« Deficit Lies From Europe - Portugal Edition »

No word if Goldman Sachs was involved...

---

Portugal's Deficit Underestimated Says Opposition Party

(Reuters) - Portugal's budget deficit and public debt are higher than those reported by the government, which is trying to regain investor confidence amid a debt crisis, the leader the main opposition party said on Saturday.

Pedro Passos Coelho told a meeting of his Social Democratic Party items like state-run companies' debts were not included in the overall public debt, which the government puts at 82 percent of gross domestic product this year.

He said that the "true" total public debt stood as high as 112 percent of GDP, while the budget deficit should be at 9.5 percent of GDP, far above the minority Socialist government's target of 7.3 percent for the end of the year.

"The state has for many years been removing from the budget a series of activities, which has made a large part of our numbers fictitious," he said in televised remarks.

Continue reading...

##

Background stories:

• Greece Hires Former Goldman Sachs Banker as Debt Chief

• Goldman Sachs Is 'Morally Culpable' for Greek Debt (Video)

• CORRUPT ACROSS THE GLOBE - Goldman Sachs

• Et Tu London: Goldman Sachs helped Britain hide debt

• Europe freezes out Goldman Sachs

---

Demise of the Politically Correct?

I too was disappointed to hear Dave Barry making light humor out of a subject that I myself find so offensive. The TSA gropers are no laughing matter in my humble opinion.

The Daily Bell

Monday, November 22, 2010 – by Staff Report

Humorist Dave Barry And His TSA Pat-Down ... Host Melissa Block talks to writer Dave Barry about his unpleasant airport experience under the new security system that examines passengers electronically. He was singled out for a pat-down after authorities told him he had a "blurry groin" — meaning the detector was unable to get a clear picture of his body. MELISSA BLOCK, host: Last week, he went through a TSA full-body scanner. What the screeners saw, they did not like. And Dave Barry, you have discovered that you are suffering from a rare disorder. What exactly is that disorder? Mr. DAVE BARRY (Humorist): They told me I have a blurred groin. – National Public Radio

Dominant Social Theme: Authoritarianism is a funny thing. We can see the humor, generally.

Free-Market Analysis: We have charted in the past the implosion of art as it relates to real life. One can say that art-as-abstraction is the result of photography, but how, then, does one explain the lack of realistic photography in public places? Instead one finds abstract sculpture, usually the bigger the better. The same observations can be made when it comes to humor and its relationship to life in the 21st century. This NPR interview with Dave Barry, excerpted above, deals with a pre-airflight patdown he underwent because the "detector" could not properly discern his full figure. The dominant social theme is obvious; the idea is apparently to defuse worry about America's growing fascism by making gentle fun of it, and thus remove the larger threat posed to what is left of American freedoms.

In this article, then, we will attempt to analyze, briefly, the way money power, like a gigantic vacuum cleaner, has sucked the political context out of art and made most forms of commentary decorative rather than confrontational (in a good sense).

The Dave Barry article, above, is just one of literally millions of examples. However, we believe the 21st century may see a reversal of this trend.

As we have mentioned before, in aggregate, the trend toward a certain kind of sociopolitical passivity has come to be known by the nomenclature "politically correct." The canon of what is politically correct constitutes (in our view) that which does not challenge the command-and-control formulations of the Anglo-American power elite. It is the elite with its insane goal of world government that has infiltrated society with a variety of memes that tear down the family and build-up the state. Therefore anything that creates cultural confusion and social dissent is welcome and anyone who seeks to challenge these progressive themes can be characterized as racist.

It is also politically correct to be pro-government and to approve the use of force to further the authoritarianism of the state (and therefore the goal of global government). Survey humorous commentary in the US, Britain and generally in the West, and one has to be struck by its general inoffensiveness – or at least unwillingness to directly criticize the powers-that-be on society's fundamental makeup. Even during the mid-20th century's radical heyday, most writers and comedians subscribed to a vaguely socialist or even Marxist outlook when it came to the fundamentals of sociopolitical organization. The impulse was "epater la bourgeoisie," via various observations that shocked social mores. Thus those who wanted to make an impact – Lenny Bruce and George Carlin come to mind – did so by making frank (and often funny) references to cultural taboos involving sex, drinking, drugs, etc.

