"End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Sun May 01, 2011 8:31 pm

(crosspost from hyperinflation thread)

.

Just to provoke the bejaysus out of you clan of hypers, here's Mike Whitney's pretty good reasoning of factors militating against a hyperinflation scenario. He also exposes the uselessness of QE as a an economic strategy. Cumulative demand stimuli and monetary easing are just never going to work; this beast needs pump-priming by way of direct public investment in jobs. Other measures within the capitalist paradigm aren't going to do shit.

Note that clearly he agrees that many prices are going up -- of the necessities we little chumps need to live. The question is whether a dollar meltdown is going to happen, and whether the economic/financial/fiscal/monetary climate as a whole points up or down on prices.

In my view he misses at least three big issues, two of which run counter to his case:

1) What the markets think about US Treasuries as a risk or a safe haven may not matter; as we've seen over and over in our discussions, it's likely that there will just be too many of them for markets to absorb. The Fed is therefore going to keep buying them.

2) Commodity inflation. Hello. Just how the peaking of oil is going to express itself, year by year, can change all considerations overnight. This will be a question of physics and geology, not capitalist economics.

3) One thing he could have said in support of his case: Hyperinflation hysteria feeds into the current fashion to describe the US problem as deficit or debt, supporting the class war from above and avoiding issues of bankster rule and the inevitable, predictable and intractable crises of capitalism.

The deficit is of course a problem; but it's not a cause. The diseases causing it are class war, almost all disposable wealth hoarded in the hands of the richest and the multinationals, offshore havens, skewed investment priorities, tax policy, spending on war and banksters, and the deficiency of the health and social insurance system.


http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney04272011.html

April 27, 2011
Don't Invest in Wheelbarrows for Toilet-Paper Greenbacks
Hyperinflation? No Way

By MIKE WHITNEY

The Federal Reserve is not going to push the economy into Zimbabwean hyperinflation. That's pure bunkum. The Fed's plan is to weaken the dollar to boost exports and to force China to let its currency appreciate to its fair-market value. By purchasing $600 billion in US Treasuries (QE2), the Fed effectively reduces the supply of risk-free assets, which sends investors into riskier assets like stocks and commodities. Is there an element of class warfare in the policy?

You bet there is. It's a direct subsidy to the investment class while workers are left to face higher prices on everything from gasoline to corn flakes. It's a royal screw job. But while Ben Bernanke may be a prevaricating class warrior and a charlatan, he's not insane. He's not going to shower the nation with increasingly-worthless greenbacks like they were confetti.

While rising headline inflation (gas and food) is painful for workers and people on fixed income, it actually intensifies the downturn by diverting money from other areas of consumption. So, discretionary spending falls and the economy begins to contract. It's more proof that we're in a Depression. And, yet, every day more ominous-sounding articles pop up warning of "The End of America" or "Gold to Soar to $10,000 per ounce" or some other such nonsense. \ Gloom and Doom has become a cottage industry employing a thriving class of worrywarts who all preach from the very same songbook.

Memo to Inflationists: The economy is not moving. Yes, the Fed can tie QE strings around the hands and feet and make them move like a marionette, but it's all make-believe. Without the props and the support-system, the economy would drop to its knees, gasp for air, and expire. Dead.

Have you noticed that 1st Quarter GDP has been revised-down to 2 percent and could be headed lower still? (Maybe even negative!) Have you noticed that unemployment is stuck at 8.8 percent and underemployment at 16.2 percent with more people falling off the rolls and into abject poverty every day? Did you see that manufacturing is starting to slip and "the production index, a key measure of state manufacturing conditions, fell from 24 to 8, indicating slower growth in output." Do you realize that the downturn in housing is getting more ferocious even after falling steadily for 5 years straight? Have you considered the fact that the government and Fed have pumped trillions of dollars of monetary and fiscal stimulus into the financial system with just about nothing to show for it? And, do you know why? Because we're in a Depression, that's why.

It's ridiculous to wail about "money supply" when velocity is zilch. It's pointless to crybaby over "bank reserves" when people are broke. It's crazy to yelp about "printing presses" when lending is down, credit is contracting and the economy is mired in the most vicious slump in 80 years. We're in a liquidity trap where normal monetary policy doesn't work. Keynes figured it out more than 60 years ago, but since Bernanke is so much smarter than Keynes, we get to relearn it all over again. Now that QE2 is ending, the verdict is in. And what have we learned? That monetary policy doesn't work in a liquidity trap.

The hullabaloo about inflation is vastly overdone. China's not going to dump its $3 trillion stockpile of mainly USD and US Treasuries. Who started that cockamamie story? China's doing everything it can just to keep its currency cheap just so to keep its people working. Are they suddenly going to do an about-face and commit economic harikari just to strike a blow against Uncle Sam? No way.

And, now the naysayers are worried that no one will buy Treasuries when QE2 ends in June. It's a possibility, but is it likely? Here's a piece from the Wall Street Journal that mulls over what will happen in June:

"The direction of interest rates after the Fed ends its bond-buying program is crucial for the economy. The issue will be in sharp focus this week, when Fed policy makers hold a two-day policy meeting, starting Tuesday, to discuss their efforts to steer the economy between the shoals of recession and inflation.

“They face an economy that has shown signs of losing momentum in recent months, with first-quarter economic growth now widely believed to be less than 2% annualized....

“One yardstick for the immediate future of Treasury yields after QE2 could be QE1, which included a $1.25 trillion Fed buying spree of mortgage bonds from late 2008 to March 2010. The mortgage-bond market felt barely a ripple when the Fed stopped buying. Treasuries, some observers reason, may follow the same path.

“Treasury yields ‘moved up significantly at the onset of QE1 but then fell precipitously when it ended,’ Mr. Rieder says. ‘So it's not a given that Treasury yields will rise this time either.’” ("Fund Giants Take Competing Stands On US Bond Outlook", Wall Street Journal)

True, that doesn't guarantee that yields won't rise when QE2 ends, but how high can they go when the economy is still stuck in the mud?

Not very high. And, who's going to buy Treasuries when the economy is "losing momentum"? The same people who always buy them when the economy starts to crater; investors looking for a "safe harbor" from falling stocks or deflation. Don't worry, there will be buyers. It's just a matter of price.

So, forget about inflation. It just diverts attention from the real issue, which is finding a way to dig out of the mess we're in and put people back to work. QE2 has been a total flop; we know that now. It's time to return to traditional fiscal policies that have a proven track record of success.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby anothershamus » Sun May 01, 2011 9:55 pm

anybody who still has a MSN email account is suspect in my book!
)'(
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Fri May 06, 2011 5:20 pm


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-0 ... e-sec.html


U.S. SEC, Justice Department Probe Goldman Findings After Senate Referral

By Phil Mattingly, Robert Schmidt and Justin Blum - May 4, 2011


U.S. senators formally referred to the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission an investigative report that found Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) misled clients about mortgage-linked securities.

Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, the Democratic chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the senior Republican, signed a letter asking the agencies to examine the panel’s report, Levin said in an interview yesterday. The results of the investigation, made public by the committee April 13, lay much of the blame for the credit crisis on Wall Street banks that earned billions by enticing clients to buy the risky bond deals.

“If something comes up that needs to be reviewed by some agency, it gets referred,” said Levin. “That’s the way we do it.”

The scrutiny is a setback for Goldman Sachs, which hired lawyers, lobbyists and public relations specialists to monitor the two-year Senate probe and tamp down any controversy that arose from the subcommittee’s conclusions.

John Hart, Coburn’s spokesman, did not respond to a request for comment. SEC spokesman John Nester declined to comment.

Levin said in the interview that the referral sends the entire report, rather than specific facts, to the agencies. The Senate inquiry also examined the role of credit-rating firms in the meltdown, lax oversight by regulators and the decline in lending standards at banks including Washington Mutual Inc. that fueled the mortgage bubble.

Top of List

A formal referral from the Senate is “much more than a symbolic gesture” because it would prompt an agency to put the matter “at the top of its list,” said Robert Hillman, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.

For Goldman Sachs, “the question is how much pain they’re going to have to endure with the public spotlight for these revelations, and that depends in part how long the government’s willing to drag this out,” said James Cox, a securities law professor at Duke University School of Law.

Still, Cox said he is “very skeptical” that the examinations by the agencies will ultimately lead to new claims against Goldman Sachs, which last year paid $550 million to settle SEC claims related to its marketing of the complex securities known as collateralized debt obligations.

Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, confirmed that his department is scrutinizing the report. Two people briefed on the matter confirmed that the SEC enforcement division is also studying it.

Holder Comments

Holder, in his comments, didn’t offer any specifics though he did single out the New York-based bank in his remarks.

“The department is looking right now at the report prepared by Senator Levin’s subcommittee that deals with Goldman Sachs,” Holder said.

When the report was released, Levin said he wanted the Justice Department and the SEC to examine whether Goldman Sachs violated the law by misleading clients who bought CDOs without knowing the firm would benefit if they fell in value.

Levin also said at the time that federal prosecutors should review whether to bring perjury charges against Goldman Sachs Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein and other current and former employees who testified to Congress last year. Levin said they denied under oath that Goldman Sachs took a financial position against the mortgage market solely for its own profit, statements the senator said were untrue.

‘Truthful and Accurate’

When the report was released, Goldman Sachs said it never misled anyone about its activities. “The testimony we gave was truthful and accurate and this is confirmed by the subcommittee’s own report,” Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag said.

David Wells, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, declined to make any additional comment yesterday. The company’s shares advanced 57 cents to $151.87 at 4:01 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

While the panel levied its harshest criticism at Goldman Sachs, it also accused Deutsche Bank AG of selling collateralized debt obligations backed by risky loans that the bank’s own traders believed were likely to lose value.

Deutsche Bank spokeswoman Michele Allison said at the time: “As the PSI report correctly states, there were divergent views within the bank about the U.S. housing market. Moreover, the bank’s views were fully communicated to the market through research reports, industry events, trading desk commentary and press coverage. Despite the bearish views held by some, Deutsche Bank was long the housing market and endured significant losses.”

Separate Lawsuit

Separately yesterday, the Justice Department sued Deutsche Bank and one of its mortgage units for more than $1 billion for allegedly lying to qualify thousands of risky mortgages for insurance by the Federal Housing Administration. The bank said the claims were “unreasonable and unfair.”

Goldman Sachs’s settlement with the SEC last year resolved claims that it failed to disclose that hedge fund Paulson & Co was betting against, and influenced the selection of, CDOs the company was packaging and selling.

The Senate report reveals details of four Goldman Sachs CDOs. One was named Abacus, the CDO at the center of the SEC civil claim that led to the bank’s settlement last year. Others were Timberwolf, Anderson and Hudson.

E-mails and Documents

According to the people briefed on the SEC’s review of the Senate report, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter isn’t public, investigators at the agency will scrutinize interviews, e-mails and other confidential documents that surfaced in the inquiry. While much of that evidence was seen by the SEC before its 2010 settlement, some is new, the people said.

Hillman, the law professor, said that given Goldman Sachs’s earlier settlement, the SEC or Justice Department would likely have a high bar for bringing a case against the bank.

In resolving that case, Goldman Sachs admitted no wrongdoing and said in a regulatory filing it “understands that the SEC staff also has completed a review of a number of other Goldman mortgage-related CDO transactions and does not anticipate recommending any claims against Goldman or any of its employees.”

The SEC’s enforcement division is “certainly free to revisit that, but the odds are that it won’t unless something very new comes out in the way of facts,” said Hillman. “The SEC has probably taken its major step with Goldman already.”


To contact the reporters on this story: Justin Blum in Washington at jblum4@bloomberg.net; Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net; Lawrence Roberts at lroberts13@bloomberg.net

®2011 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Fri May 06, 2011 5:26 pm

.

vanlose kid posted this in the hyperinflation thread. Class war shifts "the crisis" to pensions.


Pew Finds $1.26 Trillion State Retirement Shortfall, Says States Only Have $31 Billion In Assets To Pay For $635 Billion In Liabilities
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/03/2011 10:38 -0400




For those wondering why the Fed's third mandate is so critical, and is arguably about more than padding the brokerage accounts of those top 400 US "taxpayers" who account for 10% of capital gains, the Pew center brings what could be the main reason. Which is that even while factoring an 8% discount rate (for most states, some are probably higher), in other words expecting 8% gains in their assets, "the gap between the promises states made for employees’ retirement benefits and the money they set aside to pay for them grew to at least $1.26 trillion in fiscal year 2009, resulting in a 26 percent increase in one year." The difference is broken down as follows: "State pension plans represented slightly more than half of this shortfall, with $2.28 trillion stowed away to cover $2.94 trillion in long-term liabilities—leaving about a $660 billion gap, according to an analysis by the Pew Center on the States. Retiree health care and other benefits accounted for the remaining $604 billion, with assets totaling $31 billion to pay for $635 billion in liabilities." In other words, states have roughly 5 cents for every dollars in health benefits obligations. Good luck with funding that absent America becoming Weimar.

Some more from Pew:

The $1.26 trillion figure is based on states’ own actuarial assumptions. Most states use an 8 percent discount rate—the investment target that states expect to earn, on average, in future years. But there is significant debate among policy makers and experts about what discount rate is most appropriate for states to use when valuing pension liabilities. This is an important issue because, depending on how those liabilities are calculated, states’ total funding shortfall for their long-term pension obligations to public sector retirees could be as much as $1.8 trillion (using assumptions similar to corporate pensions) or $2.4 trillion (using a discount rate based on a 30-year Treasury bond). How states value long-term liabilities going forward will play an important role in defining the scale of their challenges and the actions they will have to take to meet them.


The Pew center's conclusion:

Far too many states are not responsibly managing the bill for their employees’ retirement.



Which is why the only resolution is for the Fed to recreate Weimar and to cause state asset holdings, which lately are probably shares of 3x beta stocks, in hopes that the state pension plan will not become the next "muni" scare.

And some charts:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/pew-fi ... -assets-pa


.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Fri May 06, 2011 5:29 pm

.

Also thanks to vanlose kid in the HI thread.


Consumer Price Index
October 1st, 2004

"GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU'VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!"

