Monday, July 26, 2010

Chavez threatens to cut off oil to US

AP

President Hugo Chavez has threatened to halt oil sales to the United States if Venezuela is attacked by its US-allied neighbour Colombia.

Chavez said during a speech to thousands of supporters that if there were an "armed aggression against Venezuela" from Colombia backed by the US, "we would suspend shipments of oil".

Chavez said "we wouldn't send one more drop" of oil to the United States, which is the top buyer of oil from the South American country.

The Venezuelan leader cut off diplomatic relations with Colombia on Thursday after outgoing President Alvaro Uribe's government presented photos, videos and maps of what it said were Colombian rebel camps inside Venezuela.

Chavez calls it a bogus show intended to smear his government and has said the Uribe could be trying to lay the groundwork for an armed conflict.

The Colombian government denies seeking a conflict. It says it went to the Organisation of American States with its evidence about the rebels' alleged presence in Venezuela last week because Chavez's government had not taken steps to address the situation.

Chavez said Sunday he is cancelling a trip to Cuba due to the tensions with Colombia.

He said separately in a newspaper column, however, he will wait to see if Colombian President-elect Juan Manuel Santos, who takes office next month, expresses willingness to ease the diplomatic conflict.

"We have to receive clear and unequivocal signals that there is a real political will in the new Colombian government to take up the path of dialogue again, without tricks," Chavez wrote.

© 2010 AP

Ellen Brown on Debt Money, Why Money is Collapsing and Why Central Banks Need Adult Supervision

The editors of The Daily Bell are pleased to present this exclusive interview conducted by Scott Smith with Web of Debt author Ellen Brown.

Introduction: Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Brown developed an interest in the developing world and its problems while living abroad for eleven years in Kenya, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua. She returned to practicing law when she was asked to join the legal team of a popular Tijuana healer with an innovative cancer therapy, who was targeted by the chemotherapy industry in the 1990s. That experience produced her book Forbidden Medicine, which traces the suppression of natural health treatments to the same corrupting influences that have captured the money system. Brown's eleven books include the bestselling Nature's Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, which has sold 285,000 copies.

Daily Bell: Nice to meet you.

Brown: My pleasure!

Daily Bell: Can you tell us your book's thesis in a nutshell?

Brown: Our money is an illusion. Except for coins, which compose only one ten-thousandth of the money supply, all of our money today consists of debt to private banks. Banks always take back more money in principal and interest than they put into the money supply as principal, making the system basically a pyramid scheme. After 300 years, this scheme has spread around the world and has now reached its mathematical limits. The whole world has been captured in the debt trap of a private international banking monopoly.

Daily Bell: These are clearheaded deductions about economics. How did you get interested?

Brown: In my earlier books, which were on health and the politics of health, I saw the pharmaceutical industry as the force to be reckoned with and exposed. I was on the legal team of a Tijuana cancer therapist named Jimmy Keller, who showed Ed Griffin's documentary "World Without Cancer" to all his patients. I read Griffin's book of the same name and realized that the banking, drug and oil cartels were basically the same entities, and that their power came from the power to create money that they had usurped from the people themselves. This was such a mind-boggling insight that I felt I had to write about it.

Daily Bell: How did you make the jump from nutrition to finance?

Brown: My first book was on nutrition but my later books focused on the politics of health and what is wrong with our health care system. I feel we have been misled about drugs and healing, and I wanted to expose that and set it right. After reading "World Without Cancer," I read Ed Griffin's book "The Creature from Jekyll Island," which I thought was great right up to the end; but I felt his solution would not work. I then read other books on the subject and got my grounding in it. I actually got interested in writing on economics and the Federal Reserve in the seventies, but that was before the Internet, and I wasn't able to follow my hunches to the end. When that remarkable tool became available, the missing puzzle pieces fell into place and I could see the larger picture and had to write about it.

Daily Bell: Tell us some more about your background, where you grew up and when you traveled.

Brown: I was born in California, grew up in the Detroit and Denver suburbs, graduated from UC Berkeley in English and then from UCLA Law School. I met my husband Cliff in law school, and we worked as attorneys in L.A. for 10 years (11 for him), until he burned out on Beverly Hills law and decided to join the U.S. Agency for International Development. He always wanted to go abroad, and it gave me a chance to write and have more time with the kids (we have two). From 1989 to 2000, we lived in Kenya, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Then I got divorced and returned to the States, where I discovered this most interesting of writing subjects. I'm still good friends with my ex; I just ran out of topics overseas! There was more to it than that, of course, but I do feel I had to come back to the States to find this topic du jour. My daughter now works for a U.N. N.G.O. and my son is a graduate student in economics in Michigan.

