The White House, Federal Reserve and Wall Street lobbyists are kicking up their opposition to an amendment to audit the Fed as a Senate vote approaches, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the lead sponsor of the measure, said on Monday.
Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who is shepherding the bill through the Senate, told Sanders Monday afternoon that "there's a shot we'll be up tomorrow," Sanders told HuffPost.
In the spring of 2009, Sanders brought a similar amendment to the Senate floor and won 59 votes. Eight senators who voted against it then are now cosponsors of his current measure.
"I think momentum is with us. But I've gotta tell you, that on this amendment, you're taking on all of Wall Street, you're taking on the Fed, obviously, and unfortunately you seem to be taking on the White House, as well. And that's a tough group to beat," said Sanders.
He's been trading calls, he said, with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.
Earlier on Monday, HuffPost reported that former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan wanted dissent kept secret so that people outside the Fed wouldn't involve themselves in their debates.
"We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand," Greenspan said, according to the transcripts of a March 2004 meeting. "I'm a little concerned about other people getting into the debate when they know far less than we do."
Story continues below
Sanders said that Greenspan's comments are all the more reason for an audit. "I think it just adds a lot of weight to what we are trying to do," Sanders said. "It just points to the fact that if there was more transparency then it in fact would have allowed the debate to take place about the subprime mortgage [sic] unfolding crisis at that point. It may have prevented the horrendous recession that we're in now and the near collapse of the financial institutions."
Democratic leadership has yet to decide if an amendment will need 51 or 60 votes for passage, but Sanders said he thought the decision would be made to go with 60.
On April 2, 2009, 59 senators voted for the Sanders-Webb-Bunning-Feingold Amendment that would open the Fed to an audit. Then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) did not vote and there are indications that his replacement, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), is supportive.
Meanwhile, eight of the 39 no votes have since signed on to a Sanders bill to audit the Fed or the amendment that will come up: Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wy.), Bob Bennett (R-Utah), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) voted no, but has since been replaced by Republican Sen. George LeMieux.
With Brown, the Sanders amendment would have 69 votes. It has already passed the House of Representatives.
The Yes votes in Arpil 2009 (59)
Akaka (D-HI)
Begich (D-AK)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
The no voters who have since signed on to an audit (8)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Hatch (R-UT)
Isakson (R-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Wicker (R-MS)
The no voters who have not signed on to an audit and are still in the Senate (30)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reed (D-RI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Udall (D-CO)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Press TV-On the edge with Max Keiser-Goldman Sachs Fraud-04-30-2010
Max Keiser is on the edge of the financial news where future financial scandals, market crashes and monetary crisis begin .Be there before it happens
IRS Not Part of Federal Government
Click this link ..... http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=11718
Tax chat could land you a £5,000 fine: Big Brother law threatens innocent advice
Anybody who advises a friend to take out an Isa or gives them a similar tax-saving tip risks a £5,000 fine, experts warned yesterday.
They attacked proposed 'Big Brother' powers for HM Revenue and Customs which could ensnare those simply trying to help a friend, relative or colleague to cut their tax bill.
Innocent victims could include a person who mentions to a friend in the pub that an Isa is a way of saving £10,200 a year tax-free.
Anybody who advises a friend to take out an Isa or gives them a similar tax-saving tip risks a £5,000 fine, experts are warning
Even a vicar who encourages the congregation to donate money using the Gift Aid envelopes, rather than putting cash straight into the Sunday collection, may fall into the trap.
Charities could also be hit by the draconian new 'tax avoidance' law, experts claim.
It will make it an offence to hold any conversation - even in private, with friends - if it offers clues on how to pay less tax.
Professor Anne Redston, a tax and legal expert from King's College, London, described the proposed legislation as 'dangerous, disproportionate and an erosion of fundamental freedoms'.
She warned: 'It effectively criminalises the provision of ordinary advice on taxation by the man in the street.'
The Chartered Institute of Taxation called for the draft Bill containing the powers to be 'torn up'.
Tax policy director John Whiting said the rules are 'patently absurd' and must be rewritten - or risk turning people who are trying to help into criminals.
The proposed rules are contained in the Tax Agents: Deliberate Wrongdoing draft Bill, which is trying to crack down on any 'tax agent' whose advice leads to a 'loss of tax' for HMRC.
It is the definition of a 'tax agent' which is fuelling much of the controversy as it includes anybody who gives tax advice 'free of charge' and 'otherwise than in the course of business'.
This means it is not just tax professionals, such as accountants and financial advisers, but anybody who suggests ways of cutting a tax bill, even though they are completely legal.
