Category Archives: Corporate Welfare

Corporate Welfare, Geopolitics/War, Tyranny

Buying Silence: How the Saudi Foreign Ministry controls Arab media

Wikileaks

On Monday, Saudi Arabia celebrated the beheading of its 100th prisoner this year. The story was nowhere to be seen on Arab media despite the story’s circulation on wire services. Even international media was relatively mute about this milestone compared to what it might have been if it had concerned a different country. How does a story like this go unnoticed?

Today’s release of the WikiLeaks “Saudi Cables” from the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs show how it’s done.

The oil-rich Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its ruling family take a systematic approach to maintaining the country’s positive image on the international stage. Most world governments engage in PR campaigns to fend off criticism and build relations in influential places. Saudi Arabia controls its image by monitoring media and buying loyalties from Australia to Canada and everywhere in between.

Documents reveal the extensive efforts to monitor and co-opt Arab media, making sure to correct any deviations in regional coverage of Saudi Arabia and Saudi-related matters. Saudi Arabia’s strategy for co-opting Arab media takes two forms, corresponding to the “carrot and stick” approach, referred to in the documents as “neutralisation” and “containment”. The approach is customised depending on the market and the media in question.

“Contain” and “Neutralise”

The initial reaction to any negative coverage in the regional media is to “neutralise” it. The term is used frequently in the cables and it pertains to individual journalists and media institutions whose silence and co-operation has been bought. “Neutralised” journalists and media institutions are not expected to praise and defend the Kingdom, only to refrain from publishing news that reflects negatively on the Kingdom, or any criticism of its policies. The “containment” approach is used when a more active propaganda effort is required. Journalists and media institutions relied upon for “containment” are expected not only to sing the Kingdom’s praises, but to lead attacks on any party that dares to air criticisms of the powerful Gulf state.

One of the ways “neutralisation” and “containment” are ensured is by purchasing hundreds or thousands of subscriptions in targeted publications. These publications are then expected to return the favour by becoming an “asset” in the Kingdom’s propaganda strategy. A document listing the subscriptions that needed renewal by 1 January 2010 details a series of contributory sums meant for two dozen publications in Damascus, Abu Dhabi, Beirut, Kuwait, Amman and Nouakchott. The sums range from $500 to 9,750 Kuwaiti Dinars ($33,000). The Kingdom effectively buys reverse “shares” in the media outlets, where the cash “dividends” flow the opposite way, from the shareholder to the media outlet. In return Saudi Arabia gets political “dividends” – an obliging press.

An example of these co-optive practices in action can be seen in an exchange between the Saudi Foreign Ministry and its Embassy in Cairo. On 24 November 2011 Egypt’s Arabic-language broadcast station ONTV hosted the Saudi opposition figure Saad al-Faqih, which prompted the Foreign Ministry to task the embassy with inquiring into the channel. The Ministry asked the embassy to find out how “to co-opt it or else we must consider it standing in the line opposed to the Kingdom’s policies“.

The document reports that the billionaire owner of the station, Naguib Sawiris, did not want to be “opposed to the Kingdom’s policies” and that he scolded the channel director, asking him “never to host al-Faqih again”. He also asked the Ambassador if he’d like to be “a guest on the show”.

The Saudi Cables are rife with similar examples, some detailing the figures and the methods of payment. These range from small but vital sums of around $2000/year to developing country media outlets – a figure the Guinean News Agency “urgently needs” as “it would solve many problems that the agency is facing” – to millions of dollars, as in the case of Lebanese right-wing television station MTV.

Confrontation

The “neutralisation” and “containment” approaches are not the only techniques the Saudi Ministry is willing to employ. In cases where “containment” fails to produce the desired effect, the Kingdom moves on to confrontation. In one example, the Foreign Minister was following a Royal Decree dated 20 January 2010 to remove Iran’s new Arabic-language news network, Al-Alam, from the main Riyadh-based regional communications satellite operator, Arabsat. After the plan failed, Saud Al Faisal sought to “weaken its broadcast signal“.

The documents show concerns within the Saudi administration over the social upheavals of 2011, which became known in the international media as the “Arab Spring”. The cables note with concern that after the fall of Mubarak, coverage of the upheavals in Egyptian media was “being driven by public opinion instead of driving public opinion”. The Ministry resolved “to give financial support to influential media institutions in Tunisia“, the birthplace of the “Arab Spring”.

The cables reveal that the government employs a different approach for its own domestic media. There, a wave of the Royal hand is all that is required to adjust the output of state-controlled media. A complaint from former Lebanese Prime Minister and Saudi citizen Saad Hariri concerning articles critical of him in the Saudi-owned Al-Hayat and Asharq Al-Awsat newspapers prompted a directive to “stop these type of articles” from the Foreign Ministry.

This is a general overview of the Saudi Foreign Ministry’s strategy in dealing with the media. WikiLeaks’ Saudi Cables contain numerous other examples that form an indictment of both the Kingdom and the state of the media globally.

Source: wikileaks

Banksters, Corporate Welfare

This Is What A Volcker Rule Loophole Looks Like

Daniel Drew
dark-bid: June 14, 2015

After the carnage of the 2008 crash, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker proposed a rule that would prevent banks from making short-term proprietary trades with financial instruments. In other words, no gambling allowed. This rule would become known as The Volcker Rule, and it went into partial effect on April 1, 2014. Full compliance is required by July 21, 2015. Of course, the bank lobbyists were hard at work, and numerous exceptions and loopholes were created. The definition of “financial instruments” did not include currencies, despite the fact that currencies are the basis of the modern financial system and should be considered the ultimate financial instrument. Also, banks were allowed to “hedge” their risks. As JPMorgan demonstrated in 2012, apparently, it is possible to lose $6 billion while hedging risks with credit derivatives.