Daily Bell: What's been the reaction to your book?

Brown: Remarkably good. I get flooded with email, which is great. With my other books, I didn't have much contact with readers and felt like a ghostwriter. With this one, I feel like a lightning rod, attracting ideas from everywhere. I credit it to the Internet, an amazing historical development that has changed the game worldwide.

Daily Bell: Are you familiar with Austrian finance? What do you think of it?

Brown: I am, and I enjoyed reading Murray Rothbard; but I don't think the Quantity Theory of Money is correct. Prices do not benignly adjust to a contraction in the money supply; this has been shown historically. When the money supply contracts, workers get laid off, businesses shut down, and the economy goes into a recession or a depression. It's a fallacy to think you can control prices by controlling the money supply – or even that you can control the money supply ("you" meaning, of course, the central bank). In the 1970s and 1980s, when Milton Friedman's monetarism was popular, attempts were made to regulate prices by regulating the money supply, and they didn't work. Some major recessions resulted, and Third World countries got locked hopelessly in debt from a radical increase in interest rates, but the money supply couldn't be controlled.

The Federal Reserve doesn't create money; banks do. The Federal Reserve just responds by providing the reserves they need after the fact if they come up short. And adding money to the system doesn't raise prices – not if workers and materials are available to make goods. If you add money to the system, the money will go looking for goods, and merchants will respond by making more. Supply and demand will go up together and prices will remain stable. An increase in interest rates is more likely to raise prices. Merchants raise their prices to cover their costs, and interest is a major cost.

Daily Bell: Are you a free-market economist or something else?

Brown: I believe in free markets, but I don't believe we have them today. Virtually every market now is manipulated and controlled. We lost our free markets when we gave away the power to create money to a private banking elite. They got their power through sleight of hand, and it can be reversed only by reversing the sleight of hand. Ironically, to get back our free markets, we need some government intervention. The economy has been captured by thieves, and we need some rules and regulations to put the genie back in the bottle.

Daily Bell: What's wrong with a gold or silver monetary system?

Brown: To answer that question properly will take more than a few sentences, but I'll try to be succinct. There are three ways a precious metal system could be set up: (1) a "gold-backed" fiat currency, of the sort we had until 1933 domestically and until 1971 internationally; (2) 100% gold coins, as Ed Griffin recommends; or (3) gold, silver and anything else trading freely with dollars, as recommended by Ron Paul.

The first alternative failed historically and doesn't work mathematically. Nixon had to take the dollar off the gold standard internationally after DeGaulle traded in his dollars for gold and the British then tried to trade in theirs, and the U.S. was about to run out of gold. In a "fractional reserve" system, only a fraction of the gold necessary to cash in all the dollars "backed" by gold is actually held in the banks' vaults. When people figure that out, you get runs on the banks and the banks have to close their doors. Roosevelt was faced with the same problem. People had panicked and were trading in their dollars for gold at the banks. The dollar was then 40% backed by gold, so whenever anyone cashed in $2 in paper money, $3 in loans had to be called in. The result was a radical collapse in the money supply.

Option #2, an all-gold currency, won't work for a number of reasons, but I'll just mention one: where are you going to get the gold? To be fair, the government would have to swap all the dollars in the money supply for gold. Assume a $13 trillion money supply (M3) and that there is $4 trillion worth of gold in the world (per the last report I saw). Even if you could acquire every penny's worth of gold, you'd have to revalue the gold so that it was worth $3000/ounce. Goldbugs say that's doable, but here's my question: how are you going to get the gold? What are you going to buy it with? Your paper dollars are going to be worthless. What Indian woman wearing that gold around her neck is going to be foolish enough to trade it for your paper dollars?

Ed Griffin would just divide the outstanding money supply by the gold in Fort Knox, but we don't know if there's any gold left in Fort Knox, and even assuming there is, the dollar value per ounce is going to be so far from anything resembling the real market value of gold that tying the dollar to gold will lose all meaning. If you want a fixed money supply, why not just have Congress order up X number of dollars, forbid any more to be issued, and make it illegal for banks to create credit on their books? Let them lend what they have and no more. Even that won't work though; you'll quickly degenerate into recession or depression, because there won't be enough money for innovation, development and the like. The ability to create and extend credit is a good thing and is necessary to a thriving economy. It's just a question of who gets to create it, private banks (which then proceed to charge interest on it that they siphon off the top as profits) or public banks, drawing on the "full faith and credit of the United States" because they are the United States and can return the profits to the United States, maintaining a mathematically sound system?

