Monday, October 31, 2011

FDIC Commits Premeditated Suicide w/ New Coverages? $BAC #ows

I wonder if these changes coincidentally cover Bank of America's latest $75 TRILLION swap from the investment banking side to the depositor's side.



...All funds in a "non-interest-bearing transaction account" are insured in full by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from December 31, 2010, through December 31, 2012. This temporary unlimited coverage is in addition to, and separate from, the coverage of at least $250,000 available to depositors under the FDIC's general deposit insurance rules....



Temporary UNLIMITED coverage?

Amplify’d from www.chase.com

Enjoy greater peace of mind with FDIC insurance
on your Chase deposit accounts.





NOTICE OF CHANGES IN TEMPORARY FDIC INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR TRANSACTION ACCOUNTS


All funds in a "non-interest-bearing transaction account" are insured in full by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from December 31, 2010, through December 31, 2012. This temporary unlimited coverage is in addition to, and separate from, the coverage of at least $250,000 available to depositors under the FDIC's general deposit insurance rules.


The term "non-interest-bearing transaction account" includes a traditional checking account or demand deposit account on which the insured depository institution pays no interest. It also includes Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts ("IOLTAs"). It does not include other accounts, such as traditional checking or demand deposit accounts that may earn interest, NOW accounts, and money-market deposit accounts.


For more information about temporary FDIC insurance coverage of transaction accounts, visit
www.fdic.gov.Weblinking Practices footnote

Read more at www.chase.com
 

Fracking Issues Clarify America's Dependency & Desperation on Energy

Clearly Congress, the EPA, and the Whitehouse are sacrificing their own citizens health, wealth, and ways of life as well as food supplies, and water supplies, for the near term energy needs of marco economics.

Amplify’d from www.cnbc.com

Drilling Debate in Cooperstown Turns Personal

Published:
Sunday, 30 Oct 2011 | 4:37 PM ET
By: Peter Applebome
The New York Times

The letter that arrived in Kim Jastremski’s mailbox on County Highway 52 suggested that she stop protesting the possibility of natural gas drilling. It seemed more of a threat than a request.

Computer-generated, unsigned and sent to about 10 other opponents of a practice known as fracking, it compared them to Nazis and said they were being watched while picking up their children at school in their minivans.

hydraulic fracturing process
Robert Nickelsberg | Getty Images

hydraulic fracturing process

Jennifer Huntington’s abuse is more public, like comments online suggesting that people find out where her dairy sells its milk so that they can stop buying it, or the warning that her farm, which has a lease with a gas company, “will fall like a house of cards when your water is poisoned.”

She and other drilling proponents have also been called “sellout landowners that prostitute themselves for money.”

The debate over horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the injection of huge quantities of chemically treated water underground to free up natural gas, has become increasingly contentious across the Eastern United States, with dozens of communities passing or considering bans.

But that ill will often takes its most intimate form in small towns and rural areas like this one, best known as the home of baseball’s Hall of Fame, where fracking has emerged as the defining, non-negotiable political issue.

The dispute has pitted neighbor against neighbor, and has often set people who live in suburbs or villages against the farmers and landowners who live outside them. The discord is compounded by hard times on both sides and by communication online giving everyone instant access to limitless information confirming their point of view.

And if gas companies have the power and money, fracking opponents, who are concerned about ecological threats like the possible contamination of drinking water, often have the numbers and the intensity to dominate local discourse. “There’s no arguing with a person who is opposed to hydrofracking,” said Bill Michaels, a councilman in the Town of Otsego, which includes parts of Cooperstown.

After waiting to take a position, he eventually supported changes to the town’s land-use law that would prohibit fracking, but he still faces opposition from a slate of antifracking candidates. “There is no debate or conversation,” he added. “This is so important to so many people it’s pretty much hijacked everything else.”

The state plans to hold hearings in November before issuing final regulations on gas drilling, and the first gas wells drilled under the new rules could be possible next year.

