Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other’s troops in civil emergencies

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military’s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

“It’s kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites,” said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.

Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.

“Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?” he asked.

Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. “We don’t know the answers because the government doesn’t want to even announce the plan,” he said.

But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.

He said the agreement is “benign” and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

“But there’s no agreement to allow troops to come in,” he said. “It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The ‘allow’ piece is entirely up to the two governments.”

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a “North American union” where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

“Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!” notes one website. “The next time your town has a ‘national emergency,’ don’t be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember — Canadian military aren’t bound by posse comitatus.”

Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.

Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.

Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn’t been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.

Source: CanWest via Canada.com

Oil may hit $200 if unrest spreads to Saudi - SocGen

Oil may hit $200 if political unrest spreads to Saudi Arabia, it was said on Monday. (Getty Images)

Oil may hit $200 if political unrest spreads to Saudi Arabia, it was said on Monday. (Getty Images)

Brent crude futures could hit $200 a barrel if political unrest spreads into Saudi Arabia, Societe Generale said on Monday.

North Sea Brent crude futures were trading about 60 cents higher at around $117 a barrel by 6pm Dubai time. US crude was around $105.70.

Brent crude has been hovering just below the $119 level hit late in February, its highest price since the third quarter of 2008, as the unrest in Libya has cost the country a loss of about 1 million barrels of crude production per day out of its normal 1.6 million bpd output.

Societe Generale listed some scenarios that could have an impact on oil prices, with its most extreme scenario showing Brent prices sharply high.

"Geopolitical Scenario 3: Unrest spreads to Saudi Arabia and threatens Saudi crude exports and any remaining spare capacity. Brent price range of $150-$200 a barrel," it said in its research note.

"In this most extreme, worst-case scenario for the oil markets, serious unrest spreads to Saudi Arabia. In this case, it does not really matter if Libya or any other producers are shut down or not. Saudi Arabia is OPEC's biggest producer and the world's biggest current holder of spare capacity," the bank added.

Saudi Arabia is the world's top exporter of crude oil, meeting about 10 percent of the global oil demand.

The kingdom has escaped major protests like those that toppled leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, but the wave of unrest has reached its neighbours Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan and Oman.

Saudi Arabia's council of senior clerics issued a statement on Sunday forbidding public protests, which the rulers of the US ally and key oil exporter fear could spread following demonstrations by minority Shi'ites.

Ron Paul in Iowa 3/7/11 - Speech and Q&A - The FAMiLY Leader

Ron Paul & Peter DeFazio "Democrats & Republicans Are Afraid Of Being Ca...

Hundreds rally against emergency financial manager bill at Capitol

Union workers protest against emergency financial ...
Union workers protest against emergency financial ...: Emergency financial managers selected by the state would run struggling cities and schools. Union members crowded outside of the state Capitol chanting "Kill the Bill." UAW members say the legislation serves as a "backdoor" to dismantle their rights


UPDATED 12:10 P.M. -- LANSING -- A crowd of hundreds of union members inside the Capitol is thinning out after protesting against what they view as anti-union legislation.

The Republican-controlled Senate adjourned today following a debate on a GOP-backed proposal that would give broad new powers to emergency financial managers appointed by the state to run struggling cities and schools.

Democrats failed in their attempts to amend the legislation, including limiting the salary of emergency financial managers to no more than $176,000. Republicans moved the legislation forward procedurally. A final vote is expected Wednesday.

Several hundred union members could be heard chanting outside the Senate chamber during the debate. While rallies and protests are common outside the Capitol, it is unusual to see and hear so many protesters inside the building.

Check lsj.com for updates.

UPDATED 10:50 A.M. -- LANSING. -- Several hundred union members were lined up this morning on three floors of the Capitol Rotunda, chanting "Kill the Bill," to stop what they view as anti-union legislation.

House and Senate bailiffs were allowing the loud protest to continue this morning; an outdoor rally moved inside the building about 9:30 am.

The protest is an effort to pressure state senators to scrap a proposal that would give broad new powers to emergency financial managers appointed by the state to run struggling cities and schools.

Ray Holman, a Haslett state worker and spokesman for United Auto Workers 6000, said there were no plans by his union to end the indoor protest anytime soon.

"When you have so many people screaming at the Capitol, (lawmakers) have to pay attention."

Check www.lsj.com for updates.

UPDATED 10:15 A.M. -- LANSING -- A rally of more than 700 union members has moved inside of the Capitol this morning.

Chanting "This is our house," union members filled the Capitol Rotunda in an effort to pressure state senators to scrap a proposal that that would give broad new powers to emergency financial managers appointed by the state to run struggling cities and schools.

(Page 2 of 2)

"We're here to fire a warning shot across the bow," said Jerry Skinner, a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers from Farmington Hills. "We are out here to show these (lawmakers) that we are not going to turn the other way."

ORIGINAL UPDATE

LANSING -- More than 700 union members rallied outside the Capitol this morning to pressure state senators to scrap a proposal that would give broad new powers to emergency financial managers appointed by the state to run struggling cities and schools.

The rally was organized by the Michigan AFL-CIO -- mirroring a similar union rally Feb. 23 outside the Capitol shortly before the state House approved the measure.

Union members say the measure would unfairly strip unions of collecting bargaining powers during the declared emergencies, and municipal officials fear it will result in more frequent state interference in local affairs.

"This is basically Wisconsin come to Michigan," said Sidney Kardon, a social worker with Royal Oak Public Schools, referring to the ongoing clash between public sector unions and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. "Gov. Snyder has the same agenda as Scott Walker."

But supporters of the legislation say it would lead to earlier intervention by the state in financially troubled communities and schools, perhaps avoiding the crisis situations that lead to the appointment of emergency managers.

On Feb. 23, the House approved the main bill in the package 62-47 mainly along party lines in the Republican-led House. The Senate has a more decisive Republican majority.

Check www.lsj.com for updates.

Page

Ron Paul "It's Time To Let Germany & Japan Pay For Their Defense!"

Ron Paul on Your World With Neil Cavuto 03/08/11

Wall Street, One Giant Mafia

9 TRILLION Dollars Missing from Federal Reserve,Fed Inspector General Ca...

Drunk priest offers oral sex to police officer

U.S. sets $223B deficit record

The federal government posted its largest monthly deficit in history in February, a $223 billion shortfall that put a sharp point on the current fight on Capitol Hill about how deeply to cut this year’s spending.

That one-month figure, which came in a preliminary report from the Congressional Budget Office, dwarfs even the most robust cuts being talked about on the Hill, and underscores just how much work lawmakers have to do to get the government’s finances in balance again.

