Credit Suisse now has a 47% chance of default, stock down 25% this morning.

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Condescending posts like this add nothing to the conversation. You claim I don't know what I'm talking about but don't post correct information.
The burden of proof is on you, not me. I just think about things critically and deductively; something a lot of people on the coli, and the internet in general, don't do.

So let me spit game.

Of the 109 IMF members, the United States has the largest voting share. What this means, effectively, is that the US has veto power and moves its weight more than any other voting bloc.

The United States also contributes the highest amount of quotas to the IMF; sealing its proportional weight and therefor voting power. It has increased its quota commitment twice. It's the only country to do so; despite reserve and economic variability constraints. But then again, you can do what you want when the bank is in your backyard.

Add all of this to the fact that, much like the ineffectual United Nations, the IMF is located in the US. You realize how pro-American international policy the IMF actually is.

This isn't some blue versus red shyt in America. International policy and economics is a whole other level of bullshyt if you aren't American.

I'm also not the only one who thinks this:

"The impact of IMF loans has been widely debated. Opponents of the IMF argue that the loans enable member countries to pursue reckless domestic economic policies knowing that, if needed, the IMF will bail them out. This safety net, critics charge, delays needed reforms and creates long-term dependency."

So as I said, the US has found a work around to get funds to Ukraine. The Biden admin knows how crazy it would look to have a financial crises and then send money to Europe while it's happening. It would practically hand the next election to the Republicans. That aside, the quotas will have to be paid back into the IMF...and such quotas are covered by tax payers via reserve tranche.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) : an ABC – CADTM

In 2020, the World Bank (WB) and the IMF are 76 years old. These two international financial institutions (IFI), founded in 1944, are dominated by the USA and a few allied major powers who work…

www.cadtm.org

U.S. Participation in the International Monetary Fund (IMF): A Primer - AAF

Executive Summary The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was created in the wake of the Great Depression to promote stability in global financial markets. Nearly all countries are members of the IMF, but the United States is the largest cumulative contributor to the IMF at $155 billion and the...

www.americanactionforum.org

https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Where-the-IMF-Gets-Its-Money

International Monetary Fund - Globalization, Reforms, Criticism

International Monetary Fund - Globalization, Reforms, Criticism: The impact of IMF loans has been widely debated. Opponents of the IMF argue that the loans enable member countries to pursue reckless domestic economic policies knowing that, if needed, the IMF will bail them out. This safety net...

www.britannica.com

Yes it's called pooling your money. The US pays a fraction along with their allies in the IMF. You claimed only Americans would pay. You were incorrect. Just take the L and move on. it works just like taxes, the people with the most resources should contribute the most.

Where Does the IMF Get Its Money? The IMF gets its money through quotas and subscriptions from its member countries. These contributions are based on the size of the country's economy, making the U.S., with the world's largest economy, the largest contributor.

 

[bnew]

https://archive.is/iNsOU

Timeline of Credit Suisse, $CS, Collapse:

- 2009: Fined $536 million for bypassing US sanctions

- 2014: Fined $2.6 billion for evading US taxes

- 2021: Lost $5.5 billion due to risky exposure to Archegos fund failure

- 2021: Froze $10 billon in funds due to Greensill collapse

- 2022: Pleads guilty to defrauding investors over $850 million loan, fined $475 million

- 2023: Delays annual report to address accounting concerns from the SEC

- 2023: Saudi National Bank said they won't provide further financial support

- 2023: US Treasury and ECB announce they are monitoring CS situation

Now, Credit Suisse is asking the Swiss Central Bank for support.

Their Credit Default Swap premiums are trading above 2008 levels.

At this point, they have dug their own grave.

 

[jdubnyce]

https://archive.is/iNsOU

And will be saved

 

[Seoul Gleou]

Yes it's called pooling your money. The US pays a fraction along with their allies in the IMF. You claimed only Americans would pay. You were incorrect. Just take the L and move on. it works just like taxes, the people with the most resources should contribute the most.

Where Does the IMF Get Its Money? The IMF gets its money through quotas and subscriptions from its member countries. These contributions are based on the size of the country's economy, making the U.S., with the world's largest economy, the largest contributor.

you don't understand the IMF

1. Tax payer money can contribute to a country's quota at the IMF. When a country becomes a member of the IMF, it is required to make an initial financial contribution called a subscription, which is usually paid in a combination of its own currency and foreign exchange reserves. In addition, member countries are required to maintain a certain level of reserves (known as "reserve tranche") at the IMF, which can be used to participate in IMF lending programs and other activities. All funded through, again, tax payer money.

