-->

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Mandatory PHOTO ID'S FOR ALL DOMESTIC FLIGHTS IN AIR SECURITY OVERHAUL

Shannon Deery, Herald Sun, & Michael Byers, Editor-In-Chief The Mikiverse, June 16, 2011.
Airport security

Screening domestic passengers to the same degree as international ones would be costly. Picture: Perth Now PerthNow

PASSENGERS on domestic flights will have to show photo ID before boarding as part of of a proposed overhaul of airport security.

More than a million passengers a year board flights in Australia without passing through security, raising the risk of a terrorist strike. Or, illustrating that terrorism is NOT a problem on Australian Airlines.

Perhaps this is why the foreign-owned Herald Sun chooses NOT to elaborate on their claim that problem free usage of the airlines actually constitutes proof that the so-called "terrorist" risk is higher.

Similar to the last article, this is another fear based article, training you to believe that you are in danger and must give up more of your freedoms. Soon, you and your children WILL be fondled at both legs of your travel.

Thats four gropes on a return trip.

Did you know that when a human experiences fear, other human faculties shut down so that a human can focus on dealing with that fear?

Fear has a long term debilitating effect on humans. It is no 'accident' that so many people are stressed out about the basic human necessities, that they are preyed upon and manipulated by those that profit of your manifested energy.

The recommendation for photo IDs on all domestic flights will be made today by the parliamentary joint committee on law enforcement, Fairfax newspapers report.

The ALP & Liberals are happy to subject you to this inconvenience. They are stealing your rights away from you by getting you to believe that you are in danger from a non-existant threat that they created themselves.

Regional flights have been identified as among the most vulnerable to criminal activity, how? where is the verification of this claim? with pilots and unions raising serious concerns regional aircraft could be used by home-grown terrorists

The Department of Infrastructure and Transport says domestic screening only occurs on flights with the highest security risk, adding that the process is "very expensive (and) could lead to some communities losing air services".

It is understood that Qantas is against mandatory photo IDs for domestic flights. It claims that such a policy would discriminate against those who don't have a driver's licence or passport, such as the elderly or infants. The first well made point in this story.

Fairfax reports that the joint committee found that "the e-ticketing process introduces further vulnerabilities, increasing the opportunity for organised criminal networks to exploit the sector for illicit gain".

Transport Workers Union national secretary Tony Sheldon said the union was willing to take industrial action if security measures were not improved.

"If people are not being screened prior to getting on a plane, then it is another symptom of what is going wrong with security in the aviation industry," he said.

"We are playing with fire and, if the status quo remains, we are all going to be badly burnt."

I wonder which master Tony is REALLY serving.

Mr Sheldon said 80 per cent of domestic air freight was also unscreened.

EXPERT WARNS LOW WAGES FOR SECURITY STAFF MAKE US VULNERABLE TO ATTACKS

Nick Leys Herald Sun & Michael Byers Editor-In-Chief Mikiverse Politics, June 16, 2011
Security checkpoint

AP

DETERIORATING employment conditions in the private security industry are leaving us more vulnerable to terrorist attack, a leading security analyst has warned.

Obviously, we, in Australia are more vulnerable to a so-called "terrorist" attack than we were because we've never had a "terrorist" attack, unless of course you are counting the on-going governmental/council/corporate attacks on your freedom.

The industry, which includes security officers working at the country's major airports, is witnessing a mass exodus of experienced and trained guards because of low pay and long hours. Corporations & Governments value profit over everything else including human health, welfare & safety.

Dr Luke Howie, a terrorism and counter-terrorism researcher at Monash University, said guards represent the first line of defence in the event of an attack and should be treated accordingly.

"You can have the best national security and intelligence agencies around, but it doesn't mean anything if a tired and underpaid security guard isn't doing their job and lets someone with a bomb through,'' he said.

"People who are low-paid and bored are hardly going to do a good job -yet corporations and governments are happy to perpetuate boredom and low wages in almost all employment sectors- and from the perspective of counter-terrorism related security, they play a pivotal role.''

The issue will be highlighted today with the launch of a new report, Security Failure: Preventing Another 9/11, by the security union United Voice.

The report finds that guards are better trained and must meet strict licensing requirements than a decade ago, but low pay is forcing them to find work elsewhere.

Howie said standards in the industry were high following the attacks of September 11 and the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games but had deteriorated with an increase in sub-contracting and resulting lower wages.

His comments have been supported by convicted whistleblower Allan Kessing, who in 2004 wrote a report critical of airport security that included concerns about underpaid and under-trained security guards.