The Senate plans to vote Tuesday on competing proposals to cut spending, but Democrats have rejected GOP-backed cuts of more than $50 billion, and Republicans have ruled out Democrats’ cuts of less than $10 billion, meaning neither plan will draw the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and pass.

“We’ve all done the math and we all know how these votes will turn out: Neither proposal will pass, which means neither will reach the president’s desk as written. We’ll go back to square one and back to the negotiating table,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.

The two sides are facing a March 18 deadline, which is when the current stopgap funding bill expires. Without a new spending agreement by then, the government would shut down.

**FILE** Glen Perkins delivers copies of the fiscal 2012 budget to the Senate Budget Committee hearing room in Washington on Feb. 14. (Bloomberg)**FILE** Glen Perkins delivers copies of the fiscal 2012 budget to the Senate Budget Committee hearing room in Washington on Feb. 14. (Bloomberg)

The House two weeks ago passed a bill that would cut $57 billion more from 2010 spending levels, including major reductions in a number of domestic programs.

Over the weekend, a top Senate Democrat said his party can accept no more than $6 billion in domestic cuts, and pointed to the proposal his colleagues introduced Friday that trims from several areas.

But a new set of numbers from the CBO indicates that Senate Democrats’ proposal actually totals only $4.7 billion when measured as reductions compared with the previous year’s spending.

So far, budget negotiations have not produced much visible progress.

President Obama designated Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as his point man in the conversations, and Mr. Biden convened a meeting with congressional leaders last Thursday at the Capitol. But Mr. Biden is traveling in Europe this week on a long-planned trip to meet with foreign leaders.

Story Continues →

GAS $5 A GALLON? You better be sitting down when you read this ! !

AND THEY THOUGHT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD NEVER FIND THIS OUT!? [VKD]
-----------------------------------------------------------

OIL---you better be sitting down when you read this ! !

You "will" pay $5 a gallon + again and you won't complain loud enough to make a difference, RIGHT!

Here's an astonishing read. Important and verifiable information :

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5...3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizeable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana , through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves..... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!

U.. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this mother load of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.

By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

Making the Chicken Run

With the U.S. government's ever-increasing stranglehold on Americans' assets, smart investors are now taking their wealth abroad. Doug Casey tells you how to do it, and why you shouldn't put it off any longer.

"Making the chicken run" is what Rhodesians used to say about neighbors who packed up and got out during the '60s and '70s, before the place became Zimbabwe. It was considered "unpatriotic" to leave Rhodesia. But it was genuinely idiotic not to.

I've written many times about the importance of internationalizing your assets, your mode of living, and your way of thinking. I suspect most readers have treated those articles as they might a travelogue to some distant and exotic land: interesting fodder for cocktail party chatter, but basically academic and of little immediate personal relevance.

I'm directing these comments towards the U.S., mainly because that's where the problem is most acute, but they're applicable to most countries.

Rolling into 2011, the U.S. is in real trouble. Not as bad as Rhodesia 40 years ago, and definitely a different kind of trouble, but plenty serious. For many years, it's been obvious that the country was eventually going to hit the wall, and now the inevitable is rapidly becoming imminent.

What do I mean by that? There's plenty of reason to be concerned about things financial and economic. But I personally believe we haven't been bearish enough on the eventual social and political fallout from the Greater Depression. Nothing is certain, but the odds are high that the U.S. is going into a time of troubles at least as bad as any experienced in any advanced country in the last century.

I hate saying things like that, if only because it sounds outrageous and inflammatory and can create a credibility gap. It invites arguments with people, and although I enjoy discussion, I dislike arguing.

It strikes most people as outrageous because the long-running post-WW2 boom has been punctuated only by brief recessions. After 65 years, why should it ever end? The thought of a nasty end certainly runs counter to the experience of almost everyone now alive – including myself – and our personal experience is what we tend to trust most. But it seems to me we're very close to a tipping point. Ice stays ice even while it's being warmed – until the temperature goes over 32 F, where it changes very quickly into something very different.

First, the Economy

That point – economic bankruptcy accompanied by financial chaos – is quickly approaching for the U.S. government. With deficits over a trillion dollars per year for as far as the eye can see, the U.S. Treasury will very soon be unable to roll over its maturing debt at anything near current interest rates. The only reliable buyer will be the Federal Reserve, which can buy only by creating new dollars.

Within the next 24 months, the dollar is likely to start losing value rapidly and noticeably. Foreigners, who own over 7.3 trillion of them (including T-bills and other IOUs), will start panicking to dump them. So will Americans. The dollar bond market, today worth $36 trillion, will be devastated by much higher interest rates, a rapidly depreciating dollar, and an epidemic of defaults.

And that will be just the start of the trouble. Since the U.S. property market floats on a sea of debt (and is easy to tax), it's also going to be hit very hard – again. This time by stifling mortgage rates. Forget about property owners paying their existing mortgages; many won't be able to pay their taxes and utilities, and maintenance will be out of the question.

The pain will spread. Insurance companies are invested mostly in bonds and real estate; many will go bankrupt. The same is true of most pension funds. If the stock market doesn't collapse, it will only be because money is looking for a place to hide from inflation. The payout for Social Security will drop significantly in real terms, if not in dollars. The standard of living of most Americans will fall.

This rough sequence of events has happened in many countries in recent decades, and they've survived the tough times. But it has the potential, at least in relative terms, to be more serious in the U.S. than it was in Argentina, Brazil, Serbia, Russia, Mozambique or Zimbabwe, for two main reasons.

First, many people in those countries knew they couldn't trust their government and acted accordingly, even in contravention of the law, by accumulating assets elsewhere. So there was a significant pool of capital available for rebuilding. Americans, on the other hand, tend to be much more insular, law-abiding and trusting in their government. When they lose their U.S. assets, they'll have lost everything.

Second, those societies were significantly more rural than the U.S. is today. As in the America of 100 years ago, much of the population lived quite close to the land and had practical skills and habits that helped them get through the tough times. For 21st-century Americans, it's a different story. Shortages and disorder are going to hit commuters who live in suburbs, and urban dwellers who think milk appears in cartons magically, like a ton of bricks.

One thing you can absolutely count on is that everyone will look to the government to "do something." Americans really do think governments control the way the world works. Another certainty is that the U.S. government will "step in" massively, because everyone will want them to, and the politicians themselves believe they should. This will greatly aggravate the crisis and make it last much longer than necessary.

