G20 takes ranging shot at 'too big to fail' banks

It’s not the brain, it’s the muscle. Leaders from the Group of 20 countries aren’t coming up with bright new ideas on how to prevent a repeat of the past two years.

By Pierre Briançon, breakingviews.com
Telegraph, 01 Sep 2009

But recent comments by Europe’s big three - Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown - suggest that the summer lull isn’t going to let bankers off the hook.

Most ideas on reining in the banking system have long been debated among treasury officials and central bankers. What’s encouraging is that political momentum is clearly growing in the run-up to the next G20 summit in Pittsburgh at the end of the month.

Brown has just added his voice to the Franco-German choir asking for a clampdown on traders’ compensation. In this area the principles were already agreed at the previous G20 summit in April, so it's mostly a matter of implementation.

More important, world leaders are rightly starting to focus on the “too big to fail” issue, which didn’t figure in the last round of talks. The German government - no doubt stimulated by its upcoming general elections, which will take place a few days after the Pittsburgh summit - is taking the lead. It is asking for reforms to ensure that banks will never again be allowed to feel that their size gives them immunity, ultimately billing taxpayers for their blunders.

There is not yet a final blueprint about how to deal with the “too big to fail” problem. But the Germans are pushing an idea for a coordinated reform of global insolvency laws so that large international banks could be unwound in a controlled way. That would avoid another Lehman Brothers-style dilemma - where policy makers were faced with the unappetising choice between letting the bank go bust and create global havoc or bailing it out.

The important thing is that the world’s leaders should signal they are keeping their eye on the ultimate goal of preventing a repetition of the crisis and not listening to the sirens of banking who would like them to believe that everything is getting back to normal.

Fed makes $14bn profit on crisis loans

Fed makes $14bn profit on crisis loans
Published on 08-31-2009

Source: Financial Times

The Federal Reserve has made a $14bn profit on loan programmes that have provided hundreds of billions of dollars in liquidity to the financial system since the start of the crisis two years ago, according to Fed officials.

The internal estimate is based on the difference between the fees and interest on the lending facilities and the interest the Fed would have earned had it invested the funds in three-month Treasury bills.

The central bank earned about $19bn in income from charging interest and fees to financial institutions and investors that tapped the new facilities to obtain much-needed funds during the turmoil. The interest the Fed would have earned by investing the same amount in T-bills was an estimated $5bn, leaving a $14bn gain since August 2007.

The Fed assessment underlines the possibility that other central banks could make a profit on their crisis-fighting measures – at least before adjusting for the risk they assumed.

The calculation by Fed staff, which has neither been audited, published or risk-adjusted, only deals with its liquidity facilities.

Those include discount window and Term Auction Facility loans to banks, currency swaps with other central banks, purchases of commercial paper and financing for investors in asset-backed securities.

The most profitable liquidity programmes were the commercial paper one, which is one of the riskier facilities for the Fed because participants do not post collateral, and the foreign exchange swap agreements, followed by the TAF, according to the New York Fed staff.

However, the recent improvements in many markets have caused a drop in the profitability of some of the Fed programmes, partly because demand has fallen as investors and banks returned to dealing with one another. Demand for the TAF, for example, has slowed down considerably in recent weeks.

The figure is not a complete picture of Fed finances as it excludes its company-specific bail-outs and purchases of long-term assets.

The central bank is still exposed to the risk of substantial losses on its Maiden Lane portfolios – pools of assets financed as part of the bail-outs of Bear Stearns and AIG.

And the estimates do not include unrealised gains or losses on the Fed’s portfolio of mortgage-backed securities and Treasuries purchased as part of its $1,750bn asset purchase programme that provides an additional stimulus to the economy.

The central bank earns interest on these securities as it does on its loans. But it could face losses if it has to sell them when interest rates are higher than when it purchased them.

The Fed declined to comment.

Critics have warned the central bank might lose money on its vast efforts to avoid financial collapse and ease financing conditions for the economy as a whole.

But the internal estimates suggest that the Fed might well make a cash profit on the crisis. They show that the fees earned on the loans were high enough to more than cover defaults to date – leaving a sizeable cushion against future losses on these loans and other parts of the Fed portfolio.

Some politicians have criticised the Fed for using billions of dollars of public funds to support the market and stricken groups such as AIG and Bear Stearns. The Fed’s balance sheet has ballooned from $800bn in 2007 to about $2,000bn. A recent Gallup Poll found the Fed had the worst public approval rating of nine government agencies, even lower than the tax authorities.

Rothschild: Yes, we’re still undercapitalized

Dear Progressive Supporter:

On behalf of the entire staff of The Progressive, I’d like to thank you for responding so generously to our emergency appeal for funds.

Because of you, we not only met our goal of raising $90,000 in two weeks. We actually surpassed it.

In the first 10 days of our appeal, 397 donors responded to our e-mail alert for funds, for a total of $28,818.25. (The average was a gift of $72.59, and the gifts are still coming in.)

In the first 10 days of our appeal, I made hundreds of phone calls to our most generous donors. One person sent $30,000. Another one sent $10,000. One person gave 5,000. One gave $2,500. Another gave $2,000. One gave $1,500. One gave $1,200. Fifteen people gave $1,000 each. Five people gave $500 each.

On top of that we received dozens of gifts for smaller amounts. Each one, whether for $5 or $250, has made a big difference to us. And so did the many warm letters of encouragement that we received.

All told, we raised $121,895—surpassing our goal by almost $32,000.

Because of you, we have made it through this cash-flow crisis.

This should put us on more solid footing. (And if you haven’t given already, a tax-deductible gift right now would put us on even better footing!)

Yes, we’re still undercapitalized. And yes, I will, from time to time, need to ask you for tax-deductible gifts in the future.

But we shouldn’t be in the precarious situation we were in just two weeks ago.

And we have you to thank for that.

We really appreciate all the support you gave us in our time of maximum need.

Because of you, we are carrying on the The Progressive’s great tradition in this, our 100th year, of being a vibrant voice for peace and social justice.

You understand that we’re more than a magazine; we’re a cause. And we’re redoubling our energies to further that cause.

We’re forever grateful to you for this support.

Sincerely,

Matthew Rothschild
Editor and Publisher
The Progressive

409 East Main Street | Madison, WI 53703 US

Money-Driven Medicine

Bill Moyers: Money-Driven Medicine - The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much

By Bill Moyers and Maggie Mahar, Bill Moyers Journal. Posted September 1, 2009.

Bill Moyers teams up with financial journalist Maggie Mahar and Academy Award-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney to bring you the truth about America's health-care system. (more)

Why does the OECD say 82 = 223?

Why does the OECD say 82 = 223?

Tax Research UK, August 28th, 2009

The OECD has issued an updated grey and white list of compliant and non-compliant states:

The ‘international standard’ is, of course, just twelve of the almost meaningless Tax Information Exchange Agreements, but even so many places are a long way from achieving that.

I’d also love to know why there are just 82 jurisdictions on this list when there are 223 in the world. Don’t the others count? Shouldn’t international mean ‘all’?