"I'm disappointed but not surprised to hear nothing has changed,'' he said.

"It is no surprise given that our airports are run privately and profit is the priority.''

Jess Walsh, Victorian Secretary of United Voice, described security guards as `the people standing between us and an unthinkable tragedy.

"Both governments and private clients have demanded more and more of our security officers over the past 10 years, and they have assumed the crucial roles once reserved for the police and defence forces,'' she said.

Essentially this story serves a dual purpose. On the one hand it is the usual tabloid habit of trying to profit via the manipulation of a human base emotion, in this case, fear. On the other hand, it is the manipulation of the situation by the relevant unions for a deserved pay rise.


leysni@hwt.com.au

Thursday, June 9, 2011

THE GLOBAL DEBT CRISIS: HOW WE GOT IN IT AND HOW TO GET OUT

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-GLOBAL-DEBT-CRISIS-HO-by-Ellen-Brown-110607-905.html


June 7, 2011 By Ellen Brown


Reverse Pyramid by 21stcenturyreversepyramid.blogspot.com

Countries everywhere are facing debt crises today, precipitated by the credit collapse of 2008. Public services are being slashed and public assets are being sold off, in a futile attempt to balance budgets that can't be balanced because the money supply itself has shrunk. Governments usually get the blame for excessive spending, but governments did not initiate the crisis. The collapse was in the banking system, and in the credit that it is responsible for creating and sustaining.

Contrary to popular belief, most of our money today is not created by governments. It is created by private banks as loans. The private system of money creation has grown so powerful over the centuries that it has come to dominate governments globally. But the system contains the seeds of its own destruction. The source of its power is also a fatal design flaw.

The flaw is that banks advance "bank credit" that must be paid back with interest, while having no obligation to spend the interest they collect so that borrowers can earn it again and again, as they must in order to retire the debt. Instead, this money is invested in various casinos beyond the borrowers' reach. This leads to a continual systemic need for more new bank credit money, more debt with more interest attached, to prevent widespread defaults and deflationary collapse.

Today this problem is particularly evident in the EU. The Euro is a fixed currency system that does not allow for expansion to meet the demands of the private lending casino. The result is that EU member nations collectively are being crippled by debt.

There are more sustainable ways to run a banking and credit system, as will be shown.

How Banks Create Money

The process by which banks create money was explained by the Chicago Federal Reserve in a booklet called "Modern Money Mechanics." It states:

"The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks." [p3]

"[Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise [by the same amount]." [p6]

"With a uniform 10 percent reserve requirement, a $1 increase in reserves would support $10 of additional transaction accounts." [p49]

A $100 deposit supports a $90 loan, which becomes a $90 deposit in another bank, which supports an $81 loan, etc.

That's the conventional model, but banks actually create the loans FIRST. (Picture how a credit card works.) Banks need deposits to clear their outgoing checks, but they find the deposits later. Banks create money as loans, which become checks, which go into other banks. Then, if needed to clear the checks, they borrow the money back from the other banks. In effect, they borrow back the money they just created, pocketing the spread between the interest rates as their profit. The rate at which banks can borrow from each other in the U.S. today (the Fed funds rate) is an extremely low 0.2%.

How the System Evolved

The current system of privately-issued money is traced in "Modern Money Mechanics" to the 17th century goldsmiths. People who left gold with the goldsmiths for safekeeping would be issued paper receipts for it called "banknotes." Other people who wanted to borrow money were also happy to accept paper banknotes in place of gold, since the notes were safer and more convenient to carry around. The sleight of hand came in when the goldsmiths discovered that people would come for their gold only about 10% of the time. That meant that up to ten times as many notes could be printed and lent as the goldsmiths had gold. Ninety percent of the notes were basically counterfeited.

This system was called "f ractional reserve " banking and was institutionalized when the Bank of England was founded in 1694 . The bank was allowed to lend its own banknotes to the government, forming the national money supply. Only the interest on the loans had to be paid. The debt was rolled over indefinitely.

That is still true today. The U.S. federal debt is never paid off but just continues to grow, forming the basis of the U.S. money supply.

The Public Banking Alternative

There are other ways to create a banking system, ways that would eliminate its ponzi-scheme elements and make the system sustainable. One solution is to make the loans interest-free; but for Western economies today, that transition could be difficult.

