【阳光飞狐__与财富同行】

标题: 80年后，灾难又来了？？ [打印本页]

作者: logoslogos 时间: 2010-1-23 15:42
标题: 80年后，灾难又来了？？
喜欢看星星的，可能不会笑了吧，O(∩_∩)O~╮(╯_╰)╭╮(╯_╰)╭╮(╯_╰)╭

2010年会发生一个罕见T三角”，这个T三角由三颗高爆发性和破坏性的行星构成，更特别的是这次是由天王星（2010年白羊座）、土星（最近进入天枰座）和冥王星（一年前进入摩羯座）构成。

最后一次这三颗行星之间发生同样的相位是1930年，这一年爆发了。。。
大家有准备就好。(*^__^*) 嘻嘻……

[ 本帖最后由 logoslogos 于 2010-1-23 16:06 编辑 ]

作者: 鑫犇淼 时间: 2010-1-23 15:50
比2012还要早啊

作者: hecha 时间: 2010-1-23 16:01
兄太那什么了吧!
有人说2015呢,
http://www.ufocn.com.cn/html/overseas_ufo_news/20091225/2165.html

作者: logoslogos 时间: 2010-1-23 16:10

原帖由 鑫犇淼 于 2010-1-23 15:50 发表
比2012还要早啊

我们说的不是一个事情，呵呵

作者: gxblgu 时间: 2010-1-23 16:12
难道是太阳系内发生超级金融海啸？？？？？？？？

作者: 卡卡我最快 时间: 2010-1-23 16:21

作者: xyzabc 时间: 2010-1-23 17:59
地心的？

作者: xyzabc 时间: 2010-1-23 18:14
[attach]88945[/attach]

作者: xiaojing 时间: 2010-1-23 18:30
ready go~

作者: 回头是岸09 时间: 2010-1-23 18:50
1930年的世界性大萧条
1930年爆发了蒋、冯、阎之间的中原大战
1930年美国大饥荒饿死总人口7%
默拉皮火山爆發所造成最大的損害發生在1930年，當時有1300人死亡

作者: 回头是岸09 时间: 2010-1-23 18:52
2010年发生的大型全球性事件是因为一个罕见的行星构成（占星上被称为“T三角”，由三颗行星相位构成字母T的三边），这个T三角由三颗高爆发性和破坏性的行星构成，更特别的是这次是由天王星（2010年白羊座）、土星（最近进入天枰座）和冥王星（一年前进入摩羯座）构成。我做过的历史星盘熟悉相位中，最后一次这三颗行星之间发生同样的相位是1930年，这一年爆发了世界范围的经济崩溃。总的说来，2010年的星象类似于1930年的，特别是暴力方面，也就是说，人类历史上的黑暗和动荡时期（那一年法西斯运动暴涨，社会群体穷困潦倒，内战），并最终导致了第二次世界大战的爆发。我相信人类已经足够成熟，不会在明年再次诱发世界大战的续集。这是很可能的，但是，经历一个熟悉的“黑暗”期，出现世界范围的暴力和困难事件仍不可避免。夸张的变化、暴乱、爆发将发生在经济、社会、政治和地球物理学层面（译注：即天灾）。黎明前的黑暗总是最黑的。