The third idea – allowing people to trade in any currency they want – doesn't solve anything and just creates new problems. What's the exchange rate going to be between these various domestic currencies, and who is going to set it? Are you going to allow shortselling between currencies, derivative bets, etc.? If you have silver and gold coins trading together, what happens if gold goes up in value relative to silver? Will you have to change the face value of the coins? They could be left unstamped, but then you won't really have coins; you'll just have round gold bars. Then why not just keep your gold bars and sell them for paper dollars as needed? If the paper dollars lose value, as goldbugs are sure they will, the gold bars will fetch more dollars when sold, so value will have been preserved just as it would have been if the gold were actually turned into gold coins.

Daily Bell: You are somewhat cynical about government, yet your solutions feature government involvement. Can government really be trusted to do the right thing?

Brown: I have faith in the sort of government "of the people, by the people, for the people" described by Abraham Lincoln; but we don't have that now. What we have is government controlled by a few giant corporations, and they got their power by acquiring the power to create the national money supply. "Allow me to issue and control a nation's currency," Amschel Mayer Rothschild allegedly said in the 18th century, "and I care not who makes its laws." That statement may be apocryphal, but that is how they did it, and that is the power we have to get back if we want a just and trustworthy government that represents people rather than wealthy corporations.

Daily Bell: Do you believe in a business cycle – and that central banks aggravate it by printing too much money?

Brown: We had obvious business cycles in the 19th century when we were on the gold standard. Banks would issue banknotes that were many multiples of the gold they held in their vaults, until the paper money supply so far outstripped its backing that people realized the banks could not make good on all their gold-backed notes and there would be runs on the banks. "Fiat money" was not the problem though. The whole system was a ruse. The gold backing allowed private bankers to create paper money on a printing press and lend it at interest, pretending it represented gold the bankers did not really have in their vaults. Privately-issued paper money that is only partially backed by precious metals is a form of counterfeiting whether the sums are prudently managed or not.

Daily Bell: Was central banking over-printing of money the proximate cause of the economic crisis?

Brown: No. Alan Greenspan did lower interest rates to ridiculously low levels in 2001, precipitating the housing bubble that precipitated the current crisis; and he gave his blessing to derivatives, which allowed banks to move loans off their books, package them up, and sell them to investors, making room on their books for more loans and fanning the housing bubble. But it wasn't the central bank that over-printed money. It was the commercial banks, and of course they don't actually "print" it. They just create it as accounting entries on their books. The "crisis" came when there was a sudden shift in accounting rules, from "mark to fantasy" to "mark to market". The idea was to rein in the over exuberance\ of the banks; but the banks were just doing what they had to do to keep the Ponzi scheme going: create ever more loans. The real cause of the crisis was the Ponzi scheme itself: it just ran out of its food source.

Daily Bell: What are the best investments to make throughout the business cycle, and do they change over time?

Brown: They change over time, and because markets are so heavily manipulated, you can't really know what they are unless you're an insider. The rest of us just have to pay very close attention and ride the roller coaster. A case in point was a year ago, when gold was about to break through $1000, oil was hovering near $150/barrel, bank stocks were plummeting, and so was the dollar. Suddenly in July, everything miraculously reversed – the dollar and bank stocks shot up, and gold and oil plunged. What happened? The Japanese central bank later admitted in its local paper that the central banks had colluded to manipulate the markets.

Daily Bell: What do you think of the current economic crisis. Are Western countries handling it well?

Brown: Yes and no. The credit system has collapsed and Western central banks are trying to pump it back up with "quantitative easing," which is a better approach than President Hoover took when he tried to tighten the government's belt and "balance the budget" in the early 1930s. But bailing out the banks is the wrong approach. Governments should be using quantitative easing (essentially money-printing) to build infrastructure and pay the government's bills rather than trying to clean up the toxic books of failed banks. The problem is that the central banks are there to serve the banking system, not the people. We need truly national central banks. England and Canada technically own their central banks, but their governments still borrow from private banks. They don't use their central banks as if they owned them. China, Malaysia, and South Korea do; and they're faring quite well these days.

Daily Bell: Do you believe in the bailouts taking place in America?

Brown: No. We've been extorted into them. We've been made to believe the only way we can save our credit system is to spend our hard-earned taxpayer money to save the banks that got us into the mess, but that's not true. We can set up our own public credit system and let the private parasitic cartel fend for itself. They made billions in the free market; let them go down in the free market.

Daily Bell: Can you explain the genesis of the financial crisis?