Tax evaders such as multi-millionaires who do not pay a penny in income tax are targeted, but so is anybody who tries to make use of legal tax-saving tips.
The consequences for offering well-meaning advice such as pointing out that saving into a pension attracts tax relief could be extremely expensive, with fines of up to £5,000.
Victims could also be forced to pay a fine worth 100 per cent of the 'lost revenue' that HMRC would have got if the advice had not been followed.
Mike Warburton, of accountants Grant Thornton, said: 'This is really draconian stuff. It is Big Brother.
'It means everybody will have to tread carefully before they talk to anybody on any financial matter.'
Experts accuse HMRC of trying to grab as much tax as possible to help fill the black hole in the nation's finances.
An HMRC spokesman said: 'The draft legislation is not intended to target anyone giving fair and honest tax advice. "Deliberate wrongdoing" means the same as "fraud" or "dishonesty".
'Providing advice to clients about how they might best order their affairs, including tax planning and tax avoidance, cannot trigger the legislation in the absence of such fraud.'
Postal vote fraud: 50 criminal inquiries nationwide amid fears bogus voters could swing election
Voter fraud could determine the outcome of the general election as evidence emerges of massive postal vote rigging.
Police have launched 50 criminal inquiries nationwide amid widespread cases of electoral rolls being packed with ‘bogus’ voters.
Officials report a flood of postal vote applications in marginal seats. With the outcome of the closest election in a generation hanging in the balance, a few thousand ‘stolen’ votes there could determine who wins the keys to Downing Street.
'Stolen': There has been a recent flood of postal vote applications in marginal seats, officials say
Anti-sleaze campaigner Martin Bell said: ‘There is actually a possibility that the result of the election could be decided by electoral fraud. That’s pretty grim.
‘We are facing a situation where we can no longer trust the integrity of our electoral system. It was a huge mistake to extend the postal vote. It opened up our system to all kinds of frauds.’
Out of a total estimated electorate of 46million, 7million have registered for postal votes.
The Metropolitan Police are examining 28 claims of major abuses across 12 boroughs - with four separate investigations in Tower Hamlets, East London.
Labour supporters stand accused of packing the electoral roll at the last minute with relatives living overseas or simply inventing phantom voters.
Officials in Tower Hamlets received 5,166 new registrations just before the April 20 deadline, and there has been no time to check them all.
In Bethnal Green, it is feared the electoral register has been deliberately stacked with fictitious names.
Yesterday the Mail visited one four-bedroom flat in the area where 18 men are apparently claiming a vote, all of whom registered within the past month.
The students living there were baffled by many of the names said to be residing with them. Another resident was surprised to learn that eight complete strangers were also registered as living in the small flat she shares with her partner.
Other addresses investigated by the Mail were linked to the Labour Party.
At a property in Rainhill Way, Bethnal Green, where Labour Party council election candidate Khales Uddin Ahmed lives with his family, seven adults have suddenly joined the electoral roll.
A few streets away, where Labour councillor Shiria Khatun is seeking re-election, her household has been boosted by three new voter registrations at her small flat within the past few weeks.
Her husband angrily slammed the door when questions were asked yesterday.
Campaign stop: Gordon Brown meets four-month-old twins Grace and Sophie Rose Lund-Conlon in Ipswich. Opinion polls indicated Britain remained on course for a parliament with no outright majority
The Mail’s Richard Kay has learned that for the first time ever the Commonwealth is dispatching a group of election monitors – more used to supervising banana republics – to scrutinise the results on Thursday.
Opposition parties fear a concerted effort is being made to swing the election.
Tower Hamlets Conservative councillor Peter Golds said: ‘There is increasing evidence of ongoing electoral corruption. I am concerned that there will be no attempt to investigate this before election day.
‘All the dodgy addresses seem to involve Bangladeshi names, and the police are terrified of investigating that community for fear of being branded racists.
Tight race: David Cameron runs along the seafront in Blackpool yesterday
‘At one of the addresses, a Russian woman answers the door. How many Bangladeshi men live together with a Russian woman?’
Numerous other examples of this corruption are coming to light, including a visitor from Bangladesh who arrives with a tourist visa next week, but whose postal vote has already been sent off.
The problem is not confined to London. In Yorkshire, five police investigations are under way in Bradford and Calderdale, where two arrests have been already been made.
In Derby, police are investigating several claims of electoral fraud, including one case where a female voter was allegedly intimidated by three men who demanded that she fill in and sign postal votes for the Labour Party.
