Rothschild Controls The Gold Market, Manipulation!
National Debt. To whom do we owe it? (2/5) Ron Paul 2008
Very Powerful
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Rothschild Controls The Gold Market, Manipulation!
WHO REALLY ARE THE ROTHSCHILD FAMILY?
Rothschild Controls The Gold Market, Manipulation!
National Debt. To whom do we owe it? (2/5) Ron Paul 2008
Rothschild Controls The Gold Market, Manipulation!
National Debt. To whom do we owe it? (2/5) Ron Paul 2008
The Hidden Secrets of Money Episode 1- Currency Vs Money
What is “Hidden Secrets of Money”? It is a completely free series that
reveals the economic reality that has been hidden from you in plain
sight. Discover the secrets that will allow you to unlock the greatest
wealth transfer in history. We created this new free video series to
allow viewers to turn today’s economic crisis into opportunity by simply
learning from history. We hope you enjoy it. You can find bonus
features here: http://goldsilver.com/hidden-secrets-money/
The very ugly truth about RBS
I wanted to talk to you today about a topic that is on everyone’s
lips at the moment: the re-privatisation of RBS. Because I think there
is a disturbing story here that is not being widely reported in the
mainstream press. And it goes right to the heart of the economic
problems that Britain will face over the next few years. It certainly
affects your investments.
When Stephen Hester took the head job at RBS, he was given the task of shrinking and de-risking the bank. The ultimate goal was to bring about a sufficient recovery so that the government could reprivatise at a higher share price, and make back the €45bn they had invested in 2008-9.
Now that Stephen Hester is being pushed out to make way for a new head of RBS – who will take the bank private again before the end of 2014 – the market is speculating about just how fixed the UK banks now are.
Stock prices have rallied strongly from the lows, though they are still well below where the government bought shares in Lloyds and RBS on our behalf. However, with the political timeline fixed for a sale ahead of the next election in 2015, the story about the banks’ solvency has become political. And that is where this story gets a little dirty
Still there’s nothing like a share price rally to make your average broker believe that the banks’ balance sheets are fixed. The problem is that every historical precedent has shown the banks to be hiding bad debts on their balance sheets for several years before they finally get fixed. In the wake of a serious banking crisis, banks can’t show the full extent of losses because these would wipe out too much of their capital, so they parcel out losses against earnings over time.
The way we, the public can see that the banks are hiding losses (though we can only ever guess how large these may be) is by watching their behaviour. No matter how fixed a bank claims it is, no bank has ever been shown to shrink loans when policy was easy unless it was subsequently shown that the bank in question was suffering solvency issues. Therefore if the banks really are fixed, we will see it in the form of rising bank lending. After all, the banks are sitting on record amounts of unused liquidity in the form of excess bank reserves, so there’s absolutely no liquidity constraint.
Well, up until the start of 2012, record liquidity and the lowest base rates for over 300 years had done nothing to encourage the banks to lend. How could they? As we know, they were sitting on further as yet undeclared and capital eroding losses. How big are those losses?
Well, we don’t know exactly. Investor consultancy PIRC reckons that hidden losses at British banks come to a total of £40bn. I wouldn’t be surprised if losses were five times that size. Here’s the rub. The big four British banks sport some £255bn in core tier 1 capital, so if hidden losses of £200bn were to be revealed, so would the fact that the sector is still practically insolvent. Banks have already realised £230bn of losses, but that has taken almost five years of earnings.
The figure below shows how much progress banks have made towards repairing their balance sheets.
Bank Cumulative Loan Write-Offs as a Percentage of Peak Assets
Source: Companies data, Westhouse Securities
As you see, in a typical banking crisis, banks end up having to write off about 10% of their loans. In a bad crisis, they write off 15%. If it’s a Japanese scale crisis, they write off 20%. That can take anything between five and 15 years to play out. And the big four have made very little progress so far compared to their US counterparts.
Since 2008, US banks have written-off 12.6% of their loans. And so they may soon be strong enough to start lending again. But the big four UK banks have only written down 6.2%.
Another big problem is that half the sector’s capital resides at just one bank: HSBC. But because HSBC has also done more loan-loss realisation than any other bank, it’s a really good bet that far less than half of the remaining losses will come from HSBC.
That leaves the other three banks, RBS, Barclays and Lloyds, in a tricky position. As hedge fund manager Chris Hohn pointed out in a letter to the Financial Services Authority earlier this year, a £20bn post-tax loss would send Lloyds’ capital ratio below 5%. The same would also be true for the other two banks.
That’s because liquidity is not the real underlying problem here.
When Stephen Hester took the head job at RBS, he was given the task of shrinking and de-risking the bank. The ultimate goal was to bring about a sufficient recovery so that the government could reprivatise at a higher share price, and make back the €45bn they had invested in 2008-9.
