January 24, 2012

Source: GoldCore

Gold’s London AM fix this morning was USD 1,675.00, GBP 1,076.55, and EUR 1,294.94 per ounce.

Friday’s AM fix was USD 1,646.00, GBP 1,064.68, and EUR 1,274.29 per ounce.

Cross Currency Table – Bloomberg

Gold has risen in all currencies today and bullion up nearly 1 % to $1,675/oz. Gold rose 1.7% last week has risen more than 6% so far this year.

Gold jumped to its highest in more than a month as result of the uncertainty over of the Greek debt outcome and the growing geopolitical tensions with Iran and the US and Nato countries.

The Iranian geopolitical tension is supporting gold as Britain, America and France have delivered a clear message to Iran, sending six warships led by a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier through the highly sensitive Strait of Hormuz.

Reuters report that the EU has agreed to freeze the assets of the Iranian central bank and ban all trade in gold and other precious metals with the Iranian Central Bank and other public bodies in Iran.

According to IMF data, at the last official count (in 1996), Iran had reserves of just over 168 tonnes of gold. The FT reported in March 2011 that Iran has bought large amounts of bullion on the international market to diversify away from the dollar, citing a senior Bank of England official.

Currency wars continue and are deepening.

Many Asian markets are closed for the Lunar New Year holiday which has led to lower volumes.

Of note was there was an unusual burst of gold futures buying on the TOCOM in Japan, which has helped the cash market to breach resistance at $1,666 an ounce.

Investors are also waiting for euro zone finance ministers to decide the terms of a Greek debt restructuring later today.  This would be the second bailout package for Greece.

The risk of contagion in Eurozone debt and wider markets is leading to continued safe haven demand for gold.

Reuters Global Gold Forum

Silver surged 8% last week and is up nearly 20% so far in 2012 – thereby outperforming the other precious metals and nearly all assets.

Silver cut through resistance at $31 like knife through butter on Friday. Next resistance is $33 then and $35 and then the big $50.

Increasing speculation that the Fed will soon embark on another round of quantitative easing or QE3 is also supporting the precious metals and confirmation of QE3 could see gold reach $1,700/oz in short order.

Related Posts:

• Third Aircraft Carrier Group Coming To Iran
• Six Million People Are Under Correctional Supervision in the U.S.—More Than Were in Stalin’s Gulags
• Google Will Pay People to Authoritatively Root Themselves: Track 100% of Web Usage Via Dedicated Hardware
• According To A New DHS Report, If You Love “Individual Liberty” Of If You “Believe In Conspiracy Theories” You Are A Potential Terrorist
• Mexico arrests figure in Fast and Furious gun-smuggling scandal

January 24, 2012

Source: Naked Capitalism

Related Posts:

• Obama-appointed US trade adviser linked to illegal deal in Congolese gold
• Rothschild Bank AND Goldman Sachs Are Both On The LIST Of Bondholders Getting U.S. Taxpayer Billions In Ireland
• Illinois Semi Automatic Firearm Owners: Be Aware of HB1294
• The Green Police Want Drones For Environmental Violations
• WTF!: Oklahoma lawmaker wants to ban fetuses in food

December 23, 2011

Source: Seeking Alpha

Bloomberg reports that Bank of America (BAC) has shifted about $22 trillion worth of derivative obligations from Merrill Lynch and the BAC holding company to the FDIC insured retail deposit division. Along with this information came the revelation that the FDIC insured unit was already stuffed with $53 trillion worth of these potentially toxic obligations, making a total of $75 trillion.

Derivatives are highly volatile financial instruments that are occasionally used to hedge risk, but mostly used for speculation. They are bets upon the value of stocks, bonds, mortgages, other loans, currencies, commodities, volatility of financial indexes, and even weather changes. Many big banks, including Bank of America, issue derivatives because, if they are not triggered, they are highly profitable to the issuer, and result in big bonus payments to the executives who administer them. If they are triggered, of course, the obligations fall upon the corporate entity, not the executives involved. Ultimately, by allowing existing gambling bets to remain in insured retail banks, and endorsing the shift of additional bets into the insured retail division, the obligation falls upon the U.S. taxpayers and dollar-denominated savers.