A Series Authored by Walter J. "John" Williams

"The Consumer Price Index" (Part Four in a Series of Five)

October 1, 2006 Update

(September 22, 2004 Original)


_____


Foreword

This installment has been updated from the original 2004 version to incorporate additional research on earlier changes to the CPI. The source for most of the information in this installment is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which generally has been very open about its methodologies and changes to same. The BLS Web site: http://www.bls.gov contains descriptions of the CPI and its related methodologies. Other sources include my own analyses of the CPI data and methodological changes over the last 30 years as well as interviews with individuals involved in inflation reporting.
______


Payments to Social Security Recipients Should be Double Current Levels

Inflation, as reported by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is understated by roughly 7% per year. This is due to recent redefinitions of the series as well as to flawed methodologies, particularly adjustments to price measures for quality changes. The concentration of this installment on the quality of government economic reports will be first on CPI series redefinition and the damages done to those dependent on accurate cost-of-living estimates, and on pending further redefinition and economic damage.

The CPI was designed to help businesses, individuals and the government adjust their financial planning and considerations for the impact of inflation. The CPI worked reasonably well for those purposes into the early-1980s. In recent decades, however, the reporting system increasingly succumbed to pressures from miscreant politicians, who were and are intent upon stealing income from social security recipients, without ever taking the issue of reduced entitlement payments before the public or Congress for approval.

In particular, changes made in CPI methodology during the Clinton Administration understated inflation significantly, and, through a cumulative effect with earlier changes that began in the late-Carter and early Reagan Administrations have reduced current social security payments by roughly half from where they would have been otherwise. That means Social Security checks today would be about double had the various changes not been made. In like manner, anyone involved in commerce, who relies on receiving payments adjusted for the CPI, has been similarly damaged. On the other side, if you are making payments based on the CPI (i.e., the federal government), you are making out like a bandit.

In the original version of this background article, I noted that Social Security payments should 43% higher, but that was back in September 2004 and only adjusted for CPI changes that took place after 1993. The current estimate adjusts for methodology gimmicks introduced since 1980.

Elements of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) had their roots in the mid-1880s, when the Bureau of Labor, later known as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), was asked by Congress to measure the impact of new tariffs on prices. It was another three decades, however, before price indices would be combined into something resembling today's CPI, a measure used then for setting wage increases for World War I shipbuilders. Although published regularly since 1921, the CPI did not come into broad acceptance and use until after World War II, when it was included in auto union contracts as a cost-of-living adjustment for wages.

The CPI found its way not only into other union agreements, but also into most commercial contracts that required consideration of cost/price changes or inflation. The CPI also was used to adjust Social Security payments annually for changes in the cost of living, and therein lay the eventual downfall to the credibility of CPI reporting.

Let Them Eat Hamburger

In the early 1990s, press reports began surfacing as to how the CPI really was significantly overstating inflation. If only the CPI inflation rate could be reduced, it was argued, then entitlements, such as social security, would not increase as much each year, and that would help to bring the budget deficit under control. Behind this movement were financial luminaries Michael Boskin, then chief economist to the first Bush Administration, and Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Although the ensuing political furor killed consideration of Congressionally mandated changes in the CPI, the BLS quietly stepped forward and began changing the system, anyway, early in the Clinton Administration.

Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a constant standard of living.

The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak, instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that.

The Boskin/Greenspan concept violated the intent and common usage of the inflation index. The CPI was considered sacrosanct within the Department of Labor, given the number of contractual relationships that were anchored to it. The CPI was one number that never was to be revised, given its widespread usage.

Shortly after Clinton took control of the White House, however, attitudes changed. The BLS initially did not institute a new CPI measurement using a variable-basket of goods that allowed substitution of hamburger for steak, but rather tried to approximate the effect by changing the weighting of goods in the CPI fixed basket. Over a period of several years, straight arithmetic weighting of the CPI components was shifted to a geometric weighting. The Boskin/Greenspan benefit of a geometric weighting was that it automatically gave a lower weighting to CPI components that were rising in price, and a higher weighting to those items dropping in price.

Once the system had been shifted fully to geometric weighting, the net effect was to reduce reported CPI on an annual, or year-over-year basis, by 2.7% from what it would have been based on the traditional weighting methodology. The results have been dramatic. The compounding effect since the early-1990s has reduced annual cost of living adjustments in social security by more than a third.

The BLS publishes estimates of the effects of major methodological changes over time on the reported inflation rate (see the "Reporting Focus" section of the October 2005 Shadow Government Statistics newsletter -- available to the public in the Archives of http://www.shadowstats.com). Changes estimated by the BLS show roughly a 4% understatement in current annual CPI inflation versus what would have been reported using the original methodology. Adding the roughly 3% lost to geometric weighting -- most of which not included in the BLS estimates -- takes the current total CPI understatement to roughly 7%.

There now are three major CPI measures published by the BLS, CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) and the Chained CPI-U (C-CPI-U). The CPI-U is the popularly followed inflation measure reported in the financial media. It was introduced in 1978 as a more-broadly-based version of the then existing CPI, which was renamed CPI-W. The CPI-W is used in calculating Social Security benefits. These two series tend to move together and are based on frequent price sampling, which is supposed to yield something close to an average monthly price measure by component.

The C-CPI-U was introduced during the second Bush Administration as an alternate CPI measure. Unlike the theoretical approximation of geometric weighting to a variable, substitution-prone market basket, the C-CPI-U is a direct measure of the substitution effect. The difference in reporting is that August 2006 year-to-year inflation rates for the CPI-U and the C-CPI-U were 3.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Hence current inflation still has a 0.4% notch to be taken out of it through methodological manipulation. The C-CPI-U would not have been introduced unless there were plans to replace the current series, eventually.

Traditional inflation rates can be estimated by adding 7.0% to the CPI-U annual growth rate (3.8% +7.0% = 10.8% as of August 2006) or by adding 7.4% to the C-CPI-U rate (3.4% + 7.4% = 10.8% as of August 2006). Graphs of alternate CPI measures can be found as follows. The CPI adjusted solely for the impact of the shift to geometric weighting is shown in the graph on the home page of http://www.shadowstats.com. The CPI adjusted for both the geometric weighting and earlier methodological changes is shown on the Alternate Data page, which is available as a tab at the top of the home page.

Hedonic Thrills of Using Federally Mandated Gasoline Additives

Aside from the changed weighting, the average person also tends to sense higher inflation than is reported by the BLS, because of hedonics, as in hedonism. Hedonics adjusts the prices of goods for the increased pleasure the consumer derives from them. That new washing machine you bought did not cost you 20% more than it would have cost you last year, because you got an offsetting 20% increase in the pleasure you derive from pushing its new electronic control buttons instead of turning that old noisy dial, according to the BLS.

When gasoline rises 10 cents per gallon because of a federally mandated gasoline additive, the increased gasoline cost does not contribute to inflation. Instead, the 10 cents is eliminated from the CPI because of the offsetting hedonic thrills the consumer gets from breathing cleaner air. The same principle applies to federally mandated safety features in automobiles. I have not attempted to quantify the effects of questionable quality adjustments to the CPI, but they are substantial.

Then there is "intervention analysis" in the seasonal adjustment process, when a commodity, like gasoline, goes through violent price swings. Intervention analysis is done to tone down the volatility. As a result, somehow, rising gasoline prices never seem to get fully reflected in the CPI, but the declining prices sure do.

How Can So Many Financial Pundits Live Without Consuming Food and Energy?

The Pollyannas on Wall Street like to play games with the CPI, too. The concept of looking at the "core" rate of inflation-net of food and energy-was developed as a way of removing short-term (as in a month or two) volatility from inflation when energy and/or food prices turned volatile. Since food and energy account for about 23% of consumer spending (as weighted in the CPI), however, related inflation cannot be ignored for long. Nonetheless, it is common to hear financial pundits cite annual "core" inflation as a way of showing how contained inflation is. Such comments are moronic and such commentators are due the appropriate respect.

Too-Low Inflation Reporting Yields Too-High GDP Growth

As is discussed in the final installment on GDP, part of the problem with GDP reporting is the way inflation is handled. Although the CPI is not used in the GDP calculation, there are relationships with the price deflators used in converting GDP data and growth to inflation-adjusted numbers. The more inflation is understated, the higher the inflation-adjusted rate of GDP growth that gets reported.

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/consumer_price_index

Image

Image
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Fri May 06, 2011 5:38 pm


http://www.counterpunch.org/baker04202011.html

April 20, 2011
A Democracy Deficit
Tyranny of the Central Bankers


By DEAN BAKER

The European Central Bank (ECB) announced earlier this month that it was raising its overnight lending rate by a quarter of a percentage point to 1.25 percent. This is very bad news for people across the eurozone countries and possibly the rest of the world as well.

This action shows two things. First, the ECB is prepared to slow the eurozone economy and throw people out of work. This is the point of raising interest rates. The ECB targets two percent inflation with the current inflation rate in the eurozone around 2.5 percent.. The inflation rate is above the ECB target due to a jump in the price of oil and other commodities. These price rises in turn are primarily attributable to instability in the Middle East and increased demand from China, India and other fast-growing developing countries.

Raising interest rates in the eurozone will do little to reduce the prices of commodities. However if higher interest rates throw enough people out of work in the eurozone, it can place sufficient downward pressure on wages to offset the impact of higher commodity prices. If commodity prices rise by much more than two percent, then the ECB can make wages rise by less than two percent, thereby returning to its magic number and declaring 'mission accomplished'.

This brings up the other fact demonstrated by the ECB's action. It has learned nothing from the events of the last three years. Those who hoped that the worst economic downturn in 70 years might change the Bank's behavior are sure to be disappointed. It continues to adhere to its goal of maintaining an inflation target oblivious to the costs in unemployment and lost output.

Unfortunately, the ECB is not alone in this respect. Most central banks are now controlled by inflation targetters who explicitly ignore the impact of the banks' actions on output, employment and financial stability.

A deficit of democracy

The worst part of this story is that these fundamental decisions about economic policy are made by a small, secretive clique operating largely outside of the public's purview. Central bank decisions on interest rates are likely to have far more impact on jobs and growth than any of the policies that are debated endlessly be elected parliaments. Yet, these decisions are made largely without democratic input.

In fairness, politicians bear much of the blame for this situation. They established institutional structures that largely place central banks beyond democratic control. There is probably no bank that is as insulated from the democratic process as the ECB, in large part because of its multinational structure, but all the central banks in wealthy countries now enjoy an extraordinary degree of independence from elected governments. In many countries they are even more independent than the judicial system.

Even worse, the politicians have actually mandated many central banks, like the ECB, to pursue an inflation target to the exclusion of other considerations. This gives the central bankers a license to throw millions of people out of work in order to chase their obsession with inflation.

Giving the central bankers free rein to chase inflation targets could perhaps be justified if they had a track record of success, but they don't. The world economy stands to lose more than $10 trillion in output because of the central banks' failure to stem the growth of the dangerous housing bubbles.

While the central bankers were congratulating themselves for hitting their inflation targets, the bubbles were growing ever larger, and the financial system was becoming more highly leveraged. All they could express when the bubble finally collapsed in 2008 was their surprise.

In other professions, people would have been fired for such a momentous failure. However if any central banker lost their job due to this disaster, the firing was kept very quiet.

The economic crisis should have taught central banks that it is not sufficient to pursue an inflation target; maintaining high levels of employment and overall financial and economic stability are also important - and failure to meet these challenges should result in replacing the current crop of central bankers.

Processes must also be in place to hold the central bankers accountable to elected governments. The choices they make involve issues on which the public should have input, particularly the tradeoff between higher unemployment and the risk of more inflation.

Naturally, different actors will take different positions on this tradeoff. The financial firms, who tend to be close to the central bankers, are unlikely to be very concerned about the cost of unemployment. However, they will view the risk of higher inflation with enormous trepidation because it will typically lead to large losses for the industry.

The larger public is likely to take the opposite position, as moderately higher rates of inflation pose little cost. This choice should be the sort of topic that arises in political campaigns, since it is likely to have far more consequence for the public than whatever tax or spending policies the competing parties are promoting.

None of this means that we want politicians deciding interest rates. However, the people who do decide them should be answerable to politicians in a way that is not true today. In this way central banks should be like any other regulatory agency. For example, politicians do not decide which drugs the US Food and Drug Administration approves. However if it goes five years without approving any drugs - or approves a number of them that cause sickness and death - serious problems ensue.

In short, this is simply a question of restoring accountability to the central bankers for their management of the economy. The days of the central bank as a church beyond the reach of the commoners should be brought to an end.


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 and False Profits: Recoverying From the Bubble Economy.

This column was originally published by International Relations and Security Network.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Fri May 06, 2011 5:41 pm


http://www.counterpunch.org/bond04252011.html

April 25, 2011
Risking Global Bankruptcy
The Banksters and the Climate Fund


By PATRICK BOND


South Africa’s most vocal neoliberal politician, Trevor Manuel, is apparently being seriously considered as co-chair of the Green Climate Fund. On April 28-29 in Mexico City, Manuel and other elites meet to design the world’s biggest-ever replenishing pool of aid money: a promised $100 billion of annual grants by 2020, more than the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and allied regional banks put together.

The Climate Justice lobby is furious, because as a network of 90 progressive organizations wrote to the United Nations, “The integrity and potential of a truly just and effective climate fund has already been compromised by the 2010 Cancún decisions to involve the World Bank as interim trustee.” A Friends of the Earth International study earlier this month attacked the Bank for increased coal financing, especially $3.75 billion loaned to South Africa’s Eskom a year ago.

Manuel chaired the Bank/IMF Board of Governors in 2000, as well as the Bank’s Development Committee from 2001-05. He was one of two United Nations Special Envoys to the 2002 Monterrey Financing for Development summit, a member of Tony Blair’s 2004-05 Commission for Africa, and chair of the 2007 G-20 summit.

Manuel was appointed UN Special Envoy for Development Finance in 2008, headed a 2009 IMF committee that successfully advocated a $750 billion capital increase, and served on the UN’s High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Finance in 2010. (Within the latter, he suggested that up to half the $100 billion climate fund be sourced from controversial private-sector emissions trading, not aid budgets.)