Liquidity to Keep the System from Collapsing

Liquidity to Keep the Financial System from Collapsing in a Heap
by Mike Whitney

Global Research, August 31, 2009

Ben Bernanke never should have been reappointed as Fed chairman. Obama made a big mistake. The main thing to remember about Bernanke is that, in the two years since the financial crisis began, he's made no effort to force the large banks and financial institutions to write-down their losses. Nor has he pushed for the regulations that are needed to restore confidence in the system. The credit system is still clogged because the banks are buried under $1.5 trillion in toxic assets and non performing loans which are defaulting at the fastest pace on record. At the same time, Bernanke has failed to push for reform of derivatives trading, off-balance sheet operations, securitization or capital requirements for financial institutions. The good news is that Bernanke has demonstrated great creativity in providing sufficient liquidity to keep the financial system from collapsing in a heap. The bad news is that the core problem is not liquidity at all, but solvency. A good portion of the banking system is underwater. That's why Bernanke's actions have been a complete flop.

The banks can't fix themselves, because--to do so--would drive many of them out of business. If the FDIC doesn't sort them out, they will continue to be a drain on public resources. Lending will continue to contract and GDP will shrink. That's what is happening now, except Obama stimulus has triggered a slight uptick in growth that is being confused for recovery. But there is no recovery. Things are simply getting worse at a slower pace. That's to be expected. Housing prices will not go to zero; they flatten out over time. That doesn't mean things are getting better. They're not; they're getting worse. Personal consumption is in the tank, business investment has never been lower, the rate of bank failures is accelerating, and unemployment is headed higher. So where are the "green shoots"?

The only real cure is political. The notion that the market will fix itself is pure fantasy. We are following the same path as Japan--perennial recession.

Many people believe that the Federal Reserve is the head of a banking cartel. But that's not entirely true. Bernanke is actually an employee of the banking cartel; an apparatchik who carries out the policies that best serve the interests of his constituents. The Central Bank's serial bubblemaking has been a successful means of transferring capital from working people to the investor class and corporate elites. The facts speak for themselves.

A report by University of California, Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez concludes that income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression.

The report shows that:

* Income inequality is worse than it has been since at least 1917

* "The top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007"

* "In the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth."

The Fed disguises its stealth-looting of the middle class with ideological mumbo-jumbo about "supply side" this and "trickle down" that. Ripping off working people has a long history going back 30 years Reagan's "Voodoo" economics, but the severity of the current recession has pitted market fundamentalism against the sobering reality that the US consumer is not an inexhaustible resource. Debt-fueled consumption has reached its apex and is descending rapidly. This is apparent in all of the recent research and data. Between 2000 and 2007 US households increased their aggregate debt by nearly $14 trillion. The household debt-to-disposable income ratio rose to 135% and has only recently declined to 128%. For the first time in 60 years, households have begun saving. (although much of what is classified as "saving" is, in reality, just paying down debt) The larger point is,that US consumers are undergoing a generational shift and will not be able to lead the way out of the recession as they have in the past. Nor will they miraculously "bounce back" and provide demand for products made abroad. In fact, the export-driven model (Germany, South Korea, Japan, China) is sure to be challenged in ways that were unimaginable just two years ago. With credit lines being cut, and outstanding credit shrinking by trillions in the past year alone, and unemployment nudging 10 per cent (16 per cent in real terms) the consumer will not be the locomotive driving the global economy. Credit destruction, asset firesales, defaults, and foreclosures will continue for the foreseeable future choking off growth and pushing unemployment higher. Consumption patterns are changing dramatically, although their impact won't be fully-felt until government stimulus programs run out. That's when the signs of Depression will become apparent once more.

This is why Bernanke should never have been reappointed as chairman. Bernanke has a good grasp of the issues---underwater banks, overextended consumers, exotic debt-instruments (derivatives), and an out-of-control financial system--but he refuses to do anything about them. The institutional bias of the Fed provides no wiggle-room for structural change. The Fed represents the status quo.

Bernanke's reappointment isn't just wrong because he failed to detect the biggest housing bubble of all time, or for supporting the loosey-goosey monetary policies which triggered the current Great Recession, or for shrugging off Congress's attempts to audit the Fed, or for rejecting Bloomberg News (legal) claims that the Fed should release information about which financial institutions received $1.5 trillion in Fed loans, or for $12.8 trillion to keep a corrupt and insolvent system operating while millions of working people lose their homes, their jobs and their prospects for the future. These are bad enough, but, worse still, is the fact that Bernanke's strategy has no chance of succeeding; it just kicks the can further down the road.

The economy is experiencing system-wide deleveraging and deflation is now visible in every sector of the economy. Exports are down, so is trucking. Railroad freight is off 18 per cent year-over-year. Department stores, building materials, restaurants, furniture sales, appliances, travel, retail, outdoor equipment, tech; down, down, down, down, down and down. You name it; it's down. Consumer credit is plummeting and personal savings are up. Industrial production is down, PPI down. Capacity utilization has slipped to 68.5 per cent.(another record) There's so much slack in the system, inflation could be low for years. Commercial real estate--a $3.5 trillion industry--is plunging faster than residential housing. Corporate bond defaults are at record highs, Treasury yields are flat, and the dollar index is teetering at the brink. It's a wasteland.

Bernanke has put himself and the country in the direct path of a debt-liquidation avalanche; a near-endless flow of rising defaults, foreclosures and bankruptcies. His liquidity injections and monetization programs have inflated another speculative bubble in the stock market, but eventually that will run its course and stocks will retest their March lows. The massive debt-purge will continue despite the Fed chief's best efforts. The trend is irreversible.

Debt-reduction can't be put off forever. Markets eventually "correct" and red ink gets mopped up. That's just the way it is. Bernanke is simply trying to prevent the market from clearing. It's futile. And, that's why he shouldn't have been reappointed.

Lord Turner: much of the City is 'socially useless'

It's time for bankers to stop pretending they're not just in it for the money

Lord Turner believes much of the City is 'socially useless'. Is that such a bad thing, asks Tracy Corrigan

Telegraph, 31 Aug 2009

As if the stress of trying to find a new job – or hang on to the one you have – isn't enough, here's something else to worry about: is the work you do socially productive? Lord Turner, the chairman of the FSA, thinks that much of what the City does is "socially useless".

That might be true, but why is it such a bad thing? It seems that it's not enough any more just to be able to pay your bills and taxes – in itself a significant contribution to society. Now we all want to express ourselves, achieve our potential – oh, and if possible, help save the world.

Bankers are the ultimate example of this syndrome: some of them are truly convinced that they are working for world peace as well as that large bonus. I can't count the number of lectures I have (sort of) listened to on how the capital markets have facilitated the development of emerging economies and heralded a new dawn for democracy. Some of it is even true: access to a sound banking sector underpins economic growth and social change; and every economy needs functional banks, which is why governments rode to the rescue their during the financial crisis.

Lord Turner was making the point that silly derivatives, bundled together at five removes from any real asset, serve no positive purpose. In fact, such activities are a bit worse than useless. But the originators of subprime mortgages and the creators of related derivatives didn't think so. They liked to boast that they were providing access to the first rung of the housing ladder to people who had never before had the prospect of owning their own homes, or that their derivative products were "facilitating the democratisation of the housing market". Maybe it was only the shysters at the bottom of the food chain that were honest enough to think, if not to say out loud: "Here's a schmuck willing to buy a house, even though he doesn't have a job, and my company is dumb enough to let him."