JPMorgan is at it again – this time, with the Swiss franc. On January 15 of this year, the Swiss Central Bank sent shockwaves around the financial world when they abruptly abandoned the 1.20 EURCHF floor.

The Wall Street Journal reported that JPMorgan made up to $300 million in the ensuing trading chaos. With the FX market facing a severe shortage of liquidity, JPMorgan stepped in. However, as with any illiquid market, the dealers call the shots. Bid/ask spreads can explode, creating enormous transaction costs for anyone who has to trade. These parties included desperate retail FX brokers and small clients who were bankrupted by the Swiss central bankers. As the WSJ reported,

J.P. Morgan filled client orders at a certain rate, allowing them to quickly assess their position and continue trading when liquidity dried up in the market, this person said. The bank told clients it would fill orders at 1.02 francs per euro while the Swiss currency grew from 1.20 francs per euro to nearly .85 on Jan. 15, the person said. It is unclear how long the bank offered this rate to clients.

By setting the fill 15% away from the last price, JPMorgan was able to lock in any gains from a long franc position instantly. It also gave the firm’s traders an anchor so they knew where they were at. What if the clients could get a more advantageous rate at another bank? It didn’t matter. 1.02 was the price. If JPMorgan’s traders saw a better rate elsewhere, they could trade with that third party and effectively arbitrage the market against their own clients. Of course, it was all transparent. You knew you were getting 1.02, but if your bankrupt broker is margin calling you at any price, there’s not much you can do. It was JPMorgan’s market.

The chaos of the Swiss bank bluff showed up in JPMorgan’s first quarter report. In the trading section that reports the firm’s value at risk, January 15 stands out like LeBron James in his 5th grade class picture.

JPMorgan VAR

With free reign to trade currencies and under the guise of “market making,” JPMorgan raped the accounts of retail FX brokers and small clients who never could have imagined that the Swiss Central Bank would turn the stable franc into one of the most volatile currencies of the decade. It also appears that The Wall Street Journal overstated the $300 million headline number. According to JPMorgan, they made about $200 million that day.

The fact that JPMorgan still takes value at risk (VAR) seriously is another irony. Wall Street anti-hero Nassim Taleb has made multiple fortunes betting on improbable events via out-of-the-money put options, and he remains one of the most steadfast critics of VAR. Taleb has an arcane style of communication, but the summary of his criticism is that VAR is based on the normal distribution, which underestimates the effects of extreme price moves. Furthermore, the very idea that wild events can be predicted by any model is an arrogant assumption, according to Taleb. A white paper by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) verifies Taleb’s assertions.

(read the full article at dark-bid)

Banksters, Corporate Welfare, Privacy, Tyranny

Wikileaks Releases Documents from Shady “Trade in Services Agreement,” or TISA

Michael Krieger
Liberty Blitzkrieg: June 5, 2015

If it sounds complicated, it is. The important point is that this trade agreement contains a crucial discussion of governments’ abilities to meaningfully protect civil liberties. And it is not being treated as a human rights discussion. It is being framed solely as an economic issue, ignoring the implications for human rights, and it is being held in a classified document that the public is now seeing months after it was negotiated, and only because it was released through WikiLeaks. 

The process is also highly secretive—in fact, trade agreement texts are classified. While the executive branch does consult with members of Congress, even congressional staffers with security clearance have until recently been prevented from seeing the texts. Furthermore, certain trade industry advisers are allowed access to U.S. negotiating objectives and negotiators that the public and public interest groups do not have.

– From the Slate article: Privacy Is Not a Barrier to Trade

If you haven’t heard about about the Trade in Services Agreement, aka TISA, don’t worry, you’re not alone. While I had heard of it before, I never read anything substantial about it until today. What sparked my reading interest on the subject were a series of very troubling articles published via several media outlets following a document dump by Wikileaks. Here’s how the whistleblower organization describes the TISA leak on it document release page:

WikiLeaks releases today 17 secret documents from the ongoing TISA (Trade In Services Agreement) negotiations which cover the United States, the European Union and 23 other countries including Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan & Israel — which together comprise two-thirds of global GDP. “Services” now account for nearly 80 per cent of the US and EU economies and even in developing countries like Pakistan account for 53 per cent of the economy. While the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has become well known in recent months in the United States, the TISA is the larger component of the strategic TPP-TISA-TTIP ‘T-treaty trinity’. All parts of the trinity notably exclude the ‘BRICS’ countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. 

I’ve covered the extreme dangers of what’s colloquially known as trade “fast track” authority previously. In the post, As the Senate Prepares to Vote on “Fast Track,” Here’s a Quick Primer on the Dangers of the TPP, I noted:

Passing this corporate giveaway masquerading as a “free trade deal” is a lengthy process; a process that begins today with a Senate vote on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as “fast track.”  Passing TPA would be Congress agreeing to neuter itself to a yes or no vote on a trade pact and ceding its power to amend it. Even worse, it would give trade deals this expedited process for six years, thus outlasting the current Administration, and applying to other “trade” deals like the TTIP. Mind you, TPA is being voted on while the TPP text remains completely hidden from the public.

Naturally, “fast track” ultimately passed through the corrupt, rancid body known as the U.S. Senate despite the best efforts of people such as Elizabeth Warren to stop it. As noted in the above paragraph, fast track isn’t just about the TPP, it covers other deals already well in the works such as TTIP and TISA. Makes you wonder whether these other deals are even worse.

