Showing posts with label European bailout. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European bailout. Show all posts

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Federal Reserve pumps another $267bn into US economy

The Guardian
Phillip Inman

US intervention is expected to prompt action by central banks across the world amid fears the eurozone crisis is deepening

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke has extended
Operation Twist to stimulate ailing US economy.
US central bank chairman Ben Bernanke has sought to offset a slump in global growth with an injection of $267bn to revitalise the ailing US economy.

His intervention came after Bank of England minutes revealed that governor Sir Mervyn King was narrowly outvoted over pumping more money into the UK economy at the June meeting – making it almost certain that the Bank will increase its £325bn quantitative easing (QE) programme next month.
The Fed downgraded its US growth forecasts for 2012 to 1.9%-2.4%, from the 2.4%-2.9% predicted in April, as Bernanke and the Federal Open Markets Committee agreed to extend Operation Twist to boost confidence amid falling consumer demand and a drop in output growth over recent months.

The intervention is expected to trigger a wave of activity by central banks across the world following fears that the euro crisis and severe austerity measures across the developed world have extinguished signs of recovery in China and many developing countries.

Central bank officials said they were especially nervous following the deterioration in the Spanish economy and heightened fears of a sovereign default in the eurozone.

EU officials said they were working on plans to protect ailing countries from collapse and a Spanish minister said support for a euro-wide policy of bond purchases by the EU's main rescue fund was gaining support.

But German Chancellor Angela Merkel refused to offer her backing, saying Greece must uphold its side of the bargain.

"It's obvious that the reforms that were agreed in the past are the right steps and that they therefore must be implemented."

Merkel, who invited the new prime minister of Greece, Antonis Samaras, to Berlin for talks, has consistently voiced her opposition to indebted countries winning easier terms without more stringent economic reforms.

European commission spokesman Amadeu Altafaj Tardio said any bond buying plan could only be a stopgap.

"If I could put this into everyday language, we're talking here about financial paracetamols," he said. "It may alleviate the tension, the pain … but it does not address the causes."

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Mass anti-austerity protests sweep through Spain

Russia Today 


At least 100,000 protesters angered by the country's grim economic prospects turned out for street demonstrations in 80 cities across Spain. This marked the one-year anniversary of a movement that inspired similar activist groups in other countries.

In the capital Madrid, thousands of protesters chanted and beat drums as they marched from different directions to converge on the central Puerta del Sol Square. The square was brimming with demonstrators during the evening, but visibly emptied as some of the protesters left after 10pm local time.

Authorities have vowed to block any attempts by protesters to camp out on the square, which is the popular movement's epicenter. Marches were also held in Barcelona, Bilbao, Malaga and Seville.
The four day-long demonstration marks the one-year anniversary of the "Indignants" protest movement, as Spain’s economic woes deepen by the day.

Joblessness has soared to almost 25 per cent – the highest level in the eurozone – with half of all Spaniards under the age of 25 are out of work. As the country already faces 30 billion euros in cuts so far this year, demonstrators say the cuts have left public services greatly underfunded.

The government is planning a fresh round of austerity measures as the country sinks further into recession, prompting fears that Spain may soon require a Greek-style bailout. These measures include hikes in property and income taxes, freezes on the minimum wage and cuts to health care and education spending, as well as further slashing of pensioners' benefits.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

A Fistful of Euros

Daily Bell
Ron Paul


This week, my congressional committee will hold a hearing to examine how the Federal Reserve bails out European banks, propping up spendthrift European governments in the process. Unfortunately, this bailout comes at the expense of American citizens, in the form of higher prices and diminished savings down the road.

A good analysis of the Fed's "swap" scheme first appeared in the Wall Street Journal back in December, in an article by Gerald O'Driscoll entitled, "The Federal Reserve's Covert Bailout of Europe." Essentially, beginning late last year the Fed provided US dollars to the European Central Bank in exchange for Euros − sometimes as much as $100 billion at a time. The ECB then funneled those dollars to European banks to provide liquidity and prevent crises from bank insolvencies. Since the currency swap was not technically a loan, the Fed did not have to embarrass itself by openly showing foreign bank debt on its balance sheet. The ECB meanwhile did not have to print new euros and expose the true fragility of big European banks.

The entire purpose of this unholy arrangement was to obscure the truth: namely that the Fed was bailing out Europe with US dollars.

But why is it the business of the Federal Reserve to bail out European banks that find themselves short of dollars to pay their dollar-denominated contracts? After all, those contracts often were hedges taken to protect banks against weakness of the euro. Hedges are supposed to reduce risk, but banks that miscalculate should suffer their own losses accordingly. It's not our business if the ECB chooses to create moral hazards by providing liquidity to European banks, but why should the Fed prop up Europe's bad decisions!

The Fed has promised to provide unlimited amounts of dollars to the ECB, should circumstances require it. It boggles the mind. Of course, when Fed officials first entered into these swap agreements with the ECB last September, they did so quietly. The American public only found out via websites of the ECB, the Bank of England, or the Swiss Central Bank.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

International Monetary Fund (IMF) Leader Calls for Trillion-dollar "Firewall"

The New American
William F. Jasper

“We need a larger firewall.” So declared Christine Lagarde (left), Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) during a speech in Berlin on January 23, in which she called on taxpayers of the world to chip in $1 trillion to the IMF to stave off a global crisis. “We need to act quickly or else we could easily slide into a 1930s moment,” Lagarde warned, in an obvious reference to the Great Depression.

Suddenly, talk of “firewalls” was everywhere. Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan backed Ms. Lagarde, saying that  without “larger firewalls” to protect embattled European nations the global economy was at risk. On January 27, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking at the annual billionaire confab known as the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, said that “building a stronger, more credible firewall,” is key to resolving the eurozone sovereign debt crisis.

But the IMF is not the only institution calling for expensive new fire protection. On January 30 CNN reported that European leaders meeting in Brussels had just concluded an agreement “to strengthen a financial firewall and most members of the 27-nation group will sign a new fiscal compact.” The centerpiece of that pact is €500 billion ($650 billion) to implement the European Stability Mechanism, or ESM, for bailing out Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and other troubled European economies.

Arsonists-R-Us Preaching Fire Protection? Time to Beware!
European Council president Herman Van Rompuy declared: "The early entry into force of this permanent firewall will prevent contagion in the euro area and further restore confidence."

The German audience that IMF chief Lagarde selected to pitch the new $1 trillion IMF firewall was carefully chosen: the German Council on Foreign Relations, or GCFR (in German, it is the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, or DGAP). Like its interlocking counterparts in the United States (the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR), Britain (the Royal Institute of International Affairs, RIIA), and other countries, the GCFR represents the globalist elites of corporate, banking, political, and academic circles that are promoting convergence toward world government. Selling the German public on the massive new funding for the ESM and IMF “firewalls” will be critical, and the influential voices represented by the GCFR will be key to accomplishing that. It remains to be seen whether the GCFR members and their counterparts throughout the Eurozone will succeed in duping their fellow Europeans into giving even more matches and gasoline to the arsonists who have already burned through trillions of dollars in “quantitative easing” and “stimulus” funds.

