mercoledì 1 luglio 2009

Obama To Rescue the Brutish Empire

This article appears in the June 26, 2009 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Obama's Financial `Regulation'
To Rescue the Brutish Empire

by John Hoefle

June 19—President Barack Obama's so-called financial "reform" program was released this week, demonstrating yet again the fascist nature of his administration. While presenting these measures as correctives to a "culture of irresponsibility," what he actually did was to push America even further under the thumb of the parasitic financiers of the Brutish Empire! His June 17 speech, and the documents released with it, constitute a deliberate fraud, yet another sell-out of the United States and its people.

Obama's speech was a collection of misrepresentations and outright lies. While noting correctly that "a culture of irresponsibility took root, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street," he neglected to mention how he and his administration have actively protected that irresponsibility, throwing trillions of dollars of public money down the rathole, and allowing bankrupt banks to continue to accept deposits and sell stock to the public. Rather than admit that this crisis was made possible by the systematic dismantling of the banking reforms implemented under President Franklin Roosevelt, and the systematic replacing of real regulators by cheerleaders who were captives of the sectors they were supposed to oversee, Obama blamed it all on the speed of innovation.

"A regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th-Century economic crisis—the Great Depression—was overwhelmed by the speed, scope, and sophistication of a 21st-Century global economy," the President claimed in his White House speech.

Not a word about how the Glass-Steagall Act, and other laws enacted under FDR, were removed from the books precisely because they prevented the creation of mega-banks, which engaged in wild speculation in everything from currencies to real estate, and ultimately blew up the world! Not a word about how the takedown of these regulatory protections was done at the behest of the international financial oligarchy, which used the takedown to move in on the United States, shut down our industrial might, and turn us from a nation of producers into a nation of consumers, whose consumption was financed with borrowed money, until the whole nation was bankrupt!

The problem was not the speed of innovation, but corruption on an almost unimaginable scale, starting with the financier parasites, the politicians and regulators they bought, and a population that tolerated such actions. That, Obama does not want to touch, because he is owned by the same financier oligarchy which led the assault—and which will benefit from his "reforms."

Save the Money, Kill the People

Obama said in his speech.

"There are those who will say that we do not go far enough, that we should have scrapped the system altogether and started all over again. I think that would be a mistake. Instead, we've crafted reforms to pinpoint the structural weaknesses that allowed for this crisis, and to make sure that these problems are dealt with so that we're preventing crises in the future."

What a load of crap! The first sentence of that statement is clearly a reference to Lyndon LaRouche, the author of the proposal to put the international financial system through bankruptcy. Obama, we are reliably informed, is furious with LaRouche for exposing the fascist nature of his financial and health-care policies, and this comment reflects his fixation on LaRouche as his leading adversary.

The rest of that statement is pure sophistry, because it is the system itself that is the problem. Contrary to what Obama said, it cannot be fixed—and the failure of his own bailout programs shows it. Furthermore, the talk of preventing future crises is premature, because as the President well knows, this one ain't over. It is, in truth, only beginning, and the worst—far worse—is yet to come.

That Obama and his team realize that, can be seen in the main element of his reform, which is to give more power to the Federal Reserve. The same Federal Reserve, which, under Greenspan, led the U.S. into the creation of the largest financial bubble the world had ever seen, including the creation of off-balance-sheet derivatives, which grew into quadrillions of dollars and ultimately imploded! The same Federal Reserve which, under Ben Bernanke, has been "printing" money like crazy, in a vain attempt to keep that bubble from completely deflating—and destroying the dollar in the process! These are the idiots to whom Obama is going to give more power? In the name of protecting the people?

Obviously not. There's a different game afoot, and that is, the continued protection of monetary values, at the expense of the population. What Obama is really doing, is expanding the authority of the Fed to try to manage the collapse in such a manner as to save as much as it can. That's what the bank bailout is about; that's what the auto bailout is about; and that's what this latest "reform" is about.

Obama made that clear when he moved to protect the derivatives markets, rather than outlaw them, as LaRouche has proposed.

"We're also proposing comprehensive regulation of credit default swaps and other derivatives that have threatened the entire financial system," Obama said. "By setting common-sense rules, these kinds of financial instruments can play a constructive, rather than destructive, role."

Sure, and I've got a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.

Obama's reforms boil down to this: Keep the existing system going; turn more power over to the parasites; and restart the speculation machine. To pay for this, he's going to cut your health care, your Social Security, and whatever else is required. Save the money, kill the people.

His main economic advisors, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, wrote, in an op-ed for the June 15 Washington Post, that the financial system "failed to perform its function as a reducer of risk." Risk is one of those buzzwords used to justify the insanity known as the derivatives market. One must protect oneself from changes in interest rates, currency values, bond defaults, and even changes in the weather, the bankers tell us—the same bankers who will willingly sell us such protection, for a fat fee.

This is a variation of the old mafia protection racket, in which they throw a brick through a shop window one night, and then drop by the next morning to offer to make sure it does not happen again; except in this case, the damage is done through the deliberate manipulation of financial markets.

Summers and Geithner also warned that "we live in a globalized world" and therefore need "international standards," which is precisely what the British are pushing as a way of creating a global financial dictatorship. The pair also defended the derivatives markets, calling, as Obama did, for more "regulation" of what must instead be banned.

For double-talk and hypocrisy, Obama's proposal is hard to beat. Meanwhile, we are losing jobs by the millions, throwing families into chaos. Trade flows, and imports and exports, are falling, and governments at all levels are cutting back services, ranging from police protection to medical care. Our very nation is breaking down.

What Obama is doing is trying to rescue the upper curves of LaRouche's "Triple Curve," by looting the lower curve. But the lower curve is the most important of all, because that's what keeps us alive. When it falls 100%, that's the final solution: We'll all be dead.

Cancel debt, World Bank dared

Seigniorage -> layoffs -> mortality

Economic Snapshot for July 1, 2009

Mass layoffs at highest level since at least 1995

by Anna Turner and John Irons

Mass layoffs — job cuts of 50 or more people by a single employer — are at their highest since continuous tracking began in April 1995, according to recently released data from the U.S. Department of Labor. In May there were 2,933 mass layoffs, representing 312,880 of the jobs lost that month. The chart below shows how the number of these mass layoff events has been dramatically rising since the start of the recession.

[figure]

Plant closings and mass layoffs usually mean a decline in the standard of living, limited future prospects, and significant psychological effects, such as low self-esteem and depression. Studies of mass layoffs find that job displacement raises mortality rates by as much as 15 to 20%, lowers consumption, and significantly decreases later earnings in the long-run.¹

Besides the hardship of job loss on individual workers, mass layoffs affect the health of the community, especially those which depend on a single firm to employ a substantial portion of a local population. The closing of a plant or several mass layoffs in the same area also erode the community’s tax base, resulting in a ripple effect, such as decreased funding for schools or falling property values.²

It is clear that employers are still cutting jobs at record levels, and that the potential long-term effects of concentrated worker displacement could have a lasting impact on communities.

Notes

1. Sullivan, D. and T. V. Wachter. 2007. Mortality, Mass-Layoffs, and Career Outcomes: An Analysis Using Administrative Data. Cambridge, National Bureau of Economic Research.

2. 1990. Legislative History of S. 2527. One Hundred First Congress Second Session. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office: 721-724.

California: Turning Crisis into Opportunity

California's Empty Wallet: Turning Crisis into Opportunity

Your request is being processed...

Ellen Brown

Author, "Web of Debt"

Posted: June 30, 2009 10:53 AM

"Our wallet is empty, our bank is closed and our credit is dried up."
- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, June 2, 2009

California State Controller John Chiang has warned that without a balanced budget in place by July 1, he will begin using IOUs to pay most of the state's bills. On June 25, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger rejected a plan that would save the state $3 billion by cutting school spending, saying he would rather see the state issue IOUs than delay the funding problem with a piecemeal approach. The state's total budget deficit is $24.3 billion.

