Blog
|
|
May
7
Written by:
bobo
5/7/2009 9:56 AM
In mercantilism, which is the approach to economics and
government that typified Europe's history from about 1500 through 1850 or so,
governments operated according to imperatives that accumulated the most power and
money for the governments (then the kings and royal families), as well as for the
loyal supporters/special interests of the ruling class; usually the bankers and
the industrialists of their times.
This approach was rooted in the Dark Ages and resulted in such wonders as the Hundred Year
War, etc.
Basically, all capital above that required by the population to subsist went into the
treasury's coffers, and all policy was designed to enrich the ruling elite at
the expense of the population, as well as all other nations. Monopolies were
frequent, where the outsized profits to be had from being granted exclusive rights
to do things like trade with certain regions, or import things, or operate
certain businesses, were reserved for those closely aligned with the ruling
party or group.
This economic trend resulted in very little progress during that long period,
as there was virtually no capital available for development of technologies or
processes that would result in greater productivity, and thus lower costs for
goods, and thus more available surplus capital for further reinvestment.
Wealth was viewed as a zero sum game, where another country had to lose wealth
in order for your country to get more - or the population had to lose wealth
for the ruling elite to gain more. It was the primary driving force behind the
constant wars that plagued Europe for almost 500 years, and for the
miserable standard of living for all but the most elite. Wealth was
concentrated in a few hands, and that wealth tended to grow generationally, as
did the wealth of the nation operated to mercantilist ends. Everyone
else suffered, except for the families with the most lucrative monopolies.
That mercantilist trend fell apart and was replaced by classical economic
theory in a loose form, wherein it was understood that free trade, an absence
of monopolies, and very low or no taxes were the road to elevating global
prosperity, as well as national prosperity. As more countries took to behaving in
an import/export friendly manner, general prosperity surged, as goods and
services found their natural levels based upon real world supply and demand, as
opposed to monopolistic protectionism, which in turn freed up capital to invest in inventing or building better mousetraps, which ensured natural
evolution based upon merit rather than government edict or collusion, which in
turn fostered increased competition and thus better/faster/cheaper innovations
of all sorts.
Global prosperity blossomed during this golden period of humanity's habitation
of the planet, and things like the industrial revolution became feasible due to
all the capital seeking improved or more profitable ways of building or doing
things. The world's overall standard of living increased as never before
imagined and countless new industries were spawned even as less efficient ones
fell by the wayside. Simply put, because the money wasn't being hoarded by the
monarchies or the monopolists, more capital was available for productive and
innovative pursuits, which in turn created more industries, GDP, and individual
prosperity.
Monopolists and mercantilists hated this period, and fought very hard to regain
control, generally via controlling the banking systems, as well as controlling
the governments via those banking systems. The favored vehicle was the central
bank, which could create booms and busts based upon monetary tinkering - great
for all those in the loop on when the next boom or bust would happen, bad for
everyone else. The other favored mechanisms were tax policy, and tariffs. The
more money pulled out of circulation via taxes and used to increase government
power and wealth, the less money available to invest in productive enterprises.
With tariffs, the sole reason for having them was to protect nationalist
monopolies by making imports uncompetitive. This tariff game always resulted in
lower growth and GDP, as other countries would immediately reciprocate any
protectionism with protectionism of their own. It was an ugly, destructive
spiral that only served monopolist/mercantilist interests, and always hurt the
general population (requiring everyone to pay more than they should for goods
and services, had more competitive imports not been hampered with tariff
loads).
All interesting, but what does that have to do with stress tests, and the price
of tea in 2009?
Well, basically everything.
You see, we are now back to overt mercantilism in the U.S., having abandoned
the hard-fought lessons that made the nation such a powerhouse. Classical
economics was replaced by Keynesian economics, which could better be called
mercantilist apologetic economics. The actions of the Fed to this day are
driven by Keynesian principles, long since debunked. And yet this flawed
pseudo-science is what is used as the pretense for operating the country in a
mercantilist fashion - see if this sounds familiar - where the nation's
policies are created for the protection of a few banking and industrialist
elite, as well as increasing the power of the government, at the direct expense
of everyone else; the population, trading partners, allies and enemies alike.
