
The Reappointment of Bernanke
By DEAN BAKER
The world’s central bankers met in Jackson Hole last weekend for their annual gathering. Undoubtedly one of the main topics of discussion was the reappointment of Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve Board chairman. His reappointment would almost certainly win the support of the vast majority of attendees. This should raise serious concerns.
This is the same group that in 2005 devoted their meeting to an Alan Greenspan retrospective (seriously). The world’s leading thinkers and practitioners of monetary policy debated whether Alan Greenspan was the greatest central banker of all time.
I’m not sure how the polling on this question turned out, but four years later the world is facing the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression because of Alan Greenspan’s failed monetary policy. Greenspan either did not recognize an $8 trillion housing bubble, or did not think it was a big enough deal to demand his attention. The collapse of this bubble gave us the financial panics of 2008 and, more importantly, led to the falloff in demand that produced the downturn.
None of this should have been a surprise to people who understand monetary policy. The housing bubble should have been easy to recognize. There was a 100-year long trend in which nationwide house prices in the United States had just tracked the overall rate of inflation. At the peak of the bubble in 2006, house prices had risen by more than 70 percent after adjusting for inflation.
There were no changes in the fundamentals of the supply or demand ofhousing that could provide a remotely plausible explanation for this unprecedented run-up in prices. Furthermore, rents were not outpacing inflation. If the run-up in house prices was being driven by fundamentals, then there should have been at least some upward pressure on prices in the rental market.
The bubble was very evidently driving the economy by the time of Greenspanfest ’05. The residential construction sector had expanded to more than 6 percent of GDP, an increase of more than 2 percentage points (@$300 billion a year) from its normal level. The $8 trillion in housing bubble wealth was also propelling consumption. Assuming a wealth effect of 6 cents on the dollar, the bubble wealth was generating close to $500 billion a year in increased consumption.
It was inevitable that both the construction and consumption demand would disappear when the bubble burst. What did Greenspan and his acolytes think would make up this lost demand?
Even the financial crisis was entirely predictable although the exact course of events could not be known to someone who lacked access to the information held by central bankers. Housing is always a highly leveraged asset and it was no secret that it had become much more so during the bubble years.
Down payment requirements were thrown out the door, as homebuyers often purchased homes with no money down; in many cases even borrowing more than the appraised value of a bubble-inflated house price. The explosion of subprime and Alt-A loans was also not classified information. How could any economist have been surprised by the flood of defaults and the resulting stress on banks following the collapse of the bubble? This was as predictable as the sunset at the end of the day.
But the attendees of GreenspanFest ’05, most of whom are back to attend GreenspanFest ’09, apparently were surprised. Remarkably, almost none of the attendees suffered any consequences from the failure to see the largest financial bubble in the history of the world. In the United States alone, 25 million people are either unemployed or underemployed in large part because of the failure of the GreenspanFest attendees to do their job. Yet, the GreenspanFest attendees are not among those fearing unemployment. The official slogan of GreenspanFest ’09 is: “who could have known?”
Ben Bernanke has moved very effectively in the last year to prevent the collapse of the financial system. However, even in this area there have been serious issues of unnecessary secrecy and failed regulation. (Isn’t Goldman Sachs supposed to be a bank holding company now?)
But more importantly, Bernanke is waist deep in responsibility for this mess. Before becoming Fed chairman in January of 2006 he had served on the Board of Governors since 2002, and had been head of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors from June of 2005. After Greenspan, there was probably no one else better positioned to combat the bubble.
The attendees of GreenspanFest ’09 may not want to be so rude as to discuss their culpability for this disaster, but that should not prevent the rest of us from raising the topic. It would be an insult to the tens of millions of people who have lost their jobs, their homes, and/or their life savings to see Bernanke reappointed. Failure should have consequences, even for central bank chairmen.
Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy.
Deficit Projected To Soar With New Programs
10-Year Estimate of $9 Trillion Fuels Critics of President's Agenda
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The nation would be forced to borrow more than $9 trillion to support President Obama's initiatives and other federal programs over the next decade, the White House said Tuesday, a sharp increase in projected deficits that provided fresh ammunition to critics of the president's sweeping proposal to expand health coverage to the uninsured.
In their traditional summertime budget review, administration officials acknowledged that they relied on overly optimistic assumptions about the economy when they forecast in March that Obama's budget plans would generate deficits of $7.1 trillion over the next 10 years. After factoring in the severity of the recession and the prospect of a more sluggish recovery, the White House concluded that the budget outlook is significantly worse.
White House budget director Peter Orszag played down the grim forecast as unsurprising, saying the update merely brings White House projections in line with those of outside experts. He noted that this year's deficit is now expected to approach $1.6 trillion -- the highest on record and the biggest as a percentage of the economy since the end of World War II, but slightly smaller than officials had feared.
Still, with town hall meetings across the country erupting with bitter complaints about rising federal spending and the fear of greater government intrusion into people's lives, the new projections are likely to complicate Obama's ambitious legislative agenda when Congress returns in September.
Republicans seized on the forecast, arguing that a nation so deeply mired in red ink can ill afford an overhaul of the health-care system projected to cost as much as $1 trillion over the next decade. Although Democrats have vowed to pay for health reform with spending cuts and tax increases, the packages under discussion would drive up future deficits by $240 billion or more.
"Americans are deeply shaken -- and increasingly angered -- by the explosion of spending and debt coming from Washington," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee. "If we continue to pursue this policy of Washington as the answer to every problem, it will cost Americans far more than the obvious burdens of ever-higher taxes, interest rates, inflation and debt. It will cost us the freedom to run our own lives."
Added Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee: "If the House Democrats' unaffordable $1 trillion health-care bill wasn't dead before, it should be now."
Orszag said the president will press forward on health care despite the yawning budget gap, arguing that reform is essential to reining in the skyrocketing costs of government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, which threaten to drive deficits even higher as the baby-boom generation retires.
"I know there are going to be some who say that this report proves that we can't afford health reform. I think that has it backwards," Orszag told reporters. "The fiscal gap is precisely why we must enact well-designed and fiscally responsible health reform now. . . . Given the long-term nature of that problem, we simply can't afford to wait."
Orszag acknowledged, however, that health-care reform alone cannot solve the nation's budget problems, and he said deficit reduction will be "a top priority" when the president presents his next budget proposal to Congress in February.
A $1.6 Trillion Gap
As the White House released its budget update, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a similar report Tuesday, confirming the administration's projection that this year's deficit will soar to nearly $1.6 trillion, about 11.2 percent of the overall economy and more than triple last year's deficit of $459 billion. The chasm is almost entirely the result of the severe downturn, the CBO said, which produced the sharpest drop in tax collections since the Great Depression and the biggest increase in spending since 1952, the height of the Korean War.
Still, this year's deficit is lower than officials expected, thanks in large part to reduced spending on the bailout of financial firms. The Troubled Assets Relief Program cost $133 billion this year, the CBO said -- about $200 billion less than projected.
Both the White House and the CBO said the recession should end in a few months, and the CBO credited the $787 billion stimulus package Obama signed in February with hastening the rebound. But congressional economists are predicting "a relatively slow and tentative recovery." Christina Romer, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, said the unemployment rate is likely to hit 10 percent later this year and remain there through the first part of 2010.
As a result, government spending on social programs will continue to soar while tax collections lag behind previous expectations. Deficits are likely to remain elevated even after the economy recovers, averaging more than $800 billion a year through 2019, when the White House forecasts that the annual gap between spending and revenue will be $917 billion.
Deficits of that magnitude would require dramatically more government borrowing from China and other creditors, driving the accumulated national debt to nearly $23 trillion in 2019 -- or 76.5 percent of yearly gross domestic product, the highest proportion since 1950, the White House said.
Chinese officials have expressed concern about the security of their investments, and some economists fear that the appetite for U.S. Treasurys could dry up as the nation's budget outlook deteriorates and its demand for credit grows. As a result, the government could face ever higher interest rates, further worsening the budget picture and threatening the integrity of the dollar.
Timing of the News
Given the more pessimistic economic outlook, the CBO also predicted larger budget deficits in coming years, increasing its 10-year forecast by $2.7 trillion. Because the CBO report analyzes the effects of current law -- and does not factor in Obama's budget proposals -- it cannot be directly compared with White House figures. But independent budget analysts said a fresh CBO analysis of Obama's policies would probably look even worse than the numbers Orszag released Tuesday.
The simultaneous release of the two budget updates came in a flurry of other economic news, including the president's announcement that he would reappoint Ben S. Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Last week, officials also released some of the banner numbers from the White House deficit projections, fueling speculation that the administration was hoping to distract attention from the increasingly alarming fiscal picture.
"It's ironic that an administration that promised openness and transparency is playing a desperate and cynical game to hide these jaw-dropping deficit numbers from the American people," said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "The icing on the cake was the decision to renominate Ben Bernanke simultaneously as well."
But Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the White House budget office, said the timing was purely coincidental. He said that "it happened to be that this date was the best date" to release the new deficit numbers.
Re-Appointed Fed Chief Ben Bernanke Didn't Get Us Out of the Economic Crisis, He Helped Cause It
By William Greider, The Nation
Posted on August 27, 2009, Printed on August 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/142257/
The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer can be thought of as the Potemkin village of American democracy. Every evening, it presents a prettified version of political debate -- ever so civil and high-minded -- that thoroughly blots out the substance of dissenting critics or the untamed opinions of mere citizens. PBS's sanitized version of news was deployed this summer to assist the charm offensive launched by the Federal Reserve and its embattled chairman, Ben Bernanke. The NewsHour staged a "town meeting" in Kansas City at which Bernanke fielded prescreened questions from preselected citizens. As town meetings go, this was strictly polite. As TV goes, it was deadly dull. The citizens were so deferential they seemed sedated. Jim Lehrer was so laconic, several times I thought he had nodded off.
The message, however, was reassuring. With folksy talk, Bernanke came across as a mild-mannered professor earnestly coping with financial complexities and sleepless nights. Gentle Ben struggles to save us from another Great Depression. People are angry at the Fed (and the elected government) for devoting so many trillions to bail out failing bankers while the populace copes with the disastrous results of the bankers' folly. Bernanke said he too hated the bailouts but had no choice. "I am as disgusted as you are," Gentle Ben allowed. To show further he is a good guy, Bernanke appointed a labor leader, Denis Hughes, as chairman of the board at the New York Federal Reserve Bank (the operating president, however, is a Goldman Sachs guy).
Bernanke's down-home touch had instant appeal among the elite media. The theme was swiftly amplified by the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. As it happens, David Wessel, the Journal's economics editor, has just published a new book -- In Fed We Trust -- that describes the Fed chairman's struggle against the darkness in blow-by-blow detail. New York Times columnist David Brooks summarized the tale as "effective muddling through." Yes, mistakes were made, Brooks conceded, "but they did avert disaster and committed only a few big blunders. In the real world, that counts as a job well done."
In the real world beyond Brooks's grasp, this "job well done" counts as cruel joke on the hapless victims. The Federal Reserve did not "avert disaster" for many millions of Americans. It helped to cause their disaster. The central bank, as I have written, was co-author of the destruction, along with the reckless financiers of Wall Street. Now we are told to feel good about its heroic efforts to clean up their mess.
The personalized narrative is the standard approach the establishment uses to disarm substantive critics and divert public opinion. Create a fictionalized drama about the wise leaders who manage "to do the right thing" in the face of horrendous adversity and wrongheaded political opposition. Remember Alan Greenspan celebrated as the Maestro. Or Time's "Committee to Save the World" cover after the 1998 Asian financial crisis -- picturing Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers as our saviors. Now it is Gentle Ben to the rescue.
The tradition of dramatizing financial titans as public heroes probably started 100 years ago when J.P. Morgan was acclaimed for saving the national economy after the Panic of 1907. That comforting story is still told by adoring pundits who lionize the famous banker as a symbol of market ideology. Only they have the story backwards. The true history is that the federal government -- Washington, not Wall Street -- came to the rescue of banking in 1907. It was the first bailout for Wall Street. The rescue convinced bankers they needed the Federal Reserve to do more of the same and it has.
The media mobilization in behalf of Bernanke created the presumption that President Obama would be foolish not to reappoint him as chairman for four more years. A supposed "poll" of financial experts, reported by the Wall Street Journal, made it clear that Wall Street wants him. The implicit threat to Obama was that if he chose someone else, the financial markets would tank and the president would be blamed. To avoid the risk, Obama folded early -- four months early -- and interrupted his vacation to announce Bernanke's reappointment.
The deification is at best premature. Bernanke was right to act aggressively, flooding the streets with money to avoid the full catastrophe of deflation (the grave error the Fed committed after the stock market crash of 1929). He is wrongly criticized for his excess, but Bernanke also hasn't yet won this struggle. The big boys of Wall Street are revived or on government life support, but regional and smaller banks are still failing at an alarming rate. Prices, wages and production are still falling in various markets around the world. If financial markets break again in coming months, Bernanke may be nominated as goat, not hero.
The damaging error that Bernanke -- and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner -- have committed is to hand out all that money without demanding anything in return from the bankers and financiers. This is downright un-American, if you think about it. If the government provides subsidies to private enterprise, it has the right to expect different behavior from the recipients. Bankers were bailed out and given numerous guarantees, yet they still aren't lending.
Bernanke, after all, is a very conservative financial economist -- vetted for chairman by the Bush White House and ex-hero Greenspan. Bernanke has long espoused a narrow, even right-wing doctrine that the Fed's role should be to focus primarily on fighting inflation, not improving conditions in the real economy.
When and if recovery does develop, he will be under intense pressure from financial interests to put on the brakes and head off any threat of inflation. The chorus of "hard money" advocates is already singing that siren song: raise interest rates before the economy gets too healthy. If Bernanke follows through on their demands, the president may come to regret his choice.
While the big media led cheers for Bernanke's reappointment, I was out in Decatur, Illinois, with a group of ordinary citizens who confronted the Fed for its failure to address the real pain and loss people are suffering. The Central Illinois Organizing Project brought together 500 people on a Saturday morning to deliver their own demands to the three Fed officials in attendance (Bernanke was invited but did not show). Among the propositions was a brilliant challenge to the central bank: the Fed should use its awesome influence (and maybe some of its money) to organize an investment consortium of banks to finance some real-life development projects in Peoria and Pekin. This could be a pilot project that demonstrates how this venerable institution can reform itself by serving the broader public interest.
The grassroots plans, properly grounded in analysis, were impressive -- common-sense ideas for improving lives and communities. If the Federal Reserve urged bankers to do the lending, the bankers would surely listen. Will Bernanke consider this or other such ideas? Don't hold your breath. That is what's fundamentally wrong with Bernanke and the Fed. They don't serve this public. They don't even see it.
William Greider is the author of, most recently, "Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country (Rodale Books, 2009)."
Financial Parasites Have Killed the American Economy
A Review of Economist Michael Hudson
By Washington's Blog |
Global Research, August 27, 2009 |
Washington's Blog - 2009-08-26 |
Michael Hudson is a highly-regarded economist. He is a Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, who has advised the U.S., Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research. He is a former Wall Street economist at Chase Manhattan Bank who also helped establish the world’s first sovereign debt fund.
Hudson has frequently described Wall Street as "parasitic". For example, in a 2003 interview, Hudsonsaid:
The problem with parasites is not merely that they siphon off the food and nourishment of their host, crippling its reproductive power, but that they take over the host's brain as well. The parasite tricks the host into thinking that it is feeding itself.
Something like this is happening today as the financial sector is devouring the industrial sector. Finance capital pretends that its growth is that of industrial capital formation. That is why the financial bubble is called "wealth creation," as if it were what progressive economic reformers envisioned a century ago. They condemned rent and monopoly profit, but never dreamed that the financiers would end up devouring landlord and industrialist alike. Emperors of Finance have trumped Barons of Property and Captains of Industry.
More recently, Hudson said:
You can think of the financial sector as being wrapped around the real economy, almost like a parasite, and that's why it's been called parasitic for so long. The financial sector extracts interest from the economy, the property sector extracts economic rent, as do monopolies. Now the key thing about parasites, is that it's not simply that they extract nourishment from the host. The parasite takes over the host's brain, to make it think it's part of the economy, to make it think it's part of the host's own body, and, in fact, that's it almost like a child of the host, to be protected. And that's what the financial sector has done today.
You have Obama coming out and saying, "We have to save the banks in order to save the real economy". The fact is, you can't serve both the parasite and the host.
And see this.
Today, I heard the podcast of an interview by KPFA radio host Bonnie Faulkner in which Hudson went even further. Specifically, he said:
- The giant financial institutions have already killed their host - the real American economy
- Since they realize that the American economy is dead, they are trying to suck as much blood out of America as possible while the corpse is still warm
- Because the American economy is dead, their plan is to soon jump to another host. They will ship all of their money overseas
|
Commercial Real Estate Lurks as Next Potential Mortgage Crisis
Federal Reserve and Treasury officials are scrambling to prevent the commercial-real-estate sector from delivering a roundhouse punch to the U.S. economy just as it struggles to get up off the mat.
Their efforts could be undermined by a surge in foreclosures of commercial property carrying mortgages that were packaged and sold by Wall Street as bonds. Similar mortgage-backed securities created out of home loans played a big role in undoing that sector and triggering the global economic recession. Now the $700 billion of commercial-mortgage-backed securities outstanding are being tested for the first time by a massive downturn, and the outcome so far hasn't been pretty.
![[Outlook]](GNeconomyarticles1_clip_image001.gif)
The CMBS sector is suffering two kinds of pain, which, according to credit rater Realpoint LLC, sent its delinquency rate to 3.14% in July, more than six times the level a year earlier. One is simply the result of bad underwriting. In the era of looser credit, Wall Street's CMBS machine lent owners money on the assumption that occupancy and rents of their office buildings, hotels, stores or other commercial property would keep rising. In fact, the opposite has happened. The result is that a growing number of properties aren't generating enough cash to make principal and interest payments.
The other kind of hurt is coming from the inability of property owners to refinance loans bundled into CMBS when these loans mature. By the end of 2012, some $153 billion in loans that make up CMBS are coming due, and close to $100 billion of that will face difficulty getting refinanced, according to Deutsche Bank. Even though the cash flows of these properties are enough to pay interest and principal on the debt, their values have fallen so far that borrowers won't be able to extend existing mortgages or replace them with new debt. That means losses not only to the property owners but also to those who bought CMBS -- including hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds and other financial institutions -- thus exacerbating the economic downturn.
A typical CMBS is stuffed with mortgages on a diverse group of properties, often fewer than 100, with loans ranging from a couple of million dollars to more than $100 million. A CMBS servicer, usually a big financial institution like Wachovia and Wells Fargo, collects monthly payments from the borrowers and passes the money on to the institutional investors that buy the securities.
CMBS, of course, aren't the only kind of commercial-real-estate debt suffering higher defaults. Banks hold $1.7 trillion of commercial mortgages and construction loans, and delinquencies on this debt already have played a role in the increase in bank failures this year.
But banks' losses from commercial mortgages have the potential to mount sharply, and the high foreclosure rate in the CMBS market could play a role in this. Until now, banks have been able to keep a lid on commercial-real-estate losses by extending debt when it has matured as long as the underlying properties are generating enough cash to pay debt service. Banks have had a strong incentive to refinance because relaxed accounting standards have enabled them to avoid marking the value of the loans down.
"There is no incentive for banks to realize losses" on their commercial-real-estate loans, says Jack Foster, head of real estate at Franklin Templeton Real Estate Advisors.
CMBS are held by scores of investors, and the servicers of CMBS loans have limited flexibility to extend or restructure troubled loans like banks do. Earlier this month, it was no coincidence that CMBS mortgages accounted for the debt on six of the seven Southern California office buildings that Maguire Properties Inc. said it was giving up. "During most of the evolution [of CMBS] no one ever thought all these loans would go into default," says Nelson Rising, Maguire's chief executive.
Indeed, many property developers and investors complain there is no way to identify the investors that hold their debt and that it is difficult to negotiate with CMBS servicers. In light of the complaints, the Treasury is considering guidance that would allow servicers to start talking about ways to avoid defaults and foreclosures sooner, according to people familiar with the matter. But investors in CMBS bonds argue that the servicers are ultimately bound contractually to the bondholders.
So Maguire will soon have a lot of company. In a study for The Wall Street Journal, Realpoint found that 281 CMBS loans valued at $6.3 billion weren't able to refinance when they matured in the past three month, even though 173 such loans worth $5.1 billion were throwing off more than enough cash to service their debt.
Mounting foreclosures in the CMBS sector would likely depress values even further as property is dumped on the market. And this would put pressure on banks to write down loans. "What's going on in the CMBS world is a precursor for what might be seen in banks' books," predicts Frank Innaurato, managing director at Realpoint.
The commercial-real-estate market could yet be salvaged by an improving economy and bailout programs coming out of Washington. In addition, capital markets are starting to ease for publicly traded real-estate investment trusts. Since March, more than two dozen REITs have managed to raise more than $13 billion by selling shares.
Still, most of the $6.7 trillion in commercial real estate is privately owned. Also, it is unlikely commercial real estate will benefit much from an early stage of an economic recovery. What landlords need is occupancy and rents to rise, and that means employers have to start hiring and consumers need to shop more. So far, there are few signs this is happening.
Learning About Financialization the Hard Way
My Last Trip on LOT
By MICHAEL HUDSON
I should have suspected something was wrong when I took my first step into Terminal 1 at JFK. I was on my way to Riga, and looking for a flight with the shortest connecting times, I naively chose LOT, Poland’s national airline. Big mistake. I’m writing this article to warn other innocents – and to show what happens when an airline is crassly “financialized” to live in the short run and squeeze out revenue at the expense of fliers – and the nerves of its employees.
It was Wednesday, August 19. My e-ticket said Terminal 4, but the Air Train map showed LOT at Terminal 1, along with its Star Alliance partner Lufthansa, which I usually take.
Almost nobody in the terminal had a clue as to where the LOT counter might be. Lufthansa told me it was in Section E at the other end of the terminal. Someone else thought that it shared a counter with Air China, which might turn into a LOT counter when the current flight stopped boarding. A number of other airline workers claimed not to have heard of LOT or even of Poland.
I finally found that LOT was indeed in Terminal 4. Apparently it had sought to make a profit by swapping its gates with the higher Terminal 1 site value. This often happens when companies try to squeeze their operations and make money by selling off their parts.
I got back on the Air Train and found the LOT counter in Terminal 4. I asked the check-in agent whether many people made the mistake of following the Air-Train’s map. Only 3 that day, she said, but I was 3 hours early for the flight. (I like to work in airports and on the plane without disturbance, as I get much work done on long-distance flights.)
Many airlines have cut back their flights to Riga since Latvia’s property bubble burst last year. There is no longer a Berlin connection, and Lufthansa’s prices rise sharply in summertime. The connection via Warsaw was $300 cheaper, and shorter (if one could believe LOT schedules, which I will not do again). I thought I would save my hosts the difference. Harmony Center is the governing political party of Riga, and is trying to get Latvia out of the mess that neoliberals created by imposing what the World Bank applauded as one of the world’s most “business friendly” economies: the highest flat tax on labor in Europe (nearly 60 per cent), almost no property tax at all, no consumer or workplace regulation (or at least no enforcement). Business-friendly enough to have the lowest living standards, highest death rates, worst health and most polarized economies. Men and women who are able have been emigrating to flee the neoliberal disaster. I was being brought over to propose an alternative policy.
The plane was sitting on the ground, being loaded with what turned out to be the worst junk food I’ve had on an airline. But at least everything seemed on time.
Until the pilot pressed the starter button. Nothing happened. After we sat there for awhile, the captain announced that he couldn’t get the plane started and was waiting for a mechanic. After an hour on the tarmac I began to wonder why a pilot couldn’t hotwire the engines, like car thieves do in the movies.
After about 90 minutes the captain announced that we had to go back to the gate. But about half an hour later he said that he thought he’d solved the problem. All that remained was to be towed onto the runway to rev up and take off.
That took another hour. Apparently the tug-truck had to make its way to Terminal 4 – one more problem with changing terminals.
Many of the passengers were concerned about missing their connection flights. Many (including me) were down to just a few minutes leeway for transfer. I hoped that the fact that other passengers also were going to Riga meant that they would hold the flight a few minutes. The alternative, the attendants told us, was that either there would be another flight in ten or twelve hours, or we would have to stay overnight and catch the flight the next day – if there was indeed room on it.
The rising anxiety of the passengers prompted various stewardesses to tell us about what they actually felt to be the problem. The summer time’s heavy traffic meant that LOT planes were used more intensively. This meant more breakdowns. In what seemed to be crocodile tears, they assured us that the delay was for our own safety. It happened about three times a month for the JFK–Warsaw leg, one stewardess explained, bringing our attention to the fact that the planes were quite old.
I sensed that employees were not altogether happy with LOT, but were taking the usual subtle Central European approach in just how to convey this fact to us by backhanded complements on how the airline was coping with the safety issue of making sure that their overused, run-down planes would not crash. Later, on the flight back to the United States, I was given another reason: To cope with the busy summer business, LOT had slashed the normal turn-around times. Holding up an aircraft even for ten minutes would not leave enough time to meet the next scheduled takeoff, causing backups all along the system. Insufficient leeway had been built into the schedule to hold up planes for even a few minutes to cope with the delays that in fact normally occur.
We took off three hours late. As we approached Warsaw on what was Thursday morning there, I was as much on pins and needles as the other passengers. I was to be met by the Secretary General of Riga’s governing party, and worried that his retinue would find no one to meet.
The stewardess gave us the bad news just before landing: The purser had spoken with Control in Warsaw, and they refused to hold the plane. Apparently, the stewardess explained, this would hurt their on-time statistic. Passengers who still had a few minutes leeway to catch the plane to Vienna got the same answer.
The stewardess let the most seriously affected people in to the business class in front – it had almost entirely empty (only 2 seats) during the flight. She wanted to let us know she was doing what she could, regardless of the intransigence in Warsaw, which she said, wringing her hands in genuine disgust, was completely out of the control of the flight crew. As we neared the gate, various words from the stewardess and purser came out like “unimaginable,” “unbelievable” in a number of languages. They seemed to enjoy criticizing LOT’s planners.
I asked the purser whether they couldn’t have a cart drive us quickly to the gate. The purser said, no, it was all up to a particular individual, and he overruled this. The crew promised that there indeed would be somebody to meet the passengers at the gate to give guidance. But if nobody showed up, they said, we should go to the blue Transfer Booth.
Nobody showed up, and people were running toward the transfer booth – but didn’t know quite which way to run. Those of us who got there first were told that in fact if we ran very fast, they would hold the plane for us. An elderly woman in white, an old man and I soaked our clothes with sweat running for gate B29 – without really knowing where it was.
The first stymie was a security check, which seemed to take over 10 minutes a person (for three people). I’ve never quite seen so slow and deliberate a check. (Two children and their father.) We all got through it, and ran and ran on to the gate.
Nobody was there. No attendant. There was a plane, but passengers told us that it wasn’t for the flight to Riga. After mulling around, we made our way back to the Transfer Desk.
This is where the LOT employees seemed to have fun explaining that the decision wasn’t up to them at all, it was up to the operations department. “Not our department,” one lady at the transfer desk said, (Yes, people still say this.) “You’ve got to go to the LOT office upstairs.”
So I went. A passenger from Australia started to yell at the lady there. “We don’t care,” she replied. “It’s not up to us. If we cared we’d go crazy. It’s another department.”
“What’s your name,” the man asked. I want to report you. Why wouldn’t the plane wait ten minutes for all these people?”
“We need to leave on time. We have a schedule, don’t you see?” she replied.
“But if you’re concerned about the schedule, what about the three hours form New York? Why not make it up by holding the plane for ten minutes rather than making everyone wait many hours, or even a whole day more?”
“As I said, all we care about right now is our on-time schedule,” she explained. The exchange got increasingly rude. While he was still arguing, the Latvian woman and I made our way back down to the transfer desk, where we found a group of three kids going to Austria. “But we saw the plane taking off just as we were at the gate,” one girl said.
The transfer staff explained once again that “We’re trying to keep to a tight schedule. It’s all up to the operations department, not us.” There was a note of impudence in the person’s voice. “We would never make that decision. Don’t blame us. Blame the people who told the plane to take off without waiting.”
It became apparent that being harassed angry passengers had become a normal experience for the transfer personnel, and they had learned simply to smile. In fact, they seemed to be doing what they could to make the passengers even more furious toward LOT. I gathered that labor-employer relations were not warm.
Those of us going to Riga were told that there was not a flight until late that evening. We naturally asked to be flown to another city to catch another airline to get there sooner, but were told that LOT would not do this. By this time the Australian had come down, even redder in the face than when we had left him, and said he needed to sleep somewhere, not on the terminal floor. He was told that he would have to pay what sounded like $400 to go to a hotel for his layover.
I myself was exhausted. It was the equivalent of 5:30 or 6 AM New York time. My immediate objective was to connect my laptop to let my hosts in Riga know that I wouldn’t be on the flight they were meeting in just an hour. They did let me use the phone to call the wife of my Latvian host (back in New Jersey) and send him an Internet message about the delay. And as a backup plan, I persuaded them to let me go to the business lounge. They gave me food vouchers for breakfast and lunch.
The result turned out to be an 11-hour layover in hell – LOT in Warsaw is something like Lot in Sodom. There was no food in the lounge, only liquor. I had hoped to sleep in the lounge and get at least some fruit. But it was small and crowded. Unlike even economy class on Lufthansa there were no English language newspapers. Evidently Star Alliance does not have any uniform policies of customer relations. LOT provided no Financial Times, Wall Street Journal or USA Today such as one gets on most airlines. And the chairs were not well designed for rest.
After about an hour, I heard my name being paged. It was my friend Prof. Jeff Sommers who had organized the Riga conference. His voice was angry as he told me how he had tried to find out what happened to me, without much help from LOT. He had been calling almost at random until he found me. We agreed to postpone the speech I was to give early the next morning, as I wouldn’t be getting into Riga until almost midnight – or so the schedule said. (It turned out to be wrong.)
Around 1 PM it seemed time for lunch. But when I tried to use my LOT voucher, I found that no cafeteria would take the voucher. “That’s for LOT,” they said, laughing – with almost a stage laughter for my own benefit, a demeaning tone that showed there was no love lost toward LOT.
So I went back to the lounge and asked how I was supposed to survive for twelve hours with a voucher that seemingly nobody would take.
This was the opening the staff seemed to be waiting for. With a grin as big as a shark’s they informed me that they weren’t LOT employees, and therefore were not responsible for LOT’s way of doing business. They were a separate lounge company, served other airlines besides LOT. They made it clear that LOT was a bit different from the others. The concierge said that there was just one restaurant at the airport that would indeed take the voucher. But it was in the furthest reach of the airport, in another terminal. He walked me there.
And walked, and walked, past many active restaurants with good-looking food and many customers. Finally, at the end of the entire walkway, there was a cafeteria. Although larger than the other restaurants, it was empty except for one person snoozing at a table. The cause of the lack of customers was clear enough. It had packaged sandwiches and a small hot table. The lady in charge explained to me that I could have one hot dish, but nothing to drink – LOT didn’t pay for water or any other beverages. All that would be extra, payable in local currency.
I had never been in Poland and had no expectations that I would be, so I had a very dry lunch – remarkably, it was even worse than the food I had on the plane, despite the fact that LOT has pressed bad airline food to a new dimension.
I made my way back to the lounge until finally the appointed 8:45 PM boarding time arrived. On the way to the distant terminal I met the woman who had joined me up front in the business-class cabin as we had landed and with whom I had run to the gate that morning. We were told that the plane wouldn’t be leaving on time, however, because of mechanical failure. Yet another! We were told the delay would be 30 minutes, but it stretched out to 40, for a flight that was only scheduled to take about 90 minutes. (That 45 percent overrun was more than normal, the plane’s stewardess assured us.)
The passengers shared LOT horror stories among themselves. It became apparent that I had not done adequate market research before I agreed to take LOT. I hadn’t realized it was a cut-cost, cut-service airline, providing food vouchers for the inedible while working its staff and planes alike to the breaking point.
Passengers were angry. The staff’s response was half angry, but also evidently half glad to see that passengers were as annoyed at their employer as they themselves were. As in New York, the new delay for mechanical problems was said to be “to make us safe with all the extra use these planes are getting in summer.” The tone of voice was not so much to say that we are lucky that LOT was taking such good care of our lives, but that it was over-working its aircraft to the breaking point, almost as much as it seemed to be overworking the staff.
I sat there to write down the day’s events in the hope of saving others from the horror of having to fly on LOT. The airline has effectively prevented policy flexibility by employees to cope with problems that inevitably arise in air travel. This “go by the book” attitude shows hat the airline’s management doesn’t care much about how its customers feel. The book they go by is purely exploitative.
I’ve been on numerous Riga trips where the plane has been held up as much as 20 minutes for passengers on connecting flights. Even the Long Island Railroad often waits. It became clear why the business class section of the planes to and from New York were so empty. (The trip back was almost equally disturbing, but I think readers will have got the picture by now.)
Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002) He can be reached via his website,mh@michael-hudson.com
Liquidity to Keep the Financial System from Collapsing in a Heap
By Mike Whitney |
Global Research, August 31, 2009 |
Ben Bernanke never should have been reappointed as Fed chairman. Obama made a big mistake. The main thing to remember about Bernanke is that, in the two years since the financial crisis began, he's made no effort to force the large banks and financial institutions to write-down their losses. Nor has he pushed for the regulations that are needed to restore confidence in the system. The credit system is still clogged because the banks are buried under $1.5 trillion in toxic assets and non performing loans which are defaulting at the fastest pace on record. At the same time, Bernanke has failed to push for reform of derivatives trading, off-balance sheet operations, securitization or capital requirements for financial institutions. The good news is that Bernanke has demonstrated great creativity in providing sufficient liquidity to keep the financial system from collapsing in a heap. The bad news is that the core problem is not liquidity at all, but solvency. A good portion of the banking system is underwater. That's why Bernanke's actions have been a complete flop.
The banks can't fix themselves, because--to do so--would drive many of them out of business. If the FDIC doesn't sort them out, they will continue to be a drain on public resources. Lending will continue to contract and GDP will shrink. That's what is happening now, except Obama stimulus has triggered a slight uptick in growth that is being confused for recovery. But there is no recovery. Things are simply getting worse at a slower pace. That's to be expected. Housing prices will not go to zero; they flatten out over time. That doesn't mean things are getting better. They're not; they're getting worse. Personal consumption is in the tank, business investment has never been lower, the rate of bank failures is accelerating, and unemployment is headed higher. So where are the "green shoots"?
The only real cure is political. The notion that the market will fix itself is pure fantasy. We are following the same path as Japan--perennial recession.
Many people believe that the Federal Reserve is the head of a banking cartel. But that's not entirely true. Bernanke is actually an employee of the banking cartel; an apparatchik who carries out the policies that best serve the interests of his constituents. The Central Bank's serial bubblemaking has been a successful means of transferring capital from working people to the investor class and corporate elites. The facts speak for themselves.
A report by University of California, Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez concludes that income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression.
The report shows that:
* Income inequality is worse than it has been since at least 1917
* "The top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007"
* "In the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth."
The Fed disguises its stealth-looting of the middle class with ideological mumbo-jumbo about "supply side" this and "trickle down" that. Ripping off working people has a long history going back 30 years Reagan's "Voodoo" economics, but the severity of the current recession has pitted market fundamentalism against the sobering reality that the US consumer is not an inexhaustible resource. Debt-fueled consumption has reached its apex and is descending rapidly. This is apparent in all of the recent research and data. Between 2000 and 2007 US households increased their aggregate debt by nearly $14 trillion. The household debt-to-disposable income ratio rose to 135% and has only recently declined to 128%. For the first time in 60 years, households have begun saving. (although much of what is classified as "saving" is, in reality, just paying down debt) The larger point is,that US consumers are undergoing a generational shift and will not be able to lead the way out of the recession as they have in the past. Nor will they miraculously "bounce back" and provide demand for products made abroad. In fact, the export-driven model (Germany, South Korea, Japan, China) is sure to be challenged in ways that were unimaginable just two years ago. With credit lines being cut, and outstanding credit shrinking by trillions in the past year alone, and unemployment nudging 10 per cent (16 per cent in real terms) the consumer will not be the locomotive driving the global economy. Credit destruction, asset firesales, defaults, and foreclosures will continue for the foreseeable future choking off growth and pushing unemployment higher. Consumption patterns are changing dramatically, although their impact won't be fully-felt until government stimulus programs run out. That's when the signs of Depression will become apparent once more.
This is why Bernanke should never have been reappointed as chairman. Bernanke has a good grasp of the issues---underwater banks, overextended consumers, exotic debt-instruments (derivatives), and an out-of-control financial system--but he refuses to do anything about them. The institutional bias of the Fed provides no wiggle-room for structural change. The Fed represents the status quo.
Bernanke's reappointment isn't just wrong because he failed to detect the biggest housing bubble of all time, or for supporting the loosey-goosey monetary policies which triggered the current Great Recession, or for shrugging off Congress's attempts to audit the Fed, or for rejecting Bloomberg News (legal) claims that the Fed should release information about which financial institutions received $1.5 trillion in Fed loans, or for $12.8 trillion to keep a corrupt and insolvent system operating while millions of working people lose their homes, their jobs and their prospects for the future. These are bad enough, but, worse still, is the fact that Bernanke's strategy has no chance of succeeding; it just kicks the can further down the road.
The economy is experiencing system-wide deleveraging and deflation is now visible in every sector of the economy. Exports are down, so is trucking. Railroad freight is off 18 per cent year-over-year. Department stores, building materials, restaurants, furniture sales, appliances, travel, retail, outdoor equipment, tech; down, down, down, down, down and down. You name it; it's down. Consumer credit is plummeting and personal savings are up. Industrial production is down, PPI down. Capacity utilization has slipped to 68.5 per cent.(another record) There's so much slack in the system, inflation could be low for years. Commercial real estate--a $3.5 trillion industry--is plunging faster than residential housing. Corporate bond defaults are at record highs, Treasury yields are flat, and the dollar index is teetering at the brink. It's a wasteland.
Bernanke has put himself and the country in the direct path of a debt-liquidation avalanche; a near-endless flow of rising defaults, foreclosures and bankruptcies. His liquidity injections and monetization programs have inflated another speculative bubble in the stock market, but eventually that will run its course and stocks will retest their March lows. The massive debt-purge will continue despite the Fed chief's best efforts. The trend is irreversible.
Debt-reduction can't be put off forever. Markets eventually "correct" and red ink gets mopped up. That's just the way it is. Bernanke is simply trying to prevent the market from clearing. It's futile. And, that's why he shouldn't have been reappointed. |
U.S. Farm Profit Plunging on Lower Crop, Dairy Prices
By Alan Bjerga |
Global Research, August 30, 2009 |
Bloomberg - 2009-08-27 |
Profits for U.S. farmers will plunge more than expected this year, dropping 38 percent from 2008 as the recession erodes demand for crops, livestock and dairy products, the government said.
Net farm income will sink to a seven-year low of $54 billion, down from a February forecast of $71.2 billion and last year’s estimated $87.2 billion, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in a report. Farm-product sales are dropping faster than costs for energy and feed, the USDA said.
