Saturday, March 9, 2013

Santelli: ‘Are We THAT Far Down the Hole?’












Financial Bubble to Collapse America


Ron Paul On Drones, Kill Lists, Bernanke And Gold


On Bernanke, gold and currency wars.
'Through 6,000 years of history, gold has always been money, and paper money has always failed.'
"Nothing good can come of a currency war.  Even short run trade benefits leads to a weaker economy and higher prices.  It doesn't solve the problem they won't face the truth.  That is that all governments spend too much money, there is too much debt and they get away with it by taxing people.  It seems that all we have is more debt, more printing money, and more government interventions.  Governments won’t even talk cutting things.  They only want to make slight decreases of proposed increases in their budgets!"
Feb. 18 - Bloomberg
---


On the drone threat and Obama's kill list.
'Extra-judicial killing is the opposite of justice.'
Transcript is here...
Feb. 18

---

Ron Paul with Tavis Smiley and Cornell West.
'Goverment always pretends to help the poor but always ends up helping the rich.'
Feb. 15

---
Photo - 'It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.'

Here's a good read published yesterday:
Ron Paul’s Transition from Politician to Pundit | TIME Magazine Profile

---


Obamacare is a disaster.
Ron Paul with Alex Jones.  Rips Krugman at the 90-second mark.
Feb. 25

---


The truth about the sequester.
Transcript is here...
March 4

---


Immigration 'reform' will turn the U.S. into a police state.
Transcript is here...
Feb. 4

---

On military troop suicides and PTSD.
Beware The Consequences of Pre-Emptive War
Last year more US troops died by suicide than died in combat in Afghanistan. More than 20 percent of military personnel deployed to combat will develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  Some 32 percent of US soldiers reported depression after deployments.  More than 20 percent of active-duty military are on potentially dangerous psychotropic drugs; many are on multiple types.  Violent crime among active duty military members increased 31 percent between 2006-2011.
Transcript is here...
Feb. 11


Photo - End the Fed!

Greece Agrees to Give Up All of its Gold to Obtain Latest Bailout

The devil is in the details.  In this case, the details require Greece to give up all 111 tonnes of its gold in exchange for the latest bailout.  Which means that should Greece ever decide to do what they should have done in May 2010 and default on the banksters, they will now be SOL as far as international trade is concerned.
As far as the banksters are concerned, Greece with its 111 tonnes of gold are merely a practice run for the main event: Portugal with 382.5 tonnes of gold, France with 2,435.4 tonnes of gold and Italy with 2,451.8 tonnes of gold.

But down there in the small print of the Greek deal lies the nasty side for Greece. There lies a heavy penalty clause; Greece's lenders will have the right to seize the gold reserves in the Bank of Greece under the terms of the new deal. Greece has 111 tonnes of gold. In other words Greece has given up on its "money in extremis", gold. If they default they will have nowhere else to go.
Its international assets will be seized and it will not be able to trade internationally at all.
Today we are watching both Iran and the Sudan use their gold to buy food for their country as they have nowhere else and nothing else to get it with. Under the terms of this new deal Greece has effectively forfeited that last resort. And if they wanted to pull a last card from the pack by insisting on a Greek jurisdiction for any final arbitration, they have forfeited that too, by agreeing that future bonds issued will be governed by English law and in Luxembourg courts, conditions more favorable to creditors.
The option of leaving the Eurozone and surviving independently has now gone. If they do default [and many think the shrinking economy will force them down that road] they will have to accept whatever terms they can scrape together from the E.U. in order to survive! Greece is now a colony of the E.U. not a member!
Read more:

Austerity: Another "Policy Mistake" Again

Bust up big banks.(Photo: SEIU / Flickr)Capitalism prescribes the same policy mistakes over and over again - austerity, punishment for debtors (unless they are financial institutions), labor cost cutting – that exacerbate its inevitable crises. When will we attack the structural roots of crisis?
Shoddy political theater distracts people with vague demons called debt ceiling, fiscal cliff and now, sequester. Party leaders posture for major donors, media boosters and the faithful. They claim to save us from the demons. Meanwhile, backstage they all agree on austerity as the "necessary" response to "our major problem," namely federal budget "imbalance." "We" are spending "beyond our means," accumulating "government debts." So "we" must raise taxes and cut spending - impose austerity - to regain balance.
On January 1, payroll taxes rose (from 4.2 to 6.2 %) for 150 million Americans. Their checks shrank as that regressive tax became more so. Obama's hyped "tax increase for the rich" was comparatively trivial. It affected only the very few Americans earning over $450,000, raising their top tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Our leaders hope we forgot the 1950s and 1960s, when the top tax rate was 91 percent. On March 1, the sequester hit, unleashing federal spending cuts.
Higher payroll taxes cut personal spending on goods and services; that worsens unemployment. That reduces income and sales taxes while requiring more unemployment compensation, thereby also worsening Washington's budget imbalance. By cutting federal spending on goods and services, the sequester also worsens unemployment, reduces tax revenues and increases unemployment compensation outlays. No wonder critics scream that austerity now is crazy and counterproductive. Europe's three-year austerity program pushed its unemployment rate in February 2013 to 11.9 percent.
Why do "our leaders" agree on austerity (and disagree only on its details)? Why ignore that austerity not only undercuts the economy, but risks the government's budget too? Why ignore alternatives to austerity? For example, tax the largest corporations and richest 3 percent to fund a bottom-up stimulus program. That could help balance the federal budget, directly aid most people and likely outperform the failed top-down (trickle down) policies of Bush and Obama. FDR's policies in the 1930s provide one example to start from.
One reason for austerity: Those who lent to Washington demand assurances that the US government will honor its debts 100 percent. One key assurance is a return to budget balance after the government's costly bailouts of major financial and other corporations. Lenders include chiefly banks, insurance companies, large corporations, rich individuals - the beneficiaries of those bailouts - pension funds and foreign governments. Those lenders' political contributions and broad social powers usually prevail in Washington.
Another reason for austerity is embarrassment. The financial industry was a crucial cause of the crisis, starting in 2007. It benefited most from the massive bailouts in late 2008 and 2009. Those bailouts caused the budget deficits, now suddenly declared to be "our major problem." The financial industry has been subsidized ever since. For example, it borrows from the Federal Reserve at much lower interest rates than it gets by relending the money to the US Treasury. If public discussion recognized that capitalism, crisis and the finance industry are systemic roots of our economic troubles today including the federal budget imbalance, criticism and demands for change might focus there. The system's supporters much prefer to narrow public attention to just the budget imbalance, to "fix" it without attention to its systemic root causes.
Another reason for austerity: It is a kind of "policy mistake" often generated in and by capitalism. Two examples can make this clear. Banks and other money-lenders often encounter borrowers unable to repay their debts. In anger, lenders demand punishment for defaulting borrowers (in poorhouses, workhouses, debtors prisons, etc.) only to discover that imprisoned borrowers are even less able and likely ever to repay debts. Punishing those borrowers, however briefly satisfying to lenders, can hurt lenders too. So bankruptcy laws and other means emerged for lenders and borrowers to work out mutually less damaging compromises. Periodically, lenders forget, overdo punishment, and rediscover again - after much wasteful suffering and pain - the self-destruction of that approach.
The second example concerns a contradiction at the core of the capitalist system. Capitalists always try to reduce the number and pay of their employees. Saving labor costs is standard business strategy. However capitalists eventually discover that that strategy can boomerang. Reducing workers' incomes - hiring fewer or paying them less -  usually means that capitalists sell less. Reduced sales can undermine capitalists' profits as much or more than lower labor costs raise them. Capitalist crises can, and often have, resulted from insufficient demand from workers as consumers. Nonetheless, capitalism's competitive structure imposes the need to cut labor costs, undermining demand and generating crises. The syndrome repeats periodically notwithstanding its massive social suffering and costs and the denunciation of its critics.
Austerity policies are just like policies of imprisoning defaulting debtors and endlessly cutting payrolls. They are short-sighted: capitalists deluded into imagining that mass economic suffering will not hurt them, too. Corporations, major shareholders and top executives are now determined to (1) evade paying the taxes that could balance the federal budget; (2) secure their holdings of government debt; and (3) keep public discussion and politics away from their responsibilities for crisis, and bailouts exclusively for themselves. They push austerity policies to achieve those goals and imagine no blowback from a deteriorating economy. When Americans catch up with the Europeans, who now increasingly confront exactly that blowback, they too will rediscover and debate alternatives.
Punishing debtors, cutting payrolls and imposing austerity keep happening. The capitalist system drives its people and enterprises to return to those policies even though their huge social costs and ultimate dangers for capitalists are rediscovered repeatedly. Usually, what forces that rediscovery and suspends those policies are mass resistance and opposition from below, from victims of the system's dysfunction. The critical question remains: When will people realize that the needed solutions are not primarily about debtors' prisons, relentless labor cost-cutting or austerity policies? The solutions, rather, converge into one basic issue: It is time to face and change the system that relentlessly re-imposes these costly "policy mistakes" on us all.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Russia, Korea And Central Banks Accumulate Gold On Dip Below $1,600/oz