What's strange about the financial crisis is how little it has done to discourage this sort of self-satisfaction. Vikram Pandit, the Citigroup boss who is currently the subject of an external review, declared in March that "the reshaping of global financial markets in the next few years will have an extraordinary impact on the potential for raising living standards… improving quality of life, and confronting climate change and other urgent global issues over the next 50 years".

But bankers aren't the only culprits. Everyone is at it. Advertisers are "informing the public". Double-glazing salesmen are "promoting energy efficiency". Soldiers aren't just defending their country, they are – according to the Army's careers website – being offered "true life fulfilment". Is this tendency to emphasise the social and spiritual side of work just spin? Or are we so keen to pursue personal fulfilment that we detect it in the most unlikely places?

Well, actually, it's nothing new. Molière, the French dramatist, argued in the 17th century that his job was to "corriger les vices des hommes en les divertissant" – to correct men while diverting them. He could have just said, "Look, I make people laugh."

To be fair, Molière did have a bunch of very disgruntled clerics after him, so I can see why he wanted to sound a bit loftier in his aims. Today's bankers are similarly sensitive, because, having helped drive the economy into a deep hole, they are still earning ridiculous sums.

Until some of it turned out to be taxpayers' money, the big packages didn't bother me too much, because I've always thought that investment banking is an awful job. The long hours, cut-throat culture, constant travel… It's a matter of choice. If you want a lot of money and status and respect, as well as job satisfaction and security – well, you can't have them all.

I was once offered a very big pay rise to go into financial PR (and I am about to wreck the chances of that ever happening again, which just goes to show that I wouldn't have been very good at it). I toyed with the notion for about a week – pondering whether my new look would be designer trouser suits or designer dresses and whether I would still take public transport. Then I considered the reality of getting to work at 7.30 in the morning, being shouted at by bankers and saying "I'm in PR" at dinner parties, and I realised it was not for me. You can't have everything.

I think we should all start being a bit more honest about our jobs and a bit more reasonable in our aspirations. Finding a greater purpose beyond hitting a deadline or making a sale is difficult. In fact, it may even be dangerous. This, as we approach the anniversary of its demise, is Lehman Brothers' mission statement: "We are one firm, defined by our unwavering commitment to our clients, our shareholders, and each other. Our mission is to build unrivalled partnerships with and value for our clients, through the knowledge, creativity, and dedication of our people, leading to superior returns to our shareholders."

Sometimes, trying to survive to the end of 2009 is as socially useful as a business can manage. If you still want to serve your community, that's great. Try volunteering.

Japan: main questions remain

Democrat victory in Japan a good thing but many questions remain
by Benjamin Fulford

The victory of the Democratic Party in Japan in the August 30th elections is a great thing but many questions remain. The DPJ victory has largely destroyed the CIA created Liberal Democratic Party that has ruled almost uninterruptedly since 1955. The question as to whether or not this means the colonial occupation of Japan has ended, though, remains to be answered.

First of all, it is a little known fact that Yukio Hatoyama, the new Prime Minister, is related to both defeated Prime Minister Taro Aso and his predecessor Shinzo Abe. Most top politicians in Japan are intermarried second or third generation scions who inherit their power base. Hatoyama’s grandfather former Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama was a freemason. The wife of DPJ deputy leader Naoto Kan told me Yukio Hatoyama is also a freemason although he personally denies it. It is therefore reasonable to doubt just how independent from New World Order control the Stanford educated Hatoyama really is.

Then there is the question of Ichiro Ozawa, Hatoyama’s predecessor as DPJ leader and the man now believed by insiders to be the real top boss of Japan. Many political sources have told me Ozawa is close to New World Order honcho J. Rockefeller. It is also widely believed Ozawa was bribed by the Americans in 1992 in exchange for helping finance the first Gulf War. Will he come clean about this and all the other US bribes?

Another question mark is the process by which DPJ candidates were selected. Unlike say Canada, where local party officials select local candidates, DPJ candidates are chosen in a secretive back room process by the three top party bosses and unknown insiders (the freemasons? The Emperor?). So the party itself is not really democratic.

There will be several tests to see if the new government really does represent a change. First of all we need to see whether or not they open up a South African style truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the many political murders and other nefarious doings of the CIA controlled LDP puppet government and their thugs. An important starting point would be to re-open the investigation into the murder of prominent DPJ MP Kouki Ishii. The murderer has told the victim’s daughter the assassination was part of a conspiracy but the police refuse to investigate. Some prominent DPJ leaders are believed by Ishii’s relatives to be involved in the murder. So how about it Hatoyama, will you re-open the Ishii case?

A second big test will be to see if they reveal the truth about the secret budget and the government owned sector of the economy that Ishii believed to account for 70% of Japanese GDP. So far, they are talking the talk on this issue so now we need to see if they walk the walk.

A third test will be to see if the DPJ discloses the truth about Japan’s dire financial situation. Many insiders believe the Japanese government to be de facto bankrupt. The numbers put out by the Ministry of Finance are fictitious because they fail to include items like government guaranteed loans made by private sector banks. If they are serious about fixing the financial system there will have to be a banking holiday.

A fourth test will be to see if they re-negotiate the extremely unfair status of forces agreement with the US occupation army.

Finally, we need to see if they stop financing the US military industrial complex and instead use Japan’s $7.5 trillion in overseas assets to end poverty and stop environmental destruction.

If the new government fails these and other tests, it will implode and be replaced by a right-wing nationalistic government.

Chevron Accuses Ecuadorian Judge of Taking Bribes

Chevron Accuses Ecuadorian Judge of Taking Bribes in Mammoth Tort Case
Brian Baxter
The American Lawyer
September 1, 2009


The decades-long legal battle between Chevron and Ecuador took yet another dramatic turn on Monday when the company announced that it has videotapes revealing a $3 million bribery scheme implicating the judge overseeing a multibillion-dollar civil suit filed against the company by indigenous residents of the country's Amazon Basin.

The latest turn has Chevron and its lawyers from Jones Day firing back against the 30,000 plaintiffs and their lawyers, as well as the Ecuadorian legal system. The case stems from environmental contamination allegedly caused by years of oil drilling in the region conducted by Texaco, which Chevron bought for nearly $35 billion in 2000. (Click here for a feature story on the case in The American Lawyer's Fall 2006 Litigation Supplement.)

In a press release, Chevron says that is has provided authorities in the U.S. and Ecuador with video recordings of Judge Juan Núñez and individuals who identify themselves as representatives of the Ecuadorian government and its ruling political party, Alianza PAIS.

The company claims the recordings show an alleged PAIS representative seeking $3 million in bribes in return for handing out "environmental remediation contracts" to two businessmen after a verdict is handed down by Judge Núñez later this year. Of that sum, $1 million would go to Núñez, $1 million to "the presidency" and another $1 million to plaintiffs in the case.

According to Chevron, the recordings were made between May and June of this year. Two of the meetings on the video allegedly took place in the Quito offices of PAIS, another in Núñez's chambers in the northern city of Lago Agrio and the last meeting involving the judge took place in a Quito hotel room.