For more information on TISA, let’s turn to the Huffington Post:

The latest leak purports to include 17 documents from negotiations on the Trade In Services Agreement, a blandly named trade deal that would cover the United States, the European Union and more than 20 other countries. More than 80 percent of the United States economy is in service sectors.

According to the Wikileaks release, TISA, as the deal is known, would take a major step towards deregulating financial industries, and could affect everything from local maritime and air traffic rules to domestic regulations on almost anything if an internationally traded service is involved.

The pact would be one of three enormous deals whose passage through Congress could be eased with passage of Trade Promotion Authority, also known as fast-track authority. The Senate has passed fast-track, and it could be taken up in the House this month.

“Today’s leaks of TISA (trade in services) text reveal once again how dangerous Fast Track Authority is when it comes to protecting citizen rights vs. corporate rights,” he added. “This TISA text again favors privatization over public services, limits governmental action on issues ranging from safety to the environment using trade as a smokescreen to limit citizen rights.”

The Office of the United States Trade Representative and top European officials have repeatedly denied that TISA or the Transatlantic deal would impact local laws, releasing a joint statement to that effect earlier this spring.

Still, the Wikileaks documents suggest that World Trade Organization-style tribunals would be expanded under TISA, and that such tribunals convened to resolve trade disputes can impact local laws. One such WTO tribunal ruled last month that the United States must repeal its laws requiring meat to be labeled with its country of origin, or face punitive tariffs on exports.

I covered this ruling a couple of weeks ago in the post: Congress Moves to Eliminate Labels Showing Consumers Where Meat Comes from Following WTO Ruling

Moving along to the UK Independent’s coverage of TISA:

Wikileaks has warned that governments negotiating a far-reaching global service agreement are ‘surrendering a large part of their global sovereignty’ and exacerbating the social inequality of poorer countries in the process.

The Trade in Services Agreement exposed in a 17 document dump by Wikileaks on Thursday relates to ongoing negotiations to lock market liberalizations into global law.

Under the agreement, retailers like Zara or Marks & Spencers would have the right to open stores in any of the signing countries and be treated like domestic companies. A nationalized service, such as the British telecoms industry in the eighties, would have to ensure it was not harming competition under these terms. 

Wikileaks says that corporations would be able to use the law in its current form to hold sway over governments, deciding whether laws promoting culture, protecting the environment or ensuring equal access to services were ‘unnecessarily burdensome’, or whether knowledge of indigenous culture or public services was essential to achieve ‘parity’.

“In other words, unaccountable private ‘trade’ tribunals would decide how countries could regulate activities that are fundamental to social well-being,” Wikileaks said.

No wonder these deals are being keep so secret. Let’s now turn to Slate, which examined TISA’s potential threat to a human right that is increasingly under attack: personal privacy.

On Wednesday, WikiLeaks released the draft text of the biggest international agreement you’ve probably never heard of: the Trade in Services Agreement, or TISA. And buried in one of the 12 leaked chapters (which are mostly on things like “air transport services” and “competitive delivery services”) is a volatile and crucial debate about online privacy and the global Internet.

Trade agreements used to focus on things like tariffs, but they aren’t just about trade anymore. They consist of hundreds of chapters of detailed regulations, on subjects ranging from textiles to intellectual property law. TISA purports to promote fair and open global competition in services, thus increasing jobs. (You may have also heard about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, another trade agreement currently being negotiated and criticized. This one’s even more mammoth.) TISA is being negotiated between 23 countries representing some 75 percent of the global services market. Buried in its e-commerce annex are rules that will reshape the relationship between the free flow of information and online privacy.

The Internet is global, but privacy regulations incorporate localized norms. The U.S., for example, protects only some things, like your video-watching history and health information, while the European Union has a comprehensive framework for safeguarding far more information.

But TISA is different. The leaked draft language, proposed by the U.S. and several other countries, states that a government may not prevent a foreign services company “from transferring, [accessing, processing or storing] information, including personal information, within or outside the Party’s territory.” Essentially, this says that privacy protections could be treated as barriers to trade. This language could strike most privacy regulations as they apply to foreign companies—and not just in the EU. It would also apply to U.S. regulation of foreign companies at home. For instance, U.S. health privacy law requires patient consent for health information to be shared. This, technically, is a restriction on transferring information that could be invalidated by TISA, if nothing changes. 

The subject matter TISA covers is already governed by a global agreement called GATS, which has an exception for privacy protections. In other words, privacy protections are explicitly not treated as trade barriers in GATS. The leaked draft language from TISA shows that there is an ongoing debate between countries over whether to create an explicit privacy exception within TISA itself. The result of this debate is hugely important for states that want privacy laws.

If it sounds complicated, it is. The important point is that this trade agreement contains a crucial discussion of governments’ abilities to meaningfully protect civil liberties. And it is not being treated as a human rights discussion. It is being framed solely as an economic issue, ignoring the implications for human rights, and it is being held in a classified document that the public is now seeing months after it was negotiated, and only because it was released through WikiLeaks. 

TISA’s contents are not all bad, and protection of an open global Internet through trade could theoretically be a good thing. But these fine points should be openly debated, not bartered away in an enormous agreement that bundles privacy together with maritime transport services.

The process is also highly secretive—in fact, trade agreement texts are classified. While the executive branch does consult with members of Congress, even congressional staffers with security clearance have until recently been prevented from seeing the texts. Furthermore, certain trade industry advisers are allowed access to U.S. negotiating objectives and negotiators that the public and public interest groups do not have.