Another alternative is for banks to be publicly-owned. If the people collectively own the bank, the interest and profits go back to the government and the people, who benefit from decreased taxes, increased public services, and cheaper public infrastructure. Cutting out interest has been shown to reduce the cost of public projects by 30-50%.

In the United States, this system of publicly-owned banks goes back to the American colonists. The best of the colonial models was in Benjamin Franklin's colony of Pennsylvania, where the government operated a "land bank." Money was printed and lent into the community. It recycled back to the government and could be lent and relent. The system was mathematically sound because the interest and profits were returned to the government, which then spent the money back into the economy in place of taxes. Private banks, by contrast, generally lend their profits back into the economy, or invest in private money-making ventures in which more is always expected back than was originally invested.

During the period that the Pennsylvania system was in place, the colonists paid no taxes except excise taxes, prices did not inflate, and there was no government debt.

How Private Banknotes Became the National U.S. Currency

The Pennsylvania system was sustainable, but some early American colonial governments just printed and spent, inflating the money supply and devaluing the currency. The British merchants complained, prompting King George II to forbid the colonists to issue their own money. Taxes had to be paid to England in gold. That meant going into debt to the English bankers. The result was a massive depression. The colonists finally rebelled and went back to issuing their own money, precipitating the American Revolution.

In an international first, the colonists funded a war against a major power with mere paper receipts, and won. But the British counterattacked by waging a currency war. They massively counterfeited the colonists' paper money, at a time when this was easy to do. By the end of the war, the paper scrip was virtually worthless. After it lost its value, the colonists were so disillusioned with paper money that they left the power to issue it out of the U.S. Constitution.

Meanwhile, Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Treasury Secretary, was faced with huge war debts, and he had no money to pay them. He therefore resorted to the ruse used in England known as fractional reserve banking. In 1791, Hamilton set up the First U.S. Bank, a largely private bank that would print banknotes "backed" by gold and lend them to the government.

The ruse worked: the paper banknotes expanded the money supply, the debts were paid, and the economy thrived. But it was the beginning of a system of government funded by debt to private bankers, who lent banknotes only nominally backed by gold.

During the American Civil War, President Lincoln avoided a crippling war debt by returning to the system of government-issued money of the American colonists. He issued U.S. Notes from the Treasury called "Greenbacks" rather than borrowing at usurious interest rates. But Lincoln was assassinated, and Greenback issuance was halted.

In 1913, the privately-owned Federal Reserve was authorized to issue its own Federal Reserve Notes as the national currency. These notes were then lent to the government, eliminating the government's own power to issue money (except for coins). The Federal Reserve was set up to prevent bank runs, but twenty years later we had the Great Depression, the greatest bank run in history. Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, wrote in 1934:

"We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve."

For the bankers, however, it was a good system. It put them in control.

Setting the Global Debt Trap

Prof. Carroll Quigley was an insider groomed by the international bankers. He wrote in Tragedy and Hope in 1966:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

"The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements [BIS] in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans...."

The debt trap was set in stages. In 1971, the dollar went off the gold standard internationally. Currencies were unpegged from gold and allowed to "float" in currency markets, competing with other currencies, making them vulnerable to speculation and manipulation.

In 1973, a secret agreement was entered into in which the OPEC countries would sell oil only in dollars, and the price of oil would be dramatically increased. By 1974, oil prices had increased by 400% from 1971 levels. Countries lacking oil had to borrow dollars from U.S. banks.

In 1981, the Fed funds rate was raised to 20%. At 20% compound interest, debt doubles in under four years. As a result, most of the world became crippled by debt. By 2001, developing nations had repaid the principal originally owed on their debts six times over; but their total debt had quadrupled because of interest payments.

When debtor nations could not pay the banks, the International Monetary Fund stepped in with loans -- with strings attached. The debtors had to agree to "austerity measures," including:

· cutting social services

· privatizing banks and public utilities

· opening markets to foreign investors

· letting currencies "float."

Today, austerity measures are being imposed not just in developing countries but in the European Union and on U.S. States.

The BIS: Apex of the Private Central Banking Pyramid

What Professor Quigley foretold about the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has also come to pass. The BIS now has 55 member nations and heads the global financial pyramid.

The power of the BIS was seen in 1988, when it raised the capital requirement of its member banks from 6% to 8% in an accord called Basel I. The result was to cripple the Japanese banks, which until then were the world's largest creditors. Japan entered a recession from which it has not yet recovered.

U.S. banks managed to escape by dodging the capital requirement. They did this by moving loans off their books, bundling them up as "securities," and selling them to investors.