Brown: Taking the long view, it's the end of a 300 year Ponzi scheme. Virtually all of our money is created by banks as loans; but banks create only the principal, not the interest necessary to pay their loans back. More is always owed back than is created in the first place, and new borrowers must continually be found to take out new loans to create the money to pay this extra interest. After 300 years, the whole world has been locked in debt, and the parasitic pyramid has run out of its food source.

All sorts of scams and schemes were devised to plunder the last dollar out of borrowers – securitization of subprime mortgages to move them off the banks' books and make room for more, derivatives to supposedly eliminate the risk of subprime default and induce investors to buy, etc. But the schemes have been exposed, and the "shadow lenders" – the investors induced to buy these bundles of subprime debt – have gone away and they aren't coming back any time soon.

The shadow lenders made up $10 trillion worth of the mortgage market. Virtually all of our money consists of credit (or debt), and a big chunk of this credit has disappeared. The money supply is collapsing, and that is what has caused the financial crisis. The solution is to put money back into the system; but the banks can't do it, because the Bank for International Settlements has imposed a tourniquet on lending with the Basel Accords.

We need to set up our own public banks, which cannot run short of "the full faith and credit of the United States" because they ARE the United States (or whatever local government is setting them up). In the U.S., we should nationalize the Federal Reserve and let it operate like a real government-owned bank, issuing money and credit on behalf of the public for infrastructure and other government expenditures. States could also set up their own credit mechanisms by setting up their own banks.

Daily Bell: Do you believe that some of your ideas will be taken up officially?

Brown: I keep trying, knocking at any doors I see; but it's a slow-moving machine. The first step is mass education and popular understanding.

Daily Bell: Have you heard from Wall Street about your ideas?

Brown: No.

Daily Bell: Are you at all worried about the reaction to your ideas?

Brown: I try to suggest solutions that are good for everyone. I think the private banking business has actually come to the end of the line. They're scrambling desperately to hold it all together, but there's not much more they can do. The whole multi-trillion dollar derivatives edifice was constructed in an attempt to bring business back that the banks were losing to their competitor non-bank institutions, but it didn't work in the end. I think the bankers might be relieved to pass the baton. Not that they want to lose their existing fortunes, but they might be ready to retire to their favorite islands and let the next generation tackle the problem; or to take jobs exercising their expertise in a new public banking arrangement with the stable backing of the government.

Daily Bell: You do a great deal of public speaking. What do you emphasize most in your talks?

Brown: Solutions, solutions, solutions. This nut can be cracked. We've been looking at the problem wrong. When we step outside the box and look again, it's all quite simple. Truth is simple.

Daily Bell: What are the most important – seminal -- articles of yours that you would encourage everyone to read? Where can they be found?

Brown: My articles can all be found on my website at WebofDebt.com. I try to write one every week or two, and they're quite topical, but the most popular (per the OpEdNews ratings) have been "It's the Derivatives, Stupid!", written in September 2008 after the Lehman/AIG collapse; "Borrowing from Peter to Pay Paul: The Wall Street Ponzi Scheme Called Fractional Reserve Banking" (December 29, 2008); and "Toward a Solution to the Debt Crisis in California" (July 13, 2009). My latest article is "The Public Option in Banking: How We Can Beat Wall Street at Its Own Game" (August 8, 2009), posted on the Huffington Post among other places.

Daily Bell: On behalf of all of our readers we thank you for sharing your views with us – and for your courageous and important work.

Brown: You're welcome. I don't feel courageous; I just write. I live with my 90-year-old mother in a senior village. I need the excitement!

America's new debtor prison: Jail time being given to those who owe

Debtors prisons were federally abolished in the United States in the 1800's, yet in certain states, they seem to be making a comeback. Out of Minnesota come disturbing reports of Americans being thrown in jail due to outstanding bills -- sometimes for as little as $85. The Star-Tribune of Minneapolis profiles a number of people who say their debts got them jailed, including Joy Uhlmeyer a 57-year-old patient care advocate who was pulled over on her way home from visiting her elderly mother and put in jail for a night for missing a court hearing about unpaid debt.

The Star-Tribune reviewed the state's court documents and found that arrests like Uhlmeyer's are up 60% in Minnesota over the past four years. And Minnesota isn't the only state where this is happening. It's a turn of events Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director at advocacy group U.S. Public Interest Research Groups (or PIRG), calls a "very bad situation for consumers." Mierzwinski attributes the practice to "bottom-feeder debt collectors [who] are very aggressive."
People who are imprisoned for their debts are technically locked up for contempt of court after failing to appear for a hearing pertaining to their debt. It's a legal loophole that debt-collection companies are increasingly using. Here's how it works: First, the collections company files a lawsuit against the debtor, which requires them to appear in court. If the debtor doesn't show up, the creditor wins a default judgment against them. This allows them to ask the court to schedule another hearing at which the judge can go through the debtor's assets and determine if actions such as wage garnishments or bank account seizures can take place.