作者: virgen 时间: 2010-1-23 19:14

作者: 莲之心 时间: 2010-1-23 19:54

作者: prayer 时间: 2010-1-23 22:58

作者: 中华财王 时间: 2010-1-23 23:23
再来一次世界大战吧

作者: firebasara 时间: 2010-1-23 23:43
我买个糕没弄到这个天象哪天呢为什么我转不到

作者: phtsl 时间: 2010-1-23 23:58
* 全球人口數量增長到20億。

* 马三立首次登台说相声。
* 沃尔夫冈·泡利提出中微子的假说。
* 库尔特·哥德尔证明哥德尔不完备定理。
* 查德威克发现中子。
* 保罗·狄拉克提出反物质的假说。
* 马克斯·史迈林获拳击世界冠军。
* 2月18日——冥王星被发现。
* 3月2日——中国左翼作家联盟在上海成立。
* 3月12日——在印度圣雄甘地开始了他的徒步跋涉抗议英国在印度的产盐专利。
* 3月28日——君士坦丁堡正式被改名为伊斯坦布尔。
* 3月29日——在德国海因里希·布吕宁当任总理。
* 4月5日——甘地违背英国法令自己制盐。
* 4月22日——英国、日本和美国签署伦敦海军条约。
* 5月，中国因國民政府裁軍問題，國民黨軍人閻錫山、馮玉祥、李宗仁等，合取蔣介石，爆发中原大战。
* 5月6日——中国和日本签定关税条约，中华民国政府获得关税自主权，日本仍或优惠，部分日货不交关税。
* 5月6日——伊朗发生7.2级地震，2500人死亡。
* 6月28日——國際勞工組織29號公約-強迫或強制勞動公約於日內瓦通過
* 6月30日——法国从德国撤军。
* 7月13日——第一屆世界盃足球賽展開，揭幕戰由法國對墨西哥，法國球員吕西安·洛朗（Lucien Laurent）射入賽事首個入球。
* 7月23日——意大利发生6.5级地震，1430人死亡。
* 7月30日——烏拉圭以四比二擊敗阿根廷奪得首屆舉行的世界盃足球賽冠軍。
* 9月3日——由发明家托马斯·爱迪生设计的电气火车第一次在美国新泽西州拉克瓦纳铁路公司的轨道上运行。
* 10月4日——一条英国飞艇在法国博韦紧急降落时失火，48人身亡。
* 10月24日——在巴西爆发革命。
* 11月2日——海尔·塞拉西加冕为埃塞俄比亚皇帝。
* 11月5日——蒋介石对井岗山发动第一次围剿。

作者: firebasara 时间: 2010-1-24 00:10
8月21日还有木星呢

作者: firebasara 时间: 2010-1-24 00:22
类似于1931年7月9日？

作者: Evatong 时间: 2010-1-24 00:55
提前知道太多并非好事, 大Ｂ反彈至今根本沒法賺$ 沒膽進場,
如果現在己是頂部, 11月的大Ｃ去十八層地獄找 ? 所以頂部不可思議呀，其波幅之大有可能動搖波浪理論的根基 !

下面引用由evatong在 2008/10/03 03:58pm 發表的內容：
2010年7月火土合沖木天王－－滅國之災

下面引用由evatong在 2008/10/03 07:52pm 發表的內容：
這不是黑色預言，它擁有達文西密碼一般的秘密．

世界經濟走向一體化的今天，任何國家的動盪和分裂，都將是世界性的災難．誰也不能獨善其身．

保護家園，鄰里相助，被提到當前主要議題之中．救火就是救命，救火就是救國．雖然九個火場，一條水喉．

與天鬥，與地鬥，小米加步槍．今次海嘯如果八年太長，五年抗戰的心理須要立即裝備．

政府高官是我們的衣食父母，先人一步做最坏災情的安排，做最坏打算的長遠計劃，是全港市民的褔氣．倒閉執笠失業－－骨牌效應發生時，不至臨陣擦槍，頻頻走火失火．

作者: Evatong 时间: 2010-1-24 01:09
對滅絕的恐懼是土冥相位永遠的主題，沒什麼大驚小怪．

作者: skywater 时间: 2010-1-24 19:16

作者: logoslogos 时间: 2010-1-25 12:04
gann top secret forecast guide tunnel thru the air solved pdf
The mother of all insider trades was pulled off in 1815, when London financier Nathan Rothschild led British investors to believe that the Duke of Wellington had lost to Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. In a matter of hours, British government bond prices plummeted. Rothschild, who had advance information, then swiftly bought up the entire market in government bonds, acquiring a dominant holding in England’s debt for pennies on the pound. Over the course of the nineteenth century, N. M. Rothschild would become the biggest bank in the world, and the five brothers would come to control most of the foreign-loan business of Europe. “Let me issue and control a nation’s money,” Rothschild boasted in 1838, “and I care not who writes its laws.”

In the United States a century later, John Pierpont Morgan again used rumor and innuendo to create a panic that would change the course of history. The panic of 1907 was triggered by rumors that two major banks were about to become insolvent. Later evidence pointed to the House of Morgan as the source of the rumors. The public, believing the rumors, proceeded to make them come true by staging a run on the banks. Morgan then nobly stepped in to avert the panic by importing $100 million in gold from his European sources. The public thus became convinced that the country needed a central banking system to stop future panics, overcoming strong congressional opposition to any bill allowing the nation’s money to be issued by a private central bank controlled by Wall Street; and the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. Morgan created the conditions for the Act’s passage, but it was Paul Warburg who pulled it off. An immigrant from Germany, Warburg was a partner of Kuhn, Loeb, the Rothschilds’ main American banking operation since the Civil War. Elisha Garrison, an agent of Brown Brothers bankers, wrote in his 1931 book Roosevelt, Wilson and the Federal Reserve Law that “Paul Warburg is the man who got the Federal Reserve Act together after the Aldrich Plan aroused such nationwide resentment and opposition. The mastermind of both plans was Baron Alfred Rothschild of London.” Morgan, too, is now widely believed to have been Rothschild’s agent in the United States. 1