Even if we net out the notional value of the derivatives involved, down to the net potential obligation, the amount is so large that the United States could not hope to pay it off without a major dollar devaluation, if a major contingency actually occurred and a large part of the derivatives were triggered. But, if such an event ever occurs, Bank of America’s derivatives counter-parties will, as usual, be made whole, while the American people suffer. This all has the blessing of the Federal Reserve, which approved the transfer of derivatives from Merrill Lynch to the insured retail unit of BAC before it was done.

Read More…

Related Posts:

• Jewish groups get most money from federal security grants
• Department of Homeland Security Using Fake Facebook and Twitter Accounts to Monitor Posts Containing Certain Keywords
• The Leading Cause of Breast Cancer: Medical Radiation
• The transparency problem: the government will not tell you why it’s legal to kill you
• News: FDA Won’t Act Against Ag Antibiotic Use

Posted by Camron Wiltshire on December 9, 2011

Site’ editor’s note: Former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich was sentenced to 14 years this week after being convicted of a wide range of corruption charges, including the allegation that he tried to sell the Senate seat vacated by President Obama.

You won’t see the talking head presttitutes discussing the fact that former Governor Rob Blagojevich was arrested exactly one day after he announced he was “…asking all Illinois government agencies to suspend business with Bank of America” …

Here’s Rod Blagojevich uncensored on We Are Change Chicago:

Related Posts:

• Iraq: An Army of Soldiers to be Replaced by an Army of Businessmen
• Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval
• Obama, Congress back legalization of a police state
• Indefinite detention bill passes in Senate On Bill of Rights Day
• Russia: Founder of Newspaper That Investigated Government Corruption Shot Dead

Class of Homebuyers Claims BofA Found a New Dirty Trick

December 7th, 2011

This one will take your breath away.

Via: Courthouse New Service:

Bank of America found a new way to illegally extract money from customers, according to a federal class action: deduct taxes and insurance from mortgage payments, even though the homebuyers make those payments themselves, then call the mortgage in default for the unauthorized deductions, and charge late fees and penalties.

Lead plaintiffs Rick and Susan Dolfo say that’s what Bank of America did to them.

“This is yet another tale of Bank of America cheating its customers,” the complaint states. “In 2005, plaintiffs obtained a residential mortgage loan. Bank of America subsequently bought the servicing rights to the loan. From the time the loan was issued, plaintiffs complied with their obligations under the loan agreement. They made their monthly payments, maintained the required homeowner’s insurance coverage and timely paid their property taxes. Nonetheless, in December 2009, plaintiffs noticed on their monthly mortgage statement that Bank of America paid their property taxes and homeowner’s insurance without the plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent, and even though plaintiffs also paid them. To fund the impound account, and without informing the plaintiffs, Bank of America took money from plaintiffs’ monthly mortgage payment, not leaving enough to cover plaintiffs’ monthly mortgage payment, throwing plaintiffs into default. Once in default, Bank of America, as the loan servicer, was ale to charge additional fees and penalties. Bank of America also falsely reported to credit agencies that plaintiffs were in default on their mortgage.”

Related Posts:

• Goldman Sachs Employees Have Donated How Much Money To Mitt Romney?!
• Ron Paul: Obama pushing ‘martial law,’ Holder should be ‘fired’
• In a World of Violence and Oppression, Peace and Freedom are Extremist Views
• North Carolina Weighs Restitution for Victims of Sterilization Program
• 30 Major U.S. Corporations Paid More to Lobby Congress Than Income Taxes, 2008-2010

December 2nd, 2011

Via: Alternet:

We now have concrete evidence that Wall Street and Washington are running a secret government far removed from the democratic process. Through a freedom of information request by Bloomberg News, the public now has access to over 29,000 pages of Fed documents and 21,000 additional Fed transactions that were deliberately hidden, and for good reason. (See here and here.)

These documents show how top government officials willfully concealed from Congress and the public the true extent of the 2008-’09 bailouts that enriched the few and enhanced the interests of giant Wall Streets firms.