The company posted two hours worth of videotaped conversations covering the four meetings on a Web site dedicated to telling Chevron's side of the story in the case, along with a letter to Ecuador's prosecutor general.

In the three-page letter, Jones Day litigation chief Thomas Cullen, Jr., wrote that the recordings have "serious implications for the integrity of the Lago Agrio proceedings, for the reliability of the rule of law, for the criminal liability of the various individuals apparently soliciting bribes, and for the past as well as the future role of Judge Núñez in the proceedings."

Cullen states that evidence of the bribery plot was brought to Chevron's attention in June by Diego Borja, an Ecuadorian working as a logistics contractor for the company. Borja was pursuing business opportunities with an American businessman named Wayne Hansen, who Chevron claims has no relationship with the company. Borja and Hansen recorded their conversations without Chevron's knowledge and were not paid by the company to turn them over.

Cullen's letter claims that the following individuals met with Borja and Hansen: Carlos Patricio Garcia Ortega, a political coordinator for PAIS, Juan Pablo Novoa Velasco, a lawyer representing the Ecuadorian government, Aulo Gelio Servio Tulio Avila Cartagena, a lawyer close to Judge Núñez, Pablo Almeida, an environmental remediation contractor, and Ruben Dario Miranda Martinez, an assistant of Ortega's.

During one of the meetings recorded by Borja and Hansen, Núñez indicates that he's already determined that Chevron is the guilty party and that he will issue a judgment in the ballpark of $27 billion before January 2010.