To persuade the investors to buy them, these mortgage-backed securities were protected against default with "derivatives," which were basically just bets. The "protection seller" collected a premium for agreeing to pay in the event of default. The "protection buyer" bought the premium. Owning the asset was not required. Like gamblers at a horse race, derivative players could bet without owning a horse.

Derivatives became a very popular form of gambling. The result was the mother of all bubbles, exceeding $500 trillion by the end of 2007.

Because of securitization and derivatives, credit mushroomed. Virtually anyone who walked in the door could get a loan.

The tipping point came in August 2007, with the collapse of two hedge funds. When the derivatives scheme was exposed, the market for derivative-protected securities suddenly dried up. But the U.S. stock market did not collapse until November 2007, when new accounting rules were imposed. The rules grew out of the Basel II Accords initiated by the BIS in 2004. "Mark to market" accounting required banks to value their assets according to market demand that day. Many U.S. banks, like those in Japan in the 1990s, suddenly had insufficient capital to make new loans. The result was a credit crisis from which the U.S. has not yet recovered.

The BIS has now become global regulator, just as Quigley foresaw. In April 2009, the G20 nations agreed to be regulated by a Financial Stability Board based in the BIS, and to comply with "standards and codes" set by the Board. The codes are only guidelines, but countries that fail to comply risk downgrades in their credit ratings, something so costly that the guidelines have effectively become laws.

An article on the BIS website states that central banks in the Central Bank Governance Network should have as their single or primary objective "to preserve price stability." That means governments should not devalue the national currency by inflating the money supply; and that means not "printing money" or borrowing credit created by their own central banks. Like the American colonies after King George took away their power to issue their own money, governments must fund their deficits by borrowing from private banks. T he bankers' global control over currenc y issuance has become virtually complete.

The effects of this policy are particularly evident in the European Union, where EU rules allow deficits of only 3% of government budgets and prevent member countries from either issuing their own money or borrowing credit advanced by their own central banks. Member nations must borrow instead from the European Central Bank, private international banks, or the IMF. The result has been forced austerity measures, as seen in Greece and Ireland. The system is so unsustainable that commentators are predicting that the EU may break up.

The Way Out: Return the Money Power to Public Control

To escape the debt trap of the global bankers, the power to create the national money supply needs to be restored to national governments. Alternatives include:

· Legal tender issued directly by national treasuries and spent on national budgets.

· Publicly-owned central banks empowered to advance the nation's credit and lend it to the government interest-free.

· Nationalization of bankrupt banks considered "too big to fail" (after expunging or writing down bad debts on inflated bubble assets). These banks could then issue credit to the public and serve the public's banking needs, with the profits recycling back to the government, defraying the tax burden on the people.

· Publicly-owned local banks (state, provincial, or municipal).

Publicly-owned banks have been successfully established and operated in many countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, India, China, Japan, Korea, and Malaysia.

In the United States there is currently only one state-owned bank, the Bank of North Dakota. The model, however, has proven to be highly successful. North Dakota is the only U.S. state to have escaped the credit crisis unscathed. In 2009, while other states floundered, North Dakota had its largest budget surplus ever. In 2008, the Bank of North Dakota (BND) had a return on equity of 25%. North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country and the lowest default rate on loans. It also has the most local banks per capita.

North Dakota has had its own bank since 1919, when farmers were losing their farms to the Wall Street bankers. They organized, won an election, and passed legislation. The state is required by law to deposit all its revenues in the BND. Like with the sustainable model of the bank of colonial Pennsylvania, interest and profits are returned to the government and to the local economy.

A growing movement is afoot in the United States to copy this public banking model in other states. Fourteen U.S. state legislatures have now initiated bills for state-owned banks.

The model could also be replicated in other countries. In Ireland, for example, where the major banks are insolvent and are already nationalized or soon will be, the government could deposit its revenues in its own publicly-owned banks, add sufficient capital to meet capital requirements, and leverage these funds to create interest-free credit for its own local needs. That is exactly what Alexander Hamilton did when faced with government debts that were impossible to repay: he put the government's existing funds in a bank, then borrowed the money back several times over, employing the accepted "fractional reserve" model.

Japan's solution is also a variant of what Alexander Hamilton proposed two centuries earlier. Japan retains its status as the third largest economy in the world although it has a debt to GDP ratio of 226%. Japan has "monetized" the national debt, turning it into the national money supply. The government-owned Bank of Japan holds Japanese government debt equal to 100% of the nation's GDP; and because the government owns the bank, this loan is interest-free and can be rolled over indefinitely. An interest-free loan rolled over indefinitely is the equivalent of issuing money.