If the debtor doesn't show up to that hearing, the hammer of justice can come down hard and fast. From there, the judge can order the debtor in contempt of court and issue a warrant for their arrest. If this seems unnecessarily punitive, the price to get out of jail is even more so, say consumer advocates: Generally, the judge sets the cost of bail at the amount of the disputed debt, an amount which is then turned over to the creditor.

"This is the private use of government resources to collect debt," Pete Barry, partner at law firm Barry & Slade LLC, told Walletpop. One of Barry's clients was arrested at her workplace for not filling out and sending back a form demanded by the creditor. The client, Barry says, suffered the humiliation of having to have her boss come to the jail and post a bond before she could be released. The bond money, he added, was turned over to the creditor. "They're using the court system as their collection agent," he says.

"There are big issues," says Ira Rhinegold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. "Minnesota isn't the only place it's happening, but it seems to be the worst. They're leading the way," he says, noting that NACA has heard similar stories out of Wisconsin, New Jersey, Arkansas and Washington.

Rhinegold tells Walletpop that some unscrupulous debt collectors never even send debtors the required notification that the case is being taken to court. Then the debtor fails to show up and the collector wins a default judgment, which can pave the way for imprisonment until they post their bond.

What's behind all of this? "In some ways it stems from the growth of the debt buying industry," says Rhinegold. Collection agencies buy debt for pennies on the dollar, then hire lawyers to chase after even the smallest amounts. Of all of the unfair aspects of this chain of events, advocates say the most galling is that, in many cases, consumers may not even be legally responsible for the debts for which they're being jailed. In fact, the debt may not even be theirs, the amount may be inflated by penalties and attorney's fees, and it's almost certainly been written off by the original creditor -- who then resold it for pennies on the dollar to a debt-collection firm that plays hardball to get money from consumers. Often, says Rhinegold, the collector doesn't even have the paperwork that would prove that existence of the debt. In these cases, the judge will dismiss the case against the debtor. All the debtor had to do was show up for their day in court.For this reason, Gail Hillebrand, financial services campaign manager at nonprofit Consumers Union, says it's vitally important for consumers to respond if you get a letter threatening legal action and requiring a court appearance. The name of the collector can change because of how often debt is resold, she warns. So if you have an outstanding debt, don't assume that a notice that seems to come from a different company than the original lender is junk mail. "The problem is that people don't realize what it is," she says.

It's important to do some research first, though. If the debt isn't yours, you can dispute it. Even if it is, showing up to court can sometimes lead to an outcome in your favor if the collector can't prove you owe the debt. Either way, it will keep you from being hauled off in handcuffs.

The Wealth of the Commons and Public Benefit Financial Institutions

For OpEdNews: Michael Sauvante - Writer

More wealth has now become concentrated in the hands of the elite than in the years leading up to the stock market crash of 1929. The middle class has lost trillions of dollars in accumulated wealth, largely transferred to the top of the economic pyramid.

Much has been written about this phenomenon, but solutions are in short supply. Doesn't so much power concentrated in so few hands leave the rest of us powerless? Actually no, there are vast resources available to us.

Those resources reside in the "wealth of the commons," that is, the natural and human resources in our hands and heads. The key is figuring out ways to redeploy those resources to directly benefit society and the planet, not just the few.

The current system can survive only if we keep feeding it. By turning our energies in other directions, we can fundamentally change the world for the better.

The futurist Buckminster Fuller famously said "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a NEW model that makes the existing model obsolete." We at the Commonwealth Group have taken his words to heart.


Today we have unprecedented tools for collective efforts, like the Web, email, social networks and so on, that can rapidly assemble groups of likeminded people around a common goal. All it takes is a small, dedicated group to develop a plan and take it to the rest of the world. As Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." We think it is time to change the world.

Below are a number of ways we have come up with that can help to change the world for the better.

Financial systems are the key

At the heart of all our institutions is the need for money. Money is directed and controlled by the world's financial systems -- ripe and ready for fundamental change. The near collapse of basic credit to small business and the artificial propping up of the "too big to fail" Wall Street banks are just some of the signs that those financial systems are already collapsing.

In the meantime, as in nature, other organisms spring up in the gaps left by the old dominant system and the more those new organisms nurture and support each other, the more likely their survival.

Applying those ideas to financial systems, we have identified the following areas where we can create new means by which the world of finance can serve us rather than the other way round. We refer to these replacements as Public Benefit Financial Institutions.