As it turns out, despite the furor here, the Marcellus Shale, a vast rock formation under New York, Pennsylvania and other states, is so shallow near Cooperstown it is not clear how much gas would be available and what kind of drilling would take place here. And no one expects that fracking will ever come to Cooperstown itself.

Still, at the top of the Village of Cooperstown’s Web site is a statement recommending a statewide ban on gas drilling and fracking. Middlefield, the other town that includes parts of the Village of Cooperstown, was one of the first municipalities to ban gas drilling through changes to its master plan and zoning.

More than 30 antifracking candidates are running for office in Otsego County in November.

The dispute is also running like an electric current through everyday life. Ms. Jastremski, who five years ago moved back to family-owned land when her husband became an English professor at the State University of New York at Oneonta, thought she had found the perfect place to raise her two children, replete with chicken coops, bee hives and a vegetable garden.

But as she became aware of leases that would allow drilling for gas on various properties in the area, she became increasingly wrapped up in fracking politics. Now, she says, she stays up at night crying over what she sees as the possibility of polluted water, an industrialized landscape and having to leave her home as its value plummets. She said she understood the economic pressures facing some farmers, but could not excuse people who want drilling on their land.

“I think even if individuals here are not incredibly greedy, they are being sucked into a corporate greed that’s at work in our country,” she said. “They’re seeing dollar signs everywhere, and they’re not seeing the bigger picture that they’re harming their neighbors.”

Ms. Jastremski, 43, who has a Ph.D. in Slavic Studies and works as a technical writer, says she is uncomfortable with the discord surrounding the issue, like a clash she had at the gym with another mother who stood to gain from a gas lease, but feels she has no choice but to be vocal.

Ms. Huntington, 49, became a lightning rod when her Cooperstown Holstein Corporation, which includes a 379-acre farm with 500 head of dairy cattle, sued the Town of Middlefield seeking to overturn its drilling ban. The suit, filed in September, argues that only the state can ban fracking.

Before that, she decided her daughter should no longer attend the same middle school Ms. Huntington had attended as a girl. She said she acted partly because of antifracking activism in the schools, including a movement to ban fracking on school grounds, and the demographic changes that she said made a dairy farmer’s daughter feel out of place. “I knew as time went by it wasn’t going to be a comfortable place for her,” she said.

Like many farmers, she sees the drilling opponents as largely comfortable urbanites in an area increasingly home to retirees and second-home owners who know nothing about the economics of farming and little about the safety of drilling.

She cites the methane digester her family introduced in 1984, which used manure to produce natural gas that was used in part to heat the county nursing home, or the co-generation unit added to it seven years later that produced electricity for the farm.

“This land and my family are my life,” Ms. Huntington said. “We probably use three to four million gallons of water to feed my cows. I’m not going to spoil something I need to make my living and for future generations to come.”

Proponents of fracking say that many farmers are on the verge of losing their property.

“The term we use is pastoral poverty,” she said. “You have farmers trying to hold on to land that’s been in their family for 100 to 200 years. People like the landscape, but it’s people living in poverty who are maintaining what they like to look at.”

But many businesses fear an industrialized landscape that would be antithetical to the tourism Cooperstown depends on.

Opponents have suggested a boycott of businesses that do not oppose fracking, and have circulated reports via e-mail identifying cars or trucks possibly involved in gas leasing that have been seen at their neighbors’ residences. And some farmers say fracking could ruin them. Siobhan Griffin, an organic dairy farmer, cited a letter from the Park Slope Food Co-op in New York City saying its members would not shop from any area that allows fracking.

Many drilling proponents, meanwhile, say the professionals and retirees drawn to the area have become antigrowth fanatics, opposing a once-a-year music festival proposed in nearby Springfield, wind turbines proposed for Cherry Valley, even additional Little League fields.

Indeed, people on both sides say the ill will probably goes beyond fracking.

