jump to navigation

Global financial Meltdown in 90 days October 30, 2008

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

In this 28th edition of the GEAB, LEAP/E2020 has decided to launch a new global systemic crisis alert. Indeed our researchers anticipate that, before next summer 2009, the US government will default and be prevented to pay back its creditors (holders of US Treasury Bonds, of Fanny May and Freddy Mac shares, etc.).
Of course such a bankruptcy will provoke some very negative outcome for all USD-denominated asset holders. According to our team, the period that will then begin should be conducive to the setting up of a « new Dollar » to remedy the problem of default and of induced massive capital drain from the US. The process will result from the following five factors studied in detail further in this GEAB:

• The recent upward trend of the US Dollar is a direct and temporary consequence of the collapse of stock markets

• Thanks to its recent “political baptism”, the Euro becomes a credible “safe haven” value and therefore provides a  ”crisis” alternative to the US dollar

• The US public debt is now swelling uncontrollably

• The ongoing collapse of US real economy prevents from finding an alternative solution to the country’s defaulting

• “Strong inflation or hyper-inflation in the US in 2009?”, that is the only question.

Studying the case of Iceland can give an idea of the upcoming stages of the crisis. That is what our team has been doing ever since the beginning of 2006. This country indeed provides a good illustration of what the US and the UK should be expecting. It can be considered – and that is what most Icelandic people do today – that the collapse of Iceland’s financial system came from the fact that it was disproportionate to the size of the country’s economy.


 
Inflation in Iceland – 2003-2008 – Source Central Bank of Iceland
Financially speaking, Iceland thought of itself as UK (1), in the same way as, financially speaking, UK thought of itself as the US and the US thought of themselves as the entire world. It is therefore quite useful to study the case of Iceland (2) in order to understand the course of events that London and Washington will follow in the next 12 months (3).

What we see today is a double historical phenomenon:

. on the one hand, since September 2008 (as anticipated in the February 2008 edition of the GEAB – N°22), the whole planet has become aware that a global systemic crisis is unfolding, characterised by the collapse of the US financial system and its contagion to the rest of the world.

. on the other hand, a growing number of global players are beginning to act on their own, in reaction to the ineffectiveness of the measures advocated or implemented by the US though they are the centre of this global financial system. What happened with this first Euroland (or Eurozone summit which took place on Sunday, October 12, 2008, and whose decisions, by their scope (close to 1,700-billion EUR) and their nature (4), resulted in a regain of confidence on financial markets from all over the world, is typical of the « post-September 2008 world ».


 

Map of deposit insurances in the EU – Source AFP – 10/09/2008
Indeed there is such a thing as a « post-September 2008 world ». According to our team, it is now clear that this past month will remain in the history books of the whole planet as the month when the global systemic crisis started; even if what is really at play is its decanting phase, the last of a series of four phases of the crisis described by LEAP/E2020 as early as June 2006 (5). As always when it comes to large human groups, the perception of change among the general public only occurs when change is already far on its way.

As a matter of fact, September 2008 is the month when the « financial detonator » of the global systemic crisis exploded. According to LEAP/E2020 indeed, this second semester 2008 is the time when « the world dives into the heart of the impact phase of the global systemic crisis » (6); which means for our researchers that, at the end of this semester, the world enters the « decanting phase » of the crisis, i.e. a phase when the outcome of the shock settles down. This phase is the longest (from 3 to 10 years, according to the country) and the one affecting the largest number of people and countries. It is also the phase when the components of new global equilibriums will start to appear, two of them being already described by LEAP/E2020 in this 28th edition of the GEAB in the graphic illustrations below (7).

Therefore, as we repeated it on and on since 2006, this crisis is far more important, in terms of impact and outcome, than the 1929 crisis. Historically, we are the very first players, witnesses and/or victims of a crisis affecting the whole planet, in a situation of unprecedented interdependence of countries (resulting from twenty years of globalisation) and people (the level of urbanization – and related dependence for all the basic needs – water, food, energy… – is also unprecedented). However, the 1929 experience and all its dreadful outcome, is still vivid enough in our collective memories to hope, if citizens are vigilant and leaders clear-sighted, that we will be spared from a « remake » leading to major conflagration(s).

