he makes it very clear that the rules of money changed dramatically when the U.S. went off the gold standard in 1971. For up until that time, “technically, prior to 1971, the U.S. dollar was a derivative of gold. After 1971, the U.S. dollar became a derivative of debt.”
1More
shared by Gary Edwards on 13 Apr 09
- Cached
Obama's Ersatz Capitalism: Joseph Stiglitz "Heads i win, tales the taxpayer loses" Oba... - 0 views
www.nytimes.com/...01stiglitz.html
obam-socialism financial-crisis joseph-stiglitz obama-bailout Banksters
![](/images/link.gif)
-
Paying fair market values for the assets will not work. Only by overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time. Some Americans are afraid that the government might temporarily "nationalize" the banks, but that option would be preferable to the Geithner plan. After all, the F.D.I.C. has taken control of failing banks before, and done it well. It has even nationalized large institutions like Continental Illinois (taken over in 1984, back in private hands a few years later), and Washington Mutual (seized last September, and immediately resold). What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a "partnership" in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships - with the private sector in control - have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess. So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it's the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves - clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a way to avoid nationalization. But we are already suffering from a crisis of confidence. When the high costs of the administration's plan become apparent, confidence will be eroded further. At that point the task of recreating a vibrant financial sector, and resuscitating the economy, will be even harder.
1More
shared by Gary Edwards on 24 Mar 09
- Cached
Obama - Soros Bailout of PIMCO and the Big Banks - 0 views
interfluidity.powerblogs.com/...1237877649.shtml
financial-crisis obama-socialism obama-soros geithner-plan Banksters
![](/images/link.gif)
-
Interfluidity has some very "Dark musings" about Treasury Sec Geithner's plan to bailout the big banks with trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds. The plan is "enronic" in that it proposes to use taxpayer funds to create a market for the toxic assets threatening to take down the big banks. The banks need to dump these AAA Fannie-Freddie mortgage securities, but the market has factored in a reality roughly discounting the value by 60% to 70%; Housing values having plummeted across the nation. If the Banks were to take the hit, and sell this GSA crap at true market value, they would not only suffer enormous losses for their high risk gambling, bu they would also be taken out of the lending market. Banks regulations require strict ratios between assets and lending funds.
So the idea is to have the taxpayers create a toxic asset market enabling banks to dump their crap at above market prices, with taxpayers takign the hit. This hit is masked by a tricky equation; Taxpayers will put up 97% of the funds for the overpriced purchase of crap, with private sector banks, hedge funds, and bond holders contributing 3%. Such a deal!
Heads the banks and Hedge funds win; tails the taxpayer loses. And loses to the tune of over $10 Trillion. GSA wonderkinds Fannie and Freddie have put $5 Trillion of securitized mortgages into the secondary money markets. Leverage that out at 40 : 1, and you have a $200 Trillion problem. Hummm, $10 Trillion looks cheap. "....I am filled with despair, not because what we are doing cannot "work", but because it is too unjust. This is not my country. The news of today is the Geithner plan. I think this plan might work very well in terms of repairing bank balance sheets...." Of course the whole notion of repairing bank balance sheet is a lie and misdirection. The balance sheets we should want to see repaired are household balance sheets. Banks have failed us profoundly. We want them reorganized, not repair
19More
shared by Gary Edwards on 13 May 10
- Cached
Rich Dad's Conspiracy of the Rich: The 8 New Rules of Money | Silver Monthly - The Silv... - 0 views
www.silvermonthly.com/...-rich-the-8-new-rules-of-money
silvermonthly robert-kiyosaki federal-reserve inflation-conspiracy banksters
![](/images/link.gif)
-
He says “since money is invisible, a derivative of debt, bank robberies by bankers have become invisible.”
- ...15 more annotations...
-
Two ways these invisible robberies occur are: fractional reserve banking, which is nothing more than banks lending money they don’t have; and deposit insurance, which “protects the bankers – not savers.”
-
“why should an insurance company like AIG receive bailout money in the first place? Isn’t bailout money reserved for banks?”
-
Businesses that provide passive cash flow. Income-producing real estate. Paper assets – stocks, bonds, savings, annuities, insurance and mutual funds. Commodities – gold, silver, oil, platinum, etc.
-
in Kiyosaki’s opinion, the ultimate definition of “sell” is building a business and then taking it public.
