giovedì 6 marzo 2014

Italy: banking golpe in parliament (youtube)

Bitcoin CEO Found Dead

Bitcoin CEO Found Dead of Possible Suicide in Singapore

Autumn Radtke, 28, formerly worked at Facebook.
Ms. Radtke (Photo: LinkedIn)

A 28-year-old bitcoin exchange firm CEO was found dead in her apartment in Singapore, the New York Post reports.
Autumn Radtke, 28, was head of First Meta. Her body was found on Feb. 28, the Post says. From the Post:
“Local media are calling it a suicide, but Singapore officials are waiting for toxicology test results.
Ratke [sic] formerly worked with Apple and other Silicon Valley tech firms on developing digital payment systems.”
The Post also ventures in its lede, “It appears bitcoin’s recent turmoil has claimed its first life,” but it’s too soon to tell whether Ms. Radtke’s untimely death was directly caused by business troubles.


Read more at http://betabeat.com/2014/03/bitcoin-ceo-found-dead-of-possible-suicide-in-singapore/#ixzz2vBs80wip 
Follow us: @betabeat on Twitter | betabeatNYO on Facebook

Money, debt and the end of the growth

Money, debt and the end of the growth imperative
Like a cancer, the political, interest-based, debt-money system corrupts everything it touches. It’s time it was replaced. This is the fifth article in our series on the role of money in the transformation of society.
Credit: Shutterstock. All rights reserved.
When I was born, the world’s population numbered something like two billion people. Today it is estimated to be well over 7 billion, more than three and a half times the level of one lifetime ago. This is but one example of exponential or geometric growth, meaning growth that proceeds at an accelerating rate.
It takes little imagination to realize that such patterns of growth cannot persist over the long run. Indeed, nature provides plenty of examples to show that exponential growth can only be a temporary phase in a larger pattern that either levels off or ends in a precipitous decline. When insect or animal populations outrun the carrying capacity of their environments, the result is a rapid die-off. Historically, there have been at least four collapses of human population that we know of, and the evidence suggests that a fifth one may be imminent.
But population growth is not the biggest problem that faces civilization. There is one thing that has been growing exponentially at an even faster rate than population or economic output, and that is debt.
Avoiding that fifth human and ecological collapse means coming to grips with debt and the role that money plays in driving unsustainable rates of resource consumption and economic growth. Meeting that challenge is both a personal and a political imperative.
I concluded long ago that this explosion of debt is the prime cause of recurrent financial and economic crises. It is also the inevitable result of the way in which money is created by banks across the world today. The recent widespread financial crises provide strong evidence that global systems and structures of money, banking and finance are deeply flawed.
It’s a simple but often unrecognized fact that money is created by banks when they make loans, including loans to governments when banks purchase their bonds. This is acknowledged by the US Federal Reserve in one of its publications, Modern Money Mechanics:
“The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks...checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks, and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts.”
The present global monetary regime is a collusive arrangement between politics and high finance. By monetizing their budget deficits, this system enables national governments to spend far more than their income from taxes and other sources, while granting banks the privilege of creating money in the form of debt, and then charging interest for its use.
The main reason for the centralized control of credit and money has nothing to do with helping the economy to operate more efficiently. The motive is political: centralization enables the undemocratic control of everything else. It thereby concentrates wealth and power in the hands of the few. Whoever controls the ‘wellspring’ controls the ‘river.’ The same is true with money.
The current global monetary regime is ‘political’ in this sense. Based as it is on interest-bearing debt, the imperative for debt to grow continuously is inherent in the system. Since interest on bank loans accrues with the passage of time, total debt must be continually expanded in order to keep the system from collapsing.