Europe, Russia, China, Japan,… are certainly the collective players who can make sure that the unfolding implosion of today’s world power, i.e. the United States, does not drive the planet into a disaster. Indeed, except for Gorbachev’s USSR, empires have a tendency to strive in vain to reverse the course of History when they realize their might is escaping them. It then belongs to partner-powers to channel the process peacefully, as well as it belongs to the citizens and rulers of the concerned country to be clear-sighted and face the difficult times they are about to cross.


 

 
Total borrowings of US Depository Institutions from the US Federal Reserve (01/08/1986 – 10/09/2008) – Source Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis
The « emergency repair » of international financial channels, achieved by the countries of the Eurozone at the beginning of this month of October 2008 (8), should not hide three fundamental facts:

• The “repair” was necessary to curb the panic that threatened to squander the entire global financial system in just a few weeks, but what it heals temporarily is merely a symptom. It has just bought a bit of time, two to three months maximum, as the global recession and the collapse of the US economy (the table above shows the staggering increase of US banks’ borrowings from the Fed) will speed up and create new tensions in the economic, social and political fields, that must be anticipated and coped with as soon as next month (as soon as the “financial packages” have been implemented)

• The huge financial means allocated worldwide for « emergency rescues » of the global financial system, though they were necessary to put back in order the system of credit, are lost for the real economy when it is on the verge of facing a global recession

• The « emergency repair » results in further marginalization, and therefore weakening, for the United States, because it sets up processes that are contrary to those advocated by Washington for the allocation of the Hank Paulson’s and Ben Bernanke’s 700-billion USD TARP: bank recapitalisation by governments (a decision Hank Paulson has now come to follow) and interbank loan guarantees (in fact Euroland governments substitute to credit insurers, a mostly American industry at the centre of global finance since decades). These trends turn more and more decision-making relays and financial flows away from the United-States when because of the explosion of their public (9) and private debt they need them more than ever; not to mention pensions going up in smoke (10).

The last aspect shows how, in the coming months, solutions to the crisis and to its various sequences (financial, economic, social and political) will increasingly diverge: what is good for the rest of the world will not be good for the United States (11), and now, Euroland in the first place, the rest of the world seems determined to make its own choices.

The sudden shock that will result from the US defaulting in summer 2009 is partly due to this decoupling of decision-making processes of the world’s largest economies with regard to the US. It is predictable and can be dampened if global players start to anticipate it. As a matter of fact, it is one of the topics developed in this 28th edition of the GEAB: LEAP/E2020 hopes that the September shock has “educated” the world’s political, economic and financial policy-makers and made them understand that it is easier to act by anticipation than in a panic. It would be a pity if Euroland, Asia and oil-producing countries, as well as US citizens of course, discover one morning of summer 2009 that, after a long-week-end or bank-holiday in the US, their US T-Bonds and Dollars are only worth 10 percent of their value because a « new Dollar » has just been imposed (12).


 

Notes

(1) Iceland adopted 10 years ago all the principles of economic deregulation and « financieration » advocated and implemented in the US and UK. Reykjavik thus became some sort of a financial « Mini-Me » of London and Washington, in reference to the very Americano-British movie character Austin Powers. The three countries undertook to play the financial game of « the frog that wished to be as big as the ox

», in reference to a fable by Jean de la Fontaine with a very unhappy end for the frog.
(2) Icelandic stocks collapsed 76 percent after a few days suspension designed to « avoid » a panic! Source: MarketWatch