-
As Kiyosaki writes in his book: "So has there been a conspiracy? I believe so, in a way." He goes on to explain why he believes so, citing the lack of financial education in the school systems, the Federal Reserve Act, and Nixon's 1971 dismissal of the gold standard. And most interestingly, Kiyosaki believes that 401(k) retirement vehicles placed the retirement money of average people in the hands of Wall Street. The first chapter of the book is entitled 'Can Obama Save the World?' Kiyosaki's answer is no. And apparently, Obama doesn't want to even if he could. For he appointed Summers and Geithner, both of who played a part in repealing the Glass Steagall Act. In other words, it's the same old same old. Nothing has changed. Which means that the average person needs to understand how taxes, debt, inflation, and retirement affect them. Kiyosaki sums up the chapter by stating that once one understands the new rules of money, then one can "opt out of the conspiracy of the rich." From there, Kiyosaki moves on to explain how we got where we are. He points the finger at the Federal Reserve Bank, which inflates the money supply, which destroys the value of savings and retirement plans. And he makes it very clear that the rules of money changed dramatically when the U.S. went off the gold standard in 1971. For up until that time, "technically, prior to 1971, the U.S. dollar was a derivative of gold. After 1971, the U.S. dollar became a derivative of debt." Kiyosaki proceeds to discuss what he calls 'The Invisible Bank Robbery.' He says "since money is invisible, a derivative of debt, bank robberies by bankers have become invisible." Two ways these invisible robberies occur are: fractional reserve banking, which is nothing more than banks lending money they don't have; and deposit insurance, which "protects the bankers - not savers." Then he asks a very pertinent question: "why should an ins
1More
shared by Gary Edwards on 28 Jul 11
- No Cached
Microsoft Uses Loopholes To Pay Just 7% Corporate Tax, Cantor Is Hedge Fund's... - 1 views
dailybail.com/...st-7-corporate-tax-cantor.html
Banksters Federal-Reserve-Bank-Cartel financial-collapse
![](/images/link.gif)
-
OUTRAGE - Microsoft Uses Loopholes To Pay Just 7% Corporate Tax Eric Cantor Is The Hedge Funder's Best Man In Congress - Washinton Post The Road To Hell Directly Before Us - MUST READ Karl Denninger Obamacare Individual Mandate Battle Reaches Supreme Court DETAILS - Geithner To Announce Backup Plans With No Debt Deal In Place Fed Governor Speaks: More QE Won't Help Growth But Would Spur Inflation How The Two-Party Oligarchy Uses Left-Right Charade To Loot The Country Debt Ceiling Fights Going Back To Eisenhower Florida Rep. Demands Records On Ousted Foreclosure Fraud Investigators Publisher That Owns S&P Kills Ritholtz's Bailout Book Critical Of Ratings Agencies Did S&P flip flop on US debt target? - Reuters The "Solution" to America's Debt Ceiling Crisis: Looting What has Already been Looted
5More
shared by Paul Merrell on 23 Aug 14
- No Cached
Jamie Dimon's $13 Billion Secret | The Nation - 0 views
m.thenation.com/...jamie-dimons-13-billion-secret
financial-collapse banksters fraud litigation settlement JPMorgan
![](/images/link.gif)
-
In the end, the abject fear of Ben Wagner got Jamie Dimon to cave.For much of 2013, Dimon, the chairman and chief executive of the formidable JPMorgan Chase & Company, was telling anyone who would listen that it was unfair and unjust for federal and state prosecutors to blame him and his bank for the manufacture and sale of mortgage-backed securities that occurred at Bear Stearns & Company and at Washington Mutual in the years leading up to the financial crisis. When JPMorgan Chase bought those two failing firms in 2008, Dimon argued, he was just doing what Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson and Timothy Geithner had asked him to do. Why should his bank be held financially accountable for the bad behavior at Bear and WaMu?It was a clever argument—and wrong. Dimon's relentless effort to spin his patriotic story soon collided with the fact that Wagner, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of California, had uncovered evidence that JPMorgan itself was guilty of many of the same greedy and irresponsible behaviors. Piles of subpoenaed documents and e-mails revealed that JPMorgan bankers and traders had underwritten billions of dollars' worth of questionable mortgage-backed securities that Dimon had been telling everyone had originated at Bear Stearns and WaMu. Worse, the bad behavior had occurred on Dimon's watch.
-
The likelihood that the Justice Department would file Wagner's civil complaint last fall—exposing publicly for the first time the litany of wrongdoing at JPMorgan and threatening to push it off the perch that Dimon had so artfully constructed for it over the years—ultimately brought Dimon to the table. On September 26, just weeks after the Justice Department shared a draft copy of Wagner's complaint with Dimon, the two sides arranged for a summit meeting between Dimon and Attorney General Eric Holder. By mid-November, the bank had agreed to pay $13 billion in a comprehensive settlement of mortgage-related securities claims with various branches of the federal government and a group of states, led by the attorneys general of New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts and Delaware.It was the largest financial settlement of all time, and it kept Wagner's complaint away from the prying eyes of the public. One thing is clear: Dimon's claim that his own bankers and traders had done nothing wrong in the years leading up to the financial crisis wasn't true. "The investigators and the lawyers were uncovering very viable evidence," explains Associate Attorney General Tony West, who headed up the settlement negotiations on behalf of the Justice Department. "I think there was recognition that we had enough evidence there that would support the complaint and would support a robust lawsuit."