No one from the Third World has such experience, nor has anyone in these circuits such a formidable anti-colonial political pedigree, including several 1980s police detentions as one of Cape Town’s most important anti-apartheid activists. Yet despite occasional rhetorical attacks on “Washington Consensus” economic policies (part of SA’s “talk left walk right” tradition), since the mid-1990s Manuel has been loyal to the pro-corporate cause.

Even before taking power in 1994, he was considered a World Economic Forum “Global Leader for Tomorrow”, and in 1997 and 2007 Euromoney magazine named him African Finance Minister of the Year. No wonder, as in late 1993 he had agreed to repay apartheid-era commercial bank debt against all logic, and negotiated an $850 million IMF loan that straightjacketed Nelson Mandela.

With Manuel as trade minister from 1994-96, liberalisation demolished the clothing, textile, footwear, appliance, electronics and other vulnerable manufacturing sectors, as he drove tariffs below what even the World Trade Organisation demanded. After moving to the finance ministry in 1996, Manuel imposed the “non-negotiable” Growth, Employment and Redistribution policy (co-authored by World Bank staff), which by the time of its 2001 demise had not achieved a single target aside from inflation.

Manuel also cut the primary corporate tax rate from 48 percent in 1994 to 30 percent five years later, and then allowed the country’s biggest corporations to move their financial headquarters to London, which ballooned the current account deficit. That in turn required Manuel to arrange such vast financing inflows that the foreign debt soared from the $25 billion inherited at apartheid’s close to $80 billion by early 2009.

At that stage, with the world economy teetering, The Economist magazine named South Africa the most risky of the 17 main emerging markets, and the SA government released data conceding that the country was much more economically divided than in 1994, overtaking Brazil as the world’s most unequal major country.

“We are not in recession,” Manuel quickly declared in February 2009. “Although it sometimes feels in people’s minds that the economy is in recession, as of now we are looking at positive growth.” At that very moment, it turned out, the SA economy was shrinking by a stunning 6.4 percent (annualized), and indeed had been in recession for several months prior.

More than 1.2 million jobs were lost in the subsequent year, as unemployment soared to around 40 percent (including those who gave up looking). But in October 2008, just as IMF managing director Dominque Strauss-Kahn told the rest of the world to try quick-fix state deficit spending, Manuel sent the opposite message to his impoverished constituents: “We need to disabuse people of the notion that we will have a mighty powerful developmental state capable of planning and creating all manner of employment.”

This echoed his 2001 statement to a local Sunday newspaper: “I want someone to tell me how the government is going to create jobs. It’s a terrible admission, but governments around the world are impotent when it comes to creating jobs.”

Governments under the neoliberal thumb are also impotent when it comes to service delivery, and thanks partly to his fiscal conservatism, municipal state failure characterizes all of South Africa, resulting in more protests per capita against local government in Manuel’s latter years as finance minister than nearly anywhere in the world (the police count at peak was more than 10,000/year).

Ironically, said Manuel in his miserly 2004 budget speech, “The privilege we have in a democratic South Africa is that the poor are unbelievably tolerant.” In 2008, when an opposition politician begged that food vouchers be made available, Manuel replied that there was no way to ensure “vouchers will be distributed and used for food only, and not to buy alcohol or other things.”

Disgust for poor people extended to AIDS medicines, which in December 2001 aligned Manuel with his AIDS-denialist president Thabo Mbeki in refusing access: “The little I know about anti‑retrovirals is that unless you maintain a very strict regime ... they can pump you full of anti‑retrovirals, sadly, all that you’re going to do, because you are erratic, is to develop a series of drug‑resistant diseases inside your body.”

Instead of delivering sufficient medicines, money and post-neoliberal policy to the health system, schools and municipalities, Manuel promoted privatization, even at the Monterrey global finance summit: “Public-private partnerships are important win-win tools for governments and the private sector, as they provide an innovative way of delivering public services in a cost-effective manner.”

He not only supported privatisation in principle, as finance minister Manuel put enormous pressure (equivalent to IMF conditionality) on municipalities – especially Johannesburg in 1999 – to impose commodification on the citizenry. In one of the world’s most important early 21st century water wars, residents of Soweto rebelled and the French firm Suez was eventually evicted from managing Johannesburg’s water in 2006.

Water privatisation was Washington Consensus advice, and as Manuel once put it, “Our relationship with the World Bank is generally structured around the reservoir of knowledge in the Bank” – with South Africa a guinea pig for the late-1990s “Knowledge Bank” strategy. Virtually without exception, Bank missions and neoliberal policy support in fields such as water, land reform, housing, public works, healthcare, and macroeconomics failed to deliver.

In spite of neoliberal ideology’s disgrace, president Jacob Zuma retained Manuel and his policies in 2009. In September that year, Congress of SA Trade Unions president Sdumo Dlamini called Manuel the “shop steward of business” because of his “outrageous” plea to the World Economic Forum’s Cape Town summit that business fight harder against workers. The mineworkers union termed Manuel’s challenge “bile, totally irresponsible… To say that business crumbles too easily is to reinforce business arrogance.”

Manuel also disappointed feminists for his persistent failure to keep budgeting promises, even transparency. “How do you measure government’s commitment to gender equality if you don’t know where the money’s going?”, asked the Institute for Democracy in South Africa’s Penny Parenzee. Former ruling-party politician Pregs Govender helped developed gender-budgeting in 1994 but within a decade complained that Manuel reduced it to a “public relations exercise”.

As for a commitment to internationalism, in early 2009 when Pretoria revoked a visitor’s visa for the Dalai Lama on Beijing’s orders, Manuel defended the ban on the exiled Tibetan leader: “To say anything against the Dalai Lama is, in some quarters, equivalent to trying to shoot Bambi.”

At the same moment Manuel was sabotaging Zimbabwe’s recovery strategy, chosen by the new government of national unity, by insisting that Harare first repay $1 billion in arrears to the World Bank and IMF, otherwise “there was no way the plan could work.” Zimbabwean economist Eddie Cross complained, “In fact the IMF specifically told us to put the issue of debt management on the back burner… The South Africans on the other hand have reversed that proposal – I do not know on whose authority, but they are not being helpful at all.”

Given his biases and his miserable record, many within SA’s community, labour, environment, women’s, solidarity and AIDS-treatment movements would be happy to see the back of Manuel. His own career predilections may be decisive. Often suggested as a candidate for the top job at the Bank or IMF, Manuel recently confirmed anger at the way local politics evolved after Zuma booted Mbeki from the SA presidency.

In an open public letter last month, for example, Manuel told Zuma’s main spokesperson, Jimmy Manyi, “your behaviour is of the worst-order racist” after a (year-old) incident in which Manyi, then lead labour department official, claimed there were too many coloured workers in the Western Cape in relation to other parts of SA. Manyi had earlier offered a half-baked apology, but suffered no punishment. Once a political titan, Manuel now appears as has-been gadfly.

His disillusionment apparently began in December 2007, just prior to Mbeki’s defeat in the African National Congress (ANC) leadership election. After his finance ministry job was threatened by Zuma assistant Mo Shaik’s offhanded comments, Manuel penned another enraged open letter: “Your conduct is certainly not something in the tradition of the ANC… You have no right to turn this organisation into something that serves your ego.” In May 2009 Shaik, whose brother Schabir was convicted of corrupting Zuma during the infamous $6 billion arms deal, was made director of the SA intelligence service. Manuel was downgraded to a resource-scarce, do-little planning ministry.

It is easy to sympathize with Manuel’s frustrating struggle against ethnicism and cronyism, especially after his opponents’ apparent victories. However, former ANC member of parliament Andrew Feinstein records that the finance minister knew of arms-deal bribes solicited by the late defense minister Joe Modise. In court, Feinstein testified (without challenge) that in late 2000, Manuel surreptitiously advised him over lunch, “It’s possible there was some shit in the deal. But if there was, no one will ever uncover it. They’re not that stupid. Just let it lie.” Remarked Terry Crawford-Browne of Economists Allied for Arms Reduction, “By actively blocking thorough investigation of bribery payments, Manuel facilitated such crimes.”

Nevertheless, the myth of Manuel’s financial wizardry and integrity continues, in part thanks to a 600-page puff-piece biography, Choice not Fate (Penguin, 2008) by his former spokesperson Pippa Green (subsidized by BHP Billiton, Anglo American, Total oil and Rand Merchant Bank). And after all, recent politico-moral and economic scandals by World Bank presidents Robert Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz (whom in 2005 Manuel welcomed to the job as “a wonderful individual . . . perfectly capable”) confirm that global elites are already scraping the bottom of the financial leadership barrel.

Yet it is still tragic that as host to 2011’s world climate summit, South Africa leads (non-petroleum countries) in carbon emissions/GDP/capita, twenty times higher than even the US. Even more tragic: Manuel’s final budget countenanced more than $100 billion for additional coal-fired and nuclear power plants in coming years.

In sum, Manuel’s leadership of the Green Climate Fund adds a new quantum of global-scale risk. His long history of collaboration with Washington-London raises prospects for “default” by the industrialized North on payment of climate debt to the impoverished South. Indeed, if Pretoria’s main man link to the Bretton Woods Institutions, Manuel, co-chairs the fund and gives the Bank more influence, then expect new forms of subprime financing and blunt neoliberal economic weapons potentially fatal to climate change mitigation and adaptation.


Patrick Bond is with the University of KwaZulu-Natal Centre for Civil Society in Durban: http://ccs.ukzn.ac.za

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Fri May 06, 2011 5:45 pm

.


http://front.moveon.org/is-this-what-ma ... xceptional



Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


See the next five charts and read more about America’s exceptionalism on DefendingThePublicGood.org.

Originally submitted by Peter K. and volunteer editor Carole S. Charts created by David Morris, Director of the New Rules Project at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, and found on DefendingThePublicGood.org. Feature photo from Flickr user eviltomthai.

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Fri May 06, 2011 5:48 pm


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/26-4?print

Published on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

Analysis: Banks Play Shell Game with Taxpayer Dollars

Statement by Senator Bernie Sanders

BURLINGTON, VT - A study requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) found numerous instances during the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 when banks took near zero-interest funds from the Federal Reserve and then loaned money back to the federal government on sweetheart terms for the banks.

The banks pocketed interest on government securities that paid rates up to 12 times greater than the Fed’s rock bottom interest charges, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis conducted for Sanders.
http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc ... rities.pdf

“This report confirms that ultra-low interest loans provided by the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis turned out to be direct corporate welfare to big banks,” Sanders said. “Instead of using the Fed loans to reinvest in the economy, some of the largest financial institutions in this country appear to have lent this money back to the federal government at a higher rate of interest by purchasing U.S. government securities.”

The Federal Reserve claimed at the time that the emergency loans were needed so banks could provide credit to small- and medium-sized businesses that desperately needed money to create jobs or to prevent layoffs. “Instead of using this money to reinvest in the productive economy, however, it appears that JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America used a large portion of these near-zero-interest loans to buy U.S. government securities and earn a higher interest rate at the same time, providing free money to some of the largest financial institutions in this country,” Sanders said.

The Fed transactions during the financial crisis were detailed in documents that the central bank was forced to disclose last Dec. 1 to comply with a Sanders provision in the Wall Street reform law. Sanders subsequently asked the Congressional Research Service to compare the emergency Fed loans with investments in government securities by the nation’s six largest bank holding companies. The study found, for example, that:

• In the 1st quarter of 2008, JPMorgan Chase had an average of $1.2 billion in outstanding Fed loans with a 2.1 percent interest rate while it held $2.2 billion in U.S. government securities with an average yield of 4.6 percent.

• In the 4th quarter of 2008, JPMorgan Chase had an average of $10.1 billion in outstanding Fed loans with a 0.6 percent interest rate while it held $10.3 billion in U.S. government securities with an average yield of 1.7 percent.

• In the 1st quarter of 2009, JPMorgan Chase had an average of $29.2 billion in outstanding Fed loans with a 0.3 percent interest rate and held $34.6 billion in U.S. government securities with an average yield of 2.1 percent.

• In the 2nd quarter of 2009, JPMorgan Chase had an average of $7.6 billion in outstanding Fed loans with an interest rate of 0.25 percent interest. Meanwhile, it held $34.6 billion in U.S. government securities with an average yield of 2.3 percent.

• In the 1st quarter of 2008, Citigroup received over $5.2 billion in Fed loans with a 3.3 percent interest rate and held $7.9 billion in U.S. Treasury Securities with an average yield of 4.4 percent.

• In the 4th quarter of 2008, Citigroup received $15.8 billion in Fed loans through the Fed’s Primary Dealer Credit Facility with a 1.2 percent interest rate; $11.6 billion in Term Auction Facility loans with a 1.1 percent interest rate; and $4.9 billion in Commercial Paper Funding Facility loans with a 2.7 percent interest rate. It simultaneously held $24 billion in U.S. government securities with an average yield of 3.1 percent.

• In the 1st quarter of 2009, Citigroup received over $12.1 billion in Fed loans with an interest rate of 0.5 percent while holding $14.3 billion in U.S. government securities with an average yield of 3.9 percent.

• In the 2nd quarter of 2009, Citigroup received over $23 billion in Fed loans with an interest rate of 0.5 percent while holding $24.3 billion in U.S. government securities with an average yield of 2.3 percent.

• In the 3rd quarter of 2009, Bank of America had an average of $2.9 billion in outstanding Fed loans with an interest rate of 0.25 percent while purchasing $23.5 billion in Treasury Securities with an average yield of 3.2 percent.

Another Sanders provision in the financial reform law required the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed’s activities during the financial crisis. Sanders asked the non-partisan research arm of Congress to examine in greater detail the sorts of transactions that the Congressional Research Service highlighted. “I hope the GAO will closely investigate this issue as part of the top-to-bottom audit that I included in the Wall Street reform bill last year,” the senator said.