The price of corn, the biggest U.S. crop, has plunged 46 percent in the past year, hog farmers lost an estimated $4.5 billion since September 2007, and dairy herds are being culled because of a milk surplus. Profits have declined for grain processors including Cargill Inc. and makers of farm equipment such as Deere & Co. and Agco Corp.
“Hogs were devastated by the H1N1 flu, and dairy isn’t getting off the mat,” said Bruce Babcock, the director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University in Ames. “The outlook for crops is rosier.”
Falling Crop Values
Crop receipts will decline 9.8 percent to $164.7 billion, and livestock revenue will fall 15 percent to $118 billion, as input costs fall 6.4 percent, the USDA said.
The total value of farm production for 2009, which includes rent, government aid and other benefits from agricultural operations, is projected at $322 billion, down 12 percent from last year, the department said.
The report may signal a second straight year of lower farmland values, which fell 3.2 percent in 2008 after 21 years of gains, as well as less spending on farm equipment, said Dan Manternach, director of agricultural services at Doane Advisor Services Co. in St. Louis. Lower profits will probably have little impact on fertilizer or seed costs, he said in an e-mail.
Corn, wheat and soybean prices have plunged from records reached last year, and lower input costs aren’t helping farmers who made most of those purchases as early as one year ago, said Darrin Ihnes, who grows all three crops about 25 miles (40 kilometers) southwest of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
‘Struggling’ Ethanol Industry
“The ethanol industry is struggling, the livestock industry is struggling, and crops are starting to struggle as well,” Ihnes said. Next year should be better as smaller herds help boost livestock prices and exports improve, he said.
Hog futures tumbled 36 percent in the past year through yesterday as the recession and an outbreak of H1N1 swine flu curbed pork consumption. Producers have lost an average $21 per animal sold for slaughter since September 2007, as feed costs rose to a record last year and the recession and the H1N1 virus curbed pork demand in 2009, Don Butler, the president of the National Pork Producers Council, said last week.
Producers including Smithfield Foods Inc. and Tyson Foods Inc. have culled their breeding herds to limit losses. Smaller hog farmers will need to do the same, said Dave Bauer, the president of Brite Futures Inc. in Milwaukee.
“As long as we continue to go down the same path that we’re going down now, pork producers are not going to see any income,” Bauer said. “Somebody has to go out of business here.”
In dairy, milk futures have plunged almost 50 percent from their June 2007 peak as record production and competition from imports flooded the market with inexpensive supply.
Dairy Losses
“I haven’t talked to a dairy farmer who isn’t losing money,” said Jim Goodman, an organic-milk producer who farms 500 acres about 70 miles northwest of Madison, Wisconsin.
Farms with at least 1,000 cows are losing $30,000 to $40,000 a month, Goodman said. Revenue from dairy products may fall 34 percent this year to $23 billion, while the value of meat animals will drop 11 percent, according to the USDA.
The agency this week said milk and egg prices will fall more than had been expected this year and meat costs will rise more slowly. Milk may decline 6 percent from last year, eggs may slip as much as 16 percent, while meat and poultry’s increase will be no more than 2.5 percent, the USDA said.
Among farm expenses, the cost of fertilizer will decline about 25 percent from last year to $16.9 billion, while pesticides will increase 2.6 percent to $12 billion, according to the government report. Petroleum costs will drop 30 percent to $11.3 billion.
Government subsidies will rise 3 percent in the first full year of a new farm bill to $12.6 billion.
The USDA plans to update its forecasts in November. |
Federal Reserve Threatens Economic Disaster If Forced to Reveal Secrets |
|
Global Research, August 30, 2009 |
Reuters |
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Reserve asked a federal judge not to enforce her order that it reveal the names of the banks that have participated in its emergency lending programs and the sums they received, saying such disclosure would threaten the companies and the economy.
The central bank filed its request on Wednesday, two days after Chief Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan ruled in favor of Bloomberg News, which had sought information under the federal Freedom of Information Act. [...]
“Immediate release of these documents will cause irreparable harm to these institutions and to the board’s ability to effectively manage the current, and any future, financial crisis,” the central bank argued.
It added that the public interest favors a delay, citing a potential for “significant harms that could befall not only private companies, but the economy as a whole” if the information were disclosed. [...]
The Clearing House Association LLC, which represents banks, in a separate filing supported the Fed’s call for a delay. It said speculation that banks’ liquidity is drying up could cause runs on deposits, and trading partners to demand collateral.
“Survival can depend on the ephemeral nature of public confidence,” Clearing House general counsel Norman Nelson wrote. “Experience in the banking industry has shown that when customers and market participants hear negative rumors about a bank, negative consequences inevitably flow.”
The Clearing House said its members include ABN Amro Holding NV, Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Bank of New York Mellon Corp (BK.N), Citigroup Inc (C.N), Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE), HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA.L), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), UBS AG (UBSN.VX), U.S. Bancorp (USB.N) and Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N). |
Inflation is on Its Way
By Bob Chapman |
Global Research, August 29, 2009 |
The International Forecaster |
The public option for Obama insurance coverage has been described as just a sliver of the overall proposal. Universal coverage directly by government was not an essential element says Health & Human Services. Of course it was. The program is in retreat and the only way the Democrats can get passage of any kind is to re-craft a toothless passage and ram it through in a party line vote. The public is enraged at what the liberals and socialists have tried to foist on them. Worse yet, the administration has submitted to Wall Street and the insurance giants, which they intended to do from before the beginning. Just look at the line up of campaign contributors. The same goes for the euthanasia section. This could well have been a loss leader to get the rest of this monstrosity passed. The exercise will cost the President and Congress dearly as their approval ratings sink to 41% and 12% respectively. November of 2010 will be the time of reckoning.
We remind you that presidents do not make presidential policies. They are made by the bureaucratic types, who receive their marching orders from the Illuminists above them. This is why you had the seamless transition from the neocon administration to the current one now in power. Team A replaced Team B from the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateralists and Bilderbergers. Nothing really changed.
If you accept the premise that they are all intent on creating world government then you can understand why they all are preparing us for controlled collapse. These planners expected problems, but they were not prepared for the potential of major social unrest displayed at Town Hall meetings nationwide. There is finally growing social unrest and rightly so. All that was initiated by bailing out the rich financial sector to the tune of $23.7 trillion, and then the lying about where funds were going and how they were being used, then more lies, and then the bonuses at AIG and Goldman Sachs and at other Illuminist companies. The public has begun to listen to our story and the elitists cannot let the truth see the light of day. The system is rigged toward the rich insiders and now the public isn’t even getting crumbs and everything is being taken away from them. Those insiders who are dismissive of population and the fairness of the system should check with the ancestors of the 300,000 who lost their heads in France during the revolution.
Government no longer serves the people or the general good and the healthcare and cap & trade are typical issues. It is not what Americans want, but what corporate America and politicians want. All the rewards to the crooks on Wall Street and in banking that have destroyed our financial system. We have just been on the receiving end of dreadful government for 8 years and Americans feel helpless after electing a new president. The result thus far has been disastrous. Still few of their elected representatives listen to anything they have to say and it is no wonder we saw the outpouring of unhappiness displayed at Town Hall meetings. This in part is why people are walking away from debt and not paying their taxes. They believe they have an illegitimate government, which refuses to serve and listen to them. They now only represent corporate America.
Historically about 1/3rd of Americans do not file income tax and only 15% of illegal aliens file. That has cost government about $500 billion a year. Americans are fed up and more are becoming non-filers and more are underestimating or hiding income. It is essentially a tax revolt. Why do you think federal revenues fell so precipitously? People are sick and tired of taxation without representation. They are also outraged at the bailout of banks, Wall Street and insurance companies and a few crumbs for the average American.
They also realize that America’s debt will never be repaid, that they will have hyperinflation and that the dollar is collapsing versus other currencies. In time the public will discover gold, but that will happen as the depression goes further forward.
We have already entered the inflationary spiral again. Its force will depend on the strength of the deflationary undertow and the monetization of monetary aggregates. Make no mistake higher inflation is on the way and probably hyperinflation. It will also be affected by a break down in the tax system as well. The trio leads to economic, financial, social and political dysfunction.
What else should the elitists expect? All the revolving door bureaucrats from the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group are going to do is give us more of the same, as we had for the previous eight years.
Team A replaced Team B. They are furthering the same financial conditions that brought us the current disaster. We are seven months into the new administration and it has already destroyed any credibility it could have had. Writing blank checks to the financial community, which financed your campaign, does not endear you to the voters, as they are thrown a bone.
After the announcement, that the president had re-nominated Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, we were led to believe he saved us from a fate worse than death. Bernanke created enough money and credit to temporarily overcome the deflationary undertow in the economy. Ben created the problem along with Sir Alan Greenspan and now he wants us to believe he is going to save us by solving the problem. This is the same Ben that gave Greenspan academic cover. He had the temerity to blame the credit crisis on foreigners who created a savings glut, particularly Asians. He said this suppressed bond yields. That was probably true, but he conveniently forgets to mention that the Fed created all those dollars in the first place and were responsible for lower interest rates. Ben believes any slowdown or shock to the system can be easily handled by injecting more money and credit into the system.
Ben is the man who is going to lead us to a federal deficit of 100% of GDP over the next decade, as deficits swell to more than $1 trillion a year.
What must be remembered here is that it is not going to be easy or even possible to pull the punchbowl away. In 1936 they tried to slick up liquidity to prevent speculation. It turned out to be premature as money and credit fell into negative territory. By 1937 fiscal stimulus programs ended. The federal deficit fell, creating a counterforce.
This is the kind of risk Ben faces when and if he decides to withdraw the punchbowl. When Ben believed he saw in November 2002, the danger of deflation, he acted by increasing aggregates. There is no doubt he will see the same thing again if he cuts money and credit and raises interest rates. That means the system is entrapped in an endless cycle of money and credit creation, inflation and a lower dollar. Ben fears deflation far more than inflation and so the course will not be altered.
If we are experiencing a bottom it is accompanied by unprecedented budget deficits, which presents a huge financial problem during a recovery. That will be accompanied by inflation. That is what commodities, such as oil and copper are telling us. This presents us with stagflation. The bottom line is more of the same is not going to work and that is what Ben will give us. He simply doesn’t know any other way out of the maze. This also shows us that the president is totally ignorant of what is going on around him. None of the players believe in sound money and we will pay the price for that.
In September we see a renewal of monetization where officially the Fed will buy more and more Treasuries, Agencies and CD’s from banks, besides what they are doing in secret. A large part of the budget deficit, real estate expansion and banks’ bad debt will be monetized by the Fed, which is very inflationary. This is what went on in Argentina and the Weimer Republic and this is where Ben is headed. This is why you have to have gold and silver related investments; they will be your only protection.
The dollar may weaken through “established lows” as signs of a global economic recovery drive gains in equities and oil, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said.
“That kind of shift could easily be prompted by continued good news from the macro front and the persistently negative dollar-equity and dollar-oil correlations,” Thomas Stolper, an economist at Goldman Sachs in London, wrote in a report yesterday. “Dollar bulls could well end up disappointed. Even a short-term move beyond our three- and six-month forecasts of $1.45 per euro is getting increasingly likely.”
The Dollar Index, which Intercontinental Exchange Inc. uses to track the U.S. currency against the euro, yen, pound, Canadian dollar, Swiss franc and the Swedish krona, has weakened as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index of U.S. shares gained more than 85 percent of the time since June and more than 50 percent of the time since September as investors sought higher-yielding assets on signs on an economic recovery.
The index fell 11 percent from its high this year on March 4, during which time the S&P 500 gained 44 percent. The index was little changed at 78.592 as of 7:29 a.m. in New York. S&P 500 Index futures were unchanged.
“More and more foreign-exchange players have positioned themselves for a dollar bounce without much impact on the spot market,” Stolper said. Since early June, traders have moved toward favoring contracts that give them the option to buy the dollar against the pound, while “spot remains stuck in the mid- $1.60s,” Stolper said.
The cost of betting that the dollar will rise against the pound in one month’s time are at the highest since July 14, and near the most since March, according to 25 Delta risk reversals.
“All this suggests that the underlying dollar trend is still downward sloping and the risk is that normalization in positioning pushes the dollar through the established lows,” Stolper said.
Sales of newly constructed homes leaped unexpectedly in July to hit their highest level since last September.
New homes sold at an annualized rate of 433,000 during the month, according to a joint report issued by the Census Bureau and Department of Housing and Urban Development.
That far exceeded analysts' forecasts and was up 9.6% from the revised 395,000 rate recorded in June. A consensus of industry experts surveyed by Briefing.com had predicted July sales of 390,000.
U.S. building permits for July were revised to down 1.1% from June to a seasonally adjusted rate of 564,000, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday.
July building permits were originally reported as being down 1.8% at a seasonally adjusted rate of 560,000.
Mortgage applications filed last week increased a seasonally adjusted 7.5% compared with the week before, boosted mainly by filings to refinance existing home loans, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Wednesday.
Refinancing applications rose 12.7% for the week ended Aug. 21 from the prior week -- the third increase for such applications over the last four weeks.
Overall filings had increased a seasonally adjusted 5.6% in the week ended Aug. 14, data compiled by the Washington-based MBA showed. The MBA survey covers about half of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications.
Applications for mortgages to purchase homes were up a seasonally adjusted 1.0% last week compared with the week before, due to increased demand for government mortgages, including those backed by the Federal Housing Administration.
This latest increase marks the fourth consecutive weekly gain for home-purchase applications -- a streak last seen in March, when interest rates on fixed-rate mortgages dropped and stayed below 5%. See related story.
Overall applications for the latest week were up an unadjusted 34.1% from the same week in 2008. The four-week moving average for all mortgages was a seasonally adjusted 3.5%.
Refinancings made up 56.5% of all applications last week, up from 53.3% the week before. Adjustable-rate mortgage accounted for 6.5% of filings, unchanged from the week before.
According to the MBA survey, rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages averaged 5.24% last week, up from 5.15% the week before.
The average rate on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages stood at 4.58% last week, up from 4.52% in the week ended Aug. 14. And one-year ARMs averaged 6.74%, up from 6.66%.
To obtain the rates, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage required payment of an average 1.07 points, the 15-year fixed-rate mortgage required an average 1.18 points and the 1-year ARM required an average 0.17 point. A point is 1% of the mortgage amount, charged as prepaid interest.
Only one crime was solved by each 1,000 CCTV cameras in London last year, a report into the city’s surveillance network has claimed. The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals.
In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers. David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: “It should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent.”
He added: “CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness.
“It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security.
“The Metropolitan Police has been extraordinarily slow to act to deal with the ineffectiveness of CCTV.”
Toll Brothers Inc., the largest U.S. builder of luxury homes, reported a wider loss for the third quarter as the recession weighed on sales. The company said it has begun raising prices as the market starts to recover.
The net loss for the three months ended July 31 swelled to $472.3 million, or $2.93 a share, from $29.3 million, or 18 cents, a year earlier, Horsham, Pennsylvania-based Toll said in a statement today. The loss, which included tax charges and writedowns of $554 million, was bigger than analysts’ estimates.
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance, was stripped of its AAA rating by Standard & Poor's on the drop in the value of asset management units.
The credit and financial-strength ratings were cut to AA+ "because of its lower quality of capital and reduced financial flexibility," the ratings firm said yesterday.
Nevada's unemployment rate hit a record in July, climbing to 12.5 percent statewide and 13.1 percent in Las Vegas, according to a state report issued Friday.
That puts the Silver State 3.1 percentage points above the national unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, according to figures from the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation.
The state's unemployment rate was the third highest in the nation, behind Michigan at 15 percent and Rhode Island at 12.7 percent, the agency said.
The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits declined last week, falling in line with economists' observations that labor market conditions appear to be slowly stabilizing.
Meanwhile, total claims lasting more than one week also fell back down after ticking up the previous week.
Initial claims for jobless benefits fell 10,000 to 570,000 in the week ended Aug. 22, the lowest level since Aug. 8, the Labor Department said in its weekly report Thursday.
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected a decline of 11,000. The previous week's level was revised from 576,000 to 580,000.
The four-week average of new claims, which aims to smooth volatility in the data, fell 4,750 to 566,250. That was the lowest average since the week ended Aug. 8.
Manufacturing activity in the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's district slipped in August, but expectations moved sharply higher, according to data released by the bank Thursday.
The bank's production index fell back into negative territory, dropping to -7 from 2 in July and 9 in June, in a month-over-month comparison. From a year ago, the August production index dropped to -60 from -50 in July.
The August index covering production expectations for six months from now more than doubled to 24 from 10 in July. August's reading was the highest since August 2008.
Readings under zero denote contraction and describe the breadth of the retreat.
On a monthly comparison, the August shipments index fell to -12, from 7 in July; from a year ago, the index fell to -57 from -50 in the prior month.
The August employment index improved to -6 from -13 in July. Back in March, the employment index hit a record low -41. From a year ago, the index worsened to -66 from -57.
The prices paid index rose to zero in August from -6 in July, while the prices received index increased to -11 from -17 in July. On a year-ago comparison, the prices paid index rose to -17 from -27, but the prices received index worsened to -27 from -24.
The Kansas City Fed district includes Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, northern New Mexico and western Missouri.
The U.S. economy took a first step toward recovering from the worst recession since the 1930s in the second quarter as companies reduced inventories, spending started to climb and profits grew.
Gross domestic product shrank at a 1 percent annual rate from April to June, less than the 1.5 percent decline projected by economists in a Bloomberg News survey, a Commerce Department report showed today in Washington. Corporate earnings rose by the most in four years, the department also said. [If you believe this you may be interested in a bridge we have for sale.]
Government programs, including the “cash-for-clunkers” and first-time homebuyer incentives, are boosting manufacturing and housing, indicating the gain in sales that began last quarter will be sustained in the second half of the year. Another report showed unemployment may jeopardize the strength of the economic rebound.
Applications for unemployment fell by 10,000 to 570,000, a higher level than forecast, in the week ended Aug. 22 from a revised 580,000 the week before, Labor Department data showed today in Washington. The total number of people collecting unemployment insurance fell to the lowest level since April.
The U.S. added 111 lenders to its list of “problem banks” in the second quarter, a 36 percent increase that pushed the group to a 15-year high.
A total of 416 banks with combined assets of $299.8 billion failed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s grading system for asset quality, liquidity and earnings, the most since June 1994, the Washington-based FDIC said in a report today. Regulators didn’t identify companies deemed “problem” banks.
“For now, the difficult and necessary process of recognizing loan losses and cleaning up balance sheets continues to be reflected in the industry’s bottom line,” FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said in a statement.
Regulators have taken over 81 banks this year, including Guaranty Financial Group Inc. in Texas and Colonial BancGroup Inc. in Alabama. Twenty-four banks collapsed in the second quarter as the pace of failures accelerated amid the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The surge in failures prompted the agency to charge the industry an emergency fee in the second quarter to raise $5.6 billion to replenish its insurance fund, which fell to $10.4 billion as of June 30 from $13 billion in the previous quarter, the agency said. An $11.6 billion increase in loss provisions for bank failures caused the decline in the fund, the FDIC said.
FDIC-insured banks reported a net loss of $3.7 billion in the second quarter, compared with a $5.5 billion gain in the first quarter. The loss, the second quarterly one the industry has reported in 18 years, was driven by increased expenses for bad loans, the FDIC said.
A new law just passed in Massachusetts imposes fines of up to $1000 per day and up to a 30 day jail sentence for not obeying authorities during a public health emergency. So if you are instructed to take the swine flu vaccine in Massachusetts and you refuse, you could be facing fines that will bankrupt you and a prison sentence on top of that.
Sales for last month for new homes, while 13.4% lower than in July 2008, are up 31.6% from the January bottom, the data showed.
Government statisticians have low confidence in the monthly report on new-home sales, which is subject to large revisions and large sampling and other statistical errors.
In most months, the government isn't sure whether sales rose or fell. The standard error in July, for instance, was plus or minus 13.4%. The government says it can take up to five months to establish a statistically meaningful trend in sales.
For all of 2008, 485,000 homes were sold. In 2007, it was 776,000. [How can 433k now be good?]
Sales rose in three of four regions, led by a 32% rise in the Northeast [from 3k to 4k] and followed a 16% gain in the South. Sales rose 1% in the West but fell 8% in the Midwest.
If one takes the time to read the details of the US Census’ report on New Home Sales, they will find that Not Seasonally Adjusted, New Home Sales are DOWN 31.1% year-to-date! They will also find that NSA July sales increased only 3k from June (39k from 36k) or 8%.
Of the 39k New Homes sold in July, 28k or 72% are less than $300k in price, 86% are less than $400k and only 16k are completed houses. The median home sales price in July fell11.5% y/y and 0.1% m/m to $210,000.
We are celebrating estimated 2009 annualized sales that are forecast to be down 12% from 2008. We will add our caveat about all the unnatural stimulants that have been injected to get home sales to improve to -12% y/y estimated. The NAR estimates that first-time buyers are 30% of home sales. This is another unnatural usurpation of the natural recovery cycle.
The real US unemployment rate is 16 percent if persons who have dropped out of the labor pool and those working less than they would like are counted, a Federal Reserve official said Wednesday. "If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking -- so-called discouraged workers -- and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent, said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4452bed82adf3124e5884678e236d7fb.361&show_article=1
Chris Martensen: The Shell Game - How the Federal Reserve is Monetizing Debt
The Federal Reserve has effectively been monetizing US government debt by cleverly enabling foreign central banks to swap their Agency debt for Treasury debt.
The shell game that the Fed is currently playing obscures the fact that money is being printed out of thin air and used to buy US government debt.
The Federal Reserve is monetizing US Treasury debt and is doing so openly, both through its $300 billion commitment to buy Treasuries and by engaging in a sleight of hand maneuver that would make a street hustler from Brooklyn blush…
http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/shell-game-how-federal-reserve-monetizing-debt/25806
Low inflation has made food and gas more affordable during the recession, but there's a downside: Social Security beneficiaries probably won't get a raise next year, and the IRS may reduce the amount workers can contribute to their 401(k) plans.
The IRS will announce 2010 contribution limits for 401(k) plans in October, based on a formula tied to the inflation rate in the third quarter vs. the year-ago quarter. For 2009, most workers can contribute up to $16,500 to their 401(k) plans, plus an additional $5,500 if they're 50 or older.
Unless inflation picks up in August and September, the IRS could be forced to reduce the cutoff to $16,000 in 2010, according to an analysis by Mercer, a human resources consultant. The threshold for catch-up contributions could be reduced to $5,000. This would mark the first time the IRS has reduced 401(k) contribution limits. Consumer confidence levels slipped a bit in August compared with the previous month, a report Friday said.
The Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index for August moved down to 65.7 - the lowest reading since April - from 66.0 in July and 70.8 in June. It was higher, though, than the 63.2 in the preliminary August index. The end-August figure was expected to move up a touch from mid-August, to 64, according to a survey of economists by Dow Jones Newswires.
The current conditions index for August was 66.6, the lowest since March, compared with 70.5 in July and from June's 73.2, while the expectations index was 65.0 in August from 63.2 in July and from 69.2 the month before that.
The one-year inflation expectations reading was 2.8% in August from 2.9% in July, and the five-year reading was 2.8% after July's 3.0%.
Whirlpool Corp. announced Friday that it will close its manufacturing plant in Evansville, Ind., eliminating about 1,100 full-time jobs by mid-2010.
Consumer spending increased 0.2% in July for its third consecutive time, on the back of a 1.3% increase on durable goods, namely automobiles, while personal income remained unchanged, following a 1.1% decline in June. The Dollar picks up against Euro and Pound
Banks are increasing lending to buyers of high-yield company loans and mortgage bonds at what may be the fastest pace since the credit-market debacle began in 2007.
Credit Suisse Group AG and Scotia Capital, a unit of Canada’s third-largest bank, said they’re offering credit to investors who want to purchase loans. SunTrust Banks Inc., which left the business last year, is “reaching out to clients” to provide financing, said Michael McCoy, a spokesman for the Atlanta-based bank. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. are doing the same for loans and mortgage-backed securities, said people familiar with the situation.
“I am surprised by how quickly the market has become receptive to leverage again,” said Bob Franz, the co-head of syndicated loans in New York at Credit Suisse.
The Swiss bank has seen increasing investor demand for financing to buy loans in the past two months, he said.
The 7-year Treasury auction bid to cover was 2.74% versus the average of the past six auctions at 2.44%.
Recovery no less, bad numbers yes. The market is up 50% off its lows or more but still off 35% from two years ago. Cash for clunkers and $8,000 first time buyer home purchases rebates won’t change the underlying problems. The economy is only borrowing from tomorrow. These types of moves only guarantees the fall of the dollar further and the further bankruptcy of the treasury and the fed. As an extension of that a dollar collapse will take every other currency with it and make gold and silver the premier asset.
Despite loads of propaganda and some signs of improvement in consumer confidence, retailers are in a death spiral.
US commercial paper outstanding rose for the week of 8/26 by $43.7 billion to $1.154 trillion. Asset backed CP rose $41.5 billion to $457.8 billion. Unsecured issuance rose $12.4 billion after rising $38.1 billion for the previous week.
More than 500,000 ARMs are scheduled to have their monthly repayments bounce from comfortably low initial ones to unaffordable higher ones over the next four years. Since February, defaults and foreclosure rates on Option ARMs have passed those on subprime mortgages. Many Option ARMs are not available for refinancing. One firm expects banks to lose $112 billion on Option ARMs written in 2005-07.
It is now cheaper to borrow the dollar than the yen for the first time in 16 years.
The number of problem US banks and thrifts rose sharply to 416 in the second quarter from 305 q-o-q as the industry reported a $3.6 billion loss. At the end of the second quarter the FDIC’s assets fell 20% to $10.4 billion.
ABN Ambro, Bank of America, Bank of NY, Deutsche Bank, HSBV, JP Morgan, US Bank, and Wells Fargo, have filed a Declaration Statement with the court in the case of FOIA of Bloomberg versus the Fed, in which they essentially state that if the court allows access to Fed documents and if an “Audit the Fed” laws are passed, it could lead to a complete financial system collapse.
The audacity and arrogance of these thieves is unmatched by anything ever seen in the history of the US or any other country. This is like letting pedophiles run a day care center for children. What they are telling you is these banks are all broke.
The FDIC is technically broke and has guaranteed $320 billion in TLGP loans, including $260 billion for “Bank & Thrift Holding Companies,” non-insured affiliates such as CIT Financial. The FDIC has no authority to create money out of thin air, so proclaiming that no one will ever lose money is either naïve or criminal. Bair is guaranteeing trillions in debt obligations with no funds to do so.
California will pay no fees and 3% interest on a $1.5 billion loan from JP Morgan Chase to pay for IOU’s. The loan will be repaid by the issuance of tax anticipation notes. This is an extremely favorable loan – a gift if you may.
Debt has doubled in the US since 1976 or over the last 38 years. The annual rate of increase is 9.55% annually. A bondholder would need a 14% return to get a profit and pay taxes.
Since 1971 gold has gone from $35.00 to $940.00, or an annual return of 9.04%. If not for taxes gold has done a remarkable job of holding its value.
We have some new twists from the latest document sent out by USAA Federal Savings Bank.
The bank, we, may charge your bank account or accounts that may own with our affiliates for amounts you owe the bank. In other words loans could be due and payable at their whim. That includes deposits of federal or state pension or Social Security benefits. If you do not want this you must change your benefit deposit instructions with the benefit payer. In other words go back to receiving a check and cashing it for cash – that is if the bank will give you cash.
The USAA also stated, we reserve the right to reject any outgoing or incoming wire transfers and to limit the availability of such services.
The bank may require reasonable advance notice for large cash withdrawals. The bank may refuse to honor a request to withdraw funds in cash from your account or to cash a check (including a cashier’s check or other official item) if the bank believes the amount is unreasonably large or that honoring the request would cause the bank undue hardship or security risk.
The bank may provide 7 days notice to withdraw or transfer funds from any account.
If you have a wire or check in foreign funds the bank may determine, in its discretion, to assign a currency exchange rate to your transaction without informing you. In other words they will charge you whatever they please.
The noose is tightening. Keep only three months operating expenses in a bank, six months for businesses, and keep $5,000 or more at home in small bills for emergencies with your gold and silver coins. Let this be a lesson to you. They are preparing for currency controls. Maybe not for a year or two, but they are coming.
The issue of Fed secrecy falls under the rule of law and the constitution. Only totalitarians want to operate in the shadows without scrutiny, oversight or restraint. Remember Jackson and Jefferson told us the biggest threats to America were elitist banking interests. The days of banker control are coming to an end. Their threatening financial and economic calamity if they do not get their way is over. Bankers should remember if they blow up the financial system there is a good likelihood they will lose their heads.
John Williams regularly notes that Gross Domestic Income is the theoretical equivalent to GDP. GDI declined 2.1% in Q2 while GDP declined only 1.0%.
Mr. Williams: Where GDP reflects the consumption side of the economy and GDI reflects the offsetting income side. When the series estimates do not equal each other…the difference is added to or subtracted from the GDI as a "statistical discrepancy." Although the BEA touts the GDP as the more accurate measure, the GDI is relatively free of the monthly political targeting the GDP goes through.
The Fed increased its balance sheet by $14.4B for the week ended Wednesday. The Fed monetized $8.8B of Treasuries, $5.6B of agencies and $13.3B of MBS. Currency swaps fell again, by $8.8B.
The US Treasury’s Inspector General provides a major reason why China and other foreign investors are fleeing GSE debt in its review of the demise of National Bank of Commerce (Berkley, Illinois).
The primary cause of NBC‘s failure was its significant losses from preferred stock holdings in Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), (also referred to as Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) securities in this report).
These losses depleted NBC’s capital and strained its liquidity.
Retrospectively, the lesson to be taken from the NBC material loss is that banks and regulators need to be cognizant that securities that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government do entail risk, and high concentrations of such holdings elevate that risk. That risk was clearly underscored by NBC’s failure.
The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June hosted at the White House. [What do you expect from GE-owned (Immeltdown CEO) NBC?]
Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation…Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details…there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable...to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."
We find it of interest that as the Fed discusses exit strategies that the Fed bought an additional $301 billion in treasuries, mortgages and agencies, bringing their 2-weeks of net purchases to $100.7 billion. The Fed is accelerating the monetization of debt. This also means they may have completed their $300 billion purchase of Treasuries. We are at a major crossroad. The Economic Cycle research Institute Index is at its worst level since May 28, 1971. The result was major inflation and 20.5% interest rates, which led to a move in gold from $200 to $860.
The ERCI weekly leading index for the week-ended 8//21/09 fell to 124.4 from 124.9. The annualized growth rate was at a 38-year high of 19.6%.
Atlanta Fed Chief Dennis Lockhart says real unemployment is 16%, we guess he won’t be around for long.
The U.S. Federal Reserve won a delay of a federal judge's order that it reveal the names of the banks that have participated in its emergency lending programs and the sums they received.
Chief Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan stayed her August 24 order in favor of Bloomberg News, which had sought the information under the federal Freedom of Information Act, so that the central bank could appeal.
The Fed's board of governors has worried that disclosure would stigmatize the participating banks, threatening both them and the U.S. economy. |
Author, "Web of Debt"
Posted: August 17, 2009 03:27 PM
"I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat so long as it catches mice." -- Deng Xiaoping, who opened China to foreign investment after 1978
China is being called a "miracle economy." It seems to have decoupled from the rest of the world, preserving an 8% growth rate while the rest of the world sinks into the worst recession since the 1930s. How is that phenomenal growth rate possible, when other countries relying heavily on exports have suffered major downturns and remain in the doldrums? Economist Richard Wolff skeptically observes:
We now have a situation in the world where we have a global capitalist crisis. Everywhere, consumption is down. Everywhere, people are buying fewer goods, including goods from China. How is it possible that in that society, so dependent on the world economy, they could now have an explosive growth? Their stock market is now 100 percent higher than at its low -- nothing remotely like that hardly anywhere in the world, certainly not in the United States or Europe. How is that possible? In order to believe what the Chinese are saying, you would have to agree that in a matter of months, at most a year, no more, they have been able to transform their economy from an export-based powerhouse to a domestically focused industrial engine. Nowhere in the world has that ever taken less than decades.
Perhaps, and the United States has certainly failed to pull that result off with its own stimulus plan; but there is a notable difference between its stimulus plan and China's. What Wolff calls a "global capitalist crisis" is actually a credit crisis; and in China, unlike in the U.S., credit has been flowing freely again to businesses and industry. State-owned banks have massively increased lending, with local governments and state enterprises borrowing on a huge scale. The People's Bank of China estimates that total loans for the first half of 2009 were $1.08 trillion, 50% more than the amount of loans Chinese banks issued in all of 2008. The U.S. Federal Reserve has also engaged in record levels of lending, but its loans have gone chiefly to bail out the financial sector itself, leaving Main Street high and dry.
The Secret of China's Success
Samah El-Shahat is a presenter for Al Jazeera English who has a doctorate in developmental economics from the University of London. In an August 10 articletitled "China Puts People Before Banks," she writes:
China is the one leading economy where the divide -- the disconnect between its financial sector and the world normal Chinese people and their businesses inhabit -- doesn't exist. Both worlds are booming again and this is due to the way the government handled its banks. China hasn't allowed its banking sector to become so powerful, so influential, and so big that it can call the shots or highjack the bailout. In simple terms, the government preferred to answer to its people and put their interests first before that of any vested interest or group. And that is why Chinese banks are lending to the people and their businesses in record numbers.
In the U.S. and the U.K., by contrast:
[T]he financial sector is booming, while the world of normal people seems to be going from bad to worse, unemployment is high, businesses are folding and house foreclosures are still taking place. Wall Street and Main Street might as well be existing on different planets. And this is in large part because banks are still not lending money to the people. In the UK and US, banks have captured all the money from the taxpayers and the cheap money from quantitative easing from central banks. They are using it to shore up, and clean up their balance sheets rather than lend it to the people. The money has been hijacked by the banks, and our governments are doing absolutely nothing about that. In fact, they have been complicit in allowing this to happen.
Cracks in the Dike?
The Chinese economy is not perfect. Chinese workers are now complaining of too much capitalism, since they are having to pay for housing, health care and higher education formerly picked up by the State. The push to make profits, particularly from foreign investment capital, has encouraged speculative ventures, with a great deal of money going into high-rise apartments and other real estate developments that most people cannot afford. And state-owned businesses and large corporations are still getting most of the loans, because the banks have been told to tighten their lending standards, and these larger entities are safer credit risks. But efforts are being made to make more loans available to medium-sized and small businesses, and China's stimulus plan seems to be working well overall.
Wolff thinks China's "miracle" is a bubble that is about to burst, with catastrophic consequences. But historically, when bubbles have collapsed suddenly, it has generally been because they were punctured by speculators. When the Japanese stock market bubble burst in 1990, and when other Asian countries followed in 1998, it was because foreign speculators were able to attack their currencies with exotic derivatives. The victims tried to defend by buying up their own national currencies with their foreign currency reserves, but the reserves were soon exhausted. Today, China has accumulated so much in the way of dollar reserves that it would be very difficult for speculators to do the same thing to the Chinese stock market. A gradual stock market decline due to natural market forces is something an economy can take in stride.
Economic Role Reversal
To the extent that China's stimulus plan is working better than in the U.S. and the U.K., this seems to be because the government is using the banks for public ends, rather than allowing the banks to use the government for private ends. The Chinese government can operate the banks' credit mechanisms in a way that serves public enterprise and trade because it actually owns the banking sector, or most of it. Ironically, that feature of China's economy may have allowed it to get closer to the original American capitalist ideal than the United States itself.
Politically, China is often referred to as communist, although it has never really been communist as defined in the textbooks and is far less so now than formerly. As Deng Xiaoping famously pointed out, the name isn't as important as whether the job gets done; and China's economy today provides a framework that effectively encourages entrepreneurs. Jim Rogers is an expatriate American investor and financial commentator based in Singapore. He wrote in a 2004article titled "The Rise of Red Capitalism":
Some of the best capitalists in the world live and work in Communist China....No matter how long China's leaders persist in calling themselves Communists, they seem quite intent on creating the world's dominant capitalist economy.
Five years later, the Chinese have evidently succeeded in this endeavor; and they have done it by keeping a brake on irresponsible bank speculation and profiteering by keeping a leash on their banking sector. While the Chinese have been busy perfecting their own brand of capitalism, the U.S. has sunk into what Rogers calls "socialism for the rich." When ordinary businesses go bankrupt, they are left to deal with the asphalt jungle on their own. But when banks considered "too big to fail" go bankrupt, we the taxpayers pay the losses while the banks' owners keep the profits and are allowed to continue speculating with them.
The bailout of Wall Street with taxpayer money represents a radical departure from capitalist principles, one that has changed the face of the American economy. The capitalism we were taught in school involved Mom and Pop stores, single-family farms, and small entrepreneurs competing on a level playing field. The government's role was to set the rules and make sure everyone played fair. But that is not the sort of capitalism we have today. The Mom and Pop stores have been squeezed out by giant chain stores and mega-industries; the small private farms have been bought up by multinational agribusinesses; and Wall Street banks have gotten so powerful that Congressmen are complaining that the banks now own Congress. Giant banks and corporations have rewritten the rules for their own ends. Healthy competition has been replaced by a form of predator capitalism in which small fish are systematically swallowed up by sharks. The result has been an ever-widening gap between rich and poor that represents the greatest transfer of wealth in history.
The Best of Both Worlds
The Chinese solution to a failed banking system would be to nationalize the banks themselves, not just their bad debts. If the U.S. were to follow that example, we the people could get something of value for our investment -- a stable and accountable banking system that belongs to the people. If the word "nationalize" sounds un-American, think "publicly-owned and operated for the benefit of the public," like public libraries, public parks, and public courts.
We need to get our dollars out of Wall Street and back on Main Street, and we can do that only by taking the punch bowl away from our out-of-control private banking monopoly. We need to reclaim "the full faith and credit of the United States" as a monopoly of the people of the United States. If the Chinese can have the best of both worlds, so can we.
Follow Ellen Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ellenhbrown
ublished on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 by The Guardian/UK
Is There Any Point in Fighting to Stave off Industrial Apocalypse?
The collapse of civilisation will bring us a saner world, says Paul Kingsnorth. No, counters George Monbiot – we can't let billions perish
by George Monbiot and Paul Kingsnorth
Dear George
On the desk in front of me is a set of graphs. The horizontal axis of each represents the years 1750 to 2000. The graphs show, variously, population levels, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, exploitation of fisheries, destruction of tropical forests, paper consumption, number of motor vehicles, water use, the rate of species extinction and the totality of the human economy's gross domestic product.
What grips me about these graphs (and graphs don't usually grip me) is that though they all show very different things, they have an almost identical shape. A line begins on the left of the page, rising gradually as it moves to the right. Then, in the last inch or so – around 1950 – it veers steeply upwards, like a pilot banking after a cliff has suddenly appeared from what he thought was an empty bank of cloud.
The root cause of all these trends is the same: a rapacious human economy bringing the world swiftly to the brink of chaos. We know this; some of us even attempt to stop it happening. Yet all of these trends continue to get rapidly worse, and there is no sign of that changing soon. What these graphs make clear better than anything else is the cold reality: there is a serious crash on the way.
