Natural News Store

Showing posts with label Ben Bernanke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ben Bernanke. Show all posts

Friday, July 10, 2009

Medvedev Unveils “World Currency” Coin At G8

Russian President shows reporters example of “united future world currency”
Medvedev Unveils World Currency Coin At G8 100709top2
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, July 10, 2009
In a highly symbolic moment at the G8 summit in Italy today, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev unveiled to reporters a coin representing a “united future world currency”.
“We are discussing both the use of other national currencies, including the ruble, as a reserve currency, as well as supranational currencies,” the Russian leader said at a news conference.
However, those who have downplayed the formulation of a world currency by dismissing it as merely a progression of SDR’s (Special Drawing Rights) and not something that would physically be used by citizens in a system of world government, were contradicted when Medvedev clearly outlined that the new currency would be “used for payment” by citizens as a “united future world currency”.
“This is a symbol of our unity and our desire to settle such issues jointly,” Medvedev said.
“Here it is,” Medvedev told reporters today in L’Aquila, Italy, after a summit of the Group of Eight nations. “You can see it and touch it,” reports Bloomberg.
The question of a supranational currency “concerns everyone now, even the mints,” Medvedev said. The test coin “means they’re getting ready. I think it’s a good sign that we understand how interdependent we are.”
Press images released to the Yahoo photo wire did not show any close up shots of the coin and little was known about it, except that it had been minted in Belgium and bears the words “unity in diversity”. An RIA Novosti report noted that the coin represented an example of a “possible global currency”.
China and Russia have repeatedly called for a new global currency to replace the dollar.
When confronted about plans to supplant the dollar with a new global currency, both Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner denied that such an agenda existed.
However, just days after he told a Congressional hearing that there were no plans to move towards a global currency, Geithner sought to please the elitist CFR by assuring them that he was “open” to the notion of a new global currency system.
The scandal-ridden and highly secretive Bank For International Settlements, considered to be the world’s top central banking power hub, released a policy paper in 2006 that called for the end of national currencies in favor of a global model of currency formats.
The global currency would be a key central plank of a future system of world government. Earlier this week, Pope Benedict called for a “world political authority” to manage the global economy.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Ron Paul: My Conversation With Ben Bernanke, February 15, 2006

by Ron Paul

Monetary Policy and The State of the Economy hearing before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, February 15, 2006

Chairman OXLEY. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul.

Dr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and welcome, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased with what you said about your support for transparency, and I want to ask a question dealing with that. Also, at the bottom of page 8, you said something that I thought was very important, where you said that the Federal Reserve, together with all other central bankers, has found that successful policy depends on painstaking examination of a broad range of economic and financial data, and I also think that’s very important. There is a famous quote by an economist, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. And likewise, another famous economist from the 20th Century, and I’ll paraphrase this, said that monetary authorities deliberately confuse the issue of inflation by talking only about price increases. Yet it’s the price increases which are merely the inevitable consequence of inflation. This is done on purpose to distract from the real cause, which is the increase in the quantity of money and credit. And I notice in your report to the Congress, you do report M2, and it went up last year at four percent. And M3 was not mentioned, other than the fact that it won’t be reported any more. M3, interestingly enough, went up twice as fast, and M3 is going up probably more than two times as fast as the GDP. And this is information that I consider important and I know a lot of other economists consider important. And I find it rather interesting and ironic that one of the reasons that the Federal Reserve has given – of course, this was before you were the chairman – for this change is the fact that it costs money; it costs too much money. Now that is really something in this day and age, especially since the Federal Reserve creates their own money and their own budget and they have essentially no oversight, and all of a sudden it costs too much money to give us a little bit of information. So that to me is a bit ironic that this information will not be available to us. And my question to you is, would you ever reconsider this policy of denying this information to the Congress just so that we have another tool to analyze what’s going on with monetary policy? It seems like with your support for transparency, this should be something that you would heartily support.

Mr. BERNANKE. Congressman, first, you’re absolutely right. We do look at a wide variety of indicators, and money aggregates are among those indicators. In particular, M2 has proven to have some forecasting value in the past, and I think the slowdown this year is consistent with the removal of accommodation that’s been going on. In regard to your references to M3, a still broader measure of money, we have done, and I’m now speaking about the Federal Reserve before my arrival, but we have done periodic analyses of the various data series that we collect to see how useful they are. And our research department’s conclusion was that M3 was not being used by the academic community, nor were we finding it very useful ourselves in our internal deliberations. Now it’s not just a question of our own cost; although, of course, we do want to be fiscally responsible on our own budget, but it’s also I think important for us to recognize the burden that’s placed on banks that have to report this information. And so when we can reduce that burden, we would like to do so. And that was one of the considerations in the decision that was made about M3. Would we reconsider it? If there were evidence that this was an informative series and that it was useful to the public and to the Federal Reserve in forecasting the economy, naturally we would look at it again. There’s nothing dogmatic going on here.

Dr. PAUL. If the Congress expressed an interest in receiving this information, would you take that into consideration?

Mr. BERNANKE. If there was broad interest in the Congress in receiving this information, we would look at it. But, again, Congressman, remember, it’s a burden on the reporting banks to provide the information, and we are trying to reduce that burden as much as we can.

Dr. PAUL. But, of course, this has been available to the financial community for a lot of years, and for some people it’s very important to measure what you’re doing. If the money supply is important, which a lot of people believe it is, and it causes the inflation, this to me seems like we’re taking information about the money supply and literally hiding it from the people. And I yield back.

See the Ron Paul File

     
             
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul519.html

Sunday, April 19, 2009

This Is Your Economy on Credit Crack - and Heading for a Crack-Up

15 April 2009


Here is a clear and simple explanation of why we may have already passed the point at which the Fed and Treasury will have no choice but to substantially devalue the bonds and reissue a 'new US dollar' as part of a managed default on our sovereign debt.


Ben's Un-shrinkable Balance Sheet
Delta Global Advisors
April 14, 2009

As he stated again clearly today, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has deluded himself into thinking that when the time comes, he will be able to shrink the size of the Fed's balance sheet and reduce the monetary base with both ease and impunity. He also has deluded himself into thinking inflation will be easily contained.

It is very important that he does not fool you as well.

The Fed believes low interest rates should not be the result of a high savings rate, but instead can exist by decree, a conviction which has directly led consumers to believe their spending can outstrip disposable income.

The result of such thinking has been a rise in household debt from 47% of GDP in 1980 to 97% of total output in Q4 2008. As a result of this ever increasing burden, the Fed has been forced into a series of lower lows and lower highs on its benchmark lending rate. Keeping rates low is an attempt to make debt service levels manageable and keep the consumer afloat. Problem is, this endless pursuit of unnaturally low rates has so altered the Fed's balance sheet that Mr. Bernanke will be hard-pressed to substantially raise rates to combat inflation once consumer and wholesale prices begin to significantly increase.

Banana Ben Bernanke has grown the monetary base from just $842 billion in August 2008 to a record high of $1,723 billion as of April 2009. But it's not only the size of the balance sheet that is so daunting; it's the makeup that's becoming truly scary.

Historically speaking, the composition of the Fed's balance sheet has been mostly Treasuries. And the Federal Open Market Committee would typically raise rates by selling Treasuries from its balance sheet into the market to soak up excess liquidity. However, because of the Fed's decision to purchase up to $1 trillion in Mortgage Backed Securities (and other unorthodox holdings), it will not be selling highly-liquid US debt to drain reserves from banks. Rather, it will be unwinding highly distressed MBS and packaged loans to AIG. Not to mention the fact the Fed would have to break its promise of being a "hold-to-maturity investor" of such assets.

Moreover, not only are the new assets on the Fed's balance sheet less liquid but the durations of the loans are being extended. According to Bloomberg, the Fed is contemplating extending TALF loans to buy mortgaged backed securities to five years from three after pressure it received from lobbyists and a failed second monthly round of auctions. That means when it finally decides it's time to fight inflation, the Fed will find it much more difficult to reverse course.

