SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (49702)7/30/2013 1:22:10 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff has found "eight manipulative bidding strategies" used by a JPM affiliate in 2010 and 2011, the regulator said.
I know. I just make this stuff up.

The bank is expected to pay around $400 million to end the investigation and the settlement could include other payments, according to reports and an industry source.
I'm sure JPM is, out of the goodness of its heart, just paying $400m to help out out Uncle Sam.



To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (49702)7/30/2013 1:34:24 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Respond to of 85487
 
Published on Tuesday, July 30, 2013 by TruthDig.com
Gag Me With Lawrence Summers
by Robert Scheer

The idea that Barack Obama would still consider appointing Lawrence Summers to head the Federal Reserve rather than order an investigation into this former White House official’s Wall Street payments, reported Friday by The Wall Street Journal, mocks the president’s claimed concern for the disappearing middle class. Summers is in large measure responsible for that dismal outcome, and twice now, after top level economic postings in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, he has returned to gorge himself at the Wall Street trough.Former National Economic Council Director Larry Summers listens in on a call in the Oval Office. (Photo: White House/Pete Souza)

As Clinton’s Treasury secretary, he pushed for radical deregulation allowing investment bankers to take wild risks with the federally insured deposits of ordinary folks, a disastrous move compounded when he successfully urged Congress to pass legislation banning the effective regulation of the tens of trillions in derivatives that often proved to be toxic.

The first direct result of those new laws was the mammoth merger that created Citigroup. Eight years later, the federal government had to save Citigroup from bankruptcy brought on by its leading role in the sale of those toxic mortgage-based derivatives, to the tune of $45 billion in taxpayer funds and backing $300 billion of the bank’s bad paper.

At that time, Citigroup paid Summers—teaching at Harvard and yet hustling as a Wall Street consultant—$45,000 for a lecture, a piddling amount compared with the $135,000 he got per talk from Goldman Sachs. In all, while he was advising candidate Obama during the 2008 election season, Summers made off with $8 million in Wall Street compensation, with the lion’s share coming from the D.E. Shaw hedge fund.

Some might argue this is ancient history, but as The Wall Street Journal reported, Summers, after serving as a top economic adviser to Obama, has done just as well on his second passing through the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street. He rejoined the D.E. Shaw hedge fund, not having done anything to inconvenience its operation while in government, and got a gig with the operator of Nasdaq and other heavy hitters.

The Journal also revealed that Summers re-entered service with Citigroup, but neither he nor the bank has revealed his current rate of pay. The Journal did report that Summers has been paid more than $100,000 per speech for some of his recent talks to the financial industry goliaths. The newspaper also noted that at one Citigroup forum in March, “Mr. Summers expressed surprise about the persistent backlash in Washington toward big banks. ... ”

Speaking of lectures, Obama should deliver one to Summers, detailing why his prior record renders him unfit for future public service. As Obama pointed out in his speech on the economy Wednesday, “The income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, while the typical family’s barely budged.” Eight of those years of income stagnation occurred during the Clinton presidency, when Summers was designing policy that led to the derivative-induced housing bubble that exploded on George W. Bush’s watch.

Nor did it get better when Obama brought Summers into a key economic role in his administration. As Obama conceded in his speech last week, “Nearly all the income gains of the past 10 years have continued to flow to the top 1 percent. The average CEO has gotten a raise of nearly 40 percent since 2009, but the average American earns less than he or she did in 1999. And companies continue to hold back on hiring those who have been out of work for some time.”

That’s because Obama, following Summers’ advice, adopted the save-the-bankers-first philosophy of his predecessor, with outrageous publicly funded bailouts of the same financial conglomerates that had put the economy into a deep tailspin. It is a policy that continues to this day, with an outlay of $85 billion a month by the Federal Reserve to purchase toxic assets from the banks’ books in the hopes that they will reinvest that largess. But as the president’s jobs critique noted, they haven’t.