Related Posts:

• Google Will Pay People to Authoritatively Root Themselves: Track 100% of Web Usage Via Dedicated Hardware
• According To A New DHS Report, If You Love “Individual Liberty” Of If You “Believe In Conspiracy Theories” You Are A Potential Terrorist
• Mexico arrests figure in Fast and Furious gun-smuggling scandal
• Bold Alligator: Massive 11-Nation Military Drill Aimed At Fending Off Iran In The Straits of Hormuz
• Marines ‘assault’ US beaches in amphibious drill

December 2, 2011

By Madison Ruppert
EndTheLie.com

In a shocking article published in Reuters, Felix Salmon confirmed what the so-called conspiracy theorists have said all along: former Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Hank Paulson was giving insider tips to his cronies at Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street titans which directly benefited them.

The article is entitled, “Hank Paulson’s inside jobs,” emphasizing the fact that this wasn’t some one-off lapse of ethics on Paulson’s part, but instead a disturbingly regular practice.

For those who are unaware, Paulson was the CEO and chairman at Goldman Sachs from 1999-2006 and he clearly provided them with actionable information that epitomizes the plague upon our economy, and the greater global economic system, that is crony capitalism.

However, this isn’t quite a brand new revelation given the fact that in October of 2009 Andrew Ross Sorkin exposed that Paulson met with the entire Goldman Sachs board in a hotel suite in Moscow at the end of June 2008.

Salmon covered this at the time, after Sorkin’s book was released, which detailed the meeting held after the Goldman Sachs boys had dinner with Mikhail Gorbachev.

At the time the Treasury chief of staff Jim Wilkinson told Goldman Sachs chief of staff John Rogers, “Let’s keep this quiet,” indicating that despite the fact that the Treasury’s general counsel Bob Hoyt claimed “it wouldn’t run afoul of the ethics guidelines,” they were well aware that wasn’t the case.

Hoyt said that it was acceptable so long as it was solely a “social event”, but unsurprisingly, Paulson didn’t record the so-called “social event” in his official calendar.

It is undeniable that these individuals knew very well what they were doing, and clearly they had no misgivings whatsoever.

During the Moscow meeting Paulson spoke of “the need for the government to have the power to wind down troubled firms, offering a preview of his upcoming speech,” according to Sorkin.

This wasn’t just a friend going over a speech with some old pals, as everyone knows the words of the Treasury Secretary heavily affect global markets almost instantly, just like speeches by the likes of Ben Shalom Bernanke, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the private Federal Reserve.

Getting this kind of information ahead of time is critical, and through Sorkin’s writing it is clear that Paulson enlightened them as to the situation with Lehman Brothers, giving Goldman Sachs an unfair advantage over those who didn’t happen to have someone on the inside.

Paulson spoke of the possibility that Lehman Brothers very well might collapse, along with giving the Goldman Sachs board other insights into how he was viewing the economic climate and what was to come.

As Salmon points out, “Maybe it’s not so surprising that Goldman Sachs turned out to be so well positioned when Lehman did indeed [blow up] a few months later.”

This egregious breach of ethics is a perfect example of the corporatism that pervades Wall Street and has brought us to the brink of collapse where we are precariously perched today.

Paulson’s Moscow meeting with Goldman Sachs wasn’t an isolated incident as just a few weeks later on July 28^th, 2008, Paulson met with what Salmon characterizes as “a who’s who of the hedge-fund world” in the Eton Park Capital Management headquarters.

Unsurprisingly, Eton Park Capital Management was created by Eric Mindich, formerly of Goldman Sachs as well.

In a Bloomberg article published yesterday, Richard Teitelbaum details the meeting between roughly a dozen hedge-fund managers and Wall Street executives, including no less than five former colleagues of Paulson’s from Goldman Sachs.

Others in attendance were Stephen Mandel of Pine Capital LLC, Dinakar Singh of TPG-Axon Capital Management LP and Daniel Och of Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC.

During the meeting Paulson, “went on to describe a possible scenario for placing Fannie and Freddie into ‘conservatorship’ — a government seizure designed to allow the firms to continue operations despite heavy losses in the mortgage markets.”

Teitelbaum writes, “The fund manager says he was shocked that Paulson would furnish such specific information — to his mind, leaving little doubt that the Treasury Department would carry out the plan. The managers attending the meeting were thus given a choice opportunity to trade on that information.”

While he points out that “law professors say that Paulson himself broke no law by disclosing what amounted to inside information,” it is hardly arguable that it is ethically acceptable for the Secretary of the Treasury to furnish information to certain people which would give them an advantage over everyone else.