Secretary Geithner, a CFR member, was only too happy to assist his fellow arsonists in throwing more gasoline on the global “liquidity” and “stimulus” fire. He was interviewed on the main stage at the WEF palaver before a packed audience by Fareed Zakaria, editor-at-large of Time magazine, as well as a host and commentator at CNN, and  — a member and director of the Council on Foreign Relations.

More Cash, More Power = Rosy Prognosis
Here is how the DGAP (GCFR) described Madame Lagarde’s speech in the opening paragraph of its report on January 23, on the DGAP web site:

In a cautiously optimistic address at the DGAP, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said that 2012 could be a “year of healing.” But overcoming the crisis will require quick and coordinated action. The eurozone must introduce measures that will lead to more growth and integration – and increases to the euro bailout fund. This is the only way to build trust in the financial system. Lagarde also envisages a massive increase in the IMF’s crisis funds.

“2011 was not a successful year because many measures were not thought through, were half-heartedly implemented, or were not coordinated with other countries,” reports the DGAP, “But the IMF head sees a positive turnaround coming in 2012.”

“We know what needs to be done,” said Lagarde. “It is now up to governments to show the necessary political will.”

The DGAP agrees and predicts a rosy economic picture — if producers and taxpayers will only stop being so miserly and agree to give the IMF, the European Central Bank and other central banks the “tools” they desperately need to solve the problem. After all the wise wizards at the IMF, ECB, and the Fed have sterling track record already, right?

According to the DGAP:
Eurozone countries have already taken important steps, including the establishment of the temporary European System of Financial Supervisors (ESFS) and the permanent European Stability Mechanism (ESM). But these are only “parts of a more extensive solution."

But what kind of “more extensive solution” would these new creations bring? The kind of solution only the central bankers and their politically connected corporate cronies could love. As The New American’s Bob Adelman and Alex Newman point out, the ESFS and ESM are “the tools of international fiscal dictatorship.”

The EFSM and ESM are integral parts of the scheme to destroy the dollar and “Supersize" the IMF into a global Federal Reserve that this magazine has been exposing for the past several years.

The European Central Bank (ECB) admits that the ESFS and ESM are designed to fit into the IMF’s new globalized architecture, stating in the ECB Monthly Bulletin for July, 2011: “These design features of the European crisis management framework purposely resemble the main design features of the IMF-supported adjustment programmes.”

“Global crises call for global solutions” — GCFR

The German Council on Foreign Relations goes on to offer these points in favor of Lagarde’s arguments for supersizing the ECB and IMF (the enlarged, bold headings are their own):

Comprehensively Solving the Crisis
What would such a comprehensive solution look like? Lagarde thinks Europe needs stronger growth, higher financial firewalls, and more fiscal integration. Eurozone states now have a duty to expand financial firewalls to tackle the debt crisis: by increasing funds for the ESM, with further monetary easing through the European Central Bank, or through eurobonds (an idea that contradicts the German government’s present course)….

More Money to Avoid a Credit Crunch
Additionally, the eurozone bailout fund must be endowed with more than the planned 500 billion euros. “We need a larger firewall,” claimed Lagarde. The permanent bailout fund ESM should be expanded to include all funds set aside for the temporary EFSF… Lagarde thus sees stronger fiscal integration within the eurozone as a third essential task. “We cannot have seventeen completely independent fiscal systems and one common monetary policy.” Risks must be more strongly distributed beyond national borders….

Bulking Up the IMF
Lagarde envisions a massive increase in the IMF’s crisis reserves. This will allow the organization to help not only Europeans, but countries around the world that have been gripped by the crisis – even those without substantial debts of their own. “It is not about saving individual states or regions. Rather, it is about preventing a worldwide downward spiral.” Global crises call for global solutions. Lagarde estimates that 1 trillion dollars will be needed to fight the crisis in the coming years. A 500 billion dollar increase will be needed for the IMF ...

What Kind of Firewall?
"More fiscal integration," "more money," "bulking up the IMF," "global solutions," "higher financial firewalls." But what do the IMF and ECB mean when they talk about firewalls? Wikipedia offers this for its first definition of “firewall”:

“a barrier inside a building or vehicle, designed to limit the spread of fire, heat and structural collapse."

Christine Lagarde and the other Insiders at the IMF, the ECB, the Fed and the other central banks and Treasury departments obviously intend that definition and the image it evokes to win the support they need to pull off this enormous swindle. However, the firewall metaphor in this case not only is completely inappropriate, but ludicrous. Firewalls are made of noncombustible, “fireproof” materials, but the arsonists at the IMF and ECB are calling for throwing more paper and gasoline — more money and credit created out of thin air  — onto the global inferno.

However, Wikipedia offers a second definition for “firewall” that is entirely apropos to the IMF/ECB proposals:

“a technological barrier designed to prevent unauthorized or unwanted communications between computer networks or hosts."

The IMF, ECB, and the Fed do indeed intend to “prevent unauthorized or unwanted” inspection of their activities by citizens or national legislators. The so-called firewall they are constructing is, as Alex Newman puts it, “a massive, perpetual bailout machine.” It is a machine that they intend to be completely unlimited, unaccountable and untouchable.

Friday, October 14, 2011

US to Play 'Very Major Role' In Helping Europe: Geithner

CNBC

The U.S. plans on being an active partner as efforts intensify to get Europe get back on its feet financially, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told CNBC Friday.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner

With global leaders preparing for next month's Group of 20 nations (G20) summit in Cannes, France, the International Monetary Fund — of which the U.S. is the greatest contributor — is being relied on to help underwrite whatever efforts are needed to backstop toxic European sovereign debt [cnbc explains] .

Geithner said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [cnbc explains] has "very substantial" resources to fund a device that could look like the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which helped navigate American financial institutions through the crisis in 2008 and 2009.

"Through the IMF, of course, we're already playing a very major role," he said in a live interview in Paris. "We're happy to see the IMF continue to play that role in support of a more forceful, comprehensive strategy where Europe's own resources—very ample resources—are deployed on a much more substantial scale."

The comments give a lift to U.S. stocks, which have been highly volatile in the past several months as proposed solutions have come and gone for the euro crisis.

Geithner declined to give a specific number on what would be required to aid Greece and any other potential countries that need help meeting their obligations.

Estimates have run as high as $2 trillion for a liquidity fund, and Geithner said that whatever the figure is, it should leave no doubt that there will be more than enough.

"A basic rule of financial crises management is you want to make sure you have a level of resources that are larger than the potential need you face," he said. "If markets see that then they'll have the incentive to continue to lend, invest, to get more exposure to those countries."

By next week, IMF participants should have "a more comprehensive strategy" to solve the problem and put in place a plan at the G20 summit, which begins Nov. 3.

While that is happening, Geithner said the threat of a massive global recession [cnbc explains] has decreased, making solutions easier to devise.

"The numbers as we see them around the world have been somewhat encouraging over the last couple of weeks," he said. "You've seen steady, gradual—not strong, but gradual—growth across large sections of the U.S. economy and you're seeing a little bit of that outside the United States, too."
He added: "The concerns you saw over the summer that the world might be headed into a much weaker growth outcome have receded a bit."