But because of the extraordinary and unprecedented (some would say illegal) measures Mr. Bernanke has implemented, only $505 billion of the $2 trillion balance sheet is composed of U.S. Treasury debt. Today, most Fed assets are derived from the alphabet soup of lending programs including $250 billion in commercial paper, $312 billion of Central Bank liquidity swaps and $236 billion in mortgage-backed securities.

Thus, our economy has become more addicted than ever to low interest rates. But because bank assets will now be collecting income at record low rates, when and if the Fed tries to raise rates it will only be able to do so on the margin. If Bernanke raises rates substantially to fight inflation, banks will be paying out more on deposits than they collect on their income streams. Couple that with their already distressed balances sheets and look out!

Additionally, not only do the consumers need low rates to keep their Financial Obligation Ratio low, but the Federal government also needs low rates to ensure interest rates on the skyrocketing national debt can be serviced.
Our projected $1.8 trillion annual deficit stems from the belief that the government must expand its balance sheet as the consumer begins to deleverage. In fact, both the consumer and government need to deleverage for total debt relief to occur, else we're just shuffling debts around and avoiding a healthy deleveraging entirely.

In order to have viable and sustainable growth total debt levels must decrease, savings must increase and interest rates must rise. But that would require an extended period of negative GDP growth-a completely untenable position for politicians of all stripes. Ben Bernanke would like you to believe inflation will be quiescent and he can vanquish it if it ever becomes a problem. Just make sure you don't invest as though you believe him.

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/04/this-is-your-economy-on-credit-crack.html

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Interview with Eliot Spitzer. The man who was railroaded for prosecuting AIG!

On today’s edition of CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," former Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer appeared on the program for his first television interview since resigning. A full transcript of the program is below.

Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world.  I'm Fareed Zakaria.

This has been another week of outrage over Wall Street.  But mixed in with the outrage, there continues to be a bewilderment about how these problems in the financial industry could have been piling up without warning.

When being briefed by academics from the London School of Economics, Queen Elizabeth II asked a simple question:  Why did nobody notice it?

In fact, some people did notice it.  Warren Buffett, Paul Volcker and others did warn about the danger of derivatives and debt.  Others warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But through all these warnings, the markets kept rising.  Financial firms minted money.  The naysayers looked like fuddy-duddies, and the risk-takers like geniuses.  No one likes to fight success.

Actually, there was one guy who took on the financial firms at the height of their prestige and power when the country, the media and Washington were gushing with admiration.

That man was Eliot Spitzer.

And he is my guest today, for his first interview since resigning as governor of New York.

You remember him as the governor of New York who resigned after a scandal involving prostitution.  But think back before then.  He was the attorney general of New York who went after Merrill Lynch, prosecuted AIG and several other institutions for practices he argued were corrupt, fraudulent and illegal.  Those prosecutions were deeply controversial, and Spitzer made most of Wall Street his enemy.

I'm going to talk to him about what he thinks about the world he's watching today.

ZAKARIA:  So, now to my guest today, former governor of New York, former attorney general of New York, Eliot Spitzer.

Welcome.

ELIOT SPITZER, FORMER GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK:  Thank you.  A pleasure to be here.

ZAKARIA:  When you saw the news about these AIG bonuses, what did you think?  This was the company that you prosecuted way back when.

SPITZER:  On the one hand, I was not surprised.  Bonuses are part and parcel of Wall Street compensation.  And I think if you looked at any company, you would see bonuses of an equivalent size.

So I think to a certain extent, what we are now doing is looking at what is a typical part of Wall Street compensation, voicing a visceral outrage that is legitimate, but is not particular to AIG.

ZAKARIA:  But when you took on AIG, what troubled you about it? 

What made you look at AIG and say something's wrong here?

SPITZER:  Their fundamental accounting structure was wrong.  And when we prosecuted them, we brought a case alleging that they had manufactured false, fictitious reinsurance contracts.  It's a very technical issue, but there were false reinsurance contracts designed to create the appearance of capital on the books, which was not there.  And this was a structure that had been designed and orchestrated at the very top of the company.

And as we dug into the accounting...

ZAKARIA:  So, they were basically fudging the numbers to make it seem as though they had a stronger balance sheet than they had.

SPITZER:  Precisely.  That's exactly right.

And the underlying effort was to create an illusion of financial strength that was not there.  And as we dug more deeply into the underlying structure and organization and accounting that was ongoing at the company, we knew there was a problem.

And just parenthetically, four people have been convicted of this. 

The former CEO was called an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal courtroom by the federal prosecutor.  So, this was a fundamental effort to alter the actuality and to lie to the public.

    ZAKARIA:  So, do you think that the problems that AIG got into later on stem from some of the same practices that you were trying to get at?

    SPITZER:  They stemmed from an effort from the very top to gin up returns whenever, wherever possible, and to push the boundaries in a way that would garner returns almost regardless of risk.

    And so, to the extent that there is a discussion, did this begin before or after the tenure of Hank Greenberg, it's unambiguous -- unambiguous that the structures and the flaws and the policies began while he was there.  That is why the board that he had controlled with an iron fist asked him to leave.  It was their decision -- not my decision, their decision -- to ask him to step down, something that was then and is now very unusual.

    He has invoked the Fifth Amendment, which, of course, is his right to do.  But he was asked to leave by his own board, because they saw the flaws and the problems that have since multiplied and created this monster that can bring down the financial system.

    Back then I said to people, AIG is at the center of the web.  The financial tentacles of this company stretched to every major investment bank.  The web between AIG and Goldman Sachs is something that should be pursued.

    And as I have written...

    ZAKARIA:  Meaning what?  Meaning that a lot of the money that we the taxpayers gave AIG has ended up being paid to Goldman Sachs...

    SPITZER:  Precisely.  And...

    ZAKARIA:  ... and other companies.

    SPITZER:  The so-called counterparties to these very sophisticated financial transactions.

    When AIG initially received $80 billion -- a decision that was the consequence of a very brief meeting of the president of the New York Fed, the secretary of the Treasury, perhaps Chairman Bernanke and arguably, some reports say, the chairman of Goldman Sachs -- $80 billion, virtually all of it flowed out to counterparties, $12.9 billion to Goldman Sachs.

    Why did that happen?  What questions were asked?  Why did we need to pay 100 cents on the dollar on those transactions, if we had to pay anything?  What would have happened to the financial system, had it not been paid?

    These are the questions that should be pursued.  Look, bonus is a real issue.  It touches us viscerally.  The real money and the real structural issue is the dynamic between AIG and the counterparties.

    ZAKARIA:  Because those payments are in the tens of billions of dollars.  The bonuses are a few hundred million.

    SPITZER:  The bonuses we think are $164 million, give or take -- huge money.  I mean, nobody should diminish that.  These counterparty payments, tens and tens of billions of dollars.

    ZAKARIA:  And it, to your mind, it seems as though this taxpayer money may have been recklessly and unwisely paid off?

    SPITZER:  Well, it may be that a case could be made that it should have been paid.

    But at a moment in our nation's history when everybody is being asked to bear a piece of the burden -- everybody -- people are being told work four days a week, not five.  Sales taxes are going to go up. 

Contracts are being broken and renegotiated for workers across America. 

Our 401(k)s and our savings have been depleted by the recklessness of Wall Street.

    For Goldman and the other counterparties not to be able to say, we can make do with only 50 cents on the dollar, 30 cents on the dollar, after we've already given Goldman a $25 billion cash infusion, they are sitting on vast amounts of cash on the sidelines -- which is their right, but they're going to invest it in due course, based upon their judgment -- for them, on top of all that to get another $12.9 billion in the dark without questions, after a meeting of this sort, is fundamentally wrong.  And that is the nature of the inquiry that should be raised.

    ZAKARIA:  Is there, as far as you know, a congressional inquiry into these monies?