Author's Bio: Ellen Brown is an attorney and author of 11 books, including "Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System," http://webofdebt.com, now available in Spanish, http://telaranadedeuda.com/. She is president of the Public Banking Institute, http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

TRACKING, EXPLAINING AND UNDERSTANDING THE CLEVERLY ORGANIZED CRIMES OF BANKSTERS

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Tracking-Explaining-and-U-by-Richard-Clark-110606-841.html


June 6, 2011 By Richard Clark

What follows here is an abridgement, interpretation, and simplification of a RollingStone article by Matt Taibbi.

America has two national budgets, one official, one unofficial.

The official budget is on the public record, and hotly debated: Money comes in as taxes and goes out as jet fighters, DEA agents, wheat subsidies, and Medicare, plus pensions and bennies for that great untamed "socialist' menace called a unionized public-sector workforce that Republicans are always complaining about. On top of that, at least according to popular legend, we're broke and in so much debt that 40 years from now our granddaughters will still be hooking on weekends to pay the medical bills of this year's retirees from the IRS, the SEC and the Department of Energy.

Most Americans know about this official budget. What they don't know is that there is another budget of roughly equal heft, that is maintained in complete secrecy -- or at least it was until just recently. After the financial crash of 2008, this once-secret budget grew to monstrous dimensions, as the government attempted to unfreeze the credit markets by handing out trillions of dollars to banks and hedge funds. And thanks to a whole galaxy of obscure, acronym-laden bailout programs, this largely secret giveaway eventually rivaled the "official" budget in size -- it became a huge roaring river of cash flowing out of the Federal Reserve to destinations neither chosen by the president nor reviewed by Congress, but instead handed out by fiat, apparently on the whim of unelected Fed officials, using a seemingly nonsensical and apparently unknowable methodology.

And now, following an act of Congress that has forced the Fed to open its books from the bailout era, this previously secret budget is for the first time becoming (at least partially) a matter of public record. Staffers in the Senate and the House, whose queries about Fed spending have been rebuffed for nearly a century, are now poring over 21,000 transactions and are discovering a host of outrages and lunacies in this "other" budget. It is as though someone sat down and made a list of every individual on earth who actually did not need "emergency financial assistance" from the United States government, and then handed each of them a special pass and a key to the back door of the US treasury. Inexplicably, the US Federal Reserve gave billions in bailout aid to banks in places like Mexico, Bahrain and Bavaria, billions more to a spate of Japanese car companies, more than $2 trillion in loans, each, to Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, and billions more to a string of individual millionaires and billionaires with Cayman Islands addresses. But what kind of favors were granted in return, and to exactly whom, and how could this not have been some kind of arrangement that broke laws?

If you want to get a true sense of what this "shadow budget" was/is all about, all you have to do is look closely at the taxpayer money handed over to a single company that goes by a seemingly innocuous name: Waterfall TALF Opportunity. Waterfall's haul doesn't seem all that huge -- just nine loans totaling some $220 million, made through a Fed bailout program. That doesn't seem like a whole lot, considering that Goldman Sachs alone received roughly $800 billion in loans from the Fed. Through the Waterfall TALF Opportunity, the Federal Reserve handed just two bankster-related individuals low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars through a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk-free income.

The full name of the program that these privileged individuals took advantage of, TALF, is Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. But the federal aid they received actually falls under a broader category of bailout initiatives, designed and perfected by Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and should be called "giving already stinking rich people gobs of money for no f*cking reason at all." So, if you want to learn how the shadow budget works, and how welfare for the rich works, follow along.

It started out small, with the government throwing a few hundred billion in public money to prop up genuinely insolvent firms like Bear Stearns and AIG. Then came TARP and a few other programs that were designed to stave off bank failures and dispose of the toxic mortgage-backed securities that were a root cause of the financial crisis. But before long, the Fed began buying up every distressed investment on Wall Street, even those that were in no danger of widespread defaults: commercial real estate loans, credit- card loans, auto loans, student loans, even loans backed by the Small Business Administration. In other words, what started off as a targeted effort to stop the bleeding in a few specific trouble spots became a gigantic feeding frenzy. It was "free money for sh*t," says Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation. "It turned into 'Give us your crap that you can't get rid of otherwise.' "

This sudden manic expansion of the bailouts began with a masterful bluff by Wall Street executives: Once the money started flowing from the Federal Reserve, the executives began moaning to their buddies at the Fed, claiming that they were suddenly "afraid' of investing in anything -- student loans, car notes, you name it -- unless their profits were guaranteed by the state. (Socialism for the rich?) "You ever watch soccer, where the guy rolls six times to get a yellow (penalty) card?" says William Black, a former federal bank regulator who teaches economics and law at the University of Missouri. "That's what this is. If you have power and connections, they will give you a freebie deal -- if you're good at faking and whining."