Geithner said he understands the concerns of widespread protests that emanated from the Occupy Wall Street movement, and said the administration is taking steps to address concerns of economic imbalances.

"What you see is a general sense across the country from concern that the U.S. economy is not growing faster, you're not seeing unemployment come down more rapidly, you're not seeing incomes rising," he said. "People to make sure that the government — Washington — is acting to make things better now."


Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Dithering European policymakers fail to calm volatile stock markets

The Guardian
Helen Pidd
Jill Treanor


• Germany divided over bolstering bailout fund
• Analysts expect US-style Tarp €150bn relief scheme


Eurozone in turmoil as markets remain unconvinced that
European debt crisis can be stabilised.
Stock markets endured a day of sharp volatility amid uncertainty about how eurozone leaders intend to solve the ongoing – and increasingly pressing – crisis that is gripping the single currency and threatening global growth.

While the US and UK hope that eurozone leaders will come up with a scheme strong enough to build a firewall around the most indebted countries in the eurozone, Germany has emerged as a stumbling block to any plan to increase the bailout funds for the eurozone to €2tn (£1.7tn) or more.

German politicians told the Guardian of their dismay at reports following the last weekend's meeting of the International Monetary Fund about beefing up the existing bailout fund – known as the European Financial Stability Facility.

Frank Schäffler, a Free Democratic Party (FDP) politician from North Rhine-Westphalia, said any scheme to bolster the fund from its existing €440m capacity would be a "catastrophic development" that he feared would lead to inflation.

"It must be stopped," he said in a phone interview. Schäffler is from the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP), which rules in coalition with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) of the chancellor, Angela Merkel.

Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, appeared to downplay any attempt to bolster the EFSF. "We do not intend to increase it," he said in a television interview.
His remarks came after European markets closed and after France's CAC40 closed 1.8% higher and the Dax in Germany rose 2.9%.

Gains in London were more muted with the FTSE index ending 0.4% higher at 5,089.37, while Wall Street was gyrating.

President Barack Obama called on European leaders to move more quickly to address the crisis. He said in a town hall meeting that Europe's financial crisis "is scaring the world" and that the actions the region's leaders have taken so far "haven't been as quick as they need to be".
Louise Cooper, of BGC Partners, said: "These massive moves tell us how deeply uncertain is the future. Trying to trade or invest in such markets is more than difficult, I would suggest it is almost impossible."

Gold prices are falling – down by $40 and off $300 from its $1,920 an ounce high on 6 September – as traders liquidate positions to release cash to cover losses elsewhere.

But earlier Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, an executive board member of the ECB, had insisted that discussions were under way about how to bolster the EFSF. "I know that people are thinking about these things. They may not be willing to admit it in the public, but they are thinking about these things," he said, referring to the Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp) used in the US after the 2008 banking crisis.
Analysts at JP Morgan expect European banks to get a capital injection of up to €150bn through a Tarp-like deal. "Euro-Tarp is, in our view, the best risk-reward medicine for opening the Eurobank funding market," JP Morgan analyst Kian Abouhossein said.

There is also speculation about recapitalisation of eurozone banks, particularly because the losses, or "haircut", on Greek bonds are expected to rise to 50%. The second bailout for Greece in July put the loss at 21% and fears of large writedowns drove shares in Greek banks – big holders of their country's debt – to a 19-year low.

French banks are also of concern to the market and remarks by Banque de France's Christian Noyer at the weekend were seen as suggesting the central bank was ready to step in if necessary.

While a wide-ranging solution is needed, the focus is still on Greece. It needs the sixth tranche of payouts – €8bn – from its original bailout to be released next month or it will run out cash, potentially defaulting on its debt and being unable to pay its public-sector workers.

The EFSF must also be endorsed across the eurozone, even before any plans can be adopted to bolster its firepower. A key vote in Germany is due on Thursday and Schäffler suggested Angela Merkel, the chancellor, and Schäuble were not being honest with parliament about what lay ahead. "The ink has not dried on this second bailout and already there is talk about more money," he said.
On Tuesday afternoon the FDP, part of the government coalition, will meet to decide whether to support Merkel but Schäffler says he will vote "no" regardless.

Doubts remain about whether enough will be done. Philip Booth, from Cass Business School, said: "The IMF and the EU still has not woken up to the realities of the sovereign debt situation."

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Will the Real Culprits of Euro Doom Stand Up?

The Daily Bell
Anthony Wile

The Telegraph has carried an article entitled "The Great Euro Swindle" by Peter Oborne and Frances Weaver who have written a book on the subject (Guilty Men) from which the article is excerpted. They ask a good question, which is why those who have backed the unraveling euro – especially Europe's and Britain's leaders – are not exposed to more criticism and professional and personal ramifications from what has occurred.

One might think, given the extent of the disaster and the chaos it is causing, that there would more of an outcry to examine who was really behind the thing. In fact, as the euro and perhaps the EU continue to crumble, there will be attempts made to hold people accountable. But I will state for the record that these attempts will not be complete. Somebody, or perhaps several, will "take the fall" for everyone else. Oborne and Weaver, despite their evident sincerity, are seemingly feeding into this meme.

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, as furious as they apparently are, they are not willing to extend the blame to those who truly need to be held accountable. Instead, they are focused on what might be termed the "enablers" – those who carried out EU and euro policies and backed them but were not responsible for the concept itself, or its realization.

This is an old game. The Anglosphere power elite – a group of impossibly wealthy families that controls the world's central banks – is evidently and obviously responsible for much of what has gone wrong. But as the Euro project continues its decline, we will no doubt find blame is being laid elsewhere ... on highly placed functionaries. Of course, it's important, nonetheless, and a contribution to how things work. So let's review them before returning to our main thesis.

The first example is the Financial Times. Oborne and Weaver state that something went wrong with this prestigious mainstream newspaper about 25 years ago when it was captured by a "clique of left-wing journalists." As a result, the FT "has been wrong on every single major economic judgment over the past quarter century."

The biggest error was the support of the EU project itself, support that Oborne and Weaver call "religious." They cite the paper's Lex column, circa January 2001, as an example of how wrongheaded the paper could be. "With Greece now trading in euros, few will mourn the death of the drachma. Membership of the eurozone offers the prospect of long-term economic stability."

The paper also attacked euro-skeptics directly, claiming that those who differed with the paper were "immature." When the euro and the EU began to become undone in 2008, and countries like Ireland were suddenly exposed as failing, the FT continued its defense of the union. "European monetary union is a bumble bee that has taken flight," asserted the newspaper's leader column. "However improbable the celestial design, it has succeeded in real life."

What's the verdict, according to Oborne and Weaver? "For a paper with pretensions to authority in financial matters, its coverage of the single currency can be regarded as nothing short of a disaster."
Then there's the high-profile lobbying group, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the mission of which is to help create and sustain the conditions in which businesses in the United Kingdom can compete and prosper for the benefit of all.