This debt imperative leads to a growth imperative as individuals and corporations vie with each other in the market to acquire enough money to avoid defaulting on their debts. They are driven to expand their sales and profits by cutting more trees, mining more minerals, and pumping more oil. They are also driven to cut their costs by laying-off workers, reducing benefits, and fleeing to jurisdictions where environmental protection and labor laws are minimal or unenforced.
Unfortunately, there is never enough money in circulation to enable all these debts to be paid. No amount of production or expansion of business activity can bring about an automatic increase in the amount of money in the economy. Only the deliberate actions of banks to grant more loans can maintain or increase the supply of money in circulation.
It’s the compounding of interest and increasing indebtedness in both the private and the public sectors that is the primary driver of economic growth. But this growth misallocates resources and prevents the emergence of a sustainable and equitable economy. Like a cancer, the political, interest-based, debt-money system destroys the environment, corrupts democratic processes, increases disparities of power and wealth, and shreds the fabric of society.
To the vast majority of economists, bankers and politicians, this assertion is heresy. But as the crisis intensifies, the evidence mounts up. We have been warned by philosophers and prophets from time immemorial about the destructive nature of usury and interest. Now we are seeing the practical consequences that emerge when those warnings are ignored. It becomes ever more urgent that we take appropriate action to reverse this crisis. What would that entail?
When you realize that the car you are driving is headed for a cliff, what’s the first thing you need to do? You might scream, but that will be of little help. Even before you hit the brakes, you need to take your foot off the accelerator. In relation to the crisis of our economies, that means ending the growth imperative by creating money that is interest-free, and by facilitating the exchange of value without using money at all. How is that possible?
The fundamental role of money is to facilitate the exchange of value. In recent years, a variety of exchange alternatives have been developed, including private and local currencies, and trade associations that enable trading without the use of conventional money. The most effective of these alternatives provide ‘home-grown’ liquidity as a means of payment, independently of the banking system and without the imposition of interest.
This can be achieved by using private currencies or vouchers that are spent into circulation by trusted producers of goods and services, and by allocating internal credits to members of trade exchanges that enable them to trade with one another using a process called “credit clearing.” Credit clearing is not new. It’s a proven process that’s already being used by thousands of businesses who are members of “commercial trade exchanges” (sometimes called “barter exchanges”).
These exchanges provide the necessary accounting and other services for moneyless trading. In this process, the things you sell pay for the things you buy, without using money as a medium of exchange. Instead of chasing Dollars, Euros, or Pounds, you use what you have to get what you need.
In addition to commercial trade exchanges, there is a cooperative credit clearing exchange that has operated successfully over a long period of time. Originally called the WIR Economic Circle Cooperative (WIR), it was founded in Switzerland as a self-help organization in the midst of the Great Depression of the 1930s. WIR provided a means for its member businesses to buy and sell to one another despite the shortage of Swiss francs in circulation at the time.
Over the past 75 years, in good times and in bad, WIR (now known as the “WIR Bank”) has continued to thrive. It has more than 65,000 members in Switzerland, who exchange around $2 billion of goods and services each year. They pay each other, not in official money, but in their own accounting units called “WIR credits.”
Private currencies and credit clearing exchanges provide a viable means through which the ongoing financial crisis can be addressed. These alternatives enable us to transcend the global debt-money system, and to gradually eliminate the growth imperative. Now, they must be improved and scaled up in ways that are inclusive and transparent, and operated, not for private profit, but to promote the common good.
The good news is that business people, community activists, academics, and social entrepreneurs around the world are working together to achieve these goals and to make exchange alternatives more widely available. Ultimately, however, it is our own willingness to join these efforts and do things differently that will change the course of civilization.  