Then It Gets Serious

But that's just over the short run. The long run is much more serious, because the next chapter of the Greater Depression has every chance of radically, and at least semi-permanently, overturning the basic character of American life. Ice turned to water – suddenly and unexpectedly – in Russia in 1918, Germany in 1933, China in 1949, Vietnam in 1954, Cambodia in 1975, and Rwanda in 1995. Those are just the first examples that come to mind. There are scores more.

The economic events I've outlined are going to mean serious hardship and unpleasantness for many people. But that doesn't concern me nearly as much as the social and political reaction.

Everybody gets hurt in a serious depression, but if you understand what's going on and prepare for it, you can do well enough. Of course, political and social change always follow economic and financial upheaval, but I think it's going to be much more drastic this time, because the U.S. has been on the road to becoming a police state for quite a while. The trend was supercharged by the so-called War on Terror, starting in 2001. And it's likely to go into hyper-drive in the months to come as the economy emerges from the eye of the storm. I know it seems asynchronous to think of a police state in a suburban country dotted with shopping malls. But not really.

Think in terms of science fiction, a genre that has far more predictive value than the work of any futurist or think tank.

Reality is mimicking art. In 1932, Aldous Huxley described a highly controlled utopia in Brave New World, where drugs made everybody think (actually feel, because thinking could only make you unhappy) that they were happy. The U.S. has pretty much done that drill, consuming massive quantities of everything on credit, watching American Idol and its clones in every spare moment, and using plenty of Ritalin and Prozac along the way.

Sixteen years later, George Orwell described an even more tightly controlled dystopia in 1984. Everybody knows that story, even if they haven't read the book.

Interestingly, like good sci-fi writers, both authors were just a generation or so ahead of events. What we're likely to see in the next few years is elements of both their worlds.

Actually, we're seeing it right now, or at least a preview. Whenever I return to the U.S., dealing with Immigration and Customs makes my skin crawl. And they're no longer just at airports and the border; they now range many miles inland and make random stops to see if your papers are in order.

They're almost as objectionable as the TSA, which has developed a highly dangerous corporate culture, even as it's grown in numbers and power, now reaching into busses, trains, and soon the highways. The FBI, the CIA, the DEA, the ATF, the Secret Service, the Federal Marshals, FEMA, and literally scores of other national law enforcement agencies are all expanding rapidly.

They've long constituted a veritable Praetorian Guard but now truly have lives of their own. Homeland Security is completing its new 400-acre campus in Washington, DC. Police forces all over the country are increasingly militarized in both equipment and attitude. And the military itself, bloated on a budget of hundreds of billions a year, has come a long way from the slapstick world of Beetle Bailey, full of steroid-pumped Black Ops wannabes who've picked up plenty of bad habits in the government's numerous undeclared wars. All these types endorse the dozens of "fusion centers" that have been created across the U.S. to collect and correlate information from every source imaginable, for some purpose.

All these organizations are bureaucracies. They serve themselves first. Their prime impulse is to grow and increase their budgets. They tend to attract the wrong kind of person and drive out people of good will. And it's reached a stage where even if John Galt were elected president, he'd find them not just impossible to uproot but dangerous to confront.

So here's another prediction. Riding the economic and social disorder, these new Praetorians, oriented as they are toward professional paranoia and the "national security" state, are going to become truly virulent. They're going to use the continuing economic crisis to increase their power, like it or not. The American people will demand it, since they are so degraded that they really do prefer the appearance of security to the prospect of having to take personal responsibility.

If I'm right (and I feel as sure about this as I ever have about anything), then it's not going to go well for libertarians, classical liberals, old-line conservatives, individualists, free-thinkers, non-conformists, people who subscribe to letters like this or who cruise suspicious websites, or gamma-rats generally. It was a dangerous environment for these types (not to mention those of Japanese or German descent and members of various religious groups) during America's past crises. When the chimpanzees are hooting and panting, you'd better join them, or they'll start wondering why not.

I expect what we're looking at is going to be much more serious than any past crisis, partly because America has already evaporated, like the morning haze on a hot summer's day. You're not in Kansas anymore. Kansas isn't in Kansas anymore.

Practical Objections

All very well, you may say. But there are practical issues, you also say. A person can't just pick up and leave and go where he wants and do what he wants… can he? Get real, Casey. There are reasons a person has to stay where he is, aren't there?

Let's look at some of those reasons.

"America is the best country in the world. I'd be a fool to leave." That was absolutely true, not so very long ago. America certainly was the best – and it was unique. But it no longer exists, except as an ideal. The geography it occupied has been co-opted by the United States, which today is just another nation-state. And, most unfortunately, one that's become especially predatory toward its citizens.

"My parents and grandparents were born here; I have roots in this country." An understandable emotion; everyone has an atavistic affinity for his place of birth, including your most distant relatives born long, long ago, and far, far away. I suppose if Lucy, apparently the first more-or-less human we know of, had been able to speak, she might have pled roots if you'd asked her to leave her valley in East Africa. If you buy this argument, then it's clear your forefathers, who came from Europe, Asia, or Africa, were made of sterner stuff than you are.

"I'm not going to be unpatriotic." Patriotism is one of those things very few even question and even fewer examine closely. I'm a patriot, you're a nationalist, he's a jingoist. But let's put such a tendentious and emotion-laden subject aside. Today a true patriot – an effective patriot – would be accumulating capital elsewhere, to have assets he can repatriate and use for rebuilding when the time is right. And a real patriot understands that America is not a place; it's an idea. It deserves to be spread.

"I can't leave my aging mother behind." Not to sound callous, but your aging parent will soon leave you behind. Why not offer her the chance to come along, though? She might enjoy a good live-in maid in your own house (which I challenge you to get in the U.S.) more than a sterile, dismal and overpriced old people's home, where she's likely to wind up.

"I might not be able to earn a living." Spoken like a person with little imagination and even less self-confidence. And likely little experience or knowledge of economics. Everyone, everywhere, has to produce at least as much as he consumes – that won't change whether you stay in your living room or go to Timbuktu. In point of fact, though, it tends to be easier to earn big money in a foreign country, because you will have knowledge, experience, skills, and connections the locals don't.

"I don't have enough capital to make a move." Well, that was one thing that kept serfs down on the farm. Capital gives you freedom. On the other hand, a certain amount of poverty can underwrite your freedom, since possessions act as chains for many.

"I'm afraid I won't fit in." As I explained a little earlier, the real danger that's headed your way is not fitting in at home. This objection is often proffered by people who've never traveled abroad. Here's a suggestion. If you don't have a valid passport, apply for one tomorrow morning. Then, at the next opportunity, book a trip to somewhere that seems interesting. Make an effort to meet people. Find out if you're really as abject a wallflower as you fear.