“At one time, people in Cooperstown could disagree, but it was never personal,” said Catherine Ellsworth, who writes a column in a local weekly newspaper and supports drilling. “Now it’s more like they want what they want, and that’s it. There’s no sense we’re in this together. But I guess that’s not just here. Society has changed, and Cooperstown has changed along with it.”


This story originally appeared in The New York Times
Read more at www.cnbc.com
 

Sunday, October 30, 2011

World Running Out of Water for the 99% #ows

what people do not yet recognize is that there will be millions of people in Europe, China, India, the USA, and Mexico that will be without water. Those that are in the 1% will continue to have it, those that are not will kill each other trying to get it.

Amplify’d from 247wallst.com

World Running Out of Water

Posted: October 28, 2011 at 6:30 am

The world is low on water, from the standpoint of supply needed for human use, and the problem has grown rapidly. Worse still, the problem has no ready solution — and probably has no solution at all.

The World Resources Institute predicts that “By 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living in water-scarce countries or regions, with alarming implications for human wellbeing and global security.” Much of this water will be needed to irrigate crops. That makes the problem a dual one — water for drinking and water for food.

The institute blames developed nations for the overuse of water. That may be true, but a solution assumes that water is portable. It is not, at least not from continent to continent. Water in the U.S. cannot be transported in any significant amount to Africa.

This lack of transportability, along with droughts that already ravaged some parts of the most populated nations, creates a problem that cannot be made better. It is tempting to say that all problems of poverty and famine can be solved, but that is not true from any practical standpoint. Parts of Africa and Asia will be nearly barren of crops in a decade and a half. The trend has already begun. China’s wheat crop failed last year because of drought. The southeastern U.S. has become close to a dust bowl. The portions of north African and impoverished central Africa are in the midst of water shortages that almost certainly will not improve.

The World Resources Institute has raised a point, but it has not offered a solution to the problem. That is because there is no solution.

Douglas A. McIntyre

Read more at 247wallst.com
 

Death of the USD As World Reserve Currency

The Fed is at the epicenter of this process, intervening heavily to keep the natural corrective market forces at bay. In this, it has a dual strategy. The first is to keep asset prices high (i.e., fight asset deflation), which it is doing by keeping interest rates historically low. The second is to keep wage and commodity costs under control, which it primarily does via devaluing the currency (maintaining a “weak dollar”).

Amplify’d from peakoil.com

Eric Janszen: We Are Witnessing The Death Of The Dollar

What do you get when the producer of the world’s reserve currency takes on too much debt? Nothing less than the end of the US Treasury-based monetary system.

So says Eric Jansen, economic and financial market analyst and proprietor of iTulip.com. In chronicling the decline of the global economy over the past decade, Eric has formulated a framework called the “Ka-POOM” theory, which endeavors to understand how the immense run-up in global debt will be resolved.

In short, it looks at the at the credit bubble that began in the early 1980′s, started accelerating in 1995, and has now reached epic proportions. The amounts are so staggering at this stage that Eric believes it is too politically undesirable to let natural market adjustments clear them away – the magnitude of the deflationary pain this would create is simply unacceptable for politicians looking to get re-elected. The only other available option left is to service these debts via a dramatically devalued currency. Hence the key role the Fed is playing today.

The Fed is at the epicenter of this process, intervening heavily to keep the natural corrective market forces at bay. In this, it has a dual strategy. The first is to keep asset prices high (i.e., fight asset deflation), which it is doing by keeping interest rates historically low. The second is to keep wage and commodity costs under control, which it primarily does via devaluing the currency (maintaining a “weak dollar”).

And, of course, through its intervention, the Fed is doing all it can to keep the current financial system in place to perpetuate the process for as long as possible. The end result is a fundamental shift in risk from Wall Street to the taxpayer.

So the big question is: how long can this last?  Is there a point at which confidence in the system breaks and market forces finally overwhelm the intervention?

Eric’s answers: “Much longer than most people expect.” And “Yes.”