Another aspect of mercantilism is booms and busts, where any retained wealth of
the masses left over after taxing everything to the maximum possible is redistributed
to the special interests for whom the country is run. In our case, we have a
central bank swinging interest rates and money supply around to supposedly
stabilize things and prevent catastrophic recessions and excessive speculation,
and yet since the Fed was created those gyrations have taken place as never
before imagined. Either they are the worst in the history of the universe at
what they do, or their rhetoric doesn't match their actions.
So here we are. We had a mini-crash of the same magnitude of the 1929 crash
with the Dot Com bust (making incredible fortunes for those with forewarning of the impending collapse), we had an incredibly ill-advised credit-driven
speculative frenzy in real estate with ensuing collapse, and we had the mother
of all manipulative wealth destroyers, a derivatives boom and now bust.
What's interesting is how overt the game is now. We understand, in plain view,
how Wall Street's special interests have taken over the US government, looting
the Treasury as they like, while the government pretends to regulate their
masters. Every day it becomes more stark. Banks are subjected to "stress
tests" that tell us what we already know - they're insolvent, and require
we, the taxpayers, to take our money that we worked hard to earn, and
distribute it to uncompetitive monopolies that are "too big to fail", being operated by the same thugs who destroyed the financial system. We are rewarding the worst, and penalizing the productive and competitive.
Billionaire hedge fund managers make as much as guys who had to invent world
class software or cures for diseases or build empires over their lifetimes -
all by capitalizing on government refusal to regulate them, and by their juice
in being able to game markets along with their NY banking buddies. We are
rewarding those who have destroyed the US financial system by giving them
whatever they want or claim to need, even when most of the population doesn't
want our money given to them. Because it doesn't matter what we want. They own
the politicians who are voting against their constituents' wishes. They bought and
paid for them. Simple, really.
So now trillions of dollars won't be available to invest in curing
cancer, or creating a more prosperous nation, or building better/faster/cheaper
solutions. That money has instead been distributed to the un-competitive
banking monopolies, whose managements treat the taxpayer as so many ignorant
sheep. There won't be nearly as much capital available to build a more
prosperous world, because that money isn't in the hands of productive,
competitive folks whose incentive is competition in a fair market. It is
instead concentrated in the hands of a few powerful and rich elite, who have no
interest in any sort of fairness or general prosperity. In fact, general
prosperity is antipodal to mercantilist interests, as in a depression those
with all the money can buy things for fractions of pennies on the dollar,
whereas in good times they have to pay fair value.
So the power elite pretends to be focused on reform and fairness, but all our
money gets redistributed to the power elite. The rhetoric doesn't match the
actions.
The stress tests are just more smoke screen for yet more wealth redistribution.
The short answer is, a small number of incredibly powerful and influential,
for-profit financial institutions need yet more of the nation's net worth, and
they will get it, as they own the government, which has no intentions of saying
no to their paying owners.
Any questions?
Copyright ©2009 Bob O'Brien
Tags:
19 comment(s) so far...
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Yup, quite the crock. Does anybody still believe these fools in a way that they would risk trusting in them? Only the dim and uninformed, and there are plenty of them to go around... they are counting on that.
By CMElec on
5/9/2009 12:08 AM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Here's a good one. The inspector general tasked with overseeing and auditing the Federal Reserve knows pretty much nothing about what the Fed is doing. check this out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/fed-inspector-general-kno_n_197934.html
By JLB on
5/9/2009 7:47 AM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Tell me this wasn't orchestrated at the highest levels. BD's didn't have enough liquidity to cover all the securties fails, so they shorted treasuries for some cash, then the Fed printed money to cover the treasuries... no?
http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/05/naked-short-selling-treasury-settlement.html
And look at the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Assets_of_Federal_Reserve_Banks_from_1996-2009.jpg
By mhelburn on
5/9/2009 8:49 PM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Others are paying attention and understanding finally
How the SEC Can Level the Playing Field 12 comments
by: Frank McMorrow May 10, 2009 | about stocks: DIA / EGLE / FAZ / LDK / QQQQ / SKF / SPY
Frank McMorrow
Follow
I have reviewed the proposals that the SEC has under study to limit the destruction caused by shorting.
I have witnessed over the past year the terrible destruction of American’s retirement plans by the outright greed among those in power who manipulate the world financial systems. Over the years, our government has made it attractive for Americans to invest their hard earned savings in the “market”, by approving various instruments like 401Ks, IRAs, and mutual funds.