Article printed from http://www.CommonDreams.org
Source URL: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/26-4







http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011 ... us-economy

Ben Bernanke warns US of risks from weak house prices and ailing banks

Federal Reserve chairman downplays strength of US economy despite booming stock market

Phillip Inman

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 April 2011 21.41 BST


Ben Bernanke, the head of the Federal Reserve, is expected to emphasise the risks faced by the US economy from persistently weak house prices and an ailing banking sector when he gives his first press conference on Wednesday.

In contrast to resurgent corporate profits and the booming stock market, which on Tuesday saw the Standard & Poor's 500 hit a three-year high, he will downplay the strength of the economy.

He is also expected to defy critics of his low interest rate policy, who have called for rate rises and an end to quantitative easing, which they blame for the collapse of the dollar and rising inflation. The twice yearly press conferences are a nod to the Bank of England and European Central Bank, which regularly address journalists on monetary policy trends. Bernanke is not expected to adopt the same football analogies beloved of Bank of England governor Mervyn King, but he is known to want to explain his policies to a wider audience.

Until now he has only addressed Congress and made scripted speeches. He has submitted himself to an interview on 60 Minutes, though many Tea Party activists on the right wing of the Republican party criticised the show for giving him an easy time.

The Tea Party is a regular critic of Bernanke, with many members calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve and a return to the gold standard.


We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby Canadian_watcher » Fri May 06, 2011 5:51 pm

JackRiddler wrote:

http://www.counterpunch.org/baker04202011.html

April 20, 2011
A Democracy Deficit
Tyranny of the Central Bankers


By DEAN BAKER

...
The worst part of this story is that these fundamental decisions about economic policy are made by a small, secretive clique operating largely outside of the public's purview. Central bank decisions on interest rates are likely to have far more impact on jobs and growth than any of the policies that are debated endlessly be elected parliaments. Yet, these decisions are made largely without democratic input.

In fairness, politicians bear much of the blame for this situation. They established institutional structures that largely place central banks beyond democratic control. There is probably no bank that is as insulated from the democratic process as the ECB, in large part because of its multinational structure, but all the central banks in wealthy countries now enjoy an extraordinary degree of independence from elected governments. In many countries they are even more independent than the judicial system.

Even worse, the politicians have actually mandated many central banks, like the ECB, to pursue an inflation target to the exclusion of other considerations. This gives the central bankers a license to throw millions of people out of work in order to chase their obsession with inflation.



Yes, politicians are to blame for having made the rules that have allowed Central Banks so much control. And, governments are also to blame for not prosecuting criminal activity within or sanctioned by the central banks.

All the central bankers need to do now is convince politicians to privatize the judicial system and they have literal carte blanche to do whatever they want with monetary policy and .. well.. anything else that has to do with money, really.

But wait.. central bankers have not yet convinced politicans of this! Governments are able to prosecute Central Bank crimes or even create laws to restrain the privilege of Central Bankers...
and
yet
governments
don't.

The problem is collusion and until the Financial Post or the Wall Street Journal or the Globe and Mail pursues this story with fervour it'll just get worse and worse and worse.

Oh, when we will all wake up from the nightmare that tells us that little green pieces of paper mean something?
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Fri May 06, 2011 11:56 pm


http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 39x1053760

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 6, 2011
CONTACT: Public Citizen
Phone: 202-588-1000

After Senate Republican Retreat on Elizabeth Warren, President Should Nominate Her Immediately and, if Necessary, Appoint Her During Next Senate Recess

Statement of David Arkush, Director, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division

WASHINGTON - May 6 - On Thursday, 44 Senate Republicans sent a letter to President Barack Obama stating that they will oppose any nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unless the agency is first weakened dramatically. If there was any doubt that these senators are siding with Wall Street over ordinary Americans or that the senators simply oppose protecting American consumers and small businesses from abuses in the marketplace, that doubt now has been removed.

This letter is a failed attempt at misdirection. There is a strong, growing belief in Washington that the president will nominate Elizabeth Warren, currently a special adviser to the Treasury Department, to head the CFPB. Senate Republicans would be foolish to fight her publicly, and they know it. They would lose the fight – and would only strengthen Warren, the CFPB and the president.

So the senators are pretending the fight is about something else. They say they would oppose any nominee, not just Warren, because the agency is structurally flawed. They are forcing the president to make a recess appointment, which they will use to claim that he and the agency are unaccountable and undemocratic. Their arguments about the agency are specious, as recent congressional debate has shown. It is clear that they simply oppose a strong consumer protection agency.

The senators’ position is an embarrassment. After the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, at a time when millions of Americans have been thrown out of their homes and millions more are jobless, these 44 senators are steadfastly attempting to block a critical solution to the problems: a single agency that will look after consumers in the financial markets, amidst a sea of regulators that work for banks. Two of the senators, Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both Republicans from Maine, voted to approve the CFPB in its current form less than a year ago. Their decision to sign the letter is mystifying – and is likely to draw ire from voters.

The Senate Republicans’ strategic gambit likely leaves Obama no choice but to appoint a CFPB director during a Senate recess. It also leaves him no reason to appoint anyone but the strongest candidate: Elizabeth Warren. That is a good thing.

But the president shouldn’t wait until the next Senate recess. He should jump-start the debate that Wall Street and its congressional allies fear by nominating Warren immediately and touting her and the CFPB loudly. The Senate should hold hearings on her nomination right away. If Republicans continue to block her nomination, then the president should appoint her during the next Senate recess, the week of Memorial Day.

###
Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization founded in 1971 to represent consumer interests in Congress, the executive branch and the courts.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressr ... fm?ID=3334





http://www.zerohedge.com/article/phil-a ... ryone-else

Phil Angelides Discusses America's Dual Justice System: One For Wall Street And One For Everyone Else

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/14/2011 21:56 -0400


Lisa Murphy of Bloomberg interviewed the chairman of the now defunct FCIC, Phil Angelides to discuss the findings presented yesterday by Carl Levin. The topic was the "greased pig" that is Wall Street. The conclusion is that America now has a dual justice system: "One for ordinary people and then one for people with money and enormous wealth and power." As for crime deterrents, considering that to this day not one person has gone to prison, even an idiot can foresee what Angelides has to say on this issue: "To the extent laws were broken, we need deterrents. If someone robs a 7-11, they took $500 and they were able to settle the next day for $50 and no admission of wrongdoing, they'd knock over that 7-11 again. And we've seen time after time where people and firms have made tens, one hundreds, billions of dollars. They've settled charges for pennies on the dollar. At Citigroup for example they represented that they had $13 billion of subprime mortgage exposure when they really had $55 billion. The penalty to the chief financial officer who made $19 million that year, 2007, was $100,000. Goldman was fined $500 million but the date they settled their stock moved up $2 billion. There's been no real consequence." Too bad there is no acknowledgment that it is people like Angelides who through their corrupt behavior over the years allowed Wall Street to singlehandedly usurp the democratic process and replace it with that of a fascist corporatocracy. But that's irrelevant: at some point, sooner or later, the American peasantry will snap. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after the Apple borg hypnosis ends, and the fascination with American Idol expires, but at some point thereafter, absolutely. And the primary reason will be the glaring trampling of the tenets contained in both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, by the kleptocratic "superclass." Then what happens when the billions of ones and zeros held in some bank vault and imparting some ephemeral monetary greatness to these people, finally is exposed for the sham it is, and they have nothing to protect them from the hordes of hungry, angry and very well armed? We can only hope they will be able to bribe their way to the top in that world order as well as they can in the current one. Somehow we doubt it.

[embedded video]

Highlights from the Angelides interview:

I think there's a great concern in this country on two fronts. One is there's a question here, do we have a dual justice system? One for ordinary people and then one for people with money and enormous wealth and power. Secondly, we need deterrents. To the extent laws were broken, we need deterrents. If someone robs a 7-11, they took $500 and they were able to settle the next day for $50 and no admission of wrongdoing, they'd knock over that 7-11 again. And we've seen time after time where people and firms have made tens, one hundreds, billions of dollars. They've settled charges for pennies on the dollar. At Citigroup for example they represented that they had $13 billion of subprime mortgage exposure when they really had $55 billion. The penalty to the chief financial officer who made $19 million that year, 2007, was $100,000. Goldman was fined $500 million but the date they settled their stock moved up $2 billion. There's been no real consequence.

Well I think there's two things here. Number one is it's up to the prosecutors to do thorough investigations. That's what we should expect. We don't want hangmen justice. We don't want vengeance, but we want thorough investigations. And if people crossed a line they ought to be prosecuted. But there were a lot of people who bellied up to the line and conducted themselves in a way without the highest standards of ethics or moral conduct that hurt the economy badly.

And I think one of the things that's most troubling to people is there seems to be very little relationship between who drove this crisis, the big financial institutions, the CEOs, regulators who didn't do their job, and the people who are paying the price, which are millions of people who have lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their life savings.

But what we're seeing is from the House of Representatives, the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives, efforts to cut the budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission, cut the budget of the Commodities Future Trading Commission, a real push back on reform in the wake of this devastation. And I think that is very dangerous.

You also need to attract talent. Look, Wall Street is nimble, it's quick, it's smart. It's a little bit like a greased pig. They move fast, they're hard to catch. We need to do a better job of recruiting people of talent into the public sector, paying them, making sure we have regulators who can frankly match up with Wall Street.

h/t MM
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Sat May 07, 2011 12:45 am

From the tax havens and money laundering thread, a focus on the City of London.

More at the page.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30832&start=30

vanlose kid wrote:
gnosticheresy_2 wrote:Posting this here as it seems to fit, although I suppose it would also be quite at home in the End of the Wall St Boom thread, some very interesting stuff about the City of London. A must read

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Confronting-the-city/
...


thanks. great find. posting it in full.

*

Confronting the city
Mat Little profiles Maurice Glasman, dubbed the father of 'Blue Labour' and learns more about Glasman's plans to clean up the City of London

'They think I'm a communist', smiles Maurice Glasman impishly. Gazing through horn-rimmed spectacles, the genial politics lecturer from London Metropolitan University does not make the most fearsome of revolutionaries.

His front door is pink, and his front room a beguiling mess of books, children's toys and old jazz records. There no bust of Marx, but there is a Tottenham Hotspur pendant hanging from the wall.

The 'they' in question are the Corporation of London, the ancient political entity that represents the City of London. Accustomed to anonymity, the Corporation has been unnerved by the persistent desire of Glasman and his associates at campaigning group London Citizens to open up a political dialogue. The aim is some kind of recompense for the banking bail out. But incensed by the group's anti-usury campaign, which demands a cap on interest rates at 20 per cent, and was launched provocatively at a synagogue in the City, officials stormed out of meetings. 'Last week they were so beside themselves with fury they threatened to cut off all relations with us,' Glasman says.

But it's not just Glasman's campaigning activities that have cast him as a modern-day Spartacus in City eyes. It's also his determination to hold the City accountable for the crash. To him, the worst global economic crisis since the '30s is the culmination the City's decades-long striving to free finance from all regulation, a model assiduously exported around the globe. 'The Corporation of London is responsible for the entire economic policy and all its consequences, that we've lived through for the last 30 years,' he says. 'It's time for a reckoning.'

Glasman's City odyssey began in 2000 when he joined the opposition to plans to demolish part of Spitalfields Market, which adjoins the City. He advised campaigners to apply for a planning review just before building was due to start. Usually such delays stop developments in their tracks because companies cannot afford to pay workers to do nothing. But not in this case. 'The work was halted while there was a review, and I was amazed that all the workers there were paid, everything was fine,' he says. 'I couldn't understand where they money came from for millions of pounds of idle workers. I looked into it and realised it was the City of London that was funding the project.'

The Lord Mayor, Glasman discovered, has at his disposal the City Cash, a fund which generates £200m in interest alone. But no one knows the real size of the City's assets because it's never been in debt, and never taken a loan. Even Parliament is not entitled to ask. 'It was at that point I began to realise I was dealing with something strange and outside my experience,' he says. 'Both the political and academic person in me realise this was more interesting that I ever expected.'

For 900 years the City has eluded control by the British State, says Glasman. William the Conqueror overwhelmed the rest of England but 'came friendly' to the City. Charles the First attempted to send the army into the City and precipitated the Civil War. The City chartered the Empire-building East India and Hudson's Bay Companies. It committed treason by supporting George Washington in the American War of Independence and brokered the peace. No government since Charles the Second - barring the symbolic banning of City banquets after the Second World War by Attlee - has made any attempt to interfere with the City's privileges, he says.

Nowadays, its role is assumed to be largely ceremonial. But quaint medieval trappings mask real, undiluted power, says Glasman. The Lord Mayor may wave to the crowds each November as he processes in a state coach to pledge allegiance to the Crown. But he is also a global lobbyist for the UK financial sector, spending a third of the year overseas. This 'non-political' figure is, according to the Corporation of London, treated as a Cabinet level minister abroad, as he expounds the "values of liberalisation" and opens markets for City businesses.

At home, the City possesses the Remembrancer, the oldest lobbyist in the world, dating from the 14th century. He is paid by the Corporation to lobby government and Parliament. He has, in the words of the Corporation,' day to day contact with officials in government departments responsible for developing government policy' as well as a role in the drafting of legislation. He has a seat behind the Speaker in the House of Commons and has the power to enter the chamber and brief MPs during debates.

Glasman believes the fruit of this influence has been the relentless promotion of the financial sector at the expense of the rest of the British economy, and the progressive freeing of finance from regulation. The City funded events, hosted meals and underwrote think tanks in order to persuade the Thatcher government to introduce the 'Big Bang', which ended national regulation of capital flows. It pushed for privatisation in policy papers and lobbying. It helped ensure that the Financial Services Authority's constitution did not 'discourage the launch of new financial products' and 'avoided erecting regulatory barriers.'

'Over a period of 500 years the City has supported deregulation at every turn', states Glasman. At the time of the crash regulations in the City of London were softer than they were on Wall Street. 'The consequences of this are massive,' he says. 'You had fraudulent products - the cause of the crash - debt being repackaged as an asset and then being used as leverage. The assets they held and credit they generated were on a ratio of 50-1. There was no effective regulation of this, no effective oversight.'