First off, as the most important central bank in the world, the Fed has supernormal powers. In theory, it can expand its balance sheet infinitely. It’s ability to absorb massive amounts of new liabilities is theoretically limitless – much of which can be easily concealed from an accounting standpoint.

And since the US is both the world’s largest economy as well as the provider of its reserve currency, other countries are compelled to support the current regime. A mortal crack-up in the US economy would deliver undue pain to all its trading partners, so they continue to buy Treasuries in sufficient amount to fund US economic activity.

But that’s not to say they’re happy about it. And here’s where attention should be paid (and where the importance of gold comes in).

For much of the past century, the United States comprised approximately 54-58% of the global economy. Today, it’s share has shrunk down to about 18%. Meaning: it’s relative importance to the global system has diminished.

Issuing the world’s reserve currency is a privilege that must be continually earned through transparency and sound stewardship – qualities the US has been in flagrant lack of in the past several decades as it has been blowing asset bubbles and running trillion-dollar deficits via incurring massive debts and increasing its money supply tremendously. So, even as they continue to support the current Treasury-backed monetary regime, the world’s central banks have begun hedging their exposure.

After several decades of being net sellers, the world’s central banks became net buyers of gold in the second quarter of 2009. As Eric puts it:

There was no plan B in the global monetary system when it switched over to the US Dollar reserve basis for global monetary reserves. The only fallback is gold. Gold is the only reserve asset that central banks hold other than dollars and to some extent euros – but it is mostly gold. So gold is the fallback. What I thought was going to happen is that, over time gradually, that there would be an increase at some point in gold holdings by central banks as they hedged the marginal increase and the number of Treasury bonds that they needed to hold as a result of conducting trade with the US and also simply maintaining the US economy through low interest rates and providing sufficient investment to continue to offer the US government.

What is very interesting to me is starting in the second quarter of 2009, right after the financial crisis is when global central banks became net buyers of gold which to me indicated that they had as a group, determined that it was time to more seriously hedge their dollar assets, even as they continue to buy Treasury bonds to increase their hedging.

Before that there were effectively two teams, there were the buyers who were countries like India and Russia and China, and the sellers which are most of your European countries and that structure of the gold market occurred and was maintained until the second quarter of 2009 and it shifted to a much broader base increase in the number of governments participating in the gold market including Saudi Arabia, Mexico and other allies of the United States.

Eric sees this move by central banks of positioning themselves closer to the door as a natural step to the inevitable endgame here, which is the dissolution of the US Treasury dollar-based monetary system. Due to entrenched special interests, politics, escalating commodity scarcity, and other factors – he does not see the US taking necessary corrective action before confidence in the solvency of the US and its currency collapses.

As such, Eric advises investors position themselves into gold and assets that take advantage of rising rents and energy prices.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris’ interview with Eric Janszen (runtime 43m:46s):

Read more at peakoil.com
 

Thursday, October 27, 2011

UN is Signaling the Economic Hitmen to Target the Developing World's Young #nwo #ehm

Just focus on the title: UN: World will miss economic benefit of 1.8 billion young people, unless of course the developing world continues down the path of infinite growth leveraged on the debt backs of the G20 that is hopelessly in debt and crumbling while the supranational banks who have no national identity or loyalty continue to make trillions.



End the Debt. End the Fed. End the World Bank. End the IMF.

Amplify’d from www.guardian.co.uk
Crowded planet

UN: World will miss economic benefit of 1.8 billion young people

Population report says lack of education, infrastructure and jobs will mean a generation's potential will be wasted

Write a letter to the 7 billionth person

The world is in danger of missing a golden opportunity for development and economic growth, a "demographic dividend", as the largest cohort of young people ever known see their most economically productive years wasted, a major UN population report warned on Wednesday.

The potential economic benefits of having such a large global population of young people will go unfulfilled, as a generation suffers from a lack of education, and investment in infrastructure and job creation, the authors said.

