domenica 18 luglio 2010

Banks are misleading small firms

Business Secretary Vince Cable appearing on the BBC1 current  affairs programme The Andrew Marr Show
Vince Cable accused banks of 'raising the hurdle'
Photo: PA

The Business Secretary said that the banks had made it more difficult for businesses to apply and that they were failing to meet demand.

Market leader Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Lloyds Banking Group have both stated that loan application approvals stand at more than 80pc.

Stephen Pegge, chairman of the British Bankers' Association's (BBA) small business panel, recently said the rest of the industry was hitting this rate, too.

However, Mr Cable said: "This is misleading. I think they are raising the hurdle. All the evidence from business, from the Institute of Directors and other bodies, is that banks are not lending as much as is needed."

The Treasury and the Business Department will launch a consultation this week on business finance that will discuss the merits of imposing new lending targets on the semi-nationlised banks. Mr Cable has said that "mandatory action" to force Lloyds and RBS to lend more was attractive.

However, a Treasury source said at the weekend that the Government was still considering how effective such targets were following the last government's inability to force the two banks to meet legally binding lending targets during the past year.

The discussion paper will promote alternatives to bank debt, including equity and public market instruments like covered bonds. It will also examine various tax incentives that could be used to encourage private investors to back young companies. It may also include Lib Dem proposals for regional stock exchanges.

The Government has already stated that it sees the wider use of equity finance as one way to reduce dependence on the high street banks.

Mark Hoban, the financial secretary to the Treasury, said earlier this month: "Currently, only 1pc to 2pc of small businesses use equity finance at any one time. That is a drop in the ocean and a missed opportunity for the UK's small businesses, and for our economy."

Mr Cable said in an interview at the weekend that one option could be to recreate 3i, the private equity group which used to operate a network of regional offices that provided equity and debt for small, growing businesses.

"The system is still biased towards debt and we need to find ways of getting more equity funding into business, maybe through something like the old 3i, to help growth with tax breaks or tax incentives without it being a way of avoiding paying tax," he said.

The latest statistics from the BBA show that banks lent £500m in May to small businesses but this was less than they collected in repaid debts and withdrawn overdrafts – a pattern that has been seen for more than a year.

Related Articles

Railroads, Robber Barons, and Unbridled Capitalism

Railroads, Robber Barons, and Unbridled Capitalism

Written by Bob Adelmann
New American, 16 July 2010 00:00

RailRoadsWhen Matthew Josephson wrote The Robber Barons in 1934, he tipped his hand as to his personal prejudice against the capitalists of the late 19th century:

Besides the young men who marched to [the Battle of] Bull Run, there were other young men of 1861 whose instinctive sense of history proved to be unerring. Loving not the paths of glory they slunk away quickly, bent upon business of their own. They were warlike enough and pitiless yet never risked their skin: they fought without military rules or codes of honor or any tactics or weapons familiar to men: they were the strange, new mercenary soldiers of economic life. The plunder and trophies of victory would go neither to the soldier nor the statesman, but to these other young men of ’61, who soon figured as “massive interests moving obscurely in the background” of wars. Hence these, rather than the military captains or tribunes, are the subject of this history.

His bias against the capitalists, who were busy building the greatest industrial nation the world had ever seen, ingratiated his work with statist historians who looked favorably on government intervention to “deliver us from these evils” and made Josephson’s attack required reading in high schools and colleges for decades thereafter.

The sobriquet “Robber Baron” has hence struck a pejorative chord in generations of graduates of schools that continue to teach that individuals such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan used the capitalist system to exploit the working class, form anti-competitive trusts, and obtain the accumulation of personal wealth above all else. Muckraker Ida Tarbell, author of the History of the Standard Oil Company, reinforced the idea that these soulless, industrialist Robber Barons were a destructive force and were willing to circumvent laws to accomplish their personal selfish ends.

Some historians disagreed with this portrayal. Josephson added a foreword to his book in 1962, complaining of the rise of “revisionist historians” who were disputing his interpretation of history:

Of late years, however, a group of academic historians have constituted themselves what may be called a revisionist school, which reacts against [my] critical spirit of the 1930’s.... To [these] revisionists of our history our old-time moneylords “were not robber barons but architects of material progress,” and, in some wise, “saviors” of our country. They have proposed rewriting parts of America’s history so that the image of the old-school capitalists should be retouched and restored, like rare pieces of antique furniture.

The development of the railroad industry in the 19th century provides a welcome opportunity to investigate such charges and determine if, in fact, such “revisionism” is justified and necessary.

The Birth of Railroads
During the Republic’s first 50 years, commerce was limited to the use of rivers, canals, and roads. Two events, however, changed the economic scene forever: the expansion of the “general commerce” clause under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in 1824, and the development of steam locomotives in England.

In Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice John Marshall decided that the phrase “The Congress shall have Power … to regulate Commerce … among the several states” meant that the federal government was allowed to regulate commerce wherever it took place, including within the borders of a state. Prior to this decision, it was accepted that the federal government had power over only interstate commerce. This decision extended the definition of interstate commerce and cemented the power of the federal government over the states when state laws conflicted. It was greeted with great enthusiasm at the time, as it clarified and simplified matters greatly for those involved in such commerce among and between the states. This was going to have major implications after railroads became a reliable means of transportation because Justice Marshall’s decision in Gibbons was so vague that it allowed those favoring federal government intervention to involve the government intimately in the development of the railroad industry. At, for instance, the author states:

There is little doubt that the commerce clause … was to be used for little more than insuring what we would call today, a “free trade zone.” That limited role is quite rightfully where the federal government’s authority in interstate commerce should end. Any reach for authority beyond that envisioned by the men who wrote the Constitution should be considered unconstitutional.

The first real exertion of substantial federal power under the interstate commerce clause came with the advent of the railroads in the mid-1800’s. The government assumed complete dominion over the early railroads, going so far as to grant regional railroad monopolies through Acts of Congress, as well as owning a large percentage of stock in various early railroad corporations.

The usefulness of railroads soon became apparent after their invention in England in the early 1800s. The South Carolina Canal and Rail Road Company first used steam locomotives in December 1833, followed by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (B&O) as the first common carrier, which initiated passenger train service using such locomotives soon thereafter.

Compared to roads, rivers, and canals, the advantages of rail transport were obvious: improved safety, year-round service, shorter delivery times, and lower costs. To budding entrepreneurs — the men of the “class of ’61” as referred to by Josephson — these advantages represented a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

The profit opportunities that railroads represented were apparent to politicians and non-politicians alike, but federal government involvement during this period was slowed by several factors, including the growing animosity between the agricultural southern states and the increasingly industrialized north. This animosity stemmed from the mercantilist efforts by northern states to institute high tariffs to “protect” growing industries from foreign competition, which negatively impacted southern states’ commerce abroad. Another reason was the resistance to the perceived abrogations of the Constitution by the North into southern states’ affairs, including the issue of abolition.