As Salmon points out, “Given that it’s taken two years since the release of Sorkin’s book for the Eton Park meeting to be made public, it’s fair to assume that there were other meetings, too — possibly many others.”

Indeed it is impossible to know how much trading of insider information occurs amongst the financial elite, as we only get a glimpse when sources choose to disclose this information toreporters like Teitelbaum and Sorkin.

It is quite unfortunate that this is such a rare occurrence, especially when we look at how the ultra-rich continue to profit at record rates while the rest of us struggle to pay the bills.

Surely these meetings did not occur only a couple of times, given the tight connection that Goldman Sachs – or more accurately, as is now painfully clear – Government Sachs enjoys with Washington.
Salmon sums up this issue in pointing out that the so-called conspiracy theorists have been right all along.

Salmon writes, “Paulson was giving inside tips to Wall Street in general, and to Goldman types in particular: exactly the kind of behavior that ‘Government Sachs’ conspiracy theorists have been speculating about for years. Turns out, they were right.”

Now if only the derisive label of “conspiracy theorist” would be lifted from these issues when it is far from a conspiracy theory and is indeed a conspiracy fact.

I won’t be holding my breath, because so long as governments criminally conspire with multinational corporations and others, the label of conspiracy will be denigrated in order to keep people from discussing and investigating these facts and issues.

Related Posts:

• The Carrier IQ conspiracy
• Goldman Sachs Employees Have Donated How Much Money To Mitt Romney?!
• Debunking conspiracy theorists’ paranoid fantasies about AT&Tmobile
• DARPA’s new spy satellite could provide real-time video from anywhere on Earth
• Highly Toxic Mercury Present in Processed Foods, Yet FDA Does Nothing

The US Occupy movement is at a critical point. To succeed it must develop a message of specific solutions to fix our broken system. People are seeing the next step as advocacy for constitutional amendments proposed through an Article V convention.
by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(libertarian)

Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]
Monday, November 28, 2011

There is a growing convergence of thinking about where the US Occupy movement should go as a next step to turning its values, concerns and commitments into changing what most Americans see as broken government under control of corporate interests.  When it comes to political and social movements, history shows us that they usually fail not because they disappear, but rather because they become marginalized, unimportant despite a core group of committed people and groups.

They lose popular appeal and support or never expand beyond a small early group of supporters.  The nation and many supporters move on.  Other movements grab the interest of the most informed, dissident-type people seeking truth, justice or change.  A good example of such a failed contemporary movement is the 911 truth effort.  The groups, websites and true believers keep on pushing their objectives a decade after the historic event.  But the goal of revealing what really happened that the official government story does not divulge is like a moldy piece of forgotten food in the refrigerator.

Movement death by inattention happens despite good resources, charismatic leaders and even great organization and communication skills.  Critical mass of public support simply never materializes, in large measure because diverse segments of the population never buy into the central arguments of the movement.  The Internet is littered with websites of activist groups that persist despite clear evidence of decay and wide disinterest.  True believers have a mission in life tied to their egos that prevent them from admitting defeat.  They do not move on.

The biggest mistake that passionate advocates for a cause make is overestimating their ability to reach critical mass and underestimating the competition of other movements with greater appeal which rob them of both attention and supporters.

Make no mistake; I totally and enthusiastically support the Occupy movement because it offers the prospect of producing reforms to fix our broken government and attracting very wide public support for a nonviolent Second American Revolution.  What worries me, however, is that many of its participants seem over confident, as if they cannot fail.  On the other hand, I have become impressed by a convergence of thinking about what the next big step for the Occupy movement can and should be.  I will briefly identify examples of this convergent thinking.

Canadian author Erich Koch has written a compelling article: An Objective for the U.S. Occupy Movement: A Constitutional Convention.  He buys into the view that the Occupy movement could embrace the thinking of Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig who has presented the case for amendments to fix Congress.  Like others Koch is correct in saying that “No one in the movement would disagree with its main point: the fundamental problem is the corruption of Congress.”  Unlike others, Koch recognizes the path for obtaining reform constitutional amendments is using the provision in Article V for a convention of state delegates, having the same power as Congress in proposing amendments that still must be ratified by three-quarters of the states.  It has never been used despite many hundreds of state requests for a convention because, clearly, Congress and most status quo forces fear such a convention.