During the 20th century, self-censorship operated in two ways, via comission and omission. Hollywood's regular attacks on multi-national corporations and business generally was a form of comission, in which the market itself was cast as the "bad guy." Omission was a more subtle form of the process; we can see it operating in other areas of the arts, especially in the non-verbal art forms such as dance, ballet, painting and sculpture. In the past 100 years, each of these art forms in our view has grown increasingly removed from any specific commentary on society's fundamental organization and operations. It is a gradual evolution but certainly a notable one.

Of course if one subscribes (as we do) to the idea of an Anglo-American power elite that uses its tremendous, familial banking wealth to move society toward one-world government, then the evolution we are observing makes a good deal of sense. Money power makes all the difference; it provides a formidable incentive for self-censorship. Money determines fashion; wealthy donors fund museums and theatres that make "gate-keeper" decisions. Purchase art and then designate its repurchase and in this way "taste" can be molded, remolded and established for the duration. The subtlety of money power – as brutal as it can be – is wondrous to behold. Endow a "modern dance" troop, ensure its engagements in powerful cultural centers and provide mainstream reviews and reviewers that offer approbation and gradually cultural perceptions evolve. What was resisted in one generation is welcomed in the next.

The beauty of money power is that once a theme, trend or cultural direction is set into place, it tends to propagate on its own. Only a relative few gatekeepers are needed. Establish a trend and the mimetic elements of human behavior take over.

People are inevitably tribal. It is a survival instinct and a success-instinct. One sees what is successful and wishes to emulate it. Within this context almost anything can be nurtured. It is how one travels from Da Vinci and Mona Lisa to Damien Hirst and his embalmed animal parts. Tap the right trend-setters, generate enough media control to saturate the public with the proposition and sooner or later the message, no matter how perverse or unexpected, will gain popularity.

In the 20th century, art and commentary were increasingly delinked from substantive criticism of society's fundamental organizational memes. One could make endless humorous comments about copulation but central banking received little or no attention. One could create endless modern dances on a variety of themes, but politics was not among them. Even literature was not immune. It is interesting to watch the decline of polity in the novel during the past 150 years: Victor Hugo, Charles Dickens, John Steinbeck and Upton Sinclair stand at the far end – John Updike, Philip Roth and Saul Bellow stand nearer to us. Dickens wrote about the poorhouse; Roth wrote about sex.

Now we are not prudes here at the Daily Bell. We make no qualitative judgments when it comes Dickens versus Roth – who wrote about sex metaphorically and with larger meaning. Nor have we intended this modest article to be a criticism of even so inoffensive a humorist as Dave Barry. What we have wanted to make clear is that the 20th century artistic conversation was gradually drained of political context (certainly free-market commentary) and we tend to believe it was no accident.

The most obvious examples of course reside in the media, which throughout the 20th century was content, increasingly, to cover crimes, lawmaking and political and economic trends rather than fundamental decision-makers operating behind the scenes. There were perhaps billions of mainstream media stories about "celebrities" and movie-stars in the 20th century, but progressively less and less was written about central bankers and the world's wealthiest businessmen and dynastic families. In the 21st century, with the advent of the Mises Institute and numerous other conservative and libertarian blogs and bloggers, the context of the conversation has radically shifted and the mainstream media has had a great deal of difficulty keeping up.

Conclusion: In conclusion, we wish to return to our Gutenberg / Internet paradigm. Radical new communication technologies, in our view, do make a difference by shattering the chrysalis of whatever politically correct thinking is dominant during a particular age. We would urge people to look on the Internet and especially on Youtube.com for examples of what is beginning to occur now. There are plenty of signs of an emergent commentary (especially in humor and music) within a free-market context. From our point of view, it validates not only the arguments we have made above, but the larger argument about the Internet versus the power elite. The conversation is changing; the narrative is shifting; engagement is commencing. The 'Net has spawned an alternative, free-market oriented news media. It may well generate new kinds of Art.