Stock exchange

No financial institution has come to epitomize the worst of the current system more than the speculation driven excesses of stock exchanges. Exchanges have been called nothing more than gambling casinos favoring insiders who increasingly appear to control the game.

Stock exchanges should fill a vital role in providing businesses with capital. Yet they seem consumed with the buying and selling of exotic financial instruments from which vast fortunes are made, often at the expense of others, rather than focus on that less profitable role of providing capital.

It is not just the financial manipulators that benefit while hurting the rest of society. We also find that companies listed on those exchanges are caught up in a similar "profit at all costs" game. Short-term profit-driven behavior that trumps all other objectives appears to be behind their unparalleled influence over our governments, the despoiling of our environment and the destructive cycles of our economies.

Next Page 1 | 2 | 3

Why the U.S. Need Not Fear a Sovereign Debt Crisis: Unlike Greece, It Is Actually Sovereign

Last week, a Chinese rating agency downgraded U.S. debt from triple A and number one globally, to "double A with a negative outlook" and only 13th worldwide. The downgrade renewed fears that the sovereign debt crisis that began in Greece will soon reach America. That is the concern, but the U.S. is distinguished from Greece in that its debt is denominated in its own currency, over which it has sovereign control. The government can simply print the money it needs or borrow from a central bank that prints it. We should not let deficit hawks and short sellers dissuade the government from pursuing that obvious expedient.

We did not hear much about "sovereign debt" until early this year when Greece hit the skids. Investment adviser Martin Weiss wrote in a February 24 newsletter:

On October 8, Greece's benchmark 10-year bond was stable and rising. Then, suddenly and without warning, global investors dumped their Greek bonds with unprecedented fury, driving its market value into a death spiral.


Likewise, Portugal's 10-year government bond reached a peak on December 1, 2009, less than three months ago. It has also started to plunge virtually nonstop.

The reason: A new contagion of fear about sovereign debt! Indeed, both governments are so deep in debt, investors worry that default is not only possible -- it is now likely!

So said the media, but note that Greece and Portugal were doing remarkably well only three months earlier. Then, "suddenly and without warning," global investors furiously dumped their bonds. Why? Weiss and other commentators blamed a sudden "contagion of fear about sovereign debt." But as Bill Murphy, another prolific newsletter writer, reiterates, "Price action makes market commentary." The pundits look at what just happened in the market and then dream up some plausible theory to explain it. What President Franklin Roosevelt said of politics, however, may also be true of markets: "Nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

That the collapse of Greece's sovereign debt may actually have been planned was suggested in a Wall Street Journal article in February, in which Susan Pullian and co-authors reported:

Some heavyweight hedge funds have launched large bearish bets against the euro in moves that are reminiscent of the trading action at the height of the U.S. financial crisis.


The big bets are emerging amid gatherings such as an exclusive 'idea dinner' earlier this month that included hedge-fund titans SAC Capital Advisors LP and Soros Fund Management LLC.

[...]

There is nothing improper about hedge funds jumping on the same trade unless it is deemed by regulators to be collusion. Regulators haven't suggested that any trading has been improper.

Regulators hadn't suggested it yet; but on the same day that the story was published, the antitrust division of the U.S. Justice Department sent letters to a number of hedge funds attending the dinner, warning them not to destroy any trading records involving market bets on the euro.

Represented at the dinner was the hedge fund of George Soros, who was instrumental in collapsing the British pound in 1992 by heavy short-selling. Soros was quoted as warning that if the European Union did not fix its finances, "the euro may fall apart." Was it really a warning? Or was it the sort of rumor designed to make the euro fall apart? A concerted attack on the euro, beginning with its weakest link, the Greek bond, could bring down that currency just as short selling had brought down the pound.

These sorts of rumors have not been confined to the Greek bond and the euro. In The Financial Times, Niall Ferguson wrote an article titled "A Greek Crisis Is Coming to America," in which he warned:

It began in Athens. It is spreading to Lisbon and Madrid. But it would be a grave mistake to assume that the sovereign debt crisis that is unfolding will remain confined to the weaker eurozone economies.

America, he maintained, would suffer a sovereign debt crisis as well, and this would happen sooner than expected.

The International Monetary Fund recently published estimates of the fiscal adjustments developed economies would need to make to restore fiscal stability over the decade ahead. Worst were Japan and the UK (a fiscal tightening of 13 per cent of GDP). Then came Ireland, Spain and Greece (9 per cent). And in sixth place? Step forward America, which would need to tighten fiscal policy by 8.8 per cent of GDP to satisfy the IMF.

The catch is that the U.S. does not need to satisfy the IMF.