Koch cited a great article by Alesh Houdek: Has a Harvard Professor Mapped Out the Next Step for Occupy Wall Street?  Most is a review of Lessig’s book.  Correctly noted about using the convention option is “it bypasses the usual means of reform (Congress, presidential elections, etc.) which the lobbyists and other interested parties have learned so well to manipulate. And lastly, such a convention would be free to propose solutions that would otherwise be subject to be stricken as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.”  This is critical to understand.  Houdek concludes: “Properly presented, the strategies and aims of Lessig’s book could make it the handbook the protesters have been looking for — and provide a pathway for them to ride out the winter ahead.”

Dan Froomkin also has presented the same case in: Lawrence Lessig’s New Book On Political Corruption Offers Protesters A Possible Manifesto.  He quoted what Lessig himself had said in an article about the Occupy movement and the concern that I share, namely that the Occupy movement “will become too diffuse and not focused” on the root issue of corruption of government.  And that the movement will only grow “if a wide range of people can be part of it.”  This requires coalescing around an issue “as fundamental as the corruption of the system.”  Only a constitutional amendment can fix the corrupting impact of money in politics.  This is also the focus of Dylan Ratigan’s fine effort, except that the use of the convention path has not been emphasized.

A specific call for an Article V convention was made by the pro-Occupy US Day of Rage group: “We are organizing a coordinated national campaign at local and state levels, including where necessary the occupation of state capitols, in order to demand an article V constitutional convention be called to restore representative democracy to our nation.”  A set of specific reforms to be fix the corruption-money problem are presented.

The 99 Percent Declaration group has also presented an important statement centered on the call for a National General Assembly, where delegates would formulate a petition of a list of grievances that would be delivered to the main parts of the federal government on behalf of 99 percent of Americans.  A suggested list of grievances includes the need for constitutional amendments to achieve solutions, but only for a few of the issues.  Not explicitly acknowledged, however, is that constitutional amendments, not ordinary laws, would be necessary for other solutions, such as term limits for Congress and abandoning the Electoral College.  Moreover, there is no specific recognition that serious amendment reforms will not be proposed by Congress, and that an Article V convention is needed.  Inattention to method was also the shortcoming of a similar list of solutions by Ralph Lopez.

Author Scott Turow has presented: How Occupy Wall Street Can Restore Clout of the 99%.  His recommendation to the Occupy movement is “work across the nation for a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to regulate the expenditure of private money on elections.  … The best antidote to this imbalance of income and influence would be to greatly reduce the role of private funding in our elections.  …As for the Occupy Wall Street movement, it has been criticized by some for not having a realistic agenda, even though polling shows that millions of Americans, including me, are sympathetic to the basic message of the protests.”  His prescription: “rally around a single goal and reinvigorate their movement.”  Fine, but missing from his analysis is the recognition that Congress will never propose reform amendments, only an Article V convention will do the job.

This sampling of recent writings clearly shows convergent thinking that the Occupy movement can and should focus on key reform constitutional amendments and, second, that some better informed critical thinkers recognize, this requires advocacy for using the Article V convention option that Congress has refused to honor.

As to Occupy movement success, I want again to emphasize that there is always competition for the attention and support of concerned Americans who recognize how broken our system is.  In particular, the well financed Americans Elect effort is impressive.  Because it is offering an alternative path to nominating a presidential candidate in 2012, over 2 million Americans have already signed up to be delegates for a web convention, with millions more very likely as the mainstream media keeps giving this effort attention.  Disgust with the two-party plutocracy is surely shared by Occupy participants and supporters.  But for movement success based on enticing many millions of Americans, the Occupy movement cannot ignore competition such as Americans Elect.  This means that the Occupy movement must explicitly start making the case to the broad public why their effort can achieve more of what is needed.  This is easily done.

Here are some key concepts that the Occupy movement could use.  No matter who is nominated by Americans Elect, the odds are that either the better financed Democrat or Republican candidate will win the presidency.  This may just require spending even more millions of dollars on campaigns.  And whoever is nominated by the group will likely be strongly linked to one of the two major parties, rather than some courageous reformer and enemy of the status quo.  Moreover, this group does not offer a realistic path to getting the key reforms of the system that most of us see critically needed, such as constitutional amendments, already recognized by many Occupy supporters.