L'ideologia della crisi

L'ideologia della crisi

di Gianfranco La Grassa - 31/08/2009

Fonte: ripensaremarx

In questi ultimi anni, smaltita una lunga sbornia ideologica keynesiana – sostituita purtroppo da quella neoliberista che è forse peggiore – un certo numero di autori ha cominciato a mettere in dubbio l’interpretazione tradizionale della crisi del 1929, e della sua risoluzione dopo l’elezione a presidente degli Usa di Roosevelt (l’entrata in carica avvenne il 4 marzo 1933) e la politica da questi attuata (il New Deal) tra il ’33 e il ’37. In realtà, gli Usa uscirono nel 1933 dalla fase più acuta della crisi, ma continuarono in una sostanziale stagnazione, con brevi rialzi e nuove depressioni, fino alla seconda guerra mondiale. Il New Deal fu caratterizzato da una serie di misure, basate su massicci aumenti della spesa pubblica (in specie, ma non solo, in infrastrutture), considerate keynesiane ante litteram, dato che l’opera fondamentale del grande economista inglese, Teoria generale dell'occupazione, dell'interesse e della moneta, uscì nel 1936.
Da un bel po’ di tempo sostengo che a far uscire dalla crisi fu lo scontro militare mondiale; noto che altri sono giunti alla medesima conclusione, e ne sono lieto. Tuttavia, anche nella nuova tesi permane la solita ideologia dominante per cui il problema decisivo, nella crisi, è la carenza di domanda (sia di beni di consumo che di investimento). Un fenomeno che Keynes spiegò poi in modo teoricamente molto raffinato, cui non si può qui nemmeno accennare; basti solo dire che tale carenza riguardava essenzialmente la domanda dei privati, cui si doveva supplire con quella “pubblica”, meglio se in deficit di bilancio onde evitare che magari lo Stato desse con una mano e togliesse con l’altra (aumento della pressione fiscale).
La guerra era stata particolarmente “felice” nell’incrementare la domanda dal lato della spesa pubblica per le sue enormi necessità di mezzi atti a condurla; per di più con fabbricazione di grandi quantità di strumenti militari (aerei, navi, carri armati, cannoni e quant’altro) che non “ingorgano” il mercato, essendo “fortunatamente” impiegati nel teatro bellico, in buona parte distrutti e quindi rimpiazzati mediante una nuova produzione (che crea reddito aggiuntivo). Qualcuno si accorse che pure l’altra grande crisi del XX secolo – quella del 1907, sempre con epicentro nella finanza statunitense, segno che quel paese stava assumendo già allora una certa preminenza – fu seguita dalla sostanziale stagnazione dell’economia reale, salvo che nei settori investiti dall’accelerazione del riarmo delle varie potenze in vista della prima guerra mondiale.
Insomma, l’evento bellico, con il suo corteggio non solo di milioni e milioni di morti (nella seconda soprattutto civili) bensì anche di immani distruzioni materiali, sarebbe però stato il reale toccasana in merito ai problemi posti dal ciclo economico. Questi ragionamenti – comunque più realistici di quelli che affidano la soluzione della crisi a misure kenesiane la cui applicazione, nel secondo dopoguerra, non ebbe poi strepitosi successi, preparando così la “riabilitazione” del neoliberismo – sono affetti dalla solita ideologia economicistica che nasconde, non per subdolo e consapevole inganno perpetrato dagli economisti “ufficiali”, il luogo del vero scontro tra dominanti per la supremazia.
Se la seconda guerra mondiale risolse l’impasse della crisi del ‘29 – mentre la prima sanò “momentaneamente” quella del 1907, con forte sviluppo (non di tutti i paesi capitalistici, quasi solo dei vincitori) negli anni ’20 fino al botto clamoroso della fine di quel decennio – è perché emerse finalmente, nel campo capitalistico, il paese preminente, quello che assunse in esso la posizione centrale. La supremazia statunitense, già in affermazione dalla prima guerra mondiale ma non ancora stabile, divenne incontrastata dal 1945 in poi nell’area del capitalismo che oggi definirei “tradizionale” perché – tutto sommato e tramite un più tortuoso percorso storico ancora poco conosciuto in quanto sovraccaricato da ideologismi (contrapposti) – anche il cosiddetto “socialismo” sta sviluppando oggi forme socio-economiche di tipologia capitalistica, in particolare l’impresa e il mercato, sia pure con notevoli diversità.
La crisi economica, per quanto riguardi in modo spesso assai drammatico (mai drammatico quanto la guerra) le popolazioni di questo sistema sociale, è aspetto di superficie, è il vento impetuoso capace di sollevare alti cavalloni in un mare che però, già a poca profondità, risente di altre correnti e movimenti rispetto a quanto avviene nel “mondo della luce e della visibilità”. Quando il sistema “globale” (mondiale o almeno di un intero campo come quello capitalistico del secondo dopoguerra) si organizza in base al predominio di un paese che coordina l’insieme, la crisi – sempre insita nella struttura mercantile del capitalismo, duplicata necessariamente dalla più labile e instabile sfera finanziaria poiché merce e moneta sono l’una il correlato dell’altra, e così pure perciò lo scambio di beni e di denaro – appare più controllabile e non assume carattere di sconvolgimento puro e semplice. Per questi motivi, all’interno del campo capitalistico in cui gli Usa erano dominatori irraggiungibili nella loro potenza, si pensò che la crisi fosse sconfitta, potesse ormai esistere solo la recessione, tutto sommato contrastata e superata con prevalenti manovre monetarie, qualche opera pubblica, qualche sostegno salariale, e poco più.
L’ultima crisi – ignorata a lungo dalla sedicente scienza economica ufficiale – ha scosso, solo parzialmente, la sicumera degli “esperti”. La si è affrontata inondando tutti i canali possibili (1) con fiumi di denaro, in specie per salvataggi di banche e, in subordine, di imprese in altri settori, anche dell’economia detta reale. Difficile essere sicuri che si stia dicendo la verità in merito al fatto che vi è ormai poco da temere. Ammettiamo per un momento che sia così (tanto la questione si chiarirà entro la fine dell’anno, massimo nei primi mesi del prossimo). Ancora una volta, ci si è buttati a corpo morto sull’ideologia secondo cui la crisi è stata vinta con pure misure economiche, anzi quasi solo monetarie e finanziarie; Bernanke è sugli scudi, è lui che ci ha fornito la ciambella di salvataggio. Non è proprio così: questa crisi, ammesso che finisca, è solo il primo presentarsi delle gravi difficoltà che nasceranno dal fallimento del disegno pienamente imperiale perseguito dagli Usa, illusi dal crollo del socialismo reale e soprattutto dell’Urss.
Il cambiamento di tattica americano, la “politica del serpente” seguita dalla nuova Amministrazione Obama, è il risultato di quel fallimento. Tuttavia, gli Usa cercano di stoppare lo sgretolamento, di metterci una toppa, facilitati anche dai loro particolari rapporti finanziari con la Cina, rapporti che in qualche modo hanno attenuato l’efficacia della politica di potenziale competitore svolta da quest’ultima. Ci saranno molte giravolte nella “guerra di movimento” che si è aperta con la fine del mondo bipolare. Potrà sembrare che ora l’una, ora l’altra, delle aspiranti potenze si trovi in difficoltà per la politica pur sempre aggressiva degli Stati Uniti, anche se in forme diverse dalle precedenti (dal 1991 al 2008). Tali potenze – ad esempio, Russia e Cina – avranno fra loro per chissà quanto tempo un contenzioso da regolare (è la sorte di tutti i paesi che hanno acquisito notevole forza). Tuttavia, alcune di esse sapranno riconoscere le loro esigenze (tattiche) di comporre momentaneamente (cioè per una fase storica) i loro dissidi, rinviandoli a periodi più opportuni, al fine di opporsi al tentativo, che sempre si riproporrà, del vecchio paese imperiale smanioso di imporre nuovamente il suo predominio centrale.
Non credo si tornerà però indietro, il multipolarismo si accentuerà, sia pure con onde sinusoidali e persino con qualche “ricciolo” (implicante l’apparente inversione di tendenza). Mancherà quindi il presupposto fondamentale del “coordinamento”, cioè la subordinazione di un sistema complessivo di paesi ad uno di essi divenuto predominante; dove la preminenza consiste nella possibilità di quest’ultimo di imporre i suoi giochi di strategia grazie alla maggiore potenza. Non un centro, ma più centri saranno in formazione. Si verificheranno periodicamente “uragani” con “ondate” assai alte (le crisi economiche), su cui tutti i vari gruppi dominanti (economici, politici, ecc.) si getteranno in un’orgia di finzioni cooperative, collaborative (si esce insieme dalla crisi!), mentre i loro nuclei strategici (quelli nascosti ma realmente efficaci nelle misure che prendono) continueranno a lavorare “per il re e per la patria”. Le popolazioni soffriranno, saranno mazzolate, e tuttavia convinte dai gruppi sociali di vertice che si sta lavorando per risollevare le sorti di “tutti insieme appassionatamente”.
Come sempre in casi del genere, attorno alle potenze in crescita, costituenti i diversi poli, si raggrupperanno altri paesi di varia forza secondo una gerarchia di gradazioni, che tuttavia non saranno sempre disposti a subire la dominanza dei rispettivi poli; molte insofferenze e insubordinazioni si verificheranno e, indubbiamente, le gerarchie subiranno scossoni prima di arrivare a quell’assestamento che prelude ad uno scontro più ruvido per risolvere il problema storico cruciale: chi ha la forza e l’abilità necessarie a divenire un altro centro supremo? Nel frattempo, nelle aree attorno ai diversi poli, ognuno di questi ultimi cercherà di installare forze politiche (e culturali, ma in subordine) atte a garantirgli la preminenza; forze che potremmo definire subdominanti, poiché asservite al polo di quella data area, ma in grado di tenere sotto controllo e in subalternità gli strati della popolazione nel loro paese, strati che devono nella sostanza obbedire, possibilmente credendo di esprimere “democraticamente” le proprie preferenze per quei subdominanti.
I nuclei decisivi dei vari poli – quelli effettivi, quelli dell’efficacia delle strategie, tra loro in conflitto – sono come già detto nascosti. Sul davanti della scena si muovono i gruppi economici (produttivi e finanziari), invitati alla cooperazione da quelli politico-ideologici. Tale sedicente cooperazione altro non è se non il “coordinamento” tra i settori della passata fase dell’industrializzazione (tipo auto e metalmeccanico) nei paesi dei subdominanti e i settori dell’ultima ondata innovativa (settori di punta) nel polo dominante (finora soprattutto quello statunitense); un coordinamento che è in realtà dipendenza. I gruppi politico-ideologici dei subdominanti (ad esempio, europei e italiani) devono essere proni ai voleri di quelli del polo dominante.
Ecco perché gli Usa mugugnano contro alcuni aspetti della politica estera del governo italiano (di una parte di questo) che fornisce “eccessivo” aiuto a nostre imprese di punta (metti Eni o Finmeccanica, ecc.); e certi gruppi politici italiani (la maggior parte di essi, sinistra in testa) si fanno portavoce di questi mugugni. Non importa con quali mezzi diversivi (tipo gossip) riescono a turlupinare la popolazione; l’importante è “coordinare” l’economia dei subdominanti con quella dominante, cioè rendere la prima subalterna alla seconda. Ed ecco perché allora spunta l’aiuto americano alla Fiat quale testa di ponte per danneggiare i progetti delle nostre industrie di punta e confinare l’Italia, così come gli altri paesi del “proprio polo”, nei settori “arretrati” (nel senso di ormai maturi, di altra fase storica dello sviluppo capitalistico).
Il discorso non finisce qui, perché questa azione economica è ancora una volta l’apparenza visibile, che nasconde le finalità reali, poste dalla strategia geopolitica dei diversi poli: quello ancora preminente (Usa) e quelli che si stanno rafforzando. Tanto per fare un esempio, il South e Northstream (frutto dell’attività di Eni e Gazprom) contro l’“americano” Nabucco, oppure la Fiat (con Chrysler e coinvolgimento di Gm-Opel) ridotta a strumento della strategia americana, sono movimenti nella sfera economica senz’altro importanti; tuttavia, si tratta di azioni in svolgimento sul palcoscenico con occultamento di quanto sta avvenendo dietro le quinte (geopolitiche appunto). Finisco qui, ma il lettore tenga a mente queste succinte premesse, che serviranno a capire le conclusioni di altri scritti.