In Surrey, Tory activists have received reports that two members of a rival party pretended to be Conservatives and bullied a man on a ventilator in hospital into signing over his postal vote to them.
Under election law, anyone from Commonwealth countries can vote in the general election if resident in the UK.
But names can be added to the electoral roll – and become eligible for postal votes – without anyone checking their identities or whether they are actually in the country.
In 2005 around 15 per cent of all votes were cast using a postal vote, but the Electoral Commission watchdog believes that figure will rise this time.
In the last month there were 150,000 applications and, in some areas, postal vote registrations have increased by 200 per cent since 2005.
Surveys of the most marginal seats, where the election will be decided, have revealed a surge in postal voting.
In the key marginals Edinburgh South and Barnet, postal votes are up by 60 per cent, while Brighton has seen an increase of 40 per cent in voter registration.
Standing tall: Nick Clegg with his wife Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, right and television presenter Floella Benjamin, left, at the Palace Project community centre in Streatham
In Islington, a vital Labour-Lib Dem marginal, the numbers on the electoral roll have increased by nearly 20,000 to 135,800 in just five years.
The Electoral Commission, which oversees the elections process, warned seven years ago that widespread postal voting is open to fraud.
But rules to ensure that every voter has to provide personal ID before joining the electoral roll will not come into force for three years.
LEO MCKINSTRY: Postal passport to ballot frauds - a farce that shames democracy
The integrity of our voting system used to be taken for granted. Whatever their allegiance, voters could have absolute faith in the outcome of a General Election.
But, like so many other British traditions, the credibility of our democracy has been badly weakened during the last 13 years of Labour rule.
Thanks to the introduction of mass postal voting on demand, the stench of malpractice now hangs over the process, whether it be through serial abuses on the electoral roll or widespread fraud in the casting of postal votes.
The postal voting process is easily open to manipulation
With the result of the General Election so uncertain and the gap between the three main parties so narrow, the potential for corruption is deeply worrying.
This Thursday postal voting will play a far bigger role than in any previous contest, with more than seven million people having registered for a postal ballot.
In the last month alone, there were 150,000 applications and, in some areas, the number of registrations for postal votes has increased by 200 per cent compared with the 2005 election.
Yet, unlike voting at a polling station, the postal process is easily open to manipulation by political parties and criminals because no proper checks are made on the electors’ identities.
The same problem applies to the electoral roll, where names are added or removed without effective investigation, a flaw compounded by the phenomenal demographic upheaval caused by mass immigration.
With an annual inflow running at over 500,000 and emigration by Britons reaching almost 400,000 a year, electoral registers have increasingly turned into little more than works of fiction.
The Government and its agencies have been celebrating the recent surge in registrations and postal vote applications as evidence of a new enthusiasm for politics amongst the electorate, due partly to the TV debates.
The reality is that it has undermined the whole democratic process.
A study by the Council of Europe in 2008 stated that ‘the voting system in Great Britain is open to electoral fraud’, since it was ‘childishly simple’ to register bogus voters, while ‘postal voting provides the anonymity to carry out fraud without detection’.
Particularly disturbing is the position in the crucial marginal seats that will decide the outcome of election.
Here, in a desperate drive to boost support, all the major parties have been making intensive efforts to increase registration and postal voting.
In Edinburgh South, a vital three-way marginal, postal votes are up by 60 per cent, while in the London borough of Islington, scene of a bitter fight between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the numbers on the electoral roll have increased by nearly 20,000 to 135,800 since 2005.
Kerry McCarthy was reported to police after she put postal vote results on her Twitter page
Five police investigations are under way in the Yorkshire conurbations of Bradford and Calderdale, where two arrests have been made.
In London, police are examining 28 allegations of major abuses across 12 boroughs. In one typical case, a resident of Bethnal Green was surprised to learn that eight complete strangers were also registered at the small flat she shares with her partner.
Responding to mounting concern about corruption, John Turner, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, admitted ‘fraudulent activity’ was easy to perpetrate.
‘It’s not a properly verified system and it should be.’
This growing threat to democracy has happened entirely because of decisions taken by Labour.
Despite strong opposition, it pressed ahead in 2004 with the introduction of postal voting on demand without any safeguards or tightening of the register.
Before then, voters had to provide a valid reason why they needed to vote by post, such as work commitments, disability or holiday.
The theoretical justification was to boost turnout at a time of growing public apathy. But in reality, Labour saw that an insecure-system could work to the party’s advantage in urban areas where the population is more fluid.
This is particularly true among inner-city wards dominated by Asian clan leaders who effectively control the local franchise and even set up ‘voting factories’ to process ballot papers.