Meanwhile, other funding doors are slamming closed. The Obama administration has said it will not use federal stimulus money to prop up California; and Fitch Ratings, a bond rating agency, announced that it was downgrading the credit rating of the state, which already has the lowest in the nation. Once downgraded, California's rating is likely to fall below the minimum level legally required for most money market funds, forcing the funds to sell their California bonds. The result could be a cost of millions of additional dollars in higher interest rates for the state.

What to do? Perhaps California could take a lesson from the island state of Guernsey, located in the English Channel off the French Coast, which faced similar funding problems in the 19th century. Toby Birch, an asset manager who hails from there, tells the story in Gold News:

As weary troops returned from a protracted foreign war [the Napoleonic Wars ending in 1815], they encountered a land racked with debt, high prices and a crumbling infrastructure, whose flood defenses were about to be overwhelmed . . . While 1815 brought an end to the conflict on the battlefront, . . . severe austerity ensued on the home front. The application of the Gold Standard meant that loans issued over many years were then recalled to balance the ratio of money to precious metals. This led to economic gridlock as labor and materials were abundant, but much-needed projects could not be funded for want of cash.

This led to a period of so-called "poverty amongst plenty". . . The situation seemed insoluble; existing borrowing costs were consuming 80% of the island's revenues. What was already an unsustainable debt burden would need to be doubled to fund the two most essential infrastructure projects. This was when a committee of States members was formed . . . The committee realized that if the Guernsey States issued their own notes to fund the project, rather than borrowing from an English bank, there would be no interest to pay. This would lead to substantial savings. Because as anyone with a mortgage should understand, the debtor ends up paying at least double the amount borrowed over the long-term.

To prevent an unwanted inflation of the money supply, the Guernsey States issued the notes with a date due, and on that date the bearer was paid in gold. The money came from rents on the finished infrastructure, supplemented with a tax on liquor. Birch goes on:

The end result of the Guernsey Experiment was spectacular -- new roads, sea defenses and public buildings were established, fostering widespread trade and prosperity. Full employment was achieved, no deficits resulted and prices were stable, all without a penny paid in interest. What started as a trial led to a string of construction projects, which still stand and function to this day. Money was used in its purest form: as a convenient mechanism for oiling the wheels of commerce and development.

Like Guernsey, California is facing "poverty amidst plenty." The state has the eighth largest economy in the world, larger than Russia's, Brazil's, Canada's and India's. It has the resources, labor, and technical expertise to make just about anything its citizens put their minds to. The only thing lacking is the money to do it. But money is merely a medium of exchange, a means of getting suppliers, laborers and customers together so that they can produce and exchange products.

As has been explained elsewhere, today money is simply credit. All of our money except coins is created by banks when they make loans. The current crisis stems from a credit freeze that began on Wall Street in the fall of 2007, when banks were required to revalue their assets due to a change in accounting rules, from "mark to fantasy" to "mark to market." Banks that were previously considered in good shape, with plenty of capital for making loans, suddenly came up short. Lending fell off, and so did the available money supply.

Just understanding the problem is enough to see the solution. If a private bank can create credit on its books, so can the mighty state of California. It merely needs to form its own bank. Under the "fractional reserve" lending system, banks are allowed to extend credit -- or create money as loans -- in a sum equal to many times their deposit base. Congressman Jerry Voorhis, writing in 1973, explained it like this:

[F]or every $1 or $1.50 which people -- or the government -- deposit in a bank, the banking system can create out of thin air and by the stroke of a pen some $10 of checkbook money or demand deposits. It can lend all that $10 into circulation at interest just so long as it has the $1 or a little more in reserve to back it up.

The 10 percent reserve requirement is now largely obsolete, in part because banks have figured out how to get around it. What chiefly limits bank lending today is the 8 percent capital requirement imposed by the Bank for International Settlements, the head of the private global central banking system in Basel, Switzerland. With an 8 percent capital requirement, a state with its own bank could fan its revenues into 12.5 times their face value in loans (100 ÷ 8 = 12.5). And since the state would actually own the bank, it would not have to worry about shareholders or profits. It could lend to creditworthy borrowers at very low interest, perhaps limited only to a service charge covering its costs; and on loans the bank made to the state, the state would ultimately get the interest, making the loans essentially interest-free.

Precedent for this approach is to be found in North Dakota, one of only three states currently able to meet its budget. North Dakota is not only solvent but now boasts the largest surplus it has ever had. The Bank of North Dakota, the only state-owned bank in the nation, was established by the legislature in 1919 to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. By law, the state must deposit all its funds in the bank, and the state guarantees its deposits. The bank's surplus profits are returned to the state's coffers.

The bank operates as a bankers' bank, partnering with private banks to loan money to farmers, real estate developers, schools and small businesses. It makes 1% loans to startup farms, has a thriving student loan business, and purchases municipal bonds from public institutions.

Looking at California's budget figures, projected state revenues for 2009 are $128 billion. At a reserve requirement of 10%, if California deposited all $128 billion in its own state-owned bank, it could issue $1.28 trillion in loans, far more than it would need to cover its $23 billion budget shortfall. To lend itself the money to cover the shortfall, it would need only $2.3 billion in deposits and about $2 billion in capital (assuming an 8% capital requirement). What Sheldon Emry wrote of nations is equally true of states:

It is as ridiculous for a nation to say to its citizens, "You must consume less because we are short of money," as it would be for an airline to say, "Our planes are flying, but we cannot take you because we are short of tickets."

As a card-carrying member of the banking elite, California could create all the credit it needs to fund its operations, with money to spare.

Follow Ellen Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ellenhbrown

Mamma quanti debiti! Ma chi li paga?

Pubblicato da Domenico De Simone, Nuova Economia, 1 luglio 2009

Ragazzi, siamo pieni di debiti. Il mondo intero è tutto un debito. Oltre al debito pubblico, se consideriamo anche il debito delle famiglie, delle imprese e delle banche, e scopriamo che il mondo intero è coperto di debiti, soprattutto i paesi più industrializzati. Debiti sui quali si pagano interessi che qualcuno incassa, e allora si capisce perché ci sono pochi che diventano sempre più ricchi mentre la maggior parte diventa sempre più povera. Il 40% della spesa complessiva dello Stato Italiano se n'è andata nel 2008 per finanziare il debito pubblico, mentre la Giustizia ha preso risorse per l'1% e la tutela del territorio e del mare per lo 0,17%.

Cominciamo da questo bell'elenco del Debito Pubblico dei paesi del mondo: è datato a prima dell'esplosione della crisi finanziaria, per cui le percentuali vanno riviste in rialzo. Qui il debito pubblico è rapportato al PIL di ciascun paese. Noi ce la battiamo bene con il nostro sesto posto, e con un Presidente del Consiglio così esperto di classifiche non è detto che non si possa migliorare, magari battendo il Giappone in casa.

Tuttavia se vediamo questo grafico scopriamo che alla fine non siamo proprio tanto mal messi in quanto a debiti:

Eh già, perché questo grafico compara il debito aggregato (Stati, banche, famiglie, imprese) con il PIL di ciascun paese e visto che le nostre famiglie sono molto più virtuose dello Stato e dei Governi che l'hanno diretto, il nostro debito complessivo è più basso di quello di Francia e Germania e persino della Svezia! Non parliamo poi dell'Inghilterra e degli USA, che non compare nel grafico ma ha un debito complessivo pari al 360% del PIL.

La cosa interessante è che i paesi complessivamente più indebitati sono quelli che hanno avuto una maggiore crescita. Già, perché il debito in realtà è lo strumento attraverso il quale viene creato il denaro, e quindi una maggiore quantità di denaro in circolazione ha prodotto un incremento delle attività e quindi una maggiore crescita.

Chi li pagherà tutti questi debiti? Il debito pubblico, naturalmente, non lo pagherà nessuno. Da tempo immemore i rimborsi dei Titoli di Stato scaduti vengono onorati con il ricavato della vendita di altri Titoli. E i debiti delle famiglie e delle imprese sono anch'essi destinati ad aumentare. Infatti se il denaro viene creato sul debito, ripagarlo significherebbe togliere dalla circolazione un denaro che è essenziale per gi scambi e per gli investimenti.Quindi, il debito continuerà a crescere finché qualcuno non riuscirà a far uscire il sistema da questa follia. Il senso di questa crisi è tutto qui. E' una crisi del debito e dei meccanismi con cui viene creato il denaro. O si cambiano questi meccanismi, o non si esce dalla crisi se non per qualche illusorio e breve momento.