2. If these contributions are based made on the size of the country's economy, China would be number two on the chart I posted. China, Japan, and Germany, combined would have significantly more votes. With China having more veto power. Yet, it isn't represented. Why don't you go ahead and show the formula for quota contributions and an example; I'll wait.

If you're going to have a debate, have one. The theatrics don't change facts.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

you don't understand the IMF

1. Tax payer money can contribute to a country's quota at the IMF. When a country becomes a member of the IMF, it is required to make an initial financial contribution called a subscription, which is usually paid in a combination of its own currency and foreign exchange reserves. In addition, member countries are required to maintain a certain level of reserves (known as "reserve tranche") at the IMF, which can be used to participate in IMF lending programs and other activities. All funded through, again, tax payer money.

2. If these contributions are based made on the size of the country's economy, China would be number two on the chart I posted. China, Japan, and Germany, combined would have significantly more votes. With China having more veto power. Yet, it isn't represented. Why don't you go ahead and show the formula for quota contributions and an example; I'll wait.

If you're going to have a debate, have one. The theatrics don't change facts.

The money the IMF loans to its members on its best – or non-concessional – terms comes from member countries, mainly through their payment of quotas. Multilateral and bilateral arrangements can supplement quota funds and plays a critical role in the IMF's support for member countries in times of crisis.

What are you even fukking arguing with me for. All this information is on google yet you sit here and act retarded for no reason because you don't want to admit that you were wrong when you said Americans would be the ones paying for this. It's a group effort, we're all paying. That's the point

 

[karim]

Condescending posts like this add nothing to the conversation. You claim I don't know what I'm talking about but don't post correct information.
The burden of proof is on you, not me. I just think about things critically and deductively; something a lot of people on the coli, and the internet in general, don't do.

So let me spit game.

Of the 109 IMF members, the United States has the largest voting share. What this means, effectively, is that the US has veto power and moves its weight more than any other voting bloc.

The United States also contributes the highest amount of quotas to the IMF; sealing its proportional weight and therefor voting power. It has increased its quota commitment twice. It's the only country to do so; despite reserve and economic variability constraints. But then again, you can do what you want when the bank is in your backyard.

Add all of this to the fact that, much like the ineffectual United Nations, the IMF is located in the US. You realize how pro-American international policy the IMF actually is.

This isn't some blue versus red shyt in America. International policy and economics is a whole other level of bullshyt if you aren't American.

I'm also not the only one who thinks this:

"The impact of IMF loans has been widely debated. Opponents of the IMF argue that the loans enable member countries to pursue reckless domestic economic policies knowing that, if needed, the IMF will bail them out. This safety net, critics charge, delays needed reforms and creates long-term dependency."

So as I said, the US has found a work around to get funds to Ukraine. The Biden admin knows how crazy it would look to have a financial crises and then send money to Europe while it's happening. It would practically hand the next election to the Republicans. That aside, the quotas will have to be paid back into the IMF...and such quotas are covered by tax payers via reserve tranche.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) : an ABC – CADTM

In 2020, the World Bank (WB) and the IMF are 76 years old. These two international financial institutions (IFI), founded in 1944, are dominated by the USA and a few allied major powers who work…

www.cadtm.org

U.S. Participation in the International Monetary Fund (IMF): A Primer - AAF

Executive Summary The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was created in the wake of the Great Depression to promote stability in global financial markets. Nearly all countries are members of the IMF, but the United States is the largest cumulative contributor to the IMF at $155 billion and the...

www.americanactionforum.org

https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Where-the-IMF-Gets-Its-Money

International Monetary Fund - Globalization, Reforms, Criticism

International Monetary Fund - Globalization, Reforms, Criticism: The impact of IMF loans has been widely debated. Opponents of the IMF argue that the loans enable member countries to pursue reckless domestic economic policies knowing that, if needed, the IMF will bail them out. This safety net...

www.britannica.com

You might want to google what a structural adjustment programme is, before your claim that the IMF enables countries to pursue reckless spending. It's mainly known to force countries into brutal austerity.

 

[Seoul Gleou]

The money the IMF loans to its members on its best – or non-concessional – terms comes from member countries, mainly through their payment of quotas. Multilateral and bilateral arrangements can supplement quota funds and plays a critical role in the IMF's support for member countries in times of crisis.

What are you even fukking arguing with me for. All this information is on google yet you sit here and act retarded for no reason because you don't want to admit that you were wrong when you said Americans would be the ones paying for this. It's a group effort, we're all paying. That's the point

lol stop moving the goal posts and attacking a straw man. I am right in that American tax payers would be paying for this, I proved it. I never claimed ONLY Americans would pay for it; you did. Below is my exact quote.