"I don't speak the language." It's said that Sir Richard Burton, the 19th-century explorer, spoke 10 languages fluently and 15 more "reasonably well." I've always liked that distinction although, personally, I'm not a good linguist. And it gets harder to learn a language as you get older – although it's also true that learning a new language actually keeps your brain limber. In point of fact, though, English is the world's language. Almost anyone who is anyone, and the typical school kid, has some grasp of it.

"I'm too old to make such a big change." Yes, I guess it makes more sense to just take a seat and await the arrival of the Grim Reaper. Or, perhaps, is your life already so exciting and wonderful that you can't handle a little change? Better, I think, that you might adopt the attitude of the 85-year-old woman who has just transplanted herself to Argentina from the frozen north. Even after many years of adventure, she simply feels ready for a change and was getting tired of the same old people with the same old stories and habits.

"I've got to wait until the kids are out of school. It would disrupt their lives." This is actually one of the lamest excuses in the book. I'm sympathetic to the view that kids ought to live with wolves for a couple of years to get a proper grounding in life – although I'm not advocating anything that radical. It's one of the greatest gifts you can give your kids: to live in another culture, learn a new language, and associate with a better class of people (as an expat, you'll almost automatically move to the upper rungs – arguably a big plus). After a little whining, the kids will love it. When they're grown, if they discover you passed up the opportunity, they won't forgive you.

"I don't want to give up my U.S. citizenship." There's no need to. Anyway, if you have a lot of deferred income and untaxed gains, it can be punitive to do so; the U.S. government wants to keep you as a milk cow. But then, you may cotton to the idea of living free of any taxing government, while having the travel documents offered by several. And you may want to save your children from becoming cannon fodder or indentured servants, should the U.S. reinstitute the draft or start a program of "national service" – which is not unlikely.

But these arguments are unimportant. The real problem is one of psychology. In that regard, I like to point to my old friend Paul Terhorst, who 30 years ago was the youngest partner at a national accounting firm. He and his wife, Vicki, decided that "keeping up with the Joneses" for the rest of their lives just wasn't for them. They sold everything – cars, house, clothes, artwork, the works – and decided to live around the world. Paul then had the time to read books, play chess, and generally enjoy himself. He wrote about it in Cashing In on the American Dream: How to Retire at 35. As a bonus, the advantages of not being a tax resident anywhere and having time to scope out proper investments has put Paul way ahead in the money game. He typically spends about half his year in Argentina; we usually have lunch every week when in residence.

I could go on. But perhaps it's pointless to offer rational counters to irrational fears and preconceptions. As Gibbon noted with his signature brand of irony, "The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous."

Let me say again, time is getting short. And the reasons for looking abroad are changing.

In the past, the best argument for expatriation was an automatic increase in one's standard of living. In the '50s and '60s, a book called Europe on $5 a Day accurately reflected all-in costs for a tourist. In those days a middle-class American could live like a king in Europe; but those days are long gone. Now it's the rare American who can afford to visit Europe except on a cheesy package tour. That situation may actually improve soon, if only because the standard of living in Europe is likely to fall even faster than in the U.S. But the improvement will be temporary. One thing you can plan your life around is that, for the average American, foreign travel is going to become much more expensive in the next few years as the dollar loses value at an accelerating rate.

Affordability is going to be a real problem for Americans, who've long been used to being the world's "rich guys." But an even bigger problem will be presented by foreign exchange controls of some nature, which the government will impose in its efforts to "do something." FX controls – perhaps in the form of taxes on money that goes abroad, perhaps restrictions on amounts and reasons, perhaps the requirement of official approval, perhaps all of these things – are a natural progression during the next stage of the crisis. After all, only rich people can afford to send money abroad, and only the unpatriotic would think of doing so.

How and Where

I would like to reemphasize that it's pure foolishness to have your loyalties dictated by the lines on a map or the dictates of some ruler. The nation-state itself is on its way out. The world will increasingly be aligned with what we call phyles, groups of people who consider themselves countrymen based on their interests and values, not on which government's ID they share. I believe the sooner you start thinking that way, the freer, the richer, and the more secure you will become.

The most important first step is to get out of the danger zone. Let's list the steps, in order of importance.

1. Establish a financial account in a second country and transfer assets to it, immediately.
2. Purchase a crib in a suitable third country, somewhere you might enjoy whether in good times or bad.
3. Get moving toward an alternative citizenship in a fourth country; you don't want to be stuck geographically, and you don't want to live like a refugee.
4. Keep your eyes open for business and investment opportunities in those four countries, plus the other 225; you'll greatly increase your perspective and your chances of success.

Where to go? The personal conclusion I came to was Argentina (followed by Uruguay), where I spend a good part of my year, and even more when my house at La Estancia de Cafayate is completed.

In general, I would suggest you look most seriously at countries whose governments aren't overly cozy with the U.S. and whose people maintain an inbred suspicion of the police, the military, and the fiscal authorities. These criteria tilt the scales against past favorites like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK.

And one more piece of sage advice: stop thinking like your neighbors, which is to say stop thinking and acting like a serf. Most people – although they can be perfectly affable and even seem sensible – have the attitudes of medieval peasants that objected to going further than a day's round-trip from their hut, for fear the stories of dragons that live over the hill might be true. We covered the modern versions of that objection a bit earlier.

I'm not saying that you'll make your fortune and find happiness by venturing out. But you'll greatly increase your odds of doing so, greatly increase your security, and, I suspect, have a much more interesting time.

Let me end by reminding you what Rick Blaine, Bogart's character in Casablanca, had to say in only a slightly different context. Appropriately, Rick was an early but also an archetypical international man. Let's just imagine he's talking about what will happen if you don't effectively internationalize yourself, now. He said: "You may not regret it now, but you'll regret it soon. And for the rest of your life."

You may well regret it for the rest of your life if you don't take appropriate steps now to internationalize and thus protect your wealth. To find out how to do it, what to watch out for, and which perfectly legal tactics to employ, read our free report "Does Your Bank Account Speak Spanish?"

TheTinyDot

Trustee: J.P. Morgan Abetted Madoff

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. ignored or dismissed warning signs about the Madoff fraud even as it earned hundreds of millions of dollars from its relationship with his firm, according to a lawsuit unsealed Thursday.

J.P. Morgan Chase stood "at the very center" of Bernard Madoff's fraud, according to a lawsuit unsealed Thursday. Michael Rothfeld has details.