Trillions have been passed on to the banks to relieve them of the burden of the toxic derivatives they created, derivatives that then-Treasury Secretary Summers testified to Congress were no threat to the “thriving market” that “has assumed a major role in our own economy and become a magnet for derivative business from around the world.” No threat there because, “given the nature of the underlying assets involved ... there would seem to be little scope for market manipulation. ... ”

This is an idiotic statement by someone Obama considers brilliant, or as the president put it when Summers left the White House in September 2010 to get back into the big money game: “I will always be grateful that at a time of great peril for our country, a man of Larry’s brilliance, experience and judgment was willing to answer the call and lead our economic team.”

What leadership? According to last week’s McClatchy-Marist poll, 54 percent of Americans think the U.S. remains in a recession, and 60 percent see the country “going in the wrong direction.” Further, an Associated Press survey released Sunday concludes that “Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream. Survey data exclusive to the Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.”

That is what Obama conceded in his speech last week, which underscores how outrageous it is that he would consider bringing back brilliant Larry, who caused so much of that misery.

© 2013 TruthDig.com



To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (49702)7/30/2013 2:00:29 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
And of course, you and i-node will respond that we need LESS regulation. LOL!
+++

JULY 30, 2013

The Grand Debt Creators
The Fed Deception
by TOM McNAMARA
“The Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express”

- Dennis Kucinich, former Democratic Congressman from Ohio’s 10th District

“There is no institution in the United States that has such a high public standing and such a poor record of performance”

- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist

The New York Times recently had a story about how large financial institutions on Wall Street (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley to name just a few) have been extremely active – and engaging in questionable business practices – in the commodity markets. It appears that exemptions given by the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States (the Fed) in 2003, in conjunction with loosened regulations approved by Congress, allowed banks to invest (i.e. speculate) in the infrastructure used to store, transport and deliver commodities such as metals, oil, wheat, cotton, coffee, petroleum and electricity.

The Times’ story focuses on the actions of Goldman Sachs and its alleged manipulation of the aluminium market. Three years ago, Goldman Sachs bought Metro International Trade Services, an aluminium storage company. Since the purchase, average waiting times at the storage facility have increased by a factor of 10. And just what exactly is causing this increase in waiting times? Reportedly, Goldman Sachs moves 90% of its aluminium stock between its different warehouses every day. The results, according to current and former employees at Metro, are artificial bottlenecks which have led to an increase in holding costs.

How this benefits customers and final consumers is not immediately clear.

“It’s a totally artificial cost,” says Jorge Vazquez, an expert consultant on the aluminium industry. “It’s a drag on the economy. Everyone pays for it.”

The scheme is estimated to have cost the American consumer about $5 billion over the past three years. But what will most likely be of greater concern to regulators, and what might actually cause them to do something, is the increase in operating costs for the likes of MillerCoors, Coca-Cola, Boeing or any other company that uses large quantities of aluminum.

The fallout from the revelations in the New York Times is already being felt, with JP Morgan Chase announcing that they will no longer be trading physical commodities. Goldman Sachs, however, is standing firm, saying that “recent news reports have inaccurately accused Metro of deliberately creating aluminium shortages and incorrectly asserted that Metro moves aluminium from one warehouse to another in order to earn more rent fees.”

But Goldman Sachs needs to worry about overplaying its hand. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D – Massachusetts), a member of the Senate Banking Committee and a person not known for holding back on what she really thinks about America’s financial institutions, is extremely concerned about this matter, saying, “I share the concern of many of my colleagues about asset managers at huge Wall Street banks exercising control of key parts of America’s infrastructure.”

The Federal Reserve is reviewing the exemptions that it gave to banks to allow them to speculate in non-banking activities. In a statement, the Fed said that it “regularly monitors the commodity activities of supervised firms and is reviewing the 2003 determination that certain commodity activities are complementary to financial activities and thus permissible for bank holding companies.” But unfortunately, it appears that they have no immediate plans to require banks to sell the assets they acquired to do business in commodity markets.

