Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts

Friday, December 26, 2014

The US economy grew at its fastest pace in 11 years in the third quarter, in the strongest sign yet that the world's biggest economy has shifted into higher gear.
The Commerce Department on Tuesday revised up its estimate of GDP growth to a 5pc annual pace from the 3.9pc rate reported last month, citing stronger consumer and business spending than it had previously factored in.  It was the fastest growth pace since the third quarter of 2003. GDP growth has now been revised up by a total of 1.5 percentage points since the first estimate was published in October.  The news sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average above 18,000 for the first time as it climbed as high as 18051.05.  Big revisions to GDP data are not unusual as the government does not have full information when it makes its initial estimates. 
The economy expanded at a 4.6pc rate in the second quarter. It has now experienced the two strongest back-to-back quarters of growth since 2003. Economists polled by Reuters had expected growth would be raised to a 4.3pc pace.
While the pace of growth likely slowed in the fourth quarter, a rapidly strengthening labor market and lower gasoline prices should provide the economy with sufficient momentum in 2015 and keep the Federal Reserve on course to start raising interest rates by the middle of next year.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

MEXICO CITY (AP) -- The U.S. Embassy in Mexico issued a security message Friday warning U.S. citizens to avoid the Pacific resort of Acapulco because of violence and protests.
In yet another blow to a coastal city once favored by U.S. movie stars and jet-setters in the 1950s and `60s, the embassy said its personnel "have been instructed to defer non-essential travel to Acapulco, by air or land," and added that it "cautions U.S. citizens to follow the same guidelines."
The alert noted that "protests and violent incidents continue in Guerrero state in response to the disappearance of 43 students there."  Demonstrators have blocked highways to Acapulco, hijacked buses and blockaded the city's airport to demand the government find the students who disappeared Sept. 26 in the nearby city of Iguala. Prosecutors say local police working for a drug gang probably turned the students over to gang members, who may have killed them and burned their bodies.
In early November, demonstrators blocked Acapulco's airport for hours carrying clubs, machetes and gasoline bombs, causing hotel reservations on a subsequent three-day holiday weekend to fall about 35 percent, said Javier Saldivar, head of Acapulco's business chamber. Hotel occupancy that should have neared 95 percent was only about 60 percent.  "We suffered a serious loss," Saldivar said.  While U.S. tourists account for about 55 percent of foreign visitors to Mexico, relatively few of them go to Acapulco any more. For example, while Mexico's most popular cruise ship port, Cozumel, handled 894 cruise ship arrivals in 2013, Acapulco had only 9.  Drug gang violence has also played a role. In recent years there have even been some shootouts on Acapulco's famed coastal boulevard, but those incidents have calmed somewhat in the last two years.  Acapulco was once a well-regarded destination. It was during a vacation there in the 1960s that novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez came up with the idea for "100 Years of Solitude." It was there that Bill Clinton took a young woman named Hillary for a honeymoon in 1975.  But in the 1970s and `80s, the resort's infrastructure crumbled, and poor, crowded settlements sprung up inland from the bay, sparking rising problems of unemployment, crime and pollution.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, Americans must sometimes feel like Goldilocks in the three bears’ house. The porridge that was President George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda”—promising democracy for everyone from Karachi to Casablanca—was too hot. The mush that has been President Barack Obama ’s foreign policy—heavy on rhetoric about resets, pivots and engagement but weak in execution and deeply ambivalent about the uses of U.S. power—is too cold.
What we need instead, as the fairy tale has it, is a foreign policy that is just right—neither too ambitious nor too quiescent, forceful when necessary but mindful that we must not exhaust ourselves in utopian quests to heal crippled societies.  The U.S. finds itself today in a post-Cold War global order under immense strain, even in partial collapse. Four Arab states have unraveled since 2011. The European Union stumbles from recession to recession, with each downturn calling into question the future of the common currency and even the union itself. In Asia, China has proved to be, by turns, assertive, reckless and insecure. Russia seeks to dominate its neighbors through local proxies, dirty tricks and even outright conquest. North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and Iran’s effort to develop one tempt their neighbors to start nuclear programs of their own. And even as the core of al Qaeda fades in importance, its jihadist offshoots, including Islamic State, are metastasizing elsewhere.
As for the U.S., the sour experience of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has generated a deep—and bipartisan—reluctance to interfere in foreign conflicts, on the view that our interventions will exact a high price in blood and treasure for uncertain strategic gains. One result is that aggressive regimes seem to think that they can pursue their territorial or strategic ambitions without much fear of a decisive U.S. response. Another is that many of our traditional allies, from Israel to Saudi Arabia to Japan, are quietly beginning to explore other options as the old guarantees of the postwar Pax Americana no longer seem as secure as they once were.  How should an American president navigate through this world of ambitious rogues and nervous freelancers? How can the U.S. enforce some basic global norms, deter enemies and reassure friends without losing sight of our global priorities and national interests? How do we conduct a foreign policy that keeps our nightmares at bay, even if we can’t always make our dreams come true?  When it comes to restoring order in places widely assumed to be beyond the reach of redemption, there is a proven model for us to consult. But it has nothing to do with foreign policy; it has to do with policing our toughest inner cities. And it has brought spectacular—and almost wholly unexpected—results.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