    SPITZER:  I do not know if there is or isn't.  I certainly hope that Barney Frank, who is the chairman of the right committee, will do so. 

He's a brilliant guy, a spectacular legislator and lawyer.  I have absolute confidence that if he pokes at this, he will get to the bottom of it.

    He is somebody -- there are many on Capitol Hill who are beating their chests so loudly, you know it's just a cover-up of their neglect and failure over the last decade.  They sat there and watched and did nothing, as they clearly should have known that we were building a system that was a house of cards.  And they enjoyed it and prospered from it, and there was a symbiotic relationship between them and Wall Street.

    Barney Frank is not one of those.  Barney Frank will ask the right questions, and I hope he does.

    ZAKARIA:  Was the regulation -- was the regulatory regime in place strong enough?  And I'm thinking particularly of the New York Fed, which was headed by Tim Geithner, of the SEC?

    Where do you see the flaw having been over the last few years?

    SPITZER:  Here's my answer to that.  The regulatory system was structurally flawed, but that's not why this happened.

    After the last round of scandals -- Enron, et al. -- we passed Sarbanes-Oxley.  And we said, aha, we've solved the problem.  Now we have another set of scandals.

    There are enough laws, enough regulations on the books for smart, aggressive regulators and prosecutors to make all the cases.  What was missing was judgment.  And you can't legislate judgment.  You can't regulate judgment.

    Either the people who are the regulators will walk into a bank and say "Your leverage is too great.  We are going to take actions to pull it back," or "This type of investment is flawed," or they won't.  You can't pass a law that says, you must use sound judgment.

    Bubbles have been there through history, through over-regulation and under-regulation.  This is a question of judgment and of failure of judgment.

    When I was attorney general, people said, "Oh, you're using this crazy little statute," the Martin Act in New York, "to bring all these cases."  The Martin Act had a simple anti-fraud provision.  That's all we used.

    The federal government has exponentially more regulatory power than we did.  What was lacking was the judgment, the tenacity, the desire to rein in a financial system that was spiraling out of control.

    ZAKARIA:  How do you think President Obama is handling this crisis?

    SPITZER:  Well, I think he is doing stupendously.  I mean, I'm a huge fan of his.  I think we all have to be and should be, if only because he has been thrust into a dynamic that is almost impossible.

    He is trying to put out not 500 small fires, 500 forest fires simultaneously.  And he is addressing them sequentially, trying to keep a political coalition together.  But it's very hard.

    And I think one of the largest, most difficult tasks that he has is to control the outrage that is brewing in the public -- sympathize with it and garner it, but use it to get good policy, not policy based upon anger.

    Populism, if we go to the other extreme -- and we had libertarianism masquerading as capitalism for the past 30 years.  That didn't work. 

And we knew it wouldn't work.

    I'm worried that we will go to the other extreme and end up with rank populism.  That could be just as dangerous.

    And it's very hard to craft the reasoned policies that make the market work without losing the support of the public.  That's what he's trying to do.  It's a very difficult task.

    He is a brilliant communicator and a brilliant leader, and I think we all have to hope that he succeeds.

    ZAKARIA:  Do you worry about this kind of populist anger when you watch the outrage over the bonuses?

    SPITZER:  Yes, yes.  The outrage is legitimate, but it is being fomented by sort of a faux populism by many on Capitol Hill who saw this coming, who knew this was going on.

    And so, I look at them and I say, "Come on, guys.  You're supposed to be more mature.  Express the anger, but then say, how do we solve it?  Don't just throw more oil on the fire."

    And I am worried about that.  And I'm worried that it will be destructive to our capitalist system.  And I've said since the very beginning, that my energy was directed at preserving and protecting capitalism.

    The libertarians didn't understand it.  Populists don't understand it.  But capitalism is what we want to preserve.

    ZAKARIA:  A simple legal question.  If you were in a position where you could do something about it, what would you do about the bonuses? 

Legally, what strategy would you employ?

    SPITZER:  I think I might go back to a very old tort theory of unjust enrichment -- contract theory, tort theory -- and say, you know what, guys?  There's a theory in the law that says -- a couple of theories -- one impossibility saying, AIG just doesn't have the money to pay you.  And absent the federal infusion, it wouldn't have it, so we can't pay.

    And second I would say, unjust enrichment.  You simply don't deserve it.  It's an equitable argument.  Some courts might go for it, some courts might not.

    But as a practical matter, as the president of the United States, I think I would call the CEOs into the Oval Office.  And I would say, "Guys, this is untenable.  We're all going to have to suck it up a little bit and show the American people that we know what it means to be part of a community, and share the sacrifice.  Let's see if we can't solve this without the legal wrangling."

    And I bet he could.  I have no doubt that President Obama could do that.

    ZAKARIA:  And we will be back with Eliot Spitzer right after this.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    ZAKARIA:  You know there are a number of people watching who are going to say, Eliot Spitzer doesn't have credibility to talk about these issues, because of what happened over the last year with your own behavior.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

    ZAKARIA:  And we are back with Eliot Spitzer.

    Eliot, you've spent a lot of time looking at Wall Street, battling with them often.  What do you think is the fundamental thing that got us into this mess?

    SPITZER:  Recklessness, greed and a misunderstanding of what capitalism is all about, and a belief that financial services alone could generate wealth.

    Financial services doesn't really generate wealth.  Financial -- the capital markets are designed to raise money and then apportion it to industries that are creative, whether it's biotech or automotive, or anything else.

    Financial services should be a conduit.  Instead, we became enamored of the products themselves.  And what resulted was this enormous bubble in assets, ginned up and supported by a financial services sector that, because of a series of improper incentives, got us to where we are right now.

    ZAKARIA:  And what should have been done?  Should there just have been a lot more attorneys general like you kind of battling this?

    SPITZER:  We had one who was enough, I thought.  But it was...

    ZAKARIA:  But should there have been a different kind of regulation?  How should this have been prevented?

    SPITZER:  There should have been a very different regulatory framework.  Not in the sense that we needed more words in the books.  We needed more aggressive voices at the SEC, the FTC, the OCC -- this welter of federal agencies -- people who came to Wall Street and said, "Wait a minute.  That leverage is crazy."

    And it was -- it's kind of odd, because everybody derided leverage in public, but in private, participated to the hilt.  And when you look back at these deals you say, this was crazy.  We needed regulators who said it.  We needed wiser voices on Wall Street.

    This was sort of a disease that got into the bloodstream and the DNA of Wall Street leadership.

    Now, there were some who were spectacular who disagreed with it, who said, "Wait a minute, guys.  We can't afford this."

    The more traditional, old-fashioned investment bankers -- you think of Felix Rohatyn, who said, "Wait a minute, guys.  This doesn't work." 

And...

    ZAKARIA:  Right, right.  Or Warren Buffett or Paul Volcker...

    SPITZER:  Or Warren Buffett.  Well, I love Warren Buffett.  We all do.  He also invested in some of these vehicles that had the leverage, but I think he always was a voice of modulation.

    And we needed more of that and, frankly, less of the sort of, you know, hotdog, cowboy mentality that leveraged everything up, sent it out so that people would structure deals without retaining any of the ownership.

    If you want a technical answer, all of the securitization that was done, where you had the rating agencies, you had the originators who would originate loans they knew were bad, securitize them, get AAA ratings, securitize it out into a market -- they didn't maintain any ownership.

    So, a simple rule could be, if you securitize a stream of debt, you've got to retain 10, 15, 20 percent, so you are at risk.  You evaluate deals very differently if you are actually at risk, rather than merely selling it to somebody else.

    ZAKARIA:  And that could have been part of the regulation.

    SPITZER:  Absolutely.  The power of the federal agencies to do this stuff was unlimited.

    And any time I hear the SEC say, we didn't have the power to do this or that, forget it.  They had more people, more power, more money than was necessary.  What they lacked was the creativity and the will.