« Rothschild Bank AND Goldman Sachs Are Both On The LIST Of Bondholders Getting U.S. Taxpayer Billions In Irish Bailout »

Complete list of bondholders inside, and BBC footage of Sir Eveylyn de Rothschild. The deceased Guy de Rothschild, pictured, no longer exploits the masses for banking profit, but his progeny carry on his legacy effectively.

---

Scroll down for VIDEO of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild...

---

U.S. taxpayers finance approximately 20% of the IMF's budget.

Guess what, Ireland. Brian Lenihan and Brian Cowen just sold you down the IMF river. Why? To bail out bank bondholders and giant European banks. Of course! That's what governments are for these days, apparently. And they'll tell you that the bailout policy is all for you own good. And for little old ladies and pensioners and orphans. Just don't tell that to the cancer patients.

Yep, another nation made IMF debt slaves on behalf of the international banking cartels. And Goldman Sachs and Rothschild & Compagnie are on the list.

Check it out below -- Guido Fawkes' blog has acquired the list of Anglo-Irish Bank's bondholders.

##

From Guido Fawke...

Anglo-Irish Bank did not represent a systemic risk to the Irish economy, it wasn’t a high street bank like AIB or the Bank of Ireland. If it had been allowed to go the way of Lehmans the only losers would have been shareholders and bondholders. The Irish state stepped in and nationalised a bank that was basically run by crooks lending to property speculators.

• The Irish people are taking losses that should rightly have been shouldered by bondholders.

Every child in Ireland is being bequeathed a huge debt at birth to protect the interests of foreign, mainly German, bondholders – why? Guido was once a bond trader, it was always understood that sometimes the bond issuer defaults.

• That is the risk investors take.

So why is Dublin’s political establishment so keen to protect foreign investors at the expense of future generations? Guido has obtained the list of foreign Anglo-Irish bondholders as at the close of business tonight. These are the people whom Dublin’s politicians really seem to care about:

---

Great analysis of the list from the Golem XIV...

Of the 80 listed companies only 7 listed pensions and being a cooperative savings institution. Of those only 4 listed churches and unions as their clients, the others could well have been big pension funds. The churches and unions in question were in Germany not Ireland. Those seven companies are amongst the smallest of Anglo Irish's bond holders. I only have figures for four of the seven. The largest, Union Investments of Germany, has a mere €165 billion in assets under management.

The total assets under management which I was able to compile from publicly available figures is €20,871,150,000,000. That is an underestimate because the bond holders who turn out to be Private and Swiss banks don't publish any figures. So Anglo Irish's 'bond holders' hold and invest MORE than 20.8 trillion euros. Guido lists those bond holders as holding between them 4 Billion euros in Anglo Irish bonds.

Now, in my opinion both figures are likely to be wrong. Certainly my figure is a large underestimate. But taking them at face value Anglo Irish would account for one 5000th of the total assets being managed by all the bond holders. So would even a total default by Anglo Irish cause that much, let alone systemic, pain and risk? Why are the 'Bond holders' and the Irish government so concerned that the Irish people be forced to take the loss and pay the debts for them?

Now lets look at the other side of the equation, at Ireland itself. Well Ireland's GDP before the crash, in 2008, was ... drum roll please... €207 billion. Or 0.207 trillion.

SO.... on one side we have Ireland whose bond holders, its people, have between them a total GDP wealth of 0.207 trillion euros. Who are being FORCED, against their will, to pay Anglo Irish bank's debts to its bond holders, who between them hold 20.8 Trillion euros. The people of Ireland are paying to, and protecting the wealth and power of, people who have 100 times more wealth!

So where do these wealthy bond holders live and work?

Germany has the most with 15 of the bond holders. Who between them hold 5.3 trillion euros.
France is next with 10 bond holders. Who have about 4 trillion to keep them warm.
Britain is third with 9 who have around 3 trillion.
The Swiss have 6 but who have about 8.5 trillion.
America has only three and hold only a trillion.

Other nations include, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Holland Finland, Norway, Sweden, Poland, South Africa and Italy.