I imagined the U.S. GDP will be going up a bit more since Israel will have used up lots of ammunition and shooty things and will have to replace them. Bombing things works wonders for GDP. As do car accidents, fires, natural disasters of all kinds and human suffering in general, all of which will induce people to go out and buy stuff to cheer themselves up. Even better, create an atomized society of really sad, lonely people who will consume lots and lots of trash to convince themselves that their empty lives have meaning. Oh no, hang on, we've already done that. Back to bombing things thenThe US is facing economic disaster...all the indicators are there. First of all the College debt stands at 800billion and is shackled around the neck of college graduates before they even start their working career. Its a scam, education should be the first priority of a government not some ponzi scheme, it should not be a power that shackles people into enslavement at no cost to the corporate juggernauts.(coming to the UK soon)
They made a poll some time ago on doctors in the US and 40% said they would have done something different if they had known the hassle of the death and the years of hard work it took to get to a break even point.  Watching the US news they seem to be praying on another upswing in the property market for economic recovery. Yes because property bubbles have proven to solve all problems...and now you can also get subprime loans to buy cars(GMs favourite tactic)another disaster in the making.  Then you have the serious economic issues linked to climate change which is really knocking the GDP with all the repair costs and knock on effects. The state of California and Nevada are bone dry, the armageddon coming from the water shortages are going to have massive repercussions for the rest of the US especially when you consider that California is the bread basket of America. And then lets not talk about the Fed who have been printing money like nobodys business...the only way thats sustainable is if the Dollar remains the default currency of the world any seismic shift to that thinking would tank the US economy immediately.

Monday, August 4, 2014

A US Supreme Court ruling has made restructuring sovereign debt more difficult, leaving both debtors and creditors worse offThe US supreme court's ruling obliges Argentina to pay holdout hedge funds in full as part of its debt-restructuring agreements.
Argentina and its bankers have been barred from making payments to fulfil debt-restructuring agreements reached with the country's creditors, unless the 7% of creditors who rejected the agreements are paid in full – a judgment that is likely to stick, now that the US supreme court has upheld it. Though it is hard to cry for Argentina, the ruling in favour of the holdouts is bad news for the global financial system and sets back the evolution of the international regime for restructuring sovereign debt. Why is it so hard to feel sympathy for a developing country that is unable pay its debts? For starters, in 2001 Argentina took the unusual step of unilaterally defaulting on its entire $100bn debt, rather than negotiating new terms with its creditors. When the government finally got round to negotiating a debt swap in 2005, it could almost dictate the terms – a 70% "haircut". In the intervening decade, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her late husband and predecessor, Néstor Kirchner, have pursued a variety of spectacularly bad economic policies. The independence of the central bank and the statistical agency has been severely compromised, with Fernández forcing the adoption, for example, of a consumer price index that grossly understates the inflation rate. Contracts have been violated, foreign-owned companies have been nationalised, and when soaring global prices for Argentina's leading agricultural commodities provided a golden opportunity to boost output and raise chronically insufficient foreign-currency earnings, Fernández imposed heavy tariffs and quotas on exports of soy, wheat and beef. Some might counter that the holdout hedge funds that sued Argentina deserve no sympathy either. Many are called "vulture funds", because they bought the debt at a steep discount from the original creditors, hoping to profit subsequently through court decisions. The problem with the Argentine debt case has little to do with the moral failings of either the plaintiffs or the defendant. It lies in the precedent it establishes for resolving future international debt crises. The most common reaction to the recent rulings is pro-holdout. After all, the judge is only enforcing the legal contract embodied in the original bonds, isn't he? As the former US president Calvin Coolidge supposedly said of US loans to its first world war allies: "They hired the money, didn't they?"