The $6.4 billion lawsuit, filed in federal bankruptcy court, claims that bankers at J.P. Morgan discussed the possibility that Bernard Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme, worried that a firm of such size was audited by a storefront accountant and called his returns "too good to be true."

"While numerous financial institutions enabled Madoff's fraud, JPMC was at the very center of that fraud, and thoroughly complicit in it," according to the 115-page lawsuit, filed under seal in December by Irving Picard, the trustee seeking to recover money for Mr. Madoff's victims and made public on Thursday.

J.P. Morgan said in a statement that the lawsuit "is meritless and is based on distortions of both the relevant facts and the governing law." The bank said it "did not know about or in any way become a party to the fraud orchestrated by Bernard Madoff."

The complaint seeks the return of nearly $1 billion in J.P. Morgan's profits and fees, and $5.4 billion in damages. It goes into great detail about the bank's alleged efforts, starting in about 2006, to make money by offering products tied to Mr. Madoff through investment funds that fed money to him.

J.P. Morgan only reported its suspicions of Mr. Madoff to British authorities in late October 2008, two months before he surrendered, the lawsuit said. In a suspicious activity report filed with Britain's Serious Organised Crime Agency, the bank said the performance of Mr. Madoff's investments appeared to be "too good to be true—meaning that it probably is."

Even that warning was made in passing, the lawsuit said. It came after a London employee of J.P. Morgan was threatened while trying to redeem the bank's money from a Madoff-related fund by a fund employee who mentioned having "Colombian friends" who could "cause havoc," adding, "we know where to find you."

Towards the end of 2008, J.P. Morgan pulled out about $276 million it had invested in funds that channeled money to Mr. Madoff—and asked those funds to keep the move quiet, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit offers a detailed account of the more than two decade relationship between J.P. Morgan and Mr. Madoff. In 2006, when J.P. Morgan started to consider structuring products involving funds that channeled money to Mr. Madoff, it began to take a look at the feeder funds and other entities related to his business.

The lawsuit claims that the bank didn't pay attention to billions of dollars passing through the Madoff firm's main J.P. Morgan account, much of it by hand-written check, or to discrepancies in the account balance and unreported obligations—including a $95 million loan made in 2005.

"They had, legally, an obligation to make inquiry, and they didn't," said David Sheehan, an attorney for Mr. Picard. "You're literally seeing millions of dollars going in and out on a daily basis, and not one phone call is being made."

In response, the bank said in its statement Thursday that Mr. Madoff's firm "was not an important or significant customer" in the scheme of its overall commercial banking business.

The trustee's suit claims that the bank collected an estimated half a billion dollars in fee and interest payments.


Various J.P. Morgan employees raised questions about Mr. Madoff's credibility, but the concerns went nowhere, the suit alleges. As its Equity Exotics & Hybrids Desk began exploring investments tied to Madoff feeder funds, the suit says, it found that the fund managers didn't know the names of Mr. Madoff's counterparties, had no input or control over his trading activity, and hadn't even been able to see his operations.

While bankers sought to create products tied to Mr. Madoff's firm, its risk managers had a conversation with him in March 2007, where he informed them that he wasn't willing to engage in "full due diligence," according to the lawsuit.

On more than one occasion, the suit alleges, bankers expressed concern about the fact that a firm of such a large size was audited by a small suburban firm. One wrote in an email, "Let's go see (auditors) Friehling and Horowitz the next time we're in NY...to see that the address isn't a car wash at least," according to the lawsuit, referring to the accountants.

In 2007, an employee said he had heard from a colleague over lunch that "there is a well-known cloud over the head of Madoff and that his returns are speculated to be part of a [P]onzi scheme—he said if we google the guy we can see the articles for ourselves—Pls do that and let us know what you find."

According to the lawsuit, the bank looked at Mr. Madoff's firm more exhaustively in 2008, after its troubled acquisition of Bear Stearns.

As part of that review, bank employees allegedly met with Sonja Kohn, the head of Bank Medici, whom Mr. Picard has separately accused of being an accomplice of Mr. Madoff by funneling money into his operation, and with an executive at the Fairfield Greenwich Group, which also operated feeder funds.

Afterwards, an employee told colleagues that Mr. Madoff's business associates knew very little about him, and seemed "scared" to push him for answers, the suit says.

"Fairfield claims to have seen the 19th floor," the center of Mr. Madoff's trading operations, the employee wrote, "but…I am not entirely convinced that Madoff allowed them to actually enter the trading area."

The bankers at J.P. Morgan concluded that the feeder funds had only a faxed confirmation from Mr. Madoff that trades were occurring, but couldn't verify it.

"It's almost a cult [Madoff] seems to have fostered," the employee wrote.

Protestors storm Birkenhead county court and attempt to arrest judge

SIX people were arrested as demonstrators stormed a Merseyside courtroom in support of a man challenging his council tax bill.

Amid chaotic scenes the protestors attempted to arrest the judge "for contempt of court and treason".

Wirral Council is taking Roger Hayes to Birkenhead county court for non payment of council tax.

Mr Hayes, chairman of The British Constitution Group, claims the council tax is illegal and imposed without his consent.

His stand has won support from all over the country and demonstrators travelled miles to protest outside the court building.

As the case got under way yesterday, Mr Hayes repeatedly demanded district judge Michael Peake say if he was "on oath of office".

In response Judge Peake insisted it was a "properly constituted court", and said if Mr Hayes had a complaint, he could take up later.

But Mr Hayes persisted and when he did not get an answer he was satisfied with, said: "Sir, I am obliged to arrest you for contempt of court and treason."

Two supporters of Mr Hayes then attempted to arrest the judge but were stopped by police. More demonstrators then burst into Court One of Birkenhead county court.

The judge was quickly ushered out of the court by officials, saying as he left "this case is adjourned, I’m afraid" as more people pressed in, many filming with mobile phones. One demonstrator even took the judge’s seat, while police officers called for reinforcements.

One man was handcuffed which inflamed the protesters as dozens more pressed into the court room and shouts of "take the handcuffs off" resounded around the room.

Police attempted to take the handcuffed man outside but were blocked by people who demanded he be released – and an hour-long stand-off then followed as more police arrived.

CHAOS OUTSIDE OF BIRKENHEAD COURT AS LAWFUL REBELLION PROTESTS ARE MADE

Illinois Senate president wants to look at taxing retirement income

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton today suggested the state should start taxing the retirement income of senior citizens who are able to afford it.