For his part, Senator Sherrod Brown (D – Ohio), a member of the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Committee on Finance, says, “Banks should be banks … they should make loans, not manipulate the markets to drive up prices for manufacturers and expose our entire financial system to undue risk.”

But a bigger question that can be asked is, “What exactly is the role of the Fed?” According to its own documents it has “supervisory and regulatory authority over a wide range of financial institutions and activities. It works with other federal and state supervisory authorities to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions, stability in the financial markets, and fair and equitable treatment of consumers in their financial transactions.”

Important stuff, to say the least. This raises another serious question. After all that we have learned as a result of the 2008 financial crisis, why would the Fed allow banks to make major investments in unrelated nonfinancial businesses (i.e. gamble) when it is clear that they barely understood the risks involved in their principle lines of business in the first place? I mean, why would the government allow such potentially reckless and irresponsible behaviour?

That’s easy. It’s because the Federal Reserve is a private bank and not part of the government. In fact, it is the third central bank that America has had in her 237 year history. Interested readers might want to look into what happened to the first two.

The Federal Reserve System is broken up into 12 regional districts, each with its own bank. The regional Federal Reserve Banks are private banks. Once more, they are not part of the government. To quote a story that appeared in Bloomberg News, “The New York Fed and other regional banks maintain they are separate institutions, owned by their member banks, and not subject to federal restrictions.”

And just what kind of people are running the Fed? Oddly enough, Jamie Dimon, Chairman of the Board and CEO of JP Morgan Chase – an institution that is no stranger to controversy and run ins with the law, and which has received at least $26 billion in taxpayer backed bailouts since 2008 – was until recently on the board of directors of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (the most powerful of the 12 regional banks).

To add insult to injury, Larry Summers is now being mentioned as a possible candidate to be the next chairman of the Fed. Here is a man whose tenure as president of Harvard University could best be summed up by “Chicks: you can’t live with them and you can’t live without them, am I right fellas?” This is a man who, as Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton, was instrumental in undoing the main provisions of the Glass – Steagall Act, an act which had, for the most part (up until 1999), limited the types of risky activities that banks could get involved in. It has been credited with being the main reason America was able to go several decades without a major financial crisis or panic.

Nine short years after the repeal of Glass – Steagall, America would have its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, bringing hardship and misery to millions of Americans.

Mr. Summers has also been an outspoken critic of regulating the currently unregulated global derivatives market, a market that is estimated to be worth $ 639 trillion. That is almost ten times the total value of the entire planet. If (more likely when) this market crashes, all of the King’s horses and all of the King’s men won’t be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Another even more curious oddity about the Fed is the fact that for every dollar that the Federal Reserve creates, one dollar of debt is created as well. The Federal Reserve “creates” money (i.e. puts money into circulation) by buying Federal (i.e. US Government) debt. And just how does the Federal Reserve have the money to buy all of this debt? Good question. It doesn’t. The Fed simply creates the money electronically out of thin air, with the cost of the debt purchased by the Federal Reserve merely being put on the Government’s books, since debt bought by the Federal Reserve counts against the country’s debt ceiling.

Since the recession of 2008, the Federal Reserve has pledged a minimum of $7.77 trillion (some reports put the figure at $16 trillion – more than the total value of the US economy) to rescue the financial industry, loaning at least $1.2 trillion to banks and financial companies affected by the crisis; a crisis, it is important to note, of Wall Street’s own making. Is it any wonder that with a private bank regulating other private banks the American economy is in the condition that it is?

The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a middleman between the US government and the US economy (and an ineffective middleman at that). If the US Treasury were to simply issue paper money – as it currently can do with coins – rather than let the Fed do it, the exponential rate at which the US is presently creating debt would most likely be slowed.

Why we allow this predatory private institution to continue to exist and threaten the well being of our society is truly bewildering.