If only the world were so simple. If only a regime of consistent enforcement of all loan contracts' explicit terms were sufficiently practical to be worth pursuing. We have, however, long since recognised the need for procedures to rewrite the terms of debt contracts under extreme circumstances.
The British Joint Stock Companies Act of 1856 established the principle of limited liability for corporations, and indentured servitude and debtors' prisons have been illegal since the 19th century. Individuals and corporations can declare bankruptcy. There will always be times when it is impossible for a debtor to pay.
As for corporate bankruptcy, it is recognised that it is a poor legal system that keeps otherwise viable factories shuttered while assets are frittered away in expensive legal wrangling, leaving everyone – managers, workers and shareholders – worse off. A good legal system permits employment and production to continue in cases where the economic activity is still viable; divides up the remaining assets in an orderly and generally accepted way; and makes these determinations as efficiently and speedily as possible, while discouraging future carelessness by imposing costs on managers, shareholders, and – if necessary – creditors.
No such body of law exists at the international level, and some believe this vacuum is the primary difficulty with the international debt system. Ambitious proposals to redress it, such as a sovereign debt restructuring mechanism (SDRM) housed at the International Monetary Fund, have always run into political roadblocks.
Incremental steps had, however, been slowly moving the system in the right direction since the 1980s. In the international debt crisis that began in 1982, IMF country adjustment programmes went hand-in-hand with "bailing in" creditor banks through "voluntary" coordinated loan rollovers. Eventually, it was recognised that a debt overhang was inhibiting investment and growth in Latin America, to the detriment of debtors and creditors alike.
Subsequent programmes to deal with emerging-market crises featured an analogous combination of country adjustment and "private sector involvement". Voluntary debt exchanges worked, roughly speaking, with investors accepting haircuts.
After Argentina's 2001 unilateral default, many investors saw more clearly the need to allow explicitly for less drastic alternatives ahead of time, and incorporated so-called collective action clauses (CACs) into debt contracts. If the borrower runs into trouble, CACs make it possible to restructure debt with the agreement of a substantial majority of creditors, usually around 70%. The minority is then bound by the agreement.
Such incremental steps gave rise to a loose system of debt restructuring. To be sure, it still had many deficiencies. Restructuring often came too late and provided too little relief to restore debt sustainability. But it worked, more or less. In contrast, the US court rulings' indulgence of a parochial instinct to enforce written contracts will undermine the possibility of negotiated restructuring in future debt crises.
Time will run out for Argentina at the end of July. Unable to pay all of its debts, it will perhaps be forced to default on all of them. The more likely outcome, however, is that it will manage to come to some accommodation that the holdouts find more attractive than the deal accepted by the other creditors. Either way, future voluntary debt-workout agreements have just become more difficult to reach, which will leave debtors and creditors alike worse off.
Meanwhile in Europe : Troubled Portuguese lender Banco Espirito Santo is set to be split into "bad" and "good" banks under a multi-billion euro state rescue plan.  The plan, aimed at saving a bank that has been engulfed by the fall of the owning family’s business empire, includes using at least half of the €6bn (£4.8bn) left from Portugal’s recently exited international bailout program, sources said. The bailout money will be used to finance a special bank resolution fund set up by Portugal in 2012 that will in turn inject money into the new Banco Espirito Santo, or BES, "good bank". BES shares would be delisted under the plan, with shareholders likely to lose their investment. One source told the Reuters agency that the injection could be of at least €4bn. It was not clear how the bad bank would be handled. The plan, which is also being worked on by officials from the European Central Bank and European Commission, is expected to be announced on Sunday evening. Details were still being hashed out and an announcement could be postponed until Monday, the people familiar with the talks said. Anything in order to stop the first domino from falling.
Why? ... As the powers that be know, that once the first 'Credit Default Swap' is triggered, it will it turn trigger a long line of other CD'S. A process which will in turn reveal the 'fact' that our entire global financial system is little more than a gigantic 'Pyramid Scheme'.... A structure without 'any' type of foundation.
Quite literally 'A Pyramid Of lies'.
 