The state does not currently tax pensions or retirement funds such as 401(k) plans, but Cullerton told a City Club of Chicago luncheon that should take place as part of an overall look at what he said was Illinois' "outdated" tax system.

"It would just be a matter of fairness," said Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat.

Details are still being worked out, but Cullerton said the state could bring in could bring in upward of $1.6 billion a year. Cullerton said the money could be used to provide tax relief elsewhere, whether that be lowering the corporate income tax rate, reworking sales tax rates or some other idea. Cullerton also suggested a means-test to avoid taxing low-income seniors.

Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn today said he hadn’t seen details of Cullerton’s proposal, but indicated that it should be looked at as part of an effort to achieve tax “fairness.”

“I think it’s important that we always be open to reviewing the tax code,” Quinn said, restating his call for a commission to review the state’s tax laws with attention to fairness to “everyday taxpayers” and economic growth. “I think everything should be looked at. You know, how we go about it is obviously something we have to work together on.”

Imposing a tax on retirement incomes in Illinois could be a politically difficult prospect. Seniors make up a potent voting demographic in the state. Even the process to end free mass-transit rides for the elderly, a cost many seniors said they could afford, proved tough politically to get through the General Assembly.

Cullerton's idea comes after lawmakers and Quinn raised the state income tax rate from 3 percent to 5 percent in January.

NM Rothschild & Sons Are Moving In For The Kill! Witness Their Work All Over The Globe! RIGHT NOW!!!

The World Bank/IMF is owned and controlled by NM Rothschild & Sons plus 30 to 40 of the wealthiest people in the world. For over 150 years they have planned to take over the planet through money. The former chief economist of the World Bank, Joe Stiglitz, was fired in 2000. He pointed out to top executives that every country the IMF/World Bank forced their way into ended up with a crashed economy, a destroyed government, and some even broke out in riots. Former President of the World Bank/IMF Sir James Wolfensohn, would not comment on his dismissal.

Before Joe Stiglitz was fired he took a large stack of secret documents out of the World Bank.

These secret documents from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund reveal that the IMF required nations:

1. To sign secret agreements containing 111 destructive items. (I’d love to get a hold of that list)

2. To agree to sell off their key assets – water, electric, gas, etc.

3. To agree to take economic steps which are devastating to the nations involved.

If they do not agree to these steps they are cut-off from all international Import/Export. If you can’t borrow money in the international marketplace, no one can survive, whether you are people, corporations or countries. If that doesn’t work they overthrow the government and rewrite history.

The Argentina Plan

Inside documents from Argentina show the top-secret Argentine plan. This was signed by Sir James Wolfensohn, the former president of the World Bank. Argentina has had six presidents in five weeks because their economy is completely destroyed. This happened because they started out in the end of the 1980s with orders from the IMF and World Bank to sell-off all their assets, public assets, like their water system. Then they taxed the people. They created big government and big government handed it off to the private IMF/World Bank. They pay off the politicians billions in Swiss bank accounts.

Cronies like Citibank grabbed half the Argentine banks. British Petroleum grabbed pipelines in Ecuador. Enron grabbed water systems all over the place. The problem is that they are destroying these systems as well. You can’t even get drinking water in Buenos Aires. It is not just a question of theft. It is more than someone getting rich at the public expense. And the IMF just got handed the Great Lakes. They have the sole control over the water supply now. The IMF and the World Bank is 51% owned by the United States Treasury.

Remember What We Learned From Enron

The water system of Buenos Aires was sold off for a song to Enron. A pipeline was sold off, that runs between Argentina and Chile. The globalists then blew out Enron after transferring the assets to another dummy corporation. .

They come in, pay off politicians to transfer the water systems, the railways, the telephone companies, the nationalized oil companies, and gas stations, ect, ect… – The appointed or selected politicians then hand over raped assets to the IMF for nothing. The Globalists pay them off individually, billions a piece in Swiss bank accounts. Their plan is total slavery for the entire population.

IMF Planned Riots

The IMF/World Bank have been systematically tearing nations apart, whether it’s Ecuador or Argentina or America and Israel. Privatization equals Pillaging and Rape. Steal from the people and hand over everything to the IMF/World Bank.

The world is in flames.

They know that when they squeeze a country and destroy its economy, you’ll get riots in the streets. And they admit that because you have riot, all the capital runs away from whatever country and that presents the opportunity for the IMF to move in for the serious takeover.

It really is an imperial economy war meant to implode countries and now they have started in America. They are damn greedy. Chief investigators of the State of California said that that it’s not just the stockholders that get ripped off. They suck millions, billions even trillions of dollars out of the public pockets. Where are the assets? See, everybody says there are no assets left. They transfer all assets to other corporations and banks.

Rothschild – The Plague Of The Red Shield

Burrow into NM Rothschild & Sons, you’ll find it all there. The IMF/World Bank implosion, four points, how they bring down a country and destroy the resources of the people. First you open up the capital markets. That is, you sell off your local banks gold to foreign buyers. Then you go to what’s called market-based pricing or even silver. That’s the stuff like in California where everything is free market and you end up with water bills no one can pay. Then open up your borders to trade. It’s like the opium wars. This isn’t free trade; this is coercion trade. This is war. They are taking apart economies through this system. China has a 50% to 60% tariff on the U.S. but the U.S. has a 2% on them. That’s not free and fair trade. It’s to force all industry into a state of one world order that the globalists control 100%.

“Beware of calls to return to a gold standard. Why? Simple. Because never before has so much gold been so concentrated outside of American hands. And never before has so much gold been in the hands of international governmental bodies such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. In fact, the IMF now holds more gold then any central bank.” ~ Bill Still

Top Economists: Trust is Necessary for a Stable Economy ... But Trust Won't Be Restored Until We Prosecute Wall Street Fraud

WASHINGTON at washingtonsblog.com

Most policy makers still don't understand the urgent need to restore trust in our financial system, or the need to prosecute Wall Street executives for fraud and other criminal wrongdoing.
But top economists have been saying for well over a decade that trust is necessary for a stable economy, and that prosecuting the criminals Is necessary to restore trust.

Trust is Necessary for a Stable Economy
In his influential 1993 book Making Democracy Work, Robert Putnam showed how civic attitudes and trust could account for differences in the economic and government performance between northern and southern Italy.

Political economist Francis Fukiyama wrote a book called Trust in 1995, arguing that the most pervasive cultural characteristic influencing a nation's prosperity and ability to compete is the level of trust or cooperative behavior based upon shared norms. He stated that the United States, like Japan and Germany, has been a high-trust society historically but that this status has eroded in recent years.