Trade agreements governing civil liberties (and jobs, and the environment, and public health … ) need to receive meaningful input from the public and its real representatives—not after negotiations are concluded, not through a Congress hampered by excessive executive secrecy, and not through vague negotiating objectives that fail to meaningfully address human rights and other values.

Fast track just passed in the Senate. Senators including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio tried to stop its passage but narrowly lost. Now, the vote is coming up in the House—maybe as soon as this week. About 2 million Americans have already signed a petition against the legislation. It would be sad indeed if one of the few times Congress decides to actually pass legislation, embrace bipartisanship, and show support of the president is a law that enables states to bargain away citizens’ freedoms behind closed doors.

Actually, it would’t be sad, it would make perfect sense. As George Carlin so accurately noted:

Screen Shot 2015-06-04 at 9.47.50 AM

Finally, from the New Republic:

On Wednesday, WikiLeaks brought this agreement into the spotlight by releasing 17 key TiSA-related documents, including 11 full chapters under negotiation. Though the outline for this agreement has been in place for nearly a year, these documents were supposed to remain classified for five years after being signed, an example of the secrecy surrounding the agreement, which outstrips even the TPP.

TiSA has been negotiated since 2013, between the United States, the European Union, and 22 other nations, including Canada, Mexico, Australia, Israel, South Korea, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and others scattered across South America and Asia. Overall, 12 of the G20 nations are represented, and negotiations have carefully incorporated practically every advanced economy except for the “BRICS” coalition of emerging markets (which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

The deal would liberalize global trade of services, an expansive definition that encompasses air and maritime transport, package delivery, e-commerce, telecommunications, accountancy, engineering, consulting, health care, private education, financial services and more, covering close to 80 percent of the U.S. economy. Though member parties insist that the agreement would simply stop discrimination against foreign service providers, the text shows that TiSA would restrict how governments can manage their public laws through an effective regulatory cap. It could also dismantle and privatize state-owned enterprises, and turn those services over to the private sector. You begin to sound like the guy hanging out in front of the local food co-op passing around leaflets about One World Government when you talk about TiSA, but it really would clear the way for further corporate domination over sovereign countries and their citizens.

You need to either be a trade lawyer or a very alert reader to know what’s going on. But between the text and a series of analyses released by WikiLeaks, you get a sense for what the countries negotiating TiSA want.

First, they want to limit regulation on service sectors, whether at the national, provincial or local level. The agreement has “standstill” clauses to freeze regulations in place and prevent future rulemaking for professional licensing and qualifications or technical standards. And a companion “ratchet” clause would make any broken trade barrier irreversible.

No restrictions could be placed on foreign investment—corporations could control entire sectors. 

Corporations would get to comment on any new regulatory attempts, and enforce this regulatory straitjacket through a dispute mechanism similar to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process in other trade agreements, where they could win money equal to “expected future profits” lost through violations of the regulatory cap.

For an example of how this would work, let’s look at financial services. It too has a “standstill” clause, which given the unpredictability of future crises could leave governments helpless to stop a new and dangerous financial innovation. In fact, Switzerland has proposed that all TiSA countries must allow “any new financial service” to enter their market. So-called “prudential regulations” to protect investors or depositors are theoretically allowed, but they must not act contrary to TiSA rules, rendering them somewhat irrelevant.

Most controversially, all financial services suppliers could transfer individual client data out of a TiSA country for processing, regardless of national privacy laws. This free flow of data across borders is true for the e-commerce annex as well; it breaks with thousands of years of precedent on locally kept business records, and has privacy advocates alarmed.

(read the full article at Liberty Blitzkrieg)

Corporate Welfare, Health/Environment

Harper channels Suzuki

Lorrie Goldstein
Toronto Sun: May 16, 2015

It’s as if David Suzuki suddenly found a way to exercise mind control over Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

This in the wake of the Harper government’s bizarre announcement Friday that Canada will reduce its industrial greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, and may consider buying international carbon credits or offsets to do so.

First, there is no conceivable way, based on its record to date, that the Harper government is going to reach that target for three reasons.

First, because it’s a ridiculous target that is more onerous than previous ones it set and then ignored.

Second, because it excludes Canada’s oil sands, which, while generating a small part of our overall emissions, is the sector of the economy where emissions are rising the fastest.

Third, because Harper can’t commit future Canadian governments — and we could have a new one this fall — to an emissions reduction plan that extends to 2030.

As for purchasing international carbon credits to achieve this target, the Harper government previously rejected such action ­— which it used to deride as buying “hot air” from Russia — since coming to power in 2006.

When Canada gave notice of its intention to withdraw from the Kyoto accord in December, 2011, then environment minister Peter Kent said it would have cost taxpayers $14 billion to buy enough carbon credits to comply with the United Nations climate change treaty, which expired at the end of 2012.

Further, the global carbon credit market is overrun by fraud — awash in carbon credits for which there is no actual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.

That’s to say nothing of the political corruption in many countries that allows this fraud in the buying and selling of carbon credits to flourish, and the fact that organized crime is involved in carbon credit scams globally, including tax fraud, in the multi-billions of dollars.

Why should Canadians fork over even more money than they do now to heat their homes in winter, in order to pay corrupt foreign governments to pretend they’re lowering their emissions, while we pretend this is an effective way of fighting climate change, aka global warming?

Harper’s Conservatives are clearly not serious about the climate change plan they announced Friday.

It’s a mirage intended to get them past the October election on an issue they feel politically vulnerable about, after which it will disappear like a puff of smoke, whether they win or lose.

The alarming thing is that heading into the election, we will now have the three major party leaders — Harper, Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair — all talking about their respective climate plans, none of which has any basis in reality.