Now that Stephen Hester is being pushed out to make way for a new head of RBS – who will take the bank private again before the end of 2014 – the market is speculating about just how fixed the UK banks now are.
Stock prices have rallied strongly from the lows, though they are still well below where the government bought shares in Lloyds and RBS on our behalf. However, with the political timeline fixed for a sale ahead of the next election in 2015, the story about the banks’ solvency has become political. And that is where this story gets a little dirty
Why these banks can’t lend
The trouble with banks is that the public rarely knows the true health of their balance sheets. The big four British banks – Barclays, Lloyds, RBS and HSBC – all had strong balance sheets (by which I mean they reported strong capital ratios) ahead of the crisis. But it turned out all was not as it seemed when disaster struck. And since then investors have largely been operating in the dark.Still there’s nothing like a share price rally to make your average broker believe that the banks’ balance sheets are fixed. The problem is that every historical precedent has shown the banks to be hiding bad debts on their balance sheets for several years before they finally get fixed. In the wake of a serious banking crisis, banks can’t show the full extent of losses because these would wipe out too much of their capital, so they parcel out losses against earnings over time.
The way we, the public can see that the banks are hiding losses (though we can only ever guess how large these may be) is by watching their behaviour. No matter how fixed a bank claims it is, no bank has ever been shown to shrink loans when policy was easy unless it was subsequently shown that the bank in question was suffering solvency issues. Therefore if the banks really are fixed, we will see it in the form of rising bank lending. After all, the banks are sitting on record amounts of unused liquidity in the form of excess bank reserves, so there’s absolutely no liquidity constraint.
Well, up until the start of 2012, record liquidity and the lowest base rates for over 300 years had done nothing to encourage the banks to lend. How could they? As we know, they were sitting on further as yet undeclared and capital eroding losses. How big are those losses?
Well, we don’t know exactly. Investor consultancy PIRC reckons that hidden losses at British banks come to a total of £40bn. I wouldn’t be surprised if losses were five times that size. Here’s the rub. The big four British banks sport some £255bn in core tier 1 capital, so if hidden losses of £200bn were to be revealed, so would the fact that the sector is still practically insolvent. Banks have already realised £230bn of losses, but that has taken almost five years of earnings.
The figure below shows how much progress banks have made towards repairing their balance sheets.
Bank Cumulative Loan Write-Offs as a Percentage of Peak Assets
Source: Companies data, Westhouse Securities
As you see, in a typical banking crisis, banks end up having to write off about 10% of their loans. In a bad crisis, they write off 15%. If it’s a Japanese scale crisis, they write off 20%. That can take anything between five and 15 years to play out. And the big four have made very little progress so far compared to their US counterparts.
Since 2008, US banks have written-off 12.6% of their loans. And so they may soon be strong enough to start lending again. But the big four UK banks have only written down 6.2%.
Another big problem is that half the sector’s capital resides at just one bank: HSBC. But because HSBC has also done more loan-loss realisation than any other bank, it’s a really good bet that far less than half of the remaining losses will come from HSBC.
That leaves the other three banks, RBS, Barclays and Lloyds, in a tricky position. As hedge fund manager Chris Hohn pointed out in a letter to the Financial Services Authority earlier this year, a £20bn post-tax loss would send Lloyds’ capital ratio below 5%. The same would also be true for the other two banks.
That’s because liquidity is not the real underlying problem here.
Dreaded haze in M'sia expected to linger until August
Petaling Jaya (The Star/ANN) - Based on the pattern in
previous years, the haze in Malaysia is expected to last until August,
according to the assessment of Indonesia's largest environmental NGO.
Walhi or Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (Indonesian Forum for the
Environment) noted that the root causes of the haze have remained the
same, three decades after it became a trans-boundary problem.Walhi's national forest and large-scale plantation campaigner Zenzi Suhadi said the annual occurrences showed that monitoring and prevention of open burning in the country was still ¿very weak¿.
He said the Indonesian Government seemed to only take notice of the situation after Singapore reacted strongly to the haze shrouding the island.
¿It is clear that the problems are still the same. It is important for the Indonesian Government to take decisive and quick measures to address the crisis,¿ he said, adding that the haze could affect multilateral relations.
The smog, which first appeared over Malaysian skies in 1982, was worst in 1997 when the Air Pollutant Index reading in Sarawak soared to 839 539 higher that the ¿Hazardous¿ level of 300 prompting the Government to issue a 10-day Haze Emergency.
It has been an annual problem ever since, with Port Klang and Kuala Selangor in the peninsula recording the highest readings of over 500 in 2005.
The haze, which is now an acute problem in South-East Asia, is mainly caused by open burning in Indonesia for land clearing, in addition to other factors like hot and dry weather.