, 10/14/2008
(3) On this subject, let’s spend a few lines on the amount of the “financial package” announced by London, i.e. 640-billion EUR including 64-billion EUR to recapitalize banks and a further 320-billion EUR pay back those same banks’ debt (source: Financial Times, 10/09/2008). With an economy in freefall to the image of the real-estate market, with a soaring inflation, with capital-based pensions going up in smoke and a currency at the lowest,… apart from increasing the public debt and weakening even more the Sterling pound, it is difficult to imagine how the plan can « rescue » British banks. Contrary to Eurozone banks, the British financial system, exactly like its US counterpart, is at the centre of the crisis, not a collateral victim. Gordon Brown may well compare himself to Churchill and Roosevelt together (Source: Telegraph

, 10/14/2008), in his ignorance of History, he seems to forget that neither Churchill nor Roosevelt had already spent 10 years in their country’s governments when each of them had to cope with their « big crisis » (that goes for the US and the Bush administration – Paulson and Bernanke included – who all come from the problem and are certainly not part of the solution). Not to mention the fact that Churchill and Roosevelt organised summits such as Yalta or Tehran leaving the French and the Germans waiting at the door, while today it is him who waits at the door of the Euroland summit.
(4) Source: L’Express

, 10/13/2008
(5) Source: GEAB N°5

, May 15, 2006
(6) Source: GEAB N°26

, June 15, 2008
(7) LEAP/E2020 made a synthesis of its anticipations on the decanting phase of the crisis by means of a world map of the impact of the crisis based on the identification of 6 large groups of countries; and of an anticipatory schedule of the 4 financial, economic, social and political sequences over 2008-2013 for each of these regions.

(8) It is indeed the Eurozone which curbed the spiral of global panic. For weeks, the US and British initiatives followed one another without any effect. The eruption of a new collective player, the « Euroland summit », and the wide-ranging decisions it made, are a new and soothing phenomenon. It is for this very reason that Washington and London have systematically prevented such a summit from taking place ever since the Euro was launched, 6 years ago. A complete set of diplomatic gesticulation was required (preliminary meeting, pre-summit group photo,…) to make the British Prime Minister believe he was not set aside the process, when in fact there is no reason why he should take part in a Euroland Summit. In this edition of the GEAB, LEAP/E202020 comes back on the phenomenon and the long-term systemic consequences of this 1st Euroland Summit.

(9) The US financial rescue plan has already increased by 17,000 USD the debt owned by each US citizen. Source: CommodityOnline

, 10/06/2008
(10) It is indeed 2,000-billion USD of capital-based pensions which evaporated in the past few weeks in the US. Source: USAToday

, 10/08/2008
(11) At least in the short-term. Indeed our team is convinced that it is not bad at all for the American people in the medium- and long-term if the system currently prevailing in Washington and New-York is fundamentally reappraised. This system has thrust the country into dramatic problems among which dozens of millions of US citizens now struggle, as illustrated in this article by the New York Times

dated 10/11/2008.
(12) Even if it will be a minor-scale measure compared to the prospect of a US bankruptcy, those who think that it is time to invest again on financial markets may find useful to learn that the New York Stock Exchange has recently reviewed all its circuit-breaker thresholds as a result of ratings collapse. Source : NYSE/Euronext, 09/30/2008

 

 

Bush Family makes billions from taxpayers October 30, 2008

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Information for this article comes from long-time business, finance and political writer and analyst Bob Chapman who publishes the bi-weekly International Forecaster. It’s power-packed with key information and a valued source for this writer. He obtained voluminous material directly from its source. People need to know it. Read on.

SueAnn Arrigo is the source – http://www.libertycalling.com. She was a high-level CIA insider. Her title was Special Operations Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). She also established the Remote Viewing Defense protocols for the Pentagon in her capacity as Remote Viewing Advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). It earned her a two-star general rank in the military. She called it a “ploy” so the Pentagon could get more of her time and have her attend monthly Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings. Only high-level types are invited, and she was there from October 2003 to July 2004.

Part of her job involved intelligence gathering on Iraq and Afghanistan – until August 2004 when she refused to spread propaganda about a non-existant Iranian nuclear weapons program and left. She followed in the footsteps of others at CIA who resigned for reasons of conscience and became critics – most notably Ray McGovern, Ralph McGehee, and Phil Agee.