    ZAKARIA:  In a sense, this is almost a greater failure of Washington than Wall Street.

    SPITZER:  Well, there have been debates -- Washington, Wall Street. 

It's one of those debates where, of course, both were at fault.

    Now, I happen, having been on the government side, to have a slightly more aggressive view of what government should do, perhaps. 

And I believe that Wall Street was at fault for fostering an ideology, and imposing an ideology, or buying its way into an ideology in Washington that said, "Let us alone.  We will self-regulate."

    So, Wall Street created this notion of self-regulation, sold it to Washington with all of its tremendous capacity through fund raising and intellectual capital.  Washington was happy enough to succumb to the temptation.

    Self-regulation was a mirage.  It was an abject failure.  Some of us were saying, it always will be a failure.

    So, Wall Street is to be blamed for creating the notion, Washington is to be blamed for buying into it.  Who's more at fault is sort of a puerile debate, but I think both parties.

    ZAKARIA:  What about the media, CNBC?  You actually know Jim Cramer.  You know all the parties involved.

    SPITZER:  Full disclosure.  Jim is a great and close friend.  And I think he took his licks from Jon Stewart last week.  And Jim said on the show, "Yes, we have to have done better."

    And I think the media -- writ large.  I mean, forget CNBC.  I think the entire media -- print media, TV media, et cetera -- did not ask the hard questions as these deals were being structured, as the bubble was inflating.

    We turned the Wall Street masters of the universe into these icons, who bestrode the universe and made no mistakes, when I think a more inquisitive attitude would have said, "Wait a minute, guys.  This won't last."

    And so, I think, yes.

    We're all at fault, which is why the search for villains is emotionally satisfying, not terribly useful.  The better effort is, OK, what do we learn?  What do we do going forward?

    ZAKARIA:  Now, a lot of people look at your prosecutions, and they say, "Look.  This was very unfair, very selective.  You would threaten these companies, therefore plunging their stock price.  In many cases you didn't get convictions.  If this is the model, it's not going to work.  It's unfair."

    SPITZER:  Well, I think they're wrong, needless to say.  But I think if you look at the cases, the analyst cases where we highlighted -- you referred to the Merrill Lynch case where, at the end, we got Merrill, Goldman, Bank of America -- all the major firms, all of the bulge-bracket firms -- to agree to an entirely new structure of doing analytical work, which was necessary for the integrity of the marketplace.

    Whether it was insurance, mutual funds, analytical work, on and on, each of the major areas we looked at, we sought to craft a solution.

    ZAKARIA:  But your real leverage was that, once you go out in the public, their share price starts dropping and...

    SPITZER:  No question about it.  And I'll give you a real example of that, and you can evaluate it as you wish, with Merrill Lynch.

    They wanted us to settle.  They would have paid some money.  But they said, you must keep all the evidence secret."

    And I said, no, my job as a public prosecutor is to explain to the public what the problems are in Wall Street.  I said, that is the only way we will get a remedy.  And I said, we must present this to the public.  It may be right, it may be wrong.

    And we didn't do this to hurt individuals.  And we took out the names of most of the individuals.  But we said, the public has to understand why the market is flawed.

    And I think it's fair to say we, several years ahead of time, were saying, be careful, beware of what is going on here.  I'm not pretending to see everything.  I'm not pretending to be smarter or better than anybody else, just saying, wait a minute.  We have seen a problem that, if not addressed, will be the downfall of the market.

    ZAKARIA:  But you got very few convictions.

    SPITZER:  No, we -- well, first of all, most of the cases were civil cases.  And there was a reason for that.  I did not believe in taking one individual and making him the subject of all the venom.  I said, this is a civil issue.  Resolve it with the company.

    I tried very hard not to vilify individuals, because it wasn't a mid-level executive who was the problem.  It was the whole structure. 

And that's why the global deal was with all the banks.

    We didn't say to individual X, you're the problem.  That's a mirage.  That is an emotional, as I said, an emotionally satisfying effort, but it would not have solved the problem.

    ZAKARIA:  And we will be back with Eliot Spitzer right after this.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    SPITZER:  I never held myself out as being anything other than human.  I have flaws, as we all do, arguably.  I failed in a very important way in my personal life, and I have paid a price for that.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

    ZAKARIA:  And we are back with Eliot Spitzer.

    You know, there are a number of people watching who are going to say, Eliot Spitzer doesn't have credibility to talk about these issues, because of what happened over the last year with your own behavior.

    What would you say to them?

    SPITZER:  I would say to them that I never held myself out as being anything other than human.  I have flaws, as we all do, arguably.  I failed in a very important way in my personal life, and I have paid a price for that.

    I have spent a year with my family, with my wonderful and amazing and forgiving wife and three daughters, and have rebuilt those relationships, and hope to do that as time goes on.

    I also feel that, to the extent, if I'm asked, and I can contribute to a very important conversation, I will do that as well.  That is our right, arguably our obligation as citizens.  I will do what I can, and with full awareness and heaviness of heart about what I did.

    ZAKARIA:  But it wasn't just a personal failing.  There were also legal issues involved...

    SPITZER:  Well, those were not pursued by those who decided to pursue them.

    But I have made no excuses.  I have not shirked, and I will not do so.  I failed.  I resigned my position, because I said this is the appropriate step for me to take.

    ZAKARIA:  Do you feel like you wish, watching all this, you were back in office doing something about it?

    SPITZER:  Well, obviously, I, first and foremost, hope that we can solve the problems, because the future of our economy -- and without overstating it, our nation -- is at stake here.  If I can contribute, I will do so in whatever way I can.

    Obviously, I care deeply about these issues.  They were central to what I did as attorney general.  And so, I read the papers and say, sure, these are issues that I feel deeply about.  But I am where I am, because of my own conduct.  And as I said, I make no excuses.

    ZAKARIA:  Do you imagine you could ever be back in government?

    SPITZER:  I don't think about it.  I don't worry about it.  I focus on a family, on the issues.  If I write an occasional column and speak occasionally, that is all I'm doing.

    ZAKARIA:  Eliot Spitzer, thank you for coming on.

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node%2F17760

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

AIG a gold standard for fiascoes

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Friday, March 20, 2009

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner may have the "complete confidence" of President Obama, but he doesn't have mine. Ditto for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

In fact, American International Group's $165 million bonus fiasco is one of the many blunders the U.S. government has made in handling the worst economic crisis of my lifetime, which has me giving serious consideration to the so-called conspiracy theorists.

My friend Norman, who studies conspiracies like a college senior cramming for a must-pass final exam, last year introduced me to the documentary America: Freedom to Fascism, late director Aaron Russo's exposé of the illegal and unconstitutional income tax and the Federal Reserve that is not federal and has no reserves.

It's a fascinating film that certainly got me thinking, if only for a while. Then the economy collapsed. The so-called experts can't fix it. And now my income tax dollars, which I'm not convinced I should be paying, are lining the pockets of the suits who got us in this mess.

Are Mr. Russo, G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, right? They maintain that the Fed is an illegal, private banking cartel created surreptitiously by the richest and most powerful bankers in the world during a secret meeting on Jekyll Island, Ga. The Fed is not a part of the U.S. government, they say, but in cahoots - I mean partnership - with it. The Fed controls our monetary system - with no oversight from our government - and its profits are shared with financial interests around the world.

It sounds pretty far-fetched until you learn that AIG used some of its $170 billion in taxpayer bailouts to send $11.9 billion to France's Societe Generale, $11.8 billion to Deutsche Bank of Germany, and $8.5 billion to Barclays of Britain. Then you hear that Mr. Bernanke will save the day with a $1.2 trillion effort to lower mortgage rates and other consumer debt to spur spending and revive the economy. But he's doing it by spending $300 billion on government bonds and $750'billion on mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I'm no math whiz, but how can Fannie and Freddie guarantee anything when the U.S. government - itself broke - just bailed them out? Sounds to me like we're just printing worthless paper on top of worthless paper and spreading around the debt. In other words, fiat money, irredeemable paper currency.