In 1998, Paul Zak (Professor of Economics and Department Chair, as well as the founding Director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University, Professor of Neurology at Loma Linda University Medical Center, and a senior researcher at UCLA) and Stephen Knack (a Lead Economist in the World Bank's Research Department and Public Sector Governance Department) wrote a paper called Trust and Growth, arguing:
Adam Smith (1997 [1766]) observed notable differences across nations in the 'probity' and 'punctuality' of their populations. For example, the Dutch 'are the most faithful to their word.'John Stuart Mill wrote: 'There are countries in Europe . . . where the most serious impediment to conducting business concerns on a large scale, is the rarity of persons who are supposed fit to be trusted with the receipt and expenditure of large sums of money' (Mill, 1848, p. 132).

Enormous differences across countries in the propensity to trust others survive
today.
***
Trust is higher in 'fair' societies.
***
High trust societies produce more output than low trust societies. A fortiori, a sufficient amount of trust may be crucial to successful development. Douglass North (1990, p. 54) writes,
The inability of societies to develop effective, lowcost enforcement of contracts is the most important source of both historical stagnation and contemporary underdevelopment in the Third World.
***
If trust is too low in a society, savings will be insufficient to sustain
positive output growth. Such a poverty trap is more likely when institutions -
both formal and informal - which punish cheaters are weak.
Heap, Tan and Zizzo and others have come to similar conclusions.
In 2001, Zak and Knack showed that "strengthening the rule of law, reducing inequality, and by facilitating interpersonal understanding" all increase trust. They conclude:
Our analysis shows that trust can be raised directly by increasing communication and education, and indirectly by strengthening formal institutions that enforce contracts and by reducing income inequality. Among the policies that impact these factors, only education, redistributive transfers, and freedom satisfy the efficiency criterion which compares the cost of policies with the benefits citizens receive in terms of higher living standards. Further, our analysis suggests that good policy initiates a virtuous circle: policies that raise trust efficiently, improve living standards, raise civil liberties, enhance institutions, and reduce corruption, further raising trust. Trust, democracy, and the rule of law are thus the foundation of abiding prosperity.
"Enforcing contracts", "raising civil liberties", and "reducing corruption" and "democracy" all have to do with the rule of law, which - as discussed below - in turn, means prosecuting violations of the law. Likewise, by "enhancing institutions", they mean regulatory and justice systems which enforce contracts and prosecute cheaters.

And while Zak and Knack appear to favor redistribution of wealth, fighting inequality does not have to offend conservative values. As I recently pointed out, conservatives are against rampant inequality, and prosecuting fraud is the best way to reduce inequality:
Robert Shiller [one of the top housing economists in the United States] said in 2009:
And it's not like we want to level income. I'm not saying spread the wealth around, which got Obama in trouble. But I think, I would hope that this would be a time for a national consideration about policies that would focus on restraining any possible further increases in inequality.
***
If we stop bailing out the fraudsters and financial gamblers, the big banks would focus more on traditional lending and less on speculative plays which only make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and which guarantee future economic crises (which hurt the poor more than the rich).

***
Moreover, both conservatives and liberals agree that we need to prosecute financial fraud. As I've previously noted, fraud disproportionally benefits the big players, makes boom-bust cycles more severe, and otherwise harms the economy - all of which increase inequality and warp the market.
So once again, we are back to the importance of prosecuting fraud.

A 2005 letter in premier scientific journal Nature reviewed the research on trust and economics:
Trust ... plays a key role in economic exchange and politics. In the absence of trust among trading partners, market transactions break down. In the absence of trust in a country's institutions and leaders, political legitimacy breaks down. Much recent evidence indicates that trust contributes to economic, political and social success.
Forbes wrote an article in 2006 entitled "The Economics of Trust". The article summarizes the importance of trust in creating a healthy economy:
Imagine going to the corner store to buy a carton of milk, only to find that the refrigerator is locked. When you've persuaded the shopkeeper to retrieve the milk, you then end up arguing over whether you're going to hand the money over first, or whether he is going to hand over the milk. Finally you manage to arrange an elaborate simultaneous exchange. A little taste of life in a world without trust--now imagine trying to arrange a mortgage.
Being able to trust people might seem like a pleasant luxury, but economists are starting to believe that it's rather more important than that. Trust is about more than whether you can leave your house unlocked; it is responsible for the difference between the richest countries and the poorest.
"If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income.

***
Above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth.

***
Economists distinguish between the personal, informal trust that comes from being friendly with your neighbors and the impersonal, institutionalized trust that lets you give your credit card number out over the Internet.
In 2007, Yann Algan (Professor of Economics at Paris School of Economics and University Paris East) and Pierre Cahuc (Professor of Economics at the Ecole Polytechnique (Paris)) reported:
We find a significant impact of trust on income per capita for 30 countries over the period 1949-2003.
Similarly, market psychologists Richard L. Peterson M.D. and Frank Murtha, PhD noted in 2008
Trust is the oil in the engine of capitalism, without it, the engine seizes up.

Confidence is like the gasoline, without it the machine won't move.

Trust is gone: there is no longer trust between counterparties in the financial system. Furthermore, confidence is at a low. Investors have lost their confidence in the ability of shares to provide decent returns (since they haven't).
In 2009, Paola Sapienza (associate professor of finance and the Zell Center Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University) and Luigi Zingales (Robert C. McCormack Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business) pointed out:
The drop in trust, we believe, is a major factor behind the deteriorating economic conditions. To demonstrate its importance, we launched the Chicago Booth/Kellogg School Financial Trust Index. Our first set of data—based on interviews conducted at the end of December 2008—shows that between September and December, 52 percent of Americans lost trust in the banks. Similarly, 65 percent lost trust in the stock market. A BBB/Gallup poll that surveyed a similar sample of Americans last April confirms this dramatic drop. At that time, 42 percent of Americans trusted financial institutions, versus 34 percent in our survey today, while 53 percent said they trusted U.S. companies, versus just 12 percent today.
As trust declines, so does Americans’ willingness to invest their money in the financial system. Our data show that trust in the stock market affects people’s intention to buy stocks, even after accounting for expectations of future stock-market performance. Similarly, a person’s trust in banks predicts the likelihood that he will make a run on his bank in a moment of crisis: 25 percent of those who don’t trust banks withdrew their deposits and stored them as cash last fall, compared with only 3 percent of those who said they still trusted the banks. Thus, trust in financial institutions is a key factor for the smooth functioning of capital markets and, by extension, the economy. Changes in trust matter.
They quote a Nobel laureate economist on the subject:
“Virtually every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust,” writes economist Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel laureate. When we deposit money in a bank, we trust that it’s safe. When a company orders goods, it trusts its counterpart to deliver them in good faith. Trust facilitates transactions because it saves the costs of monitoring and screening; it is an essential lubricant that greases the wheels of the economic system.
In 2009, Time Magazine pointed out:
Traditionally, gold has been a store of value when citizens do not trust their government politically or economically.
In other words, the government's political actions affect investments, such as gold, and thus the broader economy.