On May 16, 2008, Arrigo sent extensive government corruption and cover-up information to Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee – in 12 separate cases. This article covers four of them or about one-third of what Congress got. The 12 are explosive and revealing but just the tip of the iceberg:

– of government corruption and war profiteering;

– sweetheart deals and kickbacks;

– high-level types on the take;

– trillions of missing dollars;

– on September 10, 2001, Rumsfeld admitting “According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions;”

– imagine the current amount;

– its corrosive effect on the nation; and people should

– demand accountability – who profits, who pays and what are the consequences of militarism gone mad.

SueAnn Arrigo offers a glimpse and at great personal risk. In August 2001, DCI George Tenet told her to assemble “a moving van full of Pentagon documents showing Defense Contractor kickbacks to Pentagon officials.” She did as instructed but not to expose corruption as she learned – to conceal it and in her judgment so CIA could divert defense business to Halliburton and “Carlyle-related contractors.” She stated: “The mood at the CIA and Pentagon was ‘war is coming’ because the Bush Family stands to make billions from it — so get ready.”

Arrigo was shocked at what she found and how brazenly the Pentagon wrote it up because it feels untouchable, especially since 2001. That notion proved misguided after CIA used the material to blackmail or bribe its officials “into ‘working on’ the Halliburton-Carlyle team.” Top CIA types were involved, and Tenet laid it out for Arrigo: You’ve “given me the keys to the kingdom. (These) documents will make me rich.”

She collected three types. Her report covers one but has plenty of incriminating evidence. Her precise recall of dates and names is incomplete, but events are factually right and damning on how Washington operates. It’s always been this way but never to the degree as under George Bush. Arrigo exposes the scheme – the systematic looting of the treasury to enrich contractors and high-level officials at Pentagon, CIA and others well-placed in government. Precise amounts are unknown, but at mimimum are countless multi-billions, even trillions – at taxpayer expense and diverted from essential social and infrastructure needs.

Case 1: Ordering Unneeded New Fighter Aircraft

Arrigo discovered high-level Pentagon corruption. It involved bid-rigging and implicated “an Air Force general on the JCS and a Defense Contractor, Boeing.” She disclosed it to JCS Chairman Hugh Shelton and DCI George Tenet, and in both instances drew blanks. She also reported it to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress. It was vetted and confirmed, but left unaddressed the larger issue of whether new generation planes are needed at an enormous cost to taxpayers. Arrigo believed not, and several Air Force generals agreed. Not other JCS members, however, who she learned are on the take.

There’s more. They “had the gall to try to force through another unneeded plane contract for Boeing.” At an early 2004 JCS meeting, Arrigo complained about the previous undelivered order because it didn’t meet Pentagon specifications. Yet one general in particular tried “to force the US military to buy another (unneeded) upgrade.” One other JCS member backed her to no avail, and the new order went through. Arrigo rightfully concluded that new plane orders were to enrich Boeing and high-level Pentagon types getting kickbacks for their cooperation.

She also learned how much – an average $22,000 “for each (JCS meeting) vote according to their bank” records. Not US ones. CIA-arranged Swiss accounts specifically for this purpose. Everyone at the meeting cashed in, except Arrigo and one dissenting general. More disturbing is that this is standard Pentagon practice – handouts to contractors; kickbacks to complicit brass; and taxpayers out multi-billions – year after year.

Jeff St. Clair wrote about it in his 2005 book “Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Corruption and Profiteering in the War on Terror.” It’s an explosive account of how contractors like Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Bechtel and the Bush family-connected Carlyle Group scam multi-billions at taxpayer expense and not a whiff of it in the mainstream. It’s the reason US annual “defense” spending tops $1.1 trillion (conservatively) with all military, homeland security, veterans, NASA, debt service and other allocations included.