Zenzi said forest fires that had occurred in the last decade were not just due to ecological changes but also intentional land clearing by large-scale plantations and the lack of environmental governance by the pulp and paper industry.
Walhi's southern Sumatra acting executive director Hadi Jadmiko said efforts to stop open burning should begin from the Indonesian Government.
He said the haze could have been prevented if the Government had been serious in tackling the issue by coming down hard on open burning over the years.
¿We have found that no action has been taken against two companies here which continue to practise open burning,¿ he said in a press statement.
He said drainage canals in peat soil areas also led to these places being dried out, causing fires to spread more easily.
Rico Kurniawan, Walhi's executive director for Riau, said the number of hotspots showed that the issuance of permits for plantations was not done with proper assessment.
He said the application of environmental rules in the timber and plantation industries was still far from being responsible.
Walhi is the umbrella body uniting more than 450 NGOs throughout Indonesia's vast archipelago.
It has independent offices and grassroots constituencies located in 24 of the country's 31 provinces.
Corporate interests line up behind immigration bill
During a Friday floor speech, Senate Judiciary Chairman
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said the Corker-Hoeven border security amendment
would be a boon to the corporate interests who are quietly backing the
immigration reform bill.
Leahy, who says he will begrudgingly support the Corker-Hoeven immigration amendment offered by the so-called “Gang of Two”—Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Hoeven (R-ND)—says it “reads like a Christmas wish list for Halliburton.”
Leahy, who says he will begrudgingly support the Corker-Hoeven immigration amendment offered by the so-called “Gang of Two”—Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Hoeven (R-ND)—says it “reads like a Christmas wish list for Halliburton.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/21/Sen-Leahy-Federal-Contracting-Firms-High-Fiving-Corker-Hoeven-Amendment
Even in the future, breaking the law won’t stop progress on what VP Joe Biden calls the “unfettered path” to citizenship.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/21/Corker-Amendment-permanantly-gives-citizenship-to-those-overstaying-visas
CORKER AMENDMENT PERMANENTLY OFFERS CITIZENSHIP TO THOSE OVERSTAYING THEIR VISAS
Just as public anxiety about the weak border security provisions in
the Senate immigration bill was building, GOP Sen. Bob Corker stepped
forward with an amendment to “fix” the problem. The result of his
efforts, however, has been a “Christmas tree” measure, covering items
far beyond border security. Breitbart News has learned exclusively that
one provision of Corker’s amendment will allow workers who stay in the
country past their visa will remain on the “path to citizenship.”Even in the future, breaking the law won’t stop progress on what VP Joe Biden calls the “unfettered path” to citizenship.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/21/Corker-Amendment-permanantly-gives-citizenship-to-those-overstaying-visas
World’s largest Bitcoin exchange suspends US withdrawals
RT NewsFor the next two weeks Bitcoin users in the US will be unable to withdraw the virtual currency in dollars. Major exchange Mt. Gox cited an unusually high demand as the reason for the suspension, while customers worried the company has run out of cash.
Mt. Gox, based in Tokyo, Japan, handles approximately 80 per cent of Bitcoin transactions in the US and 70 per cent internationally. The popularity of the service, which allows customers to buy and sell items with relative anonymity, has led, indirectly, to the current transaction freeze.
“Over the past week Mt. Gox has experienced rising volumes of deposits and withdrawals from established and upcoming markets interested in Bitcoin,” a company statement explained. “This increased volume has made it difficult for our bank to process the transactions smoothly and within a timely manner, which has created unnecessary delays for our global customers. This is especially so for those in the United States who are requesting wire transfer withdrawals from their accounts.”
Users are still able to deposit into Mt. Gox and continue trading on other Bitcoin services, but the update has fueled speculation that the largest Bitcoin provider has grown too quickly and simply run out of cash, an allegation the company has not addressed publicly.
“We are currently making improvement to process withdrawals of the United States Dollar denominations, and as a result are temporarily suspending cash withdrawals of USD for the next two weeks,” the statement continued. “Please be reassured that USD deposits and transfers to Mt. Gox will remain unaffected, as will deposits and withdrawals in other currencies, and we will be resuming USD withdrawals once the process is completed.”
Recent estimates indicate the number of Bitcoins in circulation is at approximately 11 million, with the collective market value nearing $1.4 billion. The price of one Bitcoin was 107 Friday, after fluctuating wildly in recent months, according to bitcoincharts.com.
While economists admit Bitcoin could have a bright financial future, its instability has been a point of reluctance for would-be investors. The temporary withdrawal restriction will almost certainly be another reason for hesitancy.