The reason the Harper government won’t meet this latest promise to reduce Canada’s emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, is the same reason it wouldn’t have met its previous commitment in 2009 to reduce them to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.

It’s the same reason the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberal government of 1993 to 2006 failed to meet its target of reducing emissions to an average of 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, and its earlier commitment of 20% below 1988 levels by 2005.

It’s the same same reason the Brian Mulroney Conservative government of 1984 to 1993 failed to meet its promise to reduce emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005, which is where Chretien got the idea from.

The reason is that we live in a big, cold, northern, sparsely-populated, industrialized, fossil-fuel exporting country, with one of the best living standards in the world, because of the benefits of fossil fuel energy.

We have no reason to pay “indulgences” to the global planners at the UN, who are using the issue of climate change not to save or cool the planet, but to redistribute global wealth.

(read the full article at Toronto Sun)

Banksters, Corporate Welfare

Central Banking and the Greatest Con Job in the History of Finance

Zero Hedge: May 9, 2015

One of the greatest con jobs in history was convincing ordinary people that Central Bankers care about the “economy” or Main Street.

Aside from the complete lack of relevance that Main Street has for Central Bankers from a professional perspective (more on this in a moment), when do you think was the last time that Janet Yellen or her ilk spent an evening with non-banker/financial types? Years ago? Decades ago?

Yellen lives in a super-affluent, gated part of Washington DC. And even within that subset of the US population she lives in a higher echelon: her entourage of security annoys her wealthy neighbors… though I suspect part of the annoyance stems from jealousy.

Regard professional significance… why would Janet Yellen care about ordinary people? They’re just data points in her financial models. Ordinary people didn’t place her at the Fed (the big banks did). And they didn’t place her as Fed Chair (the financial/ political elite did… with the express intent of gaining future favors).

Think of it this way… imagine there was a super cartel of English Professors who controlled what words you or I could use in daily conversation. These individuals literally could change the structure of the human language if they wanted… removing words or adding words at random.

Now imagine that they randomly pick out a low level English Professor who they elevate to being the face of their organization. Do you think this professor would give a damn about how her decisions/ words affected speech? She literally was made one of the most powerful people in the world by this cartel.

This is case worldwide. Most Central Bankers came up from the Too Big To Fails or Primary Dealers (or they are academics like Yellen or Banenke who get their first taste of the “real world” when they’re literally running the financial system).

Literally their entire personal net worth… their professional clout… and their sense of accomplishment was derived from working at these organizations.

And somehow they’re supposed to give a hoot about Joe the Plumber or Bob the Boilermaker? They don’t even deal with those people face to face when they have a problem with their homes. “Hello this is Mario Draghi… the man who controls the currency in your economy… could you please come fix the sink?”

This is why Yellen, Draghi and the like can say with a straight face that maintaining ZIRP or NIRP benefits the economy. It’s why they can spent trillions to bail out/prop up banks without batting an eyelid. It’s why no one who committed fraud went to jail. It’s why lying and cheating in the financial system is allowed… even applauded… because the ones lying and cheating are the same people who picked out/ promoted the regulators.

And this is why we’re heading for another Crisis… one that will be even bigger than 2008. The fraud that caused 2008 was not solved. Instead it was allowed to spread into the public sector. Today most Central Banks are sporting leverage ratios that would put Lehman Brothers (pre-crisis) to shame.

(read full article at zero hedge)

Corporate Welfare, Geopolitics/War

Free Trade Benefits vs. Fears of Foreign Goods

Richard Ebeling
Epic Times: May 3, 2015

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe spoke before a joint session of the U.S. Congress on April 29, 2015 and offered his “eternal condolences to the souls of all American people that were lost during World War II,” but never directly said that he was sorry for Imperial Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

The real purpose for his visit to Washington, D.C. and his address before Congress was to push for Congressional approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) between the U.S., Japan and 10 other nations (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam).

Meant to extend and widen trade and related commercial relationships between the participating countries, it is also been presented as a way for the U.S. to maintain his economic and political power in East Asia in the face of the rising influence of China in that part of the world.

TPP is a “Managed Trade” Agreement – Not Free Trade

With negotiations among the twelve governments going on “behind closed doors,” proponents and critics have offered alternative accounts of what is being negotiated and whose benefit will be served in the final agreement.

What should be most clear is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is not a free trade agreement. Parts of it may, no doubt, lower some trade barriers, thus making easier the production, sale and purchase of a wider variety of imports and exports. However, TPP, like all other trade agreements in the post-World War II era is a managed trade agreement.

That is, governments of the respective participating nations negotiate on the terms, limits and particular conditions under which goods and services will be produced and then bought and sold in each other’s countries. The Japanese government, for instance, is determined to maintain a degree of trade protectionism for the benefit of Japan’s rice producers, who are fearful of open competition from their American rivals.

The U.S. government is under pressure from the American auto industry, for example, to continue limiting greater competition from the Japanese automobile industry. American labor unions want to restrict the importing of goods produced at lower labor costs abroad than U.S. manufactured goods, because American consumers might prefer to buy the lower priced foreign products and thus risking the loss of some of their union members’ jobs.

Free Trade Can be Simple and Unilateral

A real free trade agreement, on the other hand, can be a very simple matter. Congress would pass and the President then sign a short piece of legislation stating something to the affect:

“The United States government herewith eliminates all existing barriers, restrictions, and prohibitions on the free and unrestricted importing and exporting, buying and selling of all goods and services between the United States and any and all nations in the world. The U.S. government declares that all forms of peaceful and non-fraudulent trade, commerce and exchange is the private matter of the individual citizens of the United States and any and all others situated in another country. This law takes affect immediately upon passage.”