It's just what Franklin Roosevelt promised wasn't happening during the Great Depression in 1933 when he ordered private citizens to turn in their gold to the Federal Reserve in exchange for pieces of paper. "We do not want and will not have another epidemic of bank failures," President Roosevelt said. "This currency is not fiat currency."

Wrong! Seems to me that if we'd stuck with gold and hadn't turned over control of the nation's money to an entity our government doesn't control, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Consider this response from former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to a question by NewsHour's Jim Lehrer about the kind of relationship the Fed chair should have with a U.S. president. "The Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take," Mr. Greenspan said. "So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don't frankly matter."

In other words, don't question the agency that Mr. Bernanke admitted in 2002 caused the Great Depression. That's nerve!

Maybe it's time we stop bailing out the AIGs of the world, shut down the Fed and start over.

Conspiracy theory or not, that's change I can believe in.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/content/opinion/epaper/2009/03/20/a18a_swancol_0320.html#comments

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The Real AIG Scandal: It's not the bonuses. It's that AIG's counterparties are getting paid back in full.

By Eliot Spitzer
Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 10:41 AM ET

American International Group Inc. Click image to expand.

Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?

For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.

It all appears, once again, to be the same insiders protecting themselves against sharing the pain and risk of their own bad adventure. The payments to AIG's counterparties are justified with an appeal to the sanctity of contract. If AIG's contracts turned out to be shaky, the theory goes, then the whole edifice of the financial system would collapse.

But wait a moment, aren't we in the midst of reopening contracts all over the place to share the burden of this crisis? From raising taxes—income taxes to sales taxes—to properly reopening labor contracts, we are all being asked to pitch in and carry our share of the burden. Workers around the country are being asked to take pay cuts and accept shorter work weeks so that colleagues won't be laid off. Why can't Wall Street royalty shoulder some of the burden? Why did Goldman have to get back 100 cents on the dollar? Didn't we already give Goldman a $25 billion capital infusion, and aren't they sitting on more than $100 billion in cash? Haven't we been told recently that they are beginning to come back to fiscal stability? If that is so, couldn't they have accepted a discount, and couldn't they have agreed to certain conditions before the AIG dollars—that is, our dollars—flowed?

The appearance that this was all an inside job is overwhelming. AIG was nothing more than a conduit for huge capital flows to the same old suspects, with no reason or explanation.

So here are several questions that should be answered, in public, under oath, to clear the air:

What was the precise conversation among Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, and Blankfein that preceded the initial $80 billion grant?

Was it already known who the counterparties were and what the exposure was for each of the counterparties?

What did Goldman, and all the other counterparties, know about AIG's financial condition at the time they executed the swaps or other contracts? Had they done adequate due diligence to see whether they were buying real protection? And why shouldn't they bear a percentage of the risk of failure of their own counterparty?

What is the deeper relationship between Goldman and AIG? Didn't they almost merge a few years ago but did not because Goldman couldn't get its arms around the black box that is AIG? If that is true, why should Goldman get bailed out? After all, they should have known as well as anybody that a big part of AIG's business model was not to pay on insurance it had issued.

Why weren't the counterparties immediately and fully disclosed?

Failure to answer these questions will feed the populist rage that is metastasizing very quickly. And it will raise basic questions about the competence of those who are supposedly guiding this economic policy.

Eliot Spitzer is the former governor of the state of New York. (And politically assassinated because he dared to get in the way of the very bankers that are looting our nations treasury.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2213942/

Monday, March 16, 2009

Monetary and Fiscal Failure, Fraud, and Fear of What's Next

by Stephen Lendman

Even the powerful are worried with the IMF on February 7 saying advanced economies are in "depression (and) the worst cannot be ruled out." Forecasting a 2010 recovery is "very uncertain" at this time as further financial turmoil may disrupt it regardless of policies adopted, and trouble is outpacing resources to alleviate it.

On March 10, its Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn forecast "below zero" 2009 global growth - what he termed "the worst performance in most of our lifetimes."

In a March 8, report, the World Bank expressed similar gloom saying:

-- "developing countries face a financing shortfall of $270 - 700 billion this year, as private sector creditors shun emerging markets, and only one quarter of the most vulnerable countries have the resources to prevent a rise in poverty;"

-- international financial institutions alone can't cover the (public, private and trade deficit) shortfalls for these 129 countries, so other help is needed - a "global solution" to prevent an economic catastrophe;

-- the global economy "is likely to shrink this year for the first time since World War Two, with growth at least 5 percentage points below potential;"

-- by mid-2009, global industrial production may be 15% lower than 2008 levels, a shocking differential reminiscent of the 1930s;

-- 2009 "world trade is on track to record its largest decline in 80 years, with the sharpest losses in East Asia;"

-- "the financial crisis will have long-term implications for developing countries" (and developed ones as well); they face higher borrowing costs, lower capital flows, weaker investment, and slower future growth at a very grim time globally.

At the same time, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) reported 2008 shrinkage of over $50 trillion in investor wealth, a shocking decline reflecting financial asset losses in stocks, bonds, currencies, real estate, and various other investments as well as a "surprising run" to the dollar in search of a safe-haven.

ADB said world's financial markets experienced "the most violent shock" since the Great Depression and global economies have rapidly deteriorated. Bank president Haruhiko Kuroda stated: "I'm afraid things may get worse before they get any better," maybe much worse. Yet his solution (like the IMF's and World Bank) is worse than the problem by proposing more debt on top of today's burden. He wants a 200% ADB capitalization increase, similar to though not as extreme as Fed policy, so instead of reducing Asian debt, he wants to increase it, make heavily-indebted nations more indebted, and let taxes, borrowing, and fewer social services bear the burden of a growing calamity the way America is doing it.

The solution to over-indebtedness, of course, is get free of it, but that doesn't work well for bankers, and in the end they generally get what they want, so the rest of us lose out and today's crisis will continue to worsen.

Warren Buffett to the Rescue - Again

It's so bad that Wall Street rolled out Warren Buffett for the second time to do what he rarely does - last October in a New York Times op-ed to calm investors and affirm his faith in "the long-term prosperity of the nation's many sound companies."

On CNBC March 9, he wasn't as sanguine saying the economy has "fallen off a cliff. (It's) in a shambles. Not only has (it) slowed down, people have changed their behavior like nothing I have ever seen (and government policy or at least its message has been) muddled." Then commenting on the importance of personal housing wealth and how much of it's been lost, he went the old adage one better about "the emperor ha(ving) no clothes."

"On top of that," he said, "the emperor doesn't have any underwear either." As a result, "We are in a very, very vicious negative feedback cycle" because people are scared to death and with good reason.

But Buffett didn't do a lengthy Q & A to scare people. He was there as a pitchman, a hawker like in a carnival, and his product is his own company, Berkshire-Hathaway, and America. When asked "Will everything be all right," he responded:

"Everything will be all right. We do have the greatest economic machine that man has ever created....(It's because) we ha(ve) a system that work(s). (It's gotten us through) six panics in the 19th century (and) in the 20th century we had the Great Depression and World Wars, all kinds of things. But we have a system, largely free market, rule of law, equality of opportunity (unleashing) human potential (so) your grandchildren will live better than your kids."

"The machine works (and buying) equities (is) the way to (profit from it). If (you) buy the right businesses, (you'll) do very well....American business will be worth more over time....Stocks will be worth more over time. I guarantee you that the Dow will be a lot higher."

Last October in his New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he's "buying American stocks." On March 9, he repeated the message even though the economy "is a shambles." Serious enough to need "the Oracle of Omaha" to save it, or at least try by making a public spectacle of himself on TV, and it wasn't the first time although others were more focused on his business or general view of things.