This is where TALF fits into the bailout picture. Created just after Barack Obama's election in November 2008, the program's ostensible justification was to spur more consumer lending, which had dried up in the midst of the financial crisis. But instead of lending directly to car buyers and credit-card holders and students -- that would have been socialism! -- the Fed handed out a trillion dollars to banks and hedge funds, virtually interest-free. In other words, the government lent taxpayer money to the same assholes who caused the crisis, so that they could then lend that money back out on the market virtually risk-free, at an enormous profit.

A key feature of TALF is that the Fed doles out the money through what are known as non-recourse loans. Essentially, this means that if you don't pay the Fed back, it's no big deal. The mechanism works like this: Hedge Fund Goon borrows $100 million from the Fed to buy crap loans, which are then transferred to the Fed as collateral. Folks somewhere are supposed to pay off these loans that have been bundled into a mortgage-backed security, and if enough of these folks default, and don't pay off their loans, then the Hedge Fund Goon simply does not repay that $100 million he borrowed from the Fed to buy these mortgage-backed securities, and the Fed simply keeps this pile of crap securities and calls everything even. And how nice that is for the Hedge Fund Goons: No wonder top hedge-fund managers average $540 million in annual income!

In other words, this is the deal of a lifetime. Think about it: You borrow millions from the Fed, buy a bunch of very risky crap securities and stash them on the Fed's books. If the securities lose money, you leave them in the Fed's lap and the public eats the loss. But if they make money, you of course quickly grab them back, happily cash them in, and ever so honestly repay the funds you borrowed from the Fed. It's a clever scheme by which certain people at the Fed are essentially giving out free money -- to their friends and associates in high places -- almost certainly with those favors to be discretely compensated at a later date.

This whole setup -- in which millionaires and billionaires gambled on mountains of dangerous securities, with taxpayers providing the stake and assuming virtually all of the risk -- is the reason that it's insanely premature for Wall Street to claim that the bailouts have actually made money for the government. We simply can't make that determination until the final bill comes in on all the dicey securities we financed during the bailout feeding frenzy.

* * *

In early April, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa wrote a letter to Waterfall -- see Waterfall TALF Opportunity, described earlier in this articled -- asking 21 detailed questions about certain transactions. In addition, Sen. Bernie Sanders has personally asked Fed chief Bernanke to provide more complete information on the TALF loans given to gazillionaires like former Miami Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga and hedge-fund shark John Paulson. But Bernanke bluntly refused to provide the information -- and the Fed has similarly stonewalled other oversight agencies, as well, including the General Accounting Office and TARP's special inspector general, Neil Barofsky. So what's Bernanke covering up, and what laws have been broken?

But even without more information about the loans they got from the Fed, we know that TALF wasn't the only risk-free money being handed over to Wall Street. During the financial crisis, the Fed routinely made billions of dollars in "emergency" loans to big banks at near-zero interest. Many of the banks then turned around and used the money to buy Treasury bonds at higher interest rates -- essentially loaning the money back to the government to collect a somewhat inflated rate of return. "People talk about how these were loans that were paid back," says a congressional aide who has studied the transactions. "But when the state is lending money at zero percent, and the banks are turning around and lending that money back to the state at 3 percent, how is that different from just handing people money?"

Those kinds of deals were the essence of the bailout -- and the vast mountains of near-zero government cash turned companies facing bankruptcy into monstrous profit machines. In 2008 and 2009, Morgan Stanley took possession of $2 trillion in "emergency" Fed loans. During the same period, Goldman borrowed nearly $800 billion. Shortly afterward, Goldman and Morgan Stanley reported a combined annual profit of $14.5 billion. In other words, these two companies alone borrowed nearly $3 trillion from the Fed, gambled much of it in the stocks and derivatives markets, using super-fast high frequency trading programs operating on Cray super-computers, and came out with annual profits totaling $14.5 billion.