I FIORI DEL MALE DELLA SPECULAZIONE

Da: SVIZZERA Connection

I FIORI DEL MALE DELLA SPECULAZIONE IN BORSA

La seconda metà degli anni '80 fu anche per le banche svizzere il momento clou della speculazione. E di questo volle profittare Fiorini. Per fare del titolo passivo della Sasea un titolo quotato in attivo in borsa, doveva aumentarne massicciamente il modesto capitale. Per questo aveva bisogno di un presidente svizzero importante come insegna. Ed ecco che capitò proprio al momento giusto l'avvocato ed ex consigliere federale Nello Celio. (17) Celio accettò l'offerta sicuramente lucrativa di Fiorini e, nel 1985, divenne presidente della Sasea, mentre Lefebre senior divenne vicepresidente. Come rappresentante dell'APSA, azionista di minoranza della Sasea, amministratrice patrimoniale del Vaticano, André Curiger, direttore della filiale zurighese del Crédit Commercial de France, continuò a restare nel consiglio di amministrazione della Sasea. Quale delegato del consiglio di amministrazione divenne infine il banchiere francese Yves Truffert, ex direttore generale della Banque Indosuez a Parigi. La direzione della Sasea con delegato Truffert era composta all'inizio da Fiorini, Audrun Krohn e Lefebre junior. A questi si aggiunse più tardi Rodolphe Rossi, un francese naturalizzato a Ginevra e marito dell'allora presidentessa liberale del consiglio municipale di Ginevra Madeleine Rossi.(18) Sopravvennero poi il belga Jean Bellemans come uomo di fiducia dei Lefebre e l'ex presidente dell'ENI Giorgio Mazzanti in quanto uomo di fiducia di Fiorini. Alla fine degli anni '80 arrivò da ultimo nel top management della Sasea lo svizzero Norbert Stadler. Considerata l'equipe iniziale d'alto livello del 1985 – Nello Celio parlava allora della "rèpublique des bons compagnons" (19)- non meraviglia che la Sasea divenisse in effetti un titolo di successo della Borsa di Ginevra. Nell'euforia generale di quei giorni le quotazioni balzarono entro breve tempo da 100 a 228 franchi. Fino al 1987 il capitale azionario di competenza della Banca Paribas salì da tre milioni a quattrocento milioni di franchi. Dalle modalità tecnico-finanziarie di questi aumenti di capitale conseguirono grandi guadagni sia per la Sasea che per l'istituto bancario competente Paribas. I nuovi azionisti pubblici e gli obbligazionisti dovettero pagare un alto sovrapprezzo per i titoli Sasea e Paribas (Suisse) incassò ricchi introiti. Presidente della casa madre Paribas a Parigi era allora Jean-Yves Haberer , che più tardi fu chiamato dal governo socialista di Mitterand a capo dello statale Crédit Lyonnais, divenuto più tardi la banca di riferimento di Fiorini. Fino al crollo avvenuto nel 1989, la Sasea rimase un titolo speculativo ricercato alla Borsa di Ginevra. Ma diversamente dal caso della Omni Holding di Werner K. Rey, la Sasea non era in primo luogo una truffa di borsa. Mentre l'attività del manipolatore di borse Rey serviva in ultima analisi solo ad alzare in maniera fraudolenta la quotazione delle azioni virtuali da lui create dal nulla, l'attività di Fiorini era mirata solo in seconda linea alla manipolazione delle quotazioni delle azioni Sasea. La Sasea era in primo luogo un veicolo per operazioni finanziarie internazionali non trasparenti, nella zona grigia tra legalità e illegalità.

ISTITUTO DI PULIZIE SASEA

I sette anni della Sasea, dal 1985 al 1992, possono essere suddivisi in quattro anni di ascesa e tre di declino. L'acquisizione della società cinematografica di Hollywood Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) costituisce il punto di svolta. All'inizio era filato tutto liscio come l'olio, la Sasea comprava, scomponeva e vendeva aziende e partecipazioni. Faceva quel tipo di affari che nel mondo anglosassone si chiamano "Mergers and Acquisitions": società piene di problemi, soprattutto nel settore immobiliare, venivano ristrutturate, cambiavano nome e veniva conferita loro spesso nuova forma societaria e una nuova sede operativa in un'esotica piazza finanziaria offshore. Mediante un maquillage del genere la Sasea fu in grado di rivendere con lauti guadagni queste aziende già sull'orlo del fallimento. Fiorini stesso definì una volta scherzosamente la Sasea istituto di pulizie, senza approfondire di chi fosse il denaro che vi veniva ripulito. Oltre all'acquisto e alla vendita di società, la Sasea trattava anche in grande stile petrolio e altre materie prime. Le sue partecipazioni a medio e a lungo termine salirono fino alla fine del 1989, da 32 milioni a 1.120 milioni di franchi. Le quote più alte erano rappresentate dalla partecipazione alla Banque Bruxelles Lambert (BBL), intestata dai Lefebre alla Sasea, dalle società d'assicurazione De Angeli Frua e Ausonia, comprate da Parretti e dalla società immobiliare milanese Scotti-Finanziaria. Partecipazioni del genere conferivano alla Sasea l'apparenza di solidità e sostanza, ma erano spesso molto sopravvalutate.

SOCIETA' SOSPETTE

Nello stesso tempo Fiorini operò in grande stile come fondatore di società. Creò subholding a Milano e ad Amsterdam con circa 300 filiali che avevano sede a Londra, Parigi, Amsterdam, Mosca, Friburgo e nell'isola delle Antille olandesi Curacao. Alcune di queste società avevano uffici e personale propri, in maggioranza erano tuttavia pure società di comodo in paradisi fiscali offshore. Tra queste c'era anche la Seychelles International Bank (SI Bank) divenuta famosa al momento della scoperta del Conto Protezione, con sede legale alle Seychelles (più tardi trasferita a Samoa) e un piccolo ufficio segreto a Montecarlo.(20) L'11 luglio 1996 "L'Hebdo" informò: "Documenti posseduti dall' "Hebdo" dimostrano che la banca SI era la cassa dei fondi neri della Sasea" e criticava che il giudice istruttore Jean-Louis Crochet non avesse incluso negli atti del processo tutti gli importanti documenti sequestrati durante la perquisizione della Banca SI. Moglie di Crochet è l'avvocatessa Catherine Crochet dello studio Crochet, Delaunay. L'avvocato Pierre Sigrist, attivo in questo studio, ha lavorato per la SI-Bank. Non può quindi essere escluso il pericolo di una collisione di interessi. Ulteriore esempio è la Beaverbrook Ltd., fondata nel 1991 a Dublino. Lord Beaverbrook, allora presidente del partito conservatore britannico, poi fallito, non sapeva niente di questa società. Era stata creata da Brendan e Deborah Delaney, che a Dublino gestivano una società per la fondazione di società offshore. I Delaney fondano e vendono società con o senza consiglio di amministrazione, a seconda dei desideri dei clienti. Nel 1995 i Delaney, marito e moglie, facevano parte di più di 1.500 società registrate nel Companies Register di Londra. Alla Beaverbrook i Delaney si ritirarono dal consiglio di amministrazione dopo la vendita alla Sasea e il 7 maggio 1991 furono sostituiti da Ute Heiliger e Frank Nelson del Foreign Marketing Sa (Ginevra). Frank Nelson era il figlio adottivo di Florio Fiorini, che aveva anche due figlie sue. Terzo consigliere d'amministrazione era Muriel von Wussow, moglie di uno stretto collaboratore di Fiorini a Ginevra. La Beaverbrook spostò il proprio domicilio da Hoogewerf & Cie. a Montecarlo (vedi cap. 4). A Montecarlo aveva il proprio quartier generale anche la SI Bank di Fiorini.(21)