A sign of trouble for the Occupy movement is a recent national poll that found: “In the latest survey, 33 percent voiced support for Occupy Wall Street, down from 35 percent in a previous poll, while opposition to the movement climbed from 36 percent to 45 percent. Twenty-two percent were unsure.”  These results are worse than earlier polls.  From the left, Chris Bowers commented: “the decline in Occupy Wall Street’s image is probably more connected to the increasingly negative coverage of the clashes between protesters and police than it is to declining support for movement’s message.”  Now is the time to move the message from what is wrong to solutions, using an Occupy Congress approach.  Otherwise, this view from the conservative right might prevail: “OWS will linger … but I’d argue we’ve seen the movement’s high tide. It will now recede into a mere annoying shadow of itself as support is withdrawn by political figures and organizations.”

True, Occupy movement success is not inevitable.  The movement must better define what success means and how it can be achieved if it is to attract and keep the support of many millions of Americans.  It needs specificity for its solutions that ordinary Americans can relate to.  Never underestimate the power and commitment of status quo forces to maintain control over the political, government and economic system that has so harmed most Americans.  The fight against the Occupy movement mostly seen as local police violence against peaceful demonstrators and protesters as well disinformation from some news outlets and pundits are nothing compared to what could be mounted if the movement is viewed as more threatening to the status quo delusional democracy with its delusional prosperity.

Related Posts:

• Google Will Pay People to Authoritatively Root Themselves: Track 100% of Web Usage Via Dedicated Hardware
• According To A New DHS Report, If You Love “Individual Liberty” Of If You “Believe In Conspiracy Theories” You Are A Potential Terrorist
• Mexico arrests figure in Fast and Furious gun-smuggling scandal
• Bold Alligator: Massive 11-Nation Military Drill Aimed At Fending Off Iran In The Straits of Hormuz
• Marines ‘assault’ US beaches in amphibious drill

November 28, 2011

Source: RT

We knew the last bailout from the Federal Reserve was pretty big, but not until now did we have statistics on the actually tally. If you thought that the $700 billion bailout for TARP was big, get a load of this.

Just exactly how big was the Federal Reserve’s bailout of the banks between the years of 2008 and 2010? Thanks to a Federal Request of Information Act gone fulfilled, America now knows the truth behind a colossal cover-up: almost $8 trillion.

Ever since the Fed stepped in to bail out the biggest banks in the country, Ben Bernanke and company have gone to great lengths to keep the exact details of the transactions a secret, citing that the truth would cause concern for the world financial crisis far greater than what was already at hand, saying in particular that investors would step away from the “too big to fail” banks that were benefiting from the bailout. And while Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke went on the record to call the bailouts to even the most “sound institutions” only “marginal,” details of the FOIA request obtained by Bloomberg News now reveals that the Federal Reserve spent nearly half of the entire production output of the US during that span of less than two years — the biggest bailout in the country’s history — while going to great lengths to keep Congress and the American people in the dark.

By March of 2009, the Fed had already dished out $7.77 trillion to save the US financial system, dwarfing other assistance programs several times over. As the financial sector was on the brink of collapse, neither the Fed nor the banks involved came clean with the truth, instead lying through their teeth to keep the total facts a mystery. Until now.

While the banks kept the bailout a secret from Congress, they lobbied to the Legislative Branch to imply more lax governmental regulations on the industry, something that would haven arguably been near impossible had the truth surfaced at the time.

The website Naked Capitalism explains it pretty clearly in not so many words: “The bottom line is everybody close to the process lied like crazy.”

On November 26, 2008, Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis told shareholders that he ran “one of the strongest and most stable major banks in the world.” On that very day, BofA was indebted to the Fed something to the tune of nearly $90 billion. Less than two weeks later, the Federal Reserve blew $1.2 trillion total in a single day to bail out the breaking financial institutions.

All the while, of course, banks were borrowing loans at interest rates of as low as 0.01 percent. “No one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates,” writes Bloomberg now.

That’s not the worst part, either. As the Fed continues to operate without oversight from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, further bailouts are guaranteed to keep being generated at the cost of the American taxpayer while a recession still seems imminent — if not already occurring. Critics including presidential hopeful Congressman Ron Paul have lobbied to abolish the Federal Reserve once and for all. Could the next president help make that dream a reality? In the meantime, don’t be surprised if billions get borrowed at America’s expense minute by minute.