The Stone That Brings Down Goliath

The Stone That Brings Down Goliath? Richmond and Eminent Domain

Tuesday, 04 March 2014 10:09By Ellen BrownWeb of Debt | News Analysishttp://truth-out.org/news/item/22232-the-stone-that-brings-down-goliath-richmond-and-eminent-domain
Mayor Gayle McLaughlin of Richmond, California, in front of a boarded-up house in Richmond, December 20, 2013. Many Richmond residents owe more money on their houses than their houses are worth, but McLaughlin's plan to use of eminent domain to prevent foreclosures has faced significant opposition. (Photo: Jim Wilson / The New York Times)Mayor Gayle McLaughlin of Richmond, California, in front of a boarded-up house in Richmond, December 20, 2013. Many Richmond residents owe more money on their houses than their houses are worth, but McLaughlin's plan to use of eminent domain to prevent foreclosures has faced significant opposition. (Photo: Jim Wilson / The New York Times)
In a nearly $13 billion settlement with the US Justice Department in November 2013, JPMorganChase admitted that it, along with every other large US bank, had engaged in mortgage fraud as a routine business practice, sowing the seeds of the mortgage meltdown. JPMorgan and other megabanks have now been caught in over a dozen major frauds, including LIBOR-rigging and bid-rigging; yet no prominent banker has gone to jail. Meanwhile, nearly a quarter of all mortgages nationally remain underwater (meaning the balance owed exceeds the current value of the home), sapping homeowners’ budgets, the housing market and the economy. Since the banks, the courts and the federal government have failed to give adequate relief to homeowners, some cities are taking matters into their own hands.
Gayle McLaughlin, the bold mayor of Richmond, California, has gone where no woman dared go before, threatening to take underwater mortgages by eminent domain from Wall Street banks and renegotiate them on behalf of beleaguered homeowners. A member of the Green Party, which takes no corporate campaign money, she proved her mettle standing up to Chevron, which dominates the Richmond landscape. But the banks have signaled that if Richmond or another city tries the eminent domain gambit, they will rush to court seeking an injunction. Their grounds: an unconstitutional taking of private property and breach of contract.
How to refute those charges? There is a way; but to understand it, you first need to grasp the massive fraud perpetrated on homeowners. It is how you were duped into paying more than your house was worth; why you should not just turn in your keys or short-sell your underwater property away; why you should urge Congress not to legalize the MERS scheme; and why you should insist that your local government help you acquire title to your home at a fair price if the banks won’t. That is exactly what Richmond and other city councils are attempting to do through the tool of eminent domain.
The Securitization Fraud That Collapsed the Housing Market
One settlement after another has now been reached with investors and government agencies for the sale of “faulty mortgage bonds,” including a suit brought by Fannie and Freddie that settled in October 2013 for $5.1 billion. “Faulty” is a euphemism for “fraudulent.” It means that mortgages subject to securitization have “clouded” or “defective” titles. And that means the banks and real estate trusts claiming title as owners or nominees don’t actually have title – or have standing to enjoin the city from proceeding with eminent domain. They can’t claim an unconstitutional taking of property because they can’t prove they own the property, and they can’t claim breach of contract because they weren’t the real parties in interest to the mortgages (the parties putting up the money).
“Securitization” involves bundling mortgages into a pool, selling them to a non-bank vehicle called a “real estate trust,” and then selling “securities” (bonds) to investors (called “mortgage-backed securities” or “collateralized debt obligations”). By 2007, 75% of all mortgage originations were securitized. According to investment banker and financial analyst Christopher Whalen, the purpose of securitization was to allow banks to avoid capitalization requirements, enabling them to borrow at unregulated levels.
Since the real estate trusts were “off-balance sheet,” they did not count in the banks’ capital requirements. But under applicable accounting rules, that was true only if they were “true sales.” According to Whalen, “most of the securitizations done by banks over the past two decades were in fact secured borrowings, not true sales, and thus potential frauds on insured depositories.” He concludes, “bank abuses of non-bank vehicles to pretend to sell assets and thereby lower required capital levels was a major cause of the subprime financial crisis.”
In 1997, the FDIC gave the banks a pass on these disguised borrowings by granting them “safe harbor” status. This proved to be a colossal mistake, which led to the implosion of the housing market and the economy at large. Safe harbor status was finally withdrawn in 2011; but in the meantime, “financings” were disguised as “true sales,” permitting banks to grossly over-borrow and over-leverage. Over-leveraging allowed credit to be pumped up to bubble levels, driving up home prices. When the bubble collapsed, homeowners had to pick up the tab by paying on mortgages that far exceeded the market value of their homes. According to Whalen:
[T]he largest commercial banks became “too big to fail” in large part because they used non-bank vehicles to increase leverage without disclosure or capital backing. . . .
The failure of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and most notably Citigroup all were largely attributable to deliberate acts of securities fraud whereby assets were “sold” to investors via non-bank financial vehicles.  These transactions were styled as “sales” in an effort to meet applicable accounting rules, but were in fact bank frauds that must, by GAAP and law applicable to non-banks since 1997, be reported as secured borrowings.  Under legal tests stretching from 16th Century UK law to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act of the 1980s, virtually none of the mortgage backed securities deals of the 2000s met the test of a true sale.