Nota: qui l'Autore scrive "inondando tutti i canali possibili". Ritenuto utile correggere in "alcuni settori", poiché la domanda aggregata, la parte più povera della società, la maggioranza "diversamente ricca", non ha ricevuto un bel niente, anzi. Per una iniziativa concreta in tal senso, si veda piuttosto:

Misure urgenti per risanare l'economia

Rubi chi può: il caso VALCO

La nuova frontiera della criminalità: impadronirsi delle attività e dei beni con atti giudiziari

I metodi usati in questa storia, sono equiparabili ad una "ESTORSIONE DI TIPO MAFIOSO" ? Pubblici ufficiali hanno mentito al Collegio penale, in Cassazione e in ogni atto !! Sono NULLI gli atti costruiti su falsi di Pubblici ufficiali ? Come sono annullabili ? La professionalità e l'organizzazione lucchese è tale che i partiti e gli avvocati lucchesi pretendono la Corte di Appello a Lucca..... La giustizia a Lucca è in buone mani ! Abbiamo, con molta fatica, recuperato altre informazioni e ricostruito crediamo in modo piu' chiaro la situazione creata da Pubblici ufficiali che hanno estorto beni e rovinato persone dichiarando il falso. Intendiamo chiarire quanto esposto a pagina 17 dell'allegato che riteniamo, sia il bandolo della matassa, creata ad arte per rendere difficile la ricostruzione. Pubblici ufficiali hanno nella sostanza agito con connivenze varie come una associazione mafiosa hanno estorto beni e attività dichiarando il falso al Tribunale. Esiste in Italia il modo di bloccare questi signori, di evitare la vendita dei beni, di rendere nulli gli atti ? Controllo TOTALE del territorio: mentre al sud qualche azione le istituzioni la portano a termine, da noi... E' normale prassi che un Pubblico Ufficiale-Commercialista-Curatore, menta ANCHE al Collegio penale ? ( pag. 3-4 del fascicolo PDF ) ed è normale che le Istituzioni e gli ordini professionali NON agiscano, che memorie ed esposti vengano archiviati... che nessuno, nemmeno i Giudici che hanno nominato il Pubblico ufficiale e che hanno approvato le sue richieste basate su FALSO, la Procura di Lucca, il Procuratore Quattrocchi che archivia numerosi esposti con 2 lettere dal contenuto FALSO ! (promosso a Firenze...) il Collegio penale che il Pubblico ufficiale ha così sfacciatamente offeso, si siano sentiti in dovere di agire per riportare la legge nel Tribunale di Lucca... PUBBLICI UFFICIALI - AVVOCATI hanno mentito anche in Cassazione !! Stiamo preparando il fascicolo relativo agli avvocati della difesa. Sapevano tutto Disponevano dei documenti fondamentali, Disponevano delle prove a carico dei pubblici ufficiali, dei loro avvocati, Avevano la documentazione che provava cio' che i Giudici avevano a disposizione fin dall'inizio di questa storia. invece Si sono limitati ad emettere notule. Si sono limitati ad accompagnare il cliente dove voleva la controparte. Si sono limitati a descrivere genericamente i fatti... Non hanno depositato le prove a favore del cliente, prove che il cliente è stato costretto a depositare da solo, pur sapendo che la legge ne impediva l'acquisizione!! TUTTO E' DOCUMENTATO.
Carlo Unti, già in possesso di procura, è la persona che ha curato la ricostruzione dei fatti allegata.

(Rosalinda Maggenti, ex amministratore Valco)

Vedi allegato in formato pdf

China's derivative default stance rattles banks

By Eadie Chen and Chen Aizhu
Reuters
Monday, August 31, 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssBanks/idUSSP47327420090831

BEIJING -- A report that Chinese state-owned companies will be allowed to walk away from loss-making commodity derivative trades provoked anger and dismay among investment bankers on Monday as they feared it may set a damaging precedent.

The state-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, the regulator and nominal shareholder for state-owned enterprises (SOEs), told six foreign banks that SOEs reserved the right to default on contracts, Caijing magazine quoted an unnamed industry source as saying in an article published Saturday.

While the details of the report could not be confirmed, it was Monday's hot topic in financial circles from Shanghai to Singapore as commodity marketers feared that companies holding underwater price hedges could simply renege on the deals, costing banks millions of dollars in profit.

The warning from SASAC follows a series of measures from Beijing this year to crack down on the sale of derivative products by foreign banks to Chinese enterprises, principally big consumers, who bought protection against higher prices last year only to watch the market collapse -- leaving them with losses.

While many companies including top airlines have come clean on the losses, some analysts fear another wave may follow.

"I wouldn't be surprised if more state firms emerge with big derivatives trading losses. Otherwise SASAC wouldn't come out with such a radical move," said a Hong Kong-based derivatives analyst, who like most other industry officials and bankers declined to be named due to the high sensitivity of the issue.

A SASAC media official said on Monday that he was waiting for the "relevant department's" official comment before he can clarify to media. A government official said that the Bureau of Financial Supervision and Evaluation under SASAC was handling the issue. The official declined to be named and did not elaborate.

Spokespersons at Goldman Sachs and UBS declined comment, and media officials at Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan were not immediately available for comment. All are major global providers of commodity risk management.

No bank were named in the Caijing report. The SASAC media officer also declined to identify any specific banks.

"It's a handful of companies who are being encouraged by regulators to renegotiate," said a second banking source. "It's outrageous, but it's China, so everyone is treading very carefully."

For banks that are hoping to sell more derivatives hedges in China, the world's fastest-expanding major economy and top commodities consumer, the danger goes beyond the immediate risk to existing contracts to the longer-term precedent that suggests Chinese companies can simply renege on deals when they like.

The report follows an order from SASAC in July that required all central government-controlled state companies engaged in trading derivatives to make quarterly reports about their investments, including details of holdings and performance.

But the reported letter opened several important questions that could not immediately be answered.

"If we were among the banks receiving that letter, we would be very angry. But now the key is to find out more details on the letter: In whose name the letter was issued, the government or the corporate's? And under what was the reason for defaulting?," said a Singapore-based marketing executive with a foreign bank.

The source, whose bank did not receive a letter, said that Air China, China Eastern, and shipping giant COSCO -- among the Chinese companies that have reported huge derivatives losses since last year -- had issued almost identical notices to banks.

"If it's in the name of the government, the impact will be very negative," said the source, who declined to be named.

Beijing-based derivatives lawyers said the so-called "legal letter" has no legal standing -- SASAC as a shareholder has no business relationship with international banks.

"It's like the father suddenly told the creditors of his debt-ridden son that his son won't pay any of his debt," said a lawyer from the derivatives risks committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association.

It's also unclear why Chinese state firms, which have complained that their foreign banks sometimes did not disclose full information of potential risks when selling them complicated products, did not seek redress through the courts.

"If that is the case, these firms should seek through legal measures to safeguard their rights, instead of turning to the authorities for political interference," said a different lawyer.

SASAC took over the job of overseeing SOEs' derivatives trading from the securities regulator in February after several Chinese firms reported huge losses from derivatives.

Misure urgenti per risanare l'economia

Misure urgenti per la ripresa economica

Si tratta di una serie di misure che, se prese simultaneamente, possono raggiungere i seguenti obiettivi:

1) Ricapitalizzazione cittadini e PMI;
2) Abbattimento debito pubblico;
3) Capitalizzazione banche;
4) Restauro dell'immagine del governo e del sistema bancario;
5) Ripresa economica del sistema Italia.