Almost all the worst instances of fraud since 2000 have arisen in places with large concentrations of Asian voters, such as Blackburn, Oldham and Tower Hamlets.
In the Birmingham local elections of 2004, six Muslim men stole thousands of ballot papers and marked them for Labour candidates. The Election Commissioner, Richard Mawrey QC, said at their trial that the contest ‘would have disgraced a banana republic’.
Yet the problem remains as bad as ever. A BBC report last week found that Asian activists are targeting British Pakistanis who have relocated in their thousands to the Pakistan district of Maipur.
The activists are going door to door asking any who are still eligible for a British vote to sign over their entitlement to a proxy or postal vote.
As a result, it is claimed that many have signed forms for this week’s elections, without knowing who they are voting for.
This is a farce that shames democracy. But Labour, desperate to cling on to power, does not care about rebuilding trust. Partisan gain is all that matters.
Labour’s willingness to exploit a dodgy system was graphically illustrated in its two unexpected recent by-election triumphs in Scotland.
At Glenrothes in 2008, the neighbouring seat to Gordon Brown’s at Kirkcaldy, there was a fourfold increase in postal ballots and Labour’s opponents demanded to see the marked official register which showed whether individuals had voted or not.
Unbelievably, the Sheriff ’s Clerk’s Office in Kirkcaldy had to explain, after five months, that the register had ‘gone missing’.
And Labour’s win in Glasgow North East last November followed a dramatic increase in postal votes, with almost 2,000 applications submitted less than three days before the registration deadline.
The Electoral Commission complained that Labour ‘did not comply’ with the code of conduct on the submission of postal-vote applications.
Labour would no doubt just dismiss this as scaremongering. But the truth is that the Government’s own cynicism towards the voting process could make this the most tainted, distorted result in General Election history.
One disquieting straw in the wind could be seen last Friday, when Kerry McCarthy, Labour candidate for Bristol East, revealed details on her Twitter page of an early sample of postal votes
She has been accused of breaching electoral law, since candidates are not meant to release such information.
But even more alarming is the apparent extent of her lead, despite Labour’s fall to third place in most opinion polls. If Labour is still in power on Friday, the entire voting system will be in the dock.
Election 2010: Brown worst PM says Labour candidate
A Labour candidate has launched a personal attack on Gordon Brown, saying he is "the worst prime minister we have had in this country".
Manish Sood, who is standing in North West Norfolk, added that Mr Brown was a "disgrace".
Mr Sood called Labour ministers "corrupt" and said the party had allowed immigration to get too high.
Labour said Mr Sood's remarks were "dreadful" and the latest in a series of "bizarre comments" he has made.
The party has not suspended him, so as things stand his name will still be on the ballot paper for Labour.
'Owes apology'
Mr Sood had been speaking to a local newspaper, Lynn News.
He went on to say the prime minister "owes an apology to the people and the Queen".
 |  Manish has been divorced from this campaign for some time  David Collis Chairman of North West Norfolk Constituency Labour Party |
Mr Sood, who is a Labour councillor in Leicester, later told the BBC News Channel that he stood by his comments.
"What he [Gordon Brown] is doing is basically making things worse and worse," said Mr Sood.
"At the end of the day if he can't do the job properly, he should give it to someone else…it is as simple as that."
Mr Sood claimed that some Labour activists in his constituency would be "happy" with his comments, because they were "fed up" with the current situation in the party.
"Those who are obviously staunch supporters of Gordon Brown will feel affected, but those who want to change and those who believe in true social moral values are obviously on my side," Mr Sood added.
David Collis, chairman of North West Norfolk Constituency Labour Party, said Mr Sood did not represent their views.
"Manish has been divorced from this campaign for some time, but clearly determined to get as much attention for himself as possible," said Mr Collis.
"Despite having such a dreadful candidate, loyal Labour members will continue to put the case for Gordon Brown as the best man to take Britain forward."
He added: "We are fully in support of Gordon Brown as leader of our party and of the excellent campaign he is running."
'Desperation'
A Labour source told the BBC that the party had tried in the past to deselect Mr Sood, but the attempt to move him out of the constituency had foundered on a technicality.
Speaking on the BBC's Daily Politics show, Labour's Douglas Alexander said Mr Sood's comments were "very eccentric and bizarre".
"These views won't distract us from the job in hand," he said.
Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Jack Straw told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Mr Sood's statements were "completely maverick".
"You get maverick actions by Conservatives as well...you get this at any election."