This time, stressing America's long-term strength, he ignored its fundamental weaknesses and systemic failure at the root of today's problems:

-- a system so unstable, crisis-prone, exploitive, unfair, self-destructive, and corrupted it can't endure;

-- Keynes warning about the consequences of "enterprise becom(ing) the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation;"

-- the inevitable decay that Marx and others predicted;

-- the untenability of great wealth disparities with few having too much and many too little - something untenable in the long run;

-- Lincoln's June 16, 1858 message to the Illinois Republican State Convention - that "A house divided against itself cannot stand;" slavery was the issue then; today it's inequality, human need, and growing poverty under a fundamentally unworkable system favoring wealth over public welfare.

Something else bothered Buffett as well - that Berkshire Hathaway (B-H) stock lost half its value, and the company had its worst ever year in 2008 since Buffett took it over in 1965 when it was a family-run textile maker. He's also not immune to credit default swap (CDS) problems, having increased his position to $14 billion as of year end 2008, and last year took hundreds of millions in write-offs as a result.

Further, some question B-H's health going forward given the current environment, insurance being his main business, and the worrisome CDS spreads on his debt. According to Merrill Lynch's Michaels Hartnett and Penn, they trade at wider spreads than those for Vietnam. They point out that GE is no better off as their swaps are wider than Russia's at a time its economy is reeling like many others.

Through March 11, B-H and GE were two of the six remaining companies rated AAA by S & P, according to CreditGuru.com. The others are ExxonMobil, Toyota, J & J, and ADP. In the late 1970s, 58 companies had the rating. That was then. This is now as two more of the mighty have fallen.

On March 12, the Wall Street Journal online reported that "General Electric Co. and its finance arm (GE Capital) have lost their coveted AAA long-term credit rating from Standard & Poors Ratings Service" when the agency cut it to AA+ in a move many analysts think was long overdue but not enough given the company's troubled state.

On the same day, Bloomberg reported that Fitch Ratings "cited concern about (B-H's) potential for losses on (its) equity and derivatives holdings" in cutting it to AA+ and its senior unsecured debt to AA." Bloomberg added: "Some investors (believe) the derivatives may saddle (B-H) with billions of (future) losses."

Economists and Financial Writers on The Global Research News Hour

Notable ones like F. William Engdahl, Michael Hudson, Ellen Brown, Jack Rasmus, Richard Wolff, John Bellamy Foster, and John Williams continue explaining the nature and consequences of the global economic crisis, and how it affects ordinary people. For example, Rasmus and Williams believe that the economy lost from 800,000 - 1,000,000 jobs for the past four months (not the Labor Department's lower figures) on top of all those lost earlier, and no end to the carnage is in sight.

According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), over 23 million Americans were either out of work or underemployed in February, and the numbers are growing. In addition, 60.3% of the population has some form of employment, down from 63.4% in December 2006. EPI reported that BLS figures show job openings fell 7.2% in January to three million, down 32% from year end 2007. Currently there are over four unemployed workers for every job, and seekers "are seeing their chances of finding (employment) grow ever dimmer."

Reports are that jobs are being lost at the rate of one every five seconds, and according to Manpower International's US employer survey, hiring plans are the lowest since the company began polling in 1982. A slim 1% of firms expect to hire in Q 2, down from 10% in Q 1 and off 15% from Q 2, 2008. A company official said: "That's about as bad as it gets with our survey," but it looks like worse is still ahead.

Consider the latest initial jobless claim filings for the week ending March 6 - a record 654,000 following the previous week's upwardly revised 645,000. People getting benefits for more than a week increased by 193,000 to 5.3 million, another record high, and it's the sixth time in the past seven weeks that new records have been set. The proportion of the work force getting unemployment benefits is the highest since June 1983 when the economy began emerging from a deep recession. One year ago, only 2.8 million got benefits. Today the numbers are skyrocketing with no end of it in sight. It shows in the monthly payroll data.

In his latest ShadowStats report, Williams said February's payroll loss was 899,999 and unemployment reached 19.1%, when discouraged and involuntary part-time workers are included. He compared it to Great Depression 25% levels but noted then they may have been higher because measures included only non-farm workers at a time agriculture was over one-fourth of the economy and farm labor much greater in numbers than today. According to the US Department of Agriculture, it's now less than 2% of all workers so its impact on employment is marginal.

Challenger, Gray & Christmas (CG&C) tracks monthly announced job cuts, now making grim reading. On February 4, it reported:

"Company layoff announcements were unusually heavy in January, indicating that the shock to the labor force is increasing in intensity and pointing to severely depressed readings in Friday's employment report." CG&C cited 241,749 compared to 166,348 in December, or the highest figure since the end of the last recession. By comparison, January layoffs a year ago were only 74,986. Of great concern is how much higher numbers will go and for how many more months.

CG&C's February total slipped to 186,350, but it cautioned to "distinguish between layoffs scheduled for the short-term or the long-term, or whether job cuts are handled through attrition or actual layoffs." Most important is the trend, not monthly blips up or down that obscure it, and the latest home foreclosure data aren't reassuring.

On March 11, Dow Jones Newswires reported that completed US foreclosures soared 67% in February over January, putting them at their highest since the start of the crisis, according to Foreclosures.com.

Most worrisome is that they came in spite of Fannie, Freddie, and several major banks putting a temporary halt to the process, yet it persists at severely high levels. In addition, pre-foreclosure filings (an indicator of future foreclosures) jumped 27% to 207,703, topping December's highest ever number by 9%. Three of the hardest-hit states continued impacted with California soaring 67% from January, Florida 42%, and Arizona more than doubling. The data suggest more of the same ahead with perhaps millions more homeowners facing loss of their most valued asset and little in the way of government help to prevent it.

Citigroup on the Ropes, or Are They?

Believe the former despite its CEO saying that January and February were profitable. Take it with a grain of salt given its $37 trillion derivatives portfolio, much of it toxic, and its stock price at a buck - until The New York Times published a "leaked" confidential memo from Vikram Pandit to employees saying the company was on track for its best quarter since late 2007 when the market started to implode.

Left out was how numbers are calculated - based on operating, not reported earnings, excluding lots of write-offs but mostly ones left undeclared hoping investors won't notice and think the bank healthy again. On March 10, the market responded positively with Citi and other financials doing best, but for how long. Nothing changed in a very weak economy, and Citi is among the sickest banks in it, insolvent and on the edge of bankruptcy or being nationalized.

The McKinsey & Company consulting firm may agree in its recent bank profitability forecast. It states "2009 will be unprofitable (and) net investment income "drops dramatically in 2009 as deposit spreads compress (reflecting consumer and commercial), then (begin to recover) going forward. Yet by 2013, McKinsey sees revenues at $142 - 153 billion compared to $156 billion in 2008 with profits beginning to pick up after up after $53 billion in 2009 operating losses. For 2008, McKinsey said banks posted a $1 billion profit, excluding all taken and untaken write-offs. It affirms a very sick industry with no prospect of profits if they're included.

Institutional Risk Analytics co-founder and managing director Chris Whalen agrees in his March 13 analysis titled: "Stress Test Zombies - Not Too Big to Fail? Tough Tootsies Little Banks!" He refers to Bernanke and Geithner "cowardly feed(ing) the zombies." It's "not sustainable financially" nor workable politically and must eventually be changed. At some point, "the Obama administration may need to choose between our (banks and) foreign creditors and American voters."

"The Bernanke/Geithner approach to not dealing with the financial crisis amounts to a hideous public subsidy, a transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to the institutional investors who hold the bonds and derivative obligations tied to the zombie banks, AIG and the GSEs." All these companies will need continued cash subsidies in the trillions of dollars to keep them out of bankruptcy.

Yet imagine, Bernanke and Geithner are proceeding on their own. "No legislation has been passed and no meaningful debate has occurred. The biggest danger facing the markets is that Ben and Tim still do not seem to have a clue what to do about the big banks -- other than to write more checks against the public trust. The conflict over this decision to pass the cost to the taxpayer, between the Fed, Treasury and the Congress, on the one hand, and the Wall Street dealer banks is staggering, yet nothing is said in the Big Media."