The CBI claims to represent a broad cross-section of businesses. But according to the article, "by the mid-1990s a small clique of large corporations were firmly in control, and they had the director general they wanted in Adair (now Lord) Turner, later to become chairman of the disastrous Financial Services Authority (FSA). [This clique] claimed an overwhelming majority of British businessmen backed the single currency – a vital propaganda tool for pro-euro campaigners."

The CBI lobbied hard for Britain to join the single currency, even though it soon became obvious that most of its smaller, entrepreneurial business members were opposed to the CBI's position on the euro. Apparently, not representing the majority of its members on the EU issue did not deter the CBI leadership.

The BBC, England's "progressive" monopoly media, is perhaps the largest culprit in Oborne and Weaver's view. "The BBC betrayed its charter commitment and became a partisan player in a great national debate – all the more insidious because of its pretence at neutrality. For example, in the nine weeks leading to July 21, 2000, when the argument over the euro was at its height, the Today programme featured 121 speakers on the topic. Some 87 were pro-euro compared with 34 who were anti. BBC broadcasters tended to present the pro-euro position itself as centre ground, thus defining even moderately Eurosceptic voices as extreme." Here's some more:

As Rod Liddle, then editor of the Radio 4's Today programme, said: "The whole ethos of the BBC and all the staff was that Eurosceptics were xenophobes." He recalls one meeting with a senior BBC figure over Eurosceptic complaints of bias. "Rod, the thing you have to understand is these people are mad. They are mad."

In truth the Eurosceptics were only too sane. Margaret Thatcher, John Redwood, David Owen, William Hague and Bill Cash were mocked. But they grasped the problems the euro would bring. Speaking in the House of Commons in 1936, Winston Churchill said: "The use of recriminating about the past is to enforce effective action at the present."

So what should we learn from the argument over the euro? First, we should cherish that British trait, eccentricity. Study of the public discourse at the height of the euro debate shows how often pro-euro propagandists isolated their critics by labelling them cranks. Take Observer columnist Andrew Rawnsley's column on January 31, 1999: "On the pro-euro side, a grand coalition of business, the unions and the substantial, sane, front rank political figures. On the other side, a menagerie of has-beens, never-havebeens and loony tunes."

Of course, given what's going on with the euro and the EU these days, the loony-tunes all seem to be located in Brussels, fighting a never-ending battle to save the euro from a default that is seemingly inevitable. In fact, the air of unreality is such that top euro-leaders are apparently moving ahead with a facility to allow Brussels to issue EU-wide euro bonds even though a German constitutional court in a recent ruling has made such issuance doubtful indeed.

All this is interesting but, nonetheless, the people at the very top of this flawed project are again escaping identification. The politicians, media and business leaders that want the EU to succeed are an important part of the mess, but they were not the founders.

Who were? Some have suggested the EU is an outgrowth of some sort of German/Nazi plan, but that doesn't seem very feasible. The Anglosphere elite was very evidently in charge of a post-war world, and the EU would not have come to fruition if the Anglo-American powers-that-be didn't want it to occur.

No, the EU is evidently and obviously a project of the Anglosphere power elite that seeks regional building blocks on the way to a one world government. The central banking economy initiated and implemented by this power elite is responsible for the current economic crisis; but the elite banking families have many enablers including the politicians clustered about Brussels.

If there is to be a movement aimed at holding people responsible for the euro disaster, I would hope for once that it would at least explain more fully how the pyramid of leadership actually works. The people at the very top are responsible for the ongoing economic crisis, just as in the 1930s the central banks they set up crashed the world's economy. At the time, the blame was shifted away from central banks and their controllers and toward the securities industry (Wall Street, etc.).

Now, the same meme shall be played out when it comes to the euro and the EU. Somebody will be made to pay, but it won't be the real elites, the impossibly wealthy central banking families. They never seem to get blamed.

Friday, September 9, 2011

The Decline of the United States of America: The Moral, Political and Economic Causes

Global Research
Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay

“The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded.” Montesquieu, (Charles Louis de Secondat)  (1689-1755)

“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.” Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German politician and future German Chancellor, Mein Kampf, chap. 2, 1925

"I believe that God wants me to be president."George W. Bush, American 43rd president, speech in Washington D.C., June 1, 2004

"This economy of ours is on a solid foundation." George W. Bush, American 43rd president, January 4, 2008 (N.B.: the U.S. economy was about to enter into recession.)

"I believe that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." Sen. John McCain, March 20, 2003

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic?" Sarah Palin, American politician and former governor of Alaska, (admitting that her family used to get treatment in Canada's single-payer health care system, despite having demonized such government-run programs as socialized medicine that will lead to death-panel-like rationing, March 6, 2010)

“The Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.” Michele Bachmann, Rep. of Minnesota and 2012 Republican presidential candidate, (on the question of submitting to the authority of her husband, 2006). Rep. Bachmann is also a graduate of Oral Roberts University.

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
The Bible (New Testament), 1 Timothy 2:11-12

"Think of the American economy as a large apartment block. A century ago—even 30 years ago—it was the object of envy. But in the last generation its character has changed. The penthouses at the top keep getting larger and larger. The apartments in the middle are feeling more and more squeezed and the basement has flooded. To round it off, the elevator is no longer working. That broken elevator is what gets people down the most." Lawrence Katz, Harvard University economist, 2010

The American economy is in the Doldrums, the American Political System is Dysfunctional and Paralyzed

Around the world, many are baffled by what's happening to the United States. It seems that all at once the wheels are going off the cart. The American economy is in the doldrums, the American political system is dysfunctional and paralyzed, and a series of elective, far away foreign wars is ruining the country.

The U.S. economy used to be an engine of economic growth and the American political system used to be a well-oiled checks-and-balances machine that was geared toward progress and that could accommodate both leadership and compromise. Moreover, Americans can be proud that their constitution, at least on paper, is one of the best in the world, having been crafted by enlightened founders who believed in individual and democratic freedom.

In this short article, I will identify what I think to be the two major causes of America's current decline. (I welcome comments.)

-The first cause is a moral one: it is related to the widespread corruption that permeates many institutions and sectors of the U.S. society, the most corrupt of them all being the political system and the corporate system. It is no accident that the epicenter where these two corrupt systems meet is at the Pentagon, an agency that reports upon reports picture as a cesspool of corruption.

The result of that widespread corruption is that the United States is now generating a sub-standard class of politicians to administer its affairs who are not the servants of the common good, but who rather serve happily the narrow money interests that finance them. The U.S. corporate elite, for the most part, has abandoned all loyalty to its country while it roams the world in order to make short-term profits at all costs and avoid paying taxes in its country of origin.

The result: wacky politicians and greedy business people are in charge.

The same can be said about the biased corporate media who have also abandoned all pretenses of neutrality and objectivity in informing the people and who have rather donned the mantle of unadulterated propaganda in order to cynically manipulate information and public opinion, to the delight of their money masters.

Things were never perfect in the past, but I would argue that the current level and scope of corruption in the U.S. society is unprecedented and is a root cause of the decline of the United States.

The second cause of American decline is more structural and more economic in nature. It is related to a widespread ignorance of the practical consequences of economic and financial globalization that began under the Nixon Republican administration (1969-1973) and which accelerated under the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and of George H. Bush (1989-1993).