A speech by the former president in 2004 further encouraged all Americans to invest their retirement money in such a manner. Skyrocketing indices lured the unsuspecting investors. Inflation after the turn of the century, although not officially reported, again pushed people to find greater and greater returns. Sadly, all of the investments by the misled American public were fodder for the market manipulators, the very people that the SEC was set up protect the American public from.
The SEC has failed to fulfill its duties to this country and should by shut down. It is as if the SEC is protecting the information about the abuses from the people of this once great nation. If the public understood what really goes on, a second great revolution would surely be on the table.
This SEC has the chance to reverse the catastrophe caused by the inaction of the previous administration’s appointees and “stand” with the People of the United States and not against it. It must move aggressively to prevent the pillage of American wealth by a few powerful people, who have influence, lack of regard for rule of law, and privileged positions of great wealth and power.
The following are ways that the SEC can level the playing field for all Americans:
Those that short must account for theirs shares within three days period. Counterfeiting shares (naked shorting) is a crime. It is so obvious every day that the SEC is “blind” to this. Look at shares of LDK and EGLE to name just two obvious examples.
If shorting is used to manipulate, it must be stopped. A strong uptick rule is necessary.
ETFs like the SKF must be banned. Proshares TripleX ETFs which allow triple leverage must be banned. They skirt the margin rules and drive company values down just for profit.
Pre and post market is where most of the damage is done – such trading should be eliminated. Trading by the privileged before pre-market opens allows even greater manipulation.
The current SEC is the last great hope to right a terrible wrong brought on the American people. The clock is ticking. Soon the retirement of the “baby boomer” generation will weigh on this economy. If their retirement portfolios are not brought back to whole, the unemployment of the young will only increase and bring great unrest to this country.
This kind of unrest leads to violence and revolution. We have seen this many times in history. Do not play the “Marie Antoinette” card. Do the right thing no matter how unpopular it is with those who have power. It is time to re-enact some protection rules and enforce rules that you already have.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/136772-how-the-sec-can-level-the-playing-field
By Sean on
5/11/2009 9:34 AM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Mary, it's worse than that.
CDS allow speculators to run down the price of the companies that the CDS' are written on - the banks or insurance compaines selling the CDS immediately NSS to hedge their exposure from the CDS, so when Goldman sells a ton of CDS, they then naked short sell many millions of shares to hedge, which then drives down the price of the company, even as Goldman continues to sell the CDS. It costs far less to buy CDS than any other mechanism I can think of for creating synthetic NSS. And because the banks are the largest campaign contributors of Congress, nobody is going to just make CDS illegal - they will instead allow the complete destruction of the country and our financial system, so the speculators and banks can pocket all the resultant cash to be made by cratering things.
And more alarmingly, while in the papers the government wrings their hands about the banks not lending, nobody has reported that the reason they aren't lending is because the Fed began paying interest on deposits for the first time in history when the TARP bill passed. That means that banks are encouraged not to lend, and instead hoard their cash at the fed, as they will make risk free interest whereas before it was dead money.
That means that the second element of a depression is in place - the tightening of the real world money supply by constraining lending and investment, even as taxes take more out of circulation each pass. So out comes taxes, the money is sent to the banks instead of reinvested wisely, and the banks hoard the money or pay off CDS bets so GS and Citi can make billions in bonuses, and so the chinese and saudis can profit from the destruction of the nation's financial system, and then buy everything for pennies when it is completely destroyed - along with the banks who hoarded all the cash.
Does everyone get this? Tighten in the real world while talking about creating massive liquidity - you say one thing, and then do another. By paying interest, the Fed has ensured that no bank will lend any more than absolutely necessary. Taxpayers pay the interest the Fed decided to pay themselves (their member banks). Money is pulled out of circulation by taxes during a period that requires financial stimulus, and the politicians pretend they don't know why liquidity dries up, resulting in deflation and its inevitable drop in all asset values.
It is the destruction of the modern financial system so a few special interests can wind up with most of the planet's money.
By bobo on
5/11/2009 9:45 AM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Great stuff, bunny. I know a lot of history buffs who can name the officers and their tactics in every war this country has fought. From the feedback I get after forwarding them your posts I can tell they know a war when they see one even if there is no bullets flying overhead.