Tuesday, July 29, 2014

On 16 July 2014, the Supreme Court provided clarity on the nature of a principal’s entitlement to recovery of a secret commission or bribe received by an agent.  The court ruled that when an agent acquires a benefit as a result of his fiduciary position, including a secret commission or bribe, he is to be treated as having acquired the benefit on behalf of his principal and so holds it on trust for the principal.  The ruling is significant in the context of insolvency, as the effect of the decision is to give a principal a preferential claim over the assets of his agent, as against an unsecured creditor.  It also permits the principal to trace the bribe into the hands of others (where they are not bona fide purchasers), which can be crucial where the agent has dissipated his assets.  This ruling confirms a principle which has, to date, been treated inconsistently by the courts since the nineteenth century.
Facts of the case : In December 2004, FHR European Ventures LLP (FHR) purchased the issued share capital of the Monte Carlo Grand Hotel SAM from Monte Carlo Grand Hotel Ltd (the Seller).  Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) were consultants who acted as FHR’s agent in negotiating the purchase of the hotel.  However, Cedar had also entered into an “Exclusive Brokerage Agreement” (Agreement) with the Seller, under which Cedar received a €10m fee on conclusion of the sale and purchase of the hotel in or around January 2005.
In November 2009, the claimants brought proceedings to recover the €10m fee from Cedar on the basis that they had failed to disclose the Agreement to the claimants and breached their fiduciary duties.  The claim was successful at first instance, but the judge refused to give the claimants a proprietary remedy in respect of the monies (which would otherwise have put the claimants in a favorable position over unsecured creditors in the event of insolvency).  Instead, FHR was held to have a personal claim against the agent.
The Court of Appeal granted the claimants’ appeal on this point and made a declaration that Cedar received the €10m fee on constructive trust for the claimants and so was entitled to a proprietary remedy.  This decision has now been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The argument focused on the limits of the application of a rule of equity that an agent who acquires a benefit as a result of his fiduciary position or pursuant to an opportunity resulting from his fiduciary position, is to be treated as holding that benefit on behalf of, and so on trust for, the principal. If the rule applied in the context of a bribe or secret commission, it would give the principal a proprietary claim to the bribe as well as a personal claim against the agent; if not, the principal would have only a personal claim against the agent. Cedar argued that the claimants should not be entitled to a proprietary remedy in such a case, on the basis that a bribe or secret commission was always intended to be made to the agent, not his principal; it was never the principal’s property.  Accordingly, it would be wrong to assume a constructive trust and there should be an exception to the equitable rule to that extent.  FHR argued that the equitable rule should apply, on the basis that equity does not permit an agent to rely on their own wrong to justify retaining a benefit received as a result.    Lord Neuberger, who delivered the judgment, reviewed the conflicting authorities and concluded that it was not possible to decide the case on the basis of clear legal authority and so it was necessary to consider the matter from the perspective of principle and practicality.  He considered Cedar’s argument to be the more complicated to justify and also unattractive, given that in a situation where the agent receives a bribe or secret commission from a third party, there would be a strong possibility that that payment would disadvantage the principal.  Looking at the facts of the case, Lord Neuberger considered that had the Sellers not paid the €10m to Cedar, it may have accepted a reduced price to reflect the fact it did not have to pay the large fee to the consultant.  Furthermore, given the heightened awareness and concern about bribery, the Supreme Court said that it expected “the law to be particularly stringent in relation to a claim against an agent who has received a bribe or secret commission” (at paragraph 42).
FHR’s arguments had the merit of simplicity and were consistent with the fundamental principles of the law of agency.  They were also consistent with the position in other common law jurisdictions, namely Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Canada and the US.  It also seemed curious that if Cedar’s arguments were preferred, this could have the effect that a principal whose agent wrongly accepted a bribe would be worse off (in terms of recovery) than where the principal had obtained a benefit “in far less opprobrious circumstances” (at paragraph 41).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court favored the claimant’s argument, concluding that “there is no plainly right answer, and, accordingly, in the absence of any other good reason, it would seem right to opt for the simple answer” (at paragraph 35).  This decision provides a welcome clarification of the position of the status of bribes and secret commissions paid to agents.  It provides a departure from the jurisprudential differentiation between different types of benefits that an agent may receive in breach of his duties that had occupied the minds of lawyers and their textbooks for many years.  The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on cases where the agent in question has dissipated his assets or has become insolvent, such that the principal may not otherwise have been able to (1) recover the full amount of the bribe or secret commission from the remaining assets when other creditors are taken into account and/or (2) trace the funds into the hands of non-bona fide purchasers.  Of course, where a principal seeks to recover what is, in effect, a bribe paid to the agent, this may create other issues for the principal to grapple with, not least the money laundering provisions in the proceeds of crime legislation.  If not carefully considered and complied with, the principal may find himself committing a criminal offence by recovering “criminal property”.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Americans With No Abilities Act (ANAA)- hahaha...President Barack Obama and the Democratic Senate are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many more Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (ANAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition. "Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing." In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons with No Ability (63 percent).Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability (POI) into middle-management positions, and give a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires. Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, "Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?""As a non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Mich., due to her inability to remember righty tightly, lefty loosely. "This new law should be real good for people like me. I'll finally have job security." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel. Said Sen. Dick Durbin, II: "As a senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so."  This message was approved by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and of course, Barack Obama.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Diego Garcia




There is no "indigenous" population. There were imported workers who worked the coconut plantations. These people are "bitter" because the US will not GIVE them things. Greedy sour grapes and scumbags. This Brit chick is a terrorist inciting people to violence. Notice how careful she is to blame the US though t was a joint effort between the British and Americans. I hope the layabouts starve to death if they continue to refuse to work where they are. There are no "Citizens" of Diego Garcia. As I said they were simply workers hired to work the cocoanut plantations. Screw them.

Friday, April 18, 2014

Washington will get what it wants,,,I HOPE !!!!