Robert Owens, a co-author of the Federal Reserve Act, later testified before Congress that the banking industry had conspired to create a series of financial panics in order to rouse the people to demand “reforms” that served the interests of the financiers. A century later, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (now one of the two largest banks in the United States) may have pulled this ruse off again, again changing the course of history. “Remember Friday March 14, 2008,” wrote Martin Wolf in The Financial Times; “it was the day the dream of global free-market capitalism died.”

The Rumors that Sank Bear Stearns

Mergers, buyouts and leveraged acquisitions have been the modus operandi of the Morgan empire ever since John Pierpont Morgan took over Carnegie’s steel mills to form U.S. Steel in 1901. The elder Morgan is said to have hated competition, the hallmark of “free-market capitalism.” He did not compete, he bought; and he bought with money created by his own bank, using the leveraged system perfected by the Rothschild bankers known as “fractional reserve” lending. On March 16, 2008, this long tradition of takeovers and acquisitions culminated in JPMorgan’s buyout of rival investment bank Bear Stearns with a $55 billion loan from the Federal Reserve. Although called “federal,” the U.S. central bank is privately owned by a consortium of banks, and it was set up to protect their interests.2 The secret weekend purchase of Bear Stearns with a Federal Reserve loan was precipitated by a run on Bear’s stock allegedly triggered by rumors of its insolvency. An article in The Wall Street Journal on March 15, 2008 cast JPMorgan as Bear’s “rescuer”:

“The role of rescuer has long been part of J.P. Morgan’s history. In what’s known as the Panic of 1907, a semi-retired J. Pierpont Morgan helped stave off a national financial crisis when he helped to shore up a number of banks that had seen a run on their deposits.”

That was one interpretation of events, but a later paragraph was probably closer to the facts:

“J.P. Morgan has been on the prowl for acquisitions. . . . Bear’s assets could be too good, and too cheap, to turn down.”3

The “rescuer” was not actually JPMorgan but was the Federal Reserve, the “bankers’ bank” set up by J. Pierpont Morgan to backstop bank runs; and the party “rescued” was not Bear Stearns, which wound up being eaten alive. The Federal Reserve (or “Fed”) lent $25 billion to Bear Stearns and another $30 billion to JPMorgan, a total of $55 billion that all found its way into JPMorgan’s coffers. It was a very good deal for JPMorgan and a very bad deal for Bear’s shareholders, who saw their stock drop from a high of $156 to a low of $2 a share. Thirty percent of the company’s stock was held by the employees, and another big chunk was held by the pension funds of teachers and other public servants. The share price was later raised to $10 a share in response to shareholder outrage and threats of lawsuits, but it was still a very “hostile” takeover, one in which the shareholders had no vote.

The deal was also a very bad one for U.S. taxpayers, who are on the hook for the loan. Although the Fed is privately owned, the money it lends is taxpayer money, and it is the taxpayers who are taking the risk that the loan won’t be repaid. The loan for the buyout was backed by Bear Stearns assets valued at $55 billion; and of this sum, $29 billion was non-recourse to JPMorgan, meaning that if the assets weren’t worth their stated valuation, the Fed could not go after JPMorgan for the balance. The Fed could at best get its money back with interest; and at worst, it could lose between $25 billion and $40 billion.4 In other words, JPMorgan got the money ($55 billion) and the taxpayers got the risk (up to $40 billion), a ruse called the privatization of profit and socialization of risk. Why did the Fed not just make the $55 billion loan to Bear Stearns directly? The bank would have been saved, and the Fed and the taxpayers would have gotten a much better deal, since Bear Stearns could have been required to guaranty the full loan.