When federal legislation to build a transcontinental railroad was first introduced in 1845, it was successfully resisted by the southern states. However, the discovery of gold in California in January of 1848 set off such an explosion that it changed the question of federal government involvement in railroad construction from “whether” the federal government should get involved to “when, where, and how” such a railroad would be built. With the original strictures on the commerce clause largely removed, and the increasing marginalization of the southern states in their resistance to such unconstitutional incursions, it was just a matter of time before the government got involved.

Bills to initiate such construction were presented to Congress in 1860 and then again in 1861. When the southern states seceded from the union, thus removing their constitutional and economic challenges to such an effort, a bill was ratified and signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1862.

Market-driven vs. Politically Driven
Although market-driven entrepreneurs had been busy building small railroads, railroad robber barrons weren’t yet a part of the American scene. But their time was at hand. Political entrepreneurs had been busy behind the scenes readying themselves for the coming explosion of opportunity to “game” the system.

Thomas DiLorenzo, in his book How Capitalism Saved America, points out the distinctions between the groups:

A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product [or service] on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors.

The first clear attempt by political entrepreneurs to “game” the system occurred immediately after passage of the Pacific Railway Act of 1862, when “The Big Four” were given control of the financing, construction, and operation of the Central Pacific Railroad. These were Leland Stanford, Collis Huntington, Charles Crock, and Mark Hopkins. Each of the Big Four invested $1,500 in their newly formed company, Central Pacific Railroad, and, using 30-year, six-percent U.S. Government Bonds, started building the railroad east from Sacramento. These bonds were issued at the rate of $16,000 per mile on the plains west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, $32,000 per mile of track laid between the mountains, and $48,000 per mile of track laid over the mountains. In addition, the 1862 Act initially granted the railroads 10 square miles of public land for every mile laid, but that grant was increased to 20 square miles in 1864. By the time the Union Pacific Railroad met the Central Pacific Railroad in Promontory Point in Utah in 1869, the two companies had been given 242,000 square miles, a territory larger than Germany.

According to Norman Tutorow in his 1970 article in Southern California Quarterly, “Stanford’s Responses to Competition: Rhetoric Versus Reality,”

Leland Stanford and the men who ran the CPRR paid lip-service to the idea of free competition, but in practice sought to dominate competing railroad and shipping lines.... Stanford and his associates repeatedly entered into pooling arrangements to prevent competition, bought out competitors, or forced rivals to agree not to compete. Stanford and his partners viewed laissez-faire as applicable only to government controls, and not to … competition within the system.

One of the ways the Big Four milked the system was by setting up their own coal company to sell coal to their railroad. That company mined coal for two dollars a ton, but sold it to their railroad for six dollars a ton, and pocketed the difference. In other words, the Big Four essentially stole from the government that was financing the railroad — the railroad was just an intermediary involved in the theft.

The terminus of the Union Central Railroad, also authorized by the Act of 1862, was determined in a politically expedient decision by President Abraham Lincoln. In 1857, Thomas Durant, another political entrepreneur, hired Lincoln to represent his M&M Railroad in a lawsuit brought by some steamboat operators. When the Act of 1862 left the decision of the terminus in the hands of the President, Lincoln took the advice of his former client, and selected Omaha, Nebraska.

During this time, not all railroad magnates tried to “game” the system, however. James J. Hill built the Great Northern Railroad, he said, “without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash.”

Hill got his start when he and several partners purchased a bankrupt Minnesota railroad that had been run by a well-known political entrepreneur, Jay Cooke. Cooke was no railroad man, but received the Northern Pacific Railroad as a payoff for his efforts in helping to finance the Union during the war. Because of the disincentives created by subsidies and land grants given on a per-mile basis, Cooke built his railroad shoddily and ran it poorly, and by 1873, the railroad was bankrupt. Biographer Michael Malone, author of James J. Hill, considered Cooke and his business associates to be “derelicts at best and thieves at worst.”

On the other hand, Hill learned the railroad business and built his line carefully and only as fast as could be justified by the growth of the markets he served. Not only was he scrupulous in managing costs, he well knew that his customers — farmers, miners, timber men, and others using his railroad — would succeed or fail along with him. His motto was: “We have got to prosper with you or we have got to be poor with you.” Accordingly, he encouraged his farmer-customers to engage in crop rotation and diversification. He provided free seed grain and even cattle to his customers, and stockpiled firewood and other fuel near his train depots for the convenience of his customers. He donated land that he purchased for his railroad to local towns for parks, schools, and churches. He even transported immigrants to help develop the land near his railroads, charging them only $10 if they promised to build farms nearby. He sponsored contests for the best wheat crop or cattle, and developed “model farms” to educate his customers on the latest technology and developments in agricultural science. Malone stated that Hill’s Great Northern Railroad was the “best constructed and most profitable of all the world’s major railroads,” even as the rates he charged fell steadily as he improved efficiencies in running it. Said Hill:

What we want is the best possible line, shortest distance, lowest grades and least curvature that we can build. We do not care enough about Rocky Mountain scenery to spend a large sum of money developing it.... A railroad is successful in the proportion that its affairs are vigilantly looked after.

The Panic of 1873 bankrupted most of the national railroads, but not Hill’s. In fact, his railroad was the only transcontinental railroad that never went bankrupt. Hill later stated that “the government should not furnish capital to these companies, in addition to their enormous land subsidies, to enable them to conduct their business in competition with enterprises [like mine] that have received no aid from the public treasury.”

As author Burton Folsom put it, Hill “had built the best railroad in America and had used it to beat subsidized rivals time and again. He helped open the Northwest to settlement.... He made a difference in the way the world worked.... He was the real hero in the drama of the American transcontinental railroads.”

Folsom concluded his study with these words:

If we seriously study entrepreneurs, the state, and the rise of big business in the United States we will have to sacrifice the textbook morality play of “greedy businessmen” fleecing the public until they at last are stopped by the actions of the state.

Current negotiations taking place in Washington over “financial regulation” provide a perfect example of political entrepreneurs successfully gaming the system. There are more than 2,000 lobbyists pressuring politicians to create a bill that won’t impact banks and other financial institutions very severely. Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone magazine, disclosed that politicians and lobbyists “tinkered with amendments on all four fronts of the war [against Wall Street] just enough to keep many of them from having any real teeth.” He quotes one Democratic aide: “They’re working [together] to come up with a bill that Wall Street can live with.”