Central banks are among the shrewd investors who buy gold bullion on dips.  When gold was weak during May to July of 2012, central banks actively bought nearly 71 tonnes.
Russia and Kazakhstan’s bought 12.2 and 1.5 tonnes in January, but until the IMF reports official activity, may help the very poor sentiment towards gold today. Central banks utilize gold bullion to diversify their holdings and limit their foreign exchange exposure.
It was reported that South Korea bought 20 tonnes of gold last month rumoured to be below the $1,600/oz mark. This is the first purchase this year for South Korea, after they purchased 30 tonnes in 2012.  Previously they purchased in July 2012 at the same price levels. [Read more...]

WARREN: 'How Many Billions Have To Be Laundered For Drug Lords Before We Consider Shutting Down A Bank?'


Elizabeth Warren is still waiting for an answer.
In Senate testimony Thursday, Liz Warren asks how much drug-laundered money it takes before banking regulators consider shutting down a bank.  Hilarity ensues.  And no one ever answers the question.
Witnesses were:
  1. David Cohen, Sec. for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, U.S. Treasury
  2. Thomas Curry, Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
  3. Jerome H. Powell, Governor, Federal Reserve System

---
Transcript
WARREN: As Senator Reed just pointed out, the United States government takes money laundering very seriously for a very good reason.
Now in December, HSBC admitted to money laundering. To laundering $881 million that we know of for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. And also admitted to violating our sanctions for Iran, Libya, Cuba, Burma, the Sudan. And they didn't do it just one time. It wasn't like a mistake. They did it over and over and over again across a period of years. And they were caught doing it. Warned not to do it. And kept right on doing it. And evidently making profits doing it.
Now HSBC paid a fine, but no one individual went to trial. No individual was banned from banking. And there was no hearing to consider shutting down HSBC's activities here in the United States. So what I'd like is, you're the experts on money laundering. I'd like your opinion. What does it take? How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this? Mr. Cohen, can we start with you?
COHEN: Certainly Senator. No question the activity that was the subject of the enforcement action against HSBC was egregious.
WARREN: But let me just move you along here on the point Mr. Cohen. My question is, given that this is what you did, what does it take to get you to move towards even a hearing? Even considering shutting down banking operations for money laundering?
COHEN: Senator, we at the Treasury Department under OFAC and (ph) authority, we don't have the authority to shut down a financial institution.
WARREN: I understand that. I'm asking, in your opinion, you are the ones who are supposed to be the experts on money laundering. You work with everyone else, including the Department of Justice. In your opinion, how many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords, before somebody says, we're shutting you down?
WARREN: And I'm asking, what does it take, even to say, here's where the line is. We're going to draw a line here, and if you cross that line, you're at risk for having your bank closed?
COHEN: But I'm not going to get into some hypothetical line drawing exercise.
WARREN: Well it's somewhere beyond $881 million of drug money.
COHEN: Well Senator the actions, and I'm sure the regulators can address this issue. The actions that we took in the HSBC case, we thought were appropriate in that instance.
WARREN: So what you're saying to me is you are responsible for these banks, and again, I read your testimony and you talk about the importance of vigorous enforcement here. But you're telling me you have no view when it's appropriate to consider even a hearing to raise the question of whether or not these banks should have to close their operations when they engage in money laundering for drug cartels?
WARREN: I understand that I'm over my time.  And I'll just say here, if you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to go to jail.  If it happens repeatedly you may go to jail for the rest of your life.  But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night.  Every single individual associated with this.  I just, I think that's fundamentally wrong.
"How would you explain this to your neighbor?" Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) asked, noting that the fine slapped on HSBC amounted to about one percent of its profits over 10 years. "Does that really send a message?"


Photo by William Banzai7...