Apr 14/2014 : Washington Drives The World To War Paul Craig Roberts The CIA director was sent to Kiev to launch a military suppression of the Russian separatists in the eastern and southern portions of Ukraine, former Russian territories for the most part that were foolishly attached to the Ukraine in the early years of Soviet rule. Washington’s plan to grab Ukraine overlooked that the Russian and Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine were not likely to go along with their insertion into the EU and NATO while submitting to the persecution of Russian speaking peoples. Washington has lost Crimea, from which Washington intended to eject Russia from its Black Sea naval base. Instead of admitting that its plan for grabbing Ukraine has gone amiss, Washington is unable to admit a mistake and, therefore, is pushing the crisis to more dangerous levels. If Ukraine dissolves into secession with the former Russian territories reverting to Russia, Washington will be embarrassed that the result of its coup in Kiev was to restore the Russian provinces of Ukraine to Russia. To avoid this embarrassment, Washington is pushing the crisis toward war. The CIA director instructed Washington’s hand-picked stooge government in Kiev to apply to the United Nations for help in repelling “terrorists” who with alleged Russian help are allegedly attacking Ukraine. In Washington’s vocabulary, self-determination is a sign of Russian interference. As the UN is essentially a Washington-financed organization, Washington will get what it wants. The Russian government has already made it completely clear some weeks ago that the use of violence against protesters in eastern and southern Ukraine would compel the Russian government to send in the Russian army to protect Russians, just as Russia had to do in South Ossetia when Washington instructed its Georgian puppet ruler to attack Russian peacekeeping troops and Russian residents of South Ossetia. Washington knows that the Russian government cannot stand aside while one of Washington’s puppet states attacks Russians. Yet, Washington is pushing the crisis to war. The danger for Russia is that the Russian government will rely on diplomacy, international organizations, international cooperation, and on the common sense and self-interest of German politicians and politicians in other of Washington’s European puppet states. For Russia this could be a fatal mistake. There is no good will in Washington, only mendacity. Russian delay provides Washington with time to build up forces on Russia’s borders and in the Black Sea and to demonize Russia with propaganda and whip up the US population into a war frenzy. The latter is already occurring. Kerry has made it clear to Lavrov that Washington is not listening to Russia. As Washington pays well, Washington’s European puppets are also not listening to Russia. Money is more important to European politicians than humanity’s survival. In my opinion, Washington does not want the Ukraine matters settled in a diplomatic and reasonable way. It might be the case that Russia’s best move is immediately to occupy the Russian territories of Ukraine and re-absorb the territories into Russia from whence they came. This should be done before the US and its NATO puppets are prepared for war. It is more difficult for Washington to start a war when the objects of the war have already been lost. Russia will be demonized with endless propaganda from Washington whether or not Russia re-absorbs its traditional territories. If Russia allows these territories to be suppressed by Washington, the prestige and authority of the Russian government will collapse. Perhaps that is what Washington is counting on. If Putin’s government stands aside while Russian Ukraine is suppressed, Putin’s prestige will plummet, and Washington will finish off the Russian government by putting into action its many hundreds of Washington-financed NGOs that the Russian government has so foolishly tolerated. Russia is riven with Washington’s Fifth columns. In my opinion, the Russian and Chinese governments have made serious strategic mistakes by remaining within the US dollar-based international payments system. The BRICS and any others with a brain should instantly desert the dollar system, which is a mechanism for US imperialism. The countries of the BRICS should immediately create their own separate payments system and their own exclusive communications/Internet system. Russia and China have stupidly made these strategic mistakes, because reeling from communist failures and oppressions, they naively assumed that Washington was pure, that Washington was committed to its propagandistic self-description as the upholder of law, justice, mercy,and human rights. In fact, Washington, the “exceptional, indispensable country,” is committed to its hegemony over the world. Russia, China, and Iran are in the way of Washington’s hegemony and are targeted for attack. The attack on Russia is mounting.
The US media consistently lies for the government. Reuters continues to report, falsely, that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea. The Washington Post ran an obviously false story planted in the paper by the Obama regime that the massive protests in former Russian territories of Ukraine are "rent-a-mobs" instigated by the Russian government.
Not even Washington's stooges in Kiev believe that. Officials of the Washington-imposed government in Kiev acknowledged the need for some autonomy for the Russian-speaking regions and for a law permitting referendums, but this realistic response to widespread concerns among Ukrainians has apparently been squelched by Washington and its presstitute media.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-Is-Humanity-s-W-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-Government_Rights_Russia_Surveillance-140414-37.html

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

America’s biggest banks will have to hold an extra $68bn of cash on their balance sheets under stringent new rules designed to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.  US regulators have also signaled they would like to tighten banking rules even further, as they introduced the new rule requiring lenders including JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs to shore up their capital reserves.  Under the new legislation, approved last night by the US Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Comptroller of Currency, the eight largest US banks will have to hold at least 5pc of their total assets in cash, instead of the 3pc previously required.   The rule, which will come into force in 2018, is the latest in a sweeping set of reforms designed to ensure banks have enough money to cover their losses in the event of a major financial disaster.   The change is expected to weigh on the profits of those banks affected as they will not be able to put quite as much of their cash to work. However, the Fed signaled yesterday that it may yet go further. Dan Tarullo, the Fed’s regulation tsar, said the central bank may “increase the risk-based capital surcharge for US systemically important firms to a higher level than the minimum agreed to internationally”.   Such a change is particularly serious for investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who do not have retail banking operations that accept cash deposits from customers.  However, all of the affected banks, including Citigroup, Bank of New York Mellon, Wells Fargo and State Street, will have to take the new capital requirements into consideration as they weigh up whether to pay dividends.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

The US has moved a step closer to becoming a global gas exporting power with the approval of a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal on the west coast that will send a warning signal to the Kremlin. The Department of Energy authorized a permit on Monday for the Jordan Cove LNG project in Oregon to export 800m cubic feet per day (cfpd) of gas for the next 20 years to countries that don't have a free-trade agreement with the US.
The approval comes amid concern that Russia will use its vast gas and oil resources as political leverage in its dispute with the West over the future of Ukraine and Crimea. The US recently released 5m barrels of oil for sale from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a move that was interpreted at the time by some analysts as a warning to Moscow not to use energy as a weapon. 
If Putin gets even more annoyed, he will do a massive deal with China (he's going there in May) to flog Russia's oil using a commodity-backed reserve currency that bypasses the petrodollar.
That might well further crash both the US economy and ours.
Is this deliberate neocon policy?
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