Josephson’s complaints that his history was being unfairly rewritten by authors such as DiLorenzo, Malone, and Folsom are simply not justified when accurate and complete history is brought to light. Remember that political entrepreneurs become wealthy at the taxpayers’ expense and use the power of government to protect that wealth, while free-market entrepreneurs become wealthy only when they successfully meet their customers’ demands.

— Photo: AP Images

Central banks forced to print more money

National Journal: First published 16/07/2010

Bernanke must print 40 Trillions now, 100 Trillion next year, 200, 500, 1000 …

Shalom Bernanke makes currencies worthless

Game is over. In 2009 US-debt (55 Trillion Dollars) matched with GWP (Gross World Product, 58 Trillion). It is incomprehensible but true: America’s total money supply (M3) is around $15 trillion while the US national and private debt total around $55 trillion. How is America paying an existing $55 trillion in debt with a total of $15 trillion money supply? The US is short $40 trillion only this year. Where will that money come from?

We have to keep in mind that the GDP includes the mad loans to the private sector and the so-called bail-out of Wall Street fraudsters. Thus, the GDP figures do not reflect real economic growth. If you keep your eye on the M3 numbers, you will see that the gap between M3 and the total debt number equals an inevitable dollar collapse.

Societe Generale's uber-bear Albert Edwards said the Fed and other central banks will be forced to print more money whatever they now say, given the "stinking fiscal mess" across the developed world. "The response to the coming deflationary maelstrom will be additional money printing that will make the recent QE seem insignificant," he said. (Telegraph, London, 27.06.2010)

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

Their backs to the wall, the Democrats have gone mad. They're firing up the printing presses again at the Federal Reserve.

"As recovery starts to stall in the US and Europe with echoes of mid-1931, bond experts are once again dusting off a speech by Ben Bernanke given eight years ago as a freshman governor at the Federal Reserve. Entitled Deflation: Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here, it is a warfare manual for defeating economic slumps by use of extreme monetary stimulus once interest rates have dropped to zero, and implicitly once governments have spent themselves to near bankruptcy. The speech is best known for its irreverent one-liner: ‘The US government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost’.

"Bernanke began putting the script into action after the credit system seized up in 2008, purchasing $1.75 trillion of Treasuries, mortgage securities, and agency bonds to shore up the US credit system. He stopped far short of the $5 trillion balance sheet quietly penciled in by the Fed Board as the upper limit for quantitative easing (QE). Investors basking in Wall Street's V-shaped rally had assumed that this bizarre episode was over. So did the Fed, which has been shutting liquidity spigots one by one. But the latest batch of data is disturbing.

"The ECRI leading indicator produced by the Economic Cycle Research Institute plummeted yet again last week to -6.9, pointing to contraction in the US by the end of the year. It is dropping faster that at any time in the post-War era. The latest data from the CPB Netherlands Bureau shows that world trade slid 1.7pc in May, with the biggest fall in Asia. The Baltic Dry Index measuring freight rates on bulk goods has dropped 40pc in a month. This is a volatile index that can be distorted by the supply of new ships, but those who watch it as an early warning signal for China and commodities are nervous." (Telegraph, London, 27.06.2010)

Is that all the money Obama ordered printed for his "stimulus package" and his payoff to George Soros for the $500 million in 2008 campaign contributions has now been spent paying off worthless paper caused by the derivative system and subprime housing crisis wherein millions of homes were sold to blacks and illegal aliens who trashed the places, then fled into the night rather than pay their mortgages.

"Andrew Roberts, credit chief at Royal Bank of Scotland, is advising clients to read the Bernanke text very closely because the Fed is soon going to have to the pull the lever on monster quantitative easing (QE). 'We cannot stress enough how strongly we believe that a cliff-edge may be around the corner, for the global banking system (particularly in Europe) and for the global economy. Think the unthinkable', he said in a note to investors." (Telegraph, London, 27.06.2010)

Economics 101, the lesson that the Zimbabwenians and now apparently the Jews in the Federal Reserve can't seem to wrap their minds around. Money, or gold, or garlic (as in ancient Egypt) has value for two reasons:

A) It is scarce, and
B) There is a consensus of opinion on the part of everybody that it is valuable, a consensus which has to exist if economic man is to function.

A $100 bill is nothing but a piece of paper; it has value only because we all agree that it does, and because it is so hard to obtain for most of us.

Gold and silver coins contain X amount of gold and silver, right in your hand. Paper money is essentially an IOU for X amount of gold and silver, or used to be when we were allowed to trade in those precious metals. The fact is that right now, these days, money is just paper.

When you increase the supply of paper money, making it essentially endless, a process called inflation sets in, because goods and services represent actual value such as materials and human labor and the more paper is in circulation, the more paper is demanded for all these goods and services. How exactly people reach the consensus or awareness that more paper in circulation means higher prices is something of a mystery, but it happens. Look at Weimar Germany. Look at Zimbabwe.

Trillions of government guarantees go to the Jewish lobby (bail-outs for banks, bail-outs for countries, i.e. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and eventually the EU). Trillions were created in the computers of the Jewish lobby’s head-quarter, the FED, consisting of nothing but electronic figures. These amounts were never delivered, never invested, they had and have no substance at all. Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, admitted this before the American Congress on 27 April 2010. Quote: "Every futures contract on oil or anything consists of, you could characterize it as a bet. ... Some of these things do not exist physically. But they provide liquidity."

Now there are $1.5 quadrillion of derivatives strangling the world economy. The oil market is deregulated, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were quick to exploit this situation. In Summer 2009, when you were paying over $4 a gallon for gas, more than half of that was going directly to Wall Street hedge fund hyenas, with a full $1 per gallon for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley alone, the backers of the deregulated offshore ICE exchange. Blankfein calls this grand fraud "liquidity".

Derivatives, the largest mass of fictitious capital the world has ever known, including credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities, structured investment vehicles, collateralized debt obligations, repo agreements, and other toxic paper, are actually guaranteed by the American government to the FED (a private Jewish banking syndicate). Again, governments guarantee these quadrillions albeit they are fictitious, see Blankfein's admission above. Here it comes to mind that JFK tried to break the power of the Fed, and was assassinated by the financiers with the help of the CIA and Mossad.

The American economy right now is a basket case. If that intelligent African in the White House is bamboozled by his Jewish crew into printing endless paper money, massive inflation will make it a coffin case. The Jews are what they are, but they are not stupid. They know this will happen.