La soluzione proposta (1) passa attraverso la "smobilitazione tramite cartolarizzazione del controvalore della rendita monetaria temporaneamente sterilizzata all'interno del sistema bancario". Si è valorizzata in circa 1,3 milioni di euro procapite la rendita monetaria derivante dalla creazione del denaro sia cartaceo che contabile. Per accedere a questa risorsa si da facoltà ai cittadini (mediata, ad esempio, dal Comune o dalla Prefettura) di emettere una "moneta complementare all'euro" per un importo equivalente e "garantita" dalla rendita suddetta. Tale moneta avrà circolazione libera all'interno del territorio nazionale e la sua accettazione è su base volontaria (non è quindi a corso "legale" o "forzoso"). I cittadini ed i piccoli imprenditori potranno usare tale emissione per rimettere "in bonis" le posizioni debitorie nei confronti del sistema creditizio, sottoscrivendo contestualmente alla ricezione, una liberatoria in merito alle pretese su rendita monetaria o signoraggio fino alla data del presente provvedimento. La stessa cifra servirà per riabilitare protestati e falliti fino alla concorrenza di 1,3 milioni di euro, con conseguente cancellazione dai database dei rischi (2). Lo stato preleverà una tassa una-tantum di 30.000 Euro-Equivalenti, sì da poter azzerare il debito pubblico. La rimanenza attiva della cifra procapite verrà versata su dei conti appositi aperti presso le banche, ricapitalizzandole. Le banche godranno di un condono tombale fino alla data d'entrata in vigore del provvedimento. I cittadini otterranno quindi una seconda chance per rifarsi una vita o iniziare un'attività imprenditoriale, riavviando l'economia del paese. Lo Stato ed il sistema bancario riconquisteranno la fiducia della popolazione e potranno proseguire con serenità il proprio lavoro. Il sistema industriale ed economico, rilanciato dal basso, otterrà tutti quei benefici teorici attribuibili ad un vero libero mercato.


Note:

1) Questa soluzione proposta contiene senz'altro elementi innovativi, occorre però ricordare che - col deteriorarsi della situazione generale - più il tempo passa e più la soluzione da adottare conterrà inevitabilmente elementi ancora più drastici. Si pensi semplicemente a cosa comporterebbe una presa autoritaria del potere con rinazionalizzazione del sistema bancario e conseguente ripudio del debito pubblico....

2) Per esempio, dai database di: Centrale Rischi Finanziaria CRIF S.p.A.: CTC - Consorzio per la Tutela del Credito; Experian Information Service S.p.A.; Associazione Italiana Leasing - Assilea; SIA S.p.A. - Centrale Rischi di Importo Contenuto; etc.

Fed's autonomy is coming to an end

The Fed's Interesting Week

By U.S. Rep. Ron Paul
Monday, August 31, 2009

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20n...

It has been an interesting week indeed for the Federal Reserve.

First it was announced that President Obama intends to reappoint Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second term in January, signaling a vote of confidence in him.

Bernanke seems to be popular with the administration and with Wall Street, and with good reason. His lending policies have left big banks flush with newly created cash that covers up old mistakes and allows for new ones. By buying up mountains of Treasury debt he has also enabled spending to soar to ridiculous levels that should startle any responsible economist, and scare any American concerned about the value of the dollar.

However, these highly sensitive decisions about our money are not made by economists -- they are made by politicians. Bernanke, like most of his predecessors, is the politician's best friend. But there is no reason to believe that any other central planner would behave any differently, considering the immense political pressure on the Fed.

Fed policies have been as bad for the economy as they are good for politicians and bankers, as the recently released numbers on the debt and deficit demonstrate. For the first time since World War II the annual budget deficit is projected to be over 11 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. It is also projected that by 2019 the national debt will be 68 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Our path, if unchanged, is completely untenable.

The administration claims that it inherited a dire situation from the last administration, which is absolutely true. But that hasn’t stopped them from accepting all the policies and premises that got us here, and accelerating those policies to rapidly make a bad situation much worse.

The bailouts started with the last administration. They have gotten bigger with this one.

The last administration gave us expanded government involvement in healthcare with a new prescription drug benefit. This administration gave us a renewal and expansion of SCHIP, and now the current healthcare takeover attempts. We can afford none of this, but shady monetary policy allows Washington to continue along its merry way, aggravating all our economic problems.

Not everyone in government finds it acceptable that the Fed wields so much power and privilege in secrecy.

Last week a federal judge ruled against Fed secrecy, compelling the Fed to release under the Freedom of Information Act information regarding which banks received emergency loans, and under what terms. The Fed will, of course do everything in its power to fight this ruling and it is certainly not the last word on the issue. Still, it is encouraging to see that the interests of the taxpayers were defended victoriously in court, while the Fed sees only the plight of its big banker friends.

Meanwhile HR 1207 and S604, legislation to open up the Fed's books to a complete audit, continue to gain momentum in Congress as the people continue to insist on real transparency of the Federal Reserve.

One way or another, the days of Fed autonomy are coming to an end, as well they should. No one should have the power to debauch the currency and gut the economy as they do. It is time that the Fed answered for its actions, so the people can understand that we truly are better off with freedom instead of Fed tyranny.

UNIVERSITA’, PARLIAMO TANTO DI INTELLIGENCE

UNIVERSITA’, PARLIAMO TANTO DI INTELLIGENCE

Il 26 settembre 2009 convegno internazionale all’Università della Calabria sul tema “Intelligence e scienze umane”, patrocinato dal Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

RENDE (1.9.2008) – Con il convegno internazionale “Intelligence e Scienze Umane”, patrocinato dal Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, si inaugurerà all’Università della Calabria la terza edizione del Master sull’intelligence, dopo il successo delle prime due edizioni. Francesco Cossiga è il presidente onorario del Comitato scientifico del Centro Studi sull’Intelligence, istituito - primo del genere in Italia - dal Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Educazione dell’Università della Calabria, diretto da Viviana Burza, confermando l’interesse dell’Ateneo calabrese verso questo settore strategico fondamentale per la democrazia. Collegata al Centro Studi è una collana editoriale che sta già pubblicando i primi due volumi: “Intelligence e ‘Ndrangheta. Uno strumento fondamentale per contrastare uno dei fenomeni criminali più pericolosi del mondo” e “Intelligence e Scienze dell’educazione”. I docenti delle prossima edizione, saranno professori universitari e i massimi esperti italiani, tra cui Antonio Baldassarre, Giorgio Galli, Pino Arlacchi, Alessandro Campi, Umberto Gori, Paolo Savona, Mario Morcellini, Giuseppe Spadafora, Carlo Pelando, Vittorio Stelo, Fabio Mini, Carlo Jean, Lucio Caracciolo, Pino Buongiorno, Umberto Rapetto, Adriana Piancastelli, Rosario Priore, Carlo Mosca, Marco Valentini, Stefano Orlando, Alberto Accardi, Massimo Bontempi, Francesco Sidoti, . Riservato massimo a 35 iscritti, i termini di presentazione delle domande scadono il 15 settembre 2009 e sono possibili solo on line sul sito www.segreterie.unical.it alla voce “Masters”, oppure sul sito www.masterintelligence.net .