This year, to his surprise, the Corporation started answering Glasman's letters for the first time. Then in June, they agreed to meet him and London Citizens. He senses apprehension. 'They have been exposed by the bailout', he says. 'They have refused more than ten years of requests from us and suddenly they agree to meet. I think they are concerned that the political parties will move to a more manufacturing, less financially-based economy.'

It is a grudging relationship. Corporation officials have walked out of meetings only to return ten minutes later. None of London Citizens' demands - a living wage for the City's other workforce of security guards, cleaners and cooks , the transfer of assets to build affordable housing and the 20 per cent interest cap - is close to being accepted. But Glasman's ultimate ambition would probably have the Lord Mayor reaching for his pearl-encrusted ceremonial sword.

The Square Mile is a city within a city. London's other Mayor, Boris Johnson, has no jurisdiction over the capital's thirty-third borough, which even boasts its own police force. And while Johnson has to answer questions in Parliament each year, the Prime Minister and Chancellor - in their annual Guildhall and Mansion House speeches - both come to the City to justify how they are serving the interests of finance.

The City may have a population smaller than Norwich in the 9th century but the Corporation towers above, in influence and wealth, any other institution of municipal government in the capital.

As Glasman puts it, 'There is the City of London but London was originally called the London County Council, then the Greater London Council. Now it called the Greater London Authority. And it has no status at all. While the City is a commune, autonomous of government, the GLA is a more akin to an elected quango, subordinate to the state.'

Glasman wants a single London Mayor, based in the Mansion House and an all London Parliament in the Guildhall. In this, he says, he is merely trying to make good the attempt by Charles the First in 1632 to unify London by asking the City to extend civic rights to thousands of refugees from enclosure in Whitechapel, Clerkenwell and Southwark. The City refused. Now Glasman think it's time to ask again.' I don't want to see the Corporation of London abolished, but expanded,' he says.

One London government would mean the City's assets - its funds and global property portfolio, thought to encompass substantial parts of London, New York, Hong Kong and Sydney - would pass to the population of the capital. The City has never published an inventory of its assets but they generate £600 million a year in interest; Glasman says the chair of the corporation's finance once told him the full amount was 'truly colossal'. Such a transfer of wealth would mean a draining of its influence. 'The City's power would be diminished,' says Glasman, 'and the financial sector would have to work with the same rules as everyone else, through the British Bankers Association, for example.'

It's not hard to see why the City would regard this as the kind of nightmare of expropriation thought to have passed safely into history with the Berlin Wall. But Glasman's reputation as a Marxist in misplaced. He is director of the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University, and has joined forces with London Citizens, an alliance of faith groups, schools and trade union branches, inspired by the US community organising movement that trained the young Barack Obama. And while he does confess an intellectual allegiance to an émigré economist who settled in England, it is isn't Karl Marx. Glasman's main debt is to Karl Polanyi, whose work The Great Transformation sought to explain the collapse in the nineteenth century liberal economy into depression and war. Markets turn both people and nature into commodities, with consequences lethal to both, argued Polanyi, and they needed protection in a regulated economy.

In fact Glasman espouses a 'very conservative socialism' rooted in family, the work ethic and mutualism. He considers family life and faith institutions as 'huge moral resources' in resisting capitalism. 'You need faith communities, unions, families, local people with long-term relationships with each other, trying to live their lives without being commodified', he says. 'But for the Left the minute you mention family and faith, you are automatically considered to be reactionary'.

Yet beneath his conservatism lurk some very radical proposals. The problem with the bail out, he says, is it did not change the banks' corporate governance and the same irresponsible interests are still dominant. Inspired by the co-determination model of the West German economy after the Second World War and the original ideals of Solidarity in Poland, he believes in a new balance of power in the way companies are run. All institutions, public and private, with more than fifty workers, should be governed by boards made up of equal representatives of owners, workers and the locality in which they are located.

Glasman has grouped these ideas under the rubric of Blue Labour, in contrast to the Red Toryism of 'progressive Conservative' Philip Blond. He will present them to a seminar at Number 10 in February, that will be attended backbench thinkers Jon Cruddas and James Purnell, as well as energy secretary Ed Miliband. 'For the first time leading Labour politicians are listening', Glasman remarks.

Glasman expects a 'shabby compromise' with the powers that be. But he is determined not to let the Corporation of London off the hook. 'Everything depends on how we narrate the crash .... Do we narrate it as just one of those things, say we depend on financial services for our wealth and get on with it, or do we narrate it as the culmination of a catastrophic period of English history, where we've become politically powerless, where work has been degraded, where the pressure is on every individual to sell themselves to make ends meet, to pursue short-term financial ends rather than the common good? And that now has to change.'





vanlose kid wrote:re the title of the thread: one thing that many of lose sight of or pass over is the "interesting" and curious fact that the City of London is in fact a tax haven. it is not a part of the UK, nor of England.

*

Welcome to London, the onshore tax haven
Overseas billionaires and Brits alike are cashing in on non-domicile status, and a Treasury crackdown has only made things worse, writes Nick Mathiason


Nick Mathiason
The Observer, Sunday 8 July 2007

London, the great global financial centre, has another claim to fame: it has become the fastest growing destination for international tax avoiders. The world's super-rich and an elite cadre of financiers working in the Square Mile are increasingly using non-domicile tax status to sidestep paying tax on their fortunes.

Thanks to 208-year-old laws designed to ensure British colonialists kept their overseas income intact, billionaires are now flocking to London [the City, that is] in rapidly increasing numbers.


Those benefiting from non-dom status have rocketed over the last five years. The Treasury, responding to questions lodged by The Observer under Freedom of Information legislation, confirmed that 112,000 individuals indicated non-dom status in their self-assessment returns in the tax year to April 2005. This is a 74 per cent increase over 2002's figures.

And tax experts confirm that there has been a dramatic surge in claimants in recent months - prompted, ironically, by a Treasury and Inland Revenue crackdown on UK citizens holding offshore accounts.

In March, the Revenue offered an amnesty to Brits avoiding tax offshore. The deal was simple: to escape an investigation, those with money in tax havens would agree to pay backdated tax plus a smaller fine than they would otherwise have been liable for.

But rather than recouping hundreds of millions of pounds in extra tax through the amnesty, the Treasury faces the prospect of losing millions.

'People are telling the Revenue that they meant to sign non-dom forms - that not filling them in was an oversight. The amnesty is pushing people further offshore,' says one tax expert.

The result is that there are more people claiming non-domicile status, putting their money out of reach of the taxman for at least 20 years (the length of time for which the status applies). A senior tax adviser says: 'There has been a rush of people claiming non-dom and the amnesty is one of the main reasons.'

The other factor leading to the increase in non-dom numbers is growing interest from overseas investors in the London property market. Unlike UK citizens, non-doms escape tax on income from property or capital gains.

It is not only the international jet set who claim non-dom status; it is also available to some of the most powerful figures in the City. Talking to fund managers and traders, a picture emerges of a culture in which administrators provide the infrastructure to ensure Square Mile professionals are fast-tracked through the system.

'It's part of the environment,' admits a senior City fund manager. 'My understanding is that it's reasonably prevalent in the City. To be honest, it's seen as one reason why London has continued to be successful as a venue for high-value employees who can be located anywhere in the world. I think it's why a lot of businesses like to be based in London; there's a strong sense that if it was to be removed an element of the [City's] attractiveness would lessen.'

That may be, but the Treasury admitted to The Observer earlier this year that no economic assessment of the benefit non-doms bring to the UK economy has been undertaken. The Treasury has, however, worked out how much money the UK is missing out on as a result of non-dom status, but has blocked the paper's attempt to get that figure. The Treasury has just three people working on its ongoing review of non-dom rules. The review was launched in 2001 and has failed to reach any conclusions.

'The argument for maintaining non-dom status is that it attracts entrepreneurs,' says Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman. 'If it becomes a tax dodge, this is inappropriate - and, more and more, it seems to be the case that this is what it has become.'

Non-domicile status is self-assessed. Forms are easy to download from the web and there are just 19 questions. One tax expert says it is easy to convince the Revenue that a claimant is based overseas, whether it is through a relative or a series of overseas investments. In addition, the Revenue makes very few checks on status.

Many senior City figures qualify for non-dom tax exemptions, including Dominic Murphy, the UK boss of private equity giant KKR. And it is widely thought that the Chancellor's City adviser Sir Ronald Cohen and a large collection of Labour Party donors do too. In the House of Lords, Baroness Gardner of Parkes is a non-dom, though she says she is not 'super-rich'.

Earlier this week, new Chancellor Alistair Darling made it clear that nothing must harm the international pre-eminence of the City and he warned against 'knee jerk' reactions to calls to amend the regulations, though he did not totally rule out reform.

The Inland Revenue says: 'We cannot comment on whether any increase in non-dom applications is prompted by offshore arrangements or is linked to stamp duty avoidance. The latest figure published in Hansard for those who claim non-dom status on their tax returns relates to 20004/05 and is 112,000. We are compiling comparable figures for 20005/06 at the moment and expect a figure to be available later on in the year. We cannot speculate as to whether it will be higher or lower than the 2004/05 figure, nor can we speculate on the reasons behind any increase or decrease.'

But the issue is causing increasing international concern as governments struggle to collect tax. An international taskforce is now set to probe the UK regime and the use of tax havens.

Other critics say the non-dom rule is harmful because it widens the gap between rich and poor, which has increased sharply in the last 10 years. In addition, it is a source of resentment within the City. Two employees can be paid the same amount of money gross, but take home vastly different salaries as a result of the rules.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/ju ... .business1

*




vanlose kid wrote:The City of London Corporation: the state within a state

When people ask - as they often do these days - which is the biggest tax haven in the world, our answer is almost invariably the City of London. The City hosts Britain's largest offshore financial centre and is intimately linked to satellite tax havens across most time zones, ranging from Hong Kong and Singapore in the East, to the British Virgin Islands, the Turks & Caicos Islands, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas in the West. All of these havens are in some respects the Frankenstein creations of the City, as are the Crown Dependency islands (Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey) which are easily accessible in less than one hour by jet from London.

Often called The Square Mile, the City is a geographically defined area of the London metropolis. The City is not a London borough, and unbeknownst to almost everybody outside the UK (and to most British people) it has its own distinctive political representative body, the City of London Corporation, which in addition to holding some rather unusual powers - such as the power to organise its own police force - is probably the most powerful and self-interested political lobby in the world.

Despite being at the heart of the London metropolitan area, the City has a tiny resident population, estimated at 7,800 in 2006. This is because real estate prices are so astronomical that the City is dominated by office blocks. By day the population swells to around 450,000, almost all directly or indirectly employed by the financial sector. This influx of day-time workers plays a crucial role in shaping the politics of the Corporation, since, unlike every other local authority in the UK, voting rights for the 100 elected members of the Corporation's Court of Common Council are given to both individual residents and businesses, with the latter outnumbering the former. Businesses are allocated votes according to a sliding scale determined by employee numbers, so businesses employing fewer than ten people are allocated one vote, whilst a business employing 3,500 staff can cast 79 votes.

Not surprisingly, this electoral system has attracted sharp criticisms. As far back as the 1890s a Royal Commission recommended that the Corporation should be amalgamated into the rest of London's machinery of government, but this was strongly resisted by vested interests, and subsequent reforms have been minimal. The Rough Guide to England is coruscating in its comments on how the Square Mile is governed:

"Nowadays, with its Lord Mayor, its Beadles, Sheriffs and Aldermen, its separate police force and its select electorate of freemen and liverymen, the City of London is an anachronism of the worst kind. The Corporation, which runs the City like a one-party mini-state, is an unreconstructed old boys' network whose medievalist pageantry camouflages the very real power and wealth which it holds."

John McDonnell MP, an economist who has warned for many years about the dangers inherent in Britain's laissez faire attitude towards banking regulation, describes the Corporation as "a group of hangers-on, who create what is known as the best dining club in the City ... a rotten borough."

Unsurprisingly, given the voting strength of banks, insurers, accounting firms and related financial intermediaries, the Common Council is dominated by their class interests. And come hell or high water this class doesn't miss a single opportunity to grab tax breaks and special treatment. In the midst of what may well prove to be the worst financial crash since the 19th Century, Alderman Ian Luder, the current Lord Mayor of London, made a speech to international bankers. An accountant by profession, Mr Luder is a tax specialist, and the real meat of his speech focused on tax policy: or more exactly on resisting any attempt by the UK government to tax the profits generated in London. Here is what he said on the subject:

"There are some indications that the Government has learned not to kill the Golden Goose although it leers at it from time to time."

(his timing is exquisite; given the massive cost to the general public of bailing out this particular golden goose, whose goose one might ask?)

Luder continues:

"Tax exemption for foreign dividends is very good news, as is simplified asset management taxation and stamp duty land tax relief for alternative finance investment bonds.

Most importantly, I would add to that the welcome review of the controversial taxation of Controlled Foreign Companies laws and the promise of a clear move towards a territorial approach to taxing foreign subsidiaries. This is very welcome as it hopefully marks the end of trying to tax companies worldwide profits, a fact which has been the prime cause of the well publicised exodus of a number of headquarters of UK-based international groups.

The Chancellor has the opportunity to create a streamlined, principles based tax regime for foreign profits and to turn the UK into a destination headquarters of choice. We will be encouraging him to do so."

And indeed the Lord Mayor and his feudal entourage, plus the cheerleaders of the financial press, and all the king's horses and all the king's men, will never cease in their efforts to encourage the Chancellor to continue to give the City endless tax breaks, not to mention the 'light-touch' regulation which has contributed to the City's status as the big daddy of all tax havens and the largest offshore financial centre.

The City of London Corporation ranks as a political power without rival in Britain, possibly in the world. It has used its power to exert enormous political influence to resist regulation and extract tax exemption. It has fostered criminality by ensuring that the City ranks amongst the least accountable of financial centres on the face of the earth. Eva Joly, the indefatigable examining magistrate who investigated the Elf-Aquitaine scandal, singled out London as the tax haven she found particularly obstructive to investigators: ‘The City of London, that state within a state which has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate’ (quote taken from Poisoned Wells by TJN's Nick Shaxson)

Can things change? Read this new Guardian Article, Labour candidates challenge City bankers' elite that runs Square Mile.