"Sovereign debt" Is an Oxymoron

America cannot actually suffer from a sovereign debt crisis. Why? Because it has no sovereign debt. As Wikipedia explains:

A sovereign bond is a bond issued by a national government. The term usually refers to bonds issued in foreign currencies, while bonds issued by national governments in the country's own currency are referred to as government bonds. The total amount owed to the holders of the sovereign bonds is called sovereign debt.

Damon Vrabel, of the Council on Renewal in Seattle, concludes:

The sovereign debt crisis... is a fabrication of the Ivy League, Wall Street and erudite periodicals like the Financial Times of London.. It seems ridiculous to point this out, but sovereign debt implies sovereignty. Right? Well, if countries are sovereign, then how could they be required to be in debt to private banking institutions? How could they be so easily attacked by the likes of George Soros, JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs? Why would they be subjugated to the whims of auctions and traders? A true sovereign is in debt to nobody...

Unlike Greece and other EU members, which are forbidden to issue their own currencies or borrow from their own central banks, the U.S. government can solve its debt crisis by the simple expedient of either printing the money it needs directly, or borrowing it from its own central bank which prints the money. The current term of art for this maneuver is "quantitative easing," and Ferguson says it is what has so far "stood between the US and larger bond yields" -- that, and China's massive purchases of U.S. Treasuries. Both are winding down now, he warns, renewing the hazard of a sovereign debt crisis.

"Explosions of public debt hurt economies..." Ferguson contends, "by raising fears of default and/or currency depreciation ahead of actual inflation, [pushing] up real interest rates."

Market jitters may be a hazard, but if the U.S. finds itself with government bonds and no buyers, it will no doubt resort to quantitative easing again, just as it has in the past -- not necessarily overtly, but by buying bonds through offshore entities, swapping government debt for agency debt, and other sleights of hand. The mechanics may vary, but so long as "Helicopter Ben" is at the helm, dollars are liable to appear as needed.

Hyperinflation: A Bogus Threat Today

Proposals to solve government budget crises by simply issuing the necessary funds, whether as currency or as bonds, invariably meet with dire warnings that the result will be hyperinflation. But before an economy can be threatened with hyperinflation, it has to pass through simple inflation; and today the world is struggling with deflation. The U.S. money supply has been shrinking at an unprecedented rate. In a May 26 article in The Financial Times titled "US Money Supply Plunges at 1930s Pace as Obama Eyes Fresh Stimulus," Ambrose Evans-Pritchard observed:

The stock of money fell from $14.2 trillion to $13.9 trillion in the three months to April, amounting to an annual rate of contraction of 9.6pc. The assets of institutional money market funds fell at a 37pc rate, the sharpest drop ever.

So long as workers are out of work and resources are sitting idle, as they are today, money can be added to the money supply without driving prices up. Price inflation results when "demand" (money) increases faster than "supply" (goods and services). If the new money is used to create new goods and services, prices will remain stable. That is where "quantitative easing" has gone astray today: the money has not been directed into creating goods, services and jobs but has been steered into the coffers of the banks, cleaning up their balance sheets and providing them with cheap credit that they have not deigned to pass on to the productive economy.

Our forefathers described the government they were creating as a "common wealth," ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for its people. Implied in that vision was an opportunity for employment for anyone wanting to work, as well as essential social services for the population. All of that can be provided by a government that claims sovereignty over its money supply.

A true sovereign need not indebt itself to private banks but can simply issue the money it needs. That is what the American colonists did, in the innovative paper money system that allowed them to flourish for a century before King George forbade them to issue their own scrip prompting the American Revolution. It is also what Abraham Lincoln did, foiling the Wall Street bankers who would have trapped the North in debt slavery through the exigencies of war. And it is what China itself did successfully for decades, before it succumbed to globalization. China got the idea from Abraham Lincoln through his admirer Sun Yat-sen; and Lincoln took his cue from the American colonists, our forebears. We need to reclaim our sovereign right as a nation to fund the common wealth they envisioned without begging from foreign creditors or entangling the government in debt.

Homeless increase on Hawaii's beaches, creating politicized debate on shipping them out

HONOLULU (AP) — Every morning, Tony Williams wakes to the sound of waves crashing on Hawaii's famed Waikiki beaches and has a spectacular view of the Pacific. But he's not paying a cent for his priceless vista.

Williams is among the growing number of homeless on Oahu taking advantage of inviting beaches and support services in the islands, where they never have to worry about freezing.

But homeless encampments on the beach could damage tourism, officials fear, and they are currently weighing several proposals that they say would help the homeless, while also moving them from public view.