All these figures are very rough. The figure for Switzerland is certainly under because Private Swiss banks just don't publish figures. What we can say for sure, figures or no figures, is these are not banks investing widow's pensions or orphan's pennies.

So who are they? Well many of the bond holders are privately held banks, which list their activities as asset management for off-shore, non-resident and high value individuals. To give you an example, one of the private banks is EFG Bank of Luxembourg. EFG stands for European Financial Group which is the third largest private bank group in Switzerland. It manages over €7.5 trillion in assets. It is 'mostly', 40%, owned by Mr Spiro Latsis, son of a Greek shipping magnate. He also owns 30% of Hellenic Petroleum. His personal fortune is estimated to be about $9 Billion.

Continue reading...

---

DB here. Blasphemous rape of a nation in order to reward billionaire bondholders who were reckless investors and malignant in oversight.

Video - Text from Youtube page - Sir EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD talks about the global financial crisis to the BBC in October 2008...

In 2003, following the retirement of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild as head of N M Rothschild & Sons of London, the English and French firms merged to become one umbrella entity called "Group Rothschild." Ownership was shared equally between the French and English branches of the family under the leadership of David de Rothschild. In 2007, the English branch sold their share to the French branch. The French branch now fully own N M Rothschild & Sons.

Related stories:

• Irish Protestors Occupy Ministry Of Finance In Massive Anti-Bank Bailout Show Of Force (VIDEO)

• Ireland To Spend More Than 50% Of GDP To Bailout Banks (But Bank Bondholders Will Not Lose A Dime!)

• In Ireland, Cancer Patients Lose Out To Bank Bondholders

---

• Ireland Agrees To IMF, EU, U.S. Taxpayer Bailout - Bank Bondholders Don't Lose A Dime

• Céad Míle Fáilte To The IMF - Irish IMF Revolution

• Jim Rogers: "Punish The Irish Banks & Their Reckless Bondholders, Let Ireland Go Bankrupt!"

• The IRA Threatens to Kill Bankers

---

In the mood for a riot? Check out these photos...

• Austerity In Action: Crazy Photos From Yesterday's Greek Riots (Slideshow 22 PICS)

---

Spoiler ALERT -- Do not miss #7:

• 7 really big holes...

---

The Secret of Oz - English - FREE.mov

Click this link ..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U71-KsDArFM

Sirota: What deters Wall Street crooks?

Often, the most provocative ideas arise after swigs of whiskey. This is especially true when a Rolling Stone reporter is around — and, as I recently learned, it's all but guaranteed when that Rolling Stoner is Matt Taibbi, aka the heir to the magazine's gonzo throne.

I had the chance to hang with Taibbi last week after he spoke to a Denver audience about his new book, "Griftopia," which argues that Wall Street's bubble-bailout cycle has been one of the greatest — and least prosecuted — crimes in history. His presentation was serendipitously timed, coming the same week as a local Bonfire of the Vanities-esque scandal was underscoring the speculator class' privilege. In Colorado's own Bonfire of the Rockies, a local prosecutor had just reduced hit-and-run charges against a fund manager because the prosecutor said a felony would have "serious job implications" for the Sherman McCoy in question.

Over drinks in my living room, Taibbi and I pondered the financial Masters of the Universe and their maddening infallibility. I asked him why they never fear facing legal consequences. Do they believe they're untouchable? Or do they know law enforcement won't pursue them? "They're not afraid because other than Bernie Madoff, when was the last time someone on Wall Street faced any real punishment?" he responded. "Sure, a few go to jail once in a while, but they're usually out in a few months and then on the speaking circuit. That's not exactly a deterrent against bad behavior that's making you millions."

Deterrence — it's the vaunted idea behind "tough on crime" sentences for violent offenses. Lock the door, throw away the key, and the theory says that heinous acts will be prevented.

However, things haven't worked out that way because the toughest "tough on crime" policies are most focused on crimes of passion, derangement and destitution — crimes that are often not calculated and therefore not deterrable. This is probably one of the reasons why the murder rate has been higher in death penalty states than in non-death penalty states, leading most criminologists to conclude that capital punishment does not hinder conventional homicide.