The IMF is going to send ANOTHER 15 billion to Ukraine

keep in mind, this motherfukker is located in WASHINGTON, DC and is basically, like the UN and NATO, an extension of the US government.

Americans will pay the loan money that Ukraine receives from the IMF rather than the US just straight up giving Ukraine the money

this is actually fukking insane to watch in real time

AGAIN:
1. Tax payer money can contribute to a country's quota at the IMF. When a country becomes a member of the IMF, it is required to make an initial financial contribution called a subscription, which is usually paid in a combination of its own currency and foreign exchange reserves. In addition, member countries are required to maintain a certain level of reserves (known as "reserve tranche") at the IMF, which can be used to participate in IMF lending programs and other activities. All funded through, again, tax payer money


Not once did I claim only Americans would be paying. I have only proved that they will be paying. You are the one arguing and posting google finds, that you don't seemingly understand, for no reason and rambling about me taking an L. Repeating your point louder and more frequently doesn't make it correct. Just admit you didn't understand my argument or ask me why I'm of that position rather than claiming outright that it's wrong and I'm retarded. That's immature and dimwitted.

 

[Seoul Gleou]

You might want to google what a structural adjustment programme is, before your claim that the IMF enables countries to pursue reckless spending. It's mainly known to force countries into brutal austerity.

I know what SAPs are, and it isn't my argument; it's that of critics of SAPs.

Criticism and debate​

The impact of IMF loans has been widely debated. Opponents of the IMF argue that the loans enable member countries to pursue reckless domestic economic policies knowing that, if needed, the IMF will bail them out. This safety net, critics charge, delays needed reforms and creates long-term dependency. Opponents also argue that the IMF rescues international bankers who have made bad loans, thereby encouraging them to approve ever riskier international investments.


IMF conditionalities have also been widely debated. Critics contend that IMF policy prescriptions provide uniform remedies that are not adequately tailored to each country’s unique circumstances. These standard, austere loan conditions reduce economic growth and deepen and prolong financial crises, creating severe hardships for the poorest people in borrowing countries and strengthening local opposition to the IMF.

International Monetary Fund - Globalization, Reforms, Criticism

International Monetary Fund - Globalization, Reforms, Criticism: The impact of IMF loans has been widely debated. Opponents of the IMF argue that the loans enable member countries to pursue reckless domestic economic policies knowing that, if needed, the IMF will bail them out. This safety net...

www.britannica.com

I googled some other criticism of SAPs as well. Enjoy.

1. Social and Economic Costs: Critics argue that SAPs have led to significant social and economic costs for developing countries, including increased poverty, unemployment, and inequality. They contend that SAPs often result in reduced public spending on health, education, and social welfare programs, which disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.
2. Democracy and Sovereignty: Some critics have raised concerns about the impact of SAPs on the sovereignty and democratic governance of developing countries. They argue that the IMF's policy prescriptions often prioritize the interests of international creditors over the needs and desires of local populations, which can undermine democratic processes and institutions.
3. Economic Liberalization: Critics argue that SAPs often promote economic liberalization policies that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of local businesses and industries. This can lead to the "hollowing out" of domestic economies, as local businesses are unable to compete with larger foreign firms.
4. Lack of Accountability: Some critics argue that the IMF lacks sufficient accountability mechanisms, which can lead to abuses of power and harmful policy decisions. They argue that the IMF's decision-making processes are opaque and non-participatory, which can limit the ability of affected populations to provide input or influence policy decisions.
5. Ineffective: Critics argue that the SAPs have been largely ineffective in achieving their stated goals of promoting economic growth and stability. Some studies have shown that countries that have implemented SAPs have experienced lower rates of economic growth, higher levels of inequality, and increased political instability.

 

[bnew]

https://archive.is/BJgKg

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

lol stop moving the goal posts and attacking a straw man. I am right in that American tax payers would be paying for this, I proved it. I never claimed ONLY Americans would pay for it; you did. Below is my exact quote.



AGAIN:
1. Tax payer money can contribute to a country's quota at the IMF. When a country becomes a member of the IMF, it is required to make an initial financial contribution called a subscription, which is usually paid in a combination of its own currency and foreign exchange reserves. In addition, member countries are required to maintain a certain level of reserves (known as "reserve tranche") at the IMF, which can be used to participate in IMF lending programs and other activities. All funded through, again, tax payer money


Not once did I claim only Americans would be paying. I have only proved that they will be paying. You are the one arguing and posting google finds, that you don't seemingly understand, for no reason and rambling about me taking an L. Repeating your point louder and more frequently doesn't make it correct. Just admit you didn't understand my argument or ask me why I'm of that position rather than claiming outright that it's wrong and I'm retarded. That's immature and dimwitted.