So why, then, are they doing it? It is simple. The Jewish lobby is excessively immoderate, a genetic defect, and therefore stacks receivables in inconceivable amounts against the new governments to come after the end of this inhumane era. All these guarantees are intented to be used as instruments of indebtedness in the future. The idea is to enslave mankind under a world-wide Orwellian system of unparalleled suppression, called freedom.

US Unemployment Rate Over 25%

The Jobless Effect: Is the Real Unemployment Rate 16.5%, 22%, or. . .?

Posted 12:00 PM 07/16/10 ,

See full article from DailyFinance:

Raghavan Mayur, president at TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, follows unemployment data closely. So, when his survey for May revealed that 28% of the 1,000-odd households surveyed reported that at least one member was looking for a full-time job, he was flummoxed.

"Our numbers are always very accurate, so I was surprised at the discrepancy with the government's numbers," says Mayur, whose firm owns the TIPP polling unit, a polling partner for Investors' Business Daily and Christian Science Monitor. After all, the headline number shows the U.S. unemployment rate today is 9.5%, with a total of 14.6 million jobless people.

However, Mayur's polls continued to find much worse figures. The June poll turned up 27.8% of households with at least one member who's unemployed and looking for a job, while the latest poll conducted in the second week of July showed 28.6% in that situation. That translates to an unemployment rate of over 22%, says Mayur, who has started questioning the accuracy of the Labor Department's jobless numbers.

Even Austan Goolsbee Has Been Skeptical

Mayur isn't alone in harboring such doubts, nor is he the first to wonder about inaccuracies. For years, many economists have pointed to evidence that the government data undercounts the unemployed. Economist Helen Ginsburg, co-founder of advocacy group National Jobs For All Coalition, and John Williams of the newsletter Shadow Government Statistics have been questioning these numbers for years.

In fact, Austan Goolsbee, who is now part of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in a 2003 New York Times piece titled "The Unemployment Myth," that the government had "cooked the books" by not correctly counting all the people it should, thereby keeping the unemployment rate artificially low. At the time, Goolsbee was a professor at the University of Chicago. When asked whether Goolsbee still believes the government undercounts unemployment, a White House spokeswoman said Goolsbee wasn't available to comment.

Such undercounting of unemployment can be an enormously dangerous exercise today. It could lead to some lawmakers underestimate the gravity of the labor market's problems and base their policymaking on a far-less-grim picture than actually exists. Economically, and socially, that would make a bad situation much worse for America.

"The implications of such undercounting is that policymakers aren't going to be thinking as big as they should be," says Ginsburg, also a professor emeritus of economics at Brooklyn College. "It also means that [consumer] demand is not going to be there, because the income from people who are employed isn't going to be there."

Indeed, it will add additional stress to an already strained economy. Businesses that might start ramping up after seeing the jobless number drop could set themselves up for disappointment when customers don't appear or orders don't flow in.

College Grads Serving Fries

Plus, having a job today is quite different from what it was just a few years ago: Many Americans have had their hours cut and are working for less pay. A Pew Research survey found more than half of all adults in the labor force had either lost a job or suffered a reduction in income because of the recession.

Ginsburg says the biggest source of undercounting comes from people who can't find a full-time job that they're qualified to do, for instance recent college graduates who take part-time jobs at fast-food joints or retail stores. Today, the Labor Department estimates that 8.6 million people are in this category.

The federal government counts such people as employed. However, polls show that these folks actually consider themselves "unemployed" and "looking for a job," and probably accounted for a large chunk of TechnoMetrica's respondents.

Jobless Workers Who Disappear

Another major source of undercounting is the unemployed who've given up looking for jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics headline number counts as unemployed only people who have actively looked for a job in the previous four weeks. About 2.6 million people had pursued jobs in the past 12 months but, discouraged by the lack of opportunity, had stopped looking altogether.

"Isn't it interesting that if you stopped looking for a job, you evaporate as a jobless person and are just not counted," says Gerald Celente, director of Trends Research Institute in Kingston, N.Y. Celente believes this kind of undercounting has suited the government politically. "It's what government does: Downplay disasters and amplify success."

According to the Pew Research Center, a large number of people are out of jobs for a longer period during this economic downturn. The typical unemployed worker today has been out of work for nearly six months. That's almost double the previous post-World War II peak for this measure, which was 12.3 weeks in 1982-83.

Indeed, if all of the truly unemployed were counted, the rate would be significantly higher. The BLS, in a data point titled "U-6," says it counted the total unemployment rate in June at 16.5%.

Misreading Americans' Anxiety

However, John Williams, founder of Shadow Government Statistics, says when accounting for the long-term unemployed, the jobless rate runs up to as much as 22% currently. Williams's newsletter, which analyzes flaws in government economic data, points out that such a rate isn't that far from the 25% it hit during the Great Depression.

Both Celente and Ginsburg believe lawmakers' not-dire-enough view of unemployment is one reason why they didn't extend federal unemployment benefits. Of course, party politics is another deterrent. Ginsburg says the Administration's decision to tackle the health care reform over unemployment reflects its lack of priority.

By taking his eye off one of the most fundamental issues affecting the country, President Obama has seen his popularity sink. The most recent Public Policy Polling survey says 45% of voters approve of the job he's doing, while 52% disapprove -- the first time Obama's disapproval ratings have exceeded 50% in this survey.

It's obvious that Americans view unemployment more urgently than either lawmakers or the president. And if pollsters like Mayur or economists like Ginsburg and Williams are right, it will take longer to fix this hole because it's already bigger than Washington thinks.

See full article from DailyFinance:

Last days to get AMI Conference discount

Dear Friends of the American Monetary Institute,
(Please pardon duplicate emails)

Register now to obtain the $120 discount on the 6th annual AMI Monetary Reform Conference ($275 instead of $395). The July 18th deadline being on a Sunday, and with heat waves across the country, we'll extend it 3 days for registrations postmarked or phoned or emailed in by the end of Wednesday, July 21. Conference dates are Sept. 30 to Oct. 3. Register at or use the attached PDF. Friends,
Please forward this message to your contacts you think should be interested in monetary reform.

Some exciting developments are in store! As usual we'll have a top notch line-up of speakers:

Prof. Steve Keen, one of the world's best analysts of how money is created in present day monetary systems is coming in from Australia. He received the inaugural Paul Revere award for giving explicit and accurate early warnings on the collapse of the financial system. We expect Prof. Keen will clear up several misconceptions and help the meeting reach a strong consensus regarding the present money creation process, and whether it constitutes an immoral corporate activity, or is a necessary part of "Capitalism" or both!

Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, leading American Progressive Statesman and twice a Presidential Candidate, thanks to a heavy congressional schedule and election, will address the Conference by Video.