The proposals include offering plane tickets to the mainland, creating a homeless "tent city" on less visible state land and providing more affordable housing in Honolulu, where rents are among the nation's highest.

"If you're going to be homeless anywhere, it's good to be here," said Williams, a 35-year-old tattoo artist from Long Beach, Calif., as he hung his clothes to dry between two palm trees. "I'm dealing with the cards I got dealt. I don't want to stay here forever."

There were 4,171 homeless on the island of Oahu when a census was taken in January, according to the report released last month, an increase of 15 percent from the same time last year.

"They don't seem to bother people, but it's probably not the image Hawaii wants," said Kathryn Novak, a tourist from Manchester, England, as she prepared to swim off Waikiki. "You'd imagine they'd have their own area, and not so much where the tourists are."

The most contentious of the proposals would use state money to fly the homeless back to wherever they came from, as long as they have family at the destination to take them in. Proponents say the program would cost far less money than what is spent on food stamps and welfare payments.

They weigh a $300 one-way ticket to the West Coast against what they say is a $35,000 per year cost for each person with services. But, some acknowledge, the scheme could also create problems.

Hawaii's homeless would become another state's problem. It might also provide an incentive for more homeless to travel to Hawaii if they knew they'd get a free ride home.

The idea is being scolded from afar.

"It's basically a callous, 'let's turn our back on the problem' approach to expect other cities to pick up and assume the responsibilities," said John Fox, director of the Seattle Displacement Coalition. "In your community, you're responsible and need to deal with the problem."

Help for the homeless shouldn't end with moving them out of sight, said Connie Mitchell, executive director for the Institute for Human Services, which runs two emergency shelters and offers support services.

"We need to find out what these people need to end their homelessness, not just put them in a place where people can't see them," Mitchell said. "What do these people need to make their lives better?"

Williams is proof that the plane ticket plan could be abused. He took advantage of a similar program in New York City that flew him to Hawaii in the first place after he had a friend here pose as a family member to take him in.

New York's program, called Project Reconnect, has assisted 18,800 households at a cost of $218 per person. Five people have returned to Hawaii through the program, according to program officials. Another program in Denver has reunited 45 homeless individuals with their families so far this year, but none were sent to the islands.

Several Hawaii lawmakers want to pass legislation next year to start the $100,000 plane ticket program.

"A lot of people think it's going to be easy living, but then when they get here, they realize maybe it wasn't such a good idea," said Debbie Kim Morikawa, director for the Honolulu Department of Community Services.

A more immediate solution would set aside "safe-zones" on government land where the homeless could camp in tents and have basic sanitary facilities.

Lawmakers are proposing that nonprofit organizations could offer social services in one place and security could be provided — as long as it's away from the tourist beaches.

"It's one thing to get people a place to stay, but we need to improve the quality of their lives," said Darlene Hein of the Waikiki Health Center, which provides homeless outreach. "We worry about it being a magnet, that people will come to Hawaii because there's a campground for them."

The concept of offering affordable housing to the homeless may be the most promising and have the fewest side effects. As with similar programs elsewhere, it's called "housing first." The $1 million program launched this year aims to get the chronically homeless into their own apartments.

The idea is that a stable housing environment would do more to help people survive on their own.

These plans could begin to make a difference, but long-term solutions including drug and mental health treatment, job training and employment opportunities are also needed, according to service providers.

Despite the beauty and weather, Hector Favela would jump at the opportunity to leave the beach.

"I'm tired of living on the street, getting my stuff stolen and getting beat up," said Favela, 48. "It's not that bad living out here, but it's been too long since I've slept on a bed."

US economy 'gradually' improving: Geithner

The US economy is "gradually" improving after the financial crisis, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in an interview on NBC News' "Meet the Press" program, to be broadcast Sunday.

"I talked to businesses across the country, and I would say that is the general view, an economy that's gradually getting better," Geithner said in excerpts of the interview released in advance of its broadcast.

Geithner also downplayed the prospects of a "double-dip" recession, in which the economy sinks again after a short period of growth.

He said that given the specific drivers of the recent recession, including the US housing bubble, "what you would expect is a more moderate paced recovery... and that's what we're seeing."

Despite the slow pace "you are seeing a recovery. You're seeing private investment expand again, job growth starting to come back. And that's very encouraging," he said.

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke warned US lawmakers on July 21 that the outlook for the US economy was "unusually uncertain," saying the central bank could step in if the recovery fails.

Bernanke said the world's largest economy would see "moderate growth, a gradual decline in the unemployment rate and subdued inflation over the next several years."

Compounding fears of a painful exit from recession, he also warned that private sector hiring was growing at an "insufficient" pace.