GUADAGNI MEDIANTE TRUCCHI DI REGISTRAZIONE CONTABILE

Tra le quasi 300 filiali della Sasea circolavano ininterrottamente depositi, crediti e partecipazioni. Vendite a pioggia tra società, le cui conclusioni d'affare non venivano presentate contemporaneamente, producevano guadagni contabili elevati a piacere e simulavano l'afflusso di denaro fresco. Un esempio di un trucco di registrazione contabile del genere è l'obbligazione convertibile della Sasea di 340 milioni di franchi all'interesse del 7,5 % nell'autunno 1990. Allora le quotazioni dei titoli Sasea alla Borsa di Ginevra minacciarono di sprofondare in un abisso senza fondo. Con un'emissione di obbligazioni, organizzata dalla banca SG Warburg Soditic di Ginevra, Fiorini cercò di ricreare la fiducia. Poichè il grande pubblico degli investitori - tranne alcuni piccoli azionisti tratti in inganno (22) - non si fidava della Sasea, Fiorini stesso sottoscrisse i 300 milioni dell'obbligazione. Il suo uomo di fiducia italiano Piero Bongianino, delegato del consiglio di amministrazione della Banca Popolare di Novara, concesse all'Imic, affiliata italiana della Sasea a Monza, un credito di 35 miliardi di lire. Bongianino era uno dei più importanti finanziatori (legali) di Fiorini in Italia e fungeva da banca di riferimento delle grandi filiali Sasea italiane De Angeli Frua e Scotti Finanziaria; Fiorini faceva parte del consiglio di amministrazione della filiale svizzera della Banca popolare di Novara (Suisse). Il 13 settembre 1990 il denaro passò dalla Banca Popolare di Novara all' Imic, che il giorno stesso lo versò ad un'altra società italiana di Fiorini, la Firs, che a stretto giro di posta lo accreditò alla filiale della Sasea Scotti Finanziaria, che a Ginevra sottoscrisse le obbligazioni della Sasea. Alcune settimane più tardi la Imic fallì. Nella primavera 1993 il giudice istruttore di Milano Luigi Orsi aprì un procedimento penale contro Bongianino, delegato del consiglio d'amministrazione della Banca Popolare, e lo fece arrestare. (23) Il caso suscitò un certo stupore in tutt'Italia perchè la Popolare di Novara è una banca ultracentenaria molto stimata e Bongianino è considerato uno degli uomini più potenti della metropoli lombarda. Un anno più tardi anche i manager dell'Imic, affiliata della Sasea, il presidente Tiziano Mantovani e il direttore Gianfranco Mancini, furono arrestati e accusati di fallimento fraudolento.(24) I due giudici istruttori Orsi e Perrozziello suppongono che un gruppo di finanzieri italiani, tra cui Bongianino, abbia cercato tra il 1991 e il 1992 di salvare la Sasea sull' orlo del fallimento. Basandosi su dichiarazioni della segretaria privata di Fiorini, Gabriella Tripepi, essi collocano in questo gruppo anche Callisto Tanzi, presidente del grande gruppo alimentare italiano Parmalat. (25) Nel novembre 1995 la procura milanese sporse denuncia contro non meno di 37 persone, tra questi i tre cittadini di Basilea Luzius Gloor, Ueli Vischer e Bruno Dallo. Gloor era direttore generale della Basler Versicherung [Assicurazione di Basilea], Vischer che più tardi in qualità di dirigente finanziario della Basler passò alla politica, era responsabile dei rapporti con l'Italia per la Basler, e anche Dallo era un dirigente della Basler Versicherung. Gli accusatori contestarono l'adeguatezza del prezzo di vendita per la De Angeli Frua (DAF), che la Basler nel 1989 aveva comprato dalla Sasea. A ciò si aggiunse un prelievo illecito di fondi dalla DAF da parte della Sasea, dopo che la Basler aveva rivenduto la DAF alla Sasea, mentre Gloor, Vischer e Dallo facevano ancora parte del consiglio di amministrazione. Nel febbraio 1996 comiciò il processo senza i tre della Basler. La Baloise aveva comunicato di aver concluso un accordo con la giustizia, un cosiddetto "patteggiamento". Secondo la lettera della legge un patteggiamento è un compromesso tra verdetto di colpevolezza e assoluzione. Nel caso che l'imputato entro un periodo stabilito si renda di nuovo punibile, la pena viene eseguita. Vischer se la cavò con 22 mesi con la condizionale. Il governo di Basilea trasformò senza esitare il patteggiamento in un'assoluzione. Egli stesso disse: "Se mi fossi reso conto di essere in colpa, avrei tratto io stesso, nella mia posizione, le conseguenze".

FLOP CON PETROLIO E IMMOBILI

Da un punto di vista geografico presumibilmente due terzi degli affari della Sasea prendevano l’avvio in Italia. Ma Fiorini operava anche in Francia, Spagna, Libia, alle Seychelles, nello Yemen e negli USA. In Svizzera la piattaforma internazionale Sasea sviluppò un'attività relativamente minore. E tuttavia è il caso di parlare di due affari interni del genere: il caso Tamoil/Gatoil e il caso Europrogrammi. Il caso Tamoil/Gatoil mostra in modo esemplare con quanta abilità Fiorini si servisse delle relazioni risalenti ai tempi in cui era direttore finanziario dell'ENI. L'affare Tamoil cominciò quando la Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco) vendette nel 1983 la sua catena italiana di distributori di benzina con relativa raffineria a Cremona, al finanziere libanese Roger Tamraz. Già due anni dopo Tamraz,,con la sua gestione, aveva completamente mandato in rovina la ditta e la società fu posta sotto controllo statale. All'inizio del 1986 Fiorini conseguì uno dei suoi primi grandi successi nell'ambito degli affari "Mergers and Acquisitions" (Fusioni ed incorporazioni): Egli procurò a Tamraz la Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company come compratrice del 70 % della Tamoil. Il 20 % lo acquisì la Sasea e il 10 % rimase a Tamraz. Direttore della Tamoil divenne l'ex presidente dell'ENI e uomo della P2 Giorgio Mazzanti, che nel 1979 aveva dovuto dimettersi dal suo incarico per pagamento di tangenti nel cosiddetto scandalo Petromin. Nel 1989 la Sasea dichiarò ancora una partecipazione alla Tamoil del 10 %, il resto apparteneva ai Libici. Tamraz era scomparso dopo che la banca libanese Almashrek l'aveva accusato di appropriazione indebita di 150 milioni di dollari. (26) Quando nel 1989 l'uomo d'affari libanese Khalil J. Ghattas andò in bancarotta con la sua società petrolifera svizzera Gatoil, Fiorini replicò la mossa: fece da mediatore per la sua vendita alla Oilinvest BV Nederlands, controllata dallo stato libico.(27) Nel marzo 1989 Ghattas fu arrestato e estradato in Germania. Qui venne processato per frodi e affari petroliferi illegali, che avevano portato al fallimento del gruppo tedesco Kloeckner per il commercio di petrolio.(28) Nell'affare Gatoil Fiorini aveva portato la svizzera Migrol come socia junior. Solo grazie al fatto che un famoso partner svizzero era presente come azionista di minoranza, i Libici ottennero l'aggiudicazione contro la forte concorrenza di altre grandi società petrolifere europee. Gatoil fu unito a Tamoil e all'inizio degli anni '90 possedeva una raffineria a Collombey (VS) e 260 distributori di benzina in Svizzera. (29)

Note:

17) Celio, dopo essersi ritirato dal consiglio federale, si era arricchito il vitalizio con numerosi incarichi in consigli di amministrazione. Era presidente della Banque Atlantis a Ginevra e della Banca Commerciale (Lugano). Inoltre faceva parte del consiglio di amministrazione della Dresdner Bank (Svizzera) e di una buona dozzina di società più piccole. Celio era anche presidente della Société Hotelière d'Investissements (SHI), di cui la Sasea possedeva il 40%. Inoltre era azionista alla Firsec, che possedeva l'altro 60% della SHI. La Firsec apparteneva all'impero dell'iraniano Farhad Baktiar attivo a Ginevra, cugino del leader dell'opposizione iraniana, poi assassinato, Shapour Baktiar. Farhad Baktiar fu arrestato nel maggio 1992 per frode in pignoramento in relazione al fallimento di due sue società.