Case 2: Halliburton Delivers Half Full Cartons to the Pentagon’s “Swing Shift”

Arrigo refers to the Pentagon’s Receiving Department “swing shift” personnel. They alone are on the take so other shifts are shut out and can’t report it. As a CIA insider, she checked and found damning evidence – about “the military (not) getting supplies to the troops on time.” She also learned that Halliburton has its “Representative to the CIA,” and one at the Pentagon as well. Both get federal salaries but neither was “hired by CIA or the military through their personnel departments. Neither had done military training or trained at (CIA’s) ‘Farm’ as a spy.” Arrigo was disturbed and with good reason when orders from the top said back off.

It got worse. Arrigo worked at CIA for over 30 years and reported directly to Tenet. But she wasn’t prepared for what she found – a new section at the Agency without her knowledge. It employed 40 people, all working for Halliburton “while being paid by the US taxpayer as if they were CIA.” It was secret. No files were on them. They were never interviewed, never vetted, and she concluded: “CIA had a back door in its security to let Halliburton put anyone they wanted in (its) hallways. It was an outrageous (breach) of US National Security,” and in a post-9/11 “war on terrorism” climate.

She was shocked and told Tenet. His reply: “Yes, I know.” Head of CIA building security also knew. Arrigo asked what he’d do about it. His answer: “Keep my mouth shut so I can stay alive and I suggest you do the same.” She asked if he, CIA or Halliburton would kill her if she talked. He didn’t think so. Would national security firm CACI do it because it’s affiliated with Halliburton and also has a CIA back door for its personnel at the Agency.

Arrigo dug deeper. She got inside Halliburton’s area and asked questions. Why was the company shipping half the contracted for amounts and shortchanging the troops and taxpayers. It was no different for war zones. Halliburton “set up the same corrupt system of swing shift receivers (for) at least 3 continents. They received the cartons and signed (off) that the goods were all received properly. Then the shortages later were chalked up to thefts or war damage, etc.”

Arrigo again informed Tenet. His answer: “This is nothing new,” then added: “Have a report about it on my desk before Christmas (2001).” It got worse. Arrigo told Tenet he’s responsible for “correct(ing) Halliburton’s short-shipping and its invasion of the CIA.” He said he couldn’t because the White House tied his hands. Call Congress, Arrigo said. DCI “should be a man of courage.” Tenet ignored her, so Arrigo faxed documents revealing Halliburton fraud to GAO – omitting national security secrets. One of them crowed about the scheme’s profitability, and having high-level officials involved made it foolproof.

It was clever and even more devious than Arrigo imagined. Halliburton uses each shortage complaint as a new order. “In that way (it) never (loses) by having to make good for (what’s) missing,” and (it gets) paid double for the same merchandise.

Arrigo knew too much, took risks to learn it, and what happened next is shocking. Halliburton’s “CIA Representative” confronted her, tore out her phone, ransacked her office, removed every shred of paper, and hauled her off bodily “to a prison cell” inside its basement offices. She was intimidated and threatened. Thought she might be killed. She survived, but the message was clear. She complained to Tenet. Showed him her bruises. He responded dismissively: “There, there, everything will be all right in the morning.”

GAO still has Arrigo’s files. It began investigating but stopped. She thinks that Congress can resume it and asked Waxman to do it. That’s where things now stand.

Case 3: The White House Conspiracy to Cook the Books – Halliburton, Carlyle and CIA

In 2002, Arrigo tried a new tact – ingratiating herself with “Halliburton’s Man” and using it to her advantage. She offered cooperation for access to his space and make him think she was on his side. It worked, went on for four and one-half months through late May, and it paid off – with plenty of insider knowledge “about Halliburton and how it works.” Enough to fill a book, she says, but her account sticks to highlights.

First off, it’s pure myth that Dick Cheney stopped running the company. “He called in orders to the man I worked for almost every day and sometimes two or more times a day. He remained (Halliburton’s) functional head in all but name. No one….had the power to override his orders.” Second, Cheney never divested himself of Halliburton profits. “He merely hid how (he got them) through a series of shell companies.”