You we're wrong it's ok to admit that. Have a nice day

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

You might want to google what a structural adjustment programme is, before your claim that the IMF enables countries to pursue reckless spending. It's mainly known to force countries into brutal austerity.

The IMF is hyper evil, the shyt they've done in Africa is no bueno.

I've always felt like the IMF and the French conspired to kill Thomas Sankara who is one of my all time favorite people. I'd say I'm surprised more people on the Coli don't speak on him but most people on the coli look up to white supremacists and don't care for great black leaders.

 

[Seoul Gleou]

You we're wrong it's ok to admit that. Have a nice day

*were, and I'm not. Stay blessed, breh

 

[Professor Emeritus]

chatgpt couldn't "predict" swiss national bank would backstop credit suisse which is in serious financial trouble.

they are bagholding bad positions from Archegos collapse.

Chat GPT can't "predict" anything. It doesn't know anything. It is a mere language model. It said March 15 solely because March 15 is the sort of thing people say. It doesn't have any idea what is going on with the stock market, it doesn't even have access to that information nor does it "think" about things like that. It's just a program that is good at pretending to converse by copying the ways in which other people have conversed before.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

And yet you did. Can you hear the fear speaking as it directs your actions by that little voice in your head?

Imagine if during COVID people hadn't consumed the entirely optional diet of fear porn and dread

The irony of you talking about fear porn while you hyperventilate about controlled demolitions, global conspiracies, New World Order, and some vast demonic conspiracy to control our souls. I'd much rather spend my life rationally responding to things that are actually happening than freaking out over imagined ghosts in the dark.

 

[karim]

I know what SAPs are, and it isn't my argument; it's that of critics of SAPs.

Criticism and debate​

The impact of IMF loans has been widely debated. Opponents of the IMF argue that the loans enable member countries to pursue reckless domestic economic policies knowing that, if needed, the IMF will bail them out. This safety net, critics charge, delays needed reforms and creates long-term dependency. Opponents also argue that the IMF rescues international bankers who have made bad loans, thereby encouraging them to approve ever riskier international investments.


IMF conditionalities have also been widely debated. Critics contend that IMF policy prescriptions provide uniform remedies that are not adequately tailored to each country’s unique circumstances. These standard, austere loan conditions reduce economic growth and deepen and prolong financial crises, creating severe hardships for the poorest people in borrowing countries and strengthening local opposition to the IMF.

International Monetary Fund - Globalization, Reforms, Criticism

International Monetary Fund - Globalization, Reforms, Criticism: The impact of IMF loans has been widely debated. Opponents of the IMF argue that the loans enable member countries to pursue reckless domestic economic policies knowing that, if needed, the IMF will bail them out. This safety net...

www.britannica.com

I googled some other criticism of SAPs as well. Enjoy.

1. Social and Economic Costs: Critics argue that SAPs have led to significant social and economic costs for developing countries, including increased poverty, unemployment, and inequality. They contend that SAPs often result in reduced public spending on health, education, and social welfare programs, which disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.
2. Democracy and Sovereignty: Some critics have raised concerns about the impact of SAPs on the sovereignty and democratic governance of developing countries. They argue that the IMF's policy prescriptions often prioritize the interests of international creditors over the needs and desires of local populations, which can undermine democratic processes and institutions.
3. Economic Liberalization: Critics argue that SAPs often promote economic liberalization policies that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of local businesses and industries. This can lead to the "hollowing out" of domestic economies, as local businesses are unable to compete with larger foreign firms.
4. Lack of Accountability: Some critics argue that the IMF lacks sufficient accountability mechanisms, which can lead to abuses of power and harmful policy decisions. They argue that the IMF's decision-making processes are opaque and non-participatory, which can limit the ability of affected populations to provide input or influence policy decisions.
5. Ineffective: Critics argue that the SAPs have been largely ineffective in achieving their stated goals of promoting economic growth and stability. Some studies have shown that countries that have implemented SAPs have experienced lower rates of economic growth, higher levels of inequality, and increased political instability.

You're the one who highlighted the supposed critique of the IMF and thereby made it part of your argument. Most criticism of the IMF concentrates on the negative impacts of the austerity programms it imposes, that is the complete opposite of enabling reckless spending. You simply didn't know what you were talking about