"Labour is to fight to break the grip of a bankers' elite controlling the City of London by putting up for the first time a slate of party candidates to run the Corporation of London."

A new challenge for the City? Do turkeys vote for Christmas? The likelihood of bankers and financial intermediaries electing representatives capable of achieving even the mildest of reforms, let alone the wholesale changes required to make the City responsive to public interest are close to zero.

And the chances of the UK government taking active steps to rein in the City's powers and privileges are also close to zero, since this government and its predecessors, have been almost wholly captive to the interests of financial capitalism. How right Michael Heseltine was when he quipped - in the context of John Smith's efforts to woo the City - that "never have so many crustaceans died in vain." The celebrated Prawn Cocktail Offensive marked the end of the Labour Party and the birth of New Capital.

Given the high degree of political party dependence on funding from City interests; given the unhealthy revolving door between front-bench posts and City boardrooms; given the endless barrage of special interest pleadings from "independent" think tanks and financial journalists with close links to City institutions; given the deep-rooted belief that what is good for the City is good for Britain, we can expect to see business as usual for the foreseeable future.

http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/ ... ithin.html

*




gnosticheresy_2 wrote:http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Council_and_democracy/Council_departments/whatis.htm

The City of London provides local government services for the financial and commercial heart of Britain, the 'Square Mile'. It is committed to supporting and promoting 'The City' as the world leader in international finance and business services through the policies it pursues and the high standard of services it provides. Its responsibilities extend far beyond the City boundaries in that it also provides a host of additional facilities for the benefit of the nation. These range from open spaces such as Epping Forest and Hampstead Heath to the famous Barbican Arts Centre.

Download the Supporting and Promoting the City brochure (PDF 900kb) for further information.

The City of London combines its ancient traditions and ceremonial functions with the role of a modern and efficient local authority, looking after the needs of its residents, businesses and over 320,000 people who come to work in the 'Square Mile' every day. Among local authorities the City of London is unique; not only is it the oldest in the country but it operates on a non-party political basis through its Lord Mayor, Aldermen and members of the Court of Common Council. The Lord Mayor in particular plays an important diplomatic role with his overseas visits and functions at the historic Guildhall and Mansion House for visiting heads of State.

In addition to the usual services provided by a local authority such as housing, refuse collection, education, social services, environmental health and town planning, the City of London performs a number of very special functions. It runs its own police force and the nation's Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey. It provides five Thames bridges, runs the quarantine station at Heathrow Airport and is the Port Health Authority for the whole of the Thames tidal estuary. Three premier wholesale food markets ( Billingsgate, Spitalfields and Smithfield) which supply London and the South East with fresh produce also belong to the City of London. Many of these services are funded from the City of London's own investments at no cost to the public.

The City of London is committed to an extensive programme of activities designed to assist its neighbours to combat social deprivation so that they can benefit from the wealth the 'Square Mile' generates. Staff and members of the City of London have, through centuries of careful stewardship, ensured that the 'Square Mile' has continued to thrive. Today's City of London, through its philosophy of sustainable development, aims to share these benefits with future generations of residents, businesses and workers.

The City of London: a unique authority.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation

The corporation is unique among UK local authorities for its continuous legal existence over many centuries, and for having the power to alter its own constitution, which is done by an Act of Common Council.




Also...

vanlose kid wrote:started a thread with this, could've posted it in quite a few threads, but am adding it on to this one here...

The Real Housewives of Wall Street
Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs?


America has two national budgets, one official, one unofficial. The official budget is public record and hotly debated: Money comes in as taxes and goes out as jet fighters, DEA agents, wheat subsidies and Medicare, plus pensions and bennies for that great untamed socialist menace called a unionized public-sector workforce that Republicans are always complaining about. According to popular legend, we're broke and in so much debt that 40 years from now our granddaughters will still be hooking on weekends to pay the medical bills of this year's retirees from the IRS, the SEC and the Department of Energy.

Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?

Most Americans know about that budget. What they don't know is that there is another budget of roughly equal heft, traditionally maintained in complete secrecy. After the financial crash of 2008, it grew to monstrous dimensions, as the government attempted to unfreeze the credit markets by handing out trillions to banks and hedge funds. And thanks to a whole galaxy of obscure, acronym-laden bailout programs, it eventually rivaled the "official" budget in size — a huge roaring river of cash flowing out of the Federal Reserve to destinations neither chosen by the president nor reviewed by Congress, but instead handed out by fiat by unelected Fed officials using a seemingly nonsensical and apparently unknowable methodology.

Now, following an act of Congress that has forced the Fed to open its books from the bailout era, this unofficial budget is for the first time becoming at least partially a matter of public record. Staffers in the Senate and the House, whose queries about Fed spending have been rebuffed for nearly a century, are now poring over 21,000 transactions and discovering a host of outrages and lunacies in the "other" budget. It is as though someone sat down and made a list of every individual on earth who actually did not need emergency financial assistance from the United States government, and then handed them the keys to the public treasure. The Fed sent billions in bailout aid to banks in places like Mexico, Bahrain and Bavaria, billions more to a spate of Japanese car companies, more than $2 trillion in loans each to Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, and billions more to a string of lesser millionaires and billionaires with Cayman Islands addresses. "Our jaws are literally dropping as we're reading this," says Warren Gunnels, an aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. "Every one of these transactions is outrageous."

Wall Street's Big Win

But if you want to get a true sense of what the "shadow budget" is all about, all you have to do is look closely at the taxpayer money handed over to a single company that goes by a seemingly innocuous name: Waterfall TALF Opportunity. At first glance, Waterfall's haul doesn't seem all that huge — just nine loans totaling some $220 million, made through a Fed bailout program. That doesn't seem like a whole lot, considering that Goldman Sachs alone received roughly $800 billion in loans from the Fed. But upon closer inspection, Waterfall TALF Opportunity boasts a couple of interesting names among its chief investors: Christy Mack and Susan Karches.

Christy is the wife of John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley. Susan is the widow of Peter Karches, a close friend of the Macks who served as president of Morgan Stanley's investment-banking division. Neither woman appears to have any serious history in business, apart from a few philanthropic experiences. Yet the Federal Reserve handed them both low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars through a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk-free income.


The technical name of the program that Mack and Karches took advantage of is TALF, short for Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. But the federal aid they received actually falls under a broader category of bailout initiatives, designed and perfected by Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, called "giving already stinking rich people gobs of money for no fucking reason at all." If you want to learn how the shadow budget works, follow along. This is what welfare for the rich looks like.

In August 2009, John Mack, at the time still the CEO of Morgan Stanley, made an interesting life decision. Despite the fact that he was earning the comparatively low salary of just $800,000, and had refused to give himself a bonus in the midst of the financial crisis, Mack decided to buy himself a gorgeous piece of property — a 107-year-old limestone carriage house on the Upper East Side of New York, complete with an indoor 12-car garage, that had just been sold by the prestigious Mellon family for $13.5 million. Either Mack had plenty of cash on hand to close the deal, or he got some help from his wife, Christy, who apparently bought the house with him.

The Macks make for an interesting couple. John, a Lebanese-American nicknamed "Mack the Knife" for his legendary passion for firing people, has one of the most recognizable faces on Wall Street, physically resembling a crumpled, half-burned baked potato with a pair of overturned furry horseshoes for eyebrows. Christy is thin, blond and rich — a sort of still-awake Sunny von Bulow with hobbies. Her major philanthropic passion is endowments for alternative medicine, and she has attained the level of master at Reiki, the Japanese practice of "palm healing." The only other notable fact on her public résumé is that her sister was married to Charlie Rose.

It's hard to imagine a pair of people you would less want to hand a giant welfare check to — yet that's exactly what the Fed did. Just two months before the Macks bought their fancy carriage house in Manhattan, Christy and her pal Susan launched their investment initiative called Waterfall TALF. Neither seems to have any experience whatsoever in finance, beyond Susan's penchant for dabbling in thoroughbred racehorses. But with an upfront investment of $15 million, they quickly received $220 million in cash from the Fed, most of which they used to purchase student loans and commercial mortgages. The loans were set up so that Christy and Susan would keep 100 percent of any gains on the deals, while the Fed and the Treasury (read: the taxpayer) would eat 90 percent of the losses. Given out as part of a bailout program ostensibly designed to help ordinary people by kick-starting consumer lending, the deals were a classic heads-I-win, tails-you-lose investment.

So how did the government come to address a financial crisis caused by the collapse of a residential-mortgage bubble by giving the wives of a couple of Morgan Stanley bigwigs free money to make essentially risk-free investments in student loans and commercial real estate? The answer is: by degrees. The history of the bailout era reads like one of those awful stories about what happens when a long-dormant criminal compulsion goes unchecked. The Peeping Tom next door stares through a few bathroom windows, doesn't get caught, and decides to break in and steal a pair of panties. Next thing you know, he's upgraded to homemade dungeons, tri-state serial rampages and throwing cheerleaders into a panel truck.

It was the same with the bailouts. They started out small, with the government throwing a few hundred billion in public money to prop up genuinely insolvent firms like Bear Stearns and AIG. Then came TARP and a few other programs that were designed to stave off bank failures and dispose of the toxic mortgage-backed securities that were a root cause of the financial crisis. But before long, the Fed began buying up every distressed investment on Wall Street, even those that were in no danger of widespread defaults: commercial real estate loans, credit- card loans, auto loans, student loans, even loans backed by the Small Business Administration. What started off as a targeted effort to stop the bleeding in a few specific trouble spots became a gigantic feeding frenzy. It was "free money for shit," says Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation. "It turned into 'Give us your crap that you can't get rid of otherwise.' "

The impetus for this sudden manic expansion of the bailouts was a masterful bluff by Wall Street executives. Once the money started flowing from the Federal Reserve, the executives began moaning to their buddies at the Fed, claiming that they were suddenly afraid of investing in anything — student loans, car notes, you name it — unless their profits were guaranteed by the state. "You ever watch soccer, where the guy rolls six times to get a yellow card?" says William Black, a former federal bank regulator who teaches economics and law at the University of Missouri. "That's what this is. If you have power and connections, they will give you a freebie deal — if you're good at whining."

This is where TALF fits into the bailout picture. Created just after Barack Obama's election in November 2008, the program's ostensible justification was to spur more consumer lending, which had dried up in the midst of the financial crisis. But instead of lending directly to car buyers and credit-card holders and students — that would have been socialism! — the Fed handed out a trillion dollars to banks and hedge funds, almost interest-free. In other words, the government lent taxpayer money to the same assholes who caused the crisis, so that they could then lend that money back out on the market virtually risk-free, at an enormous profit.

Cue your Billy Mays voice, because wait, there's more! A key aspect of TALF is that the Fed doles out the money through what are known as non-recourse loans. Essentially, this means that if you don't pay the Fed back, it's no big deal. The mechanism works like this: Hedge Fund Goon borrows, say, $100 million from the Fed to buy crappy loans, which are then transferred to the Fed as collateral. If Hedge Fund Goon decides not to repay that $100 million, the Fed simply keeps its pile of crappy securities and calls everything even.

This is the deal of a lifetime. Think about it: You borrow millions, buy a bunch of crap securities and stash them on the Fed's books. If the securities lose money, you leave them on the Fed's lap and the public eats the loss. But if they make money, you take them back, cash them in and repay the funds you borrowed from the Fed. "Remember that crazy guy in the commercials who ran around covered in dollar bills shouting, 'The government is giving out free money!' " says Black. "As crazy as he was, this is making it real."

This whole setup — in which millionaires and billionaires gambled on mountains of dangerous securities, with taxpayers providing the stake and assuming almost all of the risk — is the reason that it's insanely premature for Wall Street to claim that the bailouts have actually made money for the government. We simply can't make that determination until the final bill comes in on all the dicey securities we financed during the bailout feeding frenzy.

In the case of Waterfall TALF Opportunity, here's what we know: The company was founded in June 2009 with $14.87 million of investment capital, money that likely came from Christy Mack and Susan Karches. The two Wall Street wives then used the $220 million they got from the Fed to buy up a bunch of securities, including a large pool of commercial mortgages managed by Credit Suisse, a company John Mack once headed. Those securities were valued at $253.6 million, though the Fed refuses to explain how it arrived at that estimate. And here's the kicker: Of the $220 million the two wives got from the Fed, roughly $150 million had not been paid back as of last fall — meaning that you and I are still on the hook for most of whatever the Wall Street spouses bought on their government-funded shopping spree.

The public has no way of knowing how much Christy Mack and Susan Karches earned on these transactions, because the Fed has repeatedly declined to provide any information about how it priced the individual securities bought as part of programs like TALF. In the Waterfall deal, for instance, we know the Fed pledged some $14 million against a block of securities called "Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2007-C2" — but that data is meaningless without knowing how many units were bought. It's like saying the Fed gave Waterfall $14 million to buy cars. Did Waterfall pay $5,000 per car, or $500,000? We have no idea. "There's no way of validating or invalidating the Fed's process in TALF without this pricing information," says Gary Aguirre, a former SEC official who was fired years ago after he tried to interview John Mack in an insider-trading case.

In early April, in an attempt to learn exactly how much Mack and Karches made on the TALF deals, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa wrote a letter to Waterfall asking 21 detailed questions about the transactions. In addition, Sen. Sanders has personally asked Fed chief Bernanke to provide more complete information on the TALF loans given not only to Christy Mack but to gazillionaires like former Miami Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga and hedge-fund shark John Paulson. But Bernanke bluntly refused to provide the information — and the Fed has similarly stonewalled other oversight agencies, including the General Accounting Office and TARP's special inspector general.

Christy Mack and Susan Karches did not respond to requests for comments for this story. But even without more information about the loans they got from the Fed, we know that TALF wasn't the only risk-free money being handed over to Wall Street. During the financial crisis, the Fed routinely made billions of dollars in "emergency" loans to big banks at near-zero interest. Many of the banks then turned around and used the money to buy Treasury bonds at higher interest rates — essentially loaning the money back to the government at an inflated rate. "People talk about how these were loans that were paid back," says a congressional aide who has studied the transactions. "But when the state is lending money at zero percent and the banks are turning around and lending that money back to the state at three percent, how is that different from just handing rich people money?"