18) Rossi, classe 1919, aveva combattuto nella seconda guerra mondiale con la resistenza francese contro gli occupanti tedeschi e più tardi oscillò tra attività commerciali e attività legate ai servizi segreti nel Laos e in Asia sudorientale, prima di venire a Ginevra.

19) Fiorini, Florio: 'Ricordati da lontano'. Milano 1993, p.127

20) La SI Bank fu fondata nel 1985 dall'italiano Giovanni Mario Ricci per la Sasea come banca offshore. Ricci fu condannato in Italia per fallimento fraudolento e in Svizzera per aver messo in circolazione banconote di dollari falsi. Alle Seychelles divenne uomo di fiducia del putschista Albert René, che nel 1987 aveva fatto cadere James Manchham, il presidente dello stato insulare resosi indipendente solo un anno prima. René nazionalizzò anche la Shell, che cambiò nome in Seychelles National Oil Company, la quale a sua volta insieme con la Sasea fondò la Mahe Bunkering Company Ltd. La Sasea aveva anche partecipazioni alle due società petrolifere: la Seychelles International Oil e la International Oil Services. Dopo il fallimento di un putsch del ministro della difesa Ogilvy Berlouis contro Albert René, Ricci, che nel frattempo era passato alla corrente di Berlouis, andò in Sudafrica, dove si impegnò anche per aggirare l'embargo d'allora nei confronti di questo stato. La SI Bank fu cancellata dal registro delle società, ma continuò ad esistere ,dopo aver trasferito la sede alle isole Samoa, e servì a Fiorini e a Parretti tra l'altro come strumento per l'acquisizione della Metro Goldwyn Mayer.

21) "Eurobusiness", Nov. 93.

22) Alcuni dei piccoli investitori danneggiati fondarono a Zurigo nell' autunno 1992 un'associazione di protezione. Secondo l'avvocato di Zurigo Markus Winkler, portavoce di questa, egli rappresentava circa 130 possessori di obbligazioni Sasea per un valore di circa 40 milioni di franchi. Winkler fece parlare di sè per diverse denunce sporte per fallimento fraudolento. Denunciò Florio Fiorini, l'ex manager della Sasea e consigliere d'amministrazione Rodolphe Rossi, l'ultimo presidente della Sasea Giovanni Gianola, la Transmarine Holding di Fiorini a Curacao, l' ufficio fiduciario KPMG Fides a Losanna e la banca SG Warburg Soditic (Ginevra). Fu presa in considerazione anche una denuncia contro il Crédit Lyonnais. ("Le Nouveau Quotidien", 18.2.93)

23) "La Repubblica", 8.7.94

24) "La Repubblica", 18.5.94

25) "Corriere della Sera", 20.5. 94

26) D' Aubert, Francois: Proposition de Résolution No 2740. Assemblée Nationale, 26.5.92, p. 35

27) Liquidatori della Gatoil divennero Dominique Grosbery e Alain Winkelmann della filiale ginevrina della ATAG Ernst & Young. Tre anni dopo furono chiamati anche come liquidatori della Sasea.

28) Dopo essere stato cacciato dall'ENI, Fiorini aveva lavorato qualche tempo come consulente per Ghattas, che gli deve aver prestato anche 1,5 milioni di dollari per il suo personale investimento nella Sasea ("Wall Street Journal Europe", 19.5.94). Questa versione è in ogni caso contestata. Altri suppongono che egli abbia tratto la sua partecipazione al capitale da quei fondi che sono scomparsi senza traccia poco prima della bancarotta dell'Ambrosiano (d'Aubert, Francois: Proposition de Résolution No 2740. Assemblée Nationale, 26.5.92,p.46)

29) Negli anni successivi il gruppo petrolifero Oilinvest cercò di liberarsi come società madre della Tamoil dalle tracce dell'origine libica. Presumibilmente dal 1994 un gruppo di investitori europei possiede il 55 % e la Libia il 45 % della Oilinvest. Fanno parte del gruppo europeo l'italiana Armani (combustibili), Montanari (navigazione marittima), Triboldi (depositi), l'olandese Van Vingaarden e il proprietario tedesco di distributori di benzina Joern Eggert. Se si tratti di una pseudo europeizzazione per aggirare l'embargo delle Nazioni Unite contro la Libia è cosa di cui si discute. Il fatturato complessivo della Oilinvest. con tre raffinerie a Cremona, Collombey e Amburgo e 3.000 distributori di benzina in giro per l’Europa, ammontava nel 1993 a circa 5 miliardi di dollari. In Svizzera l'affiliata della Oil-Invest Tamoil ha investito dall'inizio degli anni '90 più di 250 milioni di franchi nella modernizzazione della raffineria Collombey ed è stata per un certo periodo lo sponsor del club calcistico FC Sion.

Indian Chief ‘Two Eagles’ on the white government

Indian Chief ‘Two Eagles’ was asked by a white government official, 'You have observed the white man for 90 years. You've seen his wars and his technological advances. You've seen his progress, and the damage he's done.' The Chief nodded in agreement. The official continued, 'Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?' The Chief stared at the government official for over a minute and then calmly replied. ‘When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; All night having sex.’ Then the chief leaned back and smiled. ‘Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.’

Bernie, an economic terrorist

Ex-con: Bernie won’t be too popular behind bars

Posted: 10:11 AM ET

Kiran Chetry - Anchor, CNN's American Morning
Filed under: Controversy • Crime

Going from a Park Avenue luxury apartment to a federal prison is going to be quite a change for Bernard Madoff. He was sentenced yesterday to 150 years in prison. What’s life going to be like for him behind bars?

Larry Levine served ten years in prison and is now a consultant for white collar criminals preparing to go to jail. He spoke to Kiran Chetry on CNN’s “American Morning” Tuesday.

Kiran Chetry: What do you fill people in on as they get ready to go to prison?

Larry Levine: Well, I do damage control. Once the judge slams down the gavel and sentences you, the lawyer has no idea what’s going to happen. So I prepare people for going into custody. I teach them everything they need to know from the time they go in, until they get out. If they get in a jam while they’re on the inside, their families can get a hold of me and we can straighten things out.

Now in Madoff’s case, he doesn’t have an out date. What, 150 years from now? So he really has nothing to look forward to. I see them possibly putting him on suicide watch and/or protective custody because people are going to want to get to him. On a lighter side, he will get about 19-and-a-half years off on good time. They will give him that even though it’ll never apply.

Chetry: In a way you’re saying he doesn’t have hope for an appeal or hope to get out if he does well?

Levine: You have to prove that the judge abused his discretion by sentencing him to 150 years. Well, Madoff’s off the charts as far as the dollar loss and the U.S. sentencing guidelines. They could have given him 200 years, although it wouldn’t really make a difference. The judge had the latitude to do that, so an appeal really is going to go nowhere.

Chetry: What’s daily life going to be like for Bernard Madoff in a federal penitentiary?

Levine: Well, he was in a detention center. … He’s had a little taste of custody, but now he’s going to be living in a cell, which is going to be his permanent home and this man who lived in a penthouse for years is going to be living basically out of a two-foot by four-foot wall locker. That’s where all of his personal items are going to be stored and he’s going to be subject to being counted several times a day, possibly strip-searched. He’s not going to have any privacy, and he’s probably going to be terrified for his life because people are going to want to get to him.

Chetry: Is he going to be among “hardened criminals”? Is he going to be serving with other people who committed non-violent crimes, meaning white collar?