US lawmakers are pushing the Department of Energy to speed up approvals of gas export projects to add to international pressure already building on Vladimir Putin after the White House and the European Union hit Russia with sanctions. 
“Given the situation in Ukraine, this licence sends a positive signal to our allies and to energy markets that the United States is ready to join the growing global gas trade,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, who sits on the influential US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in a statement following the gas export approval. LNG, shipped by boat, could be cheaper than Russian gas transported by pipeline over thousands of miles. Always useful to have an alternative source of supply to keep the prices on a level. Russia has played the shut off game before and is relying on it now ( it may well succeed in the short term - I would place bets on Russia retaining the Crimea ) Remember OPEC in the 70s ? That promoted alternative supplies of oil....I think people are missing the main point here... Russia can't be dealt with in the same way Irak and Lybia were... and if they start selling oil and gas in ANY currency the dollar will have no support.. the days of the petro-dollar are now numbered and the logic of tripling the money supply will soon arrive, i.e. the dollar will drop like a Ukrainian soldier gun... watch inflation shooting up in the US and GDP dropping also, which will bring about a reduction in the budget and overall power of the US to the level of a major power but no longer super-power... those days are gone, so let's all thank the EUSSR for bringing something good to the table for the first time in my rusty memory...

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Americans like myself who are worse off than our parents and sliding inexorably into poverty know this. Anyone with a bachelor's degree (which requires one course in beginning psychology) knows that once someone has money, they spend their days justifying their having more than others and put the full force of their efforts behind getting more money at the expense of others.
Unfortunately, the right has enough money and enough power to ensure that the remnants of the middle class in the US will believe that it is people of color who are ruining their lives, not the 1%.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. This system was to be controlled is a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.
The bailouts are the greatest theft in the history of mankind!
Giving the banks the money that they never had!
This cheap money that they create never existed and now we have to pay the bill for it... When they backed those who caused the crash they were only encouraging those involved to continue as if nothing had happened.
That is exactly what has now happened with yet more people taking on more debt they are unlikely to ever repay.
Now we have far more people getting into debt but this time it includes a large number of people who were previously savers.
In other words they have created even more people in debt.
This is total lunacy as now more and more people are likely to end up in poverty and be looking to the state for benefits.
Giving funny money the name QE was the start of the great scam and now they are stuck in their own quagmire without a clue how to get themselves out of it.
Zombie households are now increasing as more and more people are now getting into difficulties through loss of income and rising prices.

Friday, February 28, 2014

The current high levels of stock markets in the USA & UK is certainly reflective of the ever increasing QE which is still adding enormous amounts of money month after month to fuel financial asset price increases.
Though the author is correct to argue that far higher real growth economic activity is required to support these market levels, this will not occur in the West while its costs remain so high compared with elsewhere in the world, where there is ample and growing spare capacity. Many investors are worried that the real drive of the US & UK Governments is inflation to diminish their unsustainable debt and that in reality the current levels of QE will never be paid down as the political carnage would lose many elected representatives their jobs and damage their careers, which simply cannot be allowed to happen.
Economists pursuing ever increasing financial asset prices (Wall Street in the USA; residential property in the UK) to encourage more consumer expenditure (the “Wealth Effect” ) are three or more decades out of date. Back in the post WW2 years with fixed exchange rates and little industrial competition, these moves by Governmments to increase credit in their economy had relatively high local traction in economic activity, but no longer, this is dissipated as the spending drives the Chinese economy rather than the UK’s or the USA’s. This was probably the problem with Greenspan’s models, certainly with Brown’s RPI & CPI targets.
Built into the equity and property markets is an insurance premium against the impact of stagflation as these are the only immediate and straightforward options to most investors. They rely on their Governments to provide the insurance through if the market falls to release more QE ………….. just the "Greenspan put" in another form

Thursday, February 6, 2014

F....the EU !!!!!YESSSSS



Obviously she should take out UK citizenship and run for office, where her slogan will undoubtedly get her elected in a landslide.

Obviously a legit conversation between power-brokers, and obviously tapped and released by Russian Federation security. However, the interesting point is that such an important strategic conversation is held over an obviously insecure line. Next, to see what the Ukraine does with this now that its been made public.
Listening to the conversation it does show a certain perception of national superiority from both participants. This mentality has also been noted by those scholars of the Wikileaks cables. This is of course why the USA can be maneuvered into traps and also why there are increasing problems for the USA in its international relations. I wonder if this is the mentality that existed close to the fall of other empires?