Dr. Michael Hudson, accurate predictor of the housing crash (May 2006 cover story in Harpers Magazine) will report on his work with the Latvian and other European reform. It's beyond me why anyone (especially congresspeople!) would bother listening to economists who did not see these problems coming - but they're still doing that.

Naturally, we're hoping that Prof. William Black will return this year. His presentation in 2009 created a sensation (view it at the AMI you tube site), in describing how fraud had to be involved at every level in the financial meltdown. He compared his successful efforts in charge of cleaning up the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1990s with the near complete lack of enforcement against today's financial criminals who brought down the world economy. He's a great breath of fresh air, and I'm convinced he will be asked to play a major role in cleaning up the present mess.

Understand that we have invited a number of the people you have seen in the news who have been heroic fighters for financial sanity and honesty - fighters against the financial predators who today, but not for long, dominate our nation.

We're also very please to have back some natural leaders of the people who have helped monetary reform move forward no matter what, and will continue to do so!

Prof. Nic Tideman of Virginia Tech, formerly senior economist of the President's council of Economic Advisors, and in my view the most trustworthy of free market-oriented economists. Nic will discuss the key issue of seigniorage privilege of money creation and who should receive it. Nic has been a friend of the Institute for decades, ready to help with all questions in a selfless teaching spirit. A true educator. We originally met at the AIER (American Institute for Economic Research) where earlier I had been a Trustee, having been called in to help extricate them from a very difficult situation.

Michele St. Pierre, who is someone you really should get to know more of. A leading and brilliant organizer for effective political action and a leading voice for effective monetary reform. Michele really understands the importance of monetary reform and knows how to get things done at all levels. She brings together several important political elements, especially the Ron Paul supporters, who we seek closer ties with.

Robert Poteat, whose depth of understanding of monetary reform and all aspects associated with it will deliver another seminal lesson. Attached is a short (3 page) essay he wrote on the State Governments Crisis. Only the American Monetary Act (of any being discussed) is able to deliver a solution on the magnitude needed, including rescuing their pension obligations. As we've been saying consistently, efforts to have the states embrace the vicious process of "fractional reserve banking" instead of ending it, in exchange for a pittance, should be understood as diversions, at a critical moment when real reform is possible.

Dick Distelhorst, a living legend among people who really know monetary reform will present to the conference by video.

Ben Dyson, UK Monetary Reformer, who received rave reviews for his 2009 conference talk, will discuss how similar legislation has been prepared for England, and is now being promoted with advanced computer technology (easy for him, advanced for us!).

Jamie Walton, of New Zealand, leading AMI Researcher with a razor-sharp mind for monetary questions, will focus on the American Monetary Act.

Last years favorite, Will Abram is coming back to give us the full details of how Canada's excellent monetary reforms of the 1930s was de-railed and by whom!

There is a good chance, and we are very hopeful that the Act could be introduced by the time of the conference, and several speakers will discuss that, and how to help get attention and support to it.

Stephen Zarlenga, AMI Director, will speak on the process by which the AMI has reached this stage - strategies, challenges and plans.

Looking forward to seeing you here!

EU to follow Milton Friedman's prescription

“The EU is following Milton Friedman's prescription to make capitalism impervious to democracy...”

Spectrezine editor Steve McGiffen was interviewed recently by the British website New Left project. Here's what he had to say:

New Left Project: Do you see the EU as above all an institution that promotes the interests of big business at the expense of the rest of its citizens?

McGiffen: Yes. Its response to the global economic crisis surely demonstrates this. Since the passage of the Single European Act in 1987, the European project's principle function, which is to remove decision-making from democratically-elected politicians and place it into the hands of technocrats representing the interests of corporate capital, has become clearer with each new treaty. The Maastricht Treaty was based on a text written by the European Round Table of Industrialists. Capital's umbrella lobby group. They are actually following Milton Friedman's prescription to make capitalism impervious to democracy, and to use international governmental institutions to do so. The international relations theorist Stephen Gill calls this the 'New Constitutionalism'. What he means by that is that you create a mesh of international treaties and organisations which narrow the choices available to national governments. Whether or not those national governments are elected becomes irrelevant. These institutions include the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, but neither of these enjoys the EU's power. Another way to look at this is that it involves a process of 'depoliticisation'. So the decision to make Greece's workers pay the bills run up by the tax-dodging rich and their allies in Wall Street ceases to be seen as a vicious attack on the working class and comes to be defined as an unavoidable policy based on technical details beyond the understanding of mortal man or woman.

New Left Project: What is the significance of the enormous corporate lobby in Europe? Does the lobby have genuine power to change policy, or does its presence merely reflect the already pro-corporate nature of the political establishment in Brussels?

McGiffen: This is a good question, in the sense that it's pretty difficult to answer. On the other hand it's a bad question in the sense that I'm tempted to say 'who cares?' In general I don't buy into the 'weak state' view of modern global politics. With rare exceptions, modern states exist to represent the interests of capital, though other interests are usually influential on them. Those readers familiar with Gramsci's concept of a historic bloc will know this kind of analysis, one aspect of which is that a hegemony is established in part by the dominant class accepting that it must make concessions to other social forces. So the NGOs in Brussels, for example, for the most part act as parts of a complex state – or, as the EU isn't quite a state as such as yet, an IGO with certain state-like features. They enable the EU to respond to social pressures which might otherwise find no legitimate expression and thus be forced to adopt extra-parliamentary tactics. So the enormous lobby in Brussels is not entirely corporate and though the political establishment there is pro-corporate, it is able to incorporate other impulses from other social forces. But we mustn't exaggerate: the corporate lobby is bigger by far than all of the non-corporate lobby put together. If corporations did not fund a huge lobby they would not be able to advise the Commission – the really important decision-making organ in Brussels – as to what they could and could not live with. This was clear in environmental policy, which was the area I worked on from 1999 to 2005 as an advisor to the United Left in the European Parliament. In addition, the corporate lobby aids the process of technocracy. The Commission could not write laws in keeping with the needs of corporate capital without their help. Having said that, there's an impressive cultural unity, just as there is in the British ruling class, except it's multilingual and therefore able to bullshit in any number of languages. All these buggers come from the same families, eat at the same tables of overindulgence, sleep with each others spouses and conduct their disgusting social lives in each others' company. There is no clear dividing line, and in fact a revolving door joins the worlds of corporate and political elites.

New Left Project: Could the EU be reformed to make it (a) more amenable to progressive influences, and (b) a genuinely democratic institution?