"When young people can claim their rights to health, education and decent working conditions, they become a powerful force for economic development and positive change. "This opportunity [for] a demographic dividend is a fleeting moment that must be claimed quickly or lost," said the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), in its Global Population Report, published just days before the UN forecasted the world population will pass 7 billion. Of this 7 billion, 1.8 billion are aged between 10 and 24, and 90% of those live in the developing world.

The report also reveals average life expectancy across the globe has risen by 20 years since the 1950s, from 48 to 68, as healthcare and nutrition have improved, while infant mortality has fallen fast, from 133 deaths per 1,000 births in the 1950s to 46 per 1,000 today.

These successes area a cause to celebrate, the United Nations said. Fertility has also halved, from 6 births per woman to 2.5 over the same period, though there are stark regional differences – fertility is 1.6 births per woman in east Asia but 5 per woman in some parts of Africa.

The report found a "vicious cycle" of extreme poverty, food insecurity and inequality leading to high death rates, that in turn encourages high birth rates. Only by investing in health and education for women and girls can countries break the cycle, as improving living conditions will allow parents to be more confident that their children will survive, and therefore have smaller families.

Crucial to this will be allowing women and girls greater freedom and equality, in order to make their own choices about fertility. Hundreds of millions of women would prefer to have smaller families, but are unable to exercise this preference owing to a culture of repression.

"Governments that are serious about eradicating poverty should also be serious about providing the services, supplies and information that women need to exercise their reproductive rights," said Babatunde Osotimehin, executive director of the UNFPA. On the empowerment of woman, he said at a press conference in London: "we have come a long way, but we are not there yet. There is no group that gives up power voluntarily. Men will not give up power to women voluntarily. Women have to fight. Women need to work together."

One way of doing so highlighted in the report is to provide a good level of sex education to adolescents, and access to modern methods of contraception.

The report said: "When women have equal rights and opportunities in their societies and when girls are educated and healthy, fertility rates fall ... the empowerment of women is not simply an end in itself, but also a step towards eradicating poverty."

The difference between a future of high fertility rates and one where people are better able to choose is stark: if fertility rates in areas of high population growth come down towards the global average, the world will reach a global population of about 9.3bn in 2050, and about 10bn in 2100. But if fertility rates remain high in the most populous countries, the 2100 population will be more than 15bn.

Osotimehin said countries must do more to help themselves: "It is unacceptable for countries to rely on donor money for reproductive health. The welfare of their people is their mandate." He said it would cost only $2bn to give access to family planning to the 250 million women who would like it but lack access. "The budget of the average developing country does not give enough money to issues of women and reproductive health. That has to change. If it does not change, it becomes unsustainable."

But he also said donors were failing to make sufficient commitments. "Family planning has not been funded as it should have been. Donors need to provide resources ... there has been a reduction [in money made available]."

Osotimehin also said at the press conference that the opportunity had been missed to educate people on reproductive health and family planning, during a drive to prevent HIV infection, echoing comments he made to the Guardian earlier in the month.

With high population growth, many scientists predict thatthe pressure on food and agricultural productivity and other natural resources may become intolerable, and conditions for the poorest people will deteriorate further, rather than improving.

John Cleland, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "The escape from poverty and hunger is made more difficult by rapid population growth."

Rapid growth will also exacerbate the impact of other global problems, such as climate change and other environmental impacts. Steven Sinding, a population expert at Columbia University, said: "The pace of growth poses enormous challenges for many of the poorest countries, which lack the resources not only to keep up with demand for infrastructure, basic health and education services and job opportunities for the rising number of young people, but also to adapt to climate change."

Separately on Wednesday, the Official for National Statistics forecast that the UK population would grow to 70 million by 2020, up from 62.3 million in 2010.

Read more at www.guardian.co.uk
 

Africa the Next Target by the Economic Hitmen - Permanent Debt #ehm #ows #nwo

Why does Namibia have a deficit and why would they sell a $500M USD-based bond? Probably because the bankers needed something to help pay their bonuses. Meanwhile they are about to embark on a journey of perpetual debt.