Driving a Fiat Currency into a Tree

By The Mogambo Guru

08/31/09 Tampa Bay, Florida

Floy Lilley at the Mises Institute, in her essay at LewRockwell.com, notes that the gold-standard dollar “provided us with nothing less than relative peace and prosperity over a span of 136 years” until that fateful year, 1913.

So how does she quantify “relative peace and security”? Well, one good way is to look at the value of the dollar, which would be strong if the country was a good investment, which it was, and in fact, “It had not only retained one hundred percent of its value, it had gained eleven percent. That’s right. The dollar we started with in 1776 bought us eleven percent more after almost seven generations.”

Then, on the “quiet 23rd of December in 1913”, J.P. Morgan and buddies got Congressional quislings to pass legislation authorizing the creation of the Federal Reserve, and to which I add that the jerk Woodrow Wilson then signed it, thus going down in history as the disastrous guy who set in motion the destruction of the dollar by the Federal Reserve creating excess money and credit.

She doesn’t make a point of it, but back then, the dollar was still gold, and thanks to the loathsome Federal Reserve creating the money to finance the bubbles of The Roaring Twenties that resulted in the Great Depression, the despicable Supreme Court infamously ruled in 1933 (and upheld by every traitorous Supreme Court case since then) that, contrary to what the Constitution said, the dollar did not have to be made of silver or gold, and that a paper “fiat” currency could be created, without limit, for any reason, even at a mere whim, anytime, day or night, 24/7, including holidays, not realizing that they were the idiots that REALLY destroyed the dollar! Gaahhh!

With this kind of disastrous stupidity, I dryly and humorlessly ask that you don’t talk to me about any “wisdom” emanating from the Supreme Court.

I was hoping that Ms. Lilley would spontaneously pick up on the theme of “heap scorn on the Federal Reserve for creating too much money and credit out of thin air and the despicable Supreme Court for letting them.”

I was going to suggest that she could, you know, maybe even put in an endorsement for the Mogambo Mindless Mob (MMM) brand of products, like the popular Mogambo Pitchfork (very effective when brandished threateningly) and the classic Mogambo Flaming Torches that will be so hard to get when the proletariat bozos start forming mindless mobs bent on revenge after so much hurting from the horrifying inflation in consumer prices, the pervasive, lingering economic depression, ruination, bankruptcy and the embarrassment of realizing that it was caused by the people we elected to Congress, who picked the people to run the Federal Reserve, which is the biggest failure one can imagine and should be immediately abolished, how Ben Bernanke, its chairman, should be turned over to me for some sessions at my new Mogambo Re-Education Center, where our muscular, trained technicians will slap the hell out of his stupid face, and the stupid faces of Congresspersons (except Ron Paul), and the stupid faces of anyone who still believes in getting, or giving, a free lunch to, or from, anyone, especially the government, which is so corrupt that it once gave smallpox-infected blankets to the American Indians, which is only marginally worse than destroying the currency of the country and makes you reflexively scream in horror every time you see the money supply go up.

Well, it does me, anyway.

Instead, she goes on that the result was that since then, “the purchasing power of a dollar has plummeted over 95%”, which means that “We now pay twenty times more than J.P. Morgan did for any item.” Yikes!

Suddenly, my ears pricked up as she said, “Few have written on the mechanics of getting back to sound money”, which I immediately noticed makes me a genius, meaning that people should worship my gigantic brain, my wife and kids should stop calling me “idiot” and saying how much they hate me and maybe I should get a Nobel Prize.

The reason I am suddenly so enamored of my intellect is that achieving a “sound money” is the easiest thing in the world! Just stop creating more of it! That’s all you need! It’s simple! It is my Profound Mogambo Genius (PMG) that has solved the puzzle!

Okay, I am embarrassed that I got carried away there, and I admit that I am not very smart, and that is why I stole the whole idea from the fact that this is all the gold standard did; it prevented increases in the money supply, and the only thing that Congress had to worry about was doing smart things so that gold came into the country (increasing our money supply) and not doing something so stupid that it went someplace else better (decreasing our money supply).

But those days are all over now, and the only people who are buying gold, along with silver and oil, are the people who know what happens to an unsound, fiat currency (like the dollar) in the hands of a government composed of a bunch of socialist, commie-think yahoos (like the US Congress) that willingly deficit-spends insane amounts of money thanks to a central bank (like the Federal Reserve) creating it and a population sitting around saying, “Duh! Okay with us!” Hahaha!

We’re freaking doomed!

Until next time,

The Mogambo Guru
for The Daily Reckoning

NM Rothschild privatisation plan

The Sunday Times

August 30, 2009

NM Rothschild pitches motorway privatisation plan

Robert Watts and Dominic O’Connell

(David Jones)

The Department for Transport has also asked the Highways Agency to consider hard-shoulder running without any refuges

A radical plan to raise £100 billion by privatising the motorway network has been presented to the three main political parties by NM Rothschild, the influential investment bank.

Rothschild, an architect of several privatisations, made its pitch in the weeks running up to the summer recess on July 21, Whitehall sources said. Bankers told leading politicians that the sale of the roads overseen by the Highways Agency — all motorways and most big trunk roads — could help revive battered public finances.

Toll-road companies and infrastructure funds would compete to operate and maintain stretches of the network.

In one version of the scheme, the government would pay for upkeep through a system of “shadow” tolls. A more radical, and less politically palatable, option would be for companies to charge motorists directly through toll booths or electronic card readers. The RAC Foundation, a motorists’ group, advocated privatisation in a report last week.

The Rothschild plan has already won the support of Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats’ deputy leader and Treasury spokesman.

“This is an attractive, positive idea which could release considerable resources to the public finances and may have real environmental merits,” Cable said. “The scale of it is vast — it makes rail privatisation look like small beer.”

Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, said the Conservatives had “no plans” to back Rothschild’s proposals: “Rothschilds, like many other banks and consultancies, have approached me and my team on a range of ideas for our transport network, including their ideas for our road infrastructure, but we are not working on any proposals for privatisation of the strategic road network and have no plans to do so.”

Motorway privatisation was considered by John Major’s Conservative administration, which sold British Rail, but was rejected.

A spokesman at the Department for Transport said: “It is not unusual for organisations to suggest ideas to government departments but ultimately all policy is decided by ministers and there are no plans to sell off a stake in the Highways Agency.” Rothschild declined to comment.

The bank was behind many of the key privatisations of the 1980s and 1990s, including British Steel, British Gas and British Coal. It has close links to the Conservatives, having employed several senior Party figures including Lord Lamont, John Redwood and Lord Wakeham. Oliver Letwin, the former shadow chancellor, works there part-time.

Politicians of all Parties are seeking ways to decrease the need for large tax rises or heavy cuts in public services. The bank bailouts and a recent collapse in tax revenues has seen public sector debt rise to more than £800 billion, 56.8% of GDP — up from 35.5% just two years ago.

Road tolls are unpopular, however. When Labour mooted road pricing two years ago, more than 230,000 signed a petition on the Downing Street decrying the plan .