Yet very few of us are prepared to look honestly at the message this reality is screaming at us: that the civilisation we are a part of is hitting the buffers at full speed, and it is too late to stop it. Instead, most of us – and I include in this generalisation much of the mainstream environmental movement – are still wedded to a vision of the future as an upgraded version of the present. We still believe in "progress", as lazily defined by western liberalism. We still believe that we will be able to continue living more or less the same comfortable lives (albeit with more windfarms and better lightbulbs) if we can only embrace "sustainable development" rapidly enough; and that we can then extend it to the extra 3 billion people who will shortly join us on this already gasping planet.
I think this is simply denial. The writing is on the wall for industrial society, and no amount of ethical shopping or determined protesting is going to change that now. Take a civilisation built on the myth of human exceptionalism and a deeply embedded cultural attitude to "nature"; add a blind belief in technological and material progress; then fuel the whole thing with a power source that is discovered to be disastrously destructive only after we have used it to inflate our numbers and appetites beyond the point of no return. What do you get? We are starting to find out.
We need to get real. Climate change is teetering on the point of no return while our leaders bang the drum for more growth. The economic system we rely upon cannot be tamed without collapsing, for it relies upon that growth to function. And who wants it tamed anyway? Most people in the rich world won't be giving up their cars or holidays without a fight.
Some people – perhaps you – believe that these things should not be said, even if true, because saying them will deprive people of "hope", and without hope there will be no chance of "saving the planet". But false hope is worse than no hope at all. As for saving the planet – what we are really trying to save, as we scrabble around planting turbines on mountains and shouting at ministers, is not the planet but our attachment to the western material culture, which we cannot imagine living without.
The challenge is not how to shore up a crumbling empire with wave machines and global summits, but to start thinking about how we are going to live through its fall, and what we can learn from its collapse.
All the best, Paul
Dear Paul
Like you I have become ever gloomier about our chances of avoiding the crash you predict. For the past few years I have been almost professionally optimistic, exhorting people to keep fighting, knowing that to say there is no hope is to make it so. I still have some faith in our ability to make rational decisions based on evidence. But it is waning.
If it has taken governments this long even to start discussing reform of the common fisheries policy – if they refuse even to make contingency plans for peak oil – what hope is there of working towards a steady-state economy, let alone the voluntary economic contraction ultimately required to avoid either the climate crash or the depletion of crucial resources?
The interesting question, and the one that probably divides us, is this: to what extent should we welcome the likely collapse of industrial civilisation? Or more precisely: to what extent do we believe that some good may come of it?
I detect in your writings, and in the conversations we have had, an attraction towards – almost a yearning for – this apocalypse, a sense that you see it as a cleansing fire that will rid the world of a diseased society. If this is your view, I do not share it. I'm sure we can agree that the immediate consequences of collapse would be hideous: the breakdown of the systems that keep most of us alive; mass starvation; war. These alone surely give us sufficient reason to fight on, however faint our chances appear. But even if we were somehow able to put this out of our minds, I believe that what is likely to come out on the other side will be worse than our current settlement.
Here are three observations: 1 Our species (unlike most of its members) is tough and resilient; 2 When civilisations collapse, psychopaths take over; 3 We seldom learn from others' mistakes.
From the first observation, this follows: even if you are hardened to the fate of humans, you can surely see that our species will not become extinct without causing the extinction of almost all others. However hard we fall, we will recover sufficiently to land another hammer blow on the biosphere. We will continue to do so until there is so little left that even Homo sapiens can no longer survive. This is the ecological destiny of a species possessed of outstanding intelligence, opposable thumbs and an ability to interpret and exploit almost every possible resource – in the absence of political restraint.
From the second and third observations, this follows: instead of gathering as free collectives of happy householders, survivors of this collapse will be subject to the will of people seeking to monopolise remaining resources. This will is likely to be imposed through violence. Political accountability will be a distant memory. The chances of conserving any resource in these circumstances are approximately zero. The human and ecological consequences of the first global collapse are likely to persist for many generations, perhaps for our species' remaining time on earth. To imagine that good could come of the involuntary failure of industrial civilisation is also to succumb to denial. The answer to your question – what will we learn from this collapse? – is nothing.
This is why, despite everything, I fight on. I am not fighting to sustain economic growth. I am fighting to prevent both initial collapse and the repeated catastrophe that follows. However faint the hopes of engineering a soft landing – an ordered and structured downsizing of the global economy – might be, we must keep this possibility alive. Perhaps we are both in denial: I, because I think the fight is still worth having; you, because you think it isn't.
With my best wishes, George
Dear George
You say that you detect in my writing a yearning for apocalypse. I detect in yours a paralysing fear.
You have convinced yourself that there are only two possible futures available to humanity. One we might call Liberal Capitalist Democracy 2.0. Clearly your preferred option, this is much like the world we live in now, only with fossil fuels replaced by solar panels; governments and corporations held to account by active citizens; and growth somehow cast aside in favour of a "steady state economy".
The other we might call McCarthy world, from Cormac McCarthy's novel The Road – which is set in an impossibly hideous post-apocalyptic world, where everything is dead but humans, who are reduced to eating children. Not long ago you suggested in a column that such a future could await us if we didn't continue "the fight".
Your letter continues mining this Hobbesian vein. We have to "fight on" because without modern industrial civilisation the psychopaths will take over, and there will be "mass starvation and war". Leaving aside the fact that psychopaths seem to be running the show already, and millions are suffering today from starvation and war, I think this is a false choice. We both come from a western, Christian culture with a deep apocalyptic tradition. You seem to find it hard to see beyond it. But I am not "yearning" for some archetypal End of Days, because that's not what we face.
We face what John Michael Greer , in his book of the same name, calls a "long descent": a series of ongoing crises brought about by the factors I talked of in my first letter that will bring an end to the all-consuming culture we have imposed upon the Earth. I'm sure "some good will come" from this, for that culture is a weapon of planetary mass destruction.
Our civilisation will not survive in anything like its present form, but we can at least aim for a managed retreat to a saner world. Your alternative – to hold on to nurse for fear of finding something worse – is in any case a century too late. When empires begin to fall, they build their own momentum. But what comes next doesn't have to be McCarthyworld. Fear is a poor guide to the future.
All the best, Paul
Dear Paul
If I have understood you correctly, you are proposing to do nothing to prevent the likely collapse of industrial civilisation. You believe that instead of trying to replace fossil fuels with other energy sources, we should let the system slide. You go on to say that we should not fear this outcome.
How many people do you believe the world could support without either fossil fuels or an equivalent investment in alternative energy? How many would survive without modern industrial civilisation? Two billion? One billion? Under your vision several billion perish. And you tell me we have nothing to fear.
I find it hard to understand how you could be unaffected by this prospect. I accused you of denial before; this looks more like disavowal. I hear a perverse echo in your writing of the philosophies that most offend you: your macho assertion that we have nothing to fear from collapse mirrors the macho assertion that we have nothing to fear from endless growth. Both positions betray a refusal to engage with physical reality.
Your disavowal is informed by a misunderstanding. You maintain that modern industrial civilisation "is a weapon of planetary mass destruction". Anyone apprised of the palaeolithic massacre of the African and Eurasian megafauna, or the extermination of the great beasts of the Americas, or the massive carbon pulse produced by deforestation in the Neolithic must be able to see that the weapon of planetary mass destruction is not the current culture, but humankind.
You would purge the planet of industrial civilisation, at the cost of billions of lives, only to discover that you have not invoked "a saner world" but just another phase of destruction.
Strange as it seems, a de-fanged, steady-state version of the current settlement might offer the best prospect humankind has ever had of avoiding collapse. For the first time in our history we are well-informed about the extent and causes of our ecological crises, know what should be done to avert them, and have the global means – if only the political will were present – of preventing them. Faced with your alternative – sit back and watch billions die – Liberal Democracy 2.0 looks like a pretty good option.
With my best wishes, George
Dear George
Macho, moi? You've been using the word "fight" at a Dick Cheney -like rate. Now my lack of fighting spirit sees me accused of complicity in mass death. This seems a fairly macho accusation.
Perhaps the heart of our disagreement can be found in a single sentence in your last letter: "You are proposing to do nothing to prevent the likely collapse of industrial civilisation." This invites a question: what do you think I could do? What do you think you can do?
You've suggested several times that the hideous death of billions is the only alternative to a retooled status quo. Even if I accepted this loaded claim, which seems designed to make me look like a heartless fascist, it would get us nowhere because a retooled status quo is a fantasy and even you are close to admitting it. Rather than "do nothing" in response, I'd suggest we get some perspective on the root cause of this crisis – not human beings but the cultures within which they operate.
Civilisations live and die by their founding myths. Our myths tell us that humanity is separate from something called "nature", which is a "resource" for our use. They tell us there are no limits to human abilities, and that technology, science and our ineffable wisdom can fix everything. Above all, they tell us that we are in control. This craving for control underpins your approach. If we can just persaude the politicians to do A, B and C swiftly enough, then we will be saved. But what climate change shows us is that we are not in control, either of the biosphere or of the machine which is destroying it. Accepting that fact is our biggest challenge.
I think our task is to negotiate the coming descent as best we can, while creating new myths that put humanity in its proper place. Recently I co-founded a new initiative, the Dark Mountain Project , which aims to help do that. It won't save the world, but it might help us think about how to live through a hard century. You'd be welcome to join us.
Very best, Paul
Dear Paul
Yes, the words I use are fierce, but yours are strangely neutral. I note that you have failed to answer my question about how many people the world could support without modern forms of energy and the systems they sustain, but 2 billion is surely the optimistic extreme. You describe this mass cull as "a long descent" or a "retreat to a saner world". Have you ever considered a job in the Ministry of Defence press office?
I draw the trifling issue of a few billion fatalities to your attention not to make you look like a heartless fascist but because it's a reality with which you refuse to engage. You don't see it because to do so would be to accept the need for action. But of course you aren't doing nothing. You propose to stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, and, er … "get some perspective on the root cause of this crisis". Fine: we could all do with some perspective. But without action – informed, focused and immediate – the crisis will happen. I agree that the chances of success are small. But they are non-existent if we give up before we have started. You mock this impulse as a "craving for control". I see it as an attempt at survival.
What could you do? You know the answer as well as I do. Join up, protest, propose, create. It's messy, endless and uncertain of success. Perhaps you see yourself as above this futility, but it's all we've got and all we've ever had. And sometimes it works.
The curious outcome of this debate is that while I began as the optimist and you the pessimist, our roles have reversed. You appear to believe that though it is impossible to tame the global economy, it is possible to change our founding myths, some of which predate industrial civilisation by several thousand years. You also believe that good can come of a collapse that deprives most of the population of its means of survival. This strikes me as something more than optimism: a millenarian fantasy, perhaps, of Redemption after the Fall. Perhaps it is the perfect foil to my apocalyptic vision.
With my best wishes, George
The Second Wave of The Depression: Hyperinflation is Likely
By Webster Tarpley |
Global Research, August 17, 2009 |
The Rock Creek Free Press - 2009-07-15 |
The second wave of the world economic depression is coming soon. Larry Summers, the economics czar of the Wall Street puppet regime currently in power in Washington, recently confessed to the Financial Times in an unguarded moment: "I don't think the worst is over .." A few weeks earlier, Jacques Attali, who served in the 1980s as the main economics adviser to French President Mitterrand, told an audience at the International Economic and Financial Forum (FIEF) in Paris that the world might well soon face a planetary Weimar "in the form of a hyperinflationary depression similar to the German events of 1922 - 1923.
During the last world economic depression, the first wave came in the form of the famous New York Stock market crash of October 1929. But this was only the beginning, and hardly the main event. The world depression of the 1930s was made irreversible by the British bankruptcy of September 1931, when the Bank of England ceased gold payment. At that time, the vast majority of international trade was financed by pounds sterling bills of exchange drawn on London. When the British Pound began to float through a series of competitive devaluations, the lack of a stable reserve currency - and not the US Hawley-Smoot tariff - strangled world trade, thus making that depression as severe as it was. British default in turn undermined the US banking system, setting the stage for the banking panic which ravaged the United States in 1932 and 1933, to the point that not a single bank in the country was still operating by the time Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed the presidency in March of 1933. The United States would almost certainly have been lashed by additional waves of depression had it not been for the banking triage implemented by the Roosevelt administration during the bank holiday, and for other New Deal measures which succeeded in mitigating the Depression. Other countries, notably Germany, went into a permanent depression which was expressed in a series of military campaigns which aimed at the economic looting of the other countries of Europe. Whatever the ideological fanatics of the discredited Austria and Chicago schools of economic analysis may claim, there is no automatic business cycle capable of lifting the modern world out of serious economic disintegration. The depression will end when adequate New Deal style policies are implemented, and not before, as I show in my new book, the second edition of Surviving the Cataclysm.
TODAY: BETWEEN 1929 AND 1931
Today, therefore, we are, so to speak, in the trough between the October 1929 wave (which corresponds to the derivatives crisis and banking panic of 2008) and the September 1931 wave, which this time around is highly likely to take the form of a hyperinflationary dollar crisis, or in other words a hyper stagflation and depression of the world economy radiating out from Wall Street and the City of London. What then might be the leading characteristics of the next wave of the current world economic breakdown crisis?
The next wave is likely to involve a worldwide dollar panic. Using ballpark figures, we can say that there are about $4 to $5 trillion sloshing around the world in the form of hot money, US Treasury securities, Euro dollars, and various forms of zeno-dollars. Japan has about a trillion, China almost $2 trillion, and so forth. It is naturally very unwise for a developing country like China to hold so many dollars rather than using them to purchase needed infrastructure and capital goods, and the Chinese leaders are now very uncomfortable with their own foolish decision, which was of course taken under heavy US pressure. But the point is that this $4.5 trillion overhang is by its very nature exceedingly unstable. Every country that holds large sums of dollars or US Treasury bonds is nervously eyeing every other such country to see if they show signs of bolting for the exit. Up to now, so far as we know, no large holder of dollars has attempted to reduce its exposure to the battered greenback by dumping these dollars on the international market. If anyone did so, it would cause a true universal financial panic which would create chaos and mayhem not just in the United States and Great Britain, but in the vast areas of the rest of the world as well. This is concretely how hyperinflation could now very well arise: if one or more US creditor nations attempts to abruptly lighten up on dollars, the value of the US currency could undergo a catastrophic collapse, and that would spell runaway hyperinflation on the US domestic front.
World Dollar Panic Imminent?
We need to recall that the value of a modern currency is not determined inside the country, but rather on the international foreign exchange markets. This is where the fatal vulnerability of the US dollar is located. In the ruined form of the Bretton Woods system which has prevailed for almost 40 years since Nixon's colossal historical vandalism of August 15, 1971, the US has emerged as the only country with a permanent license to finance imports by simply printing more of its own currency and sending those banknotes overseas. Every other country has to manufacture and export something that others want to buy in order to earn the necessary foreign exchange to pay for its own imports. The US license to print has made this country the buyer of last resort and the dumping ground for the unsold junk of the world, leading in the process to high permanent unemployment here. There are many signs that this inherently unworkable arrangement has now reached the breaking point.
International Currency Relations, Not Money Supply, Are The Key
Ms. Ellen Brown, who apparently supports the doctrines of the social credit movement of the 1930s, has recently argued that deflation is now on the agenda, and that hyperinflation can be ruled out. She bases this analysis on the fact that the private credit markets in this country have largely collapsed, and on the contention that the M1 and M2 money parameters have either declined or increased only slightly. But all of this is beside the point. The Federal Reserve and the Treasury have so far provided almost $13 trillion of new loans to banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, and other purely financial institutions.
This is being done in an effort to bailout the $1.5 quadrillion world derivatives bubble, of which something like two-thirds or more, meaning one quadrillion dollars, can be located inside the dollar zone. The world depression started when this derivatives bubble went into reverse leverage, meaning that super losses instead of super profits were generated at the apex of the speculative pyramid, as seen in the case of the $3 trillion AIG hedge fund located in London. The Obama regime is engaged in an hysterical attempt to restart derivatives production in the form of securitization, i.e. the creation of more and better asset backed securities derivatives. At the same time, the Obama regime has cynically and deliberately driven the Detroit automakers into bankruptcy, destroying hundreds of thousands of the few remaining industrial jobs here in the United States.
This means that US industrial production continues in drastic decline. The mere mention of production reminds us that the assorted Austrian, Chicago, and social credit schools are predominantly or exclusively concerned with money and banking, and pay little or no attention to industrial, agricultural, and infrastructural production, meaning of course that they neglect the creation of those tangible physical use values, capital goods, and related forms of real wealth upon which human existence depends. With bailouts increasing and all forms of commodity production declining, we have the classic situation of far too much money chasing too few goods. Internal pressure towards hyperinflation comes from the fact that the bailout and public debt lending, on top of the bloated, fictitious, and exponentially growing mass of kited derivatives, are all charges which must be added to the prices of commodity production.
Add this to the more important factor of looming dollar panic in the international exchanges, and the preponderance of the evidence points towards hyperinflation. "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke got his name from his famous recipe of throwing bales of dollars out of helicopters onto the lawns of bankers to stimulate the economy out of a depression, and this reminds us that the profile of the Anglo-American financial leadership from Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, and Mervyn King to Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke is decidedly hyperinflationary. Ms. Brown's belief that hyperinflation is impossible is therefore mistaken.
The German 1923 hyperinflation was generated internationally, not within Germany, as a campaign of economic warfare by Britain and France against their defeated rival. Germany had signed the Rapallo agreements with Soviet Russia, creating an economic combination which was more than a match for the Anglo-French. To abort the potential of Rapallo by creating chaos in the German economy, the Anglo-French systematically destroyed the value of the German Reichsmark on the international exchanges, taking advantage of the Versailles reparations system and the French occupation of the industrialized Ruhr area. The mark went down every day when the London exchange rate was announced. Today, it is the enormous international dollar overhang which threatens to annihilate the US greenback.
The one way deflation might actually come about is if someone like the self-professed Austrian school ideologue Ron Paul were to take power. Ron Pauls "libertarianism" alternative to Obama's continued bailouts of Wall Street is evidently an immediate deflationary crash, which he asserts will be followed by an automatic recovery. Ron Paul is a modern representative of the so-called liquidationist school to which 1920s Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon belonged. Mellon demanded the liquidation of stocks, bonds, real estate, and labor. German Chancellor Heinrich Brüning, another liquidationist, savagely cut German unemployment benefits (Ron Paul's "nanny state") at the height of the Depression, helping to bring on the debacle of January 1933. Liquidationists tend to be people who have money and who believe they will continue to have money even after an all-out crash, when they will be able to buy up distressed assets and desperate unemployed workers for rock-bottom prices and cash in. But liquidationism obviously cannot be a solution to depression of the entire society.
The recent meetings of the leaders of the expanded G-8 countries in L'Aquila, Italy were marked by a growing awareness that the US dollar, because of the criminally irresponsible policies of the Wall Street financiers who have dominated the Bush and Obama administrations, can no longer play the role of the single world reserve currency. Russian President Medvedev showed off a sort of future world coin to try to prod the Obama regime in the direction of serious world monetary reform, which is of course the urgent task before everyone.
Naturally, finance oligarchs like Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke want to continue to play the role of world currency dictators, and not be forced to negotiate the end of Anglo-American hegemonism. The world needs to go toward a new pro-growth world monetary system in which the euro, the yen, the dollar, the ruble, the Chinese yuan, a possible Latin American monetary unit, and a possible Arab monetary unit would all be included. It will be important to make the transition toward such a new system as orderly as possible, since a catastrophic collapse of the dollar in the short term would be to no one's advantage, and would rather represent a sure path to universal ruin. World economic growth rates under the 1944 to 1971 Bretton Woods system were the highest in recorded history before or since. This was accomplished through statism and dirigism in the form of narrow bands of isolation among the currencies, combined with gold settlements of surpluses and deficits among the nations, which provided an indispensable reality principle to restrain the hyperinflationary tendencies of the Anglo-Americans. The new world monetary system should include the abolition of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in their current forms, since these institutions have strangled the economic progress of the developing sector. Rather, the goal of the new monetary system should be to restart the export of high technology capital goods of the most modern type from Europe, Japan, and the United States toward the impoverished countries of Africa, South Asia, and certain parts of Latin America.
The Federal Government Should Stop Borrowing And Start Lending
Here in the United States, we need to wipe out the derivatives bubble with the help of a 1% Tobin tax or securities transfer tax, on all speculative financial transactions, including futures, options, stocks, bonds, commodities, foreign exchange, and so forth. A California Tobin tax would solve the state budget crisis. The top 16 Wall Street banks are zombie institutions that need to be seized and liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy at once, with all of their derivatives going into the shredder. Foreclosures on homes, farms, and businesses should be banned outright for five years or for the duration of the depression, which ever lasts longer. To provide a credit supply, the Federal Reserve should be seized and nationalized, and used as a vehicle to issue 0% Federal credit for productive activities only, not for speculation.
To revive credit demand, state and local governments could then take out 0% Federal loans for such long overdue projects as the construction of 1,000 hospitals, the building of 50,000 miles of modern maglev rail systems, and 100 fourth-generation, high temperature, pebble bed nuclear reactors, plus the rebuilding of water systems and the interstate highway network. Idled auto plants should be reconverted for these purposes. Science drivers in the fields of space exploration and colonization, high energy physics, and biomedical research should also be fully funded in this way to provide technological modernization.
The social safety net needs to be expanded and developed, with larger Social Security pensions for a generation whose 401(k)s and IRAs have been largely destroyed, along with increased Medicare and Medicaid benefits for those whose insurance companies are insolvent, like AIG and The Hartford, which have been devastated by derivatives speculation. These are quite simply the requirements for the maintenance of human civilization in this part of the world. Until measures like these are carried out, the United States and the world will continue to sink deeper into the bottomless pit of economic depression.
Webster Tarpley is an economic historian, radio host and author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Obama, The Postmodern Coup and Surviving The Cataclysm and other books. |
The Economy is in Deep, Deep Trouble...
Question for Bernanke: "Do you have the cojones to raise rates?"
By Mike Whitney |
Global Research, August 14, 2009 |
Booyah. It's morning in America. The jobless numbers are stabilizing, the stock market is sizzling, quarterly earnings came in better than expected, traders have turned bullish, housing is showing signs of life, and clunker-swaps have given Detroit a well-needed boost of adrenalin. Even Cassandra economists --like Paul Krugman and Nouriel Roubini--have been uncharacteristically optimistic. Is is true; did we avoid a Second Great Depression? Is the worst really behind us?
Maybe. But there is only one way to find out for sure. Raise rates.
Bernanke should welcome the opportunity to show everyone how he's pulled the world's biggest economy back from the brink of disaster. All he needs to do is stop giving away free money, shut down a few of his so-called lending facilities, and stop manipulating interest rates by purchasing mortgage-backed securities (MBS) from Fannie and Freddie. How hard is that? The S&P 500 has skyrocketed 48 percent since March 9. What's Bernanke waiting for; a 75 percent increase; a 100 percent increase??? How high do stocks have to go to convince Bernanke that the economy can stand on its own two feet without the torrent of cheap liquidity issuing from the Fed?
Bernanke can prove to his critics that the US economy doesn't need the Fed's monetization programs and price fixing; that it doesn't need the liquidity injections and the buying up of junk mortgages. ($80 billion last month alone) After all, as Bernanke opines, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong!"
Right. Now prove it.
All Bernanke has to do is boost rates by a point or two and demonstrate that he's willing to mop up some of the $13 trillion he's pumped into the financial markets. With just one announcement, the Fed chair could show our biggest creditor--China--that he's serious about defending the dollar and the trillion dollars of US Treasuries China purchased believing that the US was a responsible trading partner who would never write checks on an account that was overdrawn by $12 trillion. (The National Debt)
So, go ahead, Ben. Raise rates, shut down the printing presses, roll up the corporate welfare programs. Be a He-man. Make your critics eat their words. This is from Bloomberg News 8-12-09:
"The Fed’s policy-setting Open Market Committee will today keep the target rate at zero to 0.25 percent and retain plans to buy as much as $1.45 trillion of housing debt by year-end to help secure a recovery, analysts said. The FOMC’s statement is expected at about 2:15 p.m. in Washington."
Hmmmmmm. So all the "green shoots" happy talk is pure gibberish, right? There is no recovery. Bernanke plans to continue flooding the financial system with cheap liquidity. It's all a fraud. Things aren't better; they're worse.
Look at the facts.
There were 1.9 million foreclosures in 2009 in the first six months, and there will be another 1.5 before the end of the year. Is that better? According to Bloomberg: "A glut of unsold homes is also pushing down prices. The 3.8 million homes for sale in June would take 9.4 months to sell at the current pace of transactions, according to the National Association of Realtors. The inventory turnover rate averaged 4.5 months in the six years from 2000 to 2005.....More than 18.7 million homes, including foreclosures, residences for sale and vacation homes, stood vacant in the U.S. during the second quarter. That compared with 18.6 million a year earlier, the U.S. Census Bureau said July 24
Total home sales fell 23.7 percent in June versus a year earlier." Bloomberg)
Massive supply, falling prices, record foreclosures, flagging demand--and according to Deutsche Bank--48 percent of all mortgages will be underwater by 2011. It's all bad.
Here's another clip from Bloomberg today 8-12-09:
"Home price declines in the U.S. ACCELERATED in the second quarter, dropping by a record 15.6 percent from a year earlier, as foreclosures weighed on values.
The median price of an existing single-family home dropped to $174,100, THE MOST IN RECORDS dating to 1979, the National Association of Realtors said today.
“I don’t think we’re at a bottom yet in home prices,” said Scott Anderson, a senior economist at Wells Fargo & Co. in Minneapolis. “There’s also a pretty big shadow supply of houses. People are kind of waiting for the bottom but there’s a pent up supply out there.”...Home prices are tumbling even as mortgage rates remain near all-time lows. The average U.S. rate for a 30-year fixed home loan was to 5.22 percent last week, down from 5.25 percent the prior week." (Bloomberg)
The decline in housing prices is ACCELERATING, not slowing down. The historic collapse in real estate is ongoing and it is wiping out trillions in homeowner equity making it increasingly difficult for consumers to borrow on the diminishing value of their collateral. This is why foreclosures, defaults and personal bankruptcies are soaring. (According to the American Bankruptcy Institute: consumer bankruptcy filings reached 126,434 in July, a 34.3% increase year over year, and a 8.7% increase sequentially (116,365 in June). July's number is the highest monthly total since the October 2005 bankruptcy reform aka the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.)
This is why households and consumers can no longer spend as much as they had before the crisis. Credit lines are being pared back; personal savings are rising, and GDP (excluding fiscal stimulus) is shrinking. Every one of the 3.5 million foreclosures represents hundreds of thousands of dollars the banks will never recoup. NEVER. That's why the rate of bank failures will be much greater than current estimates. The banks are facing a triple-whammy; soaring foreclosures, plummeting asset prices, and a meltdown in commercial real estate. The combo has created a gigantic capital-hole which is forcing the banks to slow lending even to applicants with flawless credit. The Fed has built up excess bank reserves by $800 billion, but it hasn't made a bit of difference. They banks are still not able to lend.
The uptick in housing last month reflects seasonal changes and a shifting of pain from the low end of the market to higher priced homes; nothing more. Homes that are priced over $1 million are now sitting on the market for 20 months; a lifetime in real estate parlance. High-end neighborhoods have turned into leper colonies. Zero interest; zero traffic. Expect a crash this year.
Now take a look at this from CNBC's Diana Olick:
"The number of homes listed officially on the market, while still at historically high levels, might be only the tip of the iceberg," said Stan Humphries, chief economist at real estate website Zillow.com in Seattle, Washington. According to Zillow's latest Homeowner Confidence Survey, 12 percent of homeowners said they would be "very likely" to put their home on the market in the next 12 months if they saw signs of a real estate market turnaround, 8 percent said "likely," while 12 percent said "somewhat likely." Survey results could translate into around 20 million homeowners trying to sell their homes, a startling number given that the Census bureau indicates there are 93 million U.S. houses, condos and co-ops, Humphries said.
According to the National Association of Realtors, the market is currently on track to sell 4.89 million homes annually.
"At this pace, it would take about four years to run through this amount of backlogged inventory," he said. "Shadow inventory has the potential to give us another leg down on home prices during the second half of the year," said Steven Wood, chief economist at Insight Economics in Danville, California. (Diana Olick, "Shadow inventory lurks over US housing recovery" CNBC)
The banks are using all types of accounting tricks to hide the real losses or the true value of downgraded assets. The only difference between a common crook and a commercial banker is a well-paid accountant. The banking system is broken and its only going to get worse as the hammer comes down on the commercial real estate market. The Fed and Treasury are already working out the details for another stealth bailout that they'll initiate without Congress's approval. It's all very "hush-hush". The plan will involve more mega-leveraging of government liabilities. Bernanke has appointed himself the de facto Czar of Hedge Fund Nation, Clunkerville USA.
An article in this week's Financial Times further illustrates how the Fed has transformed the economy into a riverboat casino:
"The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is aggressively hiring traders as its seeks to manage its burgeoning securities holdings, making the central bank one of Wall Street's most active recruiters of financial talent.
The New York Fed - the arm of the US central bank that implements its monetary policy - plans to increase the staff in its markets group to 400 by the end of the year - up from 240 at the end of 2007.
The Fed, which says that most of its new recruits come from private sector financial firms, is hiring employees as many banks, rating agencies, hedge funds and private equity groups shed staff. New York city officials recently estimated that the sector's woes would lead to a loss of up to 140,000 jobs.
The Fed's need for more traders is a direct consequence of the central bank's efforts to keep credit flowing through the US economy. The Fed has been buying fixed-income securities at such a rate that its assets have more than doubled to $2,000bn in the past year, leading the central bank to conclude that it needs more people to monitor the markets and to manage its credit risks." (Financial Times, "NY Fed in hiring spree as assets soar", Aline van Duyn)
Nice, eh? So now the Fed needs to enlist a gaggle of professional speculators just to keep all the balls in the air. What a joke. This isn't a rebound; it's just more hype. Here's Warren Buffett summing it up on CNBC:
"I get figures on 70-odd businesses, a lot of them daily. Everything that I see about the economy is that we've had no bounce. The financial system was really where the crisis was last September and October, and that's been surmounted and that's enormously important. But in terms of the economy coming back, it takes a while.... I said the economy would be in a shambles this year and probably well beyond. I'm afraid that's true." "The economy is in a shambles". That's from the horse's mouth. Inventories are down 11 percent year-over-year, durable goods are down 10.4 percent y-o-y, industrial capacity is at record lows, manufacturing is still contracting, housing is in the tank, shipping and rail freight are scraping the bottom, retail is in a long-term funk, and--according to Krugman--the slight dip in unemployment was a statistical anomaly. Here's Bob Herbert's great summary of the unemployment data:
"Some 247,000 jobs were lost in July, a number that under ordinary circumstances would send a shudder through the country. It was the smallest monthly loss of jobs since last summer. And for that reason, it was seen as a hopeful sign. The official monthly unemployment rate ticked down from 9.5 percent to 9.4 percent....The country has lost a crippling 6.7 million jobs since the Great Recession began in December 2007...
The percentage of young American men who are actually working is the lowest it has been in the 61 years of record-keeping, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. Only 65 of every 100 men aged 20 through 24 years old were working on any given day in the first six months of this year. In the age group 25 through 34 years old, traditionally a prime age range for getting married and starting a family, just 81 of 100 men were employed.... The numbers are beyond scary; they’re catastrophic.
This should be the biggest story in the United States. When joblessness reaches these kinds of extremes, it doesn’t just damage individual families; it corrodes entire communities, fosters a sense of hopelessness and leads to disorder....
A truer picture of the employment crisis emerges when you combine the number of people who are officially counted as jobless with those who are working part time because they can’t find full-time work and those in the so-called labor market reserve — people who are not actively looking for work (because they have become discouraged, for example) but would take a job if one became available.
The tally from those three categories is a mind-boggling 30 million Americans — 19 percent of the overall work force.
This is, by far, the nation’s biggest problem and should be its No. 1 priority.("A Scary Reality" Bob Herbert, New York Times)
Sorry, Bob, the media has no time for unemployment news. It tends to undermine the positive vibes from green shoots stories.
The stock market rally has made it harder for people to see the truth. But the facts haven't changed. Deflation is setting in across all sectors and the economy has reset at a lower rate of economic activity. Housing prices are falling, consumer spending is slowing, layoffs are rising, and demand is getting weaker. That means growth will be sub-par for the foreseeable future. Here's an excerpt from a speech given by San Francisco Fed Janet Yellen drawing the same conclusion:
"I don’t like taking the wind out of the sails of our economic expansion, but a few cautionary points should be considered... a massive shift in consumer behavior is under way.. American households entered this recession stretched to the limit with mortgage and other debt. The personal saving rate fell from around 8 percent of disposable income two decades ago to almost zero. Households financed their lifestyles by drawing on increasing stock market and housing wealth, and taking on higher levels of debt. But falling house and stock prices have destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth, cutting off those ready sources of cash. What’s more, the stark realities of this recession have scared many households straight, convincing them that they need to save larger fractions of their incomes.... a rediscovery of thrift means fewer sales at the mall, and fewer jobs on assembly lines and store counters....
This very weak economy is, if anything, putting downward pressure on wages and prices. We have already seen a noticeable slowdown in wage growth and reports of wage cuts have become increasingly prevalent—a sign of the sacrifices that some workers are making to keep their employers afloat and preserve their jobs. Businesses are also cutting prices and profit margins to boost sales..... With unemployment already substantial and likely to rise further, the downward pressure on wages and prices should continue and could intensify....
If the economy fails to recover soon, it is conceivable that this very low inflation could turn into outright deflation. Worse still, if deflation were to intensify, we could find ourselves in a devastating spiral in which prices fall at an ever-faster pace and economic activity sinks more and more."
"Falling prices." "Deflation." "Devastating spiral." That's not the kind of honesty that one expects from a Fed chief. Yellen must not be drinking the lemonade.
And don't forget the banking system is still broken. Not a dime from the $700 billion TARP bailout was used to purchase toxic assets. The banks are still drowning in red ink. . Bernanke has known since last September when Lehman Bros. defaulted, that the bad assets would have to be removed before the economy could recover. An underwater banking system is a constant drain on public resources and a drag on growth. Bernanke knows this, but rather than remove the assets by nationalizing the banks or restructuring their debt (as he should have done) he expanded the Fed's balance sheet by $1.2 trillion which provided the liquidity that financial institutions pumped into the stock market. "Bernanke's Rally" has generated the capital the banks needed to keep them from writing-down their debts or filing for Chapter 11, but the problems still persist right below the surface. Just this week, Elizabeth Warren's Congressional Oversight Panel released a damning report which stressed the need to address the issue of toxic assets. According to the COP's report:
"Financial stability remains at risk if the underlying problem of toxic assets remains unresolved....
If the economy worsens, especially if unemployment remains elevated or if the commercial real estate market collapses, then defaults will rise and the troubled assets will continue to deteriorate in value. Banks will incur further losses on their troubled assets. The financial system will remain vulnerable to the crisis conditions that TARP was meant to fix....
Changing accounting standards helped the banks temporarily by allowing them greater leeway in describing their assets, but it did not change the underlying problem. In order to advance a full recovery in the economy, there must be greater transparency, accountability, and clarity, from both the government and banks, about the scope of the troubled asset problem.
The problem of troubled assets is especially serious for the balance sheets of small banks. Small banks‘ troubled assets are generally whole loans, but Treasury‘s main program for removing troubled assets from banks‘ balance sheets, the PPIP will at present address only troubled mortgage securities and not whole loans.
Given the ongoing uncertainty, vigilance is essential. If conditions exceed those in the worst case scenario of the recent stress tests, then stress-testing of the nation‘s largest banks should be repeated to evaluate what would happen if troubled assets suffered additional losses."
To sum up: There will be NO real recovery until the toxic assets problem is resolved. Unfortunately, the Treasury and Fed have shown that they intend to sweep this issue under the rug for as long as possible.
Toxic assets, falling home prices, widespread malaise in the credit markets are just part of the problem. The deeper issue is the dismal condition of the US consumer who has seen his home equity dissipate, his retirement funds sawed in half,his access to credit curtailed, and his job put at risk. Ordinary working class Americans now face what David Rosenberg calls, "the era of consumer frugality---new paradigm of savings, asset liquidation and debt repayment ." Life styles will have to be toned-down and living standards lowered to meet the new deflationary reality. More and more people will be forced to jettison their credit cards and live within their means.
It's not the end of the world, but it does foreshadow a protracted period of negative growth, social unrest and persistent high unemployment. Here's how the Wall Street journal sums it up: "A surprisingly large number of money managers and economists are warning that, despite the hopeful signs, the economy is still deep in the woods, not strong enough to support a long-running stock and bond recovery....Even after the recession ends, economists expect the gradual reduction of the nation's massive consumer debt to take years.
The debt data are striking. According to the Federal Reserve, total household indebtedness peaked at the end of 2007 at 132% of disposable income. That was by far the highest level since at least the end of World War II, nearly quadruple the 36% of 1952. By the end of March, with families boosting savings, repaying debt and defaulting, the ratio had fallen to 124%, a tad lower but still miles from the level of, say, 69% in the middle of 1985. Consumer spending today accounts for two-thirds or more of economic output. But as they boost savings and cut borrowing, consumers can't be the drivers of economic growth that they were at the end of other recent recessions.
Consumer borrowing fell in June for the fifth consecutive month....
"Consumers are under significant financial pressure," Goldman notes in its report. "The weakness in household income -- partly resulting from the sharp slowdown in hourly wage growth -- will make it harder to raise saving without significant constraints on consumption."
As for home building and capital spending, two other possible growth motors, "we do not expect a 'traditional' rebound in these sectors, largely because the overhang of unused capacity in both the housing and business sectors remains enormous," Goldman said." ("Debt Burden to Weigh on Stocks", E.S. Browning and Annelena Lobb, Wall Street Journal)
Stock market euphoria can last a long time, but the laws of gravity still apply. The economy is in deep, deep trouble and Bernanke knows it or he'd be raising rates right now. The patient is haemorrhaging my friends, and no amount of happy talk is going to stop the bleeding. |
Published on Thursday, August 13, 2009 by Newsday
Time to Do Something About 'Too-Big-to-Fail' Banks
by Nomi Prins
A Wall Street Journal survey this week found that a majority of economists back the idea of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke sticking around for another term. Their support hinges on the belief that Bernanke averted a larger economic catastrophe with his actions last fall.
Indeed, last month, Bernanke extolled the Fed's aptitude in handling the financial crisis during a town-hall meeting with PBS' Jim Lehrer, claiming that the Fed had no choice but to save the banks in the manner it employed.
He avoided pointing out the $8 trillion in subsidies and guarantees the Fed bestowed on the industry to keep it functioning. And he neglected to mention that before and during this financial crisis, the Fed blessed big-time mergers that consolidated financial control into the banks our government now deems "too big to fail." Greater concentration in fewer, bigger banks means consumers have less choice, and taxpayers have more risk.
Meanwhile, the nation's antitrust czar, Christine Varney, has been addressing antitrust-violation complaints for a variety of industries -- railroad, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, technology and even dairy. But not the banking sector.
This is a colossal oversight; a poor decision by Google won't bring down the economy. Quite the opposite is true of the risk-laden, federally subsidized megabanks.
According to FDIC data, banking concentration has increased substantially this decade. In 2000, the nation's top five banks had a 25 percent share of all commercial bank deposits and a 29 percent share of total assets. Early this year it was nearly 50 percent and 40 percent.