Leaders of Africa, read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and speak with leaders of Argentina, Iceland, Ireland, and Greece before you go any further.



This is driven by predatory capitalism.

Amplify’d from www.bloomberg.com

Namibia Said to Sell Debut Eurobond to Fund Budget Deficit

Namibia is selling a debut $500
million international bond to help finance its budget deficit,
according to three people familiar with the transaction.

The 10-year dollar-denominated securities are being sold to
investors in Europe and the U.S., said an official from the
central bank, who declined to be identified because the sale
hasn’t been completed. The bond may be priced to yield between
5.75 percent and 6 percent, according to an investor and banker,
who declined to be identified for the same reason.

Namibia, the world’s biggest miner of offshore diamonds and
the fourth-largest producer of uranium, has a credit rating of
BBB- from Fitch Ratings and Baa3 from Moody’s, the lowest
investment-grade levels. The southern African nation, which
borders South Africa, Botswana and Angola, follows Nigeria, sub-
Saharan Africa’s second-largest economy, which sold its first
dollar-denominated debt in January.

“It sounds relatively attractive compared to African
peers,” Stuart Culverhouse, the chief economist at investment
bank Exotix Ltd., said in a phone interview from London today.
“It’s a relatively unknown name and may have to stimulate
interest through the pricing.”

Bids received for the bond exceeded the amount on offer by
six times, according to the investor. Barclays Capital and
Standard Bank Group Ltd. are selling the bond on behalf of the
government, according to the banker.

Budget Deficit

The government is raising funds to help finance a budget
deficit that’s forecast to widen to 9.8 percent of gross
domestic product in the year through March 2012 from 7 percent
last year.

Namibia has a higher credit rating than sovereign debt
issued by sub-Saharan African nations, excluding South Africa.
Gabon’s dollar-denominated bonds due 2017 yielded 5.117 percent
today, while Ghana’s $750 million of 8.5 percent international
bonds due 2017 yielded 6.152 percent. Nigeria’s $500 million
Eurobonds due 2021 yield 5.965 percent, according to data
compiled by Bloomberg, at 3:52 p.m. in London.

Namibia has “a similar rating to South Africa and
obviously very closely tied to the South African economy,” said
Culverhouse. “If you look at it from that perspective it’s
about 200 basis points over the equivalent South African
Eurobond. From both sides of the argument, it’s a fairly
attractive deal.”

Kenya, Angola, Zambia and Rwanda are also planning to tap
international debt markets to finance rail, power and other
infrastructure projects.

To contact the reporters on this story:
Chris Kay in Abuja at
ckay5@bloomberg.net;
Nasreen Seria in Johannesburg at
nseria@bloomberg.net

Read more at www.bloomberg.com
 

New Money Paradigm Needed ASAP #ows #EndtheFed #EndtheIMF #EndtheWB #ehm

So the banks create a whole new market of derivatives and send the world into massive debt while evading taxes and flooding the market with USD through their wholly owned subsidiary THE FEDERAL RESERVE and other CENTRAL BANKS and then once everything has exploded and the credit tightens up, the money supply is tightened after 1) they have bought all our assets at deflated prices, 2) we are in debt up to our ears, and 3) our WAGES DECLINE because of long term systemic UNEMPLOYMENT.



Then it will be time to increase the money supply again and inflate all the assets and pay themselves great bonuses for advising their clients to buy and sell and buy and sell. And we will be stuck with PERMANENTLY LOWER WAGES.



Watch "The Money Masters", "Collapse" and Elizabeth Warren's "The Coming Collapse of the (American) Middle Class" and tell me I am not spot on.



Up and down, up and down. They win either way on their model.



Oh then the USA will be looking for World Bank and IMF funding and the economic hitmen will set the interest rate and the size of the project just right so we can never pay it back. Read the "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

by John Perkins

Amplify’d from www.reuters.com

Nightmare scenario: U.S. deflation risks rising

U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing employee Lisimba Williams flips through a stack of newly printed bills at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington October 23, 2006. REUTERS/Jim Young

(Reuters) - Risks are rising that a moribund job market and potentially steep drop in inflation could push the United States into a downward spiral of falling wages and prices.