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Negociators Thursday plunged into difficult budget talks to avoid a repeat crisis within months, and quickly agreed to lower their sights from the sort of grand bargain that has eluded the two parties for three years.
After approval late Wednesday of the agreement ending the standoff, the deal-making mantle shifted overnight from the leaders of the Senate to the Budget Committee leaders, Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, and Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, two less senior lawmakers who nonetheless could make very effective salespeople since they command loyal followings in their parties. The political pressure lifted as well, for now. But the need for a bipartisan breakthrough, even a modest one, was amplified by the economic costs wrought by the 16-day shutdown and near-default on government obligations.       
“The key now is a budget that cuts out the things that we don’t need, closes corporate tax loopholes that don’t help create jobs, and frees up resources for the things that do help us grow — like education and infrastructure and research,” President Obama said Thursday from the White House, setting ambitious goals for Congress even as his own role in the bargaining was unclear.
The question of what a new House-Senate budget conference can deliver by its Dec. 13 deadline — in time for Congress to act by Jan. 15 on funding to keep the government open — remained the subject of deep skepticism, well earned by past failures at reaching so-called grand bargains for deficit reduction and spending investments in the past three years.
With the scope of the talks narrowed for now, on the table are ideas left over from past, failed bargaining: possible reductions in other programs — like farm subsidies, federal pensions, the Postal Service and unemployment insurance — and relatively minimal tax loophole closings, possibly as little as $55 billion.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Mr. Obama has every reason to hold his ground, and will almost certainly do so with bitter memories of concessions made in the last debt ceiling showdown in 2011 -- a political mistake that he has vowed never to repeat. Washington has seen countless bitter fights over the decades, some resolved at the eleventh hour, some not. Not even the messiest disputes stopped the US becoming the world's paramount power, or stopped the nation drawing together again with extraordinary cohesion and moral force. 
Almost everybody thought Watergate would cripple American foreign policy. It did no such thing. Within fifteen years the Soviet Union had bitten the dust, and America was supreme. Much of the press coverage has focused on various short-term dislocations from counterproductive sequestration measures, but the real risk is more profound. Yes, the dollar would remain the world's main reserve currency even after a gratuitous bout of default; there is simply no good alternative yet – certainly not today's euro. But even if the US keeps its reserve-currency franchise, its value could be deeply compromised. The privilege of issuing the global reserve currency confers enormous advantages on the US, lowering not just the interest rates that the US government pays, but reducing all interest rates that Americans pay. Most calculations show that the advantage to the US is in excess of $100bn per year.
There was a time, during the 1800s, when the United Kingdom enjoyed this "exorbitant privilege" (as Valéry Giscard d'Estaing once famously called it when he served as the French president Charles de Gaulle's finance minister). But, as foreign capital markets developed, much of the UK's advantage faded, and it had almost disappeared entirely by the start of the first world war.
The same, of course, will ultimately happen to the dollar, especially as Asian capital markets grow and deepen. Even if the dollar long remains king, it will not always be such a powerful monarch. But an unforced debt default now could dramatically accelerate the process, costing Americans hundreds of billions of dollars in higher interest payments on public and private debt over the coming decades. Ironically, the debt-ceiling fight is not really about debt. The Republicans are hardly debt hawks when they control things. The last Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, and his vice-presidential running mate, Paul Ryan, campaigned in 2012 on a programme that would likely have added trillions of dollars to the US debt over the next 10 years, owing to tax cuts and increased defence spending. Rather, the debt-ceiling debate is about the size and reach of government. Yes, the US should worry about its soaring public debt – and about the rising pension and healthcare costs that are fuelling it. Despite baseless politically motivated claims to the contrary, the academic research still overwhelmingly suggests that very high debt is a drag on long-term growth.

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Taper QE vs higher USA debt ceiling. Which is more important?
Answer: Until the government breaks American business, industry and worker-crushing Wal-Mart into several separate companies like it did to the country's largest telephone company a few decades ago, the United States deserves the bankruptcy that awaits it if the debt ceiling goes up much further.
There are other countries willing and waiting to fill the gap left when America collapses into bankruptcy: many, many countries who can, believe it or not, fill the economic gap very quickly. History is littered with bankrupt empires that today are as badly off as Greece, Spain, Britain, France and Italy, all of which are faint shadows of what they once were.There's a chance the Fed chair will use his press conference this afternoon to show them both the Out door.Tere's money on the line. Markets will be listening for signals that the Federal Reserve bank plans to wind down its $85bn in monthly asset purchases known as quantitative easing. For nearly five years the stimulus program has helped markets find confidence in a discouraging landscape. Bernanke has signaled that it won't last forever. But it was supposed to last until the economy – and specifically the unemployment rate – improved. Or until rising interest rates grew too worrisome.  Neither has happened. The landscape remains discouraging, with unemployment at 7.3% and job market participation at an all-time low. Inflation has yet to rise to the 2% target Bernanke has proposed (he calls it the "objective" rate). Clearly, easing isn't working. Unless it is, and the numbers would be even more terrible without it. For two days the fed's open markets committee (FOMC) has been discussing this and other questions. This afternoon Bernanke is expected to indicate what the group decided.  Additionally Bernanke may talk about his own plans to step down as Fed chair, a seat he's occupied since President George W Bush appointed him in 2006. The conclusion that Bernanke will leave when his current term expires at the end of January is so foregone that the secret struggle to replace him already has produced public losers.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

What will the Federal Reserve do?

After on Tuesday and Wednesday's regular policy meeting, the Fed is widely expected to announce that it will start to "taper" its $85bn-a-month quantitative easing (QE) programme, perhaps cutting its monthly purchases of assets such as government bonds by $10bn or $15bn.

Is that good news?

It should be: it means the governors of the Fed, led by the chairman, Bernanke, believe the US economy is strong enough to stand on its own, without support from a constant flow of cheap, electronically created money – though they still have no plans to raise base interest rates from the record low of 0.25%, and they expect to stop adding to QE over a period of up to a year. "We really want to see a situation where central banks should not be pumping money into markets. It's not a healthy thing to be doing," says Chris Williamson, chief economist at data provider Markit.

Why are they doing it now?