Those kinds of deals were the essence of the bailout — and the vast mountains of near-zero government cash turned companies facing bankruptcy into monstrous profit machines. In 2008 and 2009, while Christy Mack was busy getting her little TALF loans for $220 million, her husband's bank hauled in $2 trillion in emergency Fed loans. During the same period, Goldman borrowed nearly $800 billion. Shortly afterward, the two banks reported a combined annual profit of $14.5 billion.

As crazy as it is to lend to banks at near zero percent and borrow back from them at three percent, one could at least argue that the policy may have aided American companies by providing banks more cash to lend. But how do you explain the host of other bailout transactions now being examined by Congress? Like the Fed's massive purchases of securities in foreign automakers, including BMW, Volkswagen, Honda, Mitsubishi and Nissan? Or the nearly $5 billion in cheap credit the Fed extended to Toyota and Mitsubishi? Sure, those companies have factories and dealerships in the U.S. — but does it really make sense to give them free cash at the same time taxpayers were being asked to bail out Chrysler and GM? Seems a little crazy to fund the competition of the very automakers you're trying to rescue.

And then there are the bailout deals that make no sense at all. Republicans go mad over spending on health care and school for Mexican illegals. So why aren't they flipping out over the $9.6 billion in loans the Fed made to the Central Bank of Mexico? How do we explain the $2.2 billion in loans that went to the Korea Development Bank, the biggest state bank of South Korea, whose sole purpose is to promote development in South Korea? And at a time when America is borrowing from the Middle East at interest rates of three percent, why did the Fed extend $35 billion in loans to the Arab Banking Corporation of Bahrain at interest rates as low as one quarter of one point?

Even more disturbing, the major stakeholder in the Bahrain bank is none other than the Central Bank of Libya, which owns 59 percent of the operation. In fact, the Bahrain bank just received a special exemption from the U.S. Treasury to prevent its assets from being frozen in accord with economic sanctions. That's right: Muammar Qaddafi received more than 70 loans from the Federal Reserve, along with the Real Housewives of Wall Street.

Perhaps the most irritating facet of all of these transactions is the fact that hundreds of millions of Fed dollars were given out to hedge funds and other investors with addresses in the Cayman Islands. Many of those addresses belong to companies with American affiliations — including prominent Wall Street names like Pimco, Blackstone and . . . Christy Mack. Yes, even Waterfall TALF Opportunity is an offshore company. It's one thing for the federal government to look the other way when Wall Street hotshots evade U.S. taxes by registering their investment companies in the Cayman Islands. But subsidizing tax evasion? Giving it a federal bailout? What the fuck?

As America girds itself for another round of lunatic political infighting over which barely-respirating social program or urgently necessary federal agency must have their budgets permanently sacrificed to the cause of billionaires being able to keep their third boats in the water, it's important to point out just how scarce money isn't in certain corners of the public-spending universe. In the coming months, when you watch Republican congressional stooges play out the desperate comedy of solving America's deficit problems by making fewer photocopies of proposed bills, or by taking an ax to budgetary shrubberies like NPR or the SEC, remember Christy Mack and her fancy new carriage house. There is no belt-tightening on the other side of the tracks. Just a free lunch that never ends.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... t-20110411


*


*


Thanks guys!

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Sat May 07, 2011 12:57 am

.

Pre-election story: Canadian example suggests corporate tax cuts actually disincentivize capital investment. They'll invest to avoid taxes, keep more cash on hand if they don't need to lose it to taxes (especially in a volatile environment). Makes sense.

Graphic is from The Star:
Image


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadav ... a-810.html

April 13, 2011

Corporate tax cuts fail to help economy: study

By CBC News


With the future of federal corporate tax cuts playing a role in the election campaign, a new study says the planned reductions will not stimulate the economy.

A new report from the labour-oriented Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a non-profit research organization, suggests historic trends show businesses' fixed capital spending has declined as a share of GDP and as a share of corporate cash flow since the early 1980s, despite a series of federal and provincial corporate tax cuts.

The study says the combined federal-provincial corporate tax rate has been cut to 29.5 per cent in 2010 from 50 per cent in the early 1980s.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's plan to reduce corporate taxes further has become a flashpoint in the federal election campaign. The Conservatives plan to reduce federal corporate taxes to 15 per cent in 2012 from 16.5 per cent in 2011 and 18 per cent in 2010, while the Liberals and NDP both want to halt those planned cuts.

Jim Stanford, the report's author and an economist for the Canadian Auto Workers, said in a report released on Wednesday that the Conservative government's proposed three-percentage-point reduction in corporate tax rates would cost Canadians $6 billion per year, but it would only create $600 million of new business investment annually.

"Given this statistical evidence, the federal government would have a far more powerful impact on both public and private investment by investing directly in public infrastructure, rather than providing additional tax reductions for businesses," Stanford said in a release.

The report, called "Having Their Cake and Eating It Too," says Canadian companies have received $745 billion in extra after-tax cash flow since 2001. The study said that cash has not been reinvested in capital projects.

When companies failed to put the money they received in tax cuts back into capital projects, it served as a major source of Canada's economic downturn, the study indicated.

"Corporate Canada has been consistently receiving far more after-tax cash flow than it is reinvesting in Canadian capital spending-to the tune of $745 billion since 2001," Stanford said in a release.

"Supplementing that cash flow through further tax cuts is like pushing on a string. Those tax savings would only add to the large sums of uninvested cash flow Canadian businesses already possess."
Leaders' debate discusses tax cuts

The future of the corporate tax cuts became an early flashpoint in Tuesday's English-language leaders' debate. Harper was criticized by his three political rivals over the planned tax cuts.

The Conservative leader said he had a legacy of cutting taxes for both small and large businesses. He also tried to defend the tax cuts, saying they had already been passed and there were no new corporate tax cuts in his most recent budget.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Harper's explanation on corporate tax cuts continued to show he dodges the truth.

"We're in the middle of the biggest deficit in Canadian history. You didn't tell the truth to the Canadian Parliament, you are the first prime minister to be found in contempt of Parliament of Canada," Ignatieff said.

"Right now, you are trying to persuade Canadians that you are not cutting corporate taxes ... and no one can understand why that makes sense when we are in the middle of the biggest deficit we've ever seen because of your waste and mismanagement."

NDP Leader Jack Layton also criticized Harper's explanation on the tax cuts during the leaders' debate.

"You try to claim there are no corporate tax cuts coming now. That is not true," Layton said.

"Those cuts are still coming, and they are very, very costly."

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation


CBC News 2011.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Sun May 08, 2011 8:15 pm

.

Talk of Haircuts & Euro Exits


Analysis: Europe groping for new Greek crisis plan
Reuters - Yiorgos Karahalis, Gavin Jones - ‎20 hours ago‎
A general view of the old Athens airport in the Hellenikon-Argyroupoli suburb, southwest of Athens, in this March 17, 2011 file photo. By Luke Baker BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The clearest news to emerge from a secretive meeting of top euro zone finance ...

Greek PM denies euro exit; says leave Greece alone
Reuters - Dina Kyriakidou, Renee Maltezou - ‎18 hours ago‎
ATHENS, May 7 (Reuters) - Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou on Saturday denied there was even unofficial discussion over Greece quitting the euro zone and asked that his troubled country be "left alone to ...

Analysis: Costs of any Greek euro exit may be prohibitive
Reuters - Noah Barkin, Paul Taylor - ‎May 6, 2011‎
BERLIN (Reuters) - The costs to a country of leaving the euro zone would be so high that many analysts think the bloc will do everything in its power to prevent an exit, even if that requires the richest members to keep ...

Euro posts worst week since January
Reuters - Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss, Steven C. Johnson - ‎May 6, 2011‎
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The euro on Friday posted its biggest weekly loss against the dollar since January and further losses were seen as likely, as sovereign debt concerns reappeared after a German news report, later denied, ...

No decisions made at euro zone talks: source
Reuters - Gernot Heller, Christiaan Hetzner - ‎19 hours ago‎
BERLIN (Reuters) - A meeting of finance ministers from the euro zone's biggest economies yielded no decisions on how to proceed further with Greece's debt crisis, a German government official told Reuters on Saturday. "That was no extraordinary or ...

FOREX-Euro hits more than 2-week low on Greece concerns
Reuters - Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss, Steven C. Johnson - ‎May 6, 2011‎
NEW YORK, May 6 (Reuters) - The euro fell to its lowest in more than two weeks on Friday and headed for its worst week against the dollar since January after a German news report, later denied, suggested Greece had raised ...

Greece leaving euro zone not discussed- Eurogroup's Juncker
Reuters - ‎May 6, 2011‎
LUXEMBOURG May 6 (Reuters) - Finance ministers from Germany, France, Italy and Spain did not discuss Greece leaving the euro zone or the possibility of a Greek debt restructuring during a meeting in Luxembourg on Friday, Eurogroup Chairman Jean-Claude ...

Greece May Want Bailout Fund to Buy Its Debt
Wall Street Journal - Costas Paris, Alkman Granitsas - ‎4 hours ago‎
ATHENS—Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou said Saturday that Greece was exploring the possibility of having a European bailout fund buy its debt if the government is unable to access capital markets ...

No plans for Greek debt haircut -- Euro zone source
Reuters - Jan Strupczewski, David Brunnstrom - ‎May 6, 2011‎
BRUSSELS May 6 (Reuters) - There are no plans for a restructuring of Greek debt, a Eurozone source said on Friday. The source said some EU ministers were meeting in Luxembourg on Friday to review issues such as Portugal, Greece and European Central ...

Euro extends declines on reports of meeting on Greece
Reuters - Nick Olivari - ‎May 6, 2011‎
NEW YORK May 6 (Reuters) - The euro fell to a fresh session low on Friday as investors continued to shun risk amid reports of a meeting to be held in Luxembourg on the Greek debt crisis. [ID:nBAT006209] German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble and ...

Euro dips as media reports on Greece's euro zone future
Reuters - ‎May 6, 2011‎
NEW YORK May 6 (Reuters) - The euro briefly extended losses against the dollar on Friday, with traders citing a German media report that Greece had raised the possibility of leaving the euro zone. The euro hit a session low of $1.4454 EUR= and was last ...

Largest euro zone states at Luxembourg meeting - EU sources
Reuters - ‎May 6, 2011‎
BRUSSELS May 6 (Reuters) - Finance ministers from a handful of the largest euro zone member states were involved in a meeting in Luxembourg on Friday to discuss Greece, Portugal and related issues, two senior EU sources told Reuters. ...

EU meeting did not discuss extending Greek bailout loan: sources
Reuters - Renee Maltezou, Harry Papachristou - ‎18 hours ago‎
ATHENS (Reuters) - A meeting of top euro zone finance officials in Luxembourg on Friday did not discuss extending the repayment of Greece's bailout loans, or any new bailout deal terms for the country, sources close to the discussion said on Saturday. ...

Slovakia not aware of euro zone crisis meeting
Reuters - Martin Santa, Jan Lopatka - ‎May 6, 2011‎
BRATISLAVA May 6 (Reuters) - Slovak Finance Minister Ivan Miklos is not aware of any euro zone crisis meeting taking place on Friday as reported by Germany's Spiegel Online, he said through a spokesman. "He does not have any information about any such ...

Greece raised possibility of euro exit: report
Reuters - Noah Barkin, Erik Kirschbaum - ‎May 6, 2011‎
BERLIN (Reuters) - Greece has raised the possibility of exiting the euro zone in discussions with the European Commission and other member states in recent days, Germany's Spiegel Online reported on Friday. The magazine said euro zone finance ministers ...

Greece Considers Exit from Euro Zone
Spiegel Online - ‎May 6, 2011‎
By Christian Reiermann A protest against austerity measures in Athens. Greece is considering leaving the euro zone, according to sources in the German government. The debt crisis in Greece has taken on a dramatic new twist. ...

Euro Tumbles Most in a Year After Report Greece May Drop Common Currency
Bloomberg - Catarina Saraiva - ‎May 6, 2011‎
The euro tumbled the most in a year against the dollar on speculation Greece may stop using the currency, bolstering concern the nation's debt crisis will spread through the region. ...






http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/05/ ... tml#Search

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Geithner Blocked IMF Deal to Haircut Irish Debt


Was the US Treasury Secretary’s deep sixing of a plan by the seldom-charitable IMF to give the Irish some debt relief Versailles redux? By that I mean the Treaty of Versailles, the agreement at the end of World War I devised by the victors to dismember the German economy. Bear with me as I tease out this conceit.

When most people think of the punitive deal, which most see as the cause of economic and social dislocation in Germany that fueled the rise of the Nazis, they focus on the unrealistic reparation payments without looking at the specific provisions intended to strip Germany of assets and productive capacity. As John Maynard Kenyes, a member of the British Treasury department who quit the negotiations in disgust to write The Economic Consequences of the Peace, the treaty seized, along with coal-rich Alsace Lorriane, but any assets held by German nationals in these territories were expropriated. In addition:

The Allies ‘reserve the right to retain and liquidate all property, rights and interests belonging at the date of the coming into force of the present treaty to German nationals, or companies controlled by them, within their territories, colonies,possessions and protectorates, including territories ceded to them by the present treaty.


The provisions regarding German coal production were even more destructive. Keynes noted:

The provisions relating to coal and iron are more important in respect of their ultimate consequences on Germany’s internal industrial economy than for the money value immediately involved.

The German empire has been built more truly on coal and iron than on blood and iron. The skilled exploitation of the great coalfields of the Ruhr, Upper Silesia, and the Saar, alone made possible the development of the steel, chemical, and electrical industries which established her as the first industrial nation of continental Europe. One-third of Germany’s population lives in towns of more than 20,000 inhabitants, an industrial concentration which is only possible on a foundation of coal and iron. …It is only the extreme immoderation, and indeed technical impossibility, of the treaty’s demands which may save the situation in the long run….

Our hypothetical calculations… leave us with post-war German domestic requirements, on the basis of a prewar efficiency of railways and industry, of 110 million tons against an output not exceeding 100 million tons, of which 40 million tons are mortgaged to the Allies….Every million tons she is forced to export must be at the expense of closing down an industry….the surrender of the coal will destroy German industry.