McGiffen: To (a) I'd say yes and no, which is to say that the modern state will always be open to stealing the left's clothes. They're all feminists and environmentalists and anti-racists, at least in public - just don't mention class. In Britain, look at the reaction to Gordon Brown's mild jibe about the playing fields of Eton. This isn't just hypocrisy. There are bourgeois thinkers who know damned well that excluding half of your potential workforce from various occupations and layers of decision-making due to their lack of penises is bloody silly and inefficient, ditto excluding people from anything at all because their skin isn't white. And if you're an educated woman or an educated person of colour this is not to be sneered at. I would even accept that it's progressive. What it isn't is socialist. And there is no way that the EU can be open to socialist influences, because its constitution, the Treaty of Rome as amended, most recently by the Lisbon Treaty, makes social democracy, let alone socialism in any sense which goes beyond that, illegal. This is what puzzles me about the pro-EU 'left'. Haven't they read the Treaty? Are they too thick to understand it? Do they have some entirely new definition of socialism which does not rely on social ownership of important sectors of the economy? Or are they just bloody liars? As for (b) - becoming a genuinely democratic institution, well, here I'd say that genuine democracy at such a level, i.e. Europe-wide, could only be based on a highly-devolved system, where the interpretation of what's known in the jargon as 'the principle of subsidiarity' would be very different indeed. The European Commission's definition of this term is that "EU decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the citizen. In other words, the Union does not take action (except on matters for which it alone is responsible) unless EU action is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level." So this would have to be reinterpreted and then respected. What's actually happened is that with each new treaty things have gone in entirely the opposite direction to this, becoming more and more centralised. Corporate influence has increased concomitantly. It's not hard to understand why.

New Left Project: Should the left advocate withdrawal from the EU? Is there no room for a truly leftist form of European federalism?

McGiffen: To be honest I find the question of the UK withdrawing from the EU a bit tiresome. It isn't going to happen, and advocating it simply takes the political conversation in the wrong direction. I'd like to see it happen, certainly, though largely because of the complete chaos into which the international capitalist system would be plunged by a British withdrawal. The trouble with campaigning for withdrawal is that you end up in the same camp as scum like UKIP. For me this is all about class, and I don't see Britain as some sort of oppressed nation where classes can legitimately unite for national liberation. So what's important is that people keep hammering away at the issues: the way in which the EU undermines democracy, is used as an instrument to attack workers' rights and living standards, and the way that it undermines internationalism by making real cooperation – ours, not theirs – much more difficult. Withdrawal I would view opportunistically, which is to say, if the opportunity arises and it does not do so as a result of a rising tide of xenophobia, go for it. I'm fighting a class war, though as I'm 56 next week I'd prefer a job with the general staff, if you don't mind! Whatever brings us closer to socialism I'll go with. I can't see any 'leftist' – gods, what a bloody awful word! - form of federalism under current circumstances, no.

New Left Project: What is the significance of the Lisbon Treaty?

McGiffen: The incorporation of market capitalism into a Treaty which can be changed only by the unanimous consent of the member states locks us into a neoliberal economic system some distance 'to the right' of the post-World War Two socio-economic accord on which the welfare states of western Europe were based. By doing so the Lisbon Treaty seeks to eliminate what social democracy created, which was a state transformed from a classical Leninist construct, a simple instrument of bourgeois dictatorship, into a terrain of class struggle. Social democrats, and (in practice) all European parties to the left of social democracy of any size or significance, have long behaved as if they believed that the state could be won for the cause of social progress without a 'Leninist' revolution being necessary. If revolutionary change is taken to mean root-and-branch transformation of the constitution of a state, whether by violent or non-violent means, then revolution has been the only route to a post-capitalist society in Europe since the adoption of the Treaty on European Union (aka the Maastricht Treaty). However, Lisbon closes any remaining loopholes, any avenues for compromise, any legal route whatsoever to socialism, as well as creating the possibility of a military force. The only question remaining to us is what form such a revolution can possibly take in a world where power is so diffuse, the forces of repression are so well-organised and so heavily-armed, while what should be the forces of progress arse about on the fringes, concentrating their attention on solidarity movements and identity politics while ignoring their own working class. I am not optimistic.

New Left Project: What do you foresee on the horizon regarding the European project? What key developments are likely to take place?

McGiffen: Despite having described the current crisis of the euro in some detail a decade ago, I'm not really much of a Nostrodamus. All I can say is that the imbalance of a well-organised and desperate European elite and a disorganised - especially on the international level - and confused working class is not something to inspire optimism. Even on that happy day – and it could happen – when the whole Euro-shebang drops to bits, it's hard to see anything good replacing it. The vanguard party is clearly, to anyone with more than half a brain, an inappropriate instrument for organising working people and their allies in 2010. Something has to replace it, but no-one seems really to be considering what that should be, or doing much about it.

New Left Project: You have for a long time been involved with the Dutch Socialist Party. You seem to regard them as unique in Western Europe for being a genuinely socialist party that has attained significant political representation. First of all, can you explain the key policies of the SPNL?

McGiffen: The SPNL is far from being a perfect model, and would not claim to be. And I would say that the most important thing about it is not its policies, which might look much like those of any European parliamentary party of the genuine left, but its form of organisation. The SP is close to being a mass party, with almost 50,000 members out of a population of around 16 million. It is active on many fronts, and has built itself up from local level into a national party over some four decades, but in particular in the last fifteen or so years. It is, unfortunately, almost certainly about to suffer its first major electoral setback. Having gone from nine to twenty-five seats in the 2006 election – which took place in the wake of the referendum on the European Constitution, where the party led the successful 'no' campaign – it could well go back down to nine in one fell swoop on June 9th. This is less significant than it might seem, however, though it's hard to make this point without sounding like a bullshitting politician! Parliamentary politics is only one strand to the SP's bow. It's active on the streets and in the neighbourhoods, and for example played a major supportive role in the recent inspiring victory of a lengthy national strike of cleaners. You can read all about the party, in English, and keep up with its views and activities, on the 'World' pages of its website

New Left Project: Can you explain how a genuinely anti-neoliberal party has managed to achieve inroads in the Netherlands, whilst there is no such comparable force in Western Europe? What lessons can be learned from them by leftists in other countries, especially the UK?