The Highly Suspicious Out-of-the-Money Puts

That was one of many questions raised by John Olagues, an authority on stock options, in a March 23 article boldly titled “Bear Stearns Buy-out . . . 100% Fraud.” Olagues maintains that the Bear Stearns collapse was artificially created to allow JPMorgan to be paid $55 billion of taxpayer money to cover its own insolvency and acquire its rival Bear Stearns, while at the same

allowing insiders to take large “short” positions in Bear Stearns stock and collect massive profits. For evidence, Olagues points to a very suspicious series of events, which will be detailed here after some definitions for anyone not familiar with stock options:

A put is an option to sell a stock at an

d-upon price, called the strike price or exercise price, at any

up to an

d-upon date. The option is priced and bought that day based upon the current stock price, on the presumption that the stock will decline in value. If the stock’s price falls below the strike price, the option is “in the money” and the trader has made a profit. Now here’s the evidence:

On March 10, 2008, Bear Stearns stock dropped to $70 a share -- a recent low, but not the first time the stock had reached that level in 2008, having also traded there eight weeks earlier. On or before March 10, 2008,

s were made to the Options Exchanges to open a new April series of puts with exercise prices of 20 and 22.5 and a new March series with an exercise price of 25. The March series had only eight days left to expiration, meaning the stock would have to drop by an unlikely $45 a share in eight days for the put-buyers to score. It was a very risky bet, unless the traders knew something the market didn’t; and they evidently thought they did, because after the series opened on March 11, 2008, purchases were made of massive volumes of puts controlling millions of shares.

On or before March 13, 2008, another

was made of the Options Exchanges to open additional March and April put series with very low exercise prices, although the March put options would have just five days of trading to expiration. Again the exchanges accommodated the requests and massive amounts of puts were bought. Olagues contends that there is only one plausible explanation for “anyone in his right mind to buy puts with five days of life remaining with strike prices far below the market price”: the deal must have already been arranged by March 10 or before.

These facts were in sharp contrast to the story told by officials who testified at congressional hearings on April 4. All witnesses

d that false rumors had undermined confidence in Bear Stearns, making the company crash despite adequate liquidity just days before. On March 10, 2008, Reuters was citing Bear Stearns sources saying there was no liquidity crisis and no truth to the speculation of liquidity problems. On March 11, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission himself expressed confidence in its “capital cushion.” Even “mad” TV investment guru Jim Cramer was proclaiming that all was well and the viewers should hold on. On March 12, official assurances continued. Olagues writes:

“The fact that the requests were made on March 10 or earlier that those new series be opened and those requests were accommodated together with the subsequent massive open positions in those newly opened series is conclusive proof that there were some who knew about the collapse in advance . . . . This was no case of a sudden development on the 13 or 14th, where things changed dramatically making it such that they needed a bail-out immediately. The collapse was anticipated and prepared for. . . .

“Apparently it is claimed that some people have the ability to start false rumors about Bear Stearns’ and other banks’ liquidity, which then starts a ‘run on the bank.’ These rumor mongers allegedly were able to influence companies like Goldman Sachs to terminate doing business with Bear Stearns, notwithstanding that Goldman et al. believed that Bear Stearns balance sheet was in good shape. . . . The idea that rumors caused a ‘run on the bank’ at Bear Stearns is 100% ridiculous. Perhaps that’s the reason why every witness was so guarded and hesitant and looked so mighty strained in answering questions . . . .

“To prove the case of illegal insider trading, all the Feds have to do is ask a few questions of the persons who bought puts on Bear Stearns or shorted stock during the week before March 17, 2008 and before. All the records are easily available. If they bought puts or shorted stock, just ask them why.”5

Suspicions Mount

Other commentators point to other issues that might be probed by investigators. Chris Cook, a British consultant and the former Compliance Director for the International Petroleum Exchange, wrote in an April 24 blog:

“As a former regulator myself, I would be crawling all over these trades. . . . One question that occurs to me is who actually sold these Put Options? And why aren’t they creating merry hell about the losses? Where is Spitzer when we need him?”6

In an April 23 article in LeMetropoleCafe.com, Rob Kirby

d with Olagues that it was not Bear Stearns but JPMorgan that was bankrupt and needed to be “recapitalized” with massive loans from the Federal Reserve. Kirby pointed to the

e losses from derivatives (bets on the future price of assets) carried on JPMorgan’s books:

“. . . J.P. Morgan’s derivatives book is 2-3 times bigger than Citibank’s – and it was derivatives that caused losses of more than 30 billion at Citibank . . . . So, it only made common sense that J.P. Morgan had to be a little more than ‘knee deep’ in the same stuff that Citibank was – but how do you tell the market that a bank – any bank – needs to be recapitalized to the tune of 50 - 80 billion?”7