The fact is that "bailing out toxic waste sites....could cost trillions of dollars....The only issue is whether we recognize it directly, via a public resolution, or hide (it) via public subsidies and future inflation."

The right strategy is to break up or close down zombie banks, keep taxpayers out of it, and let bond and equity holders absorb the cost of "marking (their) assets to market" and ending the charade that they're profitable or heading toward it.

On March 10, the Wall Street Journal's front page reported that repeated Citi bailouts haven't helped so "US officials are examining what fresh steps they might need to take to stabilize the bank if its problems mount, according to people familiar with the matter....(called) 'contingency planning.' " Weekend discussions were held with Citi officials downplaying their seriousness. But given the bank's condition, profitability claims (the next day) are deceptive, so how long can the charade continue.

Further, on March 12 according to Bloomberg.com, there's more. "Four Citigroup Inc. executives who bought the bank's stock last week have already generated a $2.2 million paper profit, regulatory filings show." Insiders included:

-- director Roberto Hernandez bought six million shares on March 2 at an average $1.25 price; after briefly dipping below $1, it closed on March 5 at $1.52 for a paper profit of $1.7 million;

-- Latin America CEO Manuel Medina-Mora bought 1.5 million shares on March 3 at an average $1.24; and

-- other buyers included vice-chairman Lewis Kaden buying 100,000 shares and controller and chief accounting officer John Gerspach 65,000 shares - in each case ahead of Pandit's profitability claim and the day earlier Wall Street Journal front page story saying Citi is in trouble.

Another key point is that the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 "prohibit(s) the making of false or misleading statements to a public company's auditors." It's also "a crime to knowingly and willfully make a false or fraudulent statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the US government" (18 U.S.C. 1001, January 2007). Further, it's unlawful to mislead investors or violate any provision of the 1934 act. True or false, Pandit's memo was internal and only covered a two-month period, not the full Q 1 filing for after March 31, so likely no violation occurred.

That aside, there's the issue of stock manipulation and insider trading with the above-cited evidence casting suspicion. It's illegal for anyone to buy or sell securities based on non-public information, and those doing it face prosecution if caught. A high-profile case was against former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio - indicted in December 2005 on 42 insider trading counts involving $100 million worth of his company's stock, then convicted on 19 counts in April 2007. He was sentenced to six years in prison and ordered to forfeit $52 million in fraudulently earned profits plus a $19 million fine, $1 million for each count.

The Wages of Reckless Spending

They're painful, costly and, according to Michel Chossudovsky, heading the country for "fiscal collapse" in an analysis that's stunning but unsurprising. A "Second New Deal?" Quite the contrary to:

-- continue the most massive wealth transfer in history;

-- achieve it by looting the Treasury;

-- build a crushing debt burden;

-- undertake "the most drastic curtailment in public spending in American history;"

-- govern under a war budget directing most revenues for defense, militarism, and foreign wars; trillions for "the Wall Street bank bailout;" and servicing the enormous public debt - in 2008 an astonishing $451 billion;

-- provide no fiscal stimulus for the economy; in fact, do the opposite by requiring no mandate that banks lend; instead, let them speculate and use hundreds of billions to buy real assets (the "real economy") on the cheap after their stock prices have been manipulated to crash;

-- impoverish tens of millions of Americans through reduced social services when they're losing jobs, homes, savings, pensions and futures; and at the same time

-- privatize America to pay for reckless spending - everything: "public services," infrastructure, highways, national parks, various other state assets, the entire State sold on the cheap to plunderers for profit - "the State is being taken over by the banks, the State is being privatized;" the public has no idea what's happening or that their government is betraying them.

America is for sale as a commodity. Serfdom is planned for most people, and Obama is as much at fault as Bush so let's be clear. He's either a consenting co-conspirator in the looting of the country or a willing dupe letting it happen in his name. Either way, he's part of a crime syndicate driving world economies and most people everywhere to ruin to enrich and further empower a select Wall Street elite - the same ones and their lobbyists that provided millions for his campaign.

On March 12 at the Business Roundtable, Obama assured attending CEOs that serving corporate America is Priority One, especially the financial elite with as much of the nation's resources as they need. He said that the "only way we can truly unlock credit and heal our financial system for good is to address the state of our banking system. And I know that this crisis is at the top of your immediate concerns - and I promise you, it is at the top of mine as well." He means that he'll continue to:

-- stiff-arm the public with empty rhetoric, hollow promises, and little in the way of real help;

-- strip-mine the nation's wealth for Wall Street and the rest of the FIRE sector (finance, insurance and real estate); and

-- provide smaller amounts for other business sectors at his discretion but not enough to keep bankers and vulture investors from buying much of it on the cheap.

Follow the data as the plot unfolds. On March 12, the Fed reported that American household net worth plunged by the largest amount in over half a century during 2008 Q 4 - a record 9% from Q 3 and the sixth quarterly drop in a row. Net worth represents total consumer wealth - homes, savings, pensions, investments, and other material assets minus liabilities.

It hit an all-time high of $64.36 trillion in 2007 Q 2, then fell every quarter ever since. Through 2008 Q 4, it's at $51.48, or a drop of 20% from its peak and declining. At the same time, US credit quality is deteriorating as measured by the cost of buying default insurance (CDSs) on government debt - it's soaring as it is for private companies like GE and Berkshire-Hathaway.

It costs US bond investors 98 basis points for protection, up from 7 basis points in late 2007, or a 14-fold increase, and it's no surprise why. Debt creation has skyrocketed to unimaginable levels raising the specter that today's deflation will become tomorrow's inflation, perhaps hyperinflation, and that's bearish for bonds, stocks, the economy, and ordinary people losing purchasing power.

It's got China worried according to a March 13 New York Times report. As the largest US debt holder, Premier Wen Jiabao wants assurance that the investment is safe at a time he has reason to have doubts. "To be honest," he said, "I am definitely a little worried," and why not. Money creation has been excessive. Interest rates are rock bottom, and America is reeling under a mountain of unsustainable debt as it continues to add more of it. According to some, interest rates have only one way to go - up, although it's likely to be a while before it happens.

Bond expert Henry Kaufman (the original "Dr. Doom" for his 1970s and early 1980s bearish bond forecasts) believes the secular bond bull market is over. In a February 14 Wall Street Journal op-ed, he tracked the rise in the cost of long-term government debt from 1946 to its 1981 peak, then down to around 2.5% early this year, "which probably marks the end of this extended wave." Yet conditions today compared to 1946 are "strikingly different" and very worrisome given the private sector debt overload, the federal government issuing an unprecedented volume of new obligations, and the Fed printing money like confetti.

In 1946, "the nation stood on the brink of an unprecedented boom (whereas) today wealth is contracting massively and the economy" teeters on the edge of depression. "Which raises (serious) questions: Why are we so poor at managing our key economic institutions while at the same time so accomplished in medicine, engineering and telecommunications? Why can we land men on the moon with pinpoint accuracy, yet fail to steer our economy away from the rocks? Why do our computers work so well - except when we use them to manage derivatives and hedge funds?"

Securitization, globalization and the explosion of debt changed everything for the worst and "altered financial behavior in ways that econometric models miss....Let's hope that is about to change. A central goal of new financial legislation should be to rein in extreme financial behavior."

What Kaufman left out is that none of this was happenstance. It could never go on without high-level government-institutional complicity, so a good place to start would be to clean out the corruption in Washington. Fire and punish those in charge of running it, and establish a legislative mandate henceforth to serve all Americans, not just Wall Street's criminal class.

For the latter, Philip Stephens, in a March 9 Financial Times op-ed, proposed: "Fix the banks first - and then shoot the bankers" in commenting on the collapsed UK banking system and lack of decisive action to correct it. Sounds like a sensible way to address America's problems as well.

