked "Dodd- Frank" and see what it says about derivatives and what was put in the law- which would make a change to the old law. I wonder they would want this change?

What I mean is the part that says, according to this article: "In a deal sought by Republicans, the bill would reverse Dodd-Frank requirements that banks "push out" some of derivatives trading into separate entities not backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations."

Can anyone think of a reason why they (whomever they are) would be against keeping the highly leveraged and risky derivatives in "separate entities" not backed by FDIC? I can, but it would be pure speculation on my part.


What?s in the spending bill? We skim it so you don?t have to - The Washington Post


Just my opinion.

Jim

 

[TheCoinKid]

I don't know beans about Dodd-Frank, or to what extent it eliminated derivative transactions in insured banks.

I do know that some derivative instruments act as insurance and lower risk, if done properly. In the case of retail banks, that would include interest rate hedges and swaps. Hedging interest rates (and by definition, a hedge is "covered" by an underlying asset or liability) helps ensure that banks don't lose money on time deposits, commercial paper issues or loan portfolios, due to fluctuations in interest rates. Obviously, these transactions are not "highly-leveraged and risky".

Pure speculation on my part, but if Dodd-Frank eliminated these types of derivative transactions, I can see why Republicans want these transactions back in insured banks.

TCK

 

[jim4silver]

I don't know beans about Dodd-Frank, or to what extent it eliminated derivative transactions in insured banks.

I do know that some derivative instruments act as insurance and lower risk, if done properly. In the case of retail banks, that would include interest rate hedges and swaps. Hedging interest rates (and by definition, a hedge is "covered" by an underlying asset or liability) helps ensure that banks don't lose money on time deposits, commercial paper issues or loan portfolios, due to fluctuations in interest rates. Obviously, these transactions are not "highly-leveraged and risky".

Pure speculation on my part, but if Dodd-Frank eliminated these types of derivative transactions, I can see why Republicans want these transactions back in insured banks.

TCK

TCK,

Dodd-Frank did not eliminate anything of the sort. Instead, it sought to push the transactions away from the FDIC insured entities to non FDIC insured entities to some extent (from what I understand).

So now the banks and such who have your savings deposits can play in the derivatives market and if said derivatives market crashes and the bank fails, so will your deposits over the FDIC limits. If said derivatives were in non FDIC institutions and said derivatives failed, it would not in theory affect your happy deposits in the bank.

Basically, all that we supposedly learned in 2008 about risk and such is now forgotten. Carry on.

Just my opinion.

Jim

 

[TheCoinKid]

Jim,

Obviously, Dodd-Frank didn't outright eliminate derivative transactions. Apparently they did prohibit certain derivative transactions in insured banks. You asked why they might want roll back some of the Dodd-Frank regulations, and I provided speculation (still not knowing what types of transactions Dodd-Frank actually excluded). Reread my post. The logic for Dodd-Frank was not lost on me in the first place.

TCK