Kirby wrote in an April 30 article:

“According to the NYSE there are only 240 million shares of Bear outstanding . . . [Yet] 188 million traded on Mar. 14 alone? Doesn’t this strike you as being odd? . . . What percentage of the firm was owned by insiders that categorically did not sell their shares? . . . Bear Stearns employees held 30 % of the company’s stock . . . 30 % of 240 million is 72 million. If you subtract 72 from 240 you end up with approximately 170 million. Don’t you think it’s a stretch to believe that 186+ million real shares traded on Friday Mar. 14? Or do you believe that rank-and-file Bear employees, worried about their jobs, were pitching their stocks on the Friday before the company collapsed knowing their company was toast? But that would be insider trading – wouldn’t it? No bloody wonder the SEC does not want to probe J.P. Morgan’s ‘rescue’ of Bear Stearns . . .”8

If real shares weren’t trading, someone must have been engaging in “naked” short selling – selling stock short without first borrowing the shares or ensuring that the shares could be borrowed. Short selling, a technique used by investors to try to profit from the falling price of a stock, involves borrowing a stock from a broker and selling it, with the understanding that the stock must later be bought back and returned to the broker. Naked short selling is normally illegal; but in the interest of “liquid markets,” a truck-sized loophole exists for “market makers” (those people who match buyers with sellers, set the price, and follow through with the trade). Even market makers, however, are supposed to cover within three days by actually coming up with the stock; and where would they have gotten enough Bear Stearns stock to cover 75% of the company’s outstanding shares? In any case, naked short selling is illegal if the intent is to drive down a stock’s share price; and that was certainly the result here.9

On May 10, 2008, in weekly market commentary on FinancialSense.com, Jim Puplava observed that naked short selling has become so pervasive that the number of shares sold “short” far exceeds the shares actually issued by the underlying companies. Yet regulators are turning a blind eye, perhaps because the situation has now gotten so far out of hand that it can’t be corrected without major stock upheaval. He noted that naked short selling is basically the counterfeiting of stock, and that it has reached epidemic proportions since the “uptick” rule was revoked last summer to help the floundering hedge funds. The uptick rule allowed short selling only if the stock price were going up, preventing a cascade of short sales that would take the stock price much lower. But that brake on manipulation has been eliminated by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), leaving the market in unregulated chaos.

Eliot Spitzer has also been eliminated from the scene, and it may be for similar reasons. Greg Palast suggested in a March 14 article that the “sin” of the former New York governor may have been something more serious than prostitution. Spitzer made the mistake of getting in the way of a $200 billion windfall from the Federal Reserve to the banks, guaranteeing the mortgage-backed junk bonds of the same banking predators responsible for the subprime debacle. While the Federal Reserve was trying to bail the banks out, Spitzer was trying to regulate them, bringing suit on behalf of consumers.10 But he was swiftly exposed and deposed; and the Treasury has now broached a new plan that would prevent such disruptions in the future. Like the Panic of 1907 that justified a “bankers’ bank” to prevent future runs, the collapse of Bear Stearns has been used to justify a proposal giving vast new powers to the Federal Reserve to promote “financial market stability.” The plan was unveiled by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs, two weeks after Bear Stearns fell. It would “consolidate” the state regulators (who work for the fifty states) and the SEC (which works for the U.S. government) under the Federal Reserve (which works for the banks). Paulson conceded that the result would not be to increase regulation but to actually take away authority from state regulators and the SEC. All regulation would be subsumed under the Federal Reserve, the bank-owned entity set up by J. Pierpont Morgan in 1913 specifically to preserve the banks’ own interests.

On April 29, a former top Federal Reserve official told The Wall Street Journal that by offering $30 billion in financing to JPMorgan for Bear’s assets, the Fed had “eliminated forever the possibility [that it] could serve as an honest broker.” Vincent Reinhart, formerly the Fed’s director of monetary affairs and the secretary of its policy-making panel, said the Fed’s bailout of Bear Stearns would come to be viewed as the “worst policy mistake in a generation.” He noted that there were other viable options, such as looking for other suitors or removing some assets from Bear’s portfolio, which had not been pursued by the Federal Reserve.11

Jim Puplava maintains that naked short selling has now become so pervasive that if the hedge funds were pressed to come in and cover their naked short positions, “they would actually trigger another financial crisis.” The Fed and the SEC may be looking the other way on this widespread stock counterfeiting scheme because “if they did unravel it, everything really would unravel.” Evidently “promoting market stability” means that whistle-blowers and the SEC must be silenced so that a grossly illegal situation can continue, since the crime is so pervasive that to expose it and prosecute the criminals would unravel the whole financial system. As Nathan Rothschild observed in 1838, when the issuance and control of a nation’s money are in private hands, the laws and the people who make them become irrelevant.