Those numbers, while alarming, don't hit up against antitrust barriers. "Banks may not be too big by traditional antitrust laws, but the failure of one could bring down the economy. So we need to bring about much stricter antitrust standards than we would for say, ballpoint pen manufacturers," says law professor Robert Lande, co-founder of the American Antitrust Institute.
The FDIC established that no bank could hold more than 10 percent of total deposits in the country. But after the Fed blessed more mergers last fall, the nation's three largest banks - Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo - are now at or above that limit. So far there have been no consequences for the breach.
According to Gary Dymski, a professor of economics at the University of California in Sacramento, "The danger going forward is that the very largest banks, which have taken on virtually all the off-balance-sheet risks, regard the recent bailout and its aftermath as giving them a green light to resume business as usual."
In the wake of the Great Depression, the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act was passed to separate commercial banks, which deal with the public, from investment banks, whose profits come from speculation. The idea was to keep the public and government safe from speculators. But, the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed Glass-Steagall, permitting commercial banks to buy investment banks and insurance companies, and leading to mega mergers from the late 1990s through 2006. The leading financial firms created during that period have received the most in federal bailout money.
Although no one in Washington likes being held captive by entities that are "too big to fail," neither has anyone openly pushed to do something about it. The Fed's track record is to approve big banks becoming bigger. The antitrust czar doesn't have the power to question Wall Street's moves. And there is no congressional movement - nor any on the part of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner or President Barack Obama -- to render banks smaller.
Congress must summon the guts to reinstate Glass-Steagall. A new version of this act could ensure that commercial banks that serve the public remain focused on consumer-oriented business, and prevent investment banks from using federal capital to speculate. We must also reform century-old antitrust laws to reflect the outsize danger of banks failing, and ratchet down their concentration.
Because when big banks fail, it's the public who pays.
The Second Wave of The Depression: Hyperinflation is Likely
By Webster Tarpley |
Global Research, August 17, 2009 |
The Rock Creek Free Press - 2009-07-15 |
The second wave of the world economic depression is coming soon. Larry Summers, the economics czar of the Wall Street puppet regime currently in power in Washington, recently confessed to the Financial Times in an unguarded moment: "I don't think the worst is over .." A few weeks earlier, Jacques Attali, who served in the 1980s as the main economics adviser to French President Mitterrand, told an audience at the International Economic and Financial Forum (FIEF) in Paris that the world might well soon face a planetary Weimar "in the form of a hyperinflationary depression similar to the German events of 1922 - 1923.
During the last world economic depression, the first wave came in the form of the famous New York Stock market crash of October 1929. But this was only the beginning, and hardly the main event. The world depression of the 1930s was made irreversible by the British bankruptcy of September 1931, when the Bank of England ceased gold payment. At that time, the vast majority of international trade was financed by pounds sterling bills of exchange drawn on London. When the British Pound began to float through a series of competitive devaluations, the lack of a stable reserve currency - and not the US Hawley-Smoot tariff - strangled world trade, thus making that depression as severe as it was. British default in turn undermined the US banking system, setting the stage for the banking panic which ravaged the United States in 1932 and 1933, to the point that not a single bank in the country was still operating by the time Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed the presidency in March of 1933. The United States would almost certainly have been lashed by additional waves of depression had it not been for the banking triage implemented by the Roosevelt administration during the bank holiday, and for other New Deal measures which succeeded in mitigating the Depression. Other countries, notably Germany, went into a permanent depression which was expressed in a series of military campaigns which aimed at the economic looting of the other countries of Europe. Whatever the ideological fanatics of the discredited Austria and Chicago schools of economic analysis may claim, there is no automatic business cycle capable of lifting the modern world out of serious economic disintegration. The depression will end when adequate New Deal style policies are implemented, and not before, as I show in my new book, the second edition of Surviving the Cataclysm.
TODAY: BETWEEN 1929 AND 1931
Today, therefore, we are, so to speak, in the trough between the October 1929 wave (which corresponds to the derivatives crisis and banking panic of 2008) and the September 1931 wave, which this time around is highly likely to take the form of a hyperinflationary dollar crisis, or in other words a hyper stagflation and depression of the world economy radiating out from Wall Street and the City of London. What then might be the leading characteristics of the next wave of the current world economic breakdown crisis?
The next wave is likely to involve a worldwide dollar panic. Using ballpark figures, we can say that there are about $4 to $5 trillion sloshing around the world in the form of hot money, US Treasury securities, Euro dollars, and various forms of zeno-dollars. Japan has about a trillion, China almost $2 trillion, and so forth. It is naturally very unwise for a developing country like China to hold so many dollars rather than using them to purchase needed infrastructure and capital goods, and the Chinese leaders are now very uncomfortable with their own foolish decision, which was of course taken under heavy US pressure. But the point is that this $4.5 trillion overhang is by its very nature exceedingly unstable. Every country that holds large sums of dollars or US Treasury bonds is nervously eyeing every other such country to see if they show signs of bolting for the exit. Up to now, so far as we know, no large holder of dollars has attempted to reduce its exposure to the battered greenback by dumping these dollars on the international market. If anyone did so, it would cause a true universal financial panic which would create chaos and mayhem not just in the United States and Great Britain, but in the vast areas of the rest of the world as well. This is concretely how hyperinflation could now very well arise: if one or more US creditor nations attempts to abruptly lighten up on dollars, the value of the US currency could undergo a catastrophic collapse, and that would spell runaway hyperinflation on the US domestic front.
World Dollar Panic Imminent?
We need to recall that the value of a modern currency is not determined inside the country, but rather on the international foreign exchange markets. This is where the fatal vulnerability of the US dollar is located. In the ruined form of the Bretton Woods system which has prevailed for almost 40 years since Nixon's colossal historical vandalism of August 15, 1971, the US has emerged as the only country with a permanent license to finance imports by simply printing more of its own currency and sending those banknotes overseas. Every other country has to manufacture and export something that others want to buy in order to earn the necessary foreign exchange to pay for its own imports. The US license to print has made this country the buyer of last resort and the dumping ground for the unsold junk of the world, leading in the process to high permanent unemployment here. There are many signs that this inherently unworkable arrangement has now reached the breaking point.
International Currency Relations, Not Money Supply, Are The Key
Ms. Ellen Brown, who apparently supports the doctrines of the social credit movement of the 1930s, has recently argued that deflation is now on the agenda, and that hyperinflation can be ruled out. She bases this analysis on the fact that the private credit markets in this country have largely collapsed, and on the contention that the M1 and M2 money parameters have either declined or increased only slightly. But all of this is beside the point. The Federal Reserve and the Treasury have so far provided almost $13 trillion of new loans to banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, and other purely financial institutions.
This is being done in an effort to bailout the $1.5 quadrillion world derivatives bubble, of which something like two-thirds or more, meaning one quadrillion dollars, can be located inside the dollar zone. The world depression started when this derivatives bubble went into reverse leverage, meaning that super losses instead of super profits were generated at the apex of the speculative pyramid, as seen in the case of the $3 trillion AIG hedge fund located in London. The Obama regime is engaged in an hysterical attempt to restart derivatives production in the form of securitization, i.e. the creation of more and better asset backed securities derivatives. At the same time, the Obama regime has cynically and deliberately driven the Detroit automakers into bankruptcy, destroying hundreds of thousands of the few remaining industrial jobs here in the United States.
This means that US industrial production continues in drastic decline. The mere mention of production reminds us that the assorted Austrian, Chicago, and social credit schools are predominantly or exclusively concerned with money and banking, and pay little or no attention to industrial, agricultural, and infrastructural production, meaning of course that they neglect the creation of those tangible physical use values, capital goods, and related forms of real wealth upon which human existence depends. With bailouts increasing and all forms of commodity production declining, we have the classic situation of far too much money chasing too few goods. Internal pressure towards hyperinflation comes from the fact that the bailout and public debt lending, on top of the bloated, fictitious, and exponentially growing mass of kited derivatives, are all charges which must be added to the prices of commodity production.
Add this to the more important factor of looming dollar panic in the international exchanges, and the preponderance of the evidence points towards hyperinflation. "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke got his name from his famous recipe of throwing bales of dollars out of helicopters onto the lawns of bankers to stimulate the economy out of a depression, and this reminds us that the profile of the Anglo-American financial leadership from Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, and Mervyn King to Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke is decidedly hyperinflationary. Ms. Brown's belief that hyperinflation is impossible is therefore mistaken.
The German 1923 hyperinflation was generated internationally, not within Germany, as a campaign of economic warfare by Britain and France against their defeated rival. Germany had signed the Rapallo agreements with Soviet Russia, creating an economic combination which was more than a match for the Anglo-French. To abort the potential of Rapallo by creating chaos in the German economy, the Anglo-French systematically destroyed the value of the German Reichsmark on the international exchanges, taking advantage of the Versailles reparations system and the French occupation of the industrialized Ruhr area. The mark went down every day when the London exchange rate was announced. Today, it is the enormous international dollar overhang which threatens to annihilate the US greenback.
The one way deflation might actually come about is if someone like the self-professed Austrian school ideologue Ron Paul were to take power. Ron Pauls "libertarianism" alternative to Obama's continued bailouts of Wall Street is evidently an immediate deflationary crash, which he asserts will be followed by an automatic recovery. Ron Paul is a modern representative of the so-called liquidationist school to which 1920s Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon belonged. Mellon demanded the liquidation of stocks, bonds, real estate, and labor. German Chancellor Heinrich Brüning, another liquidationist, savagely cut German unemployment benefits (Ron Paul's "nanny state") at the height of the Depression, helping to bring on the debacle of January 1933. Liquidationists tend to be people who have money and who believe they will continue to have money even after an all-out crash, when they will be able to buy up distressed assets and desperate unemployed workers for rock-bottom prices and cash in. But liquidationism obviously cannot be a solution to depression of the entire society.
The recent meetings of the leaders of the expanded G-8 countries in L'Aquila, Italy were marked by a growing awareness that the US dollar, because of the criminally irresponsible policies of the Wall Street financiers who have dominated the Bush and Obama administrations, can no longer play the role of the single world reserve currency. Russian President Medvedev showed off a sort of future world coin to try to prod the Obama regime in the direction of serious world monetary reform, which is of course the urgent task before everyone.
Naturally, finance oligarchs like Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke want to continue to play the role of world currency dictators, and not be forced to negotiate the end of Anglo-American hegemonism. The world needs to go toward a new pro-growth world monetary system in which the euro, the yen, the dollar, the ruble, the Chinese yuan, a possible Latin American monetary unit, and a possible Arab monetary unit would all be included. It will be important to make the transition toward such a new system as orderly as possible, since a catastrophic collapse of the dollar in the short term would be to no one's advantage, and would rather represent a sure path to universal ruin. World economic growth rates under the 1944 to 1971 Bretton Woods system were the highest in recorded history before or since. This was accomplished through statism and dirigism in the form of narrow bands of isolation among the currencies, combined with gold settlements of surpluses and deficits among the nations, which provided an indispensable reality principle to restrain the hyperinflationary tendencies of the Anglo-Americans. The new world monetary system should include the abolition of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in their current forms, since these institutions have strangled the economic progress of the developing sector. Rather, the goal of the new monetary system should be to restart the export of high technology capital goods of the most modern type from Europe, Japan, and the United States toward the impoverished countries of Africa, South Asia, and certain parts of Latin America.
The Federal Government Should Stop Borrowing And Start Lending
Here in the United States, we need to wipe out the derivatives bubble with the help of a 1% Tobin tax or securities transfer tax, on all speculative financial transactions, including futures, options, stocks, bonds, commodities, foreign exchange, and so forth. A California Tobin tax would solve the state budget crisis. The top 16 Wall Street banks are zombie institutions that need to be seized and liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy at once, with all of their derivatives going into the shredder. Foreclosures on homes, farms, and businesses should be banned outright for five years or for the duration of the depression, which ever lasts longer. To provide a credit supply, the Federal Reserve should be seized and nationalized, and used as a vehicle to issue 0% Federal credit for productive activities only, not for speculation.
To revive credit demand, state and local governments could then take out 0% Federal loans for such long overdue projects as the construction of 1,000 hospitals, the building of 50,000 miles of modern maglev rail systems, and 100 fourth-generation, high temperature, pebble bed nuclear reactors, plus the rebuilding of water systems and the interstate highway network. Idled auto plants should be reconverted for these purposes. Science drivers in the fields of space exploration and colonization, high energy physics, and biomedical research should also be fully funded in this way to provide technological modernization.
The social safety net needs to be expanded and developed, with larger Social Security pensions for a generation whose 401(k)s and IRAs have been largely destroyed, along with increased Medicare and Medicaid benefits for those whose insurance companies are insolvent, like AIG and The Hartford, which have been devastated by derivatives speculation. These are quite simply the requirements for the maintenance of human civilization in this part of the world. Until measures like these are carried out, the United States and the world will continue to sink deeper into the bottomless pit of economic depression.
Webster Tarpley is an economic historian, radio host and author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Obama, The Postmodern Coup and Surviving The Cataclysm and other books. |
Why Corporations, Emerging Powers and Petro-States Are Snapping Up Huge Chunks of Farmland in the Developing World
By Scott Thill, AlterNet
Posted on August 11, 2009, Printed on August 11, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/141734/
Stop me if you think you've heard this one before:
Investment banks, sovereign wealth funds and other barely regulated financial entities in search of fat paydays go on buying binges structurally adjusted to maximize their earnings reports and employee bonuses, while simultaneously screwing their business associates and everyone else in the process. It's all done in near-total secrecy, and by the time everyone finds out about it, they're already in the poorhouse.
That's more or less the playbook for the derivatives and credit-default swaps gold rush that ruined the global economy, which cratered in 2007 and has yet to recuperate.
The bubble money has now moved on from housing and turned to the commodities markets, especially global food production. Given what that money did to the housing market, things don't look good for local communities whose land is being bought up by governments, sovereign wealth and hedge funds, and other investors on the hunt for real value in a hyperreal economy.
Entrenched and developing economic powers -- the U.K., China, South Korea, India and more -- have launched land rushes to outsource production of everything from staples like rice, wheat, corn and sugar to finance bubbles like biofuels. That includes oil-wealthy Gulf States, which recently feasted on commodities speculation that exploded oil prices in 2008.
The hard numbers are alarming: According to the Guardian, in the last six months over 20 million hectares (around 50 million acres) of arable land, mostly in Africa and Southeast Asia, have been sold or negotiated for sale or lease. That's about half the size of all arable land in Europe, or the size of entire U.S. states North Dakota or Oklahoma.
The aptly titled report, " 'Land Grabbing' by Foreign Investors in Developing Countries," from the International Food Policy Research Institute, which declined to be interviewed for this article, explains that "details about the status of the deals, the size of land purchased or leased, and the amount invested are often still murky."
It's no wonder: The economic valuation of land and water has increased in concurrence with both price commodities and the ravages of climate change, whose droughts, wildfires and other extreme environmental events are quickly shrinking what's left of the planet's arable land and clean water.
That exponential process will only be intensified by the biofuels some of these lands will be used to grow, which is a particularly shameless insult. Rather than use the 2.8 million hectares China bought from the Congo -- or the tens of thousands of hectares the U.K. bought from Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania, and so on -- to feed the hungry, those investor nations will use them to grow food for our cars. What biofuels will do is make a few outsider nations very rich at the expense of a great many locals who could use the land to feed themselves.
But don't call it a land grab, cautioned Rodney Cooke, technical advisory division director of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), who, along with the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), also declined to comment on this article, commissioned a study from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) to analyze the disturbing trend. "I would avoid the blanket term 'land-grabbing,' " Cooke said. "Done the right way, these deals can bring benefits for all parties and be a tool for development."
Keep dreaming, argued Patrick Woodall, research director for Food and Water Watch.
"These investments are effectively land grabs for a number of reasons," he told AlterNetby phone. "They're going to be used to grow crops for exports. They're taking arable land out of the domestic food supply. Most of these deals are totally secret, and there are no standards of access to public information. We're also concerned about places with weak legal systems, where farmers and pastoralists won't even know these lands are being sold from beneath them. Some don't even have formal land-titling systems, so this is going to push people off the land and take away their access to food."
It already has, said the FAO's Trade and Market division representative David Hallam, using the kind of maddening opacity made legendary by economists and other hedging professionals.
"There are economic, political, social and ethical concerns surrounding these investments. The record of foreign direct investment in agriculture over the years does, unfortunately, suggest that many of those concerns are well-founded. A review of the literature on the impacts of foreign direct investment in agriculture leaves us with some unease, and at least not a conviction that there are definitely positive effects to be had."
Of course, these diluted revelations didn't stop Hallam from blaming the host countries for its investment partners' shock-doctrine policies. "Most of the onus of actions to attract investment and to make sure it meets the requirements of developing countries," he concluded in a speech to the Woodrow Wilson Institute, "falls very much on the developing countries, on the host countries rather than the investing countries. It's not so much to say no to these investments perhaps, but rather to make sure that the policy and legislative framework is in place to maximize the benefits and minimize the risk."
"That's obviously misguided policy prescription," Woodall countered. "The local leadership are usually not interested in cutting good deals for the people who are actually living on the land, so these questions should be dealt with openly. But that is just not always the case. There's no reason to expect the investment houses that have brought down the global economy to treat countries in the developing world fairly."
But all of this is prologue. This type of opportunist land-grabbing is not new, nor has itsrecent escalation gone unnoticed by those with a healthy sense of reality. Ever since the housing bubble popped under the weight of political corruption, financial crime and environmental destabilization, the smart money had its eye firmly on more earthbound commodities.
The serious questions worth asking arise after the ink has dried on its secretive contracts: What happens when global warming really takes hold and starving locals get tired of watching their homegrown food and fuel leave their borders? Whose army will enforce these contracts, once they are rendered moot by uprisings and internecine warfare?
The answer is: the same thing that's happening already, just on a much, much larger scale.
"This is already causing a lot of political upheaval," Woodall said. "The government ofMadagascar fell recently because of public fury over of a land deal with South Korea's Daewoo Logistics," which would have given the investor over a million hectares, roughly half the size of Belgium, for literally nothing. "China's deal with the Philippines also got scotched because of resistance. The problem is that most people don't know these deals exist."
"We are not against the idea of working with investors," Madagascar's new president Andry Rajoelina explained, after being installed by the military and a constitutional court months after violent protests chased his predecessor, Marc Ravalomanana, out of Iavoloha Palace to an undisclosed location. "But if we want to sell or rent out land, we have to change the constitution, you have to consult the people."
Involving people, especially the poor, in deals that sell arable land from underneath them just isn't in the investment playbook. After all, even the $700 billion doled out by ex-U.S. Treasury Secretary and ex-Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson is practically impossible to track, on purpose. And that's America handing out American money to American banks.
So what cutthroat land-grabber in his or her right mind, which is focused like a laser on maximum profit by any means necessary, is going to clue in a bunch of poor farmers, who already have little recourse, to food-rush schemes designed to lock down production and pricing for richer countries half a world away?
For its part, the FAO believes that some kind of binding global code of conduct is a possible solution, but it admits that such a possibility is closer to fantasy than reality.
"Its enforcement is likely to be problematic," the FAO said in a somewhat laughable policy brief called 'From Land Grab to Win-Win.' "It might nevertheless offer a framework to which national regulations could refer, especially if parties realize that compliance with common standards is in their mutual self interest."
But it never is, which is why these deals are made in the first place. To be brutally honest, mutual interest is the opposite of what investor countries are looking for, which is a one-sided interest arrangement in which already-rich nations and investors, lost in a haze of wasteful consumption and economic and political corruption, hopscotch the world in search of naive hosts to feed upon. And whether it is rice or sugar cane or palm oil or other fuels for their bloated bodies or cars, they are not invested, literally, in the health and well-being of those hosts. They are survivalists in the purest sense, and survivors just don't share when they can hoard.
"Investors are looking at this as scarce land and water in a world of increasing scarcity," Woodall argued, "which is one reason they are pursuing it so actively. They're bringing the plantation mentality to the 21st century and driving people off their land. This is crazy stuff. If the deals that people know about are as big as North Dakota, what does that say about the deals they don't know about?"
Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.
Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com)
Decline and Fall Of America: JPMorgan Fleeces Alabama Hicks With 'Shit Bonds,' National Guard Called In
by Mark Ames
Created Aug 10 2009 - 10:54am
America’s collapse into a Third World banana republic is accelerating: Alabama’s most populous county, Jefferson County, is so broke it’s closing down courthouses and laying off so many cops that it’s now planning to call in the National Guard [1] to maintain order:
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – The sheriff in Alabama’s most populous county may call for the National Guard to help maintain order, a spokesman said Tuesday, after a judge cleared the way for cuts in the sheriff’s budget and hopes dimmed for a quick end to a budget crisis.
It’s all too fitting that the county is going broke because it can’t pay the $3.2 billion in sewer bonds that the county borrowed, on bad advice from what’s now the biggest bailed-out bank in the land. They sold Americans shit, and now Jefferson County is literally eating that shit.
The reason why the county is broke is because it took the advice of the same Wall Street villains who later bankrupted America. In this case, JPMorgan Chase, which was hired by the county to act as advisor, and wound up not only giving the worst advice imaginable, pawning toxic assets onto the gullible hicks, but also charging them six times the normal bank fees–that’s right, JPMorgan charged the county six times the going rate for advice that ruined the county, according to Bloomberg [2]:
The county relied on advice from a bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co. [3], to arrange its funding, rather than use competitive bidding.
The county paid banks $120 million in fees — six times the prevailing rate — for $5.8 billion in interest-rate swaps. That was supposed to protect the county from rising rates for their bonds. Lending rates went the wrong way, putting the county $277 million deeper into debt.
That means local officials now have to pay to banks money that otherwise might have been used to build schools, hospitals or public housing.
Why would a county do something that stupid, buying up toxic assets for 6 times the price? The answer is so obvious that the SEC and FBI even made a show of investigating, but the only thing that’s come of the investigation so far is that taxpayers were forced to bail out the Wall Street thieves who tricked them, while leaving citizens to fuck off and die:
“It’s ironic that the Fed can do corporate welfare for the banks, but they can’t bail out a county that was victimized by these banks,” says Craig Greer, a Catholic chaplain at a Birmingham hospice.
The SEC and Justice Department are probing whether the banks that financed Jefferson County conspired nationwide to fix prices for derivatives, violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, according to target letters sent to bank employees.
That was a year ago. By May of this year, the SEC was still making its empty threats, but by then it had already given Bank of America, which sold similar bullshit swaps to sucker-counties around the country, complete amnesty [4]:
Bank of America was granted amnesty by the Justice Department for its cooperation in the national antitrust probe. In exchange for voluntarily providing information and offering continuing cooperation, the federal government agreed not to bring criminal charges against the bank.
Brian Marchiony [5], a JPMorgan spokesman, declined to comment. The company said in yesterday’s filing that it is “engaged in discussions” with the SEC to reach a resolution before the agency files a civil complaint.
SEC spokesman John Heine [6] declined to comment and Jefferson County Commissioner Jim Carns [7] said he was unaware of any SEC moves against JPMorgan.
Right, so all BofA had to do was agree to snitch on everyone else–which is about as much a concession as telling a tapeworm that if it wants to continue thriving, it’s going to have to continue sucking on someone’s intestinal walls…or else!
Meanwhile, the gullible hicks are suffering–just like the whole country–while the Wall Street plutocrats laugh all the way to the taxpayer-subsidized bank. Sewage and water bills in the county were so high last year that some people had to choose between heat and water [8]:
As nighttime temperatures plunged in Birmingham, Alabama, last October, Dora Bonner had a choice: either pay the gas bill so she could heat the home she shares with four grandchildren, or send the Birmingham Water Works a $250 check for her water and sewer bill.
Bonner, who is 73 and lives on Social Security, decided to keep the house from freezing.
'I couldn’t afford the water, so they shut it off,” she says.
Bonner’s sewer bills have risen more than fourfold in the past decade. So have those of others in Jefferson County, which has 659,000 residents and includes Birmingham, the state’s largest city.
So there you have it: life in the banana republic of norteamerica. The banks fleece the peasantry, and when they’ve been picked clean and can’t pay another red peso, the federal government calls in la guardia nacional to keep order. It’s a good thing–from the oligarchy’s view, that is–that the suckers only response is to crash townhall meetings demanding that they not be given free health care, while spending all their unemployed time searching for holes in Obama’s birth certificate rather than the holes in their own wallets.
Americans are the only idiots in the world who take an old-fashioned ass-rape without even putting up a fight.
For more on Alabama read: Alabama Shootings: Just Another Battle In America’s Thirty Years’ Class War [9]and Murder Mystery Solved: The Shocking Story of How A Chicken-Slaughtering Billionaire Plundered Rural America [10].
Published on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Can We Stop Banksters From Killing Financial Reform?
Why Wall Street Is Pleased by the Focus on Debating Healthcare
by Danny Schechter
The thermometer is in the red as the heat of August blends into the steam of the health care fight. These two hot subjects seem to be fogging up TV screens during these dog days as the righteous right take up the tactics of the militant left to create the impression that healthcare reform is a commie plot. For his part, President Obama insists a bill will pass and that “sensible proposals” will prevail.
What is sensible these days?
You can count on that gruesome threesome—Bill, Glenn and Sean—to go ballistic whenever it appears that our government is going to do anything beneficial for the people. There’s always a million reasons why it won’t work, or worse, sink the Republic. Rush Limbaugh alternates between arguing that President Obama is a racist, a communist or a Nazi.
George Orwell would be staggered about how prophetic he had been.
These summer soldiers and sunshine patriots and their teabaggers and the dispatch a mob they’ve incited to yell at members of Congress are strangely silent when it comes to questioning profiteering by healthcare insurers and the banks. It is as if the only enemies are in Washington, not on Wall Street. They are mostly silent about the bank bonuses and pervasive corporate crime.
If healthcare reform is at risk, financial reform seems like a non-starter. The empire is striking back, and suddenly what were once considered modest reforms are running into roadblocks as they are branded the work of Bolsheviks.
On the issue of bonuses—the one financial matter that seems to piss off the public the most—in 2007, banks gave out bonuses worth a staggering $1.6 BILLION—there is now a debate about allowing bonus guarantees. These were once tied to performance but even that criteria is being watered down.
The New York Times tells us, “A guaranteed bonus might strike many people as a contradiction in terms. But on Wall Street, banks have become so eager to lure and keep top deal makers and traders that they are reviving the practice of offering ironclad, multimillion-dollar payouts—guaranteed, no matter how an employee performs.”
Not a bad job if you can get one—you can get a bonus even if you do lousy. This debate led the newspaper of record to observe: “The resurgence of bonus guarantees underscores just how difficult it is to control Wall Street pay, despite the public outcry over how taxpayer money is being spent.”
But is worse than that, much worse. I had to go to Canada to find a more comprehensive press report on how the fraud factories are winning the battle against new regulation.
David Olive writes in the Toronto Star, “You would think after global financiers triggered the current, unprecedented worldwide recession and credit crisis, they might embrace inevitable reforms that their reckless conduct made necessary. You would be disappointed.”
And that’s an understatement. (or to quote Ellen Brown, “its an understatement to call it an understatement,”) Olive tells us that the banks, having bought up much of the Congress, now feel emboldened enough to tell the reformers to shove it:
For the financiers, to their dishonor, have not so much as tendered an apology for their craven, mass departure from prudence, or what Barney Frank, the Democrat representative for Massachusetts, labels their "moral deficiency."
Instead, the financiers and their powerful lobby groups are resisting any new legislated constraints on the behavior by which they nearly brought themselves and the global economy to ruin. Adding insult to injury, banks have jacked up credit card rates to 27 per cent and more on the same Main Street taxpayers who rescued them.
Every day brings more news of their arrogance and avarice.
The Financial Times reports: “US banks stand to collect a record $38.5 BILLION in fees for customer overdrafts this year, with the bulk of the revenue coming from the most financially stretched consumers amid the deepest recession since the 1930s...The fees are nearly double those reported in 2000...
“The Federal Reserve is working on rules on overdraft fees, and rules on customer charges could be a priority of the Obama administration’s proposed Consumer Protection Agency if approved by Congress.”
No wonder the banks want to kill the proposed agency.
Bear in mind, this crisis did not happen by accident or just by some mistakes. It was not an accident argues the The Bond Tangent Blog (Via Baseline Scenario):
Financial institutions did not amass trillions of dollars of toxic assets and tangle themselves up in a destructive web of credit derivatives by accident. Financial institutions did not produce and maintain technology allowing them to take advantage of traditional investors by accident. A thief was not able to operate a multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme for decades by accident. We are not talking about the occasional rogue trader here who has bribed his compliance officer. Even within the existing regulatory architecture, these activities required a considerable amount of complacency (to be polite) by financial regulators across agencies, over the course of many years, and through many cycles of political appointees from both parties.
Was it complacency or more like complicity? Nothing is likely to change unless there is pressure from below. And that pressure is not going to come from the right.
So where should it come from?
As for the cost of inaction: Obama spoke to that on July 22: “If we don't pass financial regulatory reform, the banks are going to go back to the same things they were doing before," he said. "In some ways it could be worse, because now they know that the federal government may think they're too big to fail. And so if they're unconstrained (by stricter regulations) they could take even more risks."
Write that down. Put it in a bottle or a time capsule, text it as a memo to yourself on your iPhone and twitter your followers. If the banksters are not brought to heel, we will have survived this crisis only until the next one erupts.
Mediachannel's NewsDissector Danny Schechter is finishing "The Crime of Our Time," a film and book on Wall Street Fraud. (newsdissector.com/plunder .) Comments to dissector@mediachannel,org
Bankrupt US Financial System: The Bubble Bursts and the Economy goes into a Tailspin.
By Mike Whitney |
Global Research, August 8, 2009 |
The World needs a breather from the US. And they'll get it sooner than many think
We're making this way too complicated. It's simple really.
The Fed has only one tool at its disposal; to create more money. Typically, the way the Fed adds to the money supply is by lowering interest rates. When the Fed lowers rates below the rate of inflation; they're basically selling dollars for under a buck. That's a good deal, so, naturally, speculators jump on it and trigger a credit expansion. What follows is a frenzy of market activity that ends in a housing, credit, tech or equity bubble. Eventually, the bubble bursts and the economy goes into a tailspin. Then, after a period of digging-out, the process resumes again. Wash, rinse, repeat. It's always the same. The moral is: Cheap money creates bubbles; and bubbles move wealth from workers to rich motherporkers. It's as simple as that. That's why the wealth gap is wider now than anytime since the Gilded Age. The rich own everything.
The Federal Reserve is the policy arm of the big banks and brokerage houses. Period. Ostensibly, its mandate is to maintain "price stability and full employment". Right. Anyone notice how many jobs the Fed has created lately? How about the dollar? Is it really supposed to zig-zag like it has been for the last decade? The central task of the Fed is to shift wealth from one class to another. And it succeeds at that task admirably. The Fed's "mandate" is public relations claptrap. Bernanke hasn't lifted a finger for homeowners, consumers or ordinary working stiffs. "Yer on yer own. Just don't expect a handout. That's socialism!" All the doe is flowing upwards...according to plan. The Fed is a social engineering agency designed to serve as the de facto government behind the smokescreen of democratic institutions. Did you really think a black, two year senator with no background in foreign policy or economics was calling the shots?
Puh-leeese! Obama is a public relations invention who's used to cut ribbons, console the unemployed, and convince Americans they live in a "post racial" society. Right. (Just take a look at the footage from Katrina again) The Fed has complete control over monetary policy and, thus, the country's economic future. Bernanke doesn't even pretend to defer to Congress anymore. Why bother? After Lehman caved in, Bernanke invoked the "unusual and exigent" clause in the Fed's charter and declared himself czar. Now he has absolute power over the nation's purse-strings.
The $13 trillion the Fed has committed to the financial system since the beginning of the crisis --via loans and outright purchases of mortgage-backed garbage and US sovereign debt--was never authorized by Congress. In fact, the Fed stubbornly refuses to even identify which institutions got the "loans", how much the loans were worth, what kind of collateral was accepted for the loans, or when the loans have to be repaid.
In truth, the loans are not loans at all, but gifts to the industry to keep asset prices artificially high so that the entire financial system does not come crashing down. Check this out:
"In an analysis written by economist Gary Gorton for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s 2009 Financial Markets Conference titled, "Slapped in the Face by the Invisible Hand; Banking and the Panic of 2007", the author shows that mortgage-related securities ballooned from $492.6 billion in 1996 to $3,071.1 in 2003, while asset backed securities (ABS) jumped from $168.4 billion in 1996 to $1,253.1 in 2006. All told, more than $20 trillion in securitized debt was sold between 1997 to 2007. "
$20 trillion! How much of that feces paper--which is worth just pennies on the dollar-- is sitting on the balance sheets of banks and other financial institutions just waiting to blow up as soon as the Fed asks for its money back? And the Fed will never get its money back because the prices of complex securities and derivatives will never regain their pre-crisis values. Why? Because these derivatives are linked to underlying collateral (mortgages) which have already declined 33% from their peak and are headed lower still. Also, these toxic assets were sold as risk-free (many of them were rated triple A) and have now been exposed as extremely risky or fraudulent. Because these assets were heaped together in bundles to strip out their interest rates, they cannot be easily separated which means that they are worth considerably less than the 33% that has been lost on the underlying collateral (mortgages) The securitization markets are not expected to rebound for a decade or more, which means that the Fed will have to find other more-creative way to goose the credit system to avoid a downward spiral.
But how?
Zero percent interest rates haven't worked because qualified borrowers are cutting spending and saving their disposable income, while people who need to borrow, no longer meet the banks' tougher lending standards. Bank credit is shrinking even though excess bank reserves are nearly $900 billion. When banks stop lending, the economy contracts, business activity slows, unemployment soars and growth sputters. Presently, the economy is still contracting, but at a slower pace than before. "Less bad" is the new "good". All the recession indicators are still blinking red--income, employment, sales, and production--all down big! But it doesn't matter because it's a "Green Shoots" rally; plenty of cheap liquidity for the markets and a freeway off-ramp (for sleeping) for the unemployed.
The Fed's lending facilities are designed to pump liquidity into the system and inflate another bubble by generating more debt. Unfortunately, most people accept Bernanke's feeble defense of these corporate-welfare programs and fail to see their real purpose. An example may help to explain how they really work:
Say you bought a house at the peak of the bubble in 2005 and paid $500,000. Then prices dropped 40% (as they have in Calif) and your house is now worth $300,000. If you only put 5% down, ($25,000) then you are underwater by $175,000. Which means that you own more on the mortgage than your house is currently worth. (This is essentially what has happened to the entire financial system. The equity has vaporized, so institutions are using dodgy accounting tricks instead of reporting their real losses.) So Bernanke comes along and gives you $175,000 no interest, rotating loan to you so that no one knows that you are really busted and you can continue spending just as you had before. Not bad, eh? This is what the lending facilities are all about. It is a charade to conceal the fact that a large portion of the nation's financial institutions are insolvent and propped up by state largess.
But there's more, too.
Now that Bernanke has given you $175,000 no interest, rotating loan; you expect that eventually he will ask for his money back. Right? So your only hope of saving your home, in the long run, is to engage in risky behavior, like dabbling the stock market. It's like playing roulette, except you have nothing to lose since you are underwater anyway.
This is exactly what the financial institutions are doing with the Fed's loans. They're betting on equities and hoping they can avoid the Grim Reaper.
Here's how former hedge fund manager Andy Kessler summed it up last week in the Wall Street Journal: "By buying U.S. Treasuries and mortgages to increase the monetary base by $1 trillion, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke didn't put money directly into the stock market but he didn't have to. With nowhere else to go, except maybe commodities, inflows into the stock market have been on a tear. Stock and bond funds saw net inflows of close to $150 billion since January. The dollars he cranked out didn't go into the hard economy, but instead into tradable assets. In other words, Ben Bernanke has been the market." (Andy Kessler, "The Bernanke Market" Wall Street Journal)
Only a small portion of the money that has gone into the stock market in the last 6 months (since the March lows) has come from money markets. The fed's loans are being laundered into stocks via financial institutions that are rolling the dice for their own survival. The uptick in the markets has helped insolvent banks raise equity in the capital markets so they don't have to grovel to Congress for another TARP bailout. Everybody's elated with Bernanke's latest bubble except working people who have seen their wages slashed by 4.5%, their credit lines cut, the home values plunge, and their living standards sink to third world levels. And the Fed's spending-spree is not over yet; not by a long shot. The next wave of home foreclosures (already 1.9 million in the first half of 2009) is just around the corner--the Alt-As, option arms, prime loans. The $3.5 trillion commercial real estate market is capsizing. The under-capitalized banking system will need assistance. And there will have to be another round of fiscal stimulus for ailing consumers. Otherwise, foreign holders of US Treasurys will see that the US can no longer provide 25% of global demand and head for the exits.
Bernanke's back is against the wall. The only thing he can do is print more money, shove it though the back door of the stock exchange and keep his fingers crossed. The rest is up to CNBC and the small army of media cheerleaders.
There is some truth to the theory that Bernanke saved the financial system from a Chernobyl-type meltdown. But that doesn't change the facts. Accounts must be balanced; debts must be paid. The Fed chief has committed $13 trillion to maintain the appearance of solvency. But the system is bankrupt. The commercial paper market, money markets, trillions of dollars of toxic debt instruments, and myriad shyster investment banks and insurance companies are now backed by the "full faith and credit" of the US Treasury. The financial system is now a ward of the state. The "free market" has deteriorated into state capitalism; a centralized system where all the levers of power are controlled by the Central Bank. If Bernanke's Politburo withdraws its loans--or even if he raises interest rates too soon-- the whole system will collapse.
The economy is now balanced on the rickety scaffolding of the dollar. As the Obama stimulus wears off, the rot in the economy will become more apparent. Household red ink is at record highs, so personal consumption will not rebound. That means US assets and US sovereign debt will become less attractive. Foreign capital will flee. The dollar will fall.
The world needs a breather from the US. And they'll get it sooner than many think. |
Inside Story on Town Hall Riots: Right-Wing Shock Troops Do Corporate America’s Dirty Work
Posted on Aug 10, 2009
By Adele M. Stan, AlterNet
The recent spate of town hall dustupsmay look like an overnight sensation, but they’ve been years, even decades, in the making.
Since the days in the late 1970s, when the New Right began its takeover of the Republican Party, it has cultivated a militia of white people armed with a grudge against those who brought forth the social changes of the ‘60s.
These malcontents have been promised their day of retribution, a day for which they are more than ready. Few seem to understand that they are merely dupes for a corporate agenda that will only worsen the conditions in which they live.
Why, you may ask, would men of power and fame shake the rough, unmanicured hands of gun enthusiasts, conspiracy theorists, gay-haters, misogynists and racists?
Because somebody’s got to do the dirty work. Magnates don’t like to soil their French cuffs, and it’s hard for a bunch of rich guys to garner sympathy for threats to their bottom lines. It’s the classic inside-outside game that the right wing of the GOP has played for the last two decades.
The Health-Care Industry Executive
Imagine you’re an executive at a pharmaceutical company. Your U.S. operations are your cash cow; they earn you wild net profits because, unlike in other industrialized nations, you do not experience the price controls of a government-administered program in which the government negotiates for the best price on prescription drugs and devices.
Along comes a government plan for health-insurance reform that includes a public, government-financed plan. The public option, they call it. As part of the plan, you will be required to negotiate with the government for the price of medications and devices to be distributed within the plan.
