united Europe was VERY good idea, the REAl biggest threat to the USA dominance, and it started to work like crazy! hence 2008 blow up of the european financial system detonated from the Lehman collapse simmilar to 9/11 buildings collapse!! One has to be very careful to distinguish good idea, from bad executions, and bad ideas that "cover up" taking some good ideas as facade, like China took on facade of market economy.
1. In the first bullet point under heading “1994 - USA: Revising US commercial laws and regulations (UCC)”, you use the term “account provider”. What does this mean? What is the financial relationship of the account provider to other parties?
2. You compare the DTCC’s equity ($3.5bn) with the level of daily transactions it handles and you then seem to conclude that this is problematic. However, if the DTCC is a clearing house for transactions in the market (as I think it is), then it is acting as agent/broker and not principal. As such, this seemingly skewed relationship between capital and transactions handled is to be expected, is it not? To be clear, I am sure there are many problems with the global financial structure that your article attempts to expose, but I’m not clear on why the DTCC’s equity is central to these problems. This particular point seems like a red herring.
Exellent work! Thanks for the time spent to gather all these valuable information and for sharing it.
Thanks for the share John Day. I will be doing the same.
Very carefully researched.
Thank you.
Thank You, Fadi Lama. I will open my blog post today with your trilogy-of-tyranny.
I have already sent excerpts and links to some MD friends you might read sometimes.
drjohnsblog.substack.com
Thanks for the references.
united Europe was VERY good idea, the REAl biggest threat to the USA dominance, and it started to work like crazy! hence 2008 blow up of the european financial system detonated from the Lehman collapse simmilar to 9/11 buildings collapse!! One has to be very careful to distinguish good idea, from bad executions, and bad ideas that "cover up" taking some good ideas as facade, like China took on facade of market economy.
A couple of questions:
1. In the first bullet point under heading “1994 - USA: Revising US commercial laws and regulations (UCC)”, you use the term “account provider”. What does this mean? What is the financial relationship of the account provider to other parties?
2. You compare the DTCC’s equity ($3.5bn) with the level of daily transactions it handles and you then seem to conclude that this is problematic. However, if the DTCC is a clearing house for transactions in the market (as I think it is), then it is acting as agent/broker and not principal. As such, this seemingly skewed relationship between capital and transactions handled is to be expected, is it not? To be clear, I am sure there are many problems with the global financial structure that your article attempts to expose, but I’m not clear on why the DTCC’s equity is central to these problems. This particular point seems like a red herring.