Levine: I did a custody classification score on him… He really should be in a camp. He really should be in minimum custody, but the problem is, again, the dollar loss. Because of his dollar loss, they’re putting a management variable on him. He’s going to go to a medium. And he’s going to come in contact with people that are bank robbers, killers, rapists and gang members. He’s going to be in an extremely dangerous environment and he’s going to be serving time with other people that have life sentences. Those people don’t have an out date either. So if things jump off, they’re not going to hesitate to do something to Bernie. They don’t care. What can you possibly do to somebody who is serving a life that’s not getting out anyway? Nothing.

Chetry: They would put him in the same prison as rapists, killers, and others?

Levine: It’s the custody level. Medium custody.

Chetry: Rapists and killers are in the medium security?

Levine: Well, they work their way down, absolutely. They go from, let’s say a United States penitentiary, which is a high, to medium custody. Yeah. I saw them when I was in the medium in Phoenix; you have people serving life sentences there. I had two cell mates, one of them – he robbed an armored car up in Washington, I think it was in the late ’80s and killed one of the armored car guards. These are dangerous people and you’ve got a lot of racists there – white power Aryan brotherhood – in these institutions and Bernie’s Jewish. Well I’m Jewish myself, but Bernie’s not going to be real popular. He’s not going to have any friends.

Chetry: What were you in there for?

Levine: Narcotics trafficking, securities fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice, and machine guns. My whole case was organized crime.

Chetry: How busy are you as a consultant prepping people to go?

Levine: My phone rings off the hook. Everybody has a problem, everyone has a question. Some people I can help, some people I can’t. Now, I had Madoff’s reps get a hold of me before he went into custody and I turned them down. I wouldn’t help the guy out because I view him as an economic terrorist. If you rip off a bank and insurance company, an institution, that’s an acceptable crime. Bernie hurt people. He hurt people individually and I refuse to help people like that. Let him rot in hell.

How I Saved Bernie Madoff's Life

July 1, 2009

Inside ‘Who Moved My Soap? The Bernie Madoff Edition'

On April 13, in a story called "Jail for Dummies," The New York Post reported that relatives of Bernie Madoff were looking for a guide to prison life to prepare the Ponzi schemer for his new life behind bars.

I immediately sprang into action, and the result is my new book, Who Moved My Soap? The CEO's Guide to Surviving in Prison: The Bernie Madoff Edition.

Published Monday, just in time for Bernie's sentencing, the book is a self-help guide narrated by Madoff's cellmate, who describes their first meeting behind bars:

There was no mistaking who he was: the silver hair, those beady eyes, that sheepish expression that makes him look like a guilty hamster.

"Hello," he said. "I'm Bernie Madoff, and I'm about to offer you the investment opportunity of a lifetime."

I cringed. Madoff had been in prison for less than an hour and he had already made the classic rookie's mistake: never set up a Ponzi scheme during your first week. More here.

AVAILABLE TODAY: A book you'll cherish for the next 150 years!

Who Moved My Soap? The CEO's Guide to Surviving in Prison: The Bernie Madoff Edition on sale now for only $9.95

Gold manipulation redux

Brad Zigler: Gold manipulation redux

Submitted by cpowell on Wed, 2009-07-01 04:24. Section: Daily Dispatches

12:24a ET Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

In commentary posted yesterday, Brad Zigler, managing editor of the Hard Assets Investor Internet site, has done GATA the service of taking us seriously enough to answer us specifically in some respects. Zigler's commentary is headlined "Gold Manipulation Redux" and can be found at Hard Assets Investor here:

http://www.hardassetsinvestor.com/features-and-interviews/1/1642-gold-ma...

Zigler seems to accept that central banks intervene in the gold market, openly and surreptitiously. He seems interested mainly in asserting the integrity of the futures markets.

He writes that since gold has been rising for quite a while now, any gold price suppression scheme could not be working. GATA argues that the scheme indeed is working by substantially slowing gold's rise.

Zigler acknowledges that a few U.S. banks have hugely disproportionate short positions in the futures markets in gold and silver but he does not consider these positions manipulative. Further, he writes, "No tenable scenario has been offered to explain how these institutions would actually profit from the supposed suppression of gold prices. The banks' relationship to the Federal Reserve is often posited as evidence of a collusion of some sort, but the mechanics remained unspecified."

Zigler is entitled to his own definition of "tenable," but GATA has suggested many times that if central banks are implementing their gold suppression policy through bullion banks and mining companies that hedge, as Barrick Gold acknowledged central banks to be doing, even claiming to be an agent of the central banks itself --

http://www.gata.org/files/BarrickConfessionMotionToDismiss.pdf --

then huge profits could be made by hedged miners, bullion banks, and their associated firms executing and front-running the trade orders of central banks. Surely Zigler would acknowledge that there are constant private communications among the Treasury, Fed, and financial houses. Many of the latter are official U.S. government agents, primary dealers for government bond sales. Does Zigler really think that no information of trading value is ever conveyed in these communications? Maybe Zigler would not be offended by this favoritism, but others would be -- and are.

Blanchard Coin & Bullion's federal antitrust lawsuit against Barrick, which elicited Barrick's confession to the gold price suppression scheme, maintained that Barrick had access to so much central bank gold obtained through its bullion bank, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., that the mining company could run the gold price up or down at will. There would be a lot of profit in that. And GATA Chairman Bill Murphy has written and spoken often about how bullion banks could profit enormously by suddenly shorting gold in huge amounts, causing crashes, creating panic among investors, and covering short positions as the panic grows before allowing the price to rise again. Any firm with access to enough borrowed central bank gold could profitably manipulate not just the gold market with central bank approval but nearly every other market. And there's no denying that huge amounts of central bank gold have been leased and made available for just such purposes.

GATA has been formally refused access to U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve records about the U.S. gold reserve. Anyone who believes in the integrity of the futures markets should have some curiosity about this, for it is an indication that the gold reserve indeed has been put in play in ways similar to those suggested by GATA. How much does Zigler want to bet that there never have been and are no records of communications among the Treasury Department, the Fed, and Morgan Chase involving gold?

Zigler disputes silver market analyst Ted Butler's assertion that the U.S. bank short positions in silver are unprecedented. He says there are bigger bank short positions in Australian dollar futures. But Butler was talking about the U.S. commodity markets, not foreign currency markets.

Zigler attributes the disproportionate U.S. bank short positions in gold and silver to legitimate hedging by producers and marketers rather than to manipulation by those banks. Since details of those short positions are kept confidential by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, we can't yet know. But GATA thinks that this information should be made public, perhaps with a modest delay to provide some protection to current trading positions. Since hedging by precious metals miners has fallen dramatically, we do not think that most of the bank short positions in gold and silver is legitimate hedging. And while GATA argues for more transparency, Zigler, like the big shorts in the precious metals, seems to prefer continued concealment. Presumably Zigler trusts the CFTC to be doing its job -- just as Bernie Madoff's investors trusted the Securities and Exchange Commission to be doing its job. GATA doesn't trust any of the regulatory agencies.

But again let it be noted that, unlike most of GATA's critics, Zigler has had the courage to confront some of our specifics, and we're grateful for that and commend his commentary to you.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

Market manipulation obvious to CNBC analysts

For five minutes Monday morning CNBC market analysts discussed how obvious Federal Reserve manipulation of the financial markets has become. If manipulation is obvious to CNBC analysts now, soon even some mainstream gold market analysts may have trouble denying it. You can watch the CNBC segment here:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1167028705&play=1

A clear audit and then jail them all !

Paul wins huge support in House for bill to audit Fed

By Judson Berger
FOX News
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/mr-popular-rep-paul-wins-supp...

All of a sudden, Congress is paying close attention to Ron Paul.

The feisty congressman from Texas, whose insurgent "Ron Paul Revolution" presidential campaign rankled Republican leaders last year, now has the GOP House leadership on his side -- backing a measure that generated paltry support when he first introduced it 26 years ago.

Paul, as of Tuesday, has won 245 co-sponsors to a bill that would require a full-fledged audit of the Federal Reserve by the end of 2010.

Paul attracted just 18 co-sponsors when he authored a similar bill, which died, in 1983. While the impact Fed policies have on inflation is once again a concern, fears about loose monetary policy and excessive federal spending appear even more widespread in 2009.