One of Arrigo’s jobs was to liaison between Halliburton and CIA’s “creative accounting departments.” In other words, their co-conspiratorial treasury looting efforts, and Arrigo got insider access to it. Her advanced math and computer software training qualified her. In a few months, she became expert in how CIA and Halliburton hid their “financial illegalities.”

She explained – “Computers are good ways to fool most people because (they don’t) look inside of them.” They can be programmed “to print out one set of books for regulators, another for Defense Contractors, another for the Pentagon, another for the taxpayer,” and so forth. It’s simple. Decide what you want, and machines will create it in any desired form. The trick is doing it expertly, most criminals can’t, so they need professionals to do it for them. It means crimes are never secret, and many computer experts know about them. CIA has always been tainted, kept it secret since inception, so far has been untouchable, but remains vulnerable to exposure by people of conscience like Arrigo.

She explained: Halliburton has eight software programmers at CIA. Its home office has many more. She was on conference calls with 60 of them on ways to conceal illegalities and assure none of it leaks out. The company has less expertise than CIA so the Agency took charge to make the two systems compatible. It took several years and over 100 programmers. They came, left for other jobs, and took insider knowledge with them. It risks more leaks about Halliburton, other contractors, CIA, the Pentagon, high-ups in government, and the Basel-based Bank of International Settlements for its part in corruption.

Many investigations are ongoing, but huge pressure is exerted to quash them. It’s feared leaks may unravel the whole scheme – a vast corruption web involving countless numbers of contractors, related companies, and many high level government and Pentagon insiders. Cover-up software hides it. Taxpayers fund it. Amounts keep getting greater, and they’re up to unimaginable levels.

Arrigo explained the system. Suppose Halliburton sold product A in 100 Lot Sizes, in Quantity X at Price Y to the Pentagon on a given date. Most civilian invoices disclose this. Pentagon ones don’t so contractors can cheat and Pentagon brass profit. Missing information conceals whether all merchandise was delivered as nothing indicates quantities shipped. Further, repackaging also hides proper amounts. Omitting the price alone conceals whether a shipment was shorted, but CIA is more clever than that. It experimented with “tested receivers at some of its front companies” to learn how best to deceive them. What works best is “shifting prices around like random noise” – one day this cost, another a different one, and so forth.

One company used a “gross overcharge method” that looked suspicious. It got receivers to discover the real price, and that defeated CIA’s scheme. When it works, it cooks the books, and no one’s the wiser. Ledger entries are inflated, undercut, omitted, added, or varied in amounts of similar transactions. Like a “professional crime institution,” CIA is expert at falsifying books so no one catches on. How? By random price variations to keep auditors off balance and unable to discover corruption patterns.

Another example:

CIA varies its front company prices monthly. Suppose Halliburton made a purchase “when it (used) a cost inflation idea of cheating. Halliburton (has) an incentive to inflate the cost of its purchases (to) justify (its) high (price) to the military.” So as standard practice it uses CIA’s highest price and claims that amount for its cost.

But comparing two sets of books reveals the scheme. So methodology became more sophisticated to conceal it. Halliburton takes CIA prices and doubles them on its books. It then claims the Agency recorded half the charge “accidently,” says its front company promised a 50% discount, but never delivered. CIA looks bad, and it balked. No matter. Halliburton still does it, but CIA has “lots of fronts with lots of customers and worse problems (to hide) than merely jacking up prices. Some fronts (are) fictitious and (make) no products.” Others have real customers plus fake ones to launder money. CIA tries to “make (their) crimes ‘undetectable.’ ” Halliburton hopes to “sneak by” until caught, then find a way to weasel out of it with minimal damage or cost.

Case 4: Halliburton’s Rigged Back Door Accounting Computer at the Pentagon

In early 2002, GAO got damning evidence: that Halliburton overbills and short-ships – deliberate fraudulent acts as standard company practice, confident it can get away with it, and most often it does.