By oldfeller on
5/12/2009 6:24 AM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Bobo,
I am very glad to hear your explaination of the destruction of the economic engine that was America.
I was begining to think I was the only one to see it.
I was worried that that I was the one with a problem because if there is a elephant in the room that only you can see the authoritys tend to lock you up as a danger to society.
Thank you for confirming that you see the elephant as well.
I hope we don't both end up in a 'safe' place.
By bbhindyou on
5/12/2009 6:25 AM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Bob,is this good naked short selling or bad?
DENDREON CORP 424B5 5/11/2009
Stabilizing transactions consist of bids or purchases made for the purpose of preventing or retarding a decline in the market price of our common stock while this offering is in progress. Stabilizing transactions may include making short sales of our common stock, which involves the sale by the underwriter of a greater number of shares of common stock than it is required to purchase in this offering, and purchasing shares of common stock from us or on the open market to cover positions created by short sales. Short sales may be “covered” shorts, which are short positions in an amount not greater than the underwriter’s option to purchase additional shares referred to above, or may be “naked” shorts, which are short positions in excess of that amount. Syndicate covering transactions involve purchases of our common stock in the open market after the distribution has been completed in order to cover syndicate short positions.
The underwriter may close out any covered short position either by exercising its option to purchase additional shares, in whole or in part, or by purchasing shares in the open market. In making this determination, the underwriter will consider, among other things, the price of shares available for purchase in the open market compared to the price at which the underwriter may purchase shares as referred to above.
A naked short position is more likely to be created if the underwriter is concerned that there may be downward pressure on the price of the common stock in the open market that could adversely affect investors who purchased in this offering. To the extent that the underwriter creates a naked short position, it will purchase shares in the open market to cover the position.
These activities may have the effect of raising or maintaining the market price of our common stock or preventing or retarding a decline in the market price of our common stock. As a result of these activities, the price of our common stock may be higher than the price that otherwise might exist in the open market. If the underwriter commences these activities, it may discontinue them at any time. The underwriter may carry out these transactions on the Nasdaq Global Market, in the over-the-counter market or otherwise.
By Gilliganisland on
5/15/2009 4:29 PM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Change is acomin..slowly but surely..MAYBE!!!
Grassley issues PR on SEC
He also can't believe no SEC officials were flogged on the plaza for their Aguirre crime.
For Immediate Release
May 12, 2009
Grassley reforms in place at the SEC
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today said he was glad to get a report from Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Schapiro that reforms he recommended almost two years ago, after investigating claims that an SEC lawyer had been fired for protesting a decision to give special treatment to a Wall Street CEO, have been implemented by the SEC.
Grassley said that investors and the marketplace should benefit from these changes, which standardize procedures, prioritize resources, increase transparency of external communications and internal recusals, establish guidelines for handling employee complaints and dismissals, protect whistleblowers and recognize the independence of the Inspector General for the SEC.
"The case that resulted in the 2007 report was a violation of the public trust by the agency that's supposed to protect investors and maintain a fair market," Grassley said. "The fact that the recommendations have been put in place, and most of it done before this year, is encouraging, even while it's still hard to believe that no SEC official was ever held accountable for the misconduct in the Pequot Capital Management case."
Grassley asked for a report on the status of the recommendations he made in August 2007, in a report issued with Senator Arlen Specter, during Senate debate last month regarding an amendment to give the SEC additional money for enforcement. A copy of the detailed accounting from the Chairman is posted here and http://finance.senate.gov.
In the letter, which was delivered on Friday, Schapiro wrote, "I take very seriously the charge that I have been given to restore the SEC's reputation and credibility as the investors' watchdog. I also know that this can only occur if this organization is managed in such a way that employees are supported in the work that they do, are engaged toward a clear and common mission, and accept the need for greater transparency and accountability that is part of public service."
The news release below describes the additional resources approved by the Senate for the SEC and the Inspector General of the SEC in anti-fraud legislation sponsored by Grassley that passed the Senate last month. The House recently passed the Senate bill with some amendments. The House version is now awaiting action by the full Senate. The August 2007 report by Grassley and Specter is posted at http://finance.senate.gov. Click on legislation, then scroll down Legislative Archives. Click there and go to the document dated August 3, 2007.