I shall tackle each of these causes separately.

I-  The U. S. has abandoned its Democratic Ideals and the Quality of its Politicians is Sub-Standard

Let's talk first about the moral and political causes of American decline.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) once quipped that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”! Indeed, democracy is a very fragile political system that can sometimes fail the very people it is designed to serve. American president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined it as “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

But democracy is at its worst when an oligarchy takes control of a country's institutions and imposes its agenda. Such is the case with today's United States. Money interests, not the sovereign people, control the political system today; they control the corporate media system, they control the U.S. Supreme Court and much of the judicial system and, I would argue, they control a large chunk of the academic system.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Greece and the Euro: Towards Financial Implosion

Global Research
By Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”

Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German-born theoretical physicist and professor, Nobel Prize 1921

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States (1801-09)

"Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness."

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States (1801-09)


On the 4th of July, the credit agency Standard & Poor called  Greece what it is, i.e. a country in de facto financial bankruptcy.  No slight of hand, no obfuscation, no debt reorganization and no “innovative” bailouts can hide the fact that the defective rules of the 17-member Eurozone have allowed some of its members to succumb to the siren calls of excessive and unproductive indebtedness, to be followed by a default on debt payments accompanied by crushingly higher borrowing costs.

Greece (11 million inhabitants), in fact, has abused the credibility that came with its membership in the Eurozone.  In 2004, for instance, the Greek Government embarked upon a massive spending spree to host the 2004 Summer Olympic Games, which cost 7 billion euros ($12.08 billion). Then, from 2005 to 2008, the same government decided to go on a spending spree, this time purchasing all types of armaments that it hardly needed from foreign suppliers. —Piling up a gross foreign debt to the tune of $533 billion (2010) seemed the easy way out. But sooner or later, the piper has to be paid and the debt burden cannot be hidden anymore.

Greece's current financial predicaments (and those of other European countries such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland and even Italy) are not dissimilar to the ones Argentina had to go through some ten years ago. In each case, an unhealthy membership in a monetary union of some sort led to excessive foreign indebtedness, followed by a capital flight and a crushing and ruinous debt deflation.

In the case of Argentina, the country had decided to adopt the U.S. dollar as its currency, even though productivity levels in Argentina were one third those in the United States. An artificially pegged exchange rate of one peso=one U.S. dollar held for close to ten years, before the inevitable collapse.

Indeed, membership in a monetary union and the adoption of a common currency for a group of countries can be a powerful instrument to stimulate economic and productivity growth, with low inflation, when such monetary unions are well designed structurally, but they can also turn into an economic nightmare when they are not.

Unfortunately for many poorer European members of the euro monetary union, the rules for a viable monetary union were not followed, and its unraveling in the coming years, although deplorable, should be of no great surprise to anyone knowledgeable in international finance.

What are these rules for a viable and stable monetary union with a common currency?

1- First and foremost, member countries should have economic structures and labor productivity levels that are comparable, in order for the common currency not to appear persistently overvalued or persistently undervalued depending on any particular member economy. An alternative is to have a high degree of labor mobility between regional economies so that unemployment levels do not remain unduly high in the least competitive regions.

2- Secondly, if either one of the two above conditions is not met (as is usually the case, since real life monetary unions are rarely “Optimum Currency Areas”), the monetary union must be headed by a strong political entity, possibly a federal system of government, that is capable of smoothly transferring fiscal funds from surplus economies to deficit economies through some form of centrally managed fiscal equalization payments.

This is to avoid the political strains and uncertainty when the standards of living rise in surplus regional economies and drop in regional deficit economies. Indeed, since the regional exchange rates cannot be adjusted upward or downward to redress each member country's balance of payments,  and since the law of one price applies all over the monetary zone, this leaves fluctuations in income levels and employment levels as the main mechanism of adjustment to external imbalances. —This can turn out to be a harsh remedy.

Indeed, such a system of income or quantity adjustment rather than price adjustment is somewhat reminiscent of the way the 19th century gold standard used to work, albeit with a deflationary bias, except that it was expected to have price and income inflation in surplus countries and price and income deflation in deficit countries, caused by money supply expansions in surplus economies and money supply contractions in deficit economies. In a more or less formal monetary union, we are left with income inflation and deflation while the central bank holds the rein on the overall price level.

3- A third condition for a smoothly functioning monetary union is to have free movements of financial and banking capital within the zone. This is to insure that interest rates are coherent within the monetary zone, adjusted for a risk factor, and that productive projects have access to finance wherever they take place.

In the U.S., for instance, the highly liquid federal funds market allows banks in temporary deficit in check clearing to borrow short-term funds from banks in a temporary surplus position. In Canada, large national banks have branches in all provinces and can easily transfer funds from surplus branches to deficit branches without affecting their credit or lending operations.

4- A fourth condition is to have a common central bank that can take account not only of inflation levels but also of real economic growth and employment levels in its monetary policy decisions. Such a central bank should be able to act as lender of last resort, not only to banks, but also to the governments of the zone.

Unfortunately for the Eurozone, it currently fails to meet some of the most fundamental conditions for a smoothly functioning monetary union.

Let's look at them one by one.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

An Unbelievable Video Of Police Brutality In Greece

Business Insider

Today was a perfect commercial against capitalism: Markets surged on the same news that made people riots in the street in Greece today.

Note: Some in the comments are taking umbrage with the description of "capitalism." We're not talking about some free-market ideal here, just the current market system, with its love of bailouts and euphoria whenever anything good happens to the banks.

The blog LOL Greece has a fantastic post today about the collapse of Greek democracy, and the meaninglessness of the bailout, when freedoms are lost and police have carte blanche to strike at protesters.

Don't think that's what happened?

Check out this video.





Sunday, June 26, 2011

U.S. Taxpayers to Pay for Greek Austerity Bank Losses

NYPost
JANET WHITMAN

Three years after bailing out big American banks, US taxpayers might wind up on the hook to rescue financial giants across the pond as European regulators fail to address Greece's financial woes.
Greek parliament is set to vote Tuesday on a wildly unpopular austerity plan devised by the International Monetary Fund and EU regulators. International lenders say must be passed for the financially strapped country to get its next round of aid.

But even if the austerity measures -- the equivalent of Uncle Sam seeking to slash Social Security checks -- don't go through, Greece may still get a handout from European regulators because they understand that the continent's big banks aren't prepared to deal with the fallout of the country officially going broke.

"Regulators and banks are kicking the can down the road," says Nicholas Economides, a professor of economics at the New York University Stern School of Business. "Banks don't want to take losses. It's something similar to what banks were doing in the United States before the 2008 housing crisis."

US banks have practically no direct exposure to Greek bonds, but European banks own a huge chunk of the country's $467 billion worth of state debt, and as much as 90 percent of it hasn't been marked down a penny despite its diminishing value.

"For securities that are traded every day, it's inexcusable that they're not being marked down," says Economides. "When Citi was holding a pile of mortgages at the wrong prices, at least they had the excuse that they were not traded every day."