Indeed, the United States does not even need the mutual agreement of any other nation to implement free trade. The U.S., with just such a piece of legislation, can establish free trade unilaterally; even if other nations kept some or all of their own trade-restricting barriers in place, America would still be better off.

(read the full article at Epic Times)

Banksters, Corporate Welfare

No Wrongdoing Here, Just 6,300 Corporate Fines and Settlements

Charles Hugh Smith
Of Two Minds: May 5, 2015

Despite the PR about how corporate profits benefit widows and orphans, this vast wealth is concentrated in the top 1% and the top 5%.


I am honored to share a remarkable data base of Corporate Fines and Settlements from the early 1990s to the present compiled by Jon Morse. Here is Jon’s description of his project to assemble a comprehensive list of all corporate fines and settlements that can be verified by media reports:
“This spreadsheet is all the corporate fines/settlements I’ve been able to find sourced articles about, mostly in the period from the 1990’s up to today (with a few 80’s and 70’s). This is by far the most comprehensive list of such things online. At least that I could find, because the lack of any decent list is what made me start compiling this list in the first place.”

What struck me was the sheer number of corporate violations of laws and regulations–thousands upon thousands, the vast majority of which occurred since corporate profits began their incredible ascent in the early 2000s–and the list of those paying hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and settlements, which reads like a who’s who of Corporate America and Top 100 Global Corporations.

I encourage you to open one of the three alphabetical tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet on Google Docs and scroll down to find your favorite super-profitable corporation.

Many have a long list of fines and settlements, and many of the fines are in excess of $100 million. Many are for blatant cartel price-fixing, not disclosing the dangers of the company’s heavily promoted medications, destroying documents to thwart an investigation of wrong-doing, etc.

In other words, these were not wrist-slaps for minor oversights of complex regulations— these are blatant violations of core laws of the land.


As you can see in the chart of corporate profits, enormous wealth has been concentrated in the hands of corporate managers and owners since 2002. This alignment with the start of the Federal Reserve’s easy-credit policies is not coincidental.

Despite the PR about how corporate profits benefit widows and orphans, this vast wealth is concentrated in the top 1% and the top 5%:

I asked Jon for his views on the meaning of this mind-boggling list of corporate malfeasance, price-fixing and other wrongdoing in terms of the concentration of wealth: here is his response.

As for the connection to the concentration of wealth: I see two ways in which they are related, the first one is pretty direct and that is the increasing size of the settlements. You will notice that as the settlement date gets later the average size gets much larger. Corporate profits after tax (without IVA and CCAdj) from 1st quarter to 1947 to 4th quarter 2014 went from $21,900,000,000 to $1,837,500,000,000 which is a 8290% increase, even from 1st quarter 1980 to 4th quarter 2014 went from $211,600,000,000 to $1,837,500,000,000 which is a 768% increase.

The second link is less direct. With the increases in concentration of wealth there has been a culture of idolizing wealth, one example is how prosecutors no longer find it appropriate to put banker’s and CEOs in jail. I think one side-effect of the culture changing has been an increased willingness to break the law to increase profits.

The settlements with the banks along with the ongoing investigations have shown that virtually every market is being manipulated; the stocks, metals markets, LIBOR, FOREX, everything. The companies would only break so many laws if they felt they would have a reasonable chance of getting away with it; they would also need a reason to do it, which is provided by the infinite growth model our economy is based on.

Thank you, Jon, for compiling a tremendously important and valuable database of corporate fines and settlements, and for connecting this staggering list of violations to the cultural worship of maximizing private gains at any cost. I am reminded of socio-economist Immanuel Wallerstein’s description of the current world-system of central-state/private-corporation collusion as “a particular historical configuration of markets and state structures where private economic gain by almost any means is the paramount goal and measure of success.”

Wallerstein and four colleagues explored the future of this wealth-concentration/maximizing private gain model in Does Capitalism Have a Future? (Oxford University Press, 2013).

Please consider these charts:

(view the full article including remaining charts at Of Two Minds)

Banksters, Corporate Welfare, Geopolitics/War, Privacy, Tyranny

Frankly My Dear, I Don’t Give a Damn

First Rebuttal : May 4, 2015

I find it shocking how often I have people tell me the Constitution is out of date and is no longer relevant or necessary.  Then there are the vast majority of people that think about the Constitution the same way they think about religion; it makes us feel good to believe in it and we’ll even worship it on a holiday or two   The reality is that those who seem to get very worked up to the point that they are willing to act in defense of the Constitution even against the highest levels of government make up a very small minority of Americans.  This is a real problem.

You see if people gave a damn the government couldn’t get away with negating the Constitution.  But the vast majority of people just don’t give a damn and so the government very easily provides ridiculous and false legal sounding arguments to explain away why they have become a higher law than the Constitution. Now I’ve tried to understand why it is that we Americans are so damn apathetic about everything the government and government officials do.

Let me give a couple examples for which our apathy just boggles my mind.   We know they took us into wars on false pretenses resulting in the wrongful deaths of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and yet we’ve prosecuted no one.  Hell they’ve admitted to hacking into millions of our home webcams and downloading videos and pictures of us in our most private moments and maintaining those downloads on government servers and then sharing these files with foreign governments.