In 2010, a distinguished international group of economists (Giancarlo Corsetti, Michael P. Devereux, Luigi Guiso, John Hassler, Gilles Saint-Paul, Hans-Werner Sinn, Jan-Egbert Sturm and Xavier Vives) wrote:
Public distrust of bankers and financial markets has risen dramatically with the financial crisis. This column argues that this loss of trust in the financial system played a critical role in the collapse of economic activity that followed. To undo the damage, financial regulation needs to focus on restoring that trust.
They noted:
Trust is crucial in many transactions and certainly in those involving financial exchanges. The massive drop in trust associated with this crisis will therefore have important implications for the future of financial markets. Data show that in the late 1970s, the percentage of people who reported having full trust in banks, brokers, mutual funds or the stock market was around 40%; it had sunk to around 30% just before the crisis hit, and collapsed to barely 5% afterwards. It is now even lower than the trust people have in other people (randomly selected of course).
Prosecuting the Criminals Is Necessary to Restore Trust
Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that we have to prosecute fraud or else the economy won't recover:
The legal system is supposed to be the codification of our norms and beliefs, things that we need to make our system work. If the legal system is seen as exploitative, then confidence in our whole system starts eroding. And that's really the problem that's going on.

***

I think we ought to go do what we did in the S&L [crisis] and actually put many of these guys in prison. Absolutely. These are not just white-collar crimes or little accidents. There were victims. That's the point. There were victims all over the world.

***

Economists focus on the whole notion of incentives. People have an incentive sometimes to behave badly, because they can make more money if they can cheat. If our economic system is going to work then we have to make sure that what they gain when they cheat is offset by a system of penalties.
Robert Shiller said recently that failing to address the legal issues will cause Americans to lose faith in business and the government:
Shiller said the danger of foreclosuregate -- the scandal in which it has come to light that the biggest banks have routinely mishandled homeownership documents, putting the legality of foreclosures and related sales in doubt -- is a replay of the 1930s, when Americans lost faith that institutions such as business and government were dealing fairly.
Economists such as William Black and James Galbraith agree. Galbraith says:
There will have to be full-scale investigation and cleaning up of the residue of that, before you can have, I think, a return of confidence in the financial sector. And that's a process which needs to get underway.
Galbraith also says that economists should move into the background, and "criminologists to the forefront".
Government regulators know this - or at least pay lip service to it - as well. For example, as the Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's enforcement division told Congress:
Recovery from the fallout of the financial crisis requires important efforts on various fronts, and vigorous enforcement is an essential component, as aggressive and even-handed enforcement will meet the public's fair expectation that those whose violations of the law caused severe loss and hardship will be held accountable. And vigorous law enforcement efforts will help vindicate the principles that are fundamental to the fair and proper functioning of our markets: that no one should have an unjust advantage in our markets; that investors have a right to disclosure that complies with the federal securities laws; and that there is a level playing field for all investors.
Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof has demonstrated that failure to punish white collar criminals - and instead bailing them out- creates incentives for more economic crimes and further destruction of the economy in the future. Indeed, William Black notes that we've known of this dynamic for "hundreds of years". And see this, this, this and this.
Of course, it's not just economists saying this.
One of the leading business schools in America - the Wharton School of Business - published an essay by a psychologist on the causes and solutions to the economic crisis. Wharton points out that restoring trust is the key to recovery, and that trust cannot be restored until wrongdoers are held accountable:
According to David M. Sachs, a training and supervision analyst at the Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia, the crisis today is not one of confidence, but one of trust. "Abusive financial practices were unchecked by personal moral controls that prohibit individual criminal behavior, as in the case of [Bernard] Madoff, and by complex financial manipulations, as in the case of AIG." The public, expecting to be protected from such abuse, has suffered a trauma of loss similar to that after 9/11. "Normal expectations of what is safe and dependable were abruptly shattered," Sachs noted. "As is typical of post-traumatic states, planning for the future could not be based on old assumptions about what is safe and what is dangerous. A radical reversal of how to be gratified occurred."
People now feel more gratified saving money than spending it, Sachs suggested. They have trouble trusting promises from the government because they feel the government has let them down.
He framed his argument with a fictional patient named Betty Q. Public, a librarian with two teenage children and a husband, John, who had recently lost his job. "She felt betrayed because she and her husband had invested conservatively and were double-crossed by dishonest, greedy businessmen, and now she distrusted the government that had failed to protect them from corporate dishonesty. Not only that, but she had little trust in things turning around soon enough to enable her and her husband to accomplish their previous goals.
"By no means a sophisticated economist, she knew ... that some people had become fantastically wealthy by misusing other people's money -- hers included," Sachs said. "In short, John and Betty had done everything right and were being punished, while the dishonest people were going unpunished."
Helping an individual recover from a traumatic experience provides a useful analogy for understanding how to help the economy recover from its own traumatic experience, Sachs pointed out. The public will need to "hold the perpetrators of the economic disaster responsible and take what actions they can to prevent them from harming the economy again." In addition, the public will have to see proof that government and business leaders can behave responsibly before they will trust them again, he argued.
Note that Sachs urges "hold[ing] the perpetrators of the economic disaster responsible." In other words, just "looking forward" and promising to do things differently isn't enough.

As Wall Street insider and New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin writes:
“They will pick on minor misdemeanors by individual market participants,” said David Einhorn, the hedge fund manager who was among the Cassandras before the financial crisis. To Mr. Einhorn, the government is “not willing to take on significant misbehavior by sizable” firms. “But since there have been almost no big prosecutions, there’s very little evidence that it has stopped bad actors from behaving badly.”
***
Fraud at big corporations surely dwarfs by orders of magnitude the shareholders’ losses of $8 billion that Mr. Holder highlighted. If the government spent half the time trying to ferret out fraud at major companies that it does tracking pump-and-dump schemes, we might have been able to stop the financial crisis, or at least we’d have a fighting chance at stopping the next one.
And as a former congressional aide recently said in some of the most colorful language to date:
"You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street," says a former congressional aide. "That's all it would take. Just once."