By postponing what's widely believed to be inevitable -- a Greek default -- European regulators are adding to the potential for a Lehman-style financial crisis, some industry observers say.

In a severe meltdown, US taxpayers could end up paying AIG-size bailouts for German and other European banks, which also have huge exposure in other troubled countries such as Ireland and Portugal and much worse balance sheets than their US counterparts.

Richard Bove, a veteran bank industry analyst, says the Fed will likely have to step in with bailouts for big European banks unless the European Central Bank gets its act together, forces write-downs and comes up with other remedies beyond further Band-Aid loans for Greece.

Delaying a default or a restructuring will mean bigger pain down the road for Greece and the banks holding its bonds, he says. "The bill gets bigger for these entities every day. Pay it now before it can't be afforded," Bove said.

Wall Street is already feeling some ramifications with investor jitters about Greece helping drag stocks down about 7 percent from their April peak and over 2 percent for the last two trading days since the confidence vote for Prime Minister George Papandreou.

"My concern is that the markets aren't taking this seriously enough," says Lance Roberts, CEO and chief economist for Houston financial planner Street Talk Advisers.

Help Us Transmit This Story


  Add to Your Blogger Account
  Put it On Facebook
  Tweet this post
  Print it from your printer
  Email and a collection of other outlets
  Try even more services

Monday, June 20, 2011

Europe ties Greece loans to austerity

Sidney Morning Herald
Rodney Thompson

Europe has promised to unblock existing bailout loans for Greece and draw up a second financial rescue as long as its parliament approves fierce new budget cuts and a raft of asset sales.

After seven hours of crunch talks aimed at averting Greek default and fears of a domino effect across their shared currency area, eurozone finance ministers said they and the IMF would release 12 billion euros ($A16.25 billion) of loans in "mid-July" once Greece's parliament passed the austerity measures.
They also agreed on a roadmap for a second, 100 billion euro ($A135.45 billion) bailout, which would involve taxpayers' money but also a "substantial" contribution via the "informal and voluntary rollovers of existing Greek debt at maturity" by private banks, pension funds and insurers.
Greece needs funds to avoid a repayments bottleneck next month, but ahead of a parliamentary confidence vote in Prime Minister George Papandreou's reshuffled government set for Tuesday, Luxembourg prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker said it was "obvious" that commitments to hand over more money could not be given prior to parliamentary backing for conditional austerity.

"We stressed forcefully that the Greek government, by the end of this month, must act so as to convince us that all the commitments entered into by the Greek authorities are met," Juncker said, referring to negotiations with the European Union and International Monetary Fund.

A controversial budget plan, including 28.4 billion euros ($A38.47 billion) of fiscal belt-tightening, along with a vow to make 50 billion euros ($A67.72 billion) from privatisations by 2015, has triggered civil unrest.
Juncker, who heads the group of eurozone finance ministers, said while the political situation had evolved, "we have to wait for the final vote on the program".

"We still sense the need for a deal between the main Greek parties," he warned, despite new Greek finance minister Evangelos Venizelos vowing "we can achieve our targets".
Only once Greek MPs bite the bullet will that "pave the way for the next disbursement by mid-July," the Eurogroup said - releasing 8.7 billion euros from eurozone governments and 3.3 billion from the IMF.

Showing the extent of international fears over renewed financial contagion, G7 finance ministers from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States held a late-night telephone conference to discuss the Greek debt crisis.

Wrapping up moments before the opening of Asian markets, ministers said banks, pension funds and insurers will be invited to agree to "informal and voluntary rollovers" of existing debts years after their original redemption dates.

The litmus test, they said, was that the private sector contribution would be one "avoiding a selective default," meaning different ranking for different creditors, public and private.
"On these conditions, ministers decided to define by early July the main parameters of a clear new financing strategy."

However the initial verdict from Asia was less than encouraging, with the euro falling against the dollar in a trend that dealers said reflected the continuing uncertainty surrounding the bailout.
The euro fell to $US1.4235 in Tokyo afternoon trading from $US1.4301 in New York late Friday.
The European single currency also sagged to 114.11 yen from 114.46 yen.

Meanwhile, the main Milan stock exchange index fell by more than two per cent at the start of trading on Monday after Moody's warned it may cut Italy's credit rating in view of strains in the economy.
Banking stocks were among the worst affected, with shares in Intesa San Paolo dropping 2.42 per cent to 1.775 euros and UniCredit plunging 2.36 per cent to 1.487 euros following Moody's announcement on Friday.

Juncker warned on Saturday that the euro crisis hitting Greece could affect Italy and Belgium, saying in an interview with a German daily: "We are playing with fire."
Juncker told Suddeutsche Zeitung that the crisis could also hit, "due to their high levels of debt, Belgium and Italy, even before Spain".

Thursday, June 9, 2011

The Global Debt Crisis: How We Got In It, and How to Get Out

Global Research
By Ellen Brown

Countries everywhere are facing debt crises today, precipitated by the credit collapse of 2008.  Public services are being slashed and public assets are being sold off, in a futile attempt to balance budgets that can’t be balanced because the money supply itself has shrunk.  Governments usually get the blame for excessive spending, but governments did not initiate the crisis.  The collapse was in the banking system, and in the credit that it is responsible for creating and sustaining.

Contrary to popular belief, most of our money today is not created by governments.  It is created by private banks as loans. The private system of money creation has grown so powerful over the centuries that it has come to dominate governments globally.  The system, however, contains the seeds of its own destruction.  The source of its power is also a fatal design flaw.

The flaw is that banks advance “bank credit” that must be paid back with interest, while having no obligation to spend the interest they collect so that borrowers can earn it again and again, as they must in order to retire the debt.  Instead, this money is invested in various casinos beyond the borrowers’ reach. This leads to a continual systemic need for more new bank credit money, more debt with more interest attached, to prevent widespread defaults and deflationary collapse.

Today this problem is particularly evident in the EU.  The Euro is a fixed currency system that does not allow for expansion to meet the demands of the private lending casino.  The result is that EU member nations collectively are being crippled by debt.

There are more sustainable ways to run a banking and credit system, as will be shown.

How Banks Create Money

The process by which banks create money was explained by the Chicago Federal Reserve in a booklet called “Modern Money Mechanics.”  It states:

“The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.” [p3]

“[Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits.  If they did this, no additional money would be created.  What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts.  Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise [by the same amount].” [p6]  

“With a uniform 10 percent reserve requirement, a $1 increase in reserves would support $10 of additional transaction accounts.”  [p49]

A $100 deposit supports a $90 loan, which becomes a $90 deposit in another bank, which supports an $81 loan, etc.

That’s the conventional model, but banks actually create the loans FIRST.  (Picture how a credit card works.)  Banks need deposits to clear their outgoing checks, but they find the deposits later.  Banks create money as loans, which become checks, which go into other banks.  Then, if needed to clear the checks, they borrow the money back from the other banks.  In effect, they borrow back the money they just created, pocketing the spread between the interest rates as their profit.  The rate at which banks can borrow from each other in the U.S. today (the Fed funds rate) is an extremely low 0.2%.