McGiffen: It's hard to apply lessons learned in one country to experience in another. The SPNL had various advantages: an electoral system which is ultra-proportional. There are 150 seats in the national parliament and if you get 1 vote in 150 on the basis of a national list you get one of those seats. Secondly, democracy means rather more in general in Dutch society than in Britain, where hardly anybody seems to know or care what it means. So while I wouldn't want to exaggerate this, the left gets a rather fairer hearing than you would in Britain. People might disagree with socialist views, but they tend to have some idea what they are, whereas the political ignorance of the average Briton makes trying to present arguments for socialism sometimes futile, generally frustrating and often quite surreal. The only way to tackle that is from the base up. The SP began life in 1972 by knocking on people's doors in the small industrial town of Oss and asking them, basically, what they were fed up about. If you did that, or some equivalent, in modern Britain you might have to listen to a lot of racist crap, but you need to engage with that. And you might identify areas where an organised force of honest men and women who want to move the country closer to socialism could intervene. You are not going to get very far by concentrating on international issues or matters of identity, important though those things are, because most people don't see them as important and you have to start from where people are.

New Left Project: What achievements do the Dutch Socialist Party have to their name? And what threats do you think they face in the foreseeable future?

McGiffen: Their greatest achievement is to have become a serious force in Dutch politics at a difficult time for the left in Europe. Their leadership of the referendum which defeated the European Constitution was astonishing. I was actually present at an early planning meeting for this campaign and everyone was talking about how great it would be if we could get a good vote, that a 40% no in such a core country would be one in the eye for 'Brussels' and its attempts to undermine our democratic and social achievements. Then, after listening to this for a while, one man banged on the table and said, 'Nee, hoor! Wij gaan winnen!' - "No, listen here, we're going to win!". And it galvanized the meeting and made me think the ruling elite had a bit more on their hands than they had bargained for, which certainly turned out to be the case Another achievement might be seen as a bit of a mixed blessing, but is surely a good thing overall. Politicians on all sides in the Netherlands began, as a result of the SP's success, to see that television appearances weren't enough. They revitalised their youth movements and the social side of their activities. The SP is a social organisation as well as a political party, and other parties have learnt from this. They use the full range of technologies and to good effect. Their website has been voted the best political website in the country more than once and their campaign videos have won awards from the advertising industry! You can also, and I have to say this reflects the relatively democratic nature of the Dutch political system, point to numerous small achievements in terms of laws they been able to influence for the good, privatisations programmes slowed or diluted, deportations halted, and so on. The Labour Party has to look over its left shoulder all the time. As for dangers, well, if the poor poll showing - the reasons for which are many and complicated but really do not reflect any incompetence or poor decision-making by the party itself – are followed by a similar result in the election they will have to deal with defeat, something of which they have almost no experience. The danger will be demoralisation within the party and the loss of the mystique of constant success to those outside of it. The longer-term threat is the danger that confronts all left parties which try to engage in parliamentary politics, which in my view you absolutely have to do – and that is the danger that you will become a social democratic party. For me that's less about policies, which are fleeting things which must respond to events, than about organisation. As soon as you begin to prioritise parliamentary work, as soon as you start to wonder if militancy is costing you votes and to care that it might well do so, you are on the rocky road to social democracy.

Let me add one remark. As I said, the SPNL is not a perfect party. But it is a radical left party, and a successful one. All I read about from the British left is the success of faraway socialist movements. Well, President Chavez is also far from perfect, but the importance of solidarity with his movement is widely recognised. Yet hardly anyone knows about the SP. It's a few hours away by train, it doesn't have colourful Latin music or a past fighting in the mountains, their weather is just as lousy as the weather in England, but what it is doing is just as important and much closer to home. It would do the Dutch socialists good to have more grass roots contact with socialists in Britain and elsewhere, and they have resources which could help make that possible. But the initiative will have to come from you. Talk of a Fifth International makes me cringe when I know that socialists in Manchester or Hull don't even know that there is a vibrant, militant and colourful party just over the water, full of friendly folk who can converse in English.

Bank of International Spectre questioned by Reuters

Reuters actually puts gold questions to BIS, which clams up


BIS Footnote Unlocks Major Development in Gold Use

By Jan Harvey and Veronica Brown
Friday, July 16, 2010

LONDON -- A small footnote in the Bank of International Settlements' latest annual statement has flagged up a potentially major development in the way the metal can be used as an active financial instrument.

But its ultimate impact on the bullion market is dependent on the identity of the counterparty in the swap -- a topic still being hotly debated in the gold community in Europe.

The BIS noted in Page 163 of its annual report, released in June, that its gold holdings included 346 tonnes of gold "which the bank held in connection with gold swap operations, under which the bank exchanges currencies for physical gold."

When analysts picked up on the move, it sparked a flurry of speculation over who the counterparty was, the origin of the gold, the impact on the market and what it said about the extent of bank stress at the height of Europe's sovereign debt crisis.

The BIS said the gold in question was used for "pure swap operations with commercial banks" but declined to respond to further questions from Reuters on the transaction.

The largest question mark hangs over where commercial banks would have found 346 tonnes of gold -- worth around $13.5 billion (8.8 billion pounds) at today's prices -- for such an operation.

In an interview with Reuters Television this week, GFMS Chairman Philip Klapwijk said commercial banks may have had enough unallocated gold on deposit to make up such a tonnage.

But even the largest commercial banks would struggle to trade that amount on an annual basis, and as this would be on behalf of clients, it would be unavailable for swaps.

"No commercial bank has ever had 350 tonnes of gold to swap," said Commerzbank analyst Eugen Weinberg. "Even 10 tonnes seems out of range."

If the gold were sourced from unallocated gold accounts, that would also raise questions over the viability of the bank effectively pawning its clients' gold to support itself.

More likely, analysts say, is that the gold was sourced from the official sector, with a central bank loaning gold to a commercial bank or banks that used it to raise currency.

"Just as the bullion banks were the go-betweens between the producer and the bullion market in the days when there was gold hedging being done, in the same way the producer may have now been replaced by the central bank, and the investment bank may be the conduit," said Credit Agricole analyst Robin Bhar.

The timing of the swap, which is likely to have taken place in December or January, suggests it may have been done by European commercial banks needing to source liquidity during the sovereign debt crisis of early 2010.

Of those countries on the front line of the crisis -- Portugal, Greece, and Spain -- only Portugal has enough gold to have covered the swap, with 382.5 tonnes in its reserves. Portugal's central bank declined to comment on the deal.

But analysts point out that banks in the nations closest to the euro zone sovereign debt crisis are not the only ones exposed to it. Commercial banks elsewhere also have exposure to problems in southern Europe.

Until recently the amount of gold that could be used in swap operations by European central banks was limited by the Central Bank Gold Agreement, which was designed to prevent disruption of the gold market by official sector activity.

In the first two CBGAs of 1999 and 2004, signatories agreed not to increase their activities in the derivatives and lending markets above the levels of Sept 1999. But the third pact, which came into force in September 2009, included no such commitment.