作者: logoslogos 时间: 2010-1-25 12:05
J. P. Morgan's Billion Dollar Secret pdf

作者: wuyin2025 时间: 2010-1-25 12:26

作者: 人生大多忍着过 时间: 2010-1-25 12:38
天王星合相于2010年白羊座0度;时的;国内历史

好事多磨

作者: Evatong 时间: 2010-1-25 13:04
君子不立危墻之下，少吃一口．

作者: logoslogos 时间: 2010-1-25 13:35
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money,” Rothschild boasted in 1838, “and I care not who writes its laws.”

作者: Evatong 时间: 2010-1-25 16:12
伯南克连任有悬念，后市或掀起轩然大波
北京时间 2010年01月23日 04:36 汇通网尽管截至周五(22日)，美国参议院推迟投票表决伯南克连任美联储主席一事尚未令市场反应剧烈，但也令本来就因一系列事件而动荡不安的市场再添一丝惶恐。

有经济学家指出，对伯南克连任表决的推迟，反映出对美国经济所遇到的挑战的不安情绪：失业率高居10%，信贷紧缩以及复苏依旧疲软。

Foreign Exchange Analytics分析师David Gilmore表示，我们需要官员像运转良好的机器那样工作，但是我们看到的却都是每一级政府政治和政策的混乱。

参议院最早将在下周对伯南克连任进行投票表决。两位民主党议员Sens. Russ Feingold和Barbara Boxer周五表示，他们将投上反对票。伯南克的任期将于1月31日结束，因此他需要寻求一些来自共和党的支持以确保连任。

美国短期国债价格周五走高，因越来越多的证据表明，民主党内对伯南克连任的支持率越来越低。但是其他市场，从股市到汇市，都在等待美国限制大型银行规模以及中国可能更多收紧银根引发的巨大影响。

美国股市在周四大跌2%之后，周五继续走低，市场目前关注美企财报、中国控制信贷节奏以及美国计划对大型银行进行限制等方面的影响。

汇市也受到美国限制银行新规带来的影响。日元受到支撑，成为唯一的避险货币。此次的避险买盘未能令美元受益，因投资者担心此次银行改革将破坏美国的经济增长。而欧元最易受到利空消息的影响，尤其是来自希腊的消息。

美元/日元纽约时段自90.32震荡下挫，目前汇价跌破了欧市低点89.91，下跌至时段新低89.88。此前，汇价于亚市跌破了90.00整数心理关口，创1个月新低89.81。

奥巴马(Barack Obama)新银行监管方案仍令美元承压，同时，全球股市回调加剧了套息交易平仓压力，令日元交叉盘全线走低，进一步打压美元/日元。

本周对希腊偿还期巨额债务能力的担忧，曾扶助美元兑欧元登顶五个月高峰。

纽约梅隆银行高级汇市策略师Michael Woolfolk表示，延期对伯南克连任进行表决，可能令美元承压。因为美联储不太可能在主席之位最终确认之前就加息。

他表示，这持续的时间越长，就越不仅仅是简单的对利率的看法，而是其可能带来更多的相关风险：如果不是伯南克，那么是谁来执掌帅印？他补充称，这将是G7国家的一次不寻常的政治风险。

多数市场人士预期伯南克最终将连任美联储主席。如果其未能连任，他们中的大多数认为将令市场陷入混乱，正如参议院银行委员会主席Christopher Dodd所言。

苏格兰皇家银行(RBS Securities)首席经济学家Steve Stanley表示，若伯南克被抛弃，将被看作是美联储摆脱政治干预的失败。

作者: djw777 时间: 2010-2-1 08:57
有可能，个人感觉世界级的危机远远没有过去

作者: 散户甲 时间: 2010-2-1 09:29
logoslogos ,请向前推几次看看这些，再前几次人类历史上发生了什么？

作者: zhouyi1083 时间: 2010-2-1 09:37
J. P. Morgan's Billion Dollar Secret

欢迎光临【阳光飞狐__与财富同行】 (http://bbs.88158.cn/)