Now that could really screw up your massive profit margins. Private plans might then insist on prices more like those the government is getting.
Instead of increasing your profit by double digits in the worst year the economy has seen since the Great Depression, as did an outfit called The Medicines Co., your shareholders may have to settle for profits more in line with the overall growth of the economy. And wouldn’t that just stink?
Meanwhile, polls show a clear majority of Americans—you know, regular Americans, the kind who don’t want to own an AK-47, or who do accept the president’s citizenship status—favor the public option. In fact, in June, CBS News found that majority to be 72 percent.
So, whaddaya do? Well, if your lobbying firm counts former Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, as its senior policy adviser, you don’t have do much. Dick will take care of the rest through FreedomWorks, the ostensibly grassroots, nonprofit organization of anti-taxers, cold warriors and affirmative-action opponents, which he chairs.
Need to make it look like regular Americans oppose the health-insurance reform bills now being considered by Congress? Make sure a handful of those angry white peopleturn up at the town hall meetings now being conducted by members of Congress throughout the country. Make sure they disrupt the meeting and rattle the congressperson.
Capture it all on amateur videoand put it up on a faux, amateur-looking Web site, and try to kid the media into thinking there’s a widespread rebellion happening. After all, the media are gonna want that dramatic footage.
The Republican Member of Congress
Now, suppose you’re a Republican member of Congress. Your party got totally throttled in the 2008 election, and if you don’t derail this health care thing, it’s going to be a big win for your Democratic opponents, as millions of underinsured and uninsured Americans finally have some health care coverage—one bright spot in a largely dismal economy.
Meanwhile, you get a lot of your campaign cash from health-care-related industries and from the Wall Street bankers and brokers who want to keep those profits soaring.
A public option is going to stink for you, too. So, while Armey’s army of taxphobes is useful to you, it would be great to get some really hard-core types to further stoke the fires—especially if marshaled by guys who know how to really tar Democrats with racist imagery and slurs of unpatriotic behavior.
That’s where Grassfire.org and its brother networking site, ResistNet, come in. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who promised to make health-care reform President Obama’s "Waterloo," is a big fan. Says so right there on the Grassfire Web site. ResistNet is yet another right-wing hub for organizing the disruption of health-care town hall meetings.
The Media Mogul
Okay, now put on the hat of a media mogul, one who rails againstthe minimal restrictions the U.S. has on multi-outlet ownership, and one for whom the bottom line is everything. In fact, you actually own the Wall Street Journal.
If you can nip this health care thing in the bud, you could stand in the way of a president who wants to rein in Wall Street’s worse excesses and who may depress the profit margins of health-care companies in which your readers invest with his dastardly public option. What’s a mogul to do?
Why not hire a guy known for riling the discontented to host a show on your cable news channel, and empower him as an organizer? Let him create a little project pegged to fear and nationalism—something, say, like 9/11—through which he mobilizes bands of those aggrieved by the fact of a black president to disrupt town hall meetings.
That’s exactly what Rupert Murdoch did when he hired Glenn Beck to host a Fox News Channel show and to put together a little organizing site called The 9-12 Project.
Although Beck’s stated goal is to bring America back to where it was on Sept. 12, 2001—a nation pulled together in the wake of the terrorist attacks the day before—he draws together only those who embrace the goals of the right.
But his project site is shaped like a social-networking tool, and activists in Florida credit the Tampa 9-12 chapter as turning them out to a town hall they helped turn into a ruckus.
Put these three scenarios together, and you have the phenomenon that has become the summer of the town-hall scuff, a heated season of right-wing disruptions of civic fora.
Add to that an oppressed-white-people narrative that has its roots in the origins of what used to be called the New Right, and you have a confluence of interests ready to elevate to prime-time status a disgruntled and paranoid minority with a penchant for misplaced blame.
FreedomWorks and the K Street Lobbyist
In Washington’s K Street corridor, Dick Armey is a very important man—so important, in fact, that he was scooped up, upon his retirement from Congress, by the lobbying firm DLA Piper.
It’s been widely reported that Piper lobbies on behalf of health-care industry interests, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but its top health-care-industry client, according to OpenSecrets.org, is The Medicines Co., a small, below-the-radar firm that has paid Armey’s lobbying firm nearly $2.4 million since the beginning of 2008—nearly 15 percent of DLA Piper’s overall lobbying income for the period.
I called The Medicines Co., requesting an interview with someone on staff who could spell out the company’s position on the pending health care bills, and I got back a rather empty, generic statement via e-mail from the company’s public relations firm, FD:
The Medicines Co., a small biotech company, was founded on and continues to follow our mission of saving lives, improving patient outcomes and reducing health care costs. Any suggestion that the Medicines Co. has opposed or retained anyone to oppose the pending health care reform bills is entirely mistaken.
I sent an e-mail back, asking for the company’s position on the health-care bills what it spent $2.4 million to lobby for, and received no response by press time.
The Medicines Co. operates so below the radar that it is not even listed as a member on the Web site of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturer’s Association (PhRMA), which opposes the House billbecause it empowers a non-elected panel of experts to oversee cost-containment in public programs.
PhRMA also claims the House plan will raise premiums on senior citizens enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug plan, a plan, as currently construed, largely seen as a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies.
Last year, The Medicines Co. saw net earnings on its major product, the anti-coagulant Angiomax, increase 17 percentover the course of a single year.
Because of The Medicines Co.‘s tight lips, we may never know whether it feels it’s getting its $2.4 million worth out of Piper, or its senior policy analyst, Armey, in his effort to derail health care through the FreedomWorks astroturf site.
Go to the site, and you’ll find a Health Care Action Kit(PDF), complete with talking points and Armey’s "ObamaCare translator" of key terms in the health care discussion, laced with Armey’s own witticisms. There’s even a mock "ObamaCare insurance card" (PDF) you can print out and pass around at town halls. It promises, among other things on a bulletted list, "Rationed health care" and "Anxiety, pain, risk of death."
At the risk of mixing messages (a big public-relations no-no), Armey also advises health-care protesters to raise their opposition to the energy-reform provision called "cap and trade" in the health-caretown halls.
Coincidentally, DLA Piper’s lobbying portfolio includes a number of oil and energy companies.
Then, there are the actual members of FreedomWorks, who leave the most enlightening comments on the Web site:
This, from Constantine Ivanov:
June 27, 2009—3:40pm
The problem is that no matter how passionately we are here condemning the socialized (better to say "Socialistisized") Medicine, "die eisernen Stiefel" (the iron jackboots) of Obamistas are methodically and systematicly destroying the very core of our country.
And I recall German troops who at a steady gait moved as close as 10 miles to Moscow in 1941.
Or, this, from Joe Massana:
June 27, 2009—4:00pm
[Obama] and his socilist party are ruining this country ... I know that if I was a black man right now, I would be able to get help from the government with my construction business and household bills.
If an entity providing 15 percent of the lobbying income at Armey’s day job took objection to any of this, do you think Armey would be overseeing the FreedomWorks outfit?
DLA Piper also earned $300,000 since early last year lobbying on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers, which opposes the long-term care provisionsin the House bill, which it sees as competition.
Grassfire and ResistNet
The FreedomWorks commenters are tame by comparison with those found on ResistNet, a project of Grassfire.org. Using a social-networking platform, Grassfire claims some 400,000 members who are dedicated to "resisting" the "Democratic agenda," which, by their lights, includes "open borders" and "taxpayer-funded abortions."
A 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Grassfire has been named as a "stealth political action committee" by Public Citizen. Its founder and president, Steve Elliott, has held up MoveOn.orgas a model for where he would like to take his organization.
ResistNet, has become a major hub for turning out hard-core right-wingers to health-care town hall meetings. The organization took in $1.5 million in 2007 (the most recent year for which information is publicly available).
It’s difficult to find out much of anything about Elliott; he manages to keep a very low profile. But SourceWatch and Public Citizen reportthat Grassfire is represented by the Washington public relations firm Shirley & Bannister, whose principal is Craig Shirley, the man who gave us the Willie Horton adof the 1988 presidential election.
Shirley promotedthe movie, Stolen Honor, a Swiftboat-style smear piece made about 2004 presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Today, Shirley’s clients, according to the Shirley & Bannister Web site, include the National Rifle Association, author Ann Coulter, religious right co-founder Richard Viguerie, and other religious right figures.
But Shirley & Bannister retains ties to GOP establishment figures; its Web site bears an endorsement from William Kristol, who served in the administration of the first George Bush, who happens to be the candidate whose campaign reaped some of its victory from Shirley’s Horton ad.
The firm also promotes the books of former Rep. Joe Scarborough, R-Fla., (now of MSNBC) and former George H.W. Bush speechwriter Peggy Noonan (who promised us a "kinder, gentler nation")—books published by Rupert Murdoch’s HarperCollins.
The site also lists several other major publishers as clients for the promotion of books by right-wing authors.
I called Shirley & Bannister on Friday morning, asking if Grassfire/ResistNet was its client, since it is not listed on the Web site. I was told that Amy Haas, the person who could answer my question, was on the phone, and would get back to me. She did not.
On its introductory page, Grassfire.org complimentary words from Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and Sen. DeMint.
"Grassfire has done a great job and has done a great service to the American people," reads the DeMint quote.
Grassfire makes the point often that it will show the president respect and refrain from personal attacks, as ResistNet, which touts a "no tolerance policy" (they can’t say "zero tolerance," since "Zero" is the nickname by which many of their members call Obama—a play on the first letter of his last name) for "personal attacks, lewd or profane language, or militancy against Barack Obama or others."
Yet a boxed statement on the opening page of the ResistNet site offers this: Welcome to the online community for patriotic citizens who are opposing the Obama-led socialist agenda …"
ResistNet is full of comments and blog posts that violate its purported "no tolerance" policy, including those calling for social insurrection and even the death of Obama. It promises that such comments will be removed by a moderator, and yet they live on the site for months.
Here’s a comment that appears below a letter one ResistNet member named Joel wrote to his congresswoman:
Comment by RBJ 1 day ago
Joel, I hate to be the one to tell you this, you remember the old saying about "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Well that is all that we are doing here, just throwing words at the crowd of Socialist in D.C., aka "D.C.Terrorist"…
As we all know, when words fail, reach over and get a 2 X 4 and get after it. Words don’t hurt, but a good solid A$$ Whooping will get there attention everytime!
Once you have their attention, then you can talk.
Or check out this one, posted by George and Pat Wilkinson Aug. 6, in which they close a long post warning that "the statists will pass socialized medicine in September" by wishing for the death of the president:
Waiting lines will be long, those waiting will find operable conditions be found to be inoperable, Hospice and palliation for comfort will be their fate. Others will die. Why is this being done? back door reparations. I pray that God will strike Obama dead, and all who stand with him they are evil.
And those just two recent examples. Posted on July 2, and still living on the ResistNet site as I write is a videoby the Rev. James David Manning, who warns that "white folks are gonna riot in the streets, and I’m gonna join them." Throughout the video, Manning, an African American, refers to Obama as a "half-breed Mack Daddy"—slang for a kind of megapimp.
Then there’s this charming bit of propaganda, Obama = Hitler(which you can view at the bottom of this story), which dubs video of Obama delivering a speech with the voice of Adolf Hitler, and interposes swastikas and Obama’s campaign logo; Obama is shown wearing a swastika armband; Hitler is shown with the Obama logo as a belt buckle.
Footage of Obama supporters, most of them African American, is run side-by-side with Hitler’s adoring crowds. As Obama waves and moves his mouth, the dub is Hitler yelling, "Sieg Heil!"
The ResistNet site is also peppered with posts touting the birther conspiracy, and other right-wing favorites. After Thursday’s scuffle at the Tampa, Fla., health care town hall, Eric Erikson (cross-posting from RedState) blamed the violence on "SEIU thugs," an emerging right-wing theme reported earlier by Steve Benen.
I tried to contact Grassfire President Steve Elliott to ask him about the conflict between ResistNet‘s "no tolerance" policy and the vitriol I found on his site. I also wanted to find out if there are health-care interests among his donors. Elliott, said Tina, the woman who answered the phone, was traveling, and his spokesman, Ron DeJong, was on vacation. She promised to text Elliott with my contact information, but I never heard back.
Glenn Beck and the 9-12 Project
Which brings us to Glenn Beck. There’s little I can add to what’s been reported(click here forAlterNet‘s Tana Ganeva writing on Beck’s racism), except that when I went to the Web site of Beck’s 9-12 Project, another hub of organizing for disrupters of health-care town hall meetings, I found that the comments section had been shut down.
The message left by someone named "Editor" bore no time stamp, only a date: August 6, the date of the infamous Tampa brouhaha at which anti-health-care protesters, according to the St. Petersburg Times, said they had been inspired by Beck and his project.
Each of these organizations have this in common: They’re all promoting a march on Washingtonfor Sept. 12. Others in the mix include TeaPartyExpress.org, and the Our Country Deserves Better PAC, which was founded by Howard Kaloogian in the heat of the presidential campaign.
Kaloogian was the chairman of the "Recall Gray Davis Committee," which succeeded in unseating the Democratic governor of California. Our Country Deserves Better ran the "Stop Obama" bus tour during the 2008 presidential election, and was faulted by Fact Check.org for airing misleading anti-Obama advertising.
The Inside-Outside Game
The right wing of the GOP has long played this kind of inside-outside game, from the earliest days of the founding of the religious rightby Richard Viguerie, Howard Phillips and the late Paul Weyrich. All were veterans of the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, and all had experience within the establishment Republican Party.
Viguerie, following a model pioneered by Morris Dees for the 1972 Democratic primary campaign of Sen. George McGovern, D-S.D., harnessed the power of direct-mail solicitations to land Ronald Reagan in the White House. Weyrich founded the Heritage Foundation, which became a fax-generating spin and policy factory for the Reagan administration.
Phillips took the game outside, organizing on-the-ground misanthropes, and eventually founding his own political party, the U.S. Taxpayer’s Party (now the Constitution Party) to exert pressure on the GOP from the outside.
The strategy firmly established the right’s foothold in the GOP, leading to the party’s takeover. Any remnant of the old establishment of the Republican Party was crushed in 1996, when defeated presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan, now a MSNBC commentator, threatened to walk the delegates he had won in his primary war against Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kansas, out of the Republican National Convention and into the arms of Phillips’ U.S. Taxpayer Party if the GOP platform did not firmly enough oppose abortion. He also insisted the platform incorporate a host of other right-wing demands, such as a condemnation of the United Nations.
The GOP forked over the writing of its platform to Phyllis Schlafly (another veteran of the Goldwater campaign) and Buchanan’s sister, Bay, and the takeover was complete. The right wing became the Republican establishment.
All of the narratives today embraced by the ResistNet, FreedomWorks and the Glenn Beck crowd find their legs in the one-man clearinghousethat is Howard Phillips.
Through his Conservative Caucus, Phillips disseminated the "birther" theory that Obama is not an American citizen, gave right-wing operative Cliff Kincaid an award for researching Obama’s alleged socialist roots, and for years has railed against "socialized medicine"—even arguing that Medicare is unconstitutionaland warning darkly of a time when the government might determine who shall live and who shall die.
"[W]hen the supply of medical care is controlled by politicians and bureaucrats," Phillips told a 1997 gathering of his Conservative Caucus Foundation, "and the demand for that care exceeds the supply, then individual human beings created in God’s image become price factors in the eyes of medical gatekeepers—they’re not even medical, they’re bureaucratic gatekeepers—who determine medical decisions not on the basis of medical needs, but on the basis of bureaucratic priorities."
Phillips’ disdain for feminists is palpable, and his language about LGBT people, routinely labeled on his Web siteas "perverts," "homos" and "sodomites" is contemptible. He refers to Planned Parenthood as "Murder Incorporated."
I called Phillips for comment on this article, but he was en route to Mexico where he has convened a press conference to protest the nonexistent North American Union, another right-wing conspiracy theory. (Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is an invited speaker.)
Phillips advanced the career of Randall Terry, founder of the militant anti-aborton group Operation Rescue. At one point, it seemed that his U.S. Taxpayer’s Party was to Operation Rescue what Sinn Fein is to the Irish Republican Army—the political wing of a movement steeped in violence. (In Terry’s case, the violence was in rhetoric and obstruction designed to incite others to act.)
Conspiracy of Silence
On Aug. 4, Terry, who is seeking to make a comeback with his new organization, Operation Rescue Insurrecta Nex, sent out an e-mail blast urging followers to attend health care town halls convened by members of Congress.
Trotting out the trope the that health-care reform bills provide for taxpayer-funded abortions, he urges his followers:
Stir up some dust!
Be "unreasonable!"
In fact, you might want to be a little noisier and a little more intense than you might normally be.
I put it this way: If you were in danger of being murdered, and I could possibly save you at a town hall meeting, how would you want people to behave in a town hall meeting?
At a July press conference, Terry warned of "random acts of violence"that would occur if the health-care bill passed. There would be violent "reprisals against those deemed guilty," he said.
Think Terry’s too out on the fringe to matter? Think again. When AlterNet reportedthat the Supreme Court nomination hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor was being disrupted by Terry’s followers, not one Republican senator condemned him by name.
When Terry staged a demonstration outside the White House featuring men in Obama masks "whipping" him, not a distancing word was placed between him and the GOP establishment.
And now he is promulgating the false Republican claimthat health-care reform will mean socialized euthanasia for the aged.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin also has links to Phillips; for seven years, her husband, Todd, claimed membership in the Alaska affiliate of the Constitution Party—the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, whose convention Palin addressed last year via video.
Every other day, it seems, I receive an e-mail from one right-wing organization or another, warning of the grave consequences of health-insurance reform.
The subject line in an e-mail from Human Events magazine screams at me "Grandmas and babies exterminated by Obama ‘health’ plan," even as another of its e-mails asks, "Obama birth certificate destroyed?" The anti-gay American Family Association warns: "Liberals seek to silence and demonize those who oppose their socialism."
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council sent a plea for money to finance a television adthat features an elderly couple complaining of the government’s denial of surgery for the man while financing abortion with taxpayer dollars.
Think these organizations are not the Republican establishment? Consider that the annual Values Voter Summitsponsored by the Family Research Council’s PAC will feature former "moderate" GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney as a keynote speaker.
In the corridors of Washington’s K Street lobbying offices, in the district offices of Republican members of Congress, and in the executive suite of one singular mogul, the men of power must be well-pleased with themselves, watching YouTube videos of the mayhem they have unleashed on the rest of us. But they may just get their pound of flesh.
Inside Story on Town Hall Riots: Right-Wing Shock Troops Do Corporate America’s Dirty Work
Posted on Aug 10, 2009
By Adele M. Stan, AlterNet
The recent spate of town hall dustupsmay look like an overnight sensation, but they’ve been years, even decades, in the making.
Since the days in the late 1970s, when the New Right began its takeover of the Republican Party, it has cultivated a militia of white people armed with a grudge against those who brought forth the social changes of the ‘60s.
These malcontents have been promised their day of retribution, a day for which they are more than ready. Few seem to understand that they are merely dupes for a corporate agenda that will only worsen the conditions in which they live.
Why, you may ask, would men of power and fame shake the rough, unmanicured hands of gun enthusiasts, conspiracy theorists, gay-haters, misogynists and racists?
Because somebody’s got to do the dirty work. Magnates don’t like to soil their French cuffs, and it’s hard for a bunch of rich guys to garner sympathy for threats to their bottom lines. It’s the classic inside-outside game that the right wing of the GOP has played for the last two decades.
The Health-Care Industry Executive
Imagine you’re an executive at a pharmaceutical company. Your U.S. operations are your cash cow; they earn you wild net profits because, unlike in other industrialized nations, you do not experience the price controls of a government-administered program in which the government negotiates for the best price on prescription drugs and devices.
Along comes a government plan for health-insurance reform that includes a public, government-financed plan. The public option, they call it. As part of the plan, you will be required to negotiate with the government for the price of medications and devices to be distributed within the plan.
Now that could really screw up your massive profit margins. Private plans might then insist on prices more like those the government is getting.
Instead of increasing your profit by double digits in the worst year the economy has seen since the Great Depression, as did an outfit called The Medicines Co., your shareholders may have to settle for profits more in line with the overall growth of the economy. And wouldn’t that just stink?
Meanwhile, polls show a clear majority of Americans—you know, regular Americans, the kind who don’t want to own an AK-47, or who do accept the president’s citizenship status—favor the public option. In fact, in June, CBS News found that majority to be 72 percent.
So, whaddaya do? Well, if your lobbying firm counts former Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, as its senior policy adviser, you don’t have do much. Dick will take care of the rest through FreedomWorks, the ostensibly grassroots, nonprofit organization of anti-taxers, cold warriors and affirmative-action opponents, which he chairs.
Need to make it look like regular Americans oppose the health-insurance reform bills now being considered by Congress? Make sure a handful of those angry white peopleturn up at the town hall meetings now being conducted by members of Congress throughout the country. Make sure they disrupt the meeting and rattle the congressperson.
Capture it all on amateur videoand put it up on a faux, amateur-looking Web site, and try to kid the media into thinking there’s a widespread rebellion happening. After all, the media are gonna want that dramatic footage.
The Republican Member of Congress
Now, suppose you’re a Republican member of Congress. Your party got totally throttled in the 2008 election, and if you don’t derail this health care thing, it’s going to be a big win for your Democratic opponents, as millions of underinsured and uninsured Americans finally have some health care coverage—one bright spot in a largely dismal economy.
Meanwhile, you get a lot of your campaign cash from health-care-related industries and from the Wall Street bankers and brokers who want to keep those profits soaring.
A public option is going to stink for you, too. So, while Armey’s army of taxphobes is useful to you, it would be great to get some really hard-core types to further stoke the fires—especially if marshaled by guys who know how to really tar Democrats with racist imagery and slurs of unpatriotic behavior.
That’s where Grassfire.org and its brother networking site, ResistNet, come in. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who promised to make health-care reform President Obama’s "Waterloo," is a big fan. Says so right there on the Grassfire Web site. ResistNet is yet another right-wing hub for organizing the disruption of health-care town hall meetings.
The Media Mogul
Okay, now put on the hat of a media mogul, one who rails againstthe minimal restrictions the U.S. has on multi-outlet ownership, and one for whom the bottom line is everything. In fact, you actually own the Wall Street Journal.
If you can nip this health care thing in the bud, you could stand in the way of a president who wants to rein in Wall Street’s worse excesses and who may depress the profit margins of health-care companies in which your readers invest with his dastardly public option. What’s a mogul to do?
Why not hire a guy known for riling the discontented to host a show on your cable news channel, and empower him as an organizer? Let him create a little project pegged to fear and nationalism—something, say, like 9/11—through which he mobilizes bands of those aggrieved by the fact of a black president to disrupt town hall meetings.
That’s exactly what Rupert Murdoch did when he hired Glenn Beck to host a Fox News Channel show and to put together a little organizing site called The 9-12 Project.
Although Beck’s stated goal is to bring America back to where it was on Sept. 12, 2001—a nation pulled together in the wake of the terrorist attacks the day before—he draws together only those who embrace the goals of the right.
But his project site is shaped like a social-networking tool, and activists in Florida credit the Tampa 9-12 chapter as turning them out to a town hall they helped turn into a ruckus.
Put these three scenarios together, and you have the phenomenon that has become the summer of the town-hall scuff, a heated season of right-wing disruptions of civic fora.
Add to that an oppressed-white-people narrative that has its roots in the origins of what used to be called the New Right, and you have a confluence of interests ready to elevate to prime-time status a disgruntled and paranoid minority with a penchant for misplaced blame.
FreedomWorks and the K Street Lobbyist
In Washington’s K Street corridor, Dick Armey is a very important man—so important, in fact, that he was scooped up, upon his retirement from Congress, by the lobbying firm DLA Piper.
It’s been widely reported that Piper lobbies on behalf of health-care industry interests, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but its top health-care-industry client, according to OpenSecrets.org, is The Medicines Co., a small, below-the-radar firm that has paid Armey’s lobbying firm nearly $2.4 million since the beginning of 2008—nearly 15 percent of DLA Piper’s overall lobbying income for the period.
I called The Medicines Co., requesting an interview with someone on staff who could spell out the company’s position on the pending health care bills, and I got back a rather empty, generic statement via e-mail from the company’s public relations firm, FD:
The Medicines Co., a small biotech company, was founded on and continues to follow our mission of saving lives, improving patient outcomes and reducing health care costs. Any suggestion that the Medicines Co. has opposed or retained anyone to oppose the pending health care reform bills is entirely mistaken.
I sent an e-mail back, asking for the company’s position on the health-care bills what it spent $2.4 million to lobby for, and received no response by press time.
The Medicines Co. operates so below the radar that it is not even listed as a member on the Web site of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturer’s Association (PhRMA), which opposes the House billbecause it empowers a non-elected panel of experts to oversee cost-containment in public programs.
PhRMA also claims the House plan will raise premiums on senior citizens enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug plan, a plan, as currently construed, largely seen as a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies.
Last year, The Medicines Co. saw net earnings on its major product, the anti-coagulant Angiomax, increase 17 percentover the course of a single year.
Because of The Medicines Co.‘s tight lips, we may never know whether it feels it’s getting its $2.4 million worth out of Piper, or its senior policy analyst, Armey, in his effort to derail health care through the FreedomWorks astroturf site.
Go to the site, and you’ll find a Health Care Action Kit(PDF), complete with talking points and Armey’s "ObamaCare translator" of key terms in the health care discussion, laced with Armey’s own witticisms. There’s even a mock "ObamaCare insurance card" (PDF) you can print out and pass around at town halls. It promises, among other things on a bulletted list, "Rationed health care" and "Anxiety, pain, risk of death."
At the risk of mixing messages (a big public-relations no-no), Armey also advises health-care protesters to raise their opposition to the energy-reform provision called "cap and trade" in the health-caretown halls.
Coincidentally, DLA Piper’s lobbying portfolio includes a number of oil and energy companies.
Then, there are the actual members of FreedomWorks, who leave the most enlightening comments on the Web site:
This, from Constantine Ivanov:
June 27, 2009—3:40pm
The problem is that no matter how passionately we are here condemning the socialized (better to say "Socialistisized") Medicine, "die eisernen Stiefel" (the iron jackboots) of Obamistas are methodically and systematicly destroying the very core of our country.
And I recall German troops who at a steady gait moved as close as 10 miles to Moscow in 1941.
Or, this, from Joe Massana:
June 27, 2009—4:00pm
[Obama] and his socilist party are ruining this country ... I know that if I was a black man right now, I would be able to get help from the government with my construction business and household bills.
If an entity providing 15 percent of the lobbying income at Armey’s day job took objection to any of this, do you think Armey would be overseeing the FreedomWorks outfit?
DLA Piper also earned $300,000 since early last year lobbying on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers, which opposes the long-term care provisionsin the House bill, which it sees as competition.
Grassfire and ResistNet
The FreedomWorks commenters are tame by comparison with those found on ResistNet, a project of Grassfire.org. Using a social-networking platform, Grassfire claims some 400,000 members who are dedicated to "resisting" the "Democratic agenda," which, by their lights, includes "open borders" and "taxpayer-funded abortions."
A 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Grassfire has been named as a "stealth political action committee" by Public Citizen. Its founder and president, Steve Elliott, has held up MoveOn.orgas a model for where he would like to take his organization.
ResistNet, has become a major hub for turning out hard-core right-wingers to health-care town hall meetings. The organization took in $1.5 million in 2007 (the most recent year for which information is publicly available).
It’s difficult to find out much of anything about Elliott; he manages to keep a very low profile. But SourceWatch and Public Citizen reportthat Grassfire is represented by the Washington public relations firm Shirley & Bannister, whose principal is Craig Shirley, the man who gave us the Willie Horton adof the 1988 presidential election.
Shirley promotedthe movie, Stolen Honor, a Swiftboat-style smear piece made about 2004 presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Today, Shirley’s clients, according to the Shirley & Bannister Web site, include the National Rifle Association, author Ann Coulter, religious right co-founder Richard Viguerie, and other religious right figures.
But Shirley & Bannister retains ties to GOP establishment figures; its Web site bears an endorsement from William Kristol, who served in the administration of the first George Bush, who happens to be the candidate whose campaign reaped some of its victory from Shirley’s Horton ad.
The firm also promotes the books of former Rep. Joe Scarborough, R-Fla., (now of MSNBC) and former George H.W. Bush speechwriter Peggy Noonan (who promised us a "kinder, gentler nation")—books published by Rupert Murdoch’s HarperCollins.
The site also lists several other major publishers as clients for the promotion of books by right-wing authors.
I called Shirley & Bannister on Friday morning, asking if Grassfire/ResistNet was its client, since it is not listed on the Web site. I was told that Amy Haas, the person who could answer my question, was on the phone, and would get back to me. She did not.
On its introductory page, Grassfire.org complimentary words from Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and Sen. DeMint.
"Grassfire has done a great job and has done a great service to the American people," reads the DeMint quote.
Grassfire makes the point often that it will show the president respect and refrain from personal attacks, as ResistNet, which touts a "no tolerance policy" (they can’t say "zero tolerance," since "Zero" is the nickname by which many of their members call Obama—a play on the first letter of his last name) for "personal attacks, lewd or profane language, or militancy against Barack Obama or others."
Yet a boxed statement on the opening page of the ResistNet site offers this: Welcome to the online community for patriotic citizens who are opposing the Obama-led socialist agenda …"
ResistNet is full of comments and blog posts that violate its purported "no tolerance" policy, including those calling for social insurrection and even the death of Obama. It promises that such comments will be removed by a moderator, and yet they live on the site for months.
Here’s a comment that appears below a letter one ResistNet member named Joel wrote to his congresswoman:
Comment by RBJ 1 day ago
Joel, I hate to be the one to tell you this, you remember the old saying about "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Well that is all that we are doing here, just throwing words at the crowd of Socialist in D.C., aka "D.C.Terrorist"…
As we all know, when words fail, reach over and get a 2 X 4 and get after it. Words don’t hurt, but a good solid A$$ Whooping will get there attention everytime!
Once you have their attention, then you can talk.
Or check out this one, posted by George and Pat Wilkinson Aug. 6, in which they close a long post warning that "the statists will pass socialized medicine in September" by wishing for the death of the president:
Waiting lines will be long, those waiting will find operable conditions be found to be inoperable, Hospice and palliation for comfort will be their fate. Others will die. Why is this being done? back door reparations. I pray that God will strike Obama dead, and all who stand with him they are evil.
And those just two recent examples. Posted on July 2, and still living on the ResistNet site as I write is a videoby the Rev. James David Manning, who warns that "white folks are gonna riot in the streets, and I’m gonna join them." Throughout the video, Manning, an African American, refers to Obama as a "half-breed Mack Daddy"—slang for a kind of megapimp.
Then there’s this charming bit of propaganda, Obama = Hitler(which you can view at the bottom of this story), which dubs video of Obama delivering a speech with the voice of Adolf Hitler, and interposes swastikas and Obama’s campaign logo; Obama is shown wearing a swastika armband; Hitler is shown with the Obama logo as a belt buckle.
Footage of Obama supporters, most of them African American, is run side-by-side with Hitler’s adoring crowds. As Obama waves and moves his mouth, the dub is Hitler yelling, "Sieg Heil!"
The ResistNet site is also peppered with posts touting the birther conspiracy, and other right-wing favorites. After Thursday’s scuffle at the Tampa, Fla., health care town hall, Eric Erikson (cross-posting from RedState) blamed the violence on "SEIU thugs," an emerging right-wing theme reported earlier by Steve Benen.
I tried to contact Grassfire President Steve Elliott to ask him about the conflict between ResistNet‘s "no tolerance" policy and the vitriol I found on his site. I also wanted to find out if there are health-care interests among his donors. Elliott, said Tina, the woman who answered the phone, was traveling, and his spokesman, Ron DeJong, was on vacation. She promised to text Elliott with my contact information, but I never heard back.
Glenn Beck and the 9-12 Project
Which brings us to Glenn Beck. There’s little I can add to what’s been reported(click here forAlterNet‘s Tana Ganeva writing on Beck’s racism), except that when I went to the Web site of Beck’s 9-12 Project, another hub of organizing for disrupters of health-care town hall meetings, I found that the comments section had been shut down.
The message left by someone named "Editor" bore no time stamp, only a date: August 6, the date of the infamous Tampa brouhaha at which anti-health-care protesters, according to the St. Petersburg Times, said they had been inspired by Beck and his project.
Each of these organizations have this in common: They’re all promoting a march on Washingtonfor Sept. 12. Others in the mix include TeaPartyExpress.org, and the Our Country Deserves Better PAC, which was founded by Howard Kaloogian in the heat of the presidential campaign.
Kaloogian was the chairman of the "Recall Gray Davis Committee," which succeeded in unseating the Democratic governor of California. Our Country Deserves Better ran the "Stop Obama" bus tour during the 2008 presidential election, and was faulted by Fact Check.org for airing misleading anti-Obama advertising.
The Inside-Outside Game
The right wing of the GOP has long played this kind of inside-outside game, from the earliest days of the founding of the religious rightby Richard Viguerie, Howard Phillips and the late Paul Weyrich. All were veterans of the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, and all had experience within the establishment Republican Party.
Viguerie, following a model pioneered by Morris Dees for the 1972 Democratic primary campaign of Sen. George McGovern, D-S.D., harnessed the power of direct-mail solicitations to land Ronald Reagan in the White House. Weyrich founded the Heritage Foundation, which became a fax-generating spin and policy factory for the Reagan administration.
Phillips took the game outside, organizing on-the-ground misanthropes, and eventually founding his own political party, the U.S. Taxpayer’s Party (now the Constitution Party) to exert pressure on the GOP from the outside.
The strategy firmly established the right’s foothold in the GOP, leading to the party’s takeover. Any remnant of the old establishment of the Republican Party was crushed in 1996, when defeated presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan, now a MSNBC commentator, threatened to walk the delegates he had won in his primary war against Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kansas, out of the Republican National Convention and into the arms of Phillips’ U.S. Taxpayer Party if the GOP platform did not firmly enough oppose abortion. He also insisted the platform incorporate a host of other right-wing demands, such as a condemnation of the United Nations.
The GOP forked over the writing of its platform to Phyllis Schlafly (another veteran of the Goldwater campaign) and Buchanan’s sister, Bay, and the takeover was complete. The right wing became the Republican establishment.
All of the narratives today embraced by the ResistNet, FreedomWorks and the Glenn Beck crowd find their legs in the one-man clearinghousethat is Howard Phillips.
Through his Conservative Caucus, Phillips disseminated the "birther" theory that Obama is not an American citizen, gave right-wing operative Cliff Kincaid an award for researching Obama’s alleged socialist roots, and for years has railed against "socialized medicine"—even arguing that Medicare is unconstitutionaland warning darkly of a time when the government might determine who shall live and who shall die.
"[W]hen the supply of medical care is controlled by politicians and bureaucrats," Phillips told a 1997 gathering of his Conservative Caucus Foundation, "and the demand for that care exceeds the supply, then individual human beings created in God’s image become price factors in the eyes of medical gatekeepers—they’re not even medical, they’re bureaucratic gatekeepers—who determine medical decisions not on the basis of medical needs, but on the basis of bureaucratic priorities."
Phillips’ disdain for feminists is palpable, and his language about LGBT people, routinely labeled on his Web siteas "perverts," "homos" and "sodomites" is contemptible. He refers to Planned Parenthood as "Murder Incorporated."
I called Phillips for comment on this article, but he was en route to Mexico where he has convened a press conference to protest the nonexistent North American Union, another right-wing conspiracy theory. (Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is an invited speaker.)
Phillips advanced the career of Randall Terry, founder of the militant anti-aborton group Operation Rescue. At one point, it seemed that his U.S. Taxpayer’s Party was to Operation Rescue what Sinn Fein is to the Irish Republican Army—the political wing of a movement steeped in violence. (In Terry’s case, the violence was in rhetoric and obstruction designed to incite others to act.)
Conspiracy of Silence
On Aug. 4, Terry, who is seeking to make a comeback with his new organization, Operation Rescue Insurrecta Nex, sent out an e-mail blast urging followers to attend health care town halls convened by members of Congress.
Trotting out the trope the that health-care reform bills provide for taxpayer-funded abortions, he urges his followers:
Stir up some dust!
Be "unreasonable!"
In fact, you might want to be a little noisier and a little more intense than you might normally be.
I put it this way: If you were in danger of being murdered, and I could possibly save you at a town hall meeting, how would you want people to behave in a town hall meeting?
At a July press conference, Terry warned of "random acts of violence"that would occur if the health-care bill passed. There would be violent "reprisals against those deemed guilty," he said.
Think Terry’s too out on the fringe to matter? Think again. When AlterNet reportedthat the Supreme Court nomination hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor was being disrupted by Terry’s followers, not one Republican senator condemned him by name.
When Terry staged a demonstration outside the White House featuring men in Obama masks "whipping" him, not a distancing word was placed between him and the GOP establishment.
And now he is promulgating the false Republican claimthat health-care reform will mean socialized euthanasia for the aged.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin also has links to Phillips; for seven years, her husband, Todd, claimed membership in the Alaska affiliate of the Constitution Party—the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, whose convention Palin addressed last year via video.
Every other day, it seems, I receive an e-mail from one right-wing organization or another, warning of the grave consequences of health-insurance reform.
The subject line in an e-mail from Human Events magazine screams at me "Grandmas and babies exterminated by Obama ‘health’ plan," even as another of its e-mails asks, "Obama birth certificate destroyed?" The anti-gay American Family Association warns: "Liberals seek to silence and demonize those who oppose their socialism."
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council sent a plea for money to finance a television adthat features an elderly couple complaining of the government’s denial of surgery for the man while financing abortion with taxpayer dollars.
Think these organizations are not the Republican establishment? Consider that the annual Values Voter Summitsponsored by the Family Research Council’s PAC will feature former "moderate" GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney as a keynote speaker.
In the corridors of Washington’s K Street lobbying offices, in the district offices of Republican members of Congress, and in the executive suite of one singular mogul, the men of power must be well-pleased with themselves, watching YouTube videos of the mayhem they have unleashed on the rest of us. But they may just get their pound of flesh.
The Economic Fallout Has Decimated the Black Middle Class
By Barbara Ehrenreich and Dedrick Muhammad, Barbaraehrenreich.com
Posted on August 10, 2009, Printed on August 10, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/141825/
To judge from most of the commentary on the Gates-Crowley affair, you would think that a "black elite" has gotten dangerously out of hand. First Gates (Cambridge, Yale, Harvard) showed insufficient deference to Crowley, then Obama (Occidental, Harvard) piled on to accuse the police of having acted "stupidly." Was this "the end of white America" which the Atlantic had warned of in its January/February cover story? Or had the injuries of class -- working class in Crowley's case -- finally trumped the grievances of race?
Left out of the ensuing tangle of commentary on race and class has been the increasing impoverishment -- or, we should say, re-impoverishment -- of African Americans as a group. In fact, the most salient and lasting effect of the current recession may turn out to be the decimation of the black middle class. According to a study by Demos and the Institute for Assets and Social Policy, 33 percent of the black middle class was already in danger of falling out of the middle class at the start of the recession. Gates and Obama, along with Oprah and Cosby, will no doubt remain in place, but millions of the black equivalents of Officer Crowley -- from factory workers to bank tellers and white collar managers -- are sliding down toward destitution.