Related Posts:

• Kucinich: Federal Reserve has captured control of our government
• US missiles ‘hit Iranian village’
• Gene Patenting Causes People to Be Company-Owned Intellectual Property
• Open Letter to Mayor Sam Adams from Occupy Portland Liason Team
• Norwegian mass killer Breivik ruled insane, likely to end up in a psychiatric institution indefinitely

Related Posts:

• Third Aircraft Carrier Group Coming To Iran
• Martial Domestic Policing: The Pentagon Is Offering Free Military Hardware To Every Police Department In The US
• Division of Cerberus Capital Management Buying Large U.S. Firearms Companies
• U.S. Spent $200M on Egypt Election
• Furious at Latest U.S. Attack, Pakistan Shuts Down Resupply Routes to Afghanistan “Permanently”

Public Outrage Prompts Banks to Blink on Debit Card Fees

November 1st, 2011

haha.

Via: Daily Ticker:

As one Occupy Wall Street protester so eloquently wrote on a sign recently: “I bailed out the banks and all I got was a $5 debit card fee.”

Well, thanks to protests of millions of other Americans, that $5 fee for debit card purchases may never see the light of day. Having felt the wrath of consumers and politicians alike, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase have decided to drop the charge. And, now add Suntrust to the list of banks revoking the monthly fee.

Bank of America, the first bank to announce the charge and the one that suffered the biggest backlash, is also amending its policy to exempt many customers from the $5 monthly fee. Customers who hold Bank of America credit cards, use directly deposit or hold a minimum balance will not be charged under a new plan.

Related Posts:

• System D: The Shadow Superpower
• Google Will Pay People to Authoritatively Root Themselves: Track 100% of Web Usage Via Dedicated Hardware
• New York City Surveillance Center Staffed with Employees from Large Wall Street Firms
• Western Mercenaries and Corporations Pouring Into Libya
• Iran will release 100 documents implicating U.S. in terrorist acts: Leader posted

The trouble began three weeks ago when the occupiers suddenly found their donation buckets filling with thousands of dollars, way more than needed for their pizza dinners. Suddenly, the anti-bank protesters needed a bank. Citibank and Chase certainly wouldn’t fit. So OWS opened an account at the not-for-profit Lower East Side Peoples Federal Credit Union. Peoples has a unique federal charter – designated to open accounts for low-income folk from all over NewYork, available to those families earning less than $38,000 per year. (Disclosure: the CEO of the Peoples bank is my dearly beloved ex. But that’s another story.)

Goldman Sachs had also joined up with the Peoples bank. Goldman partners reportedly earn a bit more than $38k per annum, yet Goldman’s association so far was limited to giving the credit union $5,000 toward the little bank’s 25th anniversary celebration dinner. Goldman’s largesse was acknowledged on the dinner invites – along with the night’s honoree: Occupy Wall Street.

When a Goldman exec saw its gilded name next to Occupy Wall Street, the financial giant expressed much displeasure. In fact, my sources say, Goldman threatened legal action unless the credit union gave up the $5,000 and reprinted the invite sans the Sachs moniker. Goldman Sachs did not respond to our requests for comment on the affair.

Full article here

Related Posts:

• War profiteering: a cancer upon America
• Syria Using U.S. Made Web Surveillance and Censorship Systems
• Goldman Sachs Employees Have Donated How Much Money To Mitt Romney?!
• Iraq war will cost more than World War II
• Furious Greeks lampoon German ‘overlords’ as Nazis with picture of Merkel dressed as an SS guard

October 26, 2011

Source: Daily Mail

An ex-Goldman Sachs executive is facing charges of insider trading, sources have claimed.

Multimillionaire Rajat Gupta, 62, is expected to shortly surrender to the FBI on criminal charges of leaking inside information to Galleon Group hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam.
Billionaire Rajaratnam was given 11 years in prison earlier this month by a New York court, the longest sentence ever handed down for insider trading.

Surrendering to the FBI: Rajat Gupta, a former director at Goldman Sachs, is expected to give himself up on charges of insider trading

Mr Gupta, who was also once the global head of elite consultancy McKinsey & Co, is one of the most prominent business executives to be caught up in the Government’s insider-trading probe.