That nightmare scenario of deflation might seem remote considering a recent rebound in growth, and the Federal Reserve would almost certainly try to head it off, probably well before prices started to fall.

But some investors and economists say the risk is real.

Inflation is expected to more than halve over the next year as a spike in prices for goods like oil and grains unwinds. Unemployment, meanwhile, will likely hold at nearly double its pre-recession level well into next year, keeping incomes under pressure.

If forecasts are correct, that could present a dangerous combination the Fed might not allow to brew for very long.

"You run the models and that all points to deflation," said Joshua Dennerlein, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York. "Without some kind of monetary policy help you would definitely get deflation."

Already, many forecasts for price increases are lower than they were a year ago when the Fed announced it would pump $600 billion into the banking system to boost growth and counter fears of deflation, which were growing at the time.

The inflation rate, which hit a three-year high of 3.9 percent in September, could fall to 1.3 percent by October 2012, according to a measure of expectations calculated by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

That would leave the rate below the U.S. central bank's 1.7 percent to 2 percent comfort zone.

FOUNDATION FOR ACTION

With this year's inflation surge as a backdrop, the Fed is not expected to make any move at its policy meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday.

But looking to mid-2012, when the central bank's current stimulus program known as "Operation Twist" is due to expire, a high jobless rate and slowing inflation could look worrisome, especially if inflation expectations decline further.

"That would provide more of a foundation for action both to try to reduce the probability of slipping into deflation and to try to provide some more support for economic growth," said Randall Kroszner, an economist at the University of Chicago who served on the Fed's board until 2009.

When Kroszner was a policymaker, deflation fears were perhaps their highest since the Great Depression, the last time U.S. prices and incomes sank in a vicious, self-feeding cycle.

To counter inflation, central banks can always raise interest rates. But the Fed's normal tool kit for countering falling prices is limited since it has already cut short-term borrowing costs nearly to zero.

The key would be to find a way to ensure a deflationary psychology does not take hold. If consumers and businesses put off purchases because they could be cheaper down the road, that could undercut the economy and push prices down further.

While growth likely accelerated to around a 2.5 percent annual pace in the third quarter, nearly double the second-quarter rate, several Fed officials have continued to talk about steps they could take to spur a stronger recovery.

Some of the third quarter's relative strength reflects a one-time bounceback from shocks caused by a spike in oil prices and an earthquake in Japan that disrupted manufacturing.

And dark clouds remain. Economists say a worsening of Europe's debt crisis could easily send the United States back into recession, further increasing deflation risks.

MONEY PRINTING

Already, nearly one fifth of Americans believe their family incomes will fall during the next six months, the highest level of wage pessimism since October 2009, according to data released on Tuesday by the Conference Board.

At the same time, consumer expectations for long-term inflation, as measured by a Thomson-Reuters/University of Michigan survey, fell this month to the lowest level since the Fed was readying a $600 billion bond-buying plan a year ago.

Growth in wages has slowed markedly since the recession and they could eventually start falling if the unemployment rate remains high, said Paul Ashworth, and economist at Capital Economics in Toronto. A Reuters poll of economists expects the jobless rate to edge down to just 9 percent in the second quarter of 2012 from 9.1 percent now.

Some analysts think the Fed's extraordinary actions to help the economy -- it has already pumped $2.3 trillion into the banking system -- make it nearly impossible for a sustained deflation to take hold.

While much of that money has not seeped into the wider economy because of weak demand and tighter lending standards, eventually it will, greasing the gears of growth and fueling inflation, said Richard Burdekin, an economist at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California.

"There is a legitimate concern about deflation," he said. "But to have a deflation when you have the sort of money growth we're seeing would be unprecedented."