But because today’s American is simply a shell of a citizen none of the criminal atrocities creates even a stir from us.  Sure we all read about these atrocities and we are angered in the moment but it passes rather quickly and we fall back into our self induced ignorant bliss.  Only two things can get Americans to formidably rise up.  The first is a very direct and immediate impediment to our comfort.  For example try cutting back on the monthly social welfare checks.  You’ll have riots.   The second way is if the mainstream media relentlessly instructs us to be upset about a particular issue.  Outside of that there is absolutely nothing the new American won’t move past like water off a duck’s back.

What we’re finding out is that, and it sounds slightly over-dramatic but isn’t at all, unless we are willing to fight and die to win back the freedom our forefather’s fought and died to secure for us and all future generations we will continue to feel our chains grow heavier and shorter.  The simple reason is because our government is very much willing to kill to keep its ever encroaching control.  A free population is the antithesis to a political class.  And make no mistake the American federal government is the largest and most powerful group of aristocrats the world has known.

This group of traitors (and I mean that in the very technical sense of the word) not only behave according to a separate set of laws they have actually gone so far as to legislate a separate set of laws.  This in itself is a direct breach of the very Constitution they swear to defend.  Their intent is clear and that my friends is treason.  They are directly negating the very basis of the American concept for their own personal self interest and they are doing so by defrauding American citizens into believing their intent is to represent the will of their constituents.  Treason, Treason, Treason!  What else would you call it?

Now are you ready to fight and die to win the freedoms back for your children and grandchildren?  Hell No!  No, not at all!  And that’s kinda the problem because again the government is willing to kill to ensure your kids and grandkids don’t have the freedoms Americans were guaranteed.  The fuck of it is Americans have become so damn brainwashed that despite the founding fathers telling us explicitly our government would end up enslaving the rest of us to solidify their own power and wealth we ignore it. These were the guys that figured out the British were effectively enslaving us and decided to rise against it and create the greatest damn nation the world has ever known.  They literally created fucking America!!!  I mean holy shit, imagine having that on your CV.  And we pay them no mind, like they’re bat shit crazy and not relevant in our intellectual new world.

Today’s legislators rarely discuss the founding fathers or the Constitution beyond the very thin idea that they know we expect them to defend it.  That is, like freedom and apple pie, they love it during the campaign cycle.  However, ask them why then they continue to legislate against the Constitution and well they don’t want to talk about the Constitution anymore.  And we the people ,like apathetic morons , buy into the bullshit they feed us because we simply don’t care.  It’s to the point they can pretty much do anything knowing they can bullshit us with any damn nonsense that pops into their swollen heads.  And so they do things like hack into our webcams, take nude pictures of us and send them to foreign governments and tell us it’s for our own good.  We don’t give a shit because 1. it doesn’t impede our immediate comfort and 2. the press isn’t telling us it’s something to be concerned about.

The danger of being apathetic until it impacts our immediate day to day is that we allow the government to take away all the freedoms we are not currently using.  What I mean by that is we so far have not had to face what it means to be powerless and in chains.  But only because we haven’t yet ventured out far enough so as to reach the end of our chains.  Like a sleeping dog that isn’t aware he’s been shackled until he wakes and tries to chase a bird, we are asleep and unaware of the shackles placed around our ankles.

Some will say “wait, it isn’t apathy it is a trade off between safety and freedom”.  But the truth is freedom and safety are not conflictual we’ve only been led to believe so.  Fear has replaced freedom here in America and that is not by chance but by strategy of a government that has its own agenda, separate from its oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  So while we should have prosecuted these recent governments for treason we’ve instead rewarded them the rights of dictatorship.

The Constitution is our freedom keeper but once the Constitution is made subordinate the precedent is set and in our legal system precedence is king.  The strength in the Constitution is just that, it’s strength.  Once we allow an exception to the Constitution’s superseding authority it no longer has any authority.  Unfortunately that exception has already been made.  With it, the destruction of the Constitution and the end to a guaranty of freedom.  Our corrupt government has created ‘legislation’ providing them a legal basis to imprison us without due process.  This is a fact.

This desecrates one of the most important axioms of America, in fact, due process is the very idea we are sold to spend $1 trillion per year fighting multiple simultaneous major theatre wars.  Yet here at home it no longer exists.  But remember our loss of due process is for our own good.  Giving a federal legislator or policy maker absolute discretion over our fate is in our best interest.  You and I have agreed with these propositions.  And you and I will have to adhere to being placed in prison for life if that is the will of our president or any delegate who will benefit by accusing us of being a national security threat.

Just by the fact the threat exists fulfills its objective.  People will not want to bring attention to themselves and thus will avoid protesting the wants of those who now have the authority to impede their freedom.  That in itself impede’s their freedom.  This is the one thing I really wish people could see.  What seem like issues too narrow or small to get worked up over are just marks of the snake bite.  Two very small holes in the skin but those holes are the gateway for the real killing agent to spread and overtake the whole system.

In March alone our beefed up and militarized public service workers killed more than 180 citizens they were meant to serve and protect on American soil.  That makes them an infinitely higher risk to our safety than the foreign terrorists to whom we’ve handed our Constitution.  That’s exactly what we’ve done.  If you listen to the terrorists’ videos that was their goal.  They wanted to end the freedom and free will that America seems to be jamming down the throats of societies around the world.  And so they won the moment Americans accepted to trade away its freedoms for safety.  That was their goal and they have achieved it.

Let’s look at Edward Snowden’s situation to see how one loses one’s freedom.  Snowden is a man that knowingly sacrificed his own freedom to expose the corruption and criminality of our policy makers and their respective agencies.  He is also a citizen that has been deemed a threat to national security.  Why would a man who exposed the criminal enslavement of Americans and citizens around the world be deemed a terrorist rather than a hero??  Because he is a threat to the power and control and really the entire system of those who can now legally classify him as a threat, removing his right to due process.