How the System Evolved

The current system of privately-issued money is traced in “Modern Money Mechanics” to the 17th century goldsmiths.  People who left gold with the goldsmiths for safekeeping would be issued paper receipts for it called “banknotes.”  Other people who wanted to borrow money were also happy to accept paper banknotes in place of gold, since the notes were safer and more convenient to carry around.  The sleight of hand came in when the goldsmiths discovered that people would come for their gold only about 10% of the time.  That meant that up to ten times as many notes could be printed and lent as the goldsmiths had gold.  Ninety percent of the notes were basically counterfeited.

This system was called “fractional reserve” banking and was institutionalized when the Bank of England was founded in 1694. The bank was allowed to lend its own banknotes to the government, forming the national money supply. Only the interest on the loans had to be paid. The debt was rolled over indefinitely.

That is still true today. The U.S. federal debt is never paid off but just continues to grow, forming the basis of the U.S. money supply.  

The Public Banking Alternative

There are other ways to create a banking system, ways that would eliminate its ponzi-scheme elements and make the system sustainable.  One solution is to make the loans interest-free; but for Western economies today, that transition could be difficult.

Another alternative is for banks to be publicly-owned.  If the people collectively own the bank, the interest and profits go back to the government and the people, who benefit from decreased taxes, increased public services, and cheaper public infrastructure.  Cutting out interest has been shown to reduce the cost of public projects by 30-50%.

In the United States, this system of publicly-owned banks goes back to the American colonists.  The best of the colonial models was in Benjamin Franklin’s colony of Pennsylvania, where the government operated a “land bank.”  Money was printed and lent into the community.  It recycled back to the government and could be lent and relent.  The system was mathematically sound because the interest and profits were returned to the government, which then spent the money back into the economy in place of taxes.  Private banks, by contrast, generally lend their profits back into the economy, or invest in private money-making ventures in which more is always expected back than was originally invested.

During the period that the Pennsylvania system was in place, the colonists paid no taxes except excise taxes, prices did not inflate, and there was no government debt

How Private Banknotes Became the National U.S. Currency

The Pennsylvania system was sustainable, but some early American colonial governments just printed and spent, inflating the money supply and devaluing the currency.  The British merchants complained, prompting King George II to forbid the colonists to issue their own money.  Taxes had to be paid to England in gold.  That meant going into debt to the English bankers.  The result was a massive depression.  The colonists finally rebelled and went back to issuing their own money, precipitating the American Revolution.

In an international first, the colonists funded a war against a major power with mere paper receipts, and won.  But the British counterattacked by waging a currency war.  They massively counterfeited the colonists’ paper money, at a time when this was easy to do.  By the end of the war, the paper scrip was virtually worthless.  After it lost its value, the colonists were so disillusioned with paper money that they left the power to issue it out of the U.S. Constitution.

Meanwhile, Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Treasury Secretary, was faced with huge war debts, and he had no money to pay them.  He therefore resorted to the ruse used in England known as fractional reserve banking.  In 1791, Hamilton set up the First U.S. Bank, a largely private bank that would print banknotes “backed” by gold and lend them to the government.

The ruse worked: the paper banknotes expanded the money supply, the debts were paid, and the economy thrived.  But it was the beginning of a system of government funded by debt to private bankers, who lent banknotes only nominally backed by gold.

During the American Civil War, President Lincoln avoided a crippling war debt by returning to the system of government-issued money of the American colonists.  He issued U.S. Notes from the Treasury called “Greenbacks” rather than borrowing at usurious interest rates.  But Lincoln was assassinated, and Greenback issuance was halted.

In 1913, the privately-owned Federal Reserve was authorized to issue its own Federal Reserve Notes as the national currency. These notes were then lent to the government, eliminating the government’s own power to issue money (except for coins).  The Federal Reserve was set up to prevent bank runs, but twenty years later we had the Great Depression, the greatest bank run in history.  Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, wrote in 1934:

“We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks.  Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit.  If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve.”

For the bankers, however, it was a good system.  It put them in control.

Setting the Global Debt Trap

Prof. Carroll Quigley was an insider groomed by the international bankers.  He wrote in Tragedy and Hope in 1966:

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. 

“The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements [BIS] in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.  Each central bank... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans..."  

The debt trap was set in stages.  In 1971, the dollar went off the gold standard internationally. Currencies were unpegged from gold and allowed to “float” in currency markets, competing with other currencies, making them vulnerable to speculation and manipulation.

In 1973, a secret agreement was entered into in which the OPEC countries would sell oil only in dollars, and the price of oil would be dramatically increased.  By 1974, oil prices had increased by 400% from 1971 levels.  Countries lacking oil had to borrow dollars from U.S. banks.

In 1981, the Fed funds rate was raised to 20%.  At 20% compound interest, debt doubles in under four years.  As a result, most of the world became crippled by debt.  By 2001, developing nations had repaid the principal originally owed on their debts six times over; but their total debt had quadrupled because of interest payments.

When debtor nations could not pay the banks, the International Monetary Fund stepped in with loans -- with strings attached. The debtors had to agree to “austerity measures,” including:

·         cutting social services

·         privatizing banks and public utilities

·         opening markets to foreign investors

·         letting currencies “float.”

Today, austerity measures are being imposed not just in developing countries but in the European Union and on U.S. States.

The BIS: Apex of the Private Central Banking Pyramid

What Professor Quigley foretold about the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has also come to pass.  The BIS now has 55 member nations and heads the global financial pyramid.

The power of the BIS was seen in 1988, when it raised the capital requirement of its member banks from 6% to 8% in an accord called Basel I.  The result was to cripple the Japanese banks, which until then were the world’s largest creditors. Japan entered a recession from which it has not yet recovered.

U.S. banks managed to escape by dodging the capital requirement.  They did this by moving loans off their books, bundling them up as “securities,” and selling them to investors.  

To persuade the investors to buy them, these mortgage-backed securities were protected against default with “derivatives,” which were basically just bets.  The “protection seller” collected a premium for agreeing to pay in the event of default.  The “protection buyer” bought the premium. Owning the asset was not required.  Like gamblers at a horse race, derivative players could bet without owning a horse.

Derivatives became a very popular form of gambling.  The result was the mother of all bubbles, exceeding $500 trillion by the end of 2007.

Because of securitization and derivatives, credit mushroomed.  Virtually anyone who walked in the door could get a loan.

The tipping point came in August 2007, with the collapse of two hedge funds.  When the derivatives scheme was exposed, the market for derivative-protected securities suddenly dried up.  But the U.S. stock market did not collapse until November 2007, when new accounting rules were imposed.  The rules grew out of the Basel II Accords initiated by the BIS in 2004.  “Mark to market” accounting required banks to value their assets according to market demand that day.  Many U.S. banks, like those in Japan in the 1990s, suddenly had insufficient capital to make new loans. The result was a credit crisis from which the U.S. has not yet recovered.

The BIS has now become global regulator, just as Quigley foresaw.  In April 2009, the G20 nations agreed to be regulated by a Financial Stability Board based in the BIS, and to comply with “standards and codes” set by the Board.  The codes are only guidelines, but countries that fail to comply risk downgrades in their credit ratings, something so costly that the guidelines have effectively become laws.