Ed Davey, the Lib Dems' chief of staff, said Mr Sood's comments were "quite amazing".
"This will add to the desperation in the Labour camp," he added.
Mr Sood's mother, Manjula Sood, also a Labour councillor in Leicester, said: "My late husband gave his life to the Labour Party and my loyalty is to the party and to what Gordon Brown has done for the country.
"My son holds his own views but I'm very angry about this and very angry with him."
The constituency of North West Norfolk was won in 2005 by Conservative candidate Henry Bellingham who is standing again, with 49.9% of the vote.
The full list of candidates in Norfolk North West is as follows:
Henry Bellingham - Conservative
David Fleming - British National Party
John Gray - UK Independence Party
Manish Sood - Labour
William Summers - Liberal Democrat
Michael de Whalley - Green
Will Hollywood Go the Way of Enron? Derivatives Come to the Movies
As if attacks from paparazzi and star-crazed fans weren't enough, Hollywood stars may soon have a literal price put on their heads by investors in the Cantor Exchange, a real-money trading platform where people can bet on the gross profits of upcoming movies. Sales of The Dark Knight skyrocketed after Heath Ledger died unexpectedly, and so did sales after the deaths of Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe. Will greed-driven investors now be laying in wait for the stars of movies they have bet on?
The Cantor Exchange (CE) is based on a virtual trading platform called the Hollywood Stock Exchange (HSX), a web-based, multiplayer simulation in which players buy and sell "shares" of actors, directors, upcoming films, and film-related options. The difference is that where the HSX uses virtual money, CE will turn the game into a real casino using real dollars.
On April 21, Cantor Exchange reported that it had just received regulatory approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which oversees futures exchanges. "This is a significant step forward in achieving our ultimate goal," it said in a letter, "which is to launch a market in Domestic Box Office Receipt Contracts."
Having "contracts" out on movies and movie stars, however, has an ominous ring; and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) apparently doesn't like the sound of it. The Cantor letter said that its tentative launch date of April 22 was being delayed because the MPAA and others "raised concerns about the economic purpose of this market and its usefulness as a hedging vehicle."
The legitimate hedgers, the moviemakers and equity holders with a real financial interest to protect, don't want it. But Cantor is pushing forward, because gambling is big business and there are vast sums of money to be made.
Critics are worried that the new exchange will turn Hollywood into another derivatives casino, vulnerable to insider trading. Even if short sellers aren't hiding behind bushes waiting to trip up the stars, the exchange could create bizarre incentives for moviemakers to manipulate and distort the market for their own products, perhaps intentionally sabotaging movies they know are losers.
A "derivative" market is one that is "derived" from an underlying asset, but participants don't have to own the asset to play. Like gamblers at a race track, they can bet without owning a horse. Derivatives have now become a $605 trillion industry, about ten times the gross domestic product of all the countries of the world combined. This money is not contributing capital to businesses, helping the economy to grow. Rather, it is being diverted into wagers. Money is made by taking it from someone else.
Worse, half the wagers are negative: the players want the thing to fail. Warren Buffet called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction." By massively short selling a stock or a currency, speculators can actually force the price down. Derivatives can be used to sabotage not only businesses but whole economies. Derivatives have been blamed for such economic disasters as the collapse of Japan's stock market in 1987, the Asian crisis of 1998, and the recent collapse of Greece.
Max Keiser, who founded CE's virtual forerunner HSX in the 1990s, has firsthand knowledge of how the Hollywood exchange can be abused. When he was CEO of HSX, he says, he came under pressure from fellow board members to give in to studio heads who were offering cash and other inducements to manipulate the prices of projects, either up (to legitimize more marketing dollars) or down (to sabotage competing projects). "These guys, including my own board of directors," he says, "could not tell the difference between marketing and market manipulation."
Whether a movie's stock price rises or falls is considered to be a predictor of the movie's future success; but Keiser warns that today, the prediction value of market pricing is largely a hoax. Traders using sophisticated computer programs have learned how to manipulate prices, and market rigging has become institutionalized.
"The only difference between the new box office futures contracts being manipulated and blowing up," he says, "and stocks in companies like Lehman Brothers being manipulated and blowing up, is that people losing their money can imagine getting screwed by Scarlett Johansson instead of Dick Fuld."
Keiser predicts that his altered HSX computer technology, if approved by the CFTC for use in a real-money exchange, will produce an insider trader's paradise, with Hollywood going the way of Enron and Lehman Brothers in two years or less.
"But this is what rigged market capitalism is all about," he says. "It's not economics really. It's arson. They bet against a company or a country and then burn it down."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)