But what about crimes of economic homicide? These are the opposite of crimes of passion. When, say, a speculator securitizes bad mortgages and peddles them to pension funds as safe investments, that fraud involves exactly the kind of calculation that might be deterred via the prospect of harsh punishment.

"What if a bank CEO was given life without parole?" I asked Taibbi. "What if instead of country club jail, one of these guys was shown experiencing prison like a regular convict? That would have to stop some of the worst stuff, right?"

"Right, and go a step further," Taibbi countered. "How about putting a few of them in the electric chair? Are you telling me Goldman Sachs execs aren't then going to change?"

We both busted out laughing — and hard. Not at the truth behind the theorizing, but at the idea that any of it would actually happen today. In 2005, Washington couldn't even pass a post-Enron proposal to hold CEOs legally liable for their companies' corporate tax fraud. So the notion that the same money-dominated capital will now subject CEOs to anything remotely "tough on crime" is, well, far-fetched.

And yet, the hypothetical is compelling, isn't it? That's because it highlights how our society misapplies deterrence — and how it might apply the concept more successfully.

The necessity of such a criminal justice shift should be obvious. With financial fraud now so sophisticated and pervasive, we clearly need zero-tolerance solutions to change Wall Street's culture. Indeed, without true shock-and-awe deterrence, most regulatory reform will likely be an ineffectual thumb in the economic dike — just as the thieves desire.

International Soccer Star: Reclaim Your Power By Pulling Your Money Out of Your Bank on December 7th

Most Americans haven't heard of him, but Eric Cantona is a huge international soccer star known throughout Europe and much of the world.

Cantona is calling for Europeans to pull their money out of banks on December 7th:

I don't think we can be entirely happy seeing such misery around us. Unless you live in a pod. But then there is a chance... there is something to do. Nowadays what does it mean to be on the streets? To demonstrate? You swindle yourself. Anyway, that's not the way any more.

We don't pick up weapons to kill people to start the revolution. The revolution is really easy to do these days. What's the system? The system is built on the power of the banks. So it must be destroyed through the banks.

This means that the three million people with their placards on the streets, they go to the bank and they withdraw their money and the banks collapse. Three million, 10 million people, and the banks collapse and there is no real threat. A real revolution.

We must go to the bank. In this case there would be a real revolution. It's not complicated; instead of going on the streets and driving kilometres by car you simply go to the bank in your country and withdraw your money, and if there are a lot of people withdrawing their money the system collapses. No weapons, no blood, or anything like that.

It's not complicated and in this case they will listen to us in a different way.

This would be like a well-known retired American athlete - like Michael Jordan, Joe Montana or Willie Mays - calling for concerted political action.

Indeed, Cantona's call for action is starting to go viral. See this, this and this.

One American commentator suggests killing two birds with one stone, by withdrawing our money and then buying silver to stop market manipulation and show the too big to fail banks who is boss:

S. Korea Could Seek Deployment of US Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Photo: AP

This satellite image provided by Space Imaging Asia shows the Yongbyon Nuclear Center, located north of Pyongyang, North Korea, 13 Aug 2002

South Korea's defense minister says his country may consider having U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed on its soil for the first time in 19 years.

Defense Minister Kim Tae-young raised the possibility Monday during talks with a parliamentary committee about North Korea's latest nuclear escalation. He said the issue could be raised when a joint U.S.-South Korean military committee meets next month to discuss North Korea's nuclear programs.

The United States removed its last tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea in December of 1991. A Defense Ministry spokesman told VOA that until now, the country had not considered having them reintroduced.

The Associated Press quoted a ministry spokesman saying the effect of the weapons would be mainly psychological since South Korea is already protected by the American nuclear umbrella.

The Seoul government was prompted to consider the step by reports that North Korea has a sophisticated uranium enrichment program and claims to have 2,000 working centrifuges. A U.S. scientist who visited the facility said it appears to be designed to produce fuel for electricity-making reactors but could be adapted to make fuel for nuclear weapons.