For African Americans -- and to a large extent, Latinos -- the recession is over. It occurred between 2000 and 2007, as black employment decreased by 2.4 percent and incomes declined by 2.9 percent. During the seven-year long black recession, one third of black children lived in poverty and black unemployment -- even among college graduates -- consistently ran at about twice the level of white unemployment. That was the black recession. What's happening now is a depression.
Black unemployment is now at 14.7 percent, compared to 8.7 for whites. In New York City, black unemployment has been rising four times as fast as that of whites. Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, estimates that 40 percent of African Americans will have experienced unemployment or underemployment by 2010, and this will increase child poverty from one-third of African-American children to slightly over half. No one can entirely explain the extraordinary rate of job loss among African Americans, though factors may include the relative concentration of blacks in the hard-hit retail and manufacturing sectors, as well as the lesser seniority of blacks in better-paying, white collar, positions.
But one thing is certain: The longstanding racial "wealth gap" makes African Americans particularly vulnerable to poverty when job loss strikes. In 1998, the net worth of white households on average was $100,700 higher than that of African-Americans. By 2007, this gap had increased to $142,600. The Survey of Consumer Finances, which is supported by the Federal Reserve Board, collects this data every three years -- and every time it has been collected, the racial wealth gap has widened. To put it another way: in 2004, for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white family, the African American family had only one 12 cents. In 2007, it had exactly a dime. So when an African American breadwinner loses a job, there are usually no savings to fall back on, no well-heeled parents to hit up, no retirement accounts to raid.
All this comes on top of the highly racially skewed subprime mortgage calamity. After decades of being denied mortgages on racial grounds, African Americans made a tempting market for bubble-crazed lenders like Countrywide, with the result that high income blacks were almost twice as likely as low income white to receive high interest subprime loans. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, Latinos will end up losing between $75 billion and $98 billion in home-value wealth from subprime loans, while blacks will lose between $71 billion and $92 billion. United for a Fair Economy has called this family net-worth catastrophe the "greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern U.S. history."
Yet in the depths of this African American depression, some commentators, black as well as white, are still obsessing about the supposed cultural deficiencies of the black community. In a December op-ed in the Washington Post, Kay Hymowitz blamed black economic woes on the fact that 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers, not noticing that the white two-parent family has actually declined at a faster rate than the black two-parent family. The share of black children living in a single parent home increased by 155 percent between 1960 to 2006, while the share of white children living in single parent homes increased by a staggering 229 percent.
Just last month on NPR, commentator Juan Williams dismissed the NAACP by saying that more up-to-date and relevant groups focus on "people who have taken advantage of integration and opportunities for education, employment, versus those who seem caught in generational cycles of poverty," which he went on to characterize by drug use and crime. The fact that there is an ongoing recession disproportionately affecting the African American middle class -- and brought on by Wall Street greed rather than "ghetto" values -- seems to have eluded him.
We don't need any more moralizing or glib analyses of class and race that could have just as well been made in the 70s. The recession is changing everything. It's redrawing the class contours of America in ways that will leave us more polarized than ever, and, yes, profoundly hurting the erstwhile white middle and working classes. But the depression being experienced by people of color threatens to do something on an entirely different scale, and that is to eliminate the black middle class.
Barbara Ehrenreich is the president of United Professionals and author, most recently, of "This Land Is Their Land: Reports From a Divided Nation." Dedrick Muhammad is a Senior Organizer and Research Associate of the Institute for Policy Studies.
Faulty Forecasting
by CommonDreams.org
by Ralph Nader
Companies that specialize in stock market forecasting and trading—such as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase—pay very high salaries to their employee-vendors. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo just released data showing that these and other large banks are giving each of their 5000 trader-forecasters bonuses of at least one million dollars.
In return, these fat cats are very frequently wrong in their recommendations and decidedly unprofessional in their fiduciary relationships with the clueless, trusting clients who rely on them. Win or lose, they get their fees.
These firms and brokers are making money largely from other people’s money—pensions, savings and investments. Overall many produce little more than gambling tips. When these moneyboys try to justify their doings as providing liquidity, hedging against risk, assembling capital for productive investment, listeners are permitted to robustly laugh. This is especially so now during Wall Street’s massive, self-inflicted financial collapse. The economy, and taxpayers, are paying for this reckless speculation.
Meanwhile, outside this paper economy, people are producing for the real economy—manufacturing, repairing and maintaining products and structures, offering needed services for consumers. These people are far lower on the income ladder. Unlike their speculating counterparts, if the workers in the real economy stayed home, the economy would stop cold.
I was rummaging recently through some old publications and randomly came across the March 24, 2008 issue of Barron’s, a leading financial weekly. Its contributors and interviewees are supposed to be among the savviest around. Here are some samples of their perspicacity.
The cover story asserts that “the financial sector’s strongest players probably don’t have further to sink, even with the ongoing pressure of negative news. Stocks of the industry’s strongest players could climb by 10% to 20% over the next year as panic recedes, earnings improve and price-to-earnings multiples expand.”
The author, Jacqueline Doherty, got specific. She cited Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Bank of America, Washington Mutual, among others, for the predicted upswing. At the time (March 24, 2008), Merrill stock was selling for $46.85. Before the year’s end, the stock was worthless and Merrill was swallowed by Bank of America. Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest savings bank, saw its stock, selling at $11.70, go to zero as it was absorbed by JPMorgan Chase in September 2008. Citigroup was selling at $22.50 per share. Now, it has climbed just above $3 per share, and Citigroup narrowly avoided bankruptcy due to a huge federal bailout.
Leafing through Barron’s pages of that week of March 24, 2008, I read a prediction by James Finucane—who is described as a “talented strategist—that the Dow would reach 20,000 within a year. A year later in late March 2009, the Dow was below 8000. Even James Glassman, who loudly predicted in 1999 that the Dow would go to 36,000 by 2005, has been mercifully quiet.
Unlike sloppy plumbers and carpenters who pay a price for their mistakes, Wall Street forecasters seem to be paid very well despite being chronically wrong.
A few Barron’s pages later, columnist Eric J. Savitz was writing that worries about NVIDIA were overblown. The computer chip company stock having peaked in October 2007 at just under $40 a share, was selling for $18.52 when Mr. Savitz was touting its prospects. On August 4, 2009, NVIDIA closed at $13.37 per share.
And so it goes week after week in the financial world of pundits. Do you know of any other profession that can be so wrong so often and be rewarded so well again and again? On their behalf, they say that they cannot guarantee against risk and that they rely on cues from the watchdogs.
The first defense is unrebuttable because it shifts all risk away from the purportedly knowledgeable minds and onto market imponderables. Then why be so cocksure of what you urge investors to buy?
Second, they know that the watchdogs are paid to look the other way and let avarice and deception prevail. These “watchdogs” include the boards of directors, the large law firms, the major accounting firms, and the ratings companies like Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s.
Looking the other way also pays for most state and federal legislators and the regulators. The former solicit campaign contributions and the latter are looking forward to cushy positions in the industries they failed to regulate as government servants.
The forecasters’ excuse is that the watchdogs weren’t barking to alert them. Come on! These forecasters weren’t born yesterday.
Barron’s veteran columnist Alan Abelson is a sharp pen hedger who calls his weekly commentary “Up and Down Wall Street”. Abelson is a wry, irreverent free-thinker on the conservative side, but he sometimes offers useful insights. Maybe he can break his remaining taboo and apply his mordant, satirical style to review a year of Barron’s recommendations and see whether short sellers made more money than investors did who bought on the suspect advice.
It could be that the fog at Barron’s is lifting; it just recently offered a year’s subscription for $52, a sharp discount from its $260 yearly newsstand cost of $5 per copy. Now that’s a realistic price worth paying at least if you like comedic doses of illusion and the fullest stock tables on paper west of the Pecos.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions .
The Real US Unemployment Rate Hits a 68-Year High
Comparing the Bureau of Labor Statistics' "U-3" and "U-6" rates
By John Miller |
Global Research, July 25, 2009 |
Dollars & Sense magazine |
Although you have to dig into the statistics to know it, unemployment in the United States is now worse than at any time since the end of the Great Depression.
From December 2007, when the recession began, to May of this year, 6.0 million U.S. workers lost their jobs. The big three U.S. automakers are closing plants and letting white-collar workers go too. Chrysler, the worst off of the three, will lay off one-quarter of its workforce even if it survives. Heavy equipment manufacturer Caterpillar and giant banking conglomerate Citigroup have both laid off thousands of workers. Alcoa, the aluminum maker, has let workers go. Computer maker Dell and express shipper DHL have both canned many of their workers. Circuit City, the leading electronics retailer, went out of business, costing its 40,000 workers their jobs. Lawyers in large national firms are getting the ax. Even on Sesame Street, workers are losing their jobs.
The official unemployment rate hit 9.4% in May-already as high as the peak unemployment rates in all but the 1982 recession, the worst since World War II. And topping the 1982 recession's peak rate of 10.8% is now distinctly possible. The current downturn has pushed up unemployment rates by more than any previous postwar recession. (see Table 1).

Source: Table A-1, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Labor Department, www.bls.gov.
The comprehensive U-6 unemployment rate adjusts the official rate by adding marginally attached workers and workers forced to work part time for economic reasons to the officially unemployed. To find the U- 6 rate the BLS takes that higher unemployment count and divides it by the official civilian labor force plus the number of marginally attached workers. (No adjustment is necessary for forced part-time workers since they are already counted in the official labor force as employed workers.)
Calculating the Real Unemployment Rate
The BLS calculates the official unemployment rate, U-3, as the number of unemployed as a percentage of the civilian labor force. The civilian labor force consists of employed workers plus the officially unemployed, those without jobs who are available to work and have looked for a job in the last 4 weeks. Applying the data found in Table 2 yields an official unemployment rate of 9.1%, or a seasonally adjusted rate 9.4% for April 2009.
Accounting for the large number of marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons raises the count of unemployed to 24.0 million workers for May 2009. Those numbers push up the U-6 unemployment rate to 15.9% or a seasonally adjusted rate of 16.4%.
Some groups of workers are already facing official unemployment rates in the double digits. As of May, unemployment rates for black, Hispanic, and teenage workers were already 14.9%, 12.7% and 22.7%, respectively. Workers without a high-school diploma confronted a 15.5% unemployment rate, while the unemployment rate for workers with just a high-school degree was 10.0%. Nearly one in five (19.2%) construction workers were unemployed. In Michigan, the hardest hit state, unemployment was at 12.9% in April. Unemployment rates in seven other states were at double-digit levels as well.
As bad as they are, these figures dramatically understate the true extent of unemployment. First, they exclude anyone without a job who is ready to work but has not actively looked for a job in the previous four weeks. The Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies such workers as "marginally attached to the labor force" so long as they have looked for work within the last year. Marginally attached workers include so-called discouraged workers who have given up looking for job- related reasons, plus others who have given up for reasons such as school and family responsibilities, ill health, or transportation problems.
Second, the official unemployment rate leaves out part- time workers looking for full-time work: part-time workers are "employed" even if they work as little as one hour a week. The vast majority of people working part time involuntarily have had their hours cut due to slack or unfavorable business conditions. The rest are working part time because they could only find part- time work.
To its credit, the BLS has developed alternative unemployment measures that go a long way toward correcting the shortcomings of the official rate. The broadest alternative measure, called "U-6," counts as unemployed "marginally attached workers" as well as those employed "part time for economic reasons."
When those adjustments are taken into account for May 2009, the unemployment rate soars to 16.4%. That is the highest rate since the BLS began calculating the U-6 rate in 1994. While not exactly comparable, it is also higher than the BLS's earlier and yet broader adjusted unemployment rate called the U-7. The BLS began calculating the U-7 rate in 1976 but discontinued it in 1994 in favor of the U-6 rate. In the 1982 recession the U-7 reached 15.3%, its highest level. In fact, no bout of unemployment since the last year of the Great Depression in 1941 would have produced an adjusted unemployment rate as high as today's.
Why is the real unemployment rate so much higher than the official, or U-3, rate? First, forced part-time work has reached its highest level ever, going all the way back to 1956 and including the 1982 recession. In May 2009, 8.8 million workers were forced to work part time for economic reasons. Forced part-timers are concentrated in retail, food services, and construction; about a quarter of them are young workers between 16 and 24. The number of discouraged workers is high today as well. In May, the BLS counted 2.2 million "marginally attached" workers. That matches the highest number since 1994, when the agency introduced this measure.
With the economy in the throes of a catastrophic downturn, unemployment, no matter how it's measured, will rise dramatically and impose yet more devastating costs on society and on those without a job or unable to find full-time work.
John Miller teaches economics at Wheaton College and is a member of the Dollars & Sense collective.
Sources:
U.S. Dept. of Labor, "The Unemployment Rate and Beyond: Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization," Issues in Labor Statistics, June 2008; John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen, "BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures," Monthly Labor Review, October 1995. |
Happiness Consultants Won’t Stop a Depression
Posted on Jul 27, 2009
By Chris Hedges
Anthony Vasquez, a student at the University of California, Berkeley, worked at FedEx Kinkos for about two years. His store’s slogan was: “Yes We Can.”
“It meant that if a customer asked us to do a job for them, no matter what it was, we were to say ‘Yes We Can!’ ” he said.
Posters of the slogan were posted on telephones and in the backroom. Corporate auditors enforced the slogan by “Yes We Can” call audits. Employees would be punished as a group for failures, and individuals could be fired. Other slogans at the Santa Cruz, Calif., FedEx Kinkos included “Winning by engaging the hearts and minds of every team member” and “I promise to make every FedEx experience outstanding.”
Vasquez worked with a trainee named Sam until Sam was fired. The store managers didn’t announce the dismissal. They kept Sam on the schedule to make it appear he was skipping work and then used this as grounds for removal. After two weeks and some conversations with Sam, Vasquez wrote “Fired” in pencil under Sam’s name on the schedule. It was at that point that Vasquez got a taste of the ideology of modern corporate management, which uses therapeutic forms of social control and calls for group harmony to impose rigid conformity.
Angela and Nancy, the store managers, reprimanded Vasquez with a “Positive Discipline Documentation Form.” They charged him with defacing company property.
“The document explained how I had made ‘false or malicious statements’ against Sam,” said Vasquez. “Angela and Nancy looked at each other, breathed deeply, and asked if I had any comments. I told them they were being duplicitous and that nothing I wrote had been false or malicious. I told them that if they wanted to make ‘our organization a success’ they could start by paying me a fair wage. I went on and on until they both threw their hands in the air and told me to stop being difficult. I told them that I wasn’t the one being difficult. They stared hard at me and said ‘We know.’ ”
Mendez signed the document and left the office.
“It must have been in 2006, the company was holding another mandatory meeting for team members, which is what they call us,” he said. “I went with a couple of co-workers to Fresno, where we met a lot of other employees from various stores in Northern California. ... The meeting took place in this rented room, and the woman from corporate had all these toys, markers and candy in the middle of each table. The first thing she had us do was organize ourselves according to duration of employment at the company. While in this line, we had to introduce ourselves and say how long we had been working. The girl on the far end had been hired two months prior, the man on the other had been with the company for almost 20 years.”
Vasquez saw that some of his co-workers didn’t like having to speak about private, potentially embarrassing information. But the corporate manager tried to pump them up.
“She spun it so hard I felt dizzy,” said Vasquez. “ ‘Isn’t this wonderful?! We have such a wide range of great team members. This really shows what a great place this is to work, and how you can make a career here!’ she said.”
“One man stared at the floor in anger and embarrassment,” Vasquez said. “If he had said anything she would have e-mailed his center manager and he would have been written up and probably denied a raise. By the way, raises are 25 cents a year.”
“The purpose of the meeting was, her euphemisms aside, to push merchandise and services onto customers that they didn’t want. I believe it’s called upselling,” he said. “She wanted us to talk about our positive customer service experiences. Most of us struggled with this, as nearly all of our experiences with customers and the company had been extremely negative and stressful. But she was all smiles, no matter what we said, and I noticed she was able to make almost everyone there smile and laugh and have a good time. She used the toys, the candy, the markers, and activities like skits and competitions to get people active and involved with each other. She used the happiness and was able to switch its source from human interaction to the company. You aren’t happy because you are being social, you are happy because you work for the company.”
The driving ideology of corporate culture is a blind faith in the power and virtue of the corporate collective. All quotas can be met. All things are possible. Profits can always be raised. It is only a question of the right attitude. The highest form of personal happiness, we are told, is when the corporation thrives. Corporate retreats are built around this idea of merging the self with the corporate collective. They often have the feel of a religious revival. They are designed to whip up emotions. Office managers and sales staffs are given inspirational talks by sports stars, retired military commanders, billionaires and self-help specialists like Tony Robbins who tell them, in essence, the impossible is always possible. And when this proves not to be true it is we who are the problem. We simply have to try harder.
The belief that by thinking about things, by visualizing them, by wanting them, we can make them happen is magical thinking. The purpose, structure and goals of the corporation can never be questioned. To question, to engage in criticism of the corporate collective, is to be obstructive and negative. We can always make more money, meet new quotas and advance our career if we have enough faith. This magical thinking is largely responsible for our economic collapse since any Cassandra who saw it coming was dismissed as “negative.” This childish belief discredits legitimate concerns and anxieties. It exacerbates despair and passivity. It fosters a state of self-delusion. And it has perverted the way we think about the nation and ourselves.
Corporate employees, like everyone else, are gripped by personal dilemmas, anxieties and troubles. They are not permitted, however, to ask whether the problem is the corporate structure and the corporate state. If they are not happy there is, they are told, something wrong with them. Real debate, real clashes of opinion, are, in the happy world of corporatism, forbidden. They are considered rude. The corporations enforce a relentless optimism that curtails honest appraisal of reality and preserves hierarchical forms of organization under the guise of “participation.” Corporate culture provides, as Christopher Lasch pointed out, a society dominated by corporate elites with an anti-elitist ideology.
Positive psychology, which claims to be able to engineer happiness and provides the psychological tools for enforcing corporate conformity, is to the corporate state what eugenics was to the Nazis. Positive psychology is a quack science that throws a smoke screen over corporate domination, abuse and greed. Those academics who preach it are awash in corporate grants. They are invited to corporate retreats to assure corporate employees that they can find happiness by sublimating their selves into corporate culture. They hold academic conferences. They publish a Journal of Happiness Studies and a World Database of Happiness. There are more than a hundred courses on positive psychology available on college campuses. The University of Pennsylvania offers a master of applied positive psychology program chaired by Martin Seligman, considered the father of the discipline, and author of “Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment.” The School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences at Claremont Graduate University offers a Ph.D. and M.A. concentrations on what it calls “the Science of Positive Psychology.” Degree programs are also available at the University of East London and in Milan and Mexico City.
Dr. Tal D. Ben-Shahar, who wrote “Happier: Learn the Secrets to Daily Joy and Lasting Fulfillment,” taught hugely popular courses at Harvard University titled “Positive Psychology” and “The Psychology of Leadership.” He called himself, when he taught at Harvard, the “Harvard Happiness Professor.”
“There is mounting evidence in the psychological literature showing that focusing on cultivating strengths, optimism, gratitude, and a positive perspective can lead to growth during difficult times,” Ben-Shahar has stated.
Positive psychology therapy instructs patients to write a letter of gratitude to someone who has been kind to them. Patients pen little essays called “You at your best” in which they are asked “to write about a time when they were at their best and then to reflect on personal strengths displayed in the story.” They are instructed to “review the story once every day for a week and to reflect on the strengths they had identified.” And the professionals argue that their research shows that many of their patients have “lastingly increased happiness and decreased depressive symptoms.”
Ben-Shahar pumps out the catchy slogans and clichés that color all self-improvement schemes. ‘‘Learn to fail or fail to learn,” he says, and ‘‘not ‘it happened for the best,’ but ‘how can I make the best of what happened?’ ”
He argues that if a traumatic episode can result in post-traumatic stress disorder it may be possible to create the opposite phenomenon with a single glorious, ecstatic experience. This could, he says, dramatically change a person’s life for the better.
Those who fail to exhibit positive attitudes, no matter the external reality, are seen as maladjusted and in need of assistance. Their attitudes need correction. Once we adopt an upbeat vision of reality, positive things will happen. This belief encourages us to flee from reality when reality does not elicit positive feelings. These specialists in “happiness” have formulated something they call the “Law of Attraction.” It argues that we attract those things in life, whether it is money, relationships or employment, which we focus on. Suddenly, abused and battered wives or children, the unemployed, the depressed and mentally ill, the illiterate, the lonely, those grieving for lost loved ones, those crushed by poverty, the terminally ill, those fighting with addictions, those suffering from trauma, those trapped in menial and poorly paid jobs, those whose homes are in foreclosure or who are filing for bankruptcy because they cannot pay their medical bills, are to blame for their negativity. The ideology justifies the cruelty of unfettered capitalism, shifting the blame from the power elite to those they oppress. And many of us have internalized this pernicious message, which in times of difficulty leads to personal despair, passivity and disillusionment.
This flight into the collective self-delusion of corporate ideology, especially as we undergo financial collapse and the pillaging of the U.S. treasury by corporations, is no more helpful in solving our problems than alchemy. But there are university departments and reams of pseudoscientific scholarship to give an academic patina to the fantasy of happiness and success through positive thinking. The message that we can have everything we want if we dig deep enough inside ourselves, if we truly believe we are exceptional, is pumped out daily over the airwaves in advertisements, through the plot and story lines of television programs and films, and bolstered by the sickeningly cheerful and upbeat banter of well-groomed television hosts. This is the twisted ideological lens through which we view the world.
“From my two years at the company: positive psychology is a euphemism for spin,” Vasquez went on. “They try to spin their employees so much they can’t tell right from left, and in the process they forget they do the work of three people, have no health insurance, and three-quarters of their paycheck goes to rent.”
This ideology condemns all social critics, iconoclasts, dissidents and individualists, for failing to seek fulfillment in the collective chant of the corporate herd. It strangles creativity and moral autonomy. It is about being molded and shaped into a compliant and repressed collective. It is not, at its core, about happiness. It is about conformity, a conformity that all totalitarian and authoritarian structures seek to impose on the crowd. Its unrealistic promise of happiness, in fact, probably produces more internal anxiety and feelings of inadequacy than genuine happiness. The nagging undercurrents of alienation, the constant pressure to exhibit a false enthusiasm and buoyancy, the loneliness of a work life in which one must always be about upbeat presentation, the awful feeling that being positive may not in fact work if one is laid off, are buried and suppressed.
There are no gross injustices, no abuses to question, no economic systems to challenge in the land of happy thoughts. In the land of happy thoughts we are to blame if things go wrong. The corporate state, we are assured, is beneficent and good. It will make us happy and comfortable and prosperous even as it funnels billions of taxpayer dollars into its bank accounts. Mao and Stalin used the same language of harmony and strength through the collective, the same love of spectacles and slogans, the same coercive power of groups and state propaganda, to enslave and impoverish millions of their citizens. And, if we do not free ourselves from the grip of this ideology and the corporate vampires who disseminate it, this is what will happen to us.
Chris Hedges is the author of the new book “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.” Chris Hebdon assisted with reporting this story.
The Most Misunderstood Man in America
Joseph Stiglitz predicted the global financial meltdown. So why can't he get any respect here at home?
Michael Hirsh
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Jul 27, 2009
Anya Stiglitz was in the middle of a Pilates class in Central Park on an April morning when her cell phone rang. Glancing down, she saw "202" pop up—no number attached—and knew it was the White House. An aide to Larry Summers was on the line, looking for her husband, the Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Anya said she'd pass on the message to Joe—then went back to work on her abs. No big deal, she thought. People often call her when they want to talk to Joe, because even though he's spent four decades figuring out how the global economy works, he hasn't quite gotten the hang of voice mail. "He doesn't listen to his messages, so if you want to talk to him, keep calling," Anya says on his cell-phone recording.
Anya figured Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, was probably just calling to gripe about Joe's latest op-ed in The New York Times. Joe Stiglitz and Larry Summers, two towering intellects with egos to match, are not each other's favorite economist. "They respect each other, but they hate each other like poison," says Bruce Greenwald, Stiglitz's friend and academic collaborator at Columbia. ("I've got huge admiration for Joe as an economic thinker," Summers told NEWSWEEK.) Stiglitz had been hammering at Obama's economic team for its handling of the financial crisis. He wrote that the stimulus program was too small to be effective—a criticism that has since swelled into a chorus, though Obama says he's not adding more money. Stiglitz also had called the administration's bailout plan a giveaway to Wall Street, an "ersatz capitalism" that would save the banks' investors and creditors and screw the taxpayers. "I thought, Larry—he's just going to yell at Joe," Anya recalls.
But Summers's aide soon called back, and this time he said it was urgent: could Professor Stiglitz come to Washington for a dinner hosted by the president—that same night? Anya patched him through to Joe's office at Columbia University; Stiglitz accepted, and jumped on an early train. He was a little miffed: the other eminent economists attending the dinner, like Princeton's Alan Blinder and Harvard's Kenneth Rogoff, had been invited the week before. Stiglitz, a former chairman of Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, had supported Barack Obama as a candidate as early as 2007. But until that day, four months into the administration, he had heard barely a word from the White House. Even now, when the president was making an effort to hear a range of economic voices, Stiglitz seemed to be an afterthought. (A White House spokesman said only that the president wished to include Stiglitz.)
Such is the lot of Joe Stiglitz. Even in the contentious world of economics, he is considered somewhat prickly. And while he may be a Nobel laureate, in Washington he's seen as just another economic critic—and not always a welcome one. Few Americans recognize his name, and fewer still would recognize the man, who is short and stocky and bears a faint resemblance to Mel Brooks. Yet Stiglitz's work is cited by more economists than anyone else's in the world, according to data compiled by the University of Connecticut. And when he goes abroad—to Europe, Asia, and Latin America—he is received like a superstar, a modern-day oracle. "In Asia they treat him like a god," says Robert Johnson, a former chief economist for the Senate banking committee who has traveled with him. "People walk up to him on the streets."
Stiglitz has won fans in China and other emerging G20 nations by arguing that the global economic system is stacked against poor nations, and by standing up to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. He is also the most prominent American economist to propose a long-term solution to the imbalances in capital flows that have wreaked havoc, from the Asian contagion of the late '90s to the subprime-investment craze. Beijing has more or less endorsed Stiglitz's idea for a new global reserve system to replace the U.S. dollar as the world currency. Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao has been influenced by Stiglitz's work, especially when "he talks about the economics of poor people," says Fang Xinghai, the head of Shanghai's financial-services office. But his stature is huge in Europe as well: French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently featured him at a conference on rethinking globalization. And earlier this month, while traveling to Europe and South Africa, Stiglitz received a call from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office: could he return through London and help the P.M. get ready for the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh?
Stiglitz is perhaps best known for his unrelenting assault on an idea that has dominated the global landscape since Ronald Reagan: that markets work well on their own and governments should stay out of the way. Since the days of Adam Smith, classical economic theory has held that free markets are always efficient, with rare exceptions. Stiglitz is the leader of a school of economics that, for the past 30 years, has developed complex mathematical models to disprove that idea. The subprime-mortgage disaster was almost tailor-made evidence that financial markets often fail without rigorous government supervision, Stiglitz and his allies say. The work that won Stiglitz the Nobel in 2001 showed how "imperfect" information that is unequally shared by participants in a transaction can make markets go haywire, giving unfair advantage to one party. The subprime scandal was all about people who knew a lot—like mortgage lenders and Wall Street derivatives traders—exploiting people who had less information, like global investors who bought up subprime- mortgage-backed securities. As Stiglitz puts it: "Globalization opened up opportunities to find new people to exploit their ignorance. And we found them."
Stiglitz's empathy for the little guy—and economically backward nations—comes to him naturally. The son of a schoolteacher and an insurance salesman, he grew up in one of America's grittiest industrial cities—Gary, Ind.—and was shaped by the social inequalities and labor strife he observed there. Stiglitz remembers realizing as a small boy that something was wrong with our system. The Stiglitzes, like many middle-class families, had an African-American maid. She was from the South and had little education. "I remember thinking, why do we still have people in America who have a sixth-grade education?" he says.
Those early experiences in Gary gave Stiglitz a social conscience—as a college student, he attended Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech—and led him to probe the reasons why markets failed. While studying at MIT, he says he realized that if Smith's "invisible hand" always guided behavior correctly, the kind of unemployment and poverty he had witnessed in Gary shouldn't exist. "I was struck by the incongruity between the models that I was taught and the world that I had seen growing up," Stiglitz said in his Nobel Prize lecture in 2001. In the same speech he declared that the invisible hand "might not exist at all." The solution, Stiglitz says, is to move beyond ideology and to develop a balance between market-driven economies—which he favors—and government oversight.
Stiglitz has warned for years that pro-market zeal would cause a global financial meltdown very much like the one that gripped the world last year. In the early '90s, as a member of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, Stiglitz argued (unsuccessfully) against opening up capital flows too rapidly to developing countries, saying those markets weren't ready to handle "hot money" from Wall Street. Later in the decade, he spoke out (without results) against repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which regulated financial institutions and separated commercial from investment banking. Since at least 1990, Stiglitz has talked about the risks of securitizing mortgages, questioning whether markets and authorities would grow careless "about the importance of screening loan applicants." Malaysian economist Andrew Sheng says, "I think Stiglitz is the nearest thing there is to Keynes in this crisis."
That would be John Maynard Keynes, the great 20th-century economist who rocketed to international renown in late 1919 when he published The Economic Consequences of the Peace. In his book, Keynes warned that the draconian penalties imposed on Germany after World War I would lead to political disaster. No one listened. The disaster he predicted turned out to be World War II. Like Stiglitz, Keynes was not a favorite at the White House. Keynes also believed that markets were imperfect: he invented modern macroeconomics—which calls for major government intervention to help ailing economies—in response to the Great Depression. But after meeting Keynes for the first time in 1934, FDR dismissed him as too abstract and intellectual, according to Robert Skidelsky, Keynes's biographer. Keynes himself fretted that Roosevelt was not spending enough.
To his critics—and there are many—Stiglitz is a self-aggrandizing rock-thrower. Even some of his intellectual allies note that while Stiglitz is often right on the substance of issues, he tends to leap to the conclusion that government can make things better. Harvard economist Rogoff has called him intolerably arrogant—though he added that Stiglitz is a "towering genius." In a letter to -Stiglitz published in 2002, Rogoff recalled a moment when the two of them were teaching at Princeton and former Fed chairman Paul Volcker's name came up for tenure. "You turned to me and said, 'Ken, you used to work for Volcker at the Fed. Tell me, is he really smart?' I responded something to the effect of 'Well, he was arguably the greatest Federal Reserve chairman of the 20th century.' To which you replied, 'But is he smart like us?'" (Stiglitz says he can't remember the comment, but adds that he might have been referring to whether Volcker was an abstract thinker.)
Stiglitz's defenders say one possible explanation for his outsider status in Washington is his ongoing rivalry with Summers. While they are both devotees of Keynes, Summers often has supported deregulation of financial markets—or at least he did before last year—while Stiglitz has made a career of mistrusting markets. Since the early '90s, when Summers was a senior Treasury official and Stiglitz was on the Council of Economic Advisers, the two have engaged in fierce policy debates. The first fight was over the Clinton admin-is-tration's efforts to pry open emerging financial markets, such as South Korea's. Stiglitz argued there wasn't good evidence that liberalizing poorly regulated Third World markets would make any one more prosperous; Summers wanted them open to U.S. firms.
The differences between them grew bitter in the late 1990s, when Stiglitz was chief economist for the World Bank and took issue with the way Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and Summers, who was then deputy secretary, were handling the Asian "contagion" financial collapse. After World Bank president James Wolfensohn declined to reappoint him in 1999, Stiglitz became convinced that Summers was behind the slight. Summers denies this, and maintains that no rivalry exists between them. Summers's deputy Jason Furman says that Summers now "talks to [Stiglitz] a lot." "A lot" is an exaggeration, Stiglitz responds. "We've talked one or two times," he says.
Despite the Obama team's occasional efforts to reach out to him, Stiglitz remains deeply unhappy about the administration's approach to the financial crisis. Rather than breaking up or restructuring the big banks that failed, "the Obama administration has actually expanded the notion of 'too big to fail,' " he says. In a veiled poke at his dubious standing in Washington, Stiglitz adds: "In Britain there is a more open discussion of these issues." A senior White House official, responding to this critique, says that the Obama administration is most often criticized these days for intervening too much in the economy, not too little.
In other respects, Obama is embracing some of Stiglitz's views, suggests Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget—and a former Stiglitz protégé (he worked for Stiglitz during the Clinton administration). One example: Obama's new idea for reforming health care by creating a government-run program to compete with private-sector insurers. "There is an intellectual paradigm in health care that says you should move to purely private markets," says Orszag. "Joe's perspective would suggest major difficulties [with that]. That led to the thought that we need a mix: there is an important government role."
Today, settled as a professor at Columbia, Stiglitz occasionally finds himself welcomed in the nation's capital, though usually at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, to testify before Congress. While he had no great desire to go back into government, friends say he was deeply disappointed when an offer didn't come from Obama last fall. Not surprisingly, Stiglitz believes his old rival was behind it, though Summers denies this. As for the invitation to dinner at the White House, there were a few theories kicked around the spacious Stiglitz household on Manhattan's Upper West Side as to why it came at the last minute: one was that Obama, in an interview posted online that week by The New York Times, had cited Stiglitz as one of the critics he listens to, so it would have seemed strange if he hadn't been invited to the dinner. While Stiglitz was flattered by the discussion over a dinner of roast beef and Michelle Obama's homegrown lettuce, he can't stop himself from complaining that an occasional meal with dissidents is not the best way for the president to formulate policy. "Some of the most difficult debates and judgments can't really be hammered out in an hour-and-a-half meeting covering lots of topics," he says. Stiglitz may a prophet without much honor in Washington, but he seems to be determined to keep the prophecies coming.
Inside Wall Street: Government Bets on Positive Spin to Save Failing Banks
By Shah Gilani |
Global Research, July 10, 2009 |
Money Morning |
Just when you thought the U.S. banking system had regained its footing, the reality is that a carefully woven federal-government PR campaign may actually be masking the next phase of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Indeed, it's what's just out of sight that has some analysts and economists scared to death.
To rebuild public confidence in America's ailing banks the government has greased the system's liquidity wheels, directly injected capital, backstopped and guaranteed loan facilities, lowered banks' cost of funds, changed accounting rules to make balance sheets look better, bestowed passing grades on high profile stress tests and then allowed the propped-up (but still not healthy) banks to pay back government loans.
Analysts and economists question whether this race to instill confidence will outpace rising unemployment and lagging economic data, or will trigger the next phase of the global financial crisis if shaky banks end up snapping borrower lifelines.
The big confidence game began with a single "relief" program. Now, many of the titanic banking system's torpedoed institutions are remaining afloat only because of some rescue programs developed by the U.S. Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. Deemed absolutely necessary to prevent total financial collapse at the time of their hasty implementation, the legacy of these programs will be their indiscriminate reinforcement of weak links in the banking system and the acceptance of moral hazard. The Trouble With TARP
The granddaddy of all these rescue plans - the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP - is a $700 billion program that was originally designed on fewer than four pages, and that was sold to Congress as a plan to buy toxic assets from sick banks.
That never happened.
Once passed, TARP immediately morphed into a direct-capital-infusion system for banks, allowing them to meet regulatory capital requirements and stay afloat. A wide variety of other relief programs followed. There were programs to backstop the commercial paper market, money market mutual funds, and issuers and purchasers of various asset-backed securities. There was a mortgage-relief initiative. And now there is even a re-constituted public-private partnership plan - worth between $1 trillion and $2 trillion - that is supposed to buy toxic assets from the same banks that still hold them.
With all the government backstopping going on directly and indirectly behind the scenes, what remains to be seen is whether the banks can succeed without the federal government cheerleading the public into believing that these institutions are actually standing on their own feet - when, in reality, many are still on their knees.
Without these plans, many banks would certainly be on their last legs.
Underlying all the relief programs, the U.S. Federal Reserve has done everything in its power to keep interest rates low - especially the benchmark Federal Funds Rate, the rate at which banks borrow from each other on an overnight basis.
One of the positive signs being pointed to lately by government public relations spinners is the positive net interest income being earned by banks. What they don't point out is that it's only as positive as it is because the government is artificially keeping banks' "cost of funds" low through a 0.00% Fed Funds Rate policy, and by continuing to grease every lever of liquidity to keep funding cheap. What's eventually likely to be overwhelming will be the impact on net interest income when artificially cheap funding dries up, interest rates rise and commercial-paper and money-market spigots are not gushing funds like they did before the global financial crisis took hold.
The combination of capital injections, relief programs and low interest rates was designed to work together to facilitate liquidity in the vast interwoven system of institutions and markets that makes business and finance possible. Banks are the singular linch-pin in the system, without whose proper functioning the entire system would seize up.
And yet, in spite of all that was being done to keep the banking system afloat, it was still sinking. Rock-Paper-Scissors
Not unlike the children's game rock-paper-scissors, the Fed's scissors that were used to cut out impediments to liquidity were smashed by the falling Rock of Gibraltar - namely the continuing erosion of trust in crumbling banks, to the point that only by papering over losses at banks could the game be won.
With a strong push from lobbyists, legislators threatened to make legal changes to accepted accounting standards. With a nod of approval from the highest government powers attempting to triage ailing banks, legal changes weren't necessary. Instead, two amendments to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) were hastily approved by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB):
* The first of the two amendments gave guidance to assist preparers on how to determine whether a market is not active and a transaction is not distressed, which provides allowances for sidestepping mark-to-market rules and essentially allows internal modeling of asset values. * The second amendment provides a neat trick that facilitates changes in the recognition and presentation of other-than-temporary impairments on debt instruments. In short, if you don't want to declare losses in full view of the public, stick them in a walled-off section of your financials where you can pretend that they are going to be held to maturity and paid back in full. Scissors beats paper in the children's game, and in the case of banks the scissors of any sharp accountant will eventually shred the paper façade that's masking huge losses.
Not content to try and get the public to merely notice things might be getting better, the federal government PR machine decided that bank stress tests would provide definitive proof that progress was being made. The result of the much-ballyhooed stress tests was, indeed, effective. The announcement - more like a pronouncement - proclaimed the system sound, saw a strengthening of institutions in general and only pointed to a few laggards.
But in a recent Bloomberg Markets article entitled, "Stress Management," Janet Tavakoli, president of Structured Finance Inc., told writer Yalman Onaran that "the Federal Reserve, which designed the stress tests, used a 21% to 28% loss rate for subprime mortgages as a worst-case assumption. Already, almost 40% of such loans are 30 days or more overdue."
Tavakoli predicts defaults actually might reach 55%. Positive Earnings or Positive Spin?
The release of the stress-test results coincided with some strong first quarter financials from banks. The markets rallied amid fertilized talk of "green shoots" and the actual arrival of spring. Now that's really good PR. Too bad, like a lot of PR, it was managed to look that way.
Using the accountant's scissors embedded in Onaran's Bloomberg Markets article, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) picked up 25% of its 2009 first quarter net income from a debt securities accounting rule change. It subsequently increased its loan-loss provisions more slowly - even as more loans were souring. Without the accounting changes Citi, would probably have posted a net loss of $2.5 billion for the quarter, concluded Martin Weiss, founder of the Jupiter, Fla.-based Weiss Research. Inc.