Economic data is pointing to a modest but steady recovery. House prices have turned, rising by 12% in the year to June. Unemployment has fallen to 7.3%, its lowest level since the end of 2008, albeit partly because many women and retirees have left the workforce.
Since QE on such a huge scale carries its own risks – it can distort financial markets, for example – the Fed is keen to withdraw it once it thinks an upturn is well underway. However, some recent data, including worse-than-expected retail sales figures on Friday, have raised doubts about the health of the upturn.
There's another reason too: Bernanke's term as governor ends in January next year, and he may feel that at least making a start on the process of tapering – marking the beginning of the end of the policy emergency that started more than five years ago – would be a fitting end to his tenure.

How will the markets react?

With a shrug, the Fed hopes, since it has carefully communicated its intentions. Scotiabank's Alan Clarke said: "I think it's pretty much priced in ... Speculation began months ago, the market has already moved and we are still seeing some very robust data. The foot is on the accelerator pedal just a bit more lightly."
However, a larger-than-expected move could still cause ripples – and a decision not to taper at all would be a shock, though some analysts believe it remains a possibility. Paul Ashworth, US economist at Capital Economics, said: "I don't think they've actually decided on this ahead of time."

What will investors be looking for?

First, the scale of the reduction in asset purchases. No taper at all might suggest Bernanke and his colleagues have lingering concerns about the health of the economy; a reduction of $20bn a month or more would come as a shock. The tone of the statement, and the chairman's subsequent press conference, will also be scrutinised, with markets hoping for reassurance that even once tapering is underway, there is no immediate plan to raise interest rates: Bernanke has previously said he doesn't expect this to take place until unemployment has fallen to 6.5% or below. Williamson said: "I think they will accompany the announcement with a very dovish statement designed not to scare people that the economy is too weak but to reassure stimulus won't be taken away too quickly."

What does it mean for the UK?

Long-term interest rates in UK markets have risen sharply since the early summer, at least in part because of the Fed's announcement on tapering, and that shift, which has a knock-on effect on some mortgage and other loan rates, is likely to continue as the stimulus is progressively withdrawn.
If tapering occurs without setting off a market crash or choking off recovery, it may help to reassure policymakers in the UK that they can tighten policy once the recovery gets firmly under way, without sparking a renewed crisis. David Kern, economic adviser to the British Chamber of Commerce, said: "it will strengthen for me the argument against doing more QE in the UK."

How will the eurozone be affected?

It could cut both ways: a strengthening US economy is a welcome market for Europe's exporters, and if the value of the dollar increases against the euro on the prospect of higher interest rates, that will make eurozone goods cheaper.
However, the prospect of an end to QE in the US has also caused bond yields in all major markets to rise, pushing up borrowing costs – including for many governments. That could make life harder for countries such as Spain and Italy that are already in a fiscal tight spot.

What about emerging markets?

Back in May, Bernanke merely had to moot the idea of ending QE to send emerging markets reeling. A side-effect of the unprecedented flood of cheap money under QE has been that banks and other investors have used the cash to make riskier investments in emerging markets. The prospect of that tap being turned off has already seen capital pouring out of emerging markets and currencies, potentially exposing underlying weaknesses in economies that have been flourishing on a ready supply of cheap credit.
"It has triggered all sorts of significant movements around the world out of emerging markets. It's had big ramifications for India and other parts of Asia," said Clarke.
Central banks in Brazil and India have been forced to take action to shore up their currencies; Turkey and Indonesia also look vulnerable. Many of these markets have looked calmer in recent weeks, but the concrete fact of tapering could set off a fresh panic.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

It means that "Germany" and UE needs more money - to be transferred via the Marshall plan - still alive..

The Federal Reserve announced no change to its program of monthly asset purchases designed to stimulate the economy. The central bank will continue to buy mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month and longer-term Treasury securities at a pace of $45 billion per month. "The Committee decided to await more evidence that progress will be sustained before adjusting the pace of its purchases," the central bank said in a statement.
The news sent markets through the ceiling. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had been concerned that the central bank would take the economy off life support, hit an all-time high on the announcement. 
• However the decision to maintain the stimulus pointed to a diagnosis on the part of the Fed of sustained, underlying economic weakness. In June, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke said the central bank may begin tapering its asset purchases. There was no sign of such talk today, three months later.
• Bernanke said that unemployment was lower but not low enough (the Fed has set a 6.5% benchmark) and growth is up but not far enough. Bernanke said the current unemployment rate of 7.3% "understates the amount of true unemployment in the economy" because of cyclical and demographic trends.
• The news floored analysts and reporters, who reminded Fed chair Ben Bernanke that as recently as June he was talking about "tapering" quantitative easing. "I don't recall stating that we would do any particular thing in this meeting," he replied.
• Bernanke said the economy continued to show signs of recovery, and sectors closest to the QE program – housing and autos – showed some of the best improvement. "There has been a lot of progress," he said. "Labor market indicators are much better today than they were when we began... more than a year ago."
• Bernanke warned of the potential "very serious consequences for financial markets and the economy" if the country defaults on debt or if the federal government has to shut down due to a congressional failure to reach a budget deal.