* * *

As crazy as it is for the Fed to lend to banks at near zero percent and then borrow the money back from them at 3%, one could at least argue that the policy may have aided American companies by providing banks more cash to lend. But how do you explain the host of other bailout transactions now being examined by Congress? Like the Fed's massive purchases of securities in foreign automakers, including BMW, Volkswagen, Honda, Mitsubishi and Nissan? Or the nearly $5 billion in cheap credit the Fed extended to Toyota and Mitsubishi? Sure, those companies have factories and dealerships in the US -- but does it really make sense to give them free cash at the same time taxpayers were being asked to bail out Chrysler and GM? Isn't it stupid to fund the competition of the very automakers you're trying to rescue? Or is something else going on here? Something nefarious?

And then there are the bailout deals that make no sense at all. Republicans go mad over spending on health care and school for Mexican illegals. So why aren't they flipping out over the $9.6 billion in loans the Fed made to the Central Bank of Mexico?! And how do we explain the $2.2 billion in loans that went to the Korea Development Bank, the biggest state bank of South Korea, whose sole purpose is to promote development in South Korea? And at a time when America is borrowing from the Middle East at interest rates of three percent, why did the Fed extend $35 billion in loans to the Arab Banking Corporation of Bahrain at essentially a zero interest rate?

Even more disturbing, the major stakeholder in the Bahrain bank is none other than the Central Bank of Libya, which owns 59% of the operation. In fact, the Bahrain bank just received a special exemption from the US Treasury to prevent its assets from being frozen in accord with economic sanctions. That's right: Muammar Qaddafi received more than 70 loans from the U.S. Federal Reserve. And in light of this, the video commentary by Max Keiser about 'Financial Terrorism' and Qaddafi's Stolen Billions is of interest. According to Keiser, international banks like Goldman Sachs have been looting Libyan money and were able to siphon billions of dollars from that country. Keiser, who is safely based in Paris, said they did it through monopoly, deceit and lies. Keiser's bottom line message to Americans: Revolt now or be "debt slaves" for life.

* * *

Perhaps the most irritating facet of all of these transactions is the fact that hundreds of millions of Fed dollars were given out to hedge funds and other investors with addresses in the Cayman Islands. Many of those addresses belong to companies with American affiliations -- including prominent Wall Street firms like Pimco and Blackstone. It's one thing for the federal government to look the other way when Wall Street hotshots evade U.S. taxes by registering their investment companies in the Cayman Islands. But subsidizing this tax evasion by giving it a federal bailout? WTF?! This cries out for investigation, but will it ever happen?

As America girds itself for another round of lunatic political infighting over which barely-breathing social program or urgently necessary federal agency must have their budgets put on the chopping block, so as to enable billionaires to keep their third boats and fourth homes in top shape, it's important to point out just how scarce money isn't when it comes to socialism for the rich, i.e. with regard to the money it takes to keep third boats and fourth homes in top shape. There is no belt-tightening on this side of the tracks. Just a free lunch that never ends.

Author's Bio: Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 8 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writing about that which interests me most.

Author's Website: http://www.TechEditingServices.com

HOW THE EMPIRE WILL PREVAIL — WILL WASHINGTON FORMENT WAR BETWEEN CHINA AND INDIA?

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-empire-will-prevai-by-paul-craig-roberts-110605-526.html


June 5, 2011 By paul craig roberts
What is Washington's solution for the rising power of China? The answer might be to involve China in a nuclear war with India.

The staging of the fake death of Osama bin Laden in a commando raid that violated Pakistan's sovereignty was sold to President Obama by the military/security complex as a way to boost Obama's standing in the polls.

The raid succeeded in raising Obama's approval ratings. But its real purpose was to target Pakistan and to show Pakistan that the US was contemplating invading Pakistan in order to make Pakistan pay for allegedly hiding bin Laden next door to Pakistan's military academy. The neocon -- and increasingly the US military -- position is that the Taliban can't be conquered unless NATO widens the war theater to Pakistan, where the Taliban allegedly has sanctuaries protected by the Pakistan government, which takes American money but doesn't do Washington's bidding.

Pakistan got the threat message and ran to China. On May 17, Pakistan's prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, as he departed for China, declared China to be Pakistan's "best and most trusted friend." China has built a port for Pakistan at Gwadar, which is close to the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz. The port might become a Chinese naval base on the Arabian Sea.

Raza Rumi reported in the Pakistan Tribune (June 4) that at a recent lecture at Pakistan's National Defense University, Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the US, asked the military officers whether the biggest threat to Pakistan came from within, from India, or from the US. A majority of the officers said that the US was the biggest threat to Pakistan.