Weiss also found that "the new standards let Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) boost its capital $2.8 billion by reassessing the value of some $40 billion of bonds, and augmented net income by $334 million because of the effect of the rule on the value of debts held to maturity."
In June, in a McKinsey Quarterly piece, writersLowell Bryan and Toos Daruvala are even more outspoken about the problems that accounting rules are masking, stating, "It might seem odd that accounting methodologies can make such a big difference. At the end of the day, what counts is the net present value of the cash flow from each asset, but those are unknowable until after a debt is repaid. Fair-value accounting, based on mark-to-market principles, immediately discounts assets when the expectation of a default arises and ability to trade the asset declines. Fair value therefore makes the holder of the asset look worse, sooner. Hold-to-maturity accounting works in reverse and makes the holder look better for a long time." Looking Good is All That Matters
Why would 10 banks on the edge of the financial abyss only a few months ago want to pay back $68 billion in government bailout money when they have:
* No idea what the future holds for them? * Or if they'll need to make a return visit to the taxpayer-filled rescue trough?
And why would the government, after all its bluster, let them pay the money back, especially in the face of a firestorm about extraordinarily excessive executive compensation at those same institutions?
Because it's all about looking good.
It's part of the PR spin to make banks look healthier than they are. And it just might spin out of control.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Instead of admitting the depth of systemic risk we're facing from teetering banks and making the hard decision to shut some of them down or break them up once and for all, the federal government would rather pretty up the picture to try and convince us to open our purses again and more-quickly recharge our consumer-driven economy.
The danger in this government PR campaign to make banks look healthy is that if another meaningful economic bump rattles consumer confidence in a banking system the government says is safe, the resulting fear of a separate reality might engender a run on banks that would make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. |
America is now the world’s biggest debtor
Market Review
By Bob Chapman |
Global Research, July 11, 2009 |
The International Forecaster |
The latest Treasury auction of $19 billion of 10-year notes was at a yield of 3.365%. The bid to cover was 3.28 to 1, the highest ever. This was the third of four sales this week totaling $73 billion.
Consumer credit fell $3.23 billion in May, as credit fell 1.5% to $2.5196 trillion from $2.522 trillion in April. Four monthly declines matches June-December of 1991. Big loans fell $400 million, or 0.3%. Revolving credit fell $2.9 billion, or at a 3.7% rate.
We are now al most six months into the depression approaching a 1932 scenario. America is now the world’s biggest debtor. The US has had a fiat currency for 38 years and major trade deficits for more than 30 years. Is it any wonder we are in depression? Is it any wonder the dollar is under pressure even though our government supports it at every turn in the market?
The world is looking aghast at the dollar as the Treasury runs short of money to fund its deficit beyond revenues of $1 to $3 trillion and as the Fed monetizes trillions of dollars. What would you think if you had 64.5% of your foreign exchange in US dollars? That is almost $1.8 trillion. Some of these buyers have ceased buying and if that continues interest rates will head higher and the cost of carrying such debt will increase. As a result the dollar, of course, would move lower.
Higher yields on 10-year T-bills translate into higher mortgage rates as real estate inventory continues to grow, a terrible formula for the economy.
We estimate fiscal 2009 to have a deficit of more than $2 trillion and incoming revenues will only make up less than half of that. In spite of the protestations of our Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner that the deficit will be reduced, our president guarantees $1 trillion annual deficits as far as the eye can see. Cuts will never come and the dollar will fall because that is the way the elitists want it to be. Only from the ashes of economic and financial collapse can the new world order rise.
Our government says one thing and does another. They want to maintain confidence and trust, but at the same time proceed with the destruction of the monetary and financial system.
We are told that next month the monetization will end, when in fact the Fed will not have completed its $3 trillion monetization of Treasuries and Agencies and bank toxic garbage.
Europeans, the Japanese and the British all want their currencies lower in value versus the dollar, believing that a cheaper currency is somehow a magic elixir for trade and, of course, that isn’t always the case. In fact, the latest efforts to subdue the euro haven’t been very successful. The dollar has been incapable of breaking up and out of 81 on the USDX. At the same time, for now the euro has retreated from $1.42 to just above $1.38, but it won’t last. Simply, the US is in worse trouble than the eurozone.
The latest madness to come out of CNBC/Wall Street and Washington is Rebuild America Retirement bonds. This idea is being foisted on us by none other than the resident CNBC shill Jim Cramer.
These bonds do not as yet exist, and Cramer’s proposal regarding them is a trial run to gauge investor reaction. The idea was proposed on “Mad Money,” which we found appropriate. These bonds supposedly would strike a medium between risk, safety and income. They certainly wouldn’t offer growth with the dollar falling in value. Cramer said investment options are somewhat limited today, and that he didn’t want to see people falling prey to investment scams. He probably had his friend Bernie Madoff in mind.
This “Mad Man Cramer” has called upon the Treasury Department to issue 30-year, 5% bonds. As you know our Treasury has so much paper to sell that it has had to ask the Fed to monetize, create money out of thin air, to fund $3 trillion in treasuries, Agencies (Fannie –Freddie-FHA, etc.), and toxic garbage securities from America’s biggest elitist banks. Inadvertently, the secret Fed refuses to divulge what they are paying for such garbage. These 30-year, 5% Treasuries would be offered as a way to help families, who are desperate after having lost some 50% of their investments in the market to recover their savings. You might call them modern day Continentals.
This newest monstrosity is designed specifically for 401(k)’s, IRA’s and 529 college savings plans. They’d be commission free and the 5% would compound. Cramer tells us they’d double in 14.5 years.
Supposedly these funds would go toward economic recovery. How can that be when the Treasury is struggling to cover a $1 trillion plus budget shortfall? What Cramer and the elitists are trying to do is entice the average American into funding the administrations out of control spending. Don’t forget our president has told us we’ll have annual budget shortfalls of $1 trillion or more as far as the eye can see.
Fools and their money are soon parted. This is another scam to keep the American economy afloat. Anyone who invests in US government paper is stupid and they deserve to lose their money.
This shows you how the elitists totally control CNBC to do their bidding.
July 3 MBA Mortgage Applications rise 10.9%.
About $29 billion from President Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus package has been provided to state and local governments, a pace slightly ahead of schedule, according to congressional auditors.
Most of the money is allocated for health care and education and makes up about 60 percent of the stimulus funding states and local governments will get for fiscal 2009, the Government Accountability Office said in a report obtained by Bloomberg News.
More than 90 percent of those funds are being used to maintain benefits under Medicaid, the government health-care plan for low-income Americans, and to shore up education programs, the report said.
Many states are using money allocated for highway improvements on repaving projects because they put people to work quickly, it said. State officials said bids are coming in below estimates because so many contractors are looking for work.
The analysis was based on information from 16 states and the District of Columbia, which represent about 65 percent of the U.S. population.
The $3.5 trillion commercial real estate market is a ticking “time bomb” that may lead to a second wave of losses at large U.S. banks, congressional Joint Economic Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney said.
About $700 billion in commercial mortgages will need to be refinanced before the end of 2010 and “doing nothing is not an option,” Maloney, a New York Democrat, said at a committee hearing today. This “looming crisis” may lead to significant losses for banks, force shopping center and hotel owners into bankruptcy, and impede economic recovery, she said.
The response by banks to this “growing threat has been slow and inadequate,” said James Helsel, a partner at RSR Realtors in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and treasurer for the National Association of Realtors. “The lack of liquidity and banks’ reluctance to extend lending are also becoming apparent in the increasing level of delinquent properties.”
There were 5,315 commercial properties in default, foreclosure or bankruptcy at the end of June, more than twice the number at the end of last year, with hotels and retail among the most “problematic,’ Real Capital Analytics Inc. said in a report yesterday. Losses on commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS, will total 9 percent to 12 percent of the market, or as much as $90 billion, said Richard Parkus, a research analyst for Deutsche Bank Securities in New York.
Government insured home loans jumped to 36 percent of all U.S. mortgage applications in June, the highest since 1990, the Mortgage Bankers Association said.
Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration loan applications increased in market share from 25.7 percent in May and from 27 percent a year earlier, the Washington-based trade group said today in a statement.
Borrowers are turning to government backing to offset stricter lending by banks. About 50 percent of banks tightened requirements for prime borrowers in the first quarter, asking for bigger down payments and more savings, the Federal Reserve said in June.
“Credit standards are tightened so much, home-buyers have turned to the government,” said Michelle Meyer, economist for Barclays Capital. “I think that as the financial markets normalize and credit markets heal, you’ll start to see the share of conventional mortgages increase again.”
The Mortgage Banker’s index of applications to purchase a home or refinance a loan rose 11 percent to 493.1 in the week ended July 3. Purchase applications rose 6.7 percent while requests to refinance gained 15 percent.
The number of Americans filing claims for unemployment benefits fell last week to the lowest since January, as early automotive plant closures altered the timing of layoffs that typically happen at this time of year.
Initial jobless claims fell by 52,000 to 565,000, a lower level than forecast, in the week ended July 4, from a revised 617,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Meanwhile, the number of people collecting unemployment insurance jumped to a record in the prior week.
Manhattan apartment rents fell as much as 18 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier as rising unemployment curbed demand.
The median price dropped 3.1 percent to $3,100 a month, appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and broker Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate said today. Studio prices fell 18 percent to $2,000; one-bedrooms declined 13 percent to $2,795; two-bedrooms were down 5.1 percent to $4,550 and three-bedrooms dropped 4 percent to $7,673. A separate report from broker Citi-Habitats Inc. showed average rents fell 8 percent for studio and one- bedrooms and 11 percent for two- and three-bedrooms.
U.S. wholesale inventories fell again in May as distributors kept working to clear their shelves of excess supply built up by the reduced demand of the recession.
Wholesalers lowered inventories 0.8% to a seasonally adjusted $402.2 billion, the Commerce Department said Thursday. April inventories fell 1.3%, revised from an originally reported 1.4% drop.
A gauge of excess supply, the inventory-to-sales ratio, fell a second straight month, indicating wholesalers were slowly getting inventories under control.
The sales of these middlemen of the economy crept up 0.2% in May to a seasonally adjusted $311.3 billion, after staying flat in April. April sales were originally seen down 0.4%. For the year, sales in May were 19.9% lower.
Year over year, inventories were down 7.6%.
The nation’s retailers were already reeling from the new consumer frugality but in June, incessant rain and rising unemployment further dampened sales. Stores that had made strides in recent months reverted to double-digit declines.
Overall, the industry posted a 6.7 percent decline in sales for the month, in contrast to a 3.9 percent increase a year ago, according to the Goldman Sachs Retail Composite Index. Wal-Mart, which had been a bright spot in the retailing world and helped lift the overall industry number, is no longer reporting monthly sales. Retailers are also facing challenging year-over-year sales comparisons because this June there were no tax rebate checks to help bolster shopping.
The US Treasury on Wednesday pushed ahead with scaled back plans for public- private partnerships to buy toxic assets, naming nine fund managers and allocating $30bn of public funds, but without securing any further backing from the Federal Reserve.
Officially, the US central bank is still considering providing additional financing for investors buying bubble-era residential mortgage-backed securities, but its decision not to announce anything on Wednesday strongly suggests that it does not intend to take this step.
Government insured home loans jumped to 36 percent of all U.S. mortgage applications in June, the highest since 1990, the Mortgage Bankers Association said.
Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration loan applications increased in market share from 25.7 percent in May and from 27 percent a year earlier, the Washington-based trade group said today in a statement.
Borrowers are turning to government backing to offset stricter lending by banks. About 50 percent of banks tightened requirements for prime borrowers in the first quarter, asking for bigger down payments and more savings, the Federal Reserve said in June.
“Credit standards are tightened so much, home-buyers have turned to the government,” said Michelle Meyer, economist for Barclays Capital. “I think that as the financial markets normalize and credit markets heal, you’ll start to see the share of conventional mortgages increase again.”
The Mortgage Banker’s index of applications to purchase a home or refinance a loan rose 11 percent to 493.1 in the week ended July 3. Purchase applications rose 6.7 percent while requests to refinance gained 15 percent.
In June, the government-insured share of purchase applications climbed to 38.6 percent from 27.8 percent a year earlier, the MBA said. The federally backed share of refinance applications increased to 33.6 percent. It touched a record high 38.4 percent in October, according to the MBA.
Home loan rates climbing from a record low 4.78 percent in April are one reason buyers are looking for other ways to reduce costs. The 30-year fixed U.S. mortgage rate was 5.2 percent this week, according to McLean, Virginia-basedFreddie Mac.
“A primary reason government-insured loans have retained a high share of the purchase market is that these loans typically require lower down payments than conventional loans,” said Orawin Velz, associate vice president of economic forecasting for MBA. “In addition, lending standards tend to be tighter for conventional loans, especially for loans that require private mortgage insurance.”
God help Goldman if this is true and the government goes after them. This would constitute massive unlawful activity. Indeed, the allegation is that Goldman alone was given this access!
God help our capital markets if this is true and is ignored by our government and regulatory agencies, or generates nothing more than a "handslap." Nobody in their right mind would ever trade on our markets again if this occurred and does not result in severe criminal and civil penalties.
There apparently is reason to believe that Sergey might have been involved in exactly this sort of coding implementation. Specifically, look at the patent claims cited on DailyKos; his expertise was in fact in this general area of knowledge in the telecommunications world.
This is precisely the sort of thing that a Unix machine, sitting on a network cable where it can "see" traffic potentially not intended for it, could have an interface put into what is called "promiscuous mode" and SILENTLY sniff that traffic!
ASSUMING THE TRAFFIC IS PASSING BY THE MACHINE ON THE WIRE THIS IS TRIVIALLY EASY FOR ANY NETWORK PROGRAMMER OF REASONABLE SKILL TO DO. IF THAT TRAFFIC IS EITHER UNENCRYPTED OR IT IS EASY TO BREAK THE ENCRYPTION.
Folks, I have no way to know what the code in question does, but if there's anything to this - anything at all - there is a major, as in biggest scam of the century - scandal here - something much, much bigger than Madoff or Stanford.
Trade at international ports is on track to drop more than 10% this year, one of the steepest declines ever, according to a new maritime industry report.
Cargo ships will carry 27 million fewer containers by year's end than they did in 2008 -- a reduction roughly equivalent to all of the cargo containers handled by the five busiest U.S. seaports in a typical year, according to London-based Drewry Shipping Consultants' Container Forecaster Report.
“There has never been a decline like this before. We have never seen numbers like these," said Neil Dekker, editor of the Drewry report. "The container industry is looking at a $20-billion black hole of losses. We can expect a lot of casualties."
Nationally, 24% of consumers say the economic conditions in the United States are getting better, down five points from the end of last week. Fifty-two percent (52%) of adults say the economy is getting worse.
The Rasmussen Investor Index, which measures the economic confidence of investors on a daily basis, fell to its lowest level in three months. At 70.3, investor confidence is down fourteen points over the past week and fifteen points over the past month.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 32% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty- seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –5.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 41% would vote for their district’s
Republican congressional candidate while 38% would choose the Democratic candidate.
A record 33.8 million people received food stamps in April, up 20 percent from a year earlier, as unemployment surged toward a 26-year high.
The Bloomberg consensus for AA earnings was -.38. AA reports -.47 but -.26 after adjustments - and everyone says earnings were better than expected?!?!? Hope & hype are eternal on The Street.
Average rates for 30-year mortgages fell for the second straight week, but still remained above record lows reached earlier this year, Freddie Mac said yesterday.
The average rate for a 30-year fixed home loan was 5.2 percent this week, down from 5.32 percent last week, Freddie Mac said. At this time last year, the average rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage averaged 6.37 percent.
Rates on 30-year mortgages fell to a record low of 4.78 percent earlier this year, spurring refinance activity.
But rates then rose as high as 5.6 percent in June after yields on long-term government debt, which are closely tied to mortgages rates, climbed as investors worried that the huge surplus of government debt hitting the market could trigger inflation.
Since then, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note has fallen back from an eight-month high of 4.01 percent reached in June to 3.38 percent yesterday.
The American Bankers Association reported that the number of home equity loans 30 days or more delinquent rose to a record high of 3.52 percent in the first quarter, Nothaft noted.
This week, the average rate on a 15-year fixed-rate mortgage fell to 4.69 percent, down from 4.77 percent last week, according to Freddie Mac.
The rates do not include add-on fees known as points. The nationwide fee for 30-year and 15-year fixed rate mortgages averaged 0.7 point.
CIT Group Inc. shares tumbled on concern that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. won’t give the commercial lender access to its Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program.
The Group of Eight nations approved $20 billion in aid over three years to help poor farmers in developing nations grow and sell more food.
The G-8 will work with international organizations such as the World Bank to fund the program, President Barack Obama told reporters on the final day of a G-8 summit in L’Aquila, Italy. The initiative aims to cut the number of malnourished people from about 1 billion today. The G-8 agreed to add $5 billion to an earlier proposal for a $15 billion program, Obama said.
The U.S. trade deficit unexpectedly narrowed in May to the lowest level in almost a decade as exports jumped while imports of crude oil and auto parts declined.
The gap between imports and exports decreased 9.8 percent to $26 billion, the smallest deficit since November 1999, from a revised $28.8 billion in April that was lower than previously estimated, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Imports fell while exports rose the most since July 2008.
A shrinking deficit signals trade will contribute more to U.S. gross domestic product as exports to emerging economies such as Brazil increase. Meanwhile, U.S. demand for imported auto parts was held down in May by production cutbacks and factory shutdowns by Detroit-based General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, based in Auburn Hills, Michigan, two of the nation’s three largest automakers.
“Trade looks like it’s going to be a big plus for second quarter GDP,” said James O’Sullivan, a senior economist at UBS Securities LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. “It looks like the plunge in exports is over, which is of course consistent with the goal of the economy starting to stabilize after a dramatic collapse.”
Prices of goods imported into the U.S. rose in June for a fourth straight month as oil costs jumped by the most in a decade.
The 3.2 percent gain in the import price index followed a revised 1.4 percent increase the month before that was larger than previously estimated, according to a Labor Department report today in Washington. While prices excluding fuels rose 0.2 percent, they were down a record 6.5 percent from June 2008. [Of course there is no inflation].
President Obama's signing statement, tacked onto last month's war supplemental bill, claimed he could ignore Congress's mandate to pressure the World Bank on labor and environmental standards.
Consumer confidence levels dropped hard in the middle of July.
Released Friday, the Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary July consumer sentiment index moved to 64.6, from 70.8 in June. It had been expected to stand at 70.0.
The preliminary current conditions index was 70.4, from 73.2, while the expectations index was 60.9, from the prior month's 69.2.
On the price pressure front, the one year inflation reading was 3.0%, from June's 3.1%, while the five year inflation reading was 3.1%, from 3.0%
The Federal Reserve's latest weekly money supply report Thursday shows seasonally adjusted M1 fell by $16.2 billion to $1.653 trillion, while M2 fell $36.2 billion to $8.349 trillion.
The figures are preliminary estimates for the week extending through June 29 and are subject to revisions.
More details on the report, along with weekly information on the Fed's custody holdings, repurchase agreements, Treasury portfolio and free reserves, can be found on the Internet at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/.
The U.S. trade gap narrowed unexpectedly to $26 billion in May, the smallest since November 1999, as exports rose and domestic demand for foreign goods slumped, government data on Friday showed.
The Commerce Department said exports increased 1.6 percent in May, while imports declined by 0.6 percent. Economists said the drop in imports signaled continued weakness in the recession-mired U.S. economy.
Zero Hedge (May 5, 2009): Previously Zero Hedge observed the rather curious integration of Goldman Sachs within the fabric of the NYSE's program trading environment, which, by their own admission, has everything to do with Goldman being the (monopoly) actor in the NYSE's Supplemental Liquidity 2 Provider program.
I highlighted that the program was set to expire on April 30.
Today, unsurprisingly, the NYSE posted a notice of a proposed rule change extending the SLP program another six months, until October 1, 2009 (this does not change my commitment to providing weekly NYSE program data). I appreciate our readers' existing and future feedback in this matter.
The full text of the comments by Jeffrey S. Davis of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC is presented below, but here are some very relevant snippets.
NYSE fails to explain why proprietary liquidity is more valuable than agency liquidity, or why proprietary liquidity should be favored over agency liquidity. NYSE claims that the proposal is designed to prompt liquidity provision but it simultaneously disqualifies large liquidity providers.
In NASDAQ's view, these irregularities reveal that NYSE's true motivation for the SLP Proposals is to discriminate among its members and to burden some members' ability to compete with NYSE.
And who is the one and only beneficiary of this rampant disregard for almost 80 years of market regulatory practice? Who is it that has now become the de facto provider of "market liquidity" which however has much more sinister connotations when reading through the comments of not just some blogger but the NASDAQ Stock Market itself?http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-observations-on-supplemental.html
When a firm has an 87.5% trading accuracy record, something unnatural is occurring. And we wonder why the buy side has been so docile and malleable when the money is being derived from them!
Over the past decade the move to electronic trading and pricing in pennies was heralded by Street insiders as a means to improve liquidity for clients. This appears to be a deception. Virtually every facility benefitted proprietary trading at a select few firms. Who’s the patsy?
Anyone with a modicum of industry experience understands that ‘providing liquidity’ is at best a euphemism for front-running order flow. Anyone that regularly ‘provides liquidity’ will go broke.
GS jumped yesterday on this: (BN) Goldman Sachs Trading Revenue May Beat 2007 Record, Moszkowski Note Says
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is on track to beat its 2007 trading-revenue record, enabling it to boost compensation by an estimated 64 percent from last year, according to Bank of America Corp. analyst Guy Moszkowski. Goldman Sachs has ``unmatched risk-taking/risk-management skills in a market that strongly rewards these because of decline in competitor risk appetite,''…Six months ago, Goldman Sachs was supported by $10 billion from the U.S. Treasury and relied on government guarantees to issue debt. Moszkowski predicts the company will reap $26.45 billion from trading this year, a gain from $25.36 billion in 2007 when the firm shattered Wall Street profit records.
Remember this BN story from May? Goldman Sachs’s $100 Million Trading Days Hit Record Goldman Sachs Group Inc. reaped more than $100 million in trading revenue on a record 34 separate days during the first three months of 2009, up from the previous peak of 28 in last year’s first quarter.
The first-quarter number was almost double the total for all of 2005.
Zero Hedge: Citadel Joins the Program Trading Industrial Espionage Fray, Sues Malyshev And Teza The gloves are now completely off in the escalating program trading fiasco that was started by Goldman's former Sergey Aleynikov. Oddly, while Zero Hedge was fully expecting the Teza injunction to come from Goldman, it seems Griffin was more than happy to burden himself with that task. Hopefully Citadel is not faced with a case of reverse discovery and forced to document the 40% returns that it generated compliments of Malyshev when all its other groups on average lost around 50% in 2008.
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/
Citadel Investment Group LLC, the $12 billion hedge fund firm founded by Ken Griffin, sued three former executives and the firm they founded, Teza Technologies LLC, claiming violation of noncompetition agreements.
Teza described itself in a July 6 e-mail as a “formative” firm that is neither trading nor investing.
Named after a river in western Russia, the Chicago-based firm was co-founded by Misha Malyshev, Jace Kohlmeier and Matt Hinerfeld. All were named in the complaint…
Malyshev worked at Citadel for almost six years and until February was its head of high-frequency trading. He was on the team that ran a $1.8 billion tactical trading fund that uses computer model to make trades every few seconds. The fund climbed 40 percent last year, while its main funds tumbled 55 percent.
American International Group is preparing to pay millions of dollars in bonuses this month to several dozen top corporate executives after an earlier round of payments four months ago set off a national furor. [Revolucion!]
China has launched its highest-profile criticism of the dominant role of the US dollar as a global reserve currency at a meeting of the world’s biggest economies.
Dai Bingguo, Chinese state councillor, raised the issue on Thursday when he joined the leaders of four other emerging economies for talks with the leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations
The Treasury Department apparently made a change in early June in the way how they compute indirect bids. No one seems to have a definite answer as to what changed, but Indirect Bidder percentage in Treasury Auctions in June has been significantly higher in most cases, prompting the speculation by the traders of manipulation or massaging of the numbers so that the market sees high indirect bids (considered to be the proxy for foreign interest in Treasuries).
Top officials in China and Russia have expressed unease about the growing U.S. budget deficit, slated for a record $1.75 trillion in fiscal 2009 alone. This means that traders pay extra close attention to foreign demand figures.
The Treasury's changes, contained in a June 1 entry to the Federal Register, relate to what it considers a "guaranteed bid." Under the previous arrangement, once a primary dealer offered securities at a prespecified level to its customer, that bid was considered to be the dealer's own.
"We are not precisely sure what this all means," said Ward McCarthy, managing director at Stone & McCarthy Research Associates in Princeton, New Jersey.
"We spoke with some very seasoned market players with decades of experience on dealer trading floors who were similarly unsure what to make of the contents of the Federal Register."
To no one’s surprise Fed insiders are protesting that a Congressional audit of its operations will compromise its independence. Only the most gullible or ignorant believe the Fed has independence.
And once again we must warn that Americans are exhausting their unemployment benefits at a record rate (49.17% as of 5/31). And when one draws ‘extended benefits’ they drop off the jobless claims roles.
Rasmussen: Just 27% Favor Second Stimulus Plan This Year, 60% Oppose.
It’s not just economic and financial data that is purposely corrupted to depict a better than reality picture. The LA Times: LAPD's public database omits nearly 40% of this year's crimes.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lapd-crimemap9-2009jul09,0,909582.story
Up To 10,000 Illinois Prisoners May Be Released; Gov. Pat Quinn: Release Of
Inmates Could Save Taxpayers $125 Million.
In the realm of electronic trading, systems are being fed into prop desks so traders can see all real money flows into and out of stocks and groups.
Recent revelations at Goldman Sachs show there is major automated front-running going on. The sources for this illegal activity finding orders loaded into the system and trading against them; and discovering and then front-running electronic orders by a penny or more by exploding the lag in execution. Firms grabbing pennies are making billions of dollars a day. The Street has been and is furious that the media regulators and our duly elected are not even discussing what could be the second biggest scam and abuse of our times. The biggest is the suppression of gold and silver prices.
Worse yet, few people realize that exchanges actually pay firms to trade against order flow when they act as a “supplementary Liquidity Provider.” Exchanges pay firms ¼ of a penny if they provide liquidity when an order appears in the system. This is extra incentive to front-run order flows. Can you imagine that this is a policy of the NYSE led by the pirates of Goldman Sachs?
The Treasury is supposedly putting the clamps on derivatives yes, and we have a bridge for sale.
The CFTC says it will move aggressively to rein in excessive speculation in energy and metals. Let’s see if they force the banks to cover some of naked shorts in gold and silver.
This is a major development because of the concentrated positions of JPM, HSBC and Goldman in gold and silver. We could finally get a break – let’s see what happens. It could also be that the Comex gold and silver inventories are a scam and something has to be done about it now.
In the FDIC Friday Night Financial Follies: Bank of Wyoming, with $70 million of assets and $67 million of deposits, was closed by the state’s Department of Audit, Division of Banking and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was named receiver, the FDIC said today in a statement. Central Bank & Trust in Lander, Wyoming, will assume the deposits and the failed bank’s only office.
AIG has been talking with the Obama administration's compensation czar,
Kenneth Feinberg, about paying out about $235 million in bonuses, which are due to be paid on July 15 to about 400 employees in that group, according to published reports. The Washington Post first reported the story this morning.
AIG does not actually need Feinberg's approval to pay out the bonuses -- he has to review only payments that were contracted beginning in 2009 -- but AIG wants him to review the bonuses so as to avoid the public uproar that took place in March when AIG paid out $135 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products division. The $235 million in bonuses was contracted in 2008.
A firestorm of criticism surrounded AIG after it disclosed the March bonuses, causing some employees to return chunks of their payouts, with several resigning. AIG lost $99 billion last year, most of which came from derivatives written by that unit.
The Treasury is supposedly putting the clamps on derivatives yes, and we have a bridge for sale.
The CFTC says it will move aggressively to rein in excessive speculation in energy and metals. Let’s see if they force the banks to cover some of naked shorts in gold and silver.
This is a major development because of the concentrated positions of JPM, HSBC and Goldman in gold and silver. We could finally get a break – let’s see what happens. It could also be that the Comex gold and silver inventories are a scam and something has to be done about it now. |
Fed Independence or Fed Secrecy?
By Ron Paul |
Global Research, July 13, 2009 |
Ron Paul |
Last week I was very pleased that hearings were held on the independence of the Federal Reserve system. My bill HR 1207, known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, was discussed at length, as well as the general question of whether or not the Federal Reserve should continue to operate independently.
The public is demanding transparency in government like never before. A majority of the House has cosponsored HR 1207. Yet, Senator Jim DeMint’s heroic efforts to attach it to another piece of legislation elicited intense opposition by the Senate leadership.
The hearings on Capitol Hill provided us with a great deal of information about the types of arguments that will be levied against meaningful transparency and how the secretive central bankers will defend the status quo that is so beneficial to them.
Claims are made that auditing the Fed would compromise its independence. However, by independence, they really mean secrecy. The Fed clearly cherishes its vast power to create and spend trillions of dollars, diluting the value of every other dollar in circulation, making deals with other central banks, and bailing out cronies, all to the detriment of the taxpayer, and to the enrichment of themselves. I am happy to challenge this type of “independence”.
They claim the Fed is endowed with special intellectual abilities with which to control the market and that central bankers magically know what the market needs. We should just trust them. This is patently ridiculous. The market is a complex and intricate thing. No one knows what the market needs other than the market itself. It sends signals, such as prices, that should be reacted to and respected, not thwarted and controlled. Bankers are not all-knowing and cannot ignore the rules of supply and demand. They might act as if they are, but their manipulation of the market just ends up throwing it wildly off balance, which gives us the boom and bust cycles.
They claim the Fed must remain apolitical. No organization is apolitical that relies on the President to appoint the Chairman. In fact, it is subject to the worst sort of politics – power to create trillions of dollars and affect the value of every dollar in the country without the accountability of direct elections or meaningful oversight! The Fed typically enacts monetary policy that is favorable to particular administrations close to elections, to the detriment of long term considerations. They do this partly because of the political appointee process for the Chairmanship.
The only accountability the Federal Reserve has is ultimately to Congress, which granted its charter and can revoke it at any time. It is Congress’s constitutional duty to protect the value of the money, and they have abdicated this responsibility for far too long. This was the issue that got me involved in politics 35 years ago. It is very encouraging to finally see the issue getting some needed exposure and traction. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of this magnitude to get a serious debate on this issue. |
Michael Pollan: We Are Headed Toward a Breakdown in Our Food System
Michael Pollan's famous motto for a smart, healthy diet is "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Add to that: "And when you happen to be on your publisher's expense account, splurge." The night we met up to chat at a place of his choosing, he tucked into a roasted slab of B.C. wild Chinook salmon, a tangle of salad greens and several glasses of good Okanagan Pinot Gris in the swank environs of the Blue Water Café in Vancouver's Yaletown neighbourhood.
Pollan, who lives in Berkeley, California, has championed the cause of stronger local food networks with his bestsellers The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food. He was in town to sign books and headline a sold-out picnic fundraiser to preserve the University of British Columbia's urban farm as a working laboratory for sustainable agriculture. His rousing talk drew a standing ovation, and even a few tears.
As a dinner companion, Pollan is loose, friendly, and, as you might expect, intellectually omnivorous, peppering his interviewer with more questions than he was asked.

Along the way, he sketched the current state of food politics inside the White House and within his own home. He was surprised to learn the 100-Mile Diet was launched in British Columbia (on The Tyee) and said meeting 100-Mile Diet creators Alisa Smith and James MacKinnon is on his list of things to do (message delivered, Alisa and James). He compared today's food movement to Martin Luther's reform of the Church and he predicted certain breakdown for a North American food system far too dependent on cheap energy and big corporations. Between bites, here's what else Pollan shared …
On raising an ultra-picky eater:
Michael Pollan: My 16-year-old son Isaac has been a very complex, tortuous food story. He was a terrible eater. One of the reasons I got interested in writing about food is he didn't eat anything. I love food, my wife loves food, and he just was tortured about food. He was one of these kids -- and there are many of them -- who only ate white food. He ate bread, pasta, rice, potatoes. There are a lot more of these kids than there used to be. I'm not exactly sure why.
But he basically found food scary and overwhelming. And so he controlled that by eating food that was as bland as possible. He was the same way about clothes. He didn't like any variety in clothing. So he wore black clothes for about eight years of his childhood. Ate white, dressed black. In both cases, in retrospect, he was trying to reduce sensory input. It was overwhelming. Smell was overwhelming, taste was overwhelming, colour was overwhelming. And he just had trouble processing.
A very interesting turnaround happened about two years ago. He discovered food. He became very serious about it, partly through cooking. And now he loves food. But he doesn't eat everything. No seafood, for example. But he'll eat any kind of meat, many kinds of vegetables. Last summer he worked a summer job in a kitchen. He worked as a chef. So he's gone through this really interesting transformation.
But I've since heard that many chefs have gone through this as children. That they couldn't eat because their sensory apparatuses were overly receptive. And I heard this story from [famous Chez Panisse owner and chef] Alice Waters, who herself was a very, very picky eater as a child. She predicted Isaac would flip around. She met him when he was young and actually tried to cook for him when he was eleven. Such a waste of her talent! (laughs).
So anyway, my son's whole journey around food has been interesting for me to watch. And now he likes to cook and we cook together and he's a good cook. But now, of course, he's a horrible food snob. It'll be like, he's doing homework so I'm doing the cooking, and he'll say, 'What are we having?' And I'll say, 'Well, I've got this nice grass-fed steak I'm going to make'. And he'll say, 'Can you make a reduction to go with that? Maybe a Port reduction would be good'. And I'll say, 'Fuck you! If you want to do a Port reduction, you do it'! (laughs) And depending on how much homework he has, he will do it. He'll make this delicious Port reduction for his steak. He's a complicated character.
On the personal politics of pint-sized picky eaters:
MP: Kids' relations to food are complex. This generation will have its own neuroses, that's for sure. But it's very concerning that there are such high levels of allergies among kids nowadays. The reasons are as yet unexplained. But I've heard that it has complicated kids' relationships with food because so many have allergies, or think they do.
I've discovered cooking and gardening are great ways to get kids to reorient their relationships to food in a positive way. Kids will eat things that they'll pick in the garden that they'll never eat off the plate. Or they'll eat things that they've cooked themselves. Because I think a big issue for them is control. Food is really, I think, a primary political phenomenon. It is the first time you can control what you take into your body, and the first time you can say no to your parents and assert your identity. So I think food and politics are very intertwined.
On whether Barack Obama is going to be good for food:
MP: We don't know yet. I think Obama gets the issues. He's a great dot connector. He connects the dots between the way we grow food and the health care crisis and the climate change crisis and the energy crisis. He understands that and he's spoken about that eloquently. The question is how much political capital he is going to put into changing the system.
So far the most significant thing is what his wife has done, the way Michelle Obama has been talking about food, especially the importance of giving your children real food. When she planted a vegetable garden at the White House, she was very careful to let the world know that it was an organic garden. And that's a big deal, because organics are fighting words in this battle and in fact the industry came back at her.
A group with the wonderful name of the Crop Life Association, which is the lobbying group for the pesticide manufacturers, was very upset that she was casting aspersions on conventional agriculture. The Crop Life Association really should go by the opposite name, the Bug Death Association. (laughs) They understood Michelle Obama's garden to be a critique of non-organic agriculture. And it was a critique. But their backlash hasn't deterred her. She is going to make food one of her issues.
I was a bit surprised. I thought she was going to be leading with, like, war widows, families of soldiers, which she said was going to be her issue. But this came out first. And she's got great feedback on it and is going to do more, from what I've heard.
On Obama's side, you've got Tom Vilsack who is the Secretary of Agriculture. As the former governor of Iowa, he seemed like a real conventional choice. But in fact he's been quite surprising, too. He's also planted a garden at the Department of Agriculture, which you could dismiss as symbolism, but he's talking a lot about local food and urban agriculture. Most significantly, he appointed as his number two a woman name Kathleen Merrigan, who is a genuine reformer. She founded the organic program at USDA, she wrote the original organic law for Senator Patrick Leahy and she's a real staunch supporter of sustainable agriculture and she's running the Department of Agriculture! That's pretty mind blowing. We'll see. She's up against incredible forces of inertia.
On the health dollar costs of America's 'diet catastrophe':
MP: At some abstract level Obama sees that he's not going to get his health care costs under control unless we change the way Americans eat. Because the crisis of rising costs in the American health care system can be translated very simply as the catastrophe of the American diet, which represents probably half of what we spend on health care in America. We spend about $2 trillion a year. The Centers for Disease Control says that 1.5 trillion goes to treat chronic disease. Now you've got smoking in there, alcoholism, but other than that, chronic disease is mostly food related. So you really can't get control of that system unless you are preventing some of those chronic diseases. And the way you do that, really, is to change the food system. But, you know, it's very, very hard to do.
My bet is that what we'll see from the Obama administration is a lot of support for alternative groups such as local and organic. Money for farmers to transition, money to rebuild local food economies. Whether we'll actually see an attack on conventional agriculture is less likely, given the politics of it. The reason is you can't do anything with the current agriculture committees we've got in Congress. You can't drive any reform through. It's going to take a few years to change the populations of those committees.
On whether he's trying to rally a movement in time to avert disaster, or just prepare us for the inevitable mess caused by scarcer oil, degrading ecologies, and global warming:
MP: It's more the latter. We need to have these alternatives around and available when the shit hits the fan, basically.
One of the reasons we need to nurture several different ways of feeding ourselves -- local, organic, pasture-based meats, and so on – is that we don't know what we're going to need and we don't know what is going to work. To the extent that we diversify the food economy, we will be that much more resilient. Because there will be shocks. We know that. We saw that last summer with the shock of high oil prices. There will be other shocks. We may have the shock of the collapsing honey bee population. We may have the shock of epidemic diseases coming off of feed lots. We're going to need alternatives around.
When we say the food system is unsustainable we mean that there is something about it, an internal contradiction, that means it can't go on the way it is without it breaking up. And I firmly believe there will be a breakdown.
On whether he's a fan of the 100-Mile Diet:
MP: I think the 100-Mile Diet, as a pedantic exercise, is really important. People really learn a lot. They learn what's available. They learn how much they appreciate things that come from far away. It was one of the great teaching exercises. And we need those. People don't know where their food comes from and they have no idea what they are eating.
But you know, when I was working on The Omnivore's Dilemma I talked to Joel Salatin, a farmer who is kind of a hero of alternative agriculture. He is radical. Beyond organic. Really uncompromising. In fact he hates organic, thinks it's already sold out. So I asked him: 'Are you going to blow up this food system?' He said, 'No, this isn't a revolution, this is a reformation.' And that's a good metaphor.
It's like once upon a time there was one way to feed yourself spiritually as a Christian. It was the Catholic Church. And you had to go through those doors to have any relationship with God. And then Luther came along and suddenly you have many denominations. And that's where we are now. Luther is like the organic pioneers, maybe Wendell Berry, I don't know. And these alternatives are thriving, and everyone is very excited about the possibilities. But the Catholic Church didn't go away. It just got smaller, you know? And I think realistically that's what’s going to happen. There still will be supermarket food. There still will be food that travels around the world. I just hope there is less of it and more good alternatives.