The Thud of More Shoes Dropping

Deteriorating commercial real estate is another with experts saying it resembles the housing decline with about a one-year lag, so right now it's increasingly apparent. Look at the signs.

On January 12, Financial Week headlined: "Banks gird for commercial property collapse (as a) spike in loan defaults batter balance sheets," and it's just beginning. According to Fitch Ratings managing director Eric Rothfeld:

"Loans originated at market peaks experienced from 2005 - 2007 will face increasing defaults as real estate performance declines during the stressed economic climate of 2009 and beyond." More defaults mean greater losses for exposed banks, already reeling from the housing collapse and trillions of toxic debt on their books.

Developers are also hard hit given empty buildings, vacant shopping malls, and for-sale signs everywhere. On March 5, the Washington Post said "Not a single office building has been started in (D.C) since October, a sign that the slowdown that began in the far-out suburbs has now reached prime city locations." According to Gerry Widdicombe, director of economic development for the city's Downtown D.C. Business Improvement District, "Things are frozen. Nobody's doing anything." It's the same most everywhere across the country except for occasional small deals that are owner and investor-financed.

More signs include idle cranes, empty lots, few new tenants, rising evictions, falling rents, a 95% year-over-year drop in commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) issuance, and soaring CMBS delinquencies. The American Institute of Architects reported that its Architecture Billings Index (ABI) hit a historic 33.3 low in January, reflecting the worst conditions seen since the index's 1995 inception.

On March 10, Moody's reported that corporate bond defaults will triple their 2008 level, be 15 times more than in 2007, and said bankruptcies usually follow. They placed 283 companies on its bottom-rung listing, up from 157 last year, and added 73 companies since last reporting.

Well-known companies made the list, including General Motors, Chrysler, Eastman-Kodak, AMR (parent of American Airlines), UAL (parent of United Airlines), AirTran, Advanced Micro Devices, R.H. Donnelly, Rite-Aid, Reader's Digest Association, and numerous top retailers because of reduced consumer spending.

According to experts, many, perhaps all, large US banks are zombies. They're insolvent "dead men walking" and should be on the list as well. So is the US economy suggests Nouriel Roubini in a March 5 Forbes.com article headlined: "The US Financial System is Effectively Insolvent." In it he explains the "grave risk of a global L-shaped depression, (much) worse than the current, painful U-shaped global recession" that's deepening as conditions continue to deteriorate. "Shoot(ing) the bankers" may indeed be a good start to fix it.

Perhaps also help the "1 in 50 children in America (who) are homeless each year" also, according to a new National Center on Family Homelessness report titled: "America's Youngest Outcasts - State Report Card on Child Homelessness." It calls it "unacceptable for one child in the United States to be homeless for even one day, (and says) children without homes are on the frontline of the nation's economic crisis." The problem continues to worsen as foreclosures increase, yet the administration and Congress aren't helping.

"The year 2008 will long be remembered....as a time when grossly overpaid bankers (and) captains of industry....hobbled to Washington (asking) for bailouts (in the billions of dollars). Ignored by....Congress and the media were (many thousands) of children - many still infants and toddlers - who were (and still are) homeless in the midst of this economic (calamity). Without a voice, more than 1.5 million (of them) go to sleep (each night) without a home each year....they endure (too little food), a lack of safety, comfort, privacy....adequate health care, uninterrupted schooling, sustaining relationships, and a sense of community." Their deprivation is inflicting "profound and lasting scars," yet public discourse excludes them from consideration and consigns them to be another lost generation - unwanted, unnoticed and ignored by an uncaring government.

Militarizing America for Business and All Contingencies

Since WW II, America has had contingency plans in case of large-scale disasters or attacks. However, since the late 1960s, at the height of anti-Vietnam war protests, focus has been mainly on controlling dissent.

On October 30, 1969, Richard Nixon signed Executive Order (EO) 11490, "Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to Federal Departments and Agencies." It consolidated 21 previous emergency preparedness EOs and two Defense Mobilization Orders issued between 1951 - 1966.

In 1976, Gerald Ford signed EO 11921 ordering the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency (FEPA) to let government take over all essential functions in case of an undefined "national emergency." In other words, to give government dictatorial powers by simply seizing them.

In 1979, Jimmie Carter signed EO 12148 establishing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to replace FEPA. Clinton later made its director a cabinet position, and Bush gave DHS control under its Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.

On inception, FEMA mandated an interface with the Defense Department (DOD), appointed an "emergency czar," and authorized the strategic relocation of industries, services, government, and other essential economic activities should conditions warrant. Little known is that FEMA spends most of its budget for "black operations," not disaster relief, although the latter makes headlines. Further, the president has emergency powers to declare martial law, activate FEMA's extraordinary powers, and run the country with other agencies like a police state for no other reason than to quell legitimate dissent - against war, abusive federal power, or an economic depression.

In 1988, Ronald Regan signed EO 12656 empowering the National Security Council as the principal body in charge of emergency powers and let the government increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of US citizens. It also restricted free movement, authorized the seizure of property, construction of detention camps, and isolation of US civilians in them.

Numerous other EOs followed to let government control:

-- all forms of transportation, including highways, airports, rail, seaports, inland waterways, and more;

-- the media and all forms of communication;

-- all forms of energy;

-- food and farms;

-- brigades in which civilians would be placed under government supervision;

-- health, education, and welfare functions;

-- the registration of all persons into a national database;

-- the relocation of communities, areas to be abandoned, and building of new housing in designated places;

-- implementation of all emergency measures in times of international tensions and economic or financial crises; and

-- empowering the Justice Department (DOJ) to operate penal and correctional institutions along with FEMA for its own camps.

The Bush administration funded FEMA with hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit former military bases and construct other facilities as detention camps. According to a November 2008 Wall Street Journal article, "Intelligence Policy (will) Stay Largely Intact" under Obama who recognized and legitimized its existence for use in case of a "national emergency" declarable for any reason, real or contrived.

Currently, over 800 camps are in every state, ready for use if ordered, with enough capacity for many tens of thousands of internees. They're not ordinary in any sense. They're concentration prison camps in the true sense of the term for dissidents or whomever is to be interned for whatever reason, at any time, and for any designated period on command of the president, others he directs, and FEMA as a police state operational arm. Some may turn into Guantanamo on the Mississippi, the Chesapeake Bay, the Lake Michigan lakefront outside Chicago, or neighborhoods anywhere or close by.

Local police have been militarized to help and much more, according to a March 13 Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com article headlined: "Police Trained Nationwide That Informed Americans Are Domestic Terrorists." In other words, enemies of the state are people who know their rights and demand them, who support progressive issues, who want more from government than betrayal, and who believe democracy and the rule of law are sacred and must be defended.

Prison Planet got a copy of a Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report it described as "outlandish (and) shocking," and most likely it's replicated throughout the country. It concentrated mostly on a so-called "militia movement" but "conflate(d) it with supporters of Ron Paul, Constitution Party presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin, and former congressman Bob Barr as 'militia' influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters" of libertarian parties, issues, and people opposed to the North American Union and New World Order.

The MIAC report is similar to a Phoenix FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force one under Clinton that designated constitutional defenders as "right-wing extremists." The MIAC document "expands significantly on the earlier" one and represents the latest example of police state plans under Democrat as well as Republican administrations - a very disturbing prospect at a very grim time for most people.

A Final Comment

Everything discussed above is real and worrisome at a time the greatest ever economic crisis is deepening, government policies are corrupted, broken, and uncaring for deprived millions, so sooner or later public anger will erupt, but when it does severe crackdowns await it.

Obama promised change. Few understood that he meant abandoning the millions who elected him, looting the national wealth for fraudsters, and crushing public dissent should it erupt. Given growing impoverishment and pain, it's hard imagining it won't. It's only a matter of when and how much - but then what.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net .

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday through Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12698
 
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/03/monetary-and-fiscal-failure-fraud-and.html