An article on the BIS website states that central banks in the Central Bank Governance Network should have as their single or primary objective “to preserve price stability.”  That means governments should not devalue the national currency by inflating the money supply; and that means not “printing money” or borrowing credit created by their own central banks.  Like the American colonies after King George took away their power to issue their own money, governments must fund their deficits by borrowing from private banks.  The bankers’ global control over currency issuance has become virtually complete.


The effects of this policy are particularly evident in the European Union, where EU rules allow deficits of only 3% of government budgets and prevent member countries from either issuing their own money or borrowing credit advanced by their own central banks.  Member nations must borrow instead from the European Central Bank, private international banks, or the IMF.  The result has been forced austerity measures, as seen in Greece and Ireland.  The system is so unsustainable that commentators are predicting that the EU may break up.  

The Way Out: Return the Money Power to Public Contro
To escape the debt trap of the global bankers, the power to create the national money supply needs to be restored to national governments.  Alternatives include:

     ·         Legal tender issued directly by national treasuries and spent on national budgets.

·         Publicly-owned central banks empowered to advance the nation’s credit and lend it to the government interest-free.

·         Nationalization of bankrupt banks considered “too big to fail” (after expunging or writing down bad debts on inflated bubble assets).  These banks could then issue credit to the public and serve the public’s banking needs, with the profits recycling back to the government, defraying the tax burden on the people.

·         Publicly-owned local banks (state, provincial, or municipal).

Publicly-owned banks have been successfully established and operated in many countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, India, China, Japan, Korea, and Malaysia. 

In the United States there is currently only one state-owned bank, the Bank of North Dakota.  The model, however, has proven to be highly successful.  North Dakota is the only U.S. state to have escaped the credit crisis unscathed.  In 2009, while other states floundered, North Dakota had its largest budget surplus ever.  In 2008, the Bank of North Dakota (BND) had a return on equity of 25%.  North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country and the lowest default rate on loans.  It also has the most local banks per capita.

North Dakota has had its own bank since 1919, when  farmers were losing their farms to the Wall Street bankers.  They organized, won an election, and passed legislation.  The state is required by law to deposit all its revenues in the BND.  Like with the sustainable model of the bank of colonial Pennsylvania, interest and profits are returned to the government and to the local economy.

A growing movement is afoot in the United States to copy this public banking model in other states.  Fourteen U.S. state legislatures have now initiated bills for state-owned banks.

The model could also be replicated in other countries.  In Ireland, for example, where the major banks are insolvent and are already nationalized or soon will be, the government could deposit its revenues in its own publicly-owned banks, add sufficient capital to meet capital requirements, and leverage these funds to create interest-free credit for its own local needs.  That is exactly what Alexander Hamilton did when faced with government debts that were impossible to repay: he put the government’s existing funds in a bank, then borrowed the money back several times over, employing the accepted “fractional reserve” model.

Japan’s solution is also a variant of what Alexander Hamilton proposed two centuries earlier.  Japan retains its status as the third largest economy in the world although it has a debt to GDP ratio of 226%.  Japan has “monetized” the national debt, turning it into the national money supply.  The government-owned Bank of Japan holds Japanese government debt equal to 100% of the nation’s GDP; and because the government owns the bank, this loan is interest-free and can be rolled over indefinitely.  An interest-free loan rolled over indefinitely is the equivalent of issuing money.

Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute, http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.  In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how the power to create money has been usurped from the people, and how we can get it back.  Her websites are http://webofdebt.com and http://ellenbrown.com.



Exclusive 2-camera presentation
by Ellen Brown. In this lecture,
Brown explains in detail how
economies can overcome the likes of
the IMF, World Bank and the
Federal Reserve.
Includes Qn'A session.
Approx. 90 minutes.
$20.00



Saturday, June 4, 2011

Escaping the Clutches of the Financial Markets

The skyline of Frankfurt
"Trouble is brewing all over Europe."
Spiegel

In today's Europe, the people are no longer in control. Instead, politicians have become slaves to financial institutions and the markets. We are partly to blame -- and changes are urgently needed to nurse European democracy back to health.

We are doing well. In fact, we're doing splendidly. The economy is booming, with 1.5 percent growth in the first quarter. We are as prosperous as we were before the crisis, which has finally been overcome. Congratulations are in order for everyone.


The banks, Deutsche Bank above all, deserve particular congratulations. In the first quarter, it earned €3.5 billion ($5.1 billion) in pretax profits in its core business, and by the end of the year the bank will likely report a record €10 billion in pretax profits, its best results ever. That number is expected to rise to €11 billion or even €12 billion in two or three years.

Less than three years after the peak of the crisis, it seems as if it never happened. That is true of the economy, but it also true of us as economic subjects. But is that all we are?

No, we are also citizens and participants in a democratic society. As such, we have no reason to be celebrating. Instead, we ought to be sad and outraged. Democracy, after all, is not doing splendidly, or even well. It is gradually becoming a casualty of the financial crisis.

Rage Directed at Politicians
 
Trouble is brewing all over Europe. Young people with little hope for the future are protesting in Spain. In France, 1.4 million copies were sold of a manifesto titled "Be Outraged." Young Frenchmen and -women are devising utopias that extend well beyond civil society because they no longer expect anything from it. A deep depression has descended upon Greece, combined with a rage directed at politicians and the rest of Europe.

In Germany, this is what politicians are hearing from their citizens today: "You spent billions to rescue the banks, and now I'm supposed to be footing the bill? Forget it!" Hardly anyone is willing to put up with their politicians any more. And German leaders have lost support -- and some of their own legitimacy.

They seem helpless, unable to come to grips with the euro crisis. They meet in Brussels, and they talk, argue and adopt resolutions, and yet nothing improves. Greece isn't getting out of its hole, Ireland and Portugal are teetering on the brink, and Spain and Italy are heavily indebted to a dangerous degree. And no politician is providing leadership.

And then there were the lies. Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, had his spokesman deny that a meeting of European Union finance ministers on the Greek crisis was taking place, even though that meeting was in fact taking place. It wasn't the kind of lie that frequently crops up in politics: the broken campaign promise. Rather, it was more crass type of untruth: the denial of a reality. Juncker no longer had the courage to speak the truth. He was guided by fear of the financial markets. His lie was a capitulation of politics.
Things Will Have to Change
 

This is what is so disturbing about the current situation: the fact that politicians seem so helpless and powerless. They have been given a new master, and it's not us, the people, who tend to intervene in milder ways. Rather, it's the ruthless financial markets. The markets drive politicians even further into anxiety, weakness, incapacity and lies. Those who govern us are now being governed by the banks. That's the situation.

We could decide that we don't care because the economic figures are so good. But that would mean we are happy to play the role of the economic subject, to invest and spend money, all the while abandoning the original promise of democracy. Or we can say: We refuse to relinquish our role and political masters. But if that's our decision, things will have to change.

How has this happened? What are the consequences? And how do we extricate ourselves from this situation?

Read More