So what does this mean for the gold market? The swap was first seized on as bearish, as some claimed it could lead to the BIS selling the metal on the market in the case of a default.

But that the gold was mobilised for temporary financing without being sold was ultimately identified by analysts as positive.

"In conversations with clients we are consistently asked why central banks do not sell some or all of their gold to reduce their debt burden," UBS analyst Edel Tully said. "The latest CBGA figures, in addition to wider sovereign activity, indicate that central banks do not want to sell their gold in 2010. The BIS swap operation highlights that central banks can mobilise their gold without selling it."

A lot will depend on the risk of default. If the counterparty in the transaction fails to redeem the gold, it could hit the market, with heavy consequences for prices.

The thesis that the swaps are connected to the financial crisis is one that can be tested. Analysts will be closely watching the next BIS statement in early August for signs that the swaps are rising, or being closed out.

"We can monitor its progress relative to the funding crisis, so if the euro crisis quietens down after the stress tests, it will go away," said Andy Smith, senior metals analyst at Bache Commodities. "If it blows up again, it should expand."

Anche i Prefetti possono essere indagati

Ascoli Piceno 18 LUGLIO 2010


LA POSTA IN GIOCO (clicca qui)

L’Istituto di Credito indagato presso il Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno , è la

Banca ANTONVENETA (clicca qui) ,

che dal 21 Aprile 2005 è sotto inchiesta per USURA .

E’ consapevole di aver applicato ad Orsini oltre 1 milione di interessi usurari ma, in forza dei privilegi di cui gode (clicca qui), chiese ed ottenne dal Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno un decreto ingiuntivo fondato su FALSE DICHIARAZIONI, segnalò Orsini in Centrale Rischi per somme non dovute ed iscrisse annotazioni pregiudizievoli al Registro Immobiliare, nella consapevolezza che i provvidenziali tempi lunghi della giustizia penale e civile avrebbero seppellito la propria vittima prima di giungere alla conclusione dei procedimenti .

Oltre a godere di privilegi normativi, l’ANTONVENETA è anche baciata dalla “FORTUNA” :

- Il procedimento penale a suo carico si è bloccato per 5 anni, di cui 3 solo per errori di notifica posti in essere a cura di solerti “operatori giudiziari” (clicca qui) ;

- nel frattempo, nonostante il fascicolo si sia arricchito di ben 4 Perizie, che hanno TUTTE riscontrato l’usura, che sono costate ai contribuenti quasi 100.000,00 € (Centomilaeuro), è stata disposta una 5^ perizia;

- Altro colpo di “fortuna” : le è capitato un Perito che le sta offrendo su un piatto d’argento una FALSA PERIZIA (clicca qui) ;

Da ultimo, considerato che Orsini dopo 5 anni non è ancora stato completamente distrutto, perché beneficiato della sospensione dei termini ex-art. 20 L. 44/99, potrebbero aver ricevuto un altro miracolo : togliere ad Orsini il beneficio della sospensione dei termini .

Infatti, folgorato da doti di preveggenza, sulla via che lo scorso Dicembre da Vercelli lo ha portato in Ascoli Piceno, S. E. il Prefetto dott. Minunni ha previsto l’archiviazione della Banca per insussistenza dell’elemento psicologico (clicca qui), e sulla base di tale personale convincimento ha negato ad Orsini il rinnovo della sospensione dei termini.


la Banca Antonveneta, rischia di essere rinviata a giudizio, di subire il processo del secolo per il reato di usura e di essere condannata. Ma soprattutto


(che per legge hanno l’onere di tutelare le vittime di usura e di estorsione)

LE QUALI DOVREBBERO, quantomeno, RIMANERE NEUTRALI ED APPLICARE CORRETTAMENTE LE LEGGI, senza profetizzare assoluzioni preventive per i potenti banchieri (clicca qui).

Questa settimana proponiamo :

- Anche i Prefetti possono essere indagati (clicca qui) ;

- La Magistratura non è diversa dal resto del Paese- “Quelle Toghe illegali” (clicca qui) ;

- Giovedì 22 luglio 2010 C/o Federazione Nazionale della Stampa- Conferenza Stampa : “Morire per Maastricht” (clicca qui) ;

- Milioni di poveri e LUI salva Geronzi – “AVE CESARE, MORITURI TE SALUTANT” (clicca qui) ;

- Adusbef denuncia Bankitalia per “concorso in usura” (clicca qui) ;

- Da Maurizio Forzoni (clicca qui): “GLI IMMARCESCIBILI” (clicca qui) : Il 2107.2010 Conferenza stampa in Arezzo (clicca qui) ;

- FORUM nelle MARCHE si è incontrato con Imprenditori e rappresentanti di categoria (clicca qui)

Saluti ,


Visitate il nostro Forum :

Il vero perché della droga

AbruzzoPress, 18 luglio 2010
Della Moneta e dell’Usura

Nel nostro programma di riproporre il pensiero del compianto accademico Prof. Giacinto Auriti, pubblichiamo oggi una breve nota su argomento di drammatica attualità:

Il vero perché della droga

Moderna Cartagine: Usura delenda est

di Giacinto Auriti

Lo stato di parsimonia è l’ossigeno degli usurai.

Per esasperare nel mercato l’esigenza di moneta, gli usurai, alla regola tradizionale di evidenziare ed esaltare ossessivamente il pericolo dell’inflazione anche quando non si vede un euro, hanno aggiunto quella di creare bisogni artificiali.

L’usuraio ben sa che, il drogato, prima di essere assetato di droga, è assetato di denaro per comprarla. Ecco perché i produttori di droga sono i grandi esponenti della “nobiltà” dell’usura: le alte logge del sistema bancario. Anche la droga è per loro un mezzo per combattere l’inflazione.

La conferma storica di questa verità è data dall’ovvia constatazione che Maastricht non è solo la capitale morale della nuova moneta, ma anche la capitale europea della droga. A Maastricht sono ben noti i 18 coffee shop legalmente autorizzati alla vendita di droghe leggere che, come si sa, sono l’anticamera di quelle pesanti. L’Olanda è – non a caso – il più importante mercato della droga. La maggior parte delle droghe pesanti che circola in Europa transita dal porto di Amsterdam. L’Olanda è anche – non a caso – il principale produttore di ecstasy in Europa.

Ecco perché si impone l’assoluta inderogabile necessità di affrontare il problema alle radici instaurando il regime della “proprietà popolare della moneta”.

Dare ad ogni popolo la proprietà della sua moneta significa non solo toglierla dalle mani degli strozzini, ma anche distruggere – ed è ciò che più conta – il loro stesso interesse ad uccidere.