On the communal pleasures and benefits of 'locavore' eating:
MP: It's a part of the food movement that people don't pay enough attention to. Actually I met Agriculture Secretary Vilsack and at some point, apropos of nothing, he went into this incredibly eloquent riff about farmers' markets. He just loves farmers' markets. He said, 'You know, this isn't about food, this is about community. People are starved for community.' And he's absolutely right. And I'm amazed that the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture has that insight.
At my farmer's market, people go whether they are going to be cooking or not. They go to hang out. They go because they're going to see their friends. They go because there's politicking and music and massages and all these other things happening. And it's just as important.
On how food insecurity can unravel an empire:
MP: That's what brought down Soviet communism, you know. By the end of the Soviet Union, 50 per cent of the food was being grown outside the official system. And people just realized, okay, supermarkets aren't working, we're going to set up this other economy. We're going to grow it ourselves, we're going to tend small allotment farms. And I think it was the crisis of legitimacy of the whole system. Again, it was another reformation. The collective farms were still there, still producing large amounts of bread or whatever. But you had this alternative that just rose up.
Breadline USA: Why People Are Going Hungry in the Land of Plenty
By Sasha Abramsky, PoliPoint Press
Posted on July 4, 2009, Printed on July 5, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/140926/
From Breadline USA: The Hidden Scandal of American Hunger and How to Fix It © 2009 by Sasha Abramsky. Reprinted with permission from PoliPointPress, LLC, Sausalito, CA.
When the Month is Longer Than the Money
Billy MacPherson believed that for many of her friends and pantry clientele “the months are longer than the money.” What little income they brought in each month— from work, from Social Security or disability checks, in food stamps or welfare payments— was never quite enough to last a full four-plus weeks. And so they faced an unpalatable choice: try to stretch the family budget to cover the whole month, which involved scrimping on food and missing meals throughout the entire period, or eat semi-decently for the first two or three weeks of the month and pray that something, somehow, would come about to tide them through the lean times at the end.
Once gas prices started going up, food prices also headed north— at least in part because so much corn and arable land was diverted into biofuel production in response to the energy crunch; in part, too, because oil-based fertilizers soared in price and inflation took root throughout the broader economy. In the last years of George W. Bush’s presidency, that lean period at the end of each month began to grow. Instead of a few days, it became a week; then it became ten days, even two weeks. For low-income Americans, wages and government checks lagged far behind inflation, leaving them little choice but to watch as month after month their never particularly munificent purchasing power collapsed.
In the years following 2005, as the price of staples such as wheat and rice more than doubled, deadly food riots broke out in Bangladesh, Haiti, Cameroon, Yemen, Mexico, Egypt, Burkina Faso, and several other countries. People earning one or two dollars a day were facing starvation caused not by drought or plagues of locusts but by the workings of the international commodities market. In some nations, governments were brought to their knees by the disturbances; in others, panicked ministers met in emergency sessions to limit crop exports and try to shore up their populaces’ food supplies.
By 2008 America’s impoverished classes were, albeit to a lesser extent, facing a similar price-induced hunger. Unlike the destitute of countries such as Ethiopia and the Sudan, who too often went hungry because crops failed and what little food the was got bought up by their richer neighbors, America’s poor were being priced out of a market flush with excess eatables. Theirs was a hunger amid plenty, an inability to buy their way to seats at the most food-laden table in history. At the same time as hungry Milwaukee residents— on false rumors of free food deliveries— were fighting each other for access to hoped-for supplies in the spring of 2008, at the same time as immigrant shoppers in many neighborhoods were stampeding to buy up large bags of rice in the face of rising prices, hot dog–eating and fried asparagus–eating competitions were gaining in popularity from the Coney Island boardwalk in New York to the agricultural town of Stockton, California. One visit to any of these binge-eating orgies would have been enough to put paid to the notion that American hunger, twenty-first-century style, was in any way about the country as a whole facing food shortages. Yes, food prices were rising, but they were rising due to increased energy costs and growing global demand for American food exports rather than in response to a collapse in the nation’s food supply. The country’s growing epidemic of hunger was less a symptom of food market contractions and more one of the stealth spread of poverty and inflation into more and more corners of American life.
The U.S. government’s official poverty line in 2008 was $10,590 for a single person, $13,540 for a couple, $16,530 for a family of three, and $21,203 for a family of four. And the Census Bureau estimated that over 37 million Americans (including noncitizen residents) were living at or below these income levels. But that only hinted at the growing scale of American poverty. Economists such as Bob Pollin, codirector of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, believed many tens of million Americans more were living on incomes that, while they might meet a denuded government “minimum-wage” threshold, in reality couldn’t be expected to meet a family’s basic needs.
Pollin’s team calculated that a single person needed to earn ten dollars an hour to achieve even a semblance of economic security; and, as with the poverty line, so with this measure, which he called a “living wage,” the dollar amount would go up as the number of people in the family increased.
Guaranteeing a living wage was an ambitious goal, one that a number of localities had been trying to implement since the mid-1990s, when Baltimore’s city council passed a limited living-wage bill that impacted about fifteen hundred local workers employed by companies who did business with the city. And nowhere were such local measures more of a hot-button issue than in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
In the late winter of 2006, Santa Fe’s then-mayor David Coss sat behind his large desk discussing the city’s living wage, his long, wiry body draped in an expensive gray-brown linen suit, a cream shirt and dark-patterned tie, his hair neatly coiffed, his graying goatee smartly trimmed. A Georgia O’Keefe poster of a horned animal’s skull hung on the wall behind him. A second poster, in pastels, showed off a glorious Southwestern desert and mountain landscape— a world of swirling dreams and endless possibilities. Coss had a background as an environmental scientist and a union organizer; he had risen to power at City Hall at least in part because of his assertive championing of the most comprehensive living-wage statute in America.
Three years earlier, after a decade-long campaign by social justice activists, seven of the eight councilmen in the chic— and expensive— desert town voted to raise the city’s minimum wage to $8.50 an hour, with successive increases built in that would hike it up to $10.50 by 2008. In the years following, despite litigation from opponents of a living wage, the courts rejected challenges to the law, and public support for the change remained high— notwithstanding doom and gloom prognostications from the town’s tourism-dominated service industries. Santa Fe’s living wage was, Coss averred, “basic economic fairness in making the economy work for everyone and not just the people at the top.” When the chamber of commerce ran candidates against the four councillors most outspoken in their support of the living wage, the chamber’s candidates were all soundly beaten on Election Day.
In a town with a high percentage of practicing Catholics, the living wage in Santa Fe was pushed not just as a sensible economic move— as a way to stimulate spending and savings cycles along the bottom edge of the labor market— but as a moral imperative, reinforced by the authority of papal encyclicals dating back to Leo XIII at the tail end of the nineteenth century. “No one who works full time should have to live in poverty,” Monsignor Jerome Martinez stated. The monsignor was a middle-aged man with a shock of curly gray hair, a warm smile, and a deeply suntanned, slightly pocked face. He shared his cluttered office in an annex to the spectacular Cathedral of St. Francis with two large green cacti and several oil paintings of Jesus. “The dignity of the worker is more than just being a cog in the industrial machine. The Just Wage provides sustenance, housing, minimum health care, retirement benefits, and that the worker should have an opportunity to be generous. The ability to be generous is an important aspect of the church. It makes you feel more like a human being.” Smiling broadly, Martinez proudly recalled that, at a time when living-wage advocates dreamt of the $8.50 earnings floor, the church in Santa Fe paid none of its sixty-five employees less than $11.50 per hour.
Santa Fe’s move followed that of dozens of other municipalities in the decade since Baltimore kick-started the process in 1994. By the turn of the century, over sixty cities had followed Baltimore’s lead. And, in the years following, dozens more enacted such laws. In some cases, the living wage affected only city workers or businesses that contracted with city and state governments; elsewhere, they applied across the board. Yet, despite the movement’s progress, it remained marginal, enforced in a few scores of cities but not adopted by even one state. California’s statewide minimum wage, the highest in the country, was $8 an hour in 2008, still far short of what living-wage advocates claimed was needed to stabilize the lives of low-income workers. And in much of the country, a federal minimum wage prevailed. It was set at $5.15 an hour in 1997 and stayed at that level for ten years, its real value reduced by almost half, leaving recipients with less purchasing power than minimum-wage earners had had at any point in the previous half century. A new Democratic congressional majority finally passed a three-step minimum-wage increase in 2007; yet the increase envisaged only a $7.25 minimum wage by 2009, and it wasn’t inflation indexed. Consequently, the federal minimum wage remained a woefully inadequate method of fighting poverty.
That the minimum wage became so diluted hinted at profound changes within the nation’s political culture. In 1938, Franklin Roosevelt signed the minimum wage into law, calling for a “fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” and declaring that goods produced in workplaces that did not pay a minimum wage “should be regarded as contraband.” Seventy years on, the minimum wage had lost close to half its real value and was seen as a political punching bag, attacked by conservative critics as impeding the workings of the free market.
By the early twenty-first century, reformers questing after Roosevelt’s vision had come to accept that any minimum wage passed at the federal level was likely to be inadequate to meet the needs of its recipients; instead, they opted to push for local and state living-wage ordinances.
The living-wage movement, however, has had only limited impact. While many states enacted a higher minimum wage than that mandated by the federal government in the years since 1997, none implemented one that genuinely met living-wage criteria. As a result, low-end wages continued to stagnate in a process exacerbated by the systemic underestimation of inflation, which allowed employers to minimize the pay raises they gave to employees. Thus, in a period of unprecedented corporate profits and rising worker productivity— up 2.5 percent per year during the 2000s— most working Americans experienced either stagnant real income or a fall in real income during the Bush presidency. Census Bureau numbers showed that the median household income for working-age households fell, in 2007 dollars, by $2,010 in the years from 2000 to 2007, the only economic cycle on record in which real income for American workers has fallen. For racial minorities, the trend was even worse: median income for blacks declined by over 5 percent during these years; for Hispanics the decline was 3.1 percent.
At the same time, the percentage of Americans, many of them employed, living below the poverty line steadily rose. In the absence of strong wage-protection laws, many employers continued to grievously underpay their employees. Indeed, Bob Pollin came up with a disturbing estimate of the extent of this problem: by the end of the Bush presidency, fully one in three American workers was earning below his living-wage benchmark.
These were the people— described by Princeton University sociologist Katherine Newman as “the missing class”— most impacted by soaring gas and food costs, people who in the best of times spent a higher proportion of their incomes on basic necessities than did any other part of the population. They were deemed by the government too affluent to qualify for food stamps, Medicaid, and the other welfare programs that collectively constituted the country’s frayed safety net. And yet, once oil prices doubled and then doubled again, once the cost of a gallon of milk, a dozen eggs, a pound of rice ballooned, these men, women, and children were the ones left most exposed to destitution. By trying to keep their jobs, low-wage earners and their families were in many ways rendering themselves worse off than those who never had, or couldn’t keep, paid employment and who therefore qualified for the maximum food stamp allotment and various other government subsidies.
Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour by 2011; if he makes good on this promise as president, and indexes that minimum wage to inflation, America would finally come close to Roosevelt’s dream of a minimum wage that provided genuine economic security. Given the severity of the financial crisis and subsequent recession, however, it is more than likely this goal will continue to be a promise deferred. For now, at least, local living-wage ordinances and laws targeting the wages of public sector employees and workers for mega-companies like Wal-Mart continue to offer the best hope for creating a safety net for America’s most vulnerable workers.
Market Review: Failing US Banks seized by regulators
By Bob Chapman |
Global Research, July 4, 2009 |
The International Forecaster |
The Friday night, June 27th FDIC Financial Follies were presented again at 9:00 pm EST. That is so the public will not hear about the failures.
Five U.S. banks with total assets of about $1.04 billion were seized by regulators, pushing this year’s tallyof failures to 45 as a recession drives up unemployment and home foreclosures.
Community Bank of West Georgia, in Villa Rica, Georgia; Neighborhood Community Bank of Newnan, Georgia; Horizon Bank of Pine City, Minnesota; MetroPacific Bank of Irvine, California; and Mirae Bank of Los Angeles were closed yesterday by state regulators, according to statements from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The FDIC was named receiver of the four banks.
Wilshire Bancorp’s Wilshire State Bank will take over all of Mirae’s $362 million in deposits, and will purchase $449 million of assets, the FDIC said in a statement.
Sunwest Bank of Tustin, California, acquired most of MetroPacific’s $73 million in deposits and $80 million in assets, the FDIC said. Stearns Bank of St. Cloud, Minnesota, bought Horizon Bank’s $69.4 million of deposits. Stearns will purchase $84.4 million of Horizon’s assets, the FDIC said.
The FDIC didn’t find a buyer for Community Bank of West Georgia, and said it will mail checks to reimburse insured depositors. The bank has deposits of $182.5 million. Charter Financial Corp.’s CharterBank will assume Neighborhood Community Bank’s $191.3 million of deposits and purchased some assets in a loss-share agreement with the FDIC, according to the agency.
“The loss-sharing arrangement is projected to maximize returns on the assets covered by keeping them in the private sector,” the FDIC said. “The agreement also is expected to minimize disruptions for loan customers.”
Regulators have seized the most U.S. banks this year since 1993. The U.S. economy has shed about 6 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007. Foreclosure filings surpassed 300,000 for the third straight month in May, according to RealtyTrac Inc.
The U.S. banking industry said it made $9.8 billion during the first quarter trading derivatives and securities as investors started returning to the markets amid signs the recession bottomed.
The surge was led by trading in interest-rate derivatives, which allow investors to hedge against rate swings, as the banks reported revenues that were more than triple any quarter during at least the past five years, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said today in a report.
Revenue rose as banks, constrained by the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, charged “wide” bid-ask spreads, or the fees that traders make from the gap between prices at which they’ll buy and sell the contracts, Deputy Comptroller Kathryn Dick said in a statement.
Revenue from trading interest-rate contracts soared to $9.1 billion from $1.9 billion a year earlier and from a $3.4 billion loss in the fourth quarter of 2008, according to the report. Currencies contracts accounted for $2.4 billion in the 2009 first period. The banks lost $3.15 billion from trading credit.
The Friday Night FDIC Financial Follies came on Thursday, July 3rd, due to the holiday weekend. We are told that before the year is out 400 banks will go under. There have been a number of banks that have been merged with other stronger banks, which greatly distorts this picture.
Six banks in Illinois and one in Texas were seized by regulators as the deepening financial crisis pushed the toll of failed U.S. lenders this year to 52, the most since 1992.
Twelve banks have failed this year in Illinois, the most of any state. The seven lenders seized today, with total assets of $1.49 billion and deposits of $1.34 billion, were closed by state or federal regulators and theFederal Deposit Insurance Corp. was named receiver, according to statements from the FDIC. Buyers were named for each of the closed institutions.
The Illinois banks are affiliates of Peotone Bank & Trust Co., in Peotone, Illinois, about 45 miles (72 kilometers) south of Chicago. The failures resulted primarily because of soured loans and losses on investments in collateralized debt obligations, the FDIC said. Illinois, with an unemployment rate above the national average, was one of seven states to begin the fiscal year yesterday without a spending plan.
“The six failed Illinois banks are all controlled by one family and followed a similar business model that created concentrated exposure in each institution,” the FDIC said. CDOs, which packaged bonds and loans into notes of varying risk and yield, lost money as real estate defaults soared.
Regulators this year have closed the most banks since the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1990s as lenders struggle with mounting losses on mortgages and commercial loans. The total for 2009 is more than double the 25 banks shuttered in 2008 and surpasses the 50 that were closed in 1993. The prior year there were 181 failures or government-assisted transactions.
The House did it. They succumbed to the biggest tax increase in history for Americans. The American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by 219-212, a disgrace to our country. The worst legislation since CAFTA, NAFTA, the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve Act. Trillions more in taxes and millions of job losses. A 1,200 page piece of legislation that not one Congressman or woman read. If allowed to be passed in the Senate it will be the greatest economic threat to Americans in history.
Costs to American will be 20% of disposable income. An increase in gasoline tax of $0.77 a gallon and a doubling of every electric bill in the country. The taxes go to government past of which will go to fund the UN and IMF.
This bill has to be stopped in the Senate. Hit every Senator with emails, phone calls, Fax’s and letters. Short and sweet – do not vote yes on any legislation to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, such as the American Clear Energy & Security Act.
America’s biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.
Under the Waxman-Markey climate bill that may be voted on today by the U.S. House, refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants and from vehicles when motorists burn their fuel.Imports would need permits only for the latter, which ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said would create a competitive imbalance.
“It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment,” Mulva said in a June 16 interview in Detroit. Houston-based ConocoPhillips has the second-largest U.S. refining capacity.
The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida.
“They’ll be searching the globe for refined products that don’t carry the same level of carbon costs,” said Mahaffey, a former Exxon Corp. refinery manager.
Prices Seen Rising
The equivalent of one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020 as the cost of carbon allowances erases profits, according to the American Petroleum Institute, a Washington trade group known asAPI. Carbon permits would add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline, said Russell Jones, the API’s senior economic adviser.
House Passes Climate-Change Plan, an Obama Priority (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPwZANlDq4R0
After having written so long about the Fed nothing should rally surprise you. The Fed, under attack by Ron Paul’s HR-1207, came out with a strong offense for a defendable defense. Being granted more financial dictatorial power it is the antithesis of what America needs. In essence America is being handed a financial dictatorship. This will make the fed even more unaccountable then it already is. We will be faced with across the board problems and more secrecy from this privately owned bank. Continue to bombard the House members on HR 1207 and Senate members on S. 604, sponsored by Senators Sanders and DeMint.
It is proposed that the Fed will be the systemic risk regulator and supervisor of the too big to fail institutions, which own the Fed. We call that incestuous. The Fed will supply liquidity to save its shareholders. A council of regulators will be created to replace the President’s Working Group on Financial markets. That group would be chaired by the Treasury, but with advisory powers only. That means the power to manipulate all markets without interference will solely be left to the Fed. . They would be able to make any market in the world what they want it to be. There are no free markets now. The Fed would have full fascistic control. This would give the Fed’s owners the opportunity to totally loot the system and the American public.
For almost 20 years the Fed has advocated no regulation of derivatives, now they are to regulate them. That would include writers maintaining at least 5% interest in the derivatives.
The Fed would create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency with rules against predatory lending and transparency standards at the retail level. This is a farce in as much as the major banks own the Fed.
A new resolution mechanism that would clear big bank balance sheets of all toxic waste throughout the financial system, that you as taxpayers, would get to pay for.
The Fed would be the leader in the formation of global financial regulation and supervision, as part of a plan for the consolidation of all such enforcement on the path to world government. The Fed would marry into the new European Systemic Risk Council comprised of EU central bank governors. This Council would breach US sovereignty by issuing warnings and recommendations, somewhat like the Bank for International Settlements does. The Fed would work in conjunction with the EU, but at this time not be controlled by an international body. This is the foot in the door approach. Once set up the Fed would become part of this international cross border agency. From the very beginning there would be a single rulebook applicable to all financial institutions, which belies the fact that the agency would in reality control all financial institutions from its inception.
The President’s plan requires all advisers to hedge funds and other pools of capital, including private equity funds, and venture capital funds, a some fixed level, to register with the SEC.
Financial derivatives will be regulated. Standardized credit default swaps and other OTC derivates will be required to clear through a central counterparty and trade on exchanges and other transparent trading venues. The custom products will have to register as well.
The Ron Paul, Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 now has 244 co-sponsors. A very upset Fed three weeks ago herded former Enron lobbyist Linda Robertson to payoff and pressure House members. Now the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association has been brought into the fray to counter the populist backlash against bankers. The spearhead will be led by two former aides to former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The plan is to target every representative in the House and unleash a multi-million dollar media blitz in city by city. A massive propaganda campaign has begun. Former treasury aides Michele Davis, a PR type and Jim Wilkinson, a former chief of staff are leading the charge. Engaged as well is Democratic polling company, Brilliant Comers Research & strategies.
SIFMA has 600 securities firms led by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citicorp. The theme is lets work together. Yes, these are the firms that have looted American citizens of their hard earned wages for years.
Opinion Research found 34% of investors are angry and Share Owners.org 58% are less confident in the fairness of the financial markets.
All this wouldn’t be necessary if Treasury, the Fed and the major firms were not manipulating the markets.
The Fed, banking and Wall Street are responsible for the destruction of about 40% of worldwide wealth. Yet, they think they have done nothing wrong. They have disemboweled both residential and commercial real estate, which was in part responsible for a fall in the Dow from 14,100 to 6,600.
They have bamboozled the public with stress tests, which were bogus to prove false solvency. That avoided government oversight and as a give up allowed a special master of compensation for those, who took taxpayer funds, to escape insolvency. Wall Street denizens view their large salaries, bonuses and options as a right – an entitlement. These are the same people who destroyed the American dream and put their firms into insolvency.
The Fed and the Treasury had hundreds of billions of dollars for banking, Wall Street and insurance companies, but they couldn’t allow borrowers, facing foreclosure, a break. That would have staved off two million foreclosures and preserved $300 billion in equity. Congress couldn’t help average Americans, only the rich. We are in the greatest financial crisis since the early 1870s or the 1930s. These people have ravaged the financial and economic world and they are still in complete control of the system. That is because they have bought Congress and they have created a revolving door between NYC and Washington. Last year, banking, securities and investment firms gave $154.9 million in political payoffs. Real estate interests stuffed $136.7 million into politician’s pockets; commercial banks gave $37.1 million and hedge funds $16.7 million, for a total of $345.4 million. This is why campaign contributions have to end along with lobbying. When are Americans going to wake up to what is being done to them?
It is only a matter of when before there will be insufficient buyers of Treasuries to fund bond issues. We believe this has previously happened from time to time and that buying by the Fed from offshore accounts has held the market up. This we believe is why the Fed doesn’t want an audit. When foreign central banks stop buying, the Fed will monetize more and more as they are currently doing. They will be buying $3 trillion worth of Treasuries, Agencies and CDO toxic waste from banks over the next three months.
On June 5th, we saw the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields spike as the Fed lost control of the market. We noted the actions at that time. It won’t be long before most long dated paper, that is over 5 years, will have to be monetized in a very big way. That also means interest rates will continue to move higher. We believe the treasury will be in the market for $1.2 to $1.5 trillion. That means the Fed may have to buy $600 billion to $1 trillion in Treasuries. They have already committed for $300 billion. It is hard to know exactly what this private corporation is up to because much of what they do is in secret. As rates rise it becomes very difficult to finance mortgages. At a 5.5% mortgage rate, 80% of pending and future mortgages cannot be consummated.
In another area of finance the commercial paper market continues to contract. It is a very important source of borrowing for business and industry. As it contracts it keeps companies from producing goods and services and the economy contracts. The available paper has contracted by some 50% over the last two years, in spite of the Fed assisting that market. As available funds are reduced, production falls and unemployment rises.
Bank credit has fallen by $23 billion to $9 trillion, this in spite of a 3.6% rise yoy. In 2009, credit has fallen by $170 billion. Consumer borrowing is dropping and savings just hit 6.9%. In spite of late payers other borrowers are paying off their loans. Consumer credit usage has fallen about 8%, the same as in the 1990s recession.
As we write (6/27/09) the dollar on the USDX is 79.90. That is the dollar index where six other currencies are weighted and compared to the dollar. We not too long ago called a top at 89.50. The dollar has been unable to break above 81 for several weeks, which tells us the dollar is headed lower, perhaps sharply lower, to its former low of 71.18 before the year is out – and, perhaps much sooner. If you remember in the first two quarters of 2008, all over the world, vendors, businesses and others were refusing to take dollars, which is going to happen again. That could be a catalyst that could bring on a bank holiday. There is no question that the Fed and the Treasury will inflate until they cannot anymore. Foreigners will be looking at enormous losses and all dollar denominated debt held by foreigners could be dumped. Another event that could case a bank holiday. As that happens the cost of imports and the resultant inflation would skyrocket, as US interest rates soar. These are very probable scenarios..
American citizens owe massive debt to the world. Total debt to GDP is 370%. It was only 260% in 1929. In order to pay this off government spending would have to be cut by 80% and taxes would have to be raised to 80%. We see neither happening. As we said previously there will come a time over the next few years that all currencies will be devalued against one another and that all defaulted debt will be settled. All US bankers, Wall Street, Washington and the Fed are doing is trying to gain time, a fruitless pursuit. Debt is some 14% of GDP, and budget deficits are growing. Is it any wonder that foreign buyers of dollar denominated assets are disappearing?
Mounting job losses and other economic realities caught up with Americans in June, pushing down a key barometer of consumer sentiment after a streak of gains built on glimmers of hope.
Some economists say the reality check offered by yesterday’s report from the New York-based Conference Board may not augur well for spending in the critical months ahead.
The Conference Board said its Consumer Confidence Index now stands at 49.3, down from its revised May level of 54.8.
U.S. options trading rose 4.6 percent during the first half of the year and headed for a seventh consecutive annual record as investors embrace computer-driven strategies and shun private transactions.
About 1.82 billion contracts linked to stocks, indexes and exchange-traded funds have changed hands in 2009, according to the Options Clearing Corp., which tracks trading on U.S. exchanges. During all of 2008, 3.28 billion traded. Average daily volume has climbed 5.4 percent to 14.6 million this year.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will begin refinancing mortgages with loan-to-value ratios of as much as 125 percent as the Obama administration seeks to boost participation in its anti-foreclosure programs.
Shaun Donovan, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, made the announcement in a statement yesterday. Currently Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, through President Obama’s Home Affordable program, can refinance mortgages they own or guarantee when the loan is worth as much as 105 percent of the home’s market value.
The continuing slide in home prices has pushed millions of Americans beyond that 105 percent loan-to-value ratio, limiting participation in Obama’s initiative. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have refinanced 80,000 loans under the program, which set out to help as many as 5 million people who may owe more than their homes are worth, Federal Housing Finance Agency director James Lockhart said last month.
[Government did not learn its lesson. Here we are back with subprime garbage again. These loans will fall out within 6 months to a year. Bob ]
*****
467K jobs cut in June; jobless rate at 9.5 percent
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/467K-jobs-cut-in-June-jobless-apf-749843232.html/print;_ylt=AtAOQtZBiTqWNQW2IZppz_veba9_?x=0
*****
Ford Motor Co. says its June U.S. sales fell only 10.7 percent from a year earlier, a far smaller drop than in previous months and a sign that auto sales may be recovering.
Crabtree & Evelyn Ltd., the maker of soaps, gifts and toiletries sold in 126 stores in 34 states, filed for bankruptcy protection in New York, citing a decline in consumer spending.
The International Monetary Fund’s board of directors approved the issuance of bonds to the lender’s 186 members for the first time as it seeks additional sources of money to lend during the global recession.
The board made the move in a vote today and did not place a limit on the note sales, Andrew Tweedie, the Washington-based IMF’s finance chief, said on a conference call with reporters. The bonds are part of a wider effort to seek $500 billion in new funding as the lender helps countries from Iceland to Pakistan combat the global financial crisis.
The consumer confidence index fell to 49.3 in June from 54.8 in May; 55 was expected.
TrimTabs Weekly Macro Analysis – June 30, 2009: Real Savings Rate 0.9%, Not BEA’s 6.9%; Year-over-Year Growth in Wages and Salaries; -4.8% in May, Not -1.1% as BEA Reports
In addition, real-time tax data indicates wages and salaries fell 4.8% y-o-y in May, not 1.1% y-o-y as the BEA reports. And while the BEA reports that personal income rose 0.3% y-o-y in May, real-time tax data shows it fell 3.6% y-o-y. Consumers are in much worse shape than government statistics suggest and have little money left over to repair their tattered balance sheets.
http://www.trimtabs.com/site/index.php
Bloomberg: Delinquency rates on the least-risky mortgages more than doubled in the first quarter from a year earlier as U.S. efforts to help homeowners failed to keep pace with job losses that pushed more borrowers toward foreclosure.
Prime mortgages 60 days or more past due climbed to 2.9 percent of such loans through March 31 from 1.1 percent at the same point in 2008, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision said today in a report. First-time foreclosure filings on the loans rose 22 percent from the fourth quarter, the report said.
The Fed monetized $7B of 7s through 10s on Tuesday. While the deficit only affects the state, California's deepening economic malaise could make it harder for the entire nation's economy to recover.
When the state stumbles, its sheer size - 38.3 million people - creates fallout for businesses from Texas to Michigan.
"California is the key catalyst for U.S. retail sales, and if California falls further you will see the U.S. economy suffer significantly," said retail consultant Burt P. Flickinger, managing director of Strategic Resource Group. He warned of more bankruptcies of national retail chains and brand suppliers.
Will Ben, Hank, Little Timmy and Congressional leaders explain to the American people how it is possible for Wall Street to have near record remuneration AFTER the US taxpayers were put on the hook for about $12 trillion of guarantees to The Street? And will they explain to Americans that while Street insiders ‘earn’ record pay they must suffer a severe recession or depression, possibly record future inflation, collapsing home values, job losses and an income contraction?
More from Zero Hedge on Government Sachs: Is Goldman Legally Frontrunning Its Clients? Everyone who is anyone on Wall Street has at some point used the Goldman 360 portal whether for research, news, keeping a track of prime brokerage portfolio or, disturbingly, for trading, via the REDI Plus 9.0 platform (now loaded with enhanced algo trading features to make life for you, dear soon to be front ran Goldman client, so much easier). A second widely accepted Wall Street concept is that a disclaimer is the last thing that anyone reads, if ever. Yet after taking a close look at the Goldman disclaimer for the 360 portal, which is an umbrella waiver or all downstream websites, including REDI, one discovers the following gem:
Monitoring by GS: Your use of the products and services on this Web site may be monitored by GS, and that the resultant information may be used by GS for its internal business purposes or in accordance with the rules of any applicable regulatory or self-regulatory organization.
One second: by using Goldman 360 a client voluntarily allows Goldman to provide keystroke by keystroke data of everything the client does, even if that includes launching trades via REDI, to Goldman for the internal business purposes. The third thing everyone on Wall Street agrees on is that "internal business purposes" usually (and in Goldman's case, almost exclusively) means proprietary trading.
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/
As many as one in five U.S. hotel loans may default through 2010 as the recession means companies are spending less on travel and perks, according to University of California economist Kenneth Rosen.
A Florida woman tragically committed suicide on the day she was getting evicted from her home.
Heather Newnam, 28, of Tamarac, Fla., shot herself when a real estate agent, a locksmith and movers showed up at her home on Monday after she failed to pay her rent. She told them she had to secure the dogs first, and then a shot was fired, according to the Broward Sheriff's Office . The SWAT team arrived on the scene and found her dead from a gunshot wound to the head.
Newnam documented her life on Twitter as user rsangel04. Her last post on June 24 read, "Rich get richer, poor get poorer, families on the street, govt doesn't care. God bless the usa, but can He save it?"
The day before, Newnam seemed in better spirits. "Five minutes til Rescue Me, Woo Hoo! then bed, Im beat."
According to the New Times , Newnam worked in sales at the Success Research Group in Oakland Park, Fla.
The housing market in Florida is among the worst in the country. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report , Florida was third in the country with the highest foreclosure rate behind Nevada and California. {This is only the beginning, unfortunately many more will follow. The blame rests at the feet of the Illuminists.}
“Washington Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth today canceled plans for a series of policy dinners at her home after learning that marketing fliers offered lobbyists access to Obama administration officials, members of Congress and Post journalists in exchange for payments as high as $250,000.”
The controversial climate bill that is set to be taken up by the Senate on Monday after its passage in the House will legislate home inspections by government regulators who will demand to audit every aspect of your property under the threat of substantial and repeated fines if their visits are denied or their demands not satisfied.
Here is the deal.
The US has lost its manufacturing, so the government is going to "create jobs" by pouring tons of gratuitous regulatory compliance on us all, to justify hiring inspectors at taxpayer expense who will in turn force us to purchase improvements to our homes. Everybody works!!!!!
But here is where the "solution" breaks down. Where is the money coming to PAY for all this regulatory compliance? The government is still acting as if they believe there are vast sums of cash floating around out here in the real world, and that saving the economy is simply a matter of taking it away from all of us.
SAIC, one of the Pentagon's largest contractors, conspired with federal officials to rig a $3.2 billion technology contract and tried to cover up the scheme by destroying documents and electronic records, federal prosecutors said in newly unsealed court documents.
The Justice Department announced yesterday that it had joined a whistleblower lawsuit filed in federal court in Mississippi asking for a monetary judgment against SAIC, which has already been paid $116 million under the contract.
The MBA mortgage purchase applications index fell 4.5% and the total market index fell 18.9%. The refi index fell 30% vs. plus 5.9%. The 30-year fixed rate mortgage fell 10 bps to 5.34% and the 15’s fell 12 bps to 4.81%. Applications fell to a 7-month low. This does not bode well for the biggest real estate month of the year.
The MBA, Mortgage Bankers Association, of purchase and refinance loans decreased 18.9%, the lowest since 11/21/08. Higher rates and unemployment is hurting the market.
Barry Sotoro (Barak Obama) has the public bamboozled while his Team B from the Illuminati replace Team A as official looters. The House and Senate aids and abets. What is going on can only end badly. On Wednesday, the dollar took another blow being unable to break back above 80 on the USDX, closing a very weak 79.66. The dollar is setting up for a major fall to 7.18 by the end of October, maybe even sooner.
US private employers cut 473,000 jobs in June, off from 485,000 lost in May.
Challenger reports planned job cuts will be 74,393 down from 111,182 in May.
The Monster Employment Index fell 1-point month-on-month in June to 117, off 11.81%.
The ISM Index of national factory activity edged up to 44.8 in June from 42.8 in May. Prices paid were 50.0.
May pending house sales rose 0.1% to 90.7 from 90.6 in April.
May construction spending was the lowest in five years at a minus 2.9%. Private construction dropped 1%, the lowest in six years. That marks up 35% of private building. It fell 3.4%, its lowest level since 12/95. Public construction fell 0.6% in May. Highway and street construction fell 1.3% and power plant construction fell 6.5%. Transportation rose 0.6% and education was up 0.5%.
San Francisco Fed bank president Janet Yellen says lending rates could stay near zero for a couple of years.
We see trade war soon. Countries are all manipulating their currencies, subsidizing products and Russia and China are making arrangements that exclude the US and the dollar, further undermining the US dollar – the world’s reserve currency. The paper dollar war, which began in the late 1960s, is soon going to explode and we could have serious problems, which could become a bank holiday.
Russia and China have ambitions for world domination and they are slowing undermining the US position of power. This can only end in nuclear war.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says an audit of the Fed would destroy the dollar and he is right. It would expose all the offshore secret accounts, the market rigging via their 21 dealers whom they direct. That there is little gold left in Fort Knox and all the secret agreements the Treasury and the Fed have with other governments and corporations are secret. All the real figures on money and credit would be exposed as well as their sweetheart deals with banks and Wall Street. Their part in aiding and abetting crime would be exposed as well. We’d find out what we have been paying for toxic bank assets. We would find all the major banks and brokerage firms are bankrupt. The public would find out who has been screwing them for all these years. The Fed is a fraud and it is broke. It could be they cannot deliver.
The BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, using the Birth/Death ratio added 185,000 jobs in June from out of thin air. U6 officially is 16.5% unemployment. Our research puts the unemployed at 20.5%.
The commercial paper market continues to deteriorate. It fell $18.1 billion to $1.136 trillion, down from $1.155 trillion the prior week. In two years it fell from $2.2 trillion.
Asset backed CP fell $13.6 billion vs. a fall of $21.3 billion the prior week. Unsecured financial issuance fell by $3.2 billion after rising $18.2 billion the prior week.
There has been absolutely no attempt by the Treasury, the Fed, the SEC, CFTC, the Congress or the FDIC to find out what went on at AIG. Trillions of taxpayer funds have been poured into and through this CIA front. This is criminal.
It might interest you to know that Larry Summers is a big equity holder in Blackrock, He recently handed out a slew of no bid contracts to Blackrock, which is certainly a conflict of interest. They will manage government mortgage portfolios for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Big banks have just raised fees 20% more than smaller lenders. Some are billing small-business customers for FDIC insurance increases. ATM charges, stop-payment fees, checking-account fees, and overdraft fees are soaring. This is how they will make up revenue lost on credit cards.
Bonuses at Goldman Sachs will average $700,000 per employee to total $20 billion. That is double last year.
The FCC had all records on criminals like Paulson, Geithner, Ruben, Summers & others engaging in that illegal activity. But all the records of those illegal trades were destroyed when WTC 7 was brought down by thermite on 9/11!
911 was a public snuff film used to shock the public and enact the end of the Bill of Rights & invasion of oil bearing countries, & make money for private companies like Halliburton, (stock from 10 to 50 a share)!
By destroying the WTC, they were able to cover up theft of gold bullion & destroy illegal financial transaction records performed just prior to the attacks
Silverstein spends 140 million to make 7 billion almost over night; Silverstein said it was demolished by explosives, (pull it)
It reminds me of CIA man Byrd, the owner of TX School Book Depository, who turned a 2.5 million insider purchase into 26 million dollars thanks to JFK assassination!
Lear Corp., the world’s second- largest maker of automotive seats, is planning to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after reaching an agreement with representatives of secured lenders and bondholders.
Battered mortgage giant Freddie Mac received $6.1 billion in new funds from the Treasury Department to help offset its mounting liabilities, according to a regulatory filing submitted Wednesday.
The company could also be close to naming a new, permanent CEO, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which has been operating Freddie Mac since last fall, requested the funds for Freddie Mac after the mortgage firm's liabilities exceeded its assets by more than $6 billion, according to the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
After drawing the funds, Freddie Mac has now received $51.7 billion from the Treasury Department and still has access to an additional $149.3 billion to help it finance operations. |
The Crooks Get Cash While the Poor Get Screwed
Posted on Jul 6, 2009
By Chris Hedges
Tearyan Brown became a father when he was 16. He did what a lot of inner-city kids desperate to make money do. He sold drugs. He was arrested and sent to jail three years later for dealing marijuana and PCP on the streets of Trenton, N.J., mostly to white kids driving in from the suburbs. It was a job which saw him robbed at gunpoint and stabbed in the chest. But it made him about $1,400 a week.
Brown, when he got out after three and a half years, was done with street life. He got a job as a security guard and then as a fork lift operator. He eventually made about $30,000 a year. He shepherded his son through high school, then college and a master’s degree. His boy, now 24, is a high school teacher in Texas. Brown would not leave the streets of Trenton but his son would. It made him proud. It gave him hope.
And then one morning in 2005 when he was visiting his mother’s house the cops showed up. He saw the cruiser and the officers standing on his mother’s porch. He hurried down the block toward the home to see what was wrong. What was wrong was him. On the basis of a police photograph, he had been identified by an 82-year-old woman as the man who had robbed her of $9 at gunpoint a few hours earlier. The only other witness to the crime insisted the elderly victim was confused. The witness told the police Brown was innocent. Brown’s friends said Brown was with them when the robbery took place.
“Why would I rob a woman for $9” he asks me. “I had been paid the day before. I had not committed a crime in 20 years. It didn’t make any sense.”
He was again sent to jail. But this time he was charged with armed robbery. If convicted, he would be locked away for many years. His grown son and his three young boys would live, as he had, without the presence of a father. The little ones—11-year-old twins and a 10-year-old—would be adults when he got out. When he met with his state-appointed attorney, the lawyer, like most stat |