For Immediate Release
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Grassley works to protect investors and free market by strengthening SEC watchdog
Senator secures commitment from commissioner to respond to 2007 wrongdoing
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley said the agreement he reached today with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York will give the Inspector General for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) an additional $1 million for each of the next two fiscal years to oversee the work of the agency charged with protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation.
"The public deserves ongoing rigorous, independent oversight of the SEC," Grassley said. "Congress has dropped the ball with SEC oversight, and even the former Inspector General failed in his important role. The good news is the current Inspector General for the SEC has demonstrated a commitment to policing the agency and identifying problems that have repercussions for every American. We ought to dedicate more resources to this effort, and especially if Congress is going to give the SEC itself more money."
The new funding for the SEC Inspector General and the SEC is part of pending legislation sponsored by Grassley and Senator Patrick Leahy to fight fraud against the taxpayer-funded bailout of America's financial system and to strengthen the federal False Claims Act, under which updates sponsored by Grassley in 1986 have recovered $22 billion for the U.S. Treasury that would otherwise have been lost to fraud.
Grassley successfully made the case that some of the new resources Schumer sought for the SEC in this broad-based legislation should go to beef up the SEC's watchdog, especially given recent failures by senior SEC enforcement officials, the SEC's culture of deference to Wall Street and the agency's failure to identify market abuses, including Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme against investors.
In addition, Grassley won a commitment today from the SEC Chairman, Mary L. Shapiro, to report on complete implementation of recommendations made in August 2007 by Grassley and Senator Arlen Specter, based on their investigation which documented how an SEC lawyer was fired for protesting special treatment by the SEC of a Wall Street CEO.
"It's pretty unbelieveable that the SEC has refused to hold anyone accountable for the misconduct in this case, which was verified by two independent inquiries," Grassley said. "I appreciate the new Commissioner's commitment to taking action, and look forward to her reform on May 8."
A copy of the April 23, 2009, letter from Shapiro to Grassley is posted with this news release at http://grassley.senate.gov and http://finance.senate.gov. A copy of the August 2007 report completed by Grassley and Specter, titled "The Firing of an SEC Attorney and the Investigation of Pequot Capital Management," is posted at http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG 2007/Leg 110 080307 SEC.pdf.
Under the Grassley-Schumer agreement, the Inspector General would receive $1 million in 2010 and 2011, or $2 million total. The SEC would receive $20 million in 2010 and 2011, or $40 million total. The total cost of the amendment is $42 million over two years.
The overall bill, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (S.386), is being debated by the Senate this week.
http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=20696#
By Sean on
5/15/2009 4:28 PM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Mercantalism did not cause the Dark Ages--by your own definition, mercantalism only started during the Renaissance in 1400! Mercantalism also did not simply benefit the rich, it was simply the system by which trade occured. Countries within the empire suffered no protectionist barriers to trade; countires had high tarriffs for everyone else. And then there is the fact that mercantalism really continued all the way until WWI, because while trade did occur between countries, the tendency was to trade on mercantalistic prinicples--thus the divvying up of Africa by European imperialism in the late 19th century.
By RT on
5/15/2009 4:30 PM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
There isn't anything inherently bad about either mercantalism or free trade--they are just different ways of responding to the world economically. When countries feel relatively safe, and the world is generally at peace, free trade is profitable and a prefered system. When countries feel guarded when the international system inclines toward defense, then mercantalist tendencies prevail. On the large scale, its not so much a choice we have, as general human nature.
By RT on
5/15/2009 4:31 PM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
And mercantilism is not a boom-bust cycle: free trade is. Or did you forget that the great depression originated under a system of free trade?
And honestly--the banks are behind this, and are doing this to make money? Do you know of ANY bank that has made real money over the past year? Seriously? Why is it people always blame special interests for these things? Why do they always have to make the reason behind things so complicated--economics is just about the transaction of goods and services behind human. What humans naturally do, they also do in economics.
By RT on
5/15/2009 4:31 PM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
RT, I am short on time so don't take my limited response as lack of interest, rather a limited travel schedule with infrequent access to the PC.
To your last point, the easiest, the Depression came about due to the enaction of Smoot-Hawley and its wildly high protectionist tariffs in 1929, signalling an end to the free trade that had been the nation's stance for years before, as well as due to Hoover'r radically increasing the tax rates in 32. Basically, we went from relatively free trade to a massive money tightening period where mercantilist policies took over the nation's approach, ending the prosperity of the earlier period.