China, concerned with India, the other Asian giant that is rising, is willing to ally with Pakistan. Moreover, China doesn't want Americans on its border, which is where they would be should Pakistan become another American battleground.

Therefore, China showed its displeasure with the US threat to Pakistan, and advised Washington to respect Pakistan's sovereignty, adding that any attack on Pakistan would be considered an attack on China. I do not think China's ultimatum was reported in the US press, but it was widely reported in India's press. India is concerned that China has stepped up to Pakistan's defense.

The Chinese ultimatum is important, because it is a WWI or WWII level of ultimatum. With this level of commitment of China to Pakistan, Washington will now seek a way to maneuver itself out of the confrontation and to substitute India.

The US has been fawning all over India, cultivating India in the most shameful ways, including the sacrifice of Americans' jobs. Recently, there have been massive US weapons sales to India, US-India military cooperation agreements, and joint military exercises.

Washington figures that the Indians, who were gullible for centuries about the British, will be gullible about the "shining city on the hill" that is "bringing freedom and democracy to the world" by smashing, killing, and destroying. Like the British and France's Sarkozy, Indian political leaders will find themselves doing Washington's will. By the time India and China realize that they have been maneuvered into mutual destruction by the Americans, it will be too late for either to back down.

With China and India eliminated, that leaves only Russia, which is already ringed by US missile bases and isolated from Europe by NATO, which now includes former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire. A large percentage of gullible Russian youth admires the US for its "freedom" (little do they know) and hates the "authoritarian" Russian state, which they regard as a continuation of the old Soviet state. These "internationalized Russians" will side with Washington, more or less forcing Moscow into surrender.

As the rest of the world, with the exception of parts of South America, is already part of the American Empire, Russia's surrender will let the US focus its military might on South America. Chavez will be overthrown, and if others do not fall into line, more examples will be made.

The only way the American Empire can be stopped is for China and Russia to realize their danger and to form an unbreakable alliance that reassures India, breaks off Germany from NATO and defends Iran.

Otherwise, the American Empire will prevail over the entire world. The US dollar will become the only currency, and therefore be spared exchange-rate depreciation from debt monetization.

Gold and silver will become forbidden possessions, as will guns and a number of books, including the US Constitution.
Author's Bio: Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Pres

HELP PUT THIS TV AD ON THE AIR -- GO TO RememberBuilding7.org

GILLARD HANDS BACK NT LAND TO OWNERS

AAP June 07, 201
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has capped off the first day of her Northern Territory tour by handing a large parcel of Aboriginal land back to its traditional owners.

Two of the four land parcels - Finke Gorge National Park and Simpson Desert stage 4 - were some of the earliest claims lodged under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

Ms Gillard gave the deeds, including two belonging to land parcels in the Hermannsburg area, back to their traditional owners at a ceremony in Alice Springs on Tuesday.

The Finke Gorge National Park will be leased back to the Northern Territory for 99 years for use as a national park.

"Traditional owners will have a strong voice in the future management and operation of the park," Ms Gillard said.

"The Central Land Council and traditional owners are working to design community development projects that can be supported with the income received under park leasing arrangements."


Earlier in the day, the prime minister visited a town camp that was slowly being revitalised with new homes and infrastructure.

Ms Gillard acknowledged town camps had become run down.

"(There has been) decades of under-supply, under-investment, overcrowding, squalor and neglect," she told reporters.

"We are seeing the difference around us but there is more to do."

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott encouraged Ms Gillard to get away from sanitised town camps and visit those that remained decrepit.

"I do hope that while she is there, she won't just confine herself to official openings and to visiting town camps that may well have been cleaned up especially for her visit," he said from Brisbane.

"I think it's important that she sees the downside of government policy as well as the upside of government policy."

Ms Gillard said she wanted to talk with local elders in Alice Springs about what could be done about reducing the harm caused by alcohol.

Dr John Boffa, spokesman for the People's Alcohol Action Coalition and a medical officer with the Central Australian Aboriginal Health Congress, said raising the price of cheap wine so it was the same as beer could reduce child neglect and indigenous violence.

"We want it (cheap wine) set at the price of beer, which is about $1.20 a standard drink," he told ABC Radio.

"If we can get rid of cheap wine and shift all the heavy drinkers, particularly young people, to beer, that will make a very big difference."

Ms Gillard heads to the Gove Peninsula, in the northeastern corner of Arnhem Land, tomorrow.