In effect, these political criminals can now legally lock away any prosecutor at will.   This is a gross conflict of interest and the hero that exposed this conflict of interest is now a victim of it.  Edward Snowden not only informed America, he recognized that he would be the first example so that Americans would see, first hand, the sort of corruption that has infected our system.  I can only infer he made himself known because he believed seeing it actually happen would get Americans to rise up and correct the moral transgression.  And what did we the people do in response to Snowden’s incredibly brave and patriotic action?  Absolutely nothing!!!  We force this hero to live in exile.  We don’t even demand the corruption to stop.  We do nothing.  How very American of us.  And why do we do nothing?  Because it doesn’t impede our immediate comfort and the media hasn’t told us we need to be concerned about the issue.

The lives of Americans have become so easy and so secure that we no longer recognize living in a utopia of freedom comes not with costs but with obligations.  We seem to believe that paying taxes indemnifies us of our real obligations as citizens who have been handed a beautiful gift and who are responsible for passing on that precious gift to future generations of Americans.   And that is a mistake that will have historians writing of us as we write of Eve in the garden of Eden.  Our lack of principles resulting in the suffering of all future generations having destroyed a gift we obviously didn’t deserve.

source: first rebuttal
emphasis: zero hedge

Corporate Welfare, Tyranny

The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Death of the Republic

Ellen Brown
Huffington Post: April 24, 2015

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” — Article IV, Section 4, US Constitution

A republican form of government is one in which power resides in elected officials representing the citizens, and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison defined a republic as “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people . . . .”

On April 22, 2015, the Senate Finance Committee approved a bill to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive trade agreement that would override our republican form of government and hand judicial and legislative authority to a foreign three-person panel of corporate lawyers. Continue reading The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Death of the Republic →

Banksters, Corporate Welfare

Why Canada’s economy is headed off the cliff

Vikram Mansharamani
PBS : March 27, 2015

Canada is in the midst of a unprecedented housing boom that seems likely to bust. I was recently in Canada and noticed a schizophrenic oscillation between housing exuberance and oil-price despair. What did it mean for the Canadian economy’s outlook? Upon returning to the US, I did some research. What I found leads me to the conclusion that Canada is now among the most vulnerable large economies in the world. Here’s why.

First, household credit. The seemingly conservative Canadian population has been voraciously consuming debt at a breakneck pace. Total household debt (C$1.82 trillion) now exceeds GDP (C$1.6 trillion), approximately C$1.3 trillion of which was for residential mortgages (Click HERE). Further, household debt is now >160% of disposable income – meaning it would take ~20 months for a family to pay off its debt if interest rates were 0% and they spent 100% of their disposable income to do so. Uh oh! The consumer clearly seems stretched, so much so that McKinsey recently suggested Canadian financial instability driven by a rapid consumer slowdown was not unlikely (click HERE).

Second, housing prices. Home prices continue their basically uninterrupted rise that began in the mid-late 1990s. Unlike the United States real estate markets, which have corrected, Canadian prices continue to rise.   Detached single-family homes in Toronto now average more than C$1 million and Vancouver is now deemed the second least affordable city in the world (click HERE) – thanks to Chinese buyers (who are themselves facing a slower economy). Take a look at the following chart of US and Canadian housing prices in real terms since 1990.

Slide1

It’s interesting to note that the data in this chart is updated through the summer of 2014 (click HERE), and we know that prices have risen since then. In fact, the Bank of Canada even suggested in December that housing prices were overvalued by as much as 30% (click HERE). The IMF has also sounded warnings.

Third, crude oil. The impact of lower oil prices is rippling through the economy at breakneck speed. Since 2011, Alberta, the oil-rich home of the oil sands, was responsible for more than 50% of all jobs created in Canada. It has literally been the locomotive of job creation pulling Canada forward. It’s now in reverse. Employment growth has stopped in Alberta and is now shrinking. According to construction industry association BuildForce, Alberta is likely to see sustained job losses for the next three years at a minimum (click HERE). Further, because Alberta drew workers from all over the country, any provincial slowdown will have national ramifications on unemployment and consumer confidence (click HERE).

Finally, craziness. Yup, not sure how to better categorize what I’m about to say. Here’s the situation, as told to me by Seth Daniels of JKD Capital, one of the most astute Canada-watchers I know. Seth told me that there is now a booming private mortgage market in which ordinary citizens are borrowing from their home equity lines to lend money to desperate borrowers. Specifically, he noted “a homeowner acts as a subprime lender by drawing a HELOC at ~3% interest-only, and lends it to a subprime borrower at 8-12% for one year (interest only).” I honestly didn’t believe him when he first mentioned this to me, but I then confirmed it myself (click HERE).   In fact, if you’re a Canadian and interested, here’s a sales pitch from one vendor (click HERE). It’s only a matter of time before this shadow mortgage banking market slows, and the ramifications are likely to be enormous.

wile-e-coyote-falling-off-cliff

Net net, the ending of the Canadian credit binge, combined with an oil-driven economic slowdown, is likely to crush consumer sentiment.  In this Loonie tune, it seems our Crazy Canadian Coyote has run off the cliff, his feet are still moving, but he has yet to look down. He’s suspended in air, and it’s only a matter of time until gravity exerts its force.

Originally posted at:
http://www.mansharamani.com/navigating-uncertainty/crazy-canadian-credit-confronts-crude-eh/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-canadas-economy-may-be-headed-off-the-cliff/

—

Alternative Free Press -fair use-