Look at the timing of the passage of Smoot Hawley on the floor - not the signing, but rather the timing of the floor votes. It's passage signaled an end to relatively free trade and an era of nationalism and protectionsim - the end of classical economics.
While many economists try to present the Depression's causes as due to misplaced faith in the gold standard, or feeble minded economic theories of roosevelt, the truth is that the depression was lengthened due to a disastrous tightening of the money supply via devaluation, increased margin requirements at banks, quadrupling of the tax rate for the bottom rung (the equivalent of $180K in today's dollars), massive and deliberate tax increases, etc.
Why blame the banks? Gee. I don't know. And I am not just blaming the banks. Guys like Kennedy weren't a bank, and yet he did pretty well during the 20's running stock pools, alongside percy rockefeller. It's more the entrenched money elite I am blaming - generationally acquired wealth that's constantly striving to have more, more, more, at the direct expense of the population.
Does that sound familiar in today's environment? NY money players making the government dance to their bidding, looting the treasury as the nation goes into depression, higher taxes on the way, anti-free trade talk rumbling, failed Keynesian theories still touted as legit by bureaucrats seeking a thin reed upon which to base their servile actions...
Mercantilism as a human tendency - i.e. the abuse of power for self-enrichment, cloaked in a veil of nationalism, indeed developed during the Dark Ages as the preferred marriage of state and special interests. It just became formalized and perfected during the Renaissance.
As to the "which banks are making money" canard, that's a strawman. The personalities behind the banks have made plenty of money, as have the hedge funds run by their buds. If the 300 rich white guys in NY who really run the financial system make gazillions, who cares if the vessels they use to drain the treasury throw a profit this year? You deliberately misconstrue my point.
By bobo on
5/15/2009 5:14 PM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
great piece bobo...
It was so significant that a man like John Hancock gave everything up because the founders recognized what was wrong, and put their own necks on the block to free us from the system and the central bank. So sad how short lived this freedom was.
We don't have real kings and queens anymore, but who is in charge anyway?
By tmg on
5/17/2009 10:02 AM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
RT:
In 1939, Keynes was asked whether the world had ever experienced anything like the Great Depression. He answered "Yes, it was called the Dark Ages and it lasted 500 years."
The economic system of the Dark Ages was mercantilism. Commerce benefited only friends/supporters of the king, or whoever the despot was. Monopolies for the king's friends. No competition from the little people, who were charged all they could earn for necessities.
As commoners gained political rights, they got also the right to compete. The more they competed, the better the products, prices and standard of living for themselves and other commoners. The Middle Class grew and became real competition for the elites.
Now, I ask you, how can you possibly frame those two economic systems as morally and economically equivalent? Why would you do so? The scale of evil mercantilism has done to the world is far worse than merely shocking. And yet you make multiple posts stating falsehood after falsehood, attempting to spread doubt and confusion on behalf of that awful cabal which steals and impoverishes in order to rule the world. Surely you are not so misled as to believe the arguments you presented.
By n-tres-ted on
5/18/2009 10:01 AM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Someone needs to convey to Dave Patch that Harry Markoplos has already called Mary Shapiro and FINRA "Corrupt" in his testimony to congress!!
Here is the video that proves my above statement!! It occurs at around the 3:50 mark of the clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soy96dRjwZs&feature=related
Here is the Letter from Dave to Ms. Shapiro.
From: David Patch
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:58 PM
To: schapirom@sec.gov; 'aguilarlu@sec.gov'; 'waltere@sec.gov'; 'paredest@sec.gov'; 'Kathy Casey (caseyk@sec.gov)'
Cc: 'beckerd@sec.gov'; 'khuzamir@sec.gov'; 'brigaglianoj@sec.gov'
Subject: OIG Investigations into Top SEC Officials
Chairman Schapiro,
The SEC is under attack for not only failing to address market fraud but now for internal ethical lapses including insider trading, abuse of position (Florence Harmon), and perjury in a memo to Congress and in a court appearance. Those involved were not new hires within the agency but seasoned veterans. What will come of these allegations? How many more conflicted SEC attorneys’ are there walking the halls of the SEC?