. . . When the crisis hit, it suddenly became clear that the banks’ capital was insufficient.
Today . . . hundreds of billions in claims against banks arising from these purported “sales” of assets remain pending before the courts.
Eminent Domain as a Negotiating Tool
Investors can afford high-powered attorneys to bring investor class actions, but underwater and defaulting homeowners usually cannot; and that is where local government comes in. Eminent domain is a way to bring banks and investors to the bargaining table.
Professor Robert Hockett of Cornell University Law School is the author of the plan to use eminent domain to take underwater loans and write them down for homeowners. He writes on NewYorkFed.org:
[In] the case of privately securitized mortgages, [principal] write-downs are almost impossible to carry out, since loan modifications on the scale necessitated by the housing market crash would require collective action by a multitude of geographically dispersed security holders. The solution . . . Is for state and municipal governments to use their eminent domain powers to buy up and restructure underwater mortgages, thereby sidestepping the need to coordinate action across large numbers of security holders.
The problem is blowback from the banks, but it can be blocked by requiring them to prove title to the properties. Securities are governed by federal law, but real estate law is the domain of the states. Counties have a mandate to maintain clean title records; and legally, clean title requires a chain of “wet” signatures, from A to B to C to D. If the chain is broken, title is clouded. Properties for which title cannot be established escheat (or revert) to the state by law, allowing the government to start fresh with clean title.
New York State law governs most of the trusts involved in securitization. Under it, transfers of mortgages into a trust after the cutoff date specified in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) governing the trust are void.
For obscure reasons, the REMICs (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits) claiming to own the properties routinely received them after the closing date specified in the PSAs. The late transfers were done throu gh the fraudulent signatures-after-the-fact called “robo-signing,” which occurred so regularly that they were the basis of a $25 billion settlement between a coalition of state attorneys general and the five biggest mortgage servicers in February 2012. (Why all the robo-signing? Good question. See my earlier article here.)
Until recently, courts have precluded homeowners from raising the late transfers into the trust as a defense to foreclosure, because the homeowners were not parties to the PSAs. But in August 2013, in Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (July 31, 2013), a California appellate court ruled that the question whether the loan ever made it into the asset pool could be raised in determining the proper party to initiate foreclosure. And whether or not the homeowner was a party to the PSA, the city and county have a clear legal interest in seeing that the PSA’s terms were complied with, since the job of the county recorder is to maintain records establishing clean title.
Before the rise of mortgage securitization, any transfer of a note and deed needed to be recorded as a public record, to give notice of ownership and establish a “priority of liens.” With securitization, a private database called MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) circumvented this procedure by keeping the deeds as “nominee for the beneficiary,” obscuring the property’s legal owner and avoiding the expense of recording the transfer (usually about $30 each). Estimates are that untraceable property assignments concealed behind MERS may have cost counties nationwide billions of dollars in recording fees. (See my earlier article here.)
Counties thus have not only a fiduciary but a financial interest in establishing clean title to the properties in their jurisdictions. If no one can establish title, the properties escheat and can be claimed free and clear. Eminent domain can be a powerful tool for negotiating loan modifications on underwater mortgages; and if the banks cannot prove title, they have no standing to complain.
The End of “Too Big to Fail”?
Richmond’s city council is only one vote short of the supermajority needed to pursue the eminent domain plan, and it is seeking partners in a Joint Powers Authority that will make the push much stronger. Grassroots efforts to pursue eminent domain are also underway in a number of other cities around the country. If Richmond pulls it off successfully, others will rush to follow.
The result could be costly for some very large banks, but they have brought it on themselves with shady dealings. Christopher Whalen predicts that the FDIC’s withdrawal of “safe harbor” status for the securitization model may herald the end of “too big to fail” for those banks, which will no longer have the power to grossly over-leverage and may have to keep their loans on their books.
Wall Street banks are deemed “too big to fail” only because there is no viable alternative – but there could be. Local governments could form their own publicly-owned banks, on the model of the state-owned Bank of North Dakota. They could then put their revenues, their savings, and their newly-acquired real estate into those public utilities, to be used to generate interest-free credit for the local government (since it would own the bank) and low-cost credit for the local community. For more on this promising option, which has been or is being explored in almost half the state legislatures in the US, see here.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

ELLEN BROWN

Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her websites are http://WebofDebt.comhttp://PublicBankSolution.com, andhttp://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

Post in evidenza

The Great Taking - The Movie

David Webb exposes the system Central Bankers have in place to take everything from everyone Webb takes us on a 50-year journey of how the C...