-
[A disclosure of my own: after JPMorgan Chase fired me as a managing director in January 2004, I brought—and lost—a wrongful-dismissal arbitration against the bank. Separately, I remain in litigation with the bank as the result of a soured investment I made in 1999.]
- ...1 more annotation...
-
Dimon was more circumspect. In a conference call the day the settlement was announced, he mostly kept quiet while Marianne Lake, the firm's CFO, led financial analysts through the details, including how $7 billion of the $13 billion fine would be tax-deductible.
-
In a Matt Taibbi-quality lengthy report, William Cohan takes the reader inside the lengthy negotiations of JPMorgan's $13 billion settlement with state and federal prosecutors. JPMorgan admitted to criminal wrongdoing, and the settlement does not include immunity from criminal prosecution for anybody. But the author notes that there is not even a hint that anyone is working on criminal charges. There's a lot of discussion of dissension within the ranks of different state and federal attorneys involved. The article paints Ben Wagner, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of California, as the hero. In my book, no one involved deserves hero status because no criminal charges have been filed against any JPMorgan managers or board members, hence there is still no incentive for any of the fraudsters who brought down the economy in 2008 to behave differently in the future. JPMorgan emains not too big to fail but too politically connected for its principals to be jailed. According to the article, the government lawyers had iron-clad proof that a group of JPMorgan managing directors had been informed that pools of mortages they were planning to buy were toxic but "buy two of the loan pools anyway, including those with the squirrelly mortgages. JPMorgan then proceeded to bundle "hundreds of millions of dollars of loans from those pools into one security." Wagner found that between the start of 2006 and the middle of 2007-when the mortgage securitization frenzy was at its peak-JPMorgan packaged and sold securities containing thousands of mortgages that were rated by a third-party evaluator to be of extremely low quality, meeting few, if any, of the bank's underwriting standards." If true, that is very serious fraud deserving of the directors' prosecution for criminal fraud and lengthy prison sentences. The article touches on A.G. Holder's too big to jail argument but that argument, in my opinion, deserves no credibility before antitrust actions are filed to c
4More
A coming crackdown on Federal Reserve power? - Jennifer Liberto - POLITICO - 0 views
-
A move to shift power away from the New York Federal Reserve Bank is finding some powerful friends in Congress amid lingering worries that a key part of the central bank is too cozy with Wall Street. Two Republicans running the banking committees have both said they plan to explore proposals from the outspoken, former Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher that would roll back a long-standing provision that gives the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank an automatic position as vice chairman of a powerful committee and weaken New York’s oversight of Wall Street banks. Story Continued Below The politics may be ripe for chipping away at the power of the Federal Reserve, uniting liberals who want to crack down on Wall Street, Republicans who don’t like the Fed’s easy money policies and libertarians who are suspicious of the Fed altogether.
-
Fisher, who retired Thursday after 10 years at the Dallas Fed, wants to yank the New York Fed’s permanent position as vice chair of the all-powerful Federal Open Market Committee, the panel charged with making monetary policy decisions, which met Wednesday. While the New York Fed president could still participate in monetary policy discussions, he or she would no longer always get a vote. Fisher suggested the job should rotate among the regional Federal Reserve Banks every two years.
-
The move would upend the current structure, as the New York Fed has had a lock on that spot since 1936, thanks largely to its role as the infrastructure, which supplies the trading desk that carries out the Fed’s monetary policy decisions. Fisher is also proposing that other regional Fed banks oversee some of the Wall Street giants in a move aimed at addressing criticism the New York Fed missed warning signs of the financial crisis, is too soft on Wall Street and holds too much power and influence at the Fed. “The greatest concern appears to be the problem of regulatory capture by the largest and most powerful institutions,” Fisher said in a February speech in New York laying out his plan. Wall Street critics have been suspicious of the New York Fed since it and its then leader, Timothy Geithner, played a key role in responding to the 2008 financial crisis and the bailouts that entailed.
- ...1 more annotation...
-
Late last year its current president, William Dudley, was hauled before the Senate Banking Committee after reports from ProPublica and NPR’s This American Life that focused on a New York Fed examiner who said her warnings about certain business practices and deals at Goldman Sachs were ignored or brushed aside by her superiors. She provided recordings of her dealings with Fed officials to back up her case. “We’ve got on tape higher-ups at the New York Fed calling off the regulators,” Warren told Dudley at the November hearing. “And I’m just asking the same kind of question — is there a cultural problem at the New York Fed? I think the evidence suggests that there is.”