Yet investors who believe most ardently that deflation is coming see evidence in the declines in the values of a number of asset classes. U.S. housing prices have fallen about a third since their pre-recession peak, while the Standard & Poor's stock index is down about a fifth. The Reuters-Jefferies CRB commodities index has also dropped about a third since its 2008 peak, and nearly 15 percent since April of this year.

"When you have deflation in all these other areas, it's kind of difficult to see how goods and services are going to resist the trend," said Gary Shilling, who formerly worked on the staff of the San Francisco Fed and as an economist at several Wall Street firms.

Read more at www.reuters.com
 

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Obama Clearly Works for the Banks, Not the People #ows

The Obama healthcare plan did not address the costs, it simply expanded coverage to more people.  Arguably better than what we had before.  However, the true cost increases to healthcare are in medical liability insurance, super leveraged medical institutions increasing the price of service with new technology, the cost of real estate for hospitals and clinics, the cost of drugs to treat, and the big one is the 30-40% administrative overhead created by the PPO processes.

The banking regulations have yet to put any prominent bankers in jail for FRAUD.  Sidelines folks such as Bernie Madoff could no longer be ignored.

The HAMP and homeowners refinancing plans allow homeowners who are underwater to REFINANCE, creating additional interest charges and INCREASING the overall cost of the home.  This way the banks don't have to take writedowns.  With no prospects for growth in the economy, the value of the homes will not grow in the near future so what's the point of owning? At the same time the mortgage interest deduction is slated for elimination.

The student loan deal actually took the banks out of education costs so that was good for us, but what about the trillion dollar education debt bubble that is ALREADY out there.  With no prospects for growth, jobs are slim, but student debt cannot be avoided.

Can anyone point to ANY Obama legislation that actually REDUCED the debt burden or inflationary burden the American middle class is facing?

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Scientific Proof the 1% "Bilderberg" Control the World's Wealth #nwo #infowars #ows

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.



Cross reference this with the TARP bailout

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipients.html



Conspiracy theorists have called this the Bilderberg Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/bilderberg

Amplify’d from www.newscientist.com




Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."

The 1318 transnational corporations that form the core of the economy. Superconnected companies are red, very connected companies are yellow. The size of the dot represents revenue <i>(Image: </i>PLoS One<i>)</i>

The 1318 transnational corporations that form the core of the economy. Superconnected companies are red, very connected companies are yellow. The size of the dot represents revenue (Image: PLoS One)

Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."

"It's disconcerting to see how connected things really are," agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.

Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, which is not always true. Most company shares are held by fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system's behaviour, he says, requires more analysis.

Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Sugihara says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.

One thing won't chime with some of the protesters' claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. "Such structures are common in nature," says Sugihara.

Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, "is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups". Or as Braha puts it: "The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy."

So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest.

When this article was first posted, the comment in the final sentence of the paragraph beginning "Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power…" was misattributed.

The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies







1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
27. Invesco plc
28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
31. Aviva plc
32. Schroders plc
33. Dodge & Cox
34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
35. Sun Life Financial Inc
36. Standard Life plc
37. CNCE
38. Nomura Holdings Inc
39. The Depository Trust Company
40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
41. ING Groep NV
42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
45. Vereniging Aegon
46. BNP Paribas
47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
48. Resona Holdings Inc
49. Capital Group International Inc
50. China Petrochemical Group Company









* Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used

Read more at www.newscientist.com
 

Map the Fall of Predatory Capitalism in Europe #ows

Remember the fall of western Communism in 1989-1991? USSR fell after the Cold War. Eastern Europe was on fire then.



Now its western Europe and the US that's on fire.



Oh and the middle east and Africa, they were on fire in the 1960's and 1970's after we created their nation states after WW1.



And Europe can pretty much blame the US government and US banks and the Federal Reserve for their misery. That is the root cause of this crisis.

Amplify’d from twitpic.com

@LeilaLaTresSage


Leïla la très sage
October 14, 2011


Map of #Occupy Europe, tomorrow #oct15. @OccupyBritain
See more at twitpic.com