GAO has the goods to expose it from Halliburton and Pentagon invoices. They reveal a problem. They don’t match, are grossly inflated, and payments exceed amounts billed – by about 35%. Arrigo met with GAO and compared notes. Halliburton has similar Pentagon and CIA-paid staff, and George Bush approved it in a secret Executive Order Arrigo has for proof. She gave it to GAO plus other documents showing national security is compromised and taxpayers cheated – hugely.

One document lists Halliburton’s CIA and Pentagon staff, what little official records discloses about them, their secret office locations, and information on their private security staff. Arrigo discovered that Halliburton’s top CIA man served time for felony fraud. Another at Pentagon was convicted as well – for stealing Army vehicles, then profiteering by transshipping them overseas.

Dick Cheney knew, blocked background checks to conceal it, but Arrigo found out and about the Pentagon fraud that followed. She has a handwritten Cheney memo instructing his man “to make sure that the Pentagon pays us all that it owes us and then some.” CIA’s forgery department verified the writing is Cheney’s.

Arrigo also has a letter from Halliburton’s Pentagon man to his CIA counterpart, and it’s damning. He brags how he’s “getting more than we bargained for (from) the Pentagon” and suggested they get together to compare notes. They did and Arrigo taped it. The evidence once more is damning – about how easy it is to scam the system; befriend accounting personnel; install company programmers; check bills supposedly behind in payments; install a special software code for higher amounts; and do all of the above at Pentagon and CIA.

Arrigo informed George Tenet so he’d stop “Halliburton from ripping off the American taxpayer via the CIA and Pentagon.” Tenet hardly blinked and responded casually: “Well, you certainly have done a thorough job as usual.” He then offered to inform the White House to “correct the problem.” Arrigo did herself, GAO as well, and later learned that the Bush administration (likely Dick Cheney) blocked an investigation.

This article covers four of Arrigo’s 12 cases. Their evidence is damning and shows systemic contractor, government, CIA and Pentagon fraud involving enormous amounts of money. One or more articles will follow if more material can be obtained. It’s not what Pentagon and CIA want outed so getting it is never simple and revealing it not without risks.

The Unconstitutional Existence of the Federal Reserve Bank October 24, 2008

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , ,
1 comment so far

In light of the numerous assaults the Bush Administration has made on the Constitution and the recent $700 billion bailout of the financial powerhouses, the following article makes a powerful case for the revolution to begin TODAY!

 

“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

 The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.1 In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. The Associated Press called it a “government takeover,” but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. The Associated Press reported:

“The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs.”2

This is extraordinary. Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly “the lender of last resort” created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:

 

“The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters.”

Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government’s I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks’ dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed’s own website):

“The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable.”

“To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable” means that the government gets the banks’ toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government’s triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered “risk-free” for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, “Bailout Bedlam,” webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.)

In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:

“The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank.”3

If the Fed’s money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks’ own reserves – reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?

Not Private and Not for Profit?

The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a “lender of last resort” to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads.4 The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look. The website states:

* “The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.”

* “[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.”

* “The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.”5

So let’s review:

1. The Fed is privately owned.

Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.

2. The fact that the Fed does not get “appropriations” from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in “open market operations.”

Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to “expand the money supply” (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called “open market operations” because the Fed buys the bonds on the “open market” from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the “reserves” that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as “fractional reserve” lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve “a total money-making machine.” He wrote:

“When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check.”

3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.

The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered “for profit” corporations.

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their “reserves.” The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in “reserve” can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total “loans and leases in bank credit” as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.

The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ — for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.

Time to Change the Statute?

According to the Fed’s website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:

“[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute.”

As we know from watching the business news, “oversight” basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it’s over. The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn’t ask; it tells. The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it “can alter its responsibilities by statute.” It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. If the Fed can demand AIG’s stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed’s stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we’ll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies.

If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly “federal” Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles