Showing posts sorted by relevance for query financial resources. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query financial resources. Sort by date Show all posts

March 13, 2008

More on Suspicious Activity Reports

They don't tell you much about SARs - they came in as part of the Patriot Act. Now Hankie Poo knows where ALL the bigger money is.

Through one SAR, the found out that MOSSAD was sending in cells of people, who were posing as art salesmen and setting up DEA agents, so suddenly nothing more was seen of those reports PUBLICALLY.

Score another one for the Big BoyZ in DC .. Another friggin brilliant plan of theirs. They got this plot from Executive Orders, btw.

And this is from a mainstream newspaper, so I suspect something is UP.

Veeger

Right now, feds might be looking into your finances

Banks tip off government to possible money laundering, fraud


By Thomas Frank
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Each year, federal agents peek at the financial transactions of millions of Americans — without their knowledge.

The same type of information that raised suspicions about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is reviewed every day by authorities to find traces of money laundering, check fraud, identity theft or any crime that may involve a financial institution.

As concerns about fraud and terrorist financing grow, an increasing number of suspicious deposits, withdrawals and money transfers are being reported by banks and others to the federal government. Banks and credit unions as well as currency dealers and stores that cash checks reported a record 17.6 million transactions to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network in 2006, according to a report from the network, a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department.

"I don't think Americans understand that their financial transactions are being reported and routinely examined," said Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Treasury Department's database now contains records of more than 100 million financial transactions going back to at least 1996, said network spokesman Steve Hudak.

Teams of agents from the FBI, IRS, Drug Enforcement Administration and other agencies regularly review newly filed financial reports and launch investigations. Federal and local authorities search the database to find information about people that can help ongoing probes. Treasury Department analysts study the reports to detect trends in fraud and issue reports alerting financial institutions.

"The government has access to untold volumes of records and can draw all sorts of conclusions about us, and many are going to be wrong," Steinhardt said.

Bankers disagree. "For the typical bank customer, this means very little because there's nothing they're doing that's likely to be viewed as out of the ordinary," said Richard Riese, head of regulatory compliance for the American Bankers Association.

The reporting system dates to the early 1970s when federal agents sought to pinpoint drug dealers by looking for people making large cash deposits.

Financial institutions have long been required to report cash transactions over $10,000. Those reports — simple notices of a deposit or withdrawal — account for more than 90% of the records the enforcement network gets each year.

Far more controversial are secret "suspicious activity reports" filed by financial institutions and reviewed by teams of agents spread around the country. The investigation of Spitzer began when a bank spotted potentially suspicious transfers from several accounts and filed reports with the IRS, according to a federal official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The official did not want his name used because he's not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

The number of suspicious activity reports soared from 413,000 in 2003 to 1 million in 2006, according to the enforcement network.

Federal law requires the reports to remain secret. They are written by officers at financial institutions who specialize in detecting suspicious activity, such as a series of large transactions.
f
The analysis can protect customers by spotting unusual withdrawals that may indicate fraud, said Robert Rowe, senior regulatory counsel of the Independent Community Bankers of America.

Many of the reports are a waste, said Riese of the bankers association. "We're reporting on a lot of things everybody knows law enforcement doesn't have the resources to pursue," he said.
Hudak said the "vast majority" of reports "are filed for a good reason. … There are law enforcement officials and investigators who use these reports and read them every day."

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080312/a_financial12.art.htm

September 23, 2007

The Fix Is Always In At Goldman Sachs

We hope Goldman fund investors are enjoying being fleeced by their asset managers. And in general, we think the shadowy nature of Goldman's less-than-arms-length relationships throughout the government and financial markets infrastructure certainly justify some serious inquiry.

[I tell you, between Henry Paulson and his shenanigans (BIG HAIRY BIG shenanigans) and people's naivity and inability to realize just what is at stake here in the world's markets, the world is quickly going to hell in a handcart. The time to have stopped all the secrecy was July 13, 2001 and an investigations launched THEN. Still not happening and unlike any time soon. and RAH! for Bill Bonner, who doesn't have enough clout, but should, to really rally the troops to do something about the crimes and corruption.]

---
9/21/2007

By: Joe Stocks

Goldman’s Quasi-Monopoly Earnings Report

Goldman Sachs (GS) – you know Goldman Sachs. They came out with an earnings report today. But first a little background.

Goldman gave us Robert Rubin, former Chairman of Goldman. He is the gentleman President Clinton called on to be Secretary Treasurer of the United States in 1995. During his tenure he orchestrated the bailout of Mexico, Asia, Long Term Capital Management, and Y2K. He is no stranger to moral hazard. His actions show that he actually embraced it. I think he was also responsible for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan to change his ways. After Greenspan uttered those famous words - “irrational exuberance” and knocked the equity markets for a loop in 1996, Greenspan became much more respectful of those that kept him in power. I thought that Greenspan meant what he said at the time with strong foundation, but his actions afterwards where of a different tune. Enough so that he bowed to the whims of both the Clinton and Bush administrations, taking irrational exuberance to bubble proportions.

Goldman also gave us John Thain. John is now CEO of the New York Stock Exchange. Mr. Thain helped to complete the reverse takeover of the NYSE by Archipelago in 2005. As you may have guessed – Archipelago’s largest owner - Goldman Sachs.

Well, who is the current Secretary Treasurer of the United States? It is Henry Paulson, former CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs. Mr. Paulson took the reins in early 2006. Yet another Goldman guy.

Everyday the Federal Reserve operates an open market operation to add and subtract liquidity from our financial system. This is where the big NYSE member banks go to get additional funds. I can’t think of another person that may be more important to a financial firm like Goldman Sachs on a daily basis. I am sure the Federal Reserve looked far and wide for someone to run this very important unit as it oversees domestic open market and foreign exchange trading operations as well as the provisions of account services to foreign central banks.

They picked Goldman Sachs former Chief Economist, William Dudley. An ‘economist’ for a trading operation? I know, it doesn’t sound right to me but maybe he takes direction well. William took this post in late 2006.

World Bank, you ask? Who runs the World Bank? The President of the World Bank is Robert Zoellick. Mr. Zoellick spent most of his career working for various governmental agencies. No Goldman connection here? Almost. He resigned in June 2006 to join Goldman. After a one year stint of indoctrination of how things work at Goldman, and who truly butters his bread, he was appointed World Bank President in June of 07’.

So, former Goldman people are in place as the United States Secretary Treasurer, the head of the NYSE, the head of the trading operations at the Federal Reserve (an economist at that), and President of the World Bank. Big deal? It gets better.

Just after the 1987 stock market crash the President of the US signed an executive order forming a committee of government and private individuals to monitor the financial markets. This group was named the ‘Working Group’. We traders have nicknamed this group the Plunge Protection Team – the PPT. Their mandate was to make sure all steps were taken to make sure nothing like that crash would happen again.

In 1998 the financial world was shaken by the financial shenanigans of a hedge fund named Long Term Capital Management. ( ‘Long Term’ lol!) After which time the US President’s Working Group approached the major NYSE member banks and said, “hey guys, listen, we ain’t suppose to let things like this happen. You guys need to get your act together.”

These banks formed the Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) The members are the top NYSE member banks, General Motors, a couple of hedge funds, and some well connected law firms and accounting firms. The group met and produced a document but was asked again in 2004 by the Working Group to come with more defined policy procedure. This effort resulted in the publication titled ‘Toward Greater Financial Stability: A Private Sector Perspective’.

Who was the leader of this group? Gerald Corrigan, Chairman of Goldman Sachs. Who was the transmittal letter addressed to at the opening of the report? Henry Paulson, then CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs, now US Secretary Treasurer. Who developed the policy? Well here is an excerpt from the transmittal letter; “I want to express to you my sincere gratitude for the time and effort devoted to this project by Craig Broderick who served as a Member of the Policy Group and the others from Goldman Sachs who participated in the project and are named in the Report.”

Link to the report; www.crmpolicygroup.org/docs/CRMPG-II.pdf

Here is what the CRMPG stated as their primary purpose; “The primary purpose of CRMPG II — building on the 1999 report of CRMPG I — is to examine what additional steps should be taken by the private sector to promote the efficiency, effectiveness and stability of the global financial system. As practitioners, the members of CRMPG II recognize that periodic financial disruptions and shocks are inevitable. However, the Policy Group also believes that it is possible to take steps that would be capable of reducing the frequency of such shocks and, especially, to reduce the risk that such shocks would take on the contagion features that can produce systemic damage to the financial system and the real economy.”

Again it appears the CRMPG mandate is to control the markets. How else are they to reduce the frequency of periodic financial disruptions.

CRMPG: “since we know that financial disturbances and even financial shocks will occur in the future, and we know that no approaches to risk management or official supervision are fail-safe, we also know that we must preserve and strengthen the institutional arrangements whereby, at the point of crisis, industry groups and industry leaders, as well as supervisors, are prepared to work together in order to serve the larger and shared goal of financial stability.”

We need to work together for financial stability? What does that mean for the public or retail investor? Obviously every trade has a counterparty. If these firms get in trouble with sub-prime loans, is it their idea to transfer that risk to the public to insure their financial stability and therefore the stability of the US economy as what they represent, as we can not have failing banks and a strong economy. But it would be acceptable to have a block of retail investors (small counterparties) suffering financial disruptions as long as it did not affect the general public or the greater good of the large NYSE money center banks?

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan acknowledges the CRMPG and their collective “eye” on the market in a speech he gave in 2002; “In today's markets there is an increased reliance on private counterparty surveillance as the primary means of financial control. Governments supplement private surveillance when they judge that market imperfections could lead to sub-optimal economic performance.” Link to speech; http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/200209252/default.htm
That leads me to Program Trading. Program trading ran about 16 to 19% of all shares traded on the NYSE from 1987 to 1998 when the Long Term Capital diabolical hit. Since that it has climbed to 65-75% of all shares traded on the NYSE.
The NYSE stock exchange issues a weekly report on Program Trading. For the week ending August 31st, program trading accounted for 73% of all shares traded on the NYSE. Now you will look at this report and see that it says 36.5%. What gives? Well, the NYSE formerly reported program trading as both sides of the trade. They did this for a couple of decades, or the inception of program trading. (Program trading is defined as a trade of 15 or more issues with a value over one million dollars.) Then in June of 2006, shortly after the Goldman guy took over, they changed the reporting to just one side of the trade. In addition, they deleted all past reports from their news archives. One day they were there, the next they were all gone. The old way of reporting worked for many years giving a more accurate summation of total program trading. I continue to use that number as it is more truthful. Link to recent report; http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/PT082707.pdf

Now you may suspect who the top program trader is. Well, sometimes it is Goldman but lately it has been Lehman Brothers. However, if you look at program trades made as the broker being the principal and not acting as an agent for others, Goldman does indeed take the top spot. For the referenced report they accounted for 25% of all program trades made as principal. Looking farther we see that the top six firms accounted for 69% of all program trades, or 50% of ALL shares traded on the NYSE. 50% of all shares traded in the hands of program traders of just six firms that are all members of the CRMPG, with the goal working together for the greater good? How would you like to be on the other side of those trades?

Again Greenspan in his speech of 2002 says it best.” To require disclosure of the structure of the innovative product either before or after its introduction would immediately eliminate the quasi-monopoly return and discourage future endeavors to innovate in that area.”

Quasi-monopoly returns! That, my friends, leads me to Goldman’s third quarter earnings release today. Earnings were up an eye-popping 88% from last year. It was as though Goldman was on the right side of every trade.

But how could this be? We saw the headlines;
‘Goldman's Exclusive Hedge Fund Drops By 10%’
‘Goldman hedge fund falls 22.5 pct in Aug’

Well, you see, Goldman doesn’t manage OTHER peoples money quite like it manages it’s own.

From the report - Asset Management (money they manage for others), Goldman: “Asset Management net revenues were $1.20 billion, 31% higher than the third quarter of 2006, reflecting a 40% increase in management and other fees, partially offset by lower incentive fees.”

Lower incentive fees? Fees were down 52% from last year. Incentive fees reflect doing a good job. Looks like their performance was lacking from last year.

Goldman: “During the quarter, assets under management increased $38 billion to $796 billion, reflecting money market net inflows of $31 billion, non-money market net inflows of $19 billion spread across all asset classes, and net market depreciation of $12 billion, reflecting depreciation in equity and alternative investment assets, partially offset by appreciation in fixed income assets.”

Increase of $38 billion. That’s a lot of money but still just 5% increase. But with $38 billion in net inflows after depreciation it appears that they had negative organic return on the assets that manage.

All on all, the money they manage for OTHERS had a bad quarter.

Now look at their proprietary trading unit – THEIR money. Trading and Principal Investments were $8.23 billion, 70% higher than the third quarter of 2006. Equity trading revenues were up a mind boggling 154%. This is in quarter were we saw a rough drop of about 3% in the S&P500.

Goldman: “Significant losses on non-prime loans and securities were more than offset by gains on short mortgage positions.”

They shorted mortgage positions with THEIR money! Shorting mortgages – a bet that citizens will default on their loans and possibly lose their homes. Goldman made money when things were good by pushing these sub-prime loans, now they win again when they go sour.

OTHER peoples money (OTM); NEW YORK, Sept 13 (Reuters) – “Goldman Sachs Group's Global Alpha hedge fund fell 22.5 percent in August on losses from currency and stock trades, Bloomberg News reported, citing an update sent to investors.”
Goldman has the largest collection of hedge funds in the world. How is it that they receive 75% of their revenues from trading, but the hedge funds they manage for other people’s money under-perform the returns Goldman receives on its OWN money? When Goldman’s hedge funds are long sub-prime, why did not the shorting of mortgages strategy that they used for THEIR money save some of the OTHER people’s money? Trading is a zero sum gain. Did Goldman need someone to take the other side of the trade?

Greenspan said this in the same speech above; “Most financial innovations in over-the-counter derivatives involve new ways to disperse risk. Moreover, our constantly changing financial environment supplies a steady stream of new opportunities for innovation to address market imperfections. Innovative products temporarily earn a quasi-monopoly rent.”

I think everyone would have to agree that Goldman has been very innovative in benefiting from market imperfections. They place their former executives in high positions of public power. They manage the CRMPG that allows them insight into the inside workings of their competitors. They have been aggressive in their managed hedge funds by establishing a counter-party to their trades. They certainly are getting their share on THEIR money with “quasi-monopoly rent”.

And they are getting paid well to do it.

Goldman: “Compensation and benefits expenses were $5.92 billion, 68% higher than the third quarter of 2006” The number employees increased only 7%. Nice raise guys!

So how does Goldman get away with this? Obviously the influence peddling is there. Why is the financial community of the slightly less connected not out there screaming about the potential for collusion and manipulation by these large member banks with their CRMPG association? Trading is a zero sum game. Why are so many willing to take a bullet for Goldman on an un-level playing field?

I just read a commentary from Bill Bonner expressing some of what I mention here. He wrote this after a similar stunning Goldman report in June of 06’;
“Well, how is it possible that a company like Goldman – with thousands of traders – can make 75% of its revenues from trading? You'd think their lucky trades would be balanced out by their unlucky trades. They can't all be lucky. And they can't all be geniuses. As Buffett says, there aren't that many geniuses around.”
"Or to put it another way, here's a company making billions, mostly by trading. Who's on the other side of these trades? Who's losing? Where does the money come from? How is it possible for so many traders to have a result that is so far beyond equilibrium...it seems to defy gravity." Bill Bonner

So why do I care about all of this?

Greenspan (same speech) said this; “No one can deny that fully informed market participants will generate the most efficient pricing of resources and the most efficient allocation of capital. Moreover, it could be argued that, if all information held by individual buyers or sellers became available to all participants, the pricing structure would more closely reflect the underlying balance of supply and demand. Thus full information would appear to be the unambiguous objective. But should it be?”

“But should it be?” Hell yes it should be. Fully informed market participates is central to a free market. Allowing Goldman and the CRMPG, with the blessings of the Federal Reserve to sway the markets in the direction that benefits them most, in the name of financial stability is a bullet to the chest of capitalism. Who was Chairman Greenspan helping when he suggested adjustable rate mortgages at interest rate bottoms? Some kind of innovative sub-prime scheme perhaps? The time to save our free markets is now. The complacency bullshat needs to stop!

Joe Stocks

April 03, 2008

Giustra, Clinton, Carlos Slim - dynamic neocolonial trio

President Clinton and Business Leaders Launch Sustainable Development
Initiative in the Developing World

Philanthropists pledge $200 million for poverty alleviation in developing world

June 21, 2007

New York, NY - Former President Bill Clinton announced today that his foundation is launching a new sustainable development initiative in Latin America, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI), thanks to the major financial commitment of two prominent philanthropists, Frank Giustra and Carlos Slim HelĂș. Giustra, a Canadian businessman, has pledged a minimum of $100 million to the effort, as well as one half of all of his future earnings from his work in the natural resources sector. He has also been the driving force to bring together a coalition of mining industry and non-industry actors that will make CGSGI possible. Carlos Slim HelĂș, the Chairman of Grupo Carso, has already answered Giustra's call for financial commitments to CGSGI and committed at least $100 million to CGSGI's work in Latin America.

"Collective action is the best strategy to address the economic, educational and health hurdles that confront millions in the developing world," said President Clinton. "I'm proud of the coalition in the natural resources industry that has come together to invest in sustainable growth in emerging economies, and humbled by the enormous financial commitment to this work by Frank Giustra and Carlos Slim. This initiative will focus on improving living conditions in Latin American countries and other nations, in partnership with the mining industry and other sectors. Ultimately, our goal is to bridge the gap between the rich and poor, and give all people a shot at a better life."

CGSGI will focus on alleviating poverty in the developing world and build on the Clinton Foundation's successful record of implementing and scaling-up development initiatives in other countries. The Clinton Foundation will act as the implementing partner, bringing together key stakeholders from the natural resources sector as well as the business community in the developing world. Participating companies from the mining industry will have a key role in CGSGI. To date, over 20 resource, resource finance and supporting companies have endorsed or signed on as partners to the initiative.

"I am honored to join President Clinton in launching the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative today, and I am pleased to personally commit a minimum of a $100 million to this project, as well as half of all my future earnings from the natural resources sector for the rest of my life," said Giustra. "I firmly believe that this innovative partnership between the Clinton Foundation and the business community - and the mining industry in particular - will have a profound and positive effect on the lives of countless people in the developing world during the months and years ahead."

The new initiative will focus its efforts in Latin America and other parts of the developing world, and will identify opportunities to assist local leaders in addressing social, economic, and environmental issues in a cost-effective, scalable, and sustainable way, consistent with the Foundation's proven track record on health and development elsewhere in the developing world. CGSGI will engage other partner organizations, NGOs, and national governments as necessary to develop programs at costs that can be borne by local communities.

"Latin America faces major challenges related to poverty and education, and these needs go beyond any single country, industry, or donor," said Carlos Slim. "CGSGI is an innovative partnership that's similarly far-reaching. I'm proud to commit a minimum of $100 million to support CGSGI programs in Latin America. CGSGI will play a critical role in shaping the future of the region."

There are over 2,000 listed mining companies around the world with a combined estimated market capitalization in excess of $1 trillion. CGSGI will work with participating companies that are working in the developing world to implement sustainable systems that serve the community long after a mine in that country has been closed. A number of major resource, resource finance and supporting companies have agreed to partner with or support this new initiative (see attached).

"The Clinton Foundation has been making headlines for several years now by taking a fresh look at problems that seem intractable-and then crafting bold and highly effective solutions," said Inter-American Development Bank President Luis Moreno. "While Latin America has made great progress in recent years - particularly when it comes to political and economic stability - there are still pockets of critical need, such as access to clean water and better education, which cry out for new approaches. So I am thrilled that CGSGI will work with governments, business leaders, and NGOs to find innovative and scalable solutions to critical issues in Latin America and elsewhere. At the Inter-American Development Bank, we are convinced that the public-private partnerships so effectively leveraged by the Clinton Foundation offer the best hope for addressing Latin America's problems."

About the Clinton Foundation
President Clinton established the William J. Clinton Foundation with the mission to strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence. To advance this mission, the Foundation works with like-minded organizations and forms partnerships with national and local governments around the world to make an immediate and measurable impact in several areas, including bringing HIV/AIDS care and treatment to underserved populations, developing sustainable economic growth in Africa and fighting global climate change. The Clinton Global Initiative serves as a non-partisan catalyst for action, bringing together a community of leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world's most pressing issues. In the U.S., the Foundation is working to combat the alarming rise in childhood obesity and is helping to expand economic opportunity by empowering small business owners and entrepreneurs. Learn more at www.clintonfoundation.org.

For more information, please contact the Clinton Foundation Press Office: +1 212.348.0360

February 05, 2008

China stakes out mining giants

By Greg Hoy

Posted Tue Feb 5, 2008 8:31am AEDT
Updated Tue Feb 5, 2008 8:56am AEDT

With China now building a city the size of Brisbane every month, the red hot world market for steel shows no sign of cooling off [File photo]. (Getty/AFP)

Mining analysts believe Chinese alumina giant Chinalco's lightning raid on Rio Tinto is part of a bigger trend by the Asian nation to snap up a strategic interest in the Australian resource sector.

It is already the big Australian, but if BHP Billiton goes ahead with its plans to take over the world's second biggest mining company, Rio Tinto, the result would be a global colossus.

Already it has become clear that the Chinese Government, in desperate need of raw materials to feed its bursting economy, will fight any push to further concentrate control of Australia's rich mineral resources.

A Chinese delegation was in Sydney on Monday explaining its lightning raid on Rio last Friday with minority partner, Alcoa America.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, it was revealed that the Chinese were also in talks with Fortescue Metals over the possible sale of almost 16 per cent of its shares.

The US economy may be faltering, but with China now building a city the size of Brisbane every month and the rapid industrialisation of the likes of Russia and India, the red hot world market for steel shows no sign of cooling off.

The global hunger for this precious metal is rising, as is competition for a slice of the action.

Those companies who mine raw ingredients that variations of steel require, like iron ore, magnetite, nickel and coal, to fire blast furnaces.

Scarce resources

Professor Clive Palmer of Mineralogy Limited says resources in the world are limited.

"There is a finite amount of iron ore, a finite amount of coal. The factor is in China, of course, steel mills," he said.

"They realise it's not just a question of price, it's a question of availability and by investing in Australian resources and Australian resource projects they're able to secure long-term supply at the world price of Australian resources."

DJ Carmichael analyst James Wilson says Australia has some of the largest iron ore resources in the world.

"Between Australia and Brazil it's probably in excess of 90 per cent of the world's resources of iron ore, and thus, it's a very strategic asset to have a significant stake in," he said.

Now the world's biggest mining company, the big Australian, BHP Billiton, is keen to cannibalise the world's second largest miner, Rio Tinto.

Ostensibly we are told to combine infrastructure and better serve its customers.

Former BHP chairman Sir Arvi Parbo says that fundamentally it makes good sense.

Confident

BHP Billiton chief executive officer Marius Kloppers says the company is very confident.

"The pro-customer value proposition that we're making, that is more volumes, more quickly, and the intrinsic nature of the combination that we are exploring here, will give us a very reasonable chance," Mr Kloppers said.

Sir Arvi says there are benefits of scale.

"There is a need for strong financial ability to expand large operations and to bring in new mines," Sir Arvi said.

But around the world, many are anxious about the possibility of an ulterior motive, including Professor Palmer, the magnetite magnate who recently dedicated $300 million of his company's future mining royalties to charity.

"There's strong opposition from the Chinese Government, I think and Chinese enterprises, I think in Australia too, it's not in our interest to consolidate things," Professor Palmer said.

"It's far better to have the competition."

Fat Prophets analyst Gavin Wendt says market power and pricing control is a politically incorrect thing to be talking about from BHP's perspective.

"But, of course in our view it's the major driver of this whole deal," he said.

Pricing power

Mr Wilson says it has a huge effect on pricing power.

"Once you actually control most of the market you can dominate the pricing," he said.

Mr Kloppers says the company believes that the market should work.

"That supply and demand conditions should set prices," he said.

Formidable BHP Billiton (BHPB) chairman, Don Argus, now describes his company as " the big fella".

Already it weighs in as the world's 15th largest corporation and easily the largest miner.

That is before it attempts, should it proceed, to engulf its major rival, Rio Tinto.

Sceptics

The sceptics' fears are two-fold.

First, that BHPB will have trouble with international regulators.

Second, is that so called "big fella" might end up like an overambitious anaconda with a severe case of indigestion.

Mr Wendt says it is not easy to manage a company theoretically of that size.

"We are concerned that historically these mega mergers haven't really generated the returns for shareholders and the value for shareholders that's been promised at the start," he said.

"So we're cautious about the whole prospect, even though on paper it sounds like a good one."

Iron ore is already the nation's biggest commodity earner, with exports this year tipped to top $18 billion.

Market strength

Fortescue Metals Group spokesman Graeme Rowley says all the debate shows the strength of the current market.

"The recent spate of discussions, whether it's BHP and Rio Tinto, whether it's interest from China into Rio, or the like, really just underscores how strong the current marketplace is," he said.

"It's enormously important for us to know that we're in a game now that is full of strong possibilities and growth into the future.

"Clearly with a limited number of suppliers but enormous demand we see a very positive and profitable future ahead."

The epicentre of this boom, the vast Pilbara region of Western Australia, is where BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto now compete in the iron ore market.

In May, they will be joined by a baby boomer, fledgling Fortescue Metals, whose shares are already being targeted by overseas miners and steel mills, as have other junior players across the mining spectrum.

Mr Rowley says they have had discussions with potential interested parties such as steelmakers and financial houses that have an interest in taking a place in what is the success of China.

"The evidence of this strong growth is such that I think everybody at the moment is very keen to get on board," he said.

National interest

In Sydney on Monday, those responsible for the weekend's pre-emptive $15.5 billion share raid on Rio Tinto talked generally of the dangers of consolidation in the mining sector.

Chinalco president Zioa Yaqing said the bid is okay as long as any such activity does not create monopolies and people think it is commonplace.

"No government would want to see monopolies happen," he said.

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan says he will consider the deal with the national interest in mind.

"I'm the one who actually under the legislation has to take the decision, and if the foreign acquisition and takeovers act is triggered, then I will be taking that decision and taking it on national interest considerations," he said.

"I have no further comment to make about those matters."

Sir Arvi says the Government should pay close attention, as Australia's ride on the back of the mining boom cannot and will not last forever.

"If we didn't have the income from minerals, export income, our economy would be in a much worse shape," he said.

"In fact, it would be in a very poor shape, so you can say that it's vital to Australia at the present time.

"Booms by definition are not there all the time, they come and go. So if and when the demand for minerals does weaken for some reason or another, then, of course, we have a problem."

Tags: business-economics-and-finance, industry, mining, rural, mining, australia, wa, china

December 15, 2007

RCMP restructuring urged (soopreezed?)

Months ago, by wallpapering over the cracks, they hoped to accomplish something, but it was wallpaper without the Mountie uniform in the "pattern" worn by the chief.

He's been a national DISGRACE. Time to get tough and demand that these changes get made before it is TOO LATE.

I believe that ALL police services must be looked at, not taken apart piecemeal, as appears to be the case. This militarization of police forces, rather than alleviate crime "reasons" is crucial. How immigration lets in white collar crime jerks, the financial cost of not properly regulating the stock market, decriminalization of drug use and referring that to health care - which is woefully underfunded, and many many more items should be part of a thorough mandate and ALL Public bodies and individuals should be invited to contribute, not just so-called "experts". I would have PLENTY to say.

Veeger

Free Rcmp From Ottawa: Report

Overhaul Urged

Andrew Mayeda And Meagan Fitzpatrick, CanWest News Service Published: Saturday, December 15, 2007



The task force led by chairman David Brown found "fierce pride" and "incredible dedication" among RCMP officers.Chris Wattie, ReutersThe task force led by chairman David Brown found "fierce pride" and "incredible dedication" among RCMP officers.

OTTAWA - The RCMP should be given more independence from government and be overseen by a new board of civilians to create a modern-day police service, recommends a task force looking into the beleaguered national force.

"As we travelled across Canada and into the far North, we witnessed fierce pride in the force, incredible dedication to the people they serve and a powerful determination to provide the policing services that they know are required to keep our communities and our country safe," said David Brown, chairman of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change.

"But we also witnessed despair, disillusionment and anger with an organization that is failing them."

Mr. Brown said the force was mired in endless bureaucracy and administration with the federal government, preventing it from carrying out its main purpose.

"The RCMP is not just another federal department --nor should it be."

The task force recommended making the RCMP a "separate entity with separate employer status," meaning it would have full authority to manage its own financial affairs within the spending guidelines provided by Parliament. It also would manage its own human resources.

"Members of the RCMP have the authority to make life-and-death decisions every day -- they fight organized crime and infiltrate terrorist cells -- but they don't have the authority to make simple expenditures or hire a new person without hours of paperwork and process," said Mr. Brown, a lawyer who once headed the Ontario Securities Commission.

The new civilian board of management would oversee the force's financial affairs, resources, services, property, personnel and procurement. It would report to the Minister of Public Safety. The task force recommends putting the board in place by Dec. 31, 2009.

The task force also recommended fusing the RCMP's two complaints watchdogs into one entity, to be called the Independent Commission for Complaints and Oversight of the RCMP (ICCOR). Currently, employee grievances are handled by the Mounties' External Review Committee, while public complaints are processed by the Commission for Public Complaints.

The new panel would have the power to initiate its own reviews, and its findings relating to discipline and grievances would be binding on the RCMP commissioner. Critics have called the force's watchdogs toothless because the commissioner can ignore their recommendations.

Mr. Brown said the task force wanted to see a "rapid but orderly implementation" of the recommendations, and it suggested setting up an "implementation council" to execute the changes and issue a public progress report by June 30, 2008.

The five-person task force has spent the past six months conducting an in-depth review of the RCMP and was given a mandate to provide advice on how to strengthen the accountability and governance of the force.

The task force met in person with more than 2,000 RCMP members and received more than 500 e-mails. Members talked of understaffing, chronic fatigue, equipment shortages and management structures that have not worked for years.


The recommendations cover a wide spectrum of issues including human resource management, recruiting, training and funding.

Mr. Brown was asked by Stockwell Day, the Public Safety Minister, to head the task force after he released a highly critical report in June related to the mismanagement of the RCMP's pension and insurance plans.

That report was initiated after a group of Mounties stunned MPs on the Commons public accounts committee in March with allegations of corruption and cover-up in the misuse of the two plans.

Mr. Brown said the task force's work revealed a picture of "an honourable and revered Canadian institution with rank-and-file members and employees struggling to do their best under the tremendous burden of an inefficient and inappropriately structured organization."

The task force started by crafting solutions to problems that came up during its consultations. "But as the issues piled up, we realized that these were merely symptoms of a much larger issue encompassing the organization, governance and culture of the institution. But treating these symptoms alone would not provide a lasting cure."

If the government adopts the task force's recommendations, it should be able to fix the RCMP's problems "once and for all," Mr. Brown declared.

RCMP commissioner William Elliott agreed there was an "urgent need to change" and he acknowledged "these are difficult and challenging times for the RCMP."

"The report is, I believe, an important turning point," Mr. Elliott said. "I would not, however, say that it's the starting point of real and significant change in the RCMP. There have already been, and there will be further changes, including in the senior leadership of the force," he said.

The commissioner, who was appointed in July and is a civilian, said the force must build on its strengths and address its "significant" weaknesses.

"If we are to properly serve Canadians, then we must make every effort to create the best possible working environment for our own people. I see that as one of my top priorities going forward and I am fully committed to making whatever changes are necessary to achieve that goal," he said.

Mr. Day said some of Mr. Brown's recommendations require complex structural and legislative changes and need to be given "proper consideration before further action is decided upon."

"This government is committed to setting a path ahead that will make the RCMP a stronger, more accountable and modern organization," Mr. Day said in a statement.

---------

THE FIX

The following are the main recommendations of the task force on RCMP governance and cultural change:

-The RCMP should become a separate entity with separate employer status and should be granted full authority to manage its financial affairs.

-A board of management of the RCMP should be established that would be responsible for the stewardship of its organization and administration, including the oversight of the management of its financial affairs, resources, services, property, personnel and procurement.

-An independent commission for complaints and oversight of the RCMP should be created.

National Post


NATIONAL POLICING

TheStar.com | Canada | Dramatic restructuring of RCMP urged in report
Dramatic restructuring of RCMP urged in report
RICHARD LAM/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Protesters rally in Vancouver last month after a Polish man died after he was Tasered by RCMP officers on Oct. 14.

Key recommendations

Among the nearly 50 recommendations of the task force led by David Brown:

Make the RCMP a separate entity from the federal government, with greater financial independence.

Create a civilian Board of Management.

Create a complaints and oversight body.

Provide fair compensation for all overtime and for staff deployed in the North.

Ensure rookie officers complete their field coaching by senior officers before being dispatched to areas where they might work alone.

Bring in a "mandatory backup" policy for risky calls as soon as possible.

Eliminate the serious backlogs in the disciplinary system.

Better target recruitment efforts, and pay cadets during their six-month training.

Implement major changes by December 2009.

- Tonda MacCharles


Dec 15, 2007 04:30 AM

OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA – The RCMP would get greater independence from the government, but more civilian oversight and a dramatically altered culture under recommendations of a government task force.

"The problems facing the RCMP today are deep and fundamental," said Toronto lawyer David Brown, who headed the task force.

If enacted by the Conservative government, the 61-page report released yesterday would radically change the way the country's national police force is run.

The RCMP, after 134 years of operating in insular, hierarchical, paramilitary fashion, would have to answer to new bosses. Civilian watchdogs and managers would have final say in how the Mounties spend money, deal with staff and, ultimately, police themselves.

"A modern-day RCMP will shed its cloak of secrecy while protecting the fundamental rights of Canadian citizens ... and rebuild trust through greater transparency," the report said. "We now have a plan to fundamentally fix the RCMP and restore trust in this institution – but the path we have laid out is not for the faint of heart."

The prescription is drastic, but civilian Commissioner William Elliott welcomed it as

"an important turning point."

"There is simply no other option; the RCMP must change,"
Elliott told reporters.

The report follows a litany of public image disasters suffered by the force, including a scandal over its mishandling of its pension fund, the international furor over the death of a Polish immigrant Oct. 14 at Vancouver airport after he was Tasered by four Mounties and the mishandling of the case of suspected terrorist Maher Arar.

Brown cited rank-and-file "despair, disillusionment and anger with an organization that is failing them."

The five-person task force led by Brown set out recommendations – nearly 50 in all – that would turn the RCMP into a stand-alone police organization, released from cumbersome federal government constraints on spending, hiring and contracting, yet still make it "accountable" to Parliament.

But the power or authority of the RCMP commissioner over a crucial aspect of operations – the policing of unethical or illegal activity by RCMP officers – would be drastically curbed.

Currently, the commissioner has the final say in internal disciplinary matters. That would be handed over to a new independent civilian oversight and review body, with power to start investigations on its own, subpoena witnesses and documents, and whose recommendations would be binding on the commissioner.

On top of that, a "management board" of seven prominent Canadians skilled in corporate leadership and administration – like a corporate board of directors – would take over the direction of financial spending and human resources.

Brown was clear, however, that criminal investigations and operations, with all their inherent risks and danger, would continue under the strict "command-and-control" line of authority. That means a senior RCMP officer is in charge, and subordinates obey orders.

The force is "mired" in bureaucracy, plagued by staffing and funding shortages of 25 to 30 per cent in some regions, and its employees are "struggling to do their best under the tremendous burden of an inefficient and inappropriately structured organization," the report said. It slammed "basic human management systems that haven't worked for years: mandatory unpaid overtime; discipline and grievance systems that don't work; a promotion system with little or no credibility; a sometimes embarrassing record of accounting to the people they serve."

The RCMP is hobbled, the report said, because staffing and spending decisions are largely dictated by Treasury Board guidelines.

"The RCMP is not just another federal department – nor should it be. Members of the RCMP have the authority to make life and death decisions every day – they fight organized crime and infiltrate terrorist cells – but they don't have the authority to make simple expenditures or hire a new person without hours of paperwork and process."

It said the RCMP had to draft and redraft more than 900 written submissions to the federal public works department last year to get permission to spend about $250 million. It has an annual budget of nearly $4 billion.

Former RCMP commissioner Norman Inkster said the addition of more civilians to oversee management of the force would give the government "reassurance" that while the force would have more spending authority, it would be "better run."

Brown says the RCMP should continue to contract its services to the eight provinces and three territories where it does street-level policing, as well as carry out its federal policing duties, such as in areas of national security, organized crime or commercial crime.


The federal government would not offer detailed comment yesterday. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day asked Elliott to "consider those recommendations that are administrative in nature and can be implemented quickly."

But Day said complex structural and legislative changes require more study and consultation with the provinces and territories. He is also considering the report of the public accounts committee released last week.

Elliott stressed change is afoot. As the first civilian leader of the force, he has already moved to shift four deputy commissioners, and more senior management changes will come in the New Year.

Elliott said many administrative improvements will be acted on without waiting for legislation.


September 21, 2008

Financial Bailout: America’s Own Kleptocracy by Michael Hudson

Global Research, September 20, 2008

The largest transformation of America’s Financial System since the Great Depression

Nobody expected industrial capitalism to end up like this. Nobody even saw it evolving in this direction. I’m afraid this failing is not unusual among futurists: The natural tendency is to think about how economies can best grow and evolve, not how it can be untracked. But an unforeseen road always seems to appear, and there goes society goes off on a tangent.

What a two weeks!

On Sunday, September 7, the Treasury took on the $5.3 trillion mortgage exposure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose heads already had been removed for accounting fraud.

On Monday, September 15, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, when prospective Wall Street buyers couldn’t gain any sense of reality from its financial books. On Wednesday the Federal Reserve agreed to make good for at least $85 billion in the just-pretend “insured” winnings owed to financial gamblers who bet on computer-driven trades in junk mortgages and bought counter-party coverage from the A.I.G. (the American International Group, whose head Maurice Greenberg already had been removed a few years back for accounting fraud).

But it is Friday, September 19, that will go down as a turning point in American history. The White House committed at least half a trillion dollars more to re-inflate real estate prices in an attempt to support the market value junk mortgages - mortgages issued far beyond the ability of debtors to pay and far above the going market price of the collateral being pledged.

These billions of dollars were devoted to keeping a dream alive - the accounting fictions written down by companies that had entered an unreal world based on false accounting that nearly everyone in the financial sector knew to be fake. But they played along with buying and selling packaged mortgage junk because that was where the money was. As Charles Prince of Citibank put it, “As long as they’re playing music, you have to get up and dance.” Even after markets collapsed, fund managers who steered clear were blamed for not playing the game while it was going. I have friends on Wall Street who were fired for not matching the returns that their compatriots were making. And the biggest returns were to be made in trading in the economy’s largest financial asset - mortgage debt. The mortgages packaged, owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie alone exceeded the entire U.S. national debt - the cumulative deficits run up by the American Government since the nation won the Revolutionary War!

This gives an idea of just how large the bailout has been - and where the government’s (or at least the Republicans’) priorities lie! Instead of waking up the economy to reality, the government has thrown all its resources to promote the unreal dream that debts can be paid - if not by the debtors themselves, then by the government - “taxpayers,” as the euphemism goes.

Overnight, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve have radically changed the character of American capitalism. It is nothing less than a coup d’Etat for the class that FDR called “banksters.” What has happened in the past two weeks threatens to change the coming century - irreversibly, if they can get away with it. This is the largest and most inequitable transfer of wealth since the land giveaways to the railroad barons during the Civil War era.

Even so, there seems little sign that it even may end the free-market patter talk by financial insiders who have managed to avert public oversight by appointing non-regulators to the major regulatory agencies - and thus created the mess that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson now says threatens the bank deposits and jobs of all Americans. What he really means, of course, are simply the largest Republican campaign contributors (and to be fair, also the largest contributors to Democratic candidates on key financial committees).

A kleptocratic class has taken over the economy to replace industrial capitalism. Franklin Roosevelt’s term “banksters” says it all in a nutshell. The economy has been captured - by an alien power, but not the usual suspects. Not socialism, workers or “big government,” nor by industrial monopolists or even by the great banking families. Certainly not by Freemasons and Illuminati. (It would be wonderful if there were indeed some group operating with centuries of wisdom behind them, so at least someone at least had a plan.) Rather, the banksters have made a compact with an alien power -not Communists, Russians, Asians or Arabs. Not humans at all. The group’s cadre is a new breed of machine. It may sound like the Terminator movies, but computerized Machines have indeed taken over the world - at least, the White House’s world.

Here is how they did it. A.I.G. wrote insurance policies of all sorts of that people and businesses need: home and property insurance, livestock insurance, even aircraft leasing. These highly profitable businesses were not the problem. (They therefore will probably be sold off to pay the company’s bad gambles.) A.I.G.’s downfall came from the $450 billion - almost half a trillion - dollars it was on the hook for as a result of guaranteeing hedge-fund counterparty insurance. In other words, if two parties played the zero-sum game of betting against each other as to whether the dollar would rise or fall against sterling or the euro, or if they insured a mortgage portfolio of junk mortgages to make sure that they would get paid, they would pay a teeny tiny commission to A.I.G. for a policy promising to pay if, say, the $11 trillion U.S. mortgage market should “stumble” or if losers placing trillions of dollars in bets on foreign exchange derivatives, stock or bond derivatives should somehow find themselves in a position that so many Las Vegas patrons are in, and be unable to come up with the cash to cover their losses.

A.I.G. collected billions of dollars on such policies. And thanks to the fact that insurance companies are a Milton Friedman paradise - not regulated by the Federal Reserve or any other nation-wide agency, and hence able to get the proverbial free lunch without government oversight - writing such policies was done by computer printouts, and the company collected massive fees and commissions without putting in much capital of its own. This is what is called “self-regulation.” It is how the Invisible Hand is supposed to work.

It turned out, inevitably, that some of the financial institutions that made billion-dollar gambles - usually in the form of a thousand million-dollar gambles in the course of a few minutes or so, to be precise - couldn’t pay up. These gambles all occur in microseconds, at strokes of a keyboard almost without human interference. In that sense it is not unlike alien pod people taking over. But in this case they are robot-like machines, hence the analogy I drew above with the Terminators.

Their sudden rise to dominance is as unforeseen as an invasion from Mars. The nearest analogy is the invasion of the Harvard Boys, World Bank and U.S.A.I.D. to Russia and other post-Soviet economies after the Soviet Union was dissolved, pressing free-market giveaways to create national kleptocracies. It should be a worrying sign to Americans that these kleptocrats have become the Founding Fortunes of their respective countries. We should bear in mind Aristotle’s observation that democracy is the political stage immediately preceding oligarchy.

The financial machines that placed the trades that bankrupted A.I.G. were programmed by financial managers to act with the speed of light in conducting electronic trades often lasting only a few seconds each, millions of times a day. Only a machine could calculate mathematical probabilities factored in regarding the squiggles up and down of interest rates, exchange rates and stock and bonds prices - and prices for packaged mortgages. And the latter packages increasingly took the form of junk mortgages, pretending to be payable debts but in reality empty flak.

The machines employed by hedge funds in particular have given a new meaning to Casino Capitalism. That was long applied to speculators playing the stock market. It meant making cross bets, lose some and win some - and getting the government to bail out the non-payers. The twist in the past two weeks’ turmoil is that the winners cannot collect on their bets unless the government pays the debts that the losers are unable to cover with their own money.

One would have thought that this requires some degree of control over the government. The activity probably never should have been licensed. In fact, it never was licensed, and hence nor regulated. But there seemed to be a good reason: Investors in hedge funds had to sign a paper saying that they were rich enough to afford to lose their money on this financial gambling. Your average mom and pop investors were not permitted to participate. Despite the high rewards that millions of tiny trades generated, they were deemed too risky for the uninitiated lacking trust funds to play with.

A hedge fund does not make money by producing goods and services. It does not advance funds to buy real assets or even lend money. It borrows huge sums to leverage its bet with nearly free credit. Its managers are not industrial engineers but mathematicians who program computers to make cross-bets or “straddles” on which way interest rates, currency exchange rates, stock or bond prices may move - or the prices for packaged bank mortgages. The packaged loans may be sound or they may be junk. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is making money in a marketplace where most trades last only a few seconds. What creates the gains is the price fibrillation - volatility.

This kind of transaction may make fortunes, but it is not “wealth creation” in the form that most people recognize. Before the Black-Scholes mathematical formula for calculating the value of hedge bets, this kind of put and call option was too costly to provide much profit to anyone except the brokerage houses. But the combination of powerful computers and the “innovation” of almost free credit and free access to the financial gambling tables has made possible a frenetic back-and-forth maneuvering.

So why has the Treasury found it necessary to enter this picture at all? Why should these gamblers be bailed out, if they had enough to lose without having to become public wards by going on welfare? Hedge fund trading was limited to the very rich, for investment banks and other institutional investors. But it became one of the easiest ways to make money, loaning funds at interest for people to pay out of their computer-driven cross-trades. And almost as fast as it was made, this revenue was paid out in commissions, salaries and annual bonuses reminiscent of America’s Gilded Age in the years prior to World War I - years before the income tax was introduced in 1913. The remarkable thing about all this money was that its recipients didn’t even have to pay normal income tax on it. The government let them call it “capital gains,” which meant that the money was taxed at only a fraction of the rate that incomes were taxed.

The pretense, of course, is that all this frenetic trading creates real “capital.” It certainly does not do so in the classical 19th-century concept of capital. The term has been decoupled from producing goods and services, hiring wage labor or from financing innovation. It is as much “capital” as the right to conduct a lottery and collect the winnings from the hopes of the losers. But then, casinos from Las Vegas to riverboats have become a major “growth industry,” muddying the language of capital, growth and wealth itself.

For the gaming tables to be closed and the money paid out, the losers must be bailed out - Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, A.I.G. and who knows what to come? This is the only way to solve the problem of how companies that already have paid out their revenue to their managers and stockholders instead of putting it in reserves are to collect their winnings from insolvent debtors and insurance companies. These losers also have paid out their income to their financial managers and insiders (along with the usual patriotic contributions to the political candidates on the key committees in charge of deciding the nation’s financial structuring).

This has to be orchestrated well in advance. It is necessary to buy politicians and give them a plausible cover story (or at least a well-crafted set of poll-tested euphemisms) to explain to voters just why it was in the public interest to bail out gamblers. Good rhetoric is needed to explain why the government should let them go into a casino and let them keep all their winnings while using public funds to make good on the losses of their counterparties.

What happened on September 18-19 took years of preparation, capped by a faux ideology crafted by public-relations think tanks to be broadcast under emergency conditions to panic Congress - and voters - right before the presidential election. This seems to be our September election surprise. Under staged crisis conditions, Pres. Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson are now calling for the country to come together in a War on Defaulting Homeowners. This is said to be the only hope to “save the system.” (What system is this? Not industrial capitalism, or even banking as we know it.) The largest transformation of America’s financial system since the Great Depression has been compressed into just two weeks, starting with the doubling of America’s national debt on September 7 with the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (My computer’s spellchecker will not permit me to use the euphemism “conservatorship” that Mr. Paulson applied to bailing out the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fraudsters.)

Economic theory used to explain that profits and interest were a return for calculated risk. But today, the name of the game is capital gains and computerized gambling on the direction of interest rates, foreign currencies and stock prices - and when bad bets are made, bailouts are the calculated economic return for campaign contributions. But this is not supposed to be the time to talk of such things. “We must act now to protect our nation’s economic health from serious risk,” intoned Pres. Bush on September 19. What he meant was that the White House must make the Republican Party’s largest group of campaign contributors whole - Wall Street, that is - by bailing out their bad gambles. “There will be ample opportunity to debate the origins of this problem. Now is the time to solve it.” In other words, don’t make this an election issue. “In our nation’s history there have been moments that require us to come together across party lines to address major challenges. This is such a moment.” Right before the presidential election! The same guff was heard earlier on Friday morning from Sec. Paulson: “Our economic health requires that we work together for prompt, bipartisan action.” The broadcasters said that half a trillion dollars was discussed for this day’s maneuverings.

Much of the blame should go to the Clinton Administration for leading the call to repeal Glass-Steagall in 1999, letting the banks merge with casinos. Or rather, the casinos have absorbed the banks. That is what has put the savings of Americans at risk.

But does this really mean that the only solution is to re-inflate the real estate market? The Paulson-Bernanke plan is to enable the banks to sell off the homes of five million home mortgage debtors faced with default or foreclosure this year! Homeowners with “exploding adjustable-rate mortgages” will lose their homes, but the Fed will pump enough credit into the mortgage-lending agencies to enable new buyers to go deeply enough into debt to take the junk mortgages off the hands of the gamblers who presently own them. Time for another financial and real estate bubble to bail out the junk mortgage lenders and packagers.

America has entered into a new war - a War to Save Computerized Derivative Traders. Like the Iraq war, it is based largely on fictions and entered into under seeming emergency conditions - to which the solution has little relation to the underlying cause of the problems. On financial security grounds the government is to make good on the collateralized debt obligations packaged (CDOs) that Warren Buffett has called “weapons of mass financial destruction.”

Hardly by surprise, this giveaway of public money is being handled by the same group that warned the country so piously about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Pres. Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson have piously announced that this is no time for partisan disagreements over this shift of public policy to favor creditors rather than debtors. There is no time to make the biggest bailout in election history an election issue. Not an appropriate time to debate whether it is a good thing to re-inflate housing prices to a level that will continue to oblige new home buyers to go so deeply into debt that they must pay some 40 percent of their take-home pay on housing.

Remember when President Bush and Alan Greenspan informed the American people that there was no money left to pay Social Security (not to mention Medicare) because at some future date (a decade from now? 20 years? 40 years?) the system might run a deficit of what now seems to be merely a trivial trillion dollars spread over many, many years. The moral was that if we can’t figure out how to pay, let’s plow the program under right now.

Mr. Bush and Greenspan did have a helpful solution, of course. The Treasury could turn Social Security and medical insurance money over to Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and their brethren to invest at the “magic of compound interest.”

What would have happened to U.S. Social Security had this been done? Perhaps we should view the past two weeks’ events as having assigned to Wall Street gamblers all the money that has been set aside since the Greenspan Commission in 1983 shifted the tax burden onto FICA wage withholding. It is not retirees who are being rescued, but the Wall Street investors who signed papers saying that they could afford to lose their money. The Republican slogan this November should be “Gambling insurance, not health insurance.”

This is not how the much-vaunted Road to Serfdom was mapped out to be. Frederick Hayek and his Chicago Boys insisted that serfdom would come from government planning and regulation. This view turned upside down the classical and Progressive Era reformers who depicted government as acting as society’s brain, its steering mechanism to shape markets - and free them from income without playing a necessary role in production.

The theory of democracy rested on the assumption that voters would act in their self-interest. Market reformers made a kindred happy assumption that consumers, savers and investors would promote economic growth by acting with full knowledge and understanding of the dynamics at work. But the Invisible Hand turned out to be accounting fraud, junk mortgage lending, insider dealing and a failure to relate the soaring debt overhead to the ability of debtors to pay - all of this mess seemingly legitimized by computerized trading models, and now blessed by the Treasury.

Michael Hudosn is President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and author of Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (1972 and 2003) and of The Myth of Aid (1971).

© Copyright Michael Hudson, Global Research, 2008

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10279

see

Bill Moyers Journal: Wall Street Woes + Kevin Phillips + Yankee Stadium

SEP presidential candidate speaks on financial crisis

Bush Announces Bailing Out Wall Street

The Point of No Return By Mike Whitney

Global Financial Meltdown by Michel Chossudovsky

The U.S. Is Becoming an Impoverished Nation by Richard C. Cook

The Economy Sucks and or Collapse


May 14, 2008

Executive Intelligence Review: The Crude Game British Geopolitics and the Dollar

Executive Intelligence Review

This article appears in the May 17, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Below is a Nice Try Effort.

Problem: with the use of Nuclear Power, the indigenous still stand to be exploited and turned into glow worms. The rivers remain polluted, the air continues to be filled with filth and the plants mutate ..

Okay, seems like I am being too simplistic to you, but if you step back and look at the globe as a living entity and try to figure out what needs to be done to HEAL this place, I am afraid that looking at the answer from the Lyndon LaRouche point of view hardly works.

With the neocons still firmly in control, a few people holding down a bridge in Brooklyn because they are pissed off at police brutality have MORE to offer the world than a gang of LaRouche activists ! The bridge takers have the balls to say "NO!" and to say "stop the madness!"

The LaRouche people will be sitting by the side of the road saying "attend our seminar" while the activists are lining up in droves these days to try to encourage SOLUTIONS that aren't toxic, trying to move things into a Good, Orderly Direction.

There is NOTHING remotely sane about nuclear energy - not long term.

I find it interesting that writing these types of essays will net you a right amount of money in the MSM and internet circus, but Plain Old Common Sense is really too much to expect.

You cannot feed the planet MORE TOXINS. Three Mile Island was not a "nonevent" and neither was Chernobyl. The last was in fact a form of horrible devastation whose effects (along with the uses of du) will take decades to cure.

A kind heart would be more interested in helping the du and nuclear accident victims than in promoting a global scenario more interested proliferating MORE excuses for insanity while the rich have dominion over the resources and means to exchange the credit of the world.

So 9/11 was an inside job. no surprises there! But as long as no one wants to look at the problem of power and energy in a reasonable way, the "cults" of Lyndon LaRouche and Ron Paul will continue to florish, and that way lies further INSANITY.

The planet itself stands at a crossroads: do we go with positive steps forward or just continue the same old, same old and expect a different result? The cost of the neocon wars is so STAGGERING that soon there will be a re-evaluation on a mass consciousness level. The LaRouche approach will be shown to be just another major blunder eventually. Nuclear power is just another form of psychopathology no matter who is expousing it.

The Crude Game
British Geopolitics and the Dollar

by John Hoefle

Last week, we discussed how the control of the global oil market by the British Empire is a key weapon in its assault on the nation-state system, and in particular the United States, and this week we will continue on that subject.

To recap briefly, the oil market is controlled not by OPEC, but by the British Empire through its dominance over the giant oil companies which make up the international oil cartel. These companies, which control the transportation, processing, and distribution of petroleum products, control the physical side of the oil business, while the price is set through the financial markets. This arrangement allows the price to move independently of supply and demand, and has been of great benefit to the financiers who control the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system.

Prior to the establishment of this market system, crude oil prices were set primarily by long-term contracts between oil producers and the oil companies, an arrangement which provided stable oil prices over long periods. Such stability is essential to the development of an industrial economy; and thus, destroying that stability was a crucial part of the oligarchy's assault on the nation-state.
Assault on the Nation-State

The precondition for this assault was the destruction of the Bretton Woods system of fixed currency rates established by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, at a conference at the Mount Washington Hotel, in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The fixed-currency-rate system, a necessary part of FDR's plan to rebuild the world after World War II, and to free the planet from colonialism, was destroyed by President Richard Nixon in August 1971, when he took the dollar off the gold-reserve standard. Shortly thereafter, Britain—the intellectual author of the Nixon move—allowed its pound sterling to float, too. Without the fixed rates, currency rates were allowed to "float," which opened the door for the oligarchy, with its vast financial resources, to target and manipulate currencies.

The second phase of the assault consisted of the oil hoaxes of 1973-74 and 1979, through which the spot market in oil was built. The spot market was a mechanism through which oil could be bought and sold at whatever price the market would bear. It began with the boycott that Arab oil producers placed on nations dealing with Israel during the Yom Kippur War of October 1973; the primary targets were the U.S.A. and the Netherlands, and it was in Rotterdam that the spot market was born. Nominally, the spot market was formed as a way to provide oil to boycotted nations, but the boycott itself was an Anglo-Dutch operation designed to create the conditions under which the spot market could be sold to a credulous world.

The oil hoax of 1973-74, combined with the sharp rise in oil prices it effected, dealt a serious shock to the U.S. economy; that shock was then used to push the idea that the United States was "over-consuming" energy and that we must cut back. The government implemented a host of conservation measures, including price controls, odd-day even-day gasoline purchase restrictions, and the 55-mph national speed limit, all part of a British-authored social engineering plan, targetting the industrial capacity of the U.S. economy, and brainwashing the population.

This process escalated with the oil hoax of 1979, triggered by (guess who!)the British-orchestrated plot in which the Shah of Iran was overthrown and replaced with the fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini. President Jimmy Carter appeared in his sweater to urge Americans to conserve, and installed a wood-burning stove in the White House. More importantly, he pushed deregulation, furthering the control over oil by the oil cartel.

Throughout both oil crises, we were repeatedly told that the nation must wean itself from its dependence upon foreign oil—but it was sophistry. The real solution to the "energy crisis" was nuclear power, but that was effectively suppressed by another hoax, the 1979 Three Mile Island non-event.

With the only real solution blocked, the nation became more dependent upon the oil cartel than ever. At the same time, thanks to the combined effects of "conservation" measures, high prices, and orchestrated shortages, the U.S. industrial base was shrinking, and being replaced by the post-industrial Information Age nonsense.
World Domination

The story so far is a disaster, one of the British Empire, with the knowing complicity of Anglophilic American oligarchic wannabes and other fools, selling out the nation and the world to rapacious oligarchs and their raw materials cartel. But, it gets worse.

The move to jack up oil prices and suppress the standard of living through "conservation" was only Phase One of a much more pernicious operation. The spot market raised lots of money, and that money quickly began to pile up in the banks of Europe, particularly, in the City of London. Some of this money belonged to the oil producers, or, rather, to the royal families in places like Saudi Arabia, but an increasing portion of it belonged to the speculators who played the spot market. Over time, the spot market expanded into the financial exchanges, which provided the trading facilities for even greater speculation and manipulation.

As this pile of "petrodollars" grew, the British used it to fund operations to transform the United States from within, including the takeover of the U.S. banking system and the cartelization—under the euphemism of mergers and acquisitions—of corporate America. Wall Street was transformed into a giant casino, where betting on financial instruments replaced investing, and the connection to reality was severed. At the same time, the petrodollars helped fund cultural warfare operations against the American people, to keep them blind to the damage being done, or even conning them into believing it was progress.

The effect of this assault is now becoming obvious. The financial bubble has popped, and the great financial engine that was supposed to replace industry as the economic engine of the future has been shown to be as substantial as the emperor's new clothes. We are now left with a bankrupt banking system sitting atop a rusted hulk of an economy, dependent upon the "world company" cartels for many of the necessities of life.
The BAE Factor

There is an even darker side to the British Empire's oil operations, as indicated by the scandal around BAE Systems, the British weapons firm. Under the secret Al-Yamamah oil-for-weapons agreement between the British and Saudi governments, BAE provided weapons to the Saudis which were paid for by oil, and included billions of dollars of bribes and illegal payoffs. Investigations into the BAE scheme indicate that hidden slush funds were used not only to pay kickbacks on arms deals, but that funds were also conduited into "black ops"—secret intelligence operations—to run coups and terrorist cells, of the sort typified by the inside job that was 9/11.

The rise of the military-industrial complex inside the United States since World War II—which President Dwight Eisenhower presciently warned us about in 1961—is another result of this shift away from traditional American values toward the imperial perspective. Empires are militaristic in nature, because they depend upon suppression and looting for their survival, and this mindset has taken hold in Washington, particularly under the neocon fascism of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, who seem to see terrorist threats anywhere there are large pools of oil. Their British controllers must laugh at how easy it is to manipulate such fools.
Shut It Down

For humanity to survive, the use of oil as a control measure must be stopped. There are several steps that could be taken, all of which involve governments standing up on their hind legs, and taking on the British Empire and the oligarchic slime-mold behind it.

The first step is to shut down the parasitical system by putting the international financial system through bankruptcy, thereby breaking the power of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system to manipulate and corrupt the world. As an included feature of this, the spot market would be closed, and the world could go back to long-term contracts for oil under a new Bretton Woods arrangement of fixed currency rates, to protect both producers and consumers from fluctuations, and to facilitate global development projects. This would get the financial system under control, a necessary prerequisite for solving the economic problems.

The next step would be a crash program for the development and implementation of nuclear technologies, with the goal of switching the economy to the consumption of hydrogen as a fuel, leaving petroleum to be used mainly for chemical feedstocks. The combination of nuclear fusion and hydrogen power would effectively end the ability of the oligarchy to use energy as a control mechanism, and would open the door to a new era of technological breakthroughs to increase the productive power of human labor and raise the standard of living throughout the globe.

All that is holding us back is our own fear, fear of letting go of a bubble which no longer exists, and fear of letting go of failed beliefs, and embracing a new future. As FDR said, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Once we get past that, the future is bright.

ShareThis