Tom McNamara is an Assistant Professor at the ESC Rennes School of Business, France, and a former Visiting Lecturer at the French National Military Academy at Saint-Cyr Coëtquidan, France





To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (49702)7/30/2013 3:22:46 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 



To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (49702)7/30/2013 6:04:33 PM
From: FJB  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
CAIR Director: Muslims Are Above The Law
<span style="font-size:1.5em;">
According to the leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims living in America should not be bound by U.S. law. “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Herman Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.
</span>
I suppose at the very least, Carroll is being honest about what practicing Muslims believe. This is what we’ve been telling people all along. Now CAIR is becoming a bit more vocal about what they are really about.

Carroll made the statement at a rally in Austin, Texas as part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events. According to the event website Muslims came to the Texas capitol to “promote civic and political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”

It appears to me that they are promoting jihad and lawlessness. “We tried to downplay Sharia, because we didn’t want to give the other side any excitement for being here,” he said.

He then attempted to dismiss his critics as “anti-foreign.” I wonder if we should just out him now as “anti-American,” since he thinks he is above the laws of America.

“When you even say the word Sharia, people get nervous. We are not advocating for Sharia. We are not trying to make Sharia the law of the land,” he said.

While saying that Muslims only want the right to practice their faith, Carroll also included this little tidbit. “If you understand Sharia, the foundation of our faith … how we treat our neighbor, how we treat our parents … how we participate in society, all of that is part of Sharia.”

He must have intentionally left out the parts about jihad, honor killings and treating women and infidels as chattel, while seemingly speaking about harmless treatment of neighbors and parents.

They discussed “the recent House and Senate bill proposals involving the implementation of ‘anti-Sharia’ legislation, where the First Amendment rights and freedoms of Muslims would ultimately be hindered.”

Carroll attempted to downplay Sharia law, despite joining with the ACLU to oppose the anti-Sharia legislation in Texas.

I told you about how the federal government was seeking to close the mouths of free speech in regards to Islam back in June. I don’t recall Mr. Carroll standing up and opposing that. In fact, his organization didn’t make a peep about that, which simply means they are complicit in it.

The event even included a speech by a representative of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, who declared that Texas was an awful place and that Islam was the answer.

“Why did Muhammad say that he would not rest until the Koran was the law of the land?”


“Islam does not have Texas in the current condition, the current socio-political condition that Texas is in. What is this condition that Texas is in? Why is Texas on the brink, when you look at Texas in comparison to 50 states, education, percent of population graduating from high school is 46, high school completion rate is 46, the scholastic assessment rate, the SAT score in Texas is 47, the percentage of population with no health insurance in Texas is first, those without health insurance Texas is first. When you look at the state of a child in Texas, the percentage of uninsured children, Texas is first… etc etc


You shouldn’t be filing legislation against Islam, when you look at Texas, Islam is not the problem. Islam is the solution. Allah Akbar.”


Well I suppose if you consider a means to illiteracy and poverty as your goals, then perhaps Islam is the answer. If you consider the merciless killing and degradation of women as what you are out to achieve, then yes, I suppose Islam is the answer. If you are considering an eternity in Hell, then yes Islam would provide that answer.

However, Carroll has also defended terrorists on the same grounds as his statement above; Muslims are above the law of the land.

“I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we’ve heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas.”


“Look at the true cause of the terrorism. It’s not somebody is reading a book, reading a Qur’an, and then go out and say, ‘Well, the Qur’an told me to blow this up. I’m gonna blow it up.’ The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression.”


Now ask yourself, those that read the Qur’an believe they are above the law of the land and some even go so far as to obey the words of the Qur’an and murder infidels. They both share a common core: The teachings of a demon-possessed pedophile, murdering thief named Mohammed.

Back in 2003, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad sought to bully a newspaper that quoted him saying:

<span style="font-size:1.5em;">

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant.”

For my friends who think Islam is not a threat to our society, let that one sink in.
</span>
For years Ahmad has been trying to seek a retraction from the newspaper, but to no avail as the paper stands by the article. I applaud their courage to do so and expose the attempts at taqiyya being put forth by Ahmad and his Muslim Brotherhood front group.

Read more: freedomoutpost.com