Gary Naftalis, Mr Gupta’s lawyer, would not comment on possible criminal charges but issued a statement echoing his previous comments that his client has committed no wrongdoing.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053561/Former-Goldman-Sachs-director-linked-Wall-Streets-biggest-insider-trading-scandal-surrender-FBI.html#ixzz1buDsv7Tx

Related Posts:

• Goldman Sachs Employees Have Donated How Much Money To Mitt Romney?!
• A 25 Billion Dollar Secret: The NY Fed, Goldman & The AIG Cover-Up
• Mexico arrests figure in Fast and Furious gun-smuggling scandal
• Third Aircraft Carrier Group Coming To Iran
• US missiles ‘hit Iranian village’

October 20, 2011

Source: WSJ

BRUSSELS—The European Commission is leaning toward proposing a ban on the issuing of sovereign credit ratings for countries in bailout talks, a top official said on Thursday.

“I think it’s legitimate to have a special treatment when a country is in negotiation or is covered by an international solidarity program with the IMF or a European solidarity” program, said Michel Barnier, European internal market commissioner.

Should the commission, the executive arm of the European Union, come to view these sovereign ratings are inappropriate, “we could ban it or suspend the rating for the necessary time frame,” he said. “I am …

Read Full Article Here…

Related Posts:

• Judge Declares Law Governing Warrantless Cellphone Tracking Unconstitutional
• Rights Groups Call for the Arrest of George W. Bush for Torture as He Arrives in Canada
• Iran Says Oil Will Pass $250 Bbl If Exports Banned
• U.S. Sues to Stop AT&T Deal – A Surprisingly Swift Move or Disinformation?
• Veteran Health – Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Can Cause Disease Many Years Later

October 19, 2011

Source: Daily Mail

A University of Zurich study ‘proves’ that a small group of companies – mainly banks – wields huge power over the global economy.

The study is the first to look at all 43,060 transnational corporations and the web of ownership between them – and created a ‘map’ of 1,318 companies at the heart of the global economy.

The study found that 147 companies formed a ‘super entity’ within this, controlling 40 per cent of its wealth. All own part or all of one another. Most are banks – the top 20 includes Barclays and Goldman Sachs. But the close connections mean that the network could be vulnerable to collapse.

The 1318 transnational corporations that form the core of the globalised economy – connections show partial ownership of one another, and the size of the circles corresponds to revenue. The companies ‘own’ through shares the majority of the ‘real’ economy

‘In effect, less than one per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,‘ says James Glattfelder, a complex systems theorist at the Swiss Federal Institute in Zurich, who co-wrote the research, to be published in the journal PLoS One.

Some of the assumptions underlying the study have come in for criticism – such as the idea that ownership equates to control. But the Swiss researchers have no axe to grind: they simply applied mathematical models usually used to model natural systems to the world economy, using data from Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors.

Economists such as John Driffil of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, told New Scientist that the value of its study wasn’t to see WHO controlled the global economy, but the tight connections between the world’s largest companies.

The collapse of 2008 showed that such tightly-knit networks can be unstable.

‘If one company suffers distress,’ Glattfelder says, ‘This propagates.’

Protest against global capitalism outside St Paul’s cathedral, London: But it seems unlikely that the 147 corporations at the heart of the world economy could wield real political power – they represent too many interests

The research requires more analysis, but it could be used to look for the weaknesses in the network of global wealth, and prevent future financial disaster.

Looking at ‘connectedness’ also puts paid to conspiracy theories about the world’s wealth – companies connect to highly connected companies for business reasons, rather than world domination.

The ‘core’ of 147 companies also represents too many interests to wield real political power – but it could act ‘as one’ to defend common interests. Sadly for market reformers, resisting change may be one such common interest.

Click here to read more.

Related Posts:

• Former Goldman Sachs director caught up in Wall Street’s biggest insider trading scandal ‘to surrender to FBI’
• Goldman Sachs Employees Have Donated How Much Money To Mitt Romney?!
• US missiles ‘hit Iranian village’
• Iran Says Oil Will Pass $250 Bbl If Exports Banned
• Kucinich: Federal Reserve has captured control of our government