In the termination of Gary Aguirre Director Linda Thomsen along with several of her top staff were accused of a cover-up to protect Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack. Thomsen has since resigned but her staff remains in key positions despite the recommendations of Congress and the OIG. The SEC is being sued for wrongful termination by Gary Aguirre as a result of the very public exposure to this.
The top SEC Official under investigation for perjury in a letter to a senator is James Brigagliano, co-Acting Director of the Division of Trading and Markets. The letter in question involved allegations of short sale abuse and a half-dozen e-Mails from Broker-Dealers and clearing firms expressing concern over their inability to settle trades. Instead of investigating the root cause of these e-Mails, then associate Director James Brigagliano attempted to mislead the Senator (Paul Sarbanes of Sarbanes-Oxley) by implying that the April 2003 e-Mails were attributed to a June 2004 corporate action taken by the issuer.
1. How are e-Mails written 14 months prior to a corporate action being attributed in any way with that action?
2. To what extent did Mr. Brigagliano investigate the issues presented by Senate Banking Committee Member Senator Paul Sarbanes?
3. Why did Mr. Brigagliano and his staff choose not to investigate the issue presented and why did they choose to simply pass it off so casually as something else?
4. How many other type circumstances has Mr. Brigagliano been presented where he manufactured a response into actually investigating the issue being presented?
5. Is this example of possible perjury the real underlying reason as to why 5000 complaints in a one year period involving naked short abuses ignored, the members of the Commission dismissed the possibilities?
6. How do these automatic dismissals compare to the automatic dismissals of Bernie Madoff complaints and Stanford complaints of possible ponzi schemes?
7. to what extent can the public trust the SEC’s policies towards short sale abuses when the decision making is being conducted by clearly conflicted individuals? The OEA and Market regulation have preconceived opinions on the matter and no evidence presented against those preconceived opinions has resulted in change.
Chairman Schapiro, you are in a no-win situation. You inherited a turd when you took the office of Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Today you must somehow take charge and convert this turd into something of respect. I would request that to start with, Mr. Brigagliano be recused from any decision making and policy making relative to short sales. If the allegations are proven accurate he has a clear and undeniable conflict of interest in this matter and the public has no confidence in his ability to overcome those biases. I am appalled that such disturbing allegations and evidence is available and yet the Commission responds with promotion instead of demotion or termination. It is time the SEC finds out why Mr. Brigagliano denied the Senator and the investors involved the courtesy of finding the real cuase to these e-mails.
For a copy of the evidence against James Brigagliano please look here:
http://investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/123
I am aware of the SEC’s review of this data recently through analysis of site hits so there is no denial of the awareness to this evidence.
Dave Patch
By Sean on
5/20/2009 5:42 AM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Seems that President Obama may already be aware that Mary Shapiro is also corrupt!!
U.S. May Strip SEC of Powers in Regulatory Overhaul
May 20 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration may call for stripping the Securities and Exchange Commission of some of its powers under a regulatory reorganization that could be unveiled as soon as next week, people familiar with the matter said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ai_W.obsRhmg&refer=h...
By Sean on
5/21/2009 7:57 PM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic won't solve anything. Stripping the SEC of power is hardly a substitute for forcing it to police effectively, and prosecuting those within the commission who have rendered it a joke. There's no need to abolish the SEC if it was doing its job, and there's no reason that the act of stripping it of power will amount to anything but an excuse for why the new new thing hasn't gotten control of Wall Street.
If you think of the entire thing as a game, where the bad guys run the game and are constantly trying to convince the sheep that they don't, of course there would be endless calls for new measures and heightened awareness and fresh solutions, when the actual fix is so simple - follow the law as expressed in the 33 and 34 Acts, and enforce the law by punishing violators. But no. Instead, move all the chairs to the bow, and then act surprised when criminal activity runs rampant at the stern.
Puhleeese. That they believe we are this stupid is shocking. Then again, maybe we are. Many seem to be buying it, as they are buying the whole "the recession will soon be over" bit.
PT Barnum must be jumping for joy in the afterlife.
By bobo on
5/21/2009 8:03 PM
|
Re: Stress Tests? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......hoooooohhhhhh.....
GM stock now null and void.
How much company issued real stock existed and how much stock was sold?
The world will never know.
The counterfieters made a bundle off of this and not one word from our leaders or regulators about it.
What company is next?
THIS MUST STOP.
By bbhindyou on
6/5/2009 7:26 AM
|
|
|
|