“Without a safe infrastructure, a digital currency will never achieve widespread adoption by a mainstream audience,” wrote Mark Courtney, a product and services director at GBGroup, an identity intelligence company, for Wired. “The initial success of Bitcoin proves that there is appetite for a type of digital currency, but without making the service trustworthy, more trading floors will close.”
FBI Calls Destruction of GMO Sugar Beets in Oregon 'Economic Sabotage'
In a breaking development, the FBI confirms that 1,500 GM Sugar Beet
plants were destroyed this month in Oregon, in what they are calling an
act of "Economic Sabotage."
Sayer Ji
Activist Post
When GM pollen blows into a non-GM farmer's fields and irreversibly contaminates his crop with 'biopollution,' who does the law side with? Historically, Monsanto. Also, it's not called 'economic sabotage' but rather 'copyright infringement,' and the victim not the aggressor is threatened with economic ruin.
When Monsanto's unapproved and therefore illegal GM wheat is found years after open field trials growing freely in an Oregon wheat field, the entire state crop's export fate is held in limbo, jeopardizing the present and future living of thousands of farmers and their dependents, with Monsanto receiving little more than a reprimand, followed by rapid USDA assurance that despite a lack of approval their GM wheat is "safe."
Given the unfair rules of the game, no wonder some folks in Oregon, having been treated much like feudal peasants, are taking things into their own pitchfork-bearing hands.
So, when the FBI investigates the destruction of genetically modified sugar beets from two fields in Southern Oregon's Jackson County this month, the act is immediately labeled "economic sabotage," presumably against the multinational corporation who owned the plants.
How fitting an FBI description, considering that Monsanto already planted these 'evil seeds' of doubt by suggesting their unapproved GM wheat in Oregon was a result of sabotage, and not negligence on their part
According to the Spokesman Review, "The agency [FBI] said in a statement Thursday that about 1,000 sugar beet plants were destroyed on June 8, and more than 5,000 plants were destroyed on a different plot three nights later."
The article went on to explain that the plants were owned by the Swiss-based biotech company Sygenta, and that the FBI spokewoman, Beth Anne Steele, would not comment on the manner in which the crops were destroyed "...because we don't want to encourage copycats."
When multinational corporations like Monsanto have already succeeded in genetically modifying the political system, splicing in their ex-executives and lawyers into positions of great power within the government [see image above], how can folks rely on these Monsanto, Dow and Sygenta-influenced regulatory agencies, and the enforcement arms within their control, to make decisions in the interest of their health or basic civil rights?
Some resort to pulling up, burning and otherwise destroying the plants themselves. Are they terrorists or freedom fighters? And if you answer affirmatively to the latter definition, will you yourself be defined as an "economic saboteur," or terrorist?
This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.
Sayer Ji
Activist Post
When GM pollen blows into a non-GM farmer's fields and irreversibly contaminates his crop with 'biopollution,' who does the law side with? Historically, Monsanto. Also, it's not called 'economic sabotage' but rather 'copyright infringement,' and the victim not the aggressor is threatened with economic ruin.
When Monsanto's unapproved and therefore illegal GM wheat is found years after open field trials growing freely in an Oregon wheat field, the entire state crop's export fate is held in limbo, jeopardizing the present and future living of thousands of farmers and their dependents, with Monsanto receiving little more than a reprimand, followed by rapid USDA assurance that despite a lack of approval their GM wheat is "safe."
Given the unfair rules of the game, no wonder some folks in Oregon, having been treated much like feudal peasants, are taking things into their own pitchfork-bearing hands.
So, when the FBI investigates the destruction of genetically modified sugar beets from two fields in Southern Oregon's Jackson County this month, the act is immediately labeled "economic sabotage," presumably against the multinational corporation who owned the plants.
How fitting an FBI description, considering that Monsanto already planted these 'evil seeds' of doubt by suggesting their unapproved GM wheat in Oregon was a result of sabotage, and not negligence on their part
According to the Spokesman Review, "The agency [FBI] said in a statement Thursday that about 1,000 sugar beet plants were destroyed on June 8, and more than 5,000 plants were destroyed on a different plot three nights later."
The article went on to explain that the plants were owned by the Swiss-based biotech company Sygenta, and that the FBI spokewoman, Beth Anne Steele, would not comment on the manner in which the crops were destroyed "...because we don't want to encourage copycats."
When multinational corporations like Monsanto have already succeeded in genetically modifying the political system, splicing in their ex-executives and lawyers into positions of great power within the government [see image above], how can folks rely on these Monsanto, Dow and Sygenta-influenced regulatory agencies, and the enforcement arms within their control, to make decisions in the interest of their health or basic civil rights?
Some resort to pulling up, burning and otherwise destroying the plants themselves. Are they terrorists or freedom fighters? And if you answer affirmatively to the latter definition, will you yourself be defined as an "economic saboteur," or terrorist?
This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)