"In the past, I never got much support, but I think it's the financial crisis obviously that's drawing so much attention to it, and people want to know more about the Federal Reserve," Paul told FOXNews.com.

With the Federal Reserve holding interest rates at rock-bottom levels, pumping trillions into the economy and now poised to have new powers to oversee the financial system under President Obama's proposed regulatory overhaul, Paul said lawmakers want transparency.

"If they give them a lot more power and there's no more transparency, that'll be a disaster," he said.

The bill would call for the comptroller general in the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed and report those findings to Congress. The GAO's ability to conduct such audits now is severely restricted.

A slew of top Republicans are backing the bill, as are many Democrats.

"Ron Paul has the right idea on this," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who supports similar legislation in the Senate. "I'm just hoping we can get a clear audit. ... We need to know what they're up to."

House Republican Leader John Boehner, who signed on as a co-sponsor this month, wrote in a recent blog post that the "lack of transparency and accountability" regarding federal dollars committed by the Fed and Treasury Department raise "serious concerns" and make an audit critical.

"The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would remove all of these restrictions, and allow GAO to get real answers from the Federal Reserve to protect American taxpayers," Boehner wrote.

Unfortunately for Paul, the bill appears to be idling in the House Financial Services Committee, which is chaired by Barney Frank, D-Mass. The bill has been sitting there, gathering co-sponsors, since Paul introduced it in late February.

"You've kind of got to rely on the Democratic leadership (to move the bill along)," a Boehner aide said. "I haven't heard a lot of support from Chairman Frank."

Calls to Frank's office were not returned.

Paul acknowledged that his bill hasn't advanced but said Frank has "promised" him he will deal with his bill and is willing to give it a hearing. Paul said it's easily got the "momentum" to pass the full House.

A representative with the Federal Reserve could not be reached for comment.

Obama, though, voiced confidence in Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last Tuesday and defended the Fed's overall ability to regulate effectively as well as his proposal to give the body more power.

"If you look at what we've proposed, we are not so much expanding the Fed's power as we are focusing what the Fed needs to do to prevent the kinds of crises that are happening again," Obama said. "We want that power to be available so that taxpayers aren't on the hook."

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced a bill similar to Paul's in the Senate in March, which so far has attracted just three co-sponsors -- DeMint and Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Mike Crapo of Idaho.

But DeMint told FOX News last week that the measure would have a good chance of passing the Senate if supporters can push Paul's to a vote, which he said would be successful, in the House.

"If we can get that much attention on this bill, I don't believe senators could vote against it, if people knew what they were voting for, because everyone is suspicious of the Federal Reserve," DeMint said.

Paul's underlying goal is to abolish the Federal Reserve, which he finds contemptible.

"I blame almost everything on the Fed because they create the bubbles, they create the credit," Paul said.

But the move to require an audit, which Paul described as "neutral," puts him a bit more in the congressional mainstream.

That's a change of pace. The long-time congressman's GOP primary bid was decidedly outside the mainstream. His campaign drew enthusiastic support last year, and though it wasn't enough to pose an electoral threat to the top candidates, he even staged his own September counter-convention in Minneapolis -- down the road from the official Republican National Convention in St. Paul. His "Rally for the Republic" drew more than 10,000 supporters and was complete with a rock band and a slew of faux-delegates wielding signs for their states.

Paul frequently plays the role of party and congressional outsider. Most recently, he was the lone "no" vote on last Friday's resolution to condemn the Iranian government's crackdown on protesters.

He cited constitutional concerns in that vote, as he has in his criticism of the Fed and a slew of other issues.

"The whole process is unconstitutional. There is no legal authority to operate such a monetary system," Paul said in February, in a statement calling for Washington to "end the Fed." He introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act the following day.

Indagare sui signori del signoraggio

Laureati in 007 all'Università della Calabria

Continua a crescere in Italia la cultura dell’intelligence.

Infatti, all’Università della Calabria, primo esempio in Italia, si è conclusa, con la discussione delle tesi, la seconda edizione del Master in Intelligence, il cui presidente del Comitato scientifico, è il Presidente onorario della Repubblica, Francesco Cossiga.

A presiedere la commissione, che ha esaminato i ventotto partecipanti, è stato il Direttore del master, Mario Caligiuri, assistito anche dal Comandante dei ROS dei Carabinieri di Reggio Calabria, Valerio Giardina e dal Vice prefetto del Ministero dell’Interno Marco Valentini.

Vari, importanti e di qualità sono stati i temi elaborati nelle tesi: l’impatto nel sistema politico nazionale di un eventuale partito politico islamico in Italia, le carceri come bacini di informazioni, il ruolo della criminalità cinese in Italia, le nuove tecniche di intercettazione e di analisi linguistiche, i metodi dell’intelligence per contrastare la pedopornografia on line, una comparazione a livello internazionale sulla formazione e selezione degli operatori delle agenzie. Particolare attenzione, da parte dei candidati è stata riservata alla ‘ndrangheta, in particolar modo ai rapporti che intercorrono fra le associazioni mafiose e le amministrazioni pubbliche, all’organizzazione cellulare alla Al-Quaeda e al mercato ittico come area anche criminale.

Le tesi che sono risultate di maggior interesse scientifico saranno approfondite e pubblicate, in quanto numerosi argomenti saranno oggetto di approfondimenti ed analisi da parte del Centro dipartimentale di studi e documentazione scientifica sull’Intelligence già istituito all’Università della Calabria e coordinato da Mario Caligiuri.

La qualità dei lavori conclusivi e delle lezioni tenute durante l’anno, l’ampio interessamento già registrato per partecipare alla terza edizione che prenderà il via nel mese di Settembre (con un convegno d’intesa con il Consiglio Nazionale delle ricerche sul tema “Intelligence e scienze umane”), i risultati ottenuti in termini di ricerche e pubblicazioni stanno testimoniando l’indubbio interesse che sta suscitando lo studio del settore, entrato proprio con l’organizzazione di questo master per la prima volta all’interno del panorama universitario pubblico Italiano.

Come fare per sapere chi sono i signori del signoraggio?

Central Banking Hazard Awareness

Do you want absolute, incontrovertible proof we are around the corner from the Greatest depression the world has ever seen? Does your family have $900,000 to help pay off the Federal debt? The head of the Federal Reserve Bank Of Dallas, Robert Fisher, gave a speech in May 2008 (Storms on the Horizon) in which he said that the US government's unfunded liabilities are now $ 99.2 trillion (for future Social Security and Medicare obligations) . This is in addition to the Federal debt of over $ 11 trillion. With 112 million households, each family's share of this future debt is $ 888,750. For each and every family! It gets worse. Elizabeth Coleman is Inspector General of the Federal Reserve (which isn't federal and has no reserves). They lost 9 trillion dollars of YOUR tax money. Just misplaced 9 trillion dollars. The GNP of this country is only 14 trillion. That's $63,000 for each taxpayer. That's three times the entire annual budget of the United States. Lost, gone, misplaced, stolen, whatever. Our GNP is only $14 trillion.

The fed is secretly owned by the largest U.S. banks. That's right- it's a secret who owns the Fed and no one has ever proven which banks own it. Go to their website so you can see for yourself. We don't even know who prints our Monopoly Money.

Congress to put hundreds of Madoffs in jail

Bernie Madoff: Fall Guy or First of Many?

By Eric Lotke, Campaign for America's Future. June 30, 2009.

Congressional Commission on financial fraud has the ability to put hundreds of Madoffs in jail and lead the way for real bank reform.

Bernard Madoff has been sentenced to 150 years in prison for one of the biggest investment frauds in Wall Street history. The punishment seems to fit the crime....

But there is no closure here. We can’t let Madoff’s sentence distract us from the underlying problems.

This isn’t just about Madoff. This is about the system in which Madoff’s scam took place. This is about systemic fraud and malpractice, the cultural trade of due diligence for easy profit. It’s about conflicts of interest where companies paid ratings agencies for their ratings. It’s about ideological blinders that let regulators and the Federal Reserve look the other way while banks turned into betting parlors.

So Madoff got 150 years for breaking into the bank. Fine.

But what about the guard who was asleep out front? What about the clerk who forgot to lock the door? What about the $300 billion that Citigroup walked out with from one vault, and the $200 billion that AIG took from another? Does anybody know where that money went or what we got for it? Don’t they get in trouble too? Did you know that, or do you know why, Goldman Sachs is paying its biggest bonus payouts in its 140 year history?

That’s why we need a Pecora Commission. We’ve been calling for a “grand inquest” in the spirit of Ferdinand Pecora, the fierce New York City prosecutor who investigated the crash of 1929 as general counsel of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee. Pecora hauled the robber barons into daylight and dismantled them on public cross examination. He subpoenaed the documents, dug behind the deals and took testimony under oath. His efforts paved the way for the regulatory reforms — the Securities Act of 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 — that held the house together until modern conservatives took them apart in the name of efficient deregulation.

To its credit, Congress is leaning towards a do-over. It created the new Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate how fraud, regulatory lapses, monetary policy, and obscure accounting and lending practices contributed to the current financial crisis. After much opposition, the Commission even has subpoena power.

All the Commission needs now — and fast — is members. Real ones, with fire in their bellies. Members who aren’t afraid to put people in jail.

This isn't just about politics. Fundamental financial reform is essential to the future of the economy and the country. President Obama is right to warn that we can't go back to an economy where we spend more than we earn, and where finance captures 40 percent of the country’s profits. He's right to condemn the culture of "arrogance and greed" that took over Wall Street.

Now is the time. If we don't get comprehensive financial reform now, we're setting up even bigger dangers in the future — banks and financial firms officially recognized “as too big to fail,” who think they get to keep the winnings and the public will cover the losses. It’s a gigantic “moral hazard” that doesn’t just leave the vault unlocked, it posts an OPEN sign in the window.

Commission members are expected to be named soon. Will they be ghosts of Ferdinand Pecora? Will they be well-behaved bankers or fiery prosecutors? Will Congressional leaders give them the staff and the budget to dig hard, dig deep and broadcast what they find? Stay tuned. Find a way to turn up the heat. Congress is going to show us who’s in charge.

Congress Pushing for Federal Reserve Audit

ECONOMY-US:
Congress Pushing for Federal Reserve Audit
Matthew Cardinale

ATLANTA, 30 Jun (IPS) - A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives is now in support of a historic bill by Republican lawmaker Ron Paul to audit the Federal Reserve (the Fed), the privately run central bank that sets monetary policy for the United States.

A similar bill in the U.S. Senate was proposed by Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, and has three right-wing Republican co-sponsors.

Meanwhile, a House committee recently approved an amendment offered by left-leaning Democrat Dennis Kucinich to a bill granting more oversight to the Government Accountability Office, which would audit the Fed's response to the economic crisis specifically.

Notably, the amendment passed committee unanimously, with broad bipartisan support, and now heads to the full House for action.

"The Fed has taken a number of extraordinary and unprecedented steps to address the financial crisis," Kucinich told IPS in an email. "In so doing, it has committed over one trillion dollars to the purchase and financing of many different kinds of assets. It has selectively intervened in certain economic sectors, while it has ignored others."

"All of these interventions mark a departure from traditional monetary policy, raise significant public policy questions, and impact taxpayers considerably," Kucinich said.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is "not revealing what they did with the two trillion dollars they created on their books. It was loans to banks for sure. There have been several actions under the Freedom of Information Act to get them to say who they were to and what the terms were, but they won't do it," Ellen Brown, author of 'Web of Debt', told IPS.

Most people in the United States do not understand what the Federal Reserve is or what it does, except some know the Fed sets a federal interest rate, which in turn affects interest rates on some variable private loans.

However, the Fed's impact is much greater than this. Essentially, the Fed, which is made up of private bank representatives, can determine how much money is in the nation's money supply.

"The money supply helps determine the general level of interest rates paid for the use of money, employment, prices, and economic growth. Many economists believe the money supply is the most important determinant of these variables," according to a 1964 Congressional report, "Money Facts," by the Committee on Banking and Currency.

One way the Fed impacts the money supply is by taking actions that open or restrict credit.

The vast majority of money in the U.S. economy was created through the issuance of loans by private banks. "Created" might seem like a strong word, but in fact, banks typically create money as a bookkeeping entry that did not exist before. Because of what is called "fractional reserve lending", banks can create up to 10 times more money than they have on deposit with the central bank.

"How does the Federal Reserve change the money supply?" the Congressional report notes. "By regulations which tell the member banks the maximum amount of bank deposits they may create per dollar of reserves."

It may seem obscure, but author Ellen Brown argues that "reserve ratio" decisions by the Fed may have preceded several economic crises in U.S. history, including the Great Depression in the 1930s.

"When the Federal Reserve raised the reserve requirements [from 10 percent] to 20 percent right before the Depression, that's what brought on the Depression," she argued.

"Let's say you have a reserve requirement of 10 percent, and for every 10 dollars of reserves, you've got 100 dollars on loans. If they suddenly change the reserve requirement, they have to call in 50 dollars of loans. That caused the Depression. They have the power to shrink the money supply," Brown explained.

Meanwhile, in the last year, the Fed has taken on incredible new powers, including managing the Troubled Asset Relief Programme (TARP); purchasing parts of new federal debt; and issuing funds to unknown parties.

"There is a large number of members of Congress and Americans in general who believe that such an extraordinary and unprecedented commitment of taxpayer money demands Congressional oversight. That is why my amendment was adopted unanimously in committee when I introduced it in the committee of jurisdiction of the GAO," Kucinich said.

"Reforms may be necessary, but first it is critical to shine a light in the shadows. The Fed's actions have ballooned their balance sheet from 874 billion dollars to more than two trillion dollars. This is more than double the cost of TARP and we still do not really know where the money went. That's unacceptable," Kucinich said.

"The Constitution provides 'the Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof,'" the Congressional report notes. "The Supreme Court interpreted this clause, again and again over a period of 150 years, to mean that 'whatever power there is over the currency is vested in the Congress.'"

Congress delegated its authority to create and regulate money to the Federal Reserve, an independent agency it created in 1913. The "independence" of the Fed creates two problems, according to the report.

"Since the Federal Reserve is independent it is not accountable to anyone for the economic policies it chooses to pursue. But this runs counter to normally accepted democratic principles," it says.

"The President and Congress are responsible to the people on election day for their past economic decisions. But the Federal Reserve is responsible, neither to the people directly nor indirectly through the people's elected representatives. Yet the Federal Reserve exercises great power in controlling the money-creating activities of the commercial banks," the report notes.

"With an 'independent' Federal Reserve, Congress and the President can be moving in one direction while the Federal Reserve is moving in the other," it says.

Prior to 1913, the U.S. went through several different phases of monetary policy, including President Abraham Lincoln's decision to print whatever funds he needed to win the U.S. Civil War, rather than relying on private banks.

Some believe it is appropriate, even inevitable, that the Federal Reserve be nationalised again.

"Nationalising the Fed would be a great idea that would solve a lot of problems," Brown said.

"What they really should do is buy out the shareholders, which are private banks. So if you bought them out at what they paid years ago, it wouldn't cost much money," she said.

It is remarkable that the Fed has purchased part of the federal debt in the last year, Brown says, although the public is mostly unaware of this development.

The U.S. government pays three to four percent interest to bondholders of the federal debt, but it could borrow the money from the Fed at less than half a percent, she said.

Brown believes a publicly-run Fed should eventually purchase the entire U.S. debt from foreign countries.

"That's what we'll have to go to. Our banks will end up public banks. You can have private lenders, but the fractional reserve system should be a public system. Creating credit on the books should be a public function because nothing backs the dollar but the full faith and credit of the United States," Brown said.

"Private banks pretend to have money they don't have. Public banks, they're not pretending anything, because we are the public. We are pledging our full faith and credit of 100 dollars for you to pay it back."

(END/2009)