Now what, pray tell, does this have to do with Ireland, and Geithner? Geithner is as doctrinaire and short-sighted a defender of bankers’ privileges as the Allied Powers were of their rights to make Germany pay for the costly and bloody Great War.

We had noted that the Irish could have stared down the EU and held out for a bailout of its banks only, and were mystified at the quick capitulation. Consider this section of a very instructive op-ed by Ireland’s highly respected economist Morgan Kelly in the Irish Times (hat tip reader disgruntled observer):

On November 16th, European finance ministers urged [finance minister Brian] Lenihan to accept a bailout to stop the panic spreading to Spain and Portugal, but he refused, arguing that the Irish government was funded until the following summer. Although attacked by the Irish media for this seemingly delusional behaviour, Lenihan, for once, was doing precisely the right thing. Behind Lenihan’s refusal lay the thinly veiled threat that, unless given suitably generous terms, Ireland could hold happily its breath for long enough that Spain and Portugal, who needed to borrow every month, would drown….

Ireland’s Last Stand began less shambolically than you might expect. The IMF, which believes that lenders should pay for their stupidity before it has to reach into its pocket, presented the Irish with a plan to haircut €30 billion of unguaranteed bonds by two-thirds on average. Lenihan was overjoyed, according to a source who was there, telling the IMF team: “You are Ireland’s salvation.”

The deal was torpedoed from an unexpected direction. At a conference call with the G7 finance ministers, the haircut was vetoed by US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner who, as his payment of $13 billion from government-owned AIG to Goldman Sachs showed, believes that bankers take priority over taxpayers. The only one to speak up for the Irish was UK chancellor George Osborne, but Geithner, as always, got his way. An instructive, if painful, lesson in the extent of US soft power, and in who our friends really are.

The negotiations went downhill from there. On one side was the European Central Bank, unabashedly representing Ireland’s creditors and insisting on full repayment of bank bonds. On the other was the IMF, arguing that Irish taxpayers would be doing well to balance their government’s books, let alone repay the losses of private banks. And the Irish? On the side of the ECB, naturally.

In the circumstances, the ECB walked away with everything it wanted. The IMF were scathing of the Irish performance, with one staffer describing the eagerness of some Irish negotiators to side with the ECB as displaying strong elements of Stockholm Syndrome.


The Stockholm Syndrome point is important. Banks who have engaged in widespread looting and reckless behavior have nevertheless managed to persuade the public that acceding to their demands is virtuous. In a narrow sense, that isn’t wrong, in that healthy communities depend on most people honoring their commitments . But how long will this widespread use of what amount to one sided agreements, where the financiers can break them with little in the way of consequences while ordinary citizens required to adhere to them, continue before the collateral damage engulfs the bankers? This repudiation of basic notions of equity will prove to be as corrosive to the foundations of our society as the German hyperinflation was, although it will take longer to play out. And the economic costs are increasingly evident (hat tip reader Philip Pilkington):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqvEi_uY ... r_embedded





The following is not all propaganda; some good points about difficulties of disentangling Greece from the Eurozone.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/ ... SA20110506

Analysis: Costs of any Greek euro exit may be prohibitive


By Noah Barkin and Paul Taylor

BERLIN | Fri May 6, 2011 5:47pm EDT

(Reuters) - The costs to a country of leaving the euro zone would be so high that many analysts think the bloc will do everything in its power to prevent an exit, even if that requires the richest members to keep bailing out weak states.

German magazine Spiegel reported on Friday that the Greek government had raised the possibility of breaking away from the 12-year-old euro area and reintroducing its own currency in talks with the European Commission and other member states in recent days.

The report was vigorously denied by the Greek finance ministry and officials from other member states. Sources did confirm that a small group of euro zone finance ministers were meeting in Luxembourg on Friday to discuss Greece and other pressing matters.

Leaving the currency union would carry huge economic, social, reputational and strategic costs for Greece or any other country. Greece would have to hive off its bank deposits from the rest of the euro zone banking system as it introduced a new currency, risking a run on its banks and huge disruption for its companies.

Banks across Europe would face losses on their Greek debt.

For the bloc as a whole, it would represent a humiliating setback because the common currency is broadly viewed as the culmination of half a century of European integration.

"To me the euro zone is a one-way street," said Gilles Moec, senior European economist at Deutsche Bank. "A breakup would have catastrophic consequences for the country that left. It would precipitate a run on the banks. I can't see how you do it in an orderly way."

Speculation about a possible euro zone breakup reached fever pitch in November of last year, but predictions that the bloc will fracture have come mainly from Anglo-Saxon skeptics.

Last summer, British economist Christopher Smallwood of consultants Capital Economics produced a 20-page paper entitled "Why the euro zone needs to break up" and U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini, nicknamed Dr. Doom, has said euro members will be forced to abandon the shared currency.

DEBT RESTRUCTURING RISK

Greece has struggled to meet the fiscal targets set out for it as part of its 110 billion euro ($160 billion) bailout from the European Union and International Monetary Fund.

Over the past month, markets have priced in the sort of default risk that was once unthinkable for a euro zone state and expectations have risen that Greece will have to restructure its 327 billion euro debt load while other countries will have to provide more aid.

Political opposition in northern Europe to giving Greece more money and rising anger within the country at the tough austerity measures the government has put in place have created a dangerous new dynamic that has convinced more experts an exit may conceivably happen, although probably not for years.

By reintroducing the drachma, the argument goes, Greece could sharply devalue its currency against the euro and keep official interest rates ultra-low, regain competitiveness, and tackle its debt problem without the political and social upheaval associated with years of austerity-fueled recession.

"I'm not suggesting that these stories are right," said Jonathan Loynes, chief European economist at Capital Economics. "But we have said that we think it's quite likely that there will be some change to the membership of the euro area over the next four to five years and that one possible form will be the exit of a small economy like Greece.

"I don't think the idea is implausible at all."

But U.S. economist Barry Eichengreen, who authored a 2007 paper arguing that the single currency could not be undone, reaffirmed that belief last year as the Greek crisis deepened.

"Adopting the euro is effectively irreversible," he wrote in an article on the economics website Vox.

"Leaving would require lengthy preparations, which, given the anticipated devaluation, would trigger the mother of all financial crises," said Eichengreen, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

LEGAL NIGHTMARE

There is no legal procedure for leaving the euro zone and some economists argue that treaty changes would have to take place before an exit could happen.

"You would have to make it legal in order to leave," said Moec of Deutsche Bank. "You would probably have years of litigation on all the debt held outside the country."

Trade flows would probably be severely disrupted. Business costs would become unpredictable, inhibiting investment. Labour unrest and social strife would likely result as citizens faced mass unemployment, inflation and brutal public spending cuts.

That would far outweigh any potential boost to exports or tourism revenues from a devaluation.

"But what if the bank runs and financial crisis happen anyway?" Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman asked on his blog last November.

An exit that is neither planned nor chosen but imposed by irresistible market forces would dramatically reduce the marginal cost of leaving the euro, Krugman contended.

But that economic logic may underestimate the political will that has driven European monetary union since its inception.

(Additional reporting by Emelia Sithole in London; Writing by Noah Barkin; Editing by Ruth Pitchford)

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun May 08, 2011 8:44 pm

Loren Adams
Who Knew?

By Loren Adams - 1 May 2011

Who could have known Wall Street and the American banking system would fail? Who foresaw the U.S. Government forced to bail out entire financial houses to rescue the nation and world from certain collapse? Of those who predicted, who had the courage to warn?

The answer is many.

Upon Bush’s ascension in 2000, and even before in 1999 as he was putting out “feelers” to run,” I predicted economic collapse as a result of his capturing the White House. His economic philosophy mirrored Ronald Reagan’s except more extreme “trickle-down.” Openly he advocated transforming Clinton’s surpluses into deficits to reward his wealthy fans with excessive tax cuts. It was much more important for the right to “starve the beast” than act in the best interests of the nation.

The pillars of wealth are (1) innovation and (2) industry. America’s twin pillars have both have been deliberately undermined, and like the Twin Towers, have come crashing down in huge plumes – changing history forever.

The right advocated outsourcing. They achieved it with little or no resistance from the passive left. The right advocated giving huge tax breaks for whole industries relocating overseas. The limp-wrist left capitulated as per norm. The right encouraged employers to hire illegals in a direct effort to undermine labor. The left rolled its eyes in opposition. The right weakened education and career training in this country. The left failed to counterattack but instead prescribed compromise.

The result was a house of cards waiting for the first gust. The twins INDUSTRY and INNOVATION collapsed like the WTC. We’ve been surviving on fumes since – credit and deficit. It’s a shell of an economy, a balloon artificially inflated by foreign money, past success, and now artificial stimulus.

As soon as the stimulus evaporates, the economy is destined to dive again. But this time Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again, for all the King’s treasure is now controlled by the very element which pushed Humpty off the wall.

As mentioned, more than a few warned of economic calamity. Our little email ring began in 2002 which included about 300 active writers. One was an economist from the Miami area who saw the handwriting on the Wall Street when emailing the group AmeriVoice on December 1, 2002.

His message is presented below – names and specific contact info redacted or code-named for privacy. I happened upon his email early 2011 when reviewing the group’s archived files.

====================================

Subject: The Plague of Wall Street... US Banks and their genius elite

WARNING!!!

Date: 12/1/02 12:28 PM Central Standard Time

From: AmeriVoice Member #127

All investors and banking customers -- beware! Avoid Wall Street like the plague!

Do not have anything to do with the major NYC commercial banks, brokerages or investment banking or securities analyst firms.

Leading contenders Citigroup, Solomon, Smith Barney, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns, MLPFS, etc... (1) regulatory penalties, (2) equity -bal sheet holdings- adjustments or write-downs, (3) restatement or charge-off of nonperforming loan portfolio items, and (4) the recognized of a total failure to provide a bad debt reserve for high risk and soon to fail OTC derivatives... will soon leave these institutions financially insolvent.

This group of financial geniuses, led by the new avarice ethnicity elite of Wall St., will soon face potential total instability due to this forced recognition of lost asset value and uncoverable debt burden to the estimated tune of about $1,000,000,000,000 (plus)... that's right One Trillion Dollars.

Several in this group, if not all, will collapse entirely without any hope of reorganization or salvaging in any form. This will create a worldwide financial havoc never seen before in all history....

Mark my word, on this date of original authorship (01DEC02), this unfortunate but true scenario of disclosure, recognition, hell and damnation on Wall Street will commence being clearly visible to the public as the fog lifts in the near future.

"Sir" Alan Greenspan's December 1996 warning about "irrational exuberance" was the beginning of the end of this story and that bubble has now been partially pierced to put it politely.

This is not a slow or sluggish recovery but a rational reality that is replacing the ignorance that fostered irrational exuberance.

Stand aside Joe Granville so as not to dampen the remaining fragile and thin fabric of our democracy ... this soon to begin unfolding story will make even you gag.

For the good of the order,

Sincerely,

Dr. AmeriVoice Member #127 (anonymous), Juris Doctorate and Doctor of Economology

===================================================

Credible and factually substantiated

I am an economist, hold a doctorate in law and have throughout my career worked for and/or briefly traveled with four U.S. Presidents.

I have had five careers in my adult life... starting in private law practice, then in corporate America, some public service and several different tenures in academia (college and law school).

I write under my own name, as well as two nom de plumes (one for political science pieces and one for economics).

I prefer to have my message heard and understood without regard to my personal identity... and I can plainly state that I seek no political office. Nor would I consider such even if offered.

I have spoken personally with members of the U.S. House and Senate, and both of the most recent SEC Chairmen Arthur Levitt and Harvey Pitt, whose comments I will not quote at this juncture but whose opinions gave me factual confirmation of my underlying fears.

I feel strongly about the truth and accuracy of these statements and fear their impact on our nation and our economic system.

I cannot say any more to you at this time... but would ask if you would mind disclosing who you are, where you are located, what is your interest in this topic and specifically in my comments?

With personal regards,

Dr. AmeriVoice Member #127, Boca Raton, FL

Emailing on 6 December 2002, Member #127 wrote:

Loren:

Thank you for your considerate reply, and yes, you have my permission to submit my writing to your "email ring."

Obviously nothing can be assured in this life except uncertainty and the unpredictable nature of our political and economic environment. I feel very strongly about the fact that few are seeming to recognize and none are addressing solutions for the primary root causes underlying most of the economic and political problems facing us in America today... not the media, not the government, nor academia ... not to mention the general public whose dialogue is generally guided by the leadership of these groups...

I appreciate your interest in this one man's opinion. I usually write under the by-line of either "The Independent American Statesman" or "The Independent American Economist" depending upon the economic or social bent and content of the piece. I like to think of my views as the conscience of American independent and nonpartisan thinking and analysis.

I too have a deep concern and interest in environmental and social issues, and my initial career background was in International Law, with a brief internship study at the UN in NYC, so I too have a special interest in foreign relations. I also taught International Law at a Midwest law school a number of years ago.

"If we are about to face economic catastrophe…" a big "if", but unfortunately I feel it is headed directly at us like a speeding asteroid. Alan Greenspan's December 6, 1996 speech warning about "the irrational exuberance" in the market place went nearly totally unheeded… even though it became the most widely quoted phrase of the last decade. I now say that irrational exuberance has become a rational reality that America finally recognizes in Wall Street and the American financial and security circles. The reluctance to invest has been forced but is a god-send if you ask me…

And to back up my belief with some integrity I can honestly and accurately state that I have no personal investment or retirement money in the stock market today.

I have cautioned people since 1997 about the stock market manipulation and tomfoolery. I have also advised family, friends, neighbors and readers since late 1999 to prepare by withdrawing from the market. Those who heeded my advice early on lost nothing but many did not, including an older sister in Michigan, who has now lost a bundle… and just a few years before full retirement.

The old Boy Scout motto still rings true to life today…"Be prepared"!

Again, thank you for your interest and comments.

Personal regards,

Dr. AmeriVoice Member #127
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to Political

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests