US Said to Ready Special Armed Forces Unit For Domestic Deployment in Case of Disaster or Civil Unrest

Although the National Guard has been used in the past to deal with protests, they were called by the state governors and were not acting at the direction of the Federal government.

"The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Navy, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime."

I wonder if this is true, and if the Obama Administration intends to deploy Federal troops, or declare martial law, this summer prior to the elections. I am not familiar with the Newark Examiner.

It does not seem consistent with the law, because this is a regular army regiment. The provisions for their deployment passed during the Bush Administration had been repealed, setting the use of troops back to the conditions of Insurrection as I recall.

I believe that is the premise by which the government directed MacArthur to lead regular army troops to dispel the WWI veterans from the Capitol in the last Great Depression.

Even in the race riots of the 1960's which were in many cases armed and dangerous, the National Guard was deployed at the direction of the state's governor. I am not aware of any other legal precedents or rules on this. Perhaps someone else can oblige.

P.S. A reader informs me that this news report is from a 'conservative' news source that has a variety of virtual locations in different states. The size of this military unit is also said to be greatly overestimated at 80,000. I suspect that this might be the case, and that the purpose of this news piece may be to incite misplaced concerns. But it does serve to bring up the issue, and to make people aware that posse commitatus has been considered a 'liberty' of the land for over a hundred years. If it is ignored, and the law is broken, then the American people will speak out against it again, as is their duty and their obligation.

Newark Examiner
Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov. elections
April 21, 2010

In October of this year, one month prior to the November midterm elections, a special army unit known as 'Consequence Management Response Force' will be ready for deployment on American soil if so ordered by the President.

The special force, which is the new name being given to the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, has been training at Fort Stewart, Georgia and is composed of 80,000 troops.

According to the Army Times,

"They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal
with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in
response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield
explosive, or CBRNE, attack."

The key phrase is 'may be called upon to help with civil unrest.'

This afternoon a local radio talk show host reported that he had been in contact with a member of the military. This military source stated that the armed forces have been alerted to the strong possibility that civil unrest may occur in the United States this summer, prior to the midterm elections of 2010.

The source described this as 'our long, hot summer of discontent' that could be eerily reminiscent of the summer of 1968 when riots broke out in many of our largest cities.

However, the summer of 2010 could well be much worse due to the players involved. In 1968 the major players were war protesters. This time, the outrage simmering beneath the surface of American society involves a broad cross-section of the heartland, and most of them are heavily armed...

Read the rest here.

93% Of Commodity Specs Believe that Gold Price Will Decline; US Financial Model Is a Threatened Specie

Of course that pun in the title is intended. How could you even ask?

Mom and Pop America, unlike their Asian counterparts, and most speculators apparently, do not favor the precious metals like gold.

They might be right. But sometimes it is safest to be positioned comfortably far from the maddening (pun intended as in 'frenzied' and 'annoying') crowd.

For me that entails being on a short term hedged trade, long stuff and short fluff.

The US financial sector, as represented by the bloated banks, are overvalued based on a business model that relies on gaming the system, routinely defrauding their customers, adding little value to the global economy except for themselves, and feeding off the wealth creation and the labor of the many. That seems to be coming to an end, perhaps not tomorrow, but as time goes by.

If stocks take a serious tumble in the US we'll know which way the wind is blowing. If gold holds its ground, we will have an indication that it is ready for the next leg up, because the drop in stocks is based on a disgorgement of assets which have lost their appeal and confidence because of the repeated, increasingly reckless, and virulent frauds of the American oligarchs.

Commodity Online
Poll: 93% of Investors Believe That Gold will Fall
By Rutam Vora
21 April 2010, 10:49 a.m. EST

(Commodity Online) -- At a time when gold prices reeled under pressure, for a sustained period after hitting their all-time high in December 2009, the perception towards the yellow metal seems to have reversed with investors hinting at weakening of gold prices in the near future and strengthening of other investment avenues...

In an online opinion poll conducted by Commodity Online, a majority of the respondents have hinted at a possible fall in gold prices in the near future, and better earning opportunities will come knocking on the door.

In an online poll of a sample size of 21,600 respondents selected from across the globe, 93% or 20,100 of the total sample size had opined that there would be a fall in gold prices due to a recent upbeat mood in the global equity markets, while only 1,400 respondents contradicted the stand, 0.46% did not comment on either side. This showed that most of the respondents believed that there would be a fall in gold prices in the near future due to a recovery in global equity markets.

However, with regard to the other metals being an investment destination, most of the respondents maintained a view that they (base metals) can potentially become alternative investment instruments. As many as 64.35% of respondents considered base metals as a potential investment instrument but of them, 53% still chose gold as a preferred investment instrument compared to base metals, while 46.76% preferred base metals to gold....

Similarly, of the total respondents as many as 53.1% believed that the US dollar would replace gold from its status of 'safe haven.' Looking at the recovery of the US economy from the nightmarish recession which had started from the US and hit the world economy in 2008, the dollar was found gathering steam once again. However, 46.8% of the respondents contradicted the view and maintained their skepticism towards the dollar and put gold to their preferred investment mode...

US Unveils an Even Newer New $100 Bill

The new $100 US bill will go into circulation on February 10, 2011.

It is being put forward as a new form of currency with stronger anti-counterfeiting measures to help stem the tide of non-official monetary expansion.

I suspect at some point it will facilitate a 'recall' of the old notes, as a means of combating cash and carry businesses and money laundering. It will also seek to unhinge cash hoarding overseas tied to the drug trade.

It has not been announced if these bills will be carrying an expiration date to insure freshness.

Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner will be auctioning the crayons he used to sign his name to the bill on eBay to help defray the national debt. His handle is 2RB-O-TimEE.

New Money Homepage

Wall Street Journal
U.S. Unveils New $100 Bill
By
DARRELL A. HUGHES
April 21, 2010

WASHINGTON—Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke unveiled a new $100 bill equipped with two new security features.

The bill will go into circulation Feb. 10, 2011.

The Fed, along with the Treasury Department, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the U.S. Secret Service, "continuously monitor the counterfeiting threats" for each denomination and redesign decisions are made based on those threats, Mr. Bernanke said.

"This job has become more complex in recent years as technology advances and U.S. dollar flows expand and increase," he added.

The bill—the highest denomination of all U.S. notes—circulates widely around the world, with circulation in the past 25 years growing to $890 billion from $180 billion.

About two-thirds of all $100 notes circulate outside the U.S.; Mr. Bernanke said the agencies must ensure people around the world are aware of the design change. Over the next several months, officials at the agencies will work to educate cash handlers,
consumers and others about the design and explain how to use its security features.

The 6.5 billion or so $100 notes in circulation now will remain legal tender, Mr. Bernanke said.

The new bill's security features include a blue 3-D Security Ribbon on the front of the note that contains images of bells and 100s, which move and change from one to the other as you tilt the note, according to joint release from the agencies.

Another security feature is the "Bell in the Inkwell" image that changes color from copper to green when the note is tilted, an effect that makes it appear and disappear within the inkwell. (For more on the redesigned note and its features, visit www.newmoney.gov.)

"As with previous U.S. currency redesigns, this note incorporates the best technology available to ensure we're staying ahead of counterfeiters," Mr. Geithner said.

The new design for the $100 note retains three effective security features from the previous design: the portrait watermark of Benjamin Franklin, the security thread, and the color-shifting numeral 100.

The Financial Oligarchy in the US

If you do nothing else this week, read the transcript or watch this video.

I have a serious difference of opinion with the speakers with regard to Robert Rubin and his role, but they make up for it with their description of Jamie Dimon as close to the White House and one of the most dangerous men in America today.

And I thought it was interesting that Simon Johnson would say openly that the ONLY Senator who is speaking the truth plainly is Ted Kaufman from Delaware.

Other than that they are substantially putting out a very sound and realistic view of the root of the problems that created the financial crisis, and what requires to be done to rebalance the system and create a sustainable recovery.

BILL MOYERS: And you say that these this oligarchy consists of six megabanks. What are the six banks?

JAMES KWAK: They are Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo.

BILL MOYERS: And you write that they control 60 percent of our gross national product?

JAMES KWAK: They have assets equivalent to 60 percent of our gross national product. And to put this in perspective, in the mid-1990s, these six banks or their predecessors, since there have been a lot of mergers, had less than 20 percent. Their assets were less than 20 percent of the gross national product.

BILL MOYERS: And what's the threat from an oligarchy of this size and scale?

SIMON JOHNSON: They can distort the system, Bill. They can change the rules of the game to favor themselves. And unfortunately, the way it works in modern finance is when the rules favor you, you go out and you take a lot of risk. And you blow up from time to time, because it's not your problem. When it blows up, it's the taxpayer and it's the government that has to sort it out.

BILL MOYERS: So, you're not kidding when you say it's an oligarchy?

JAMES KWAK: Exactly. I think that in particular, we can see how the oligarchy has actually become more powerful in the last since the financial crisis. If we look at the way they've behaved in Washington. For example, they've been spending more than $1 million per day lobbying Congress and fighting financial reform. I think that's for some time, the financial sector got its way in Washington through the power of ideology, through the power of persuasion. And in the last year and a half, we've seen the gloves come off. They are fighting as hard as they can to stop reform.

The Financial Oligarcy in the US - Bill Moyer's Journal

US Dollar Very Long Term Chart

"A sentiment of trust in the legal money of the State is so deeply implanted in the citizens of all countries that they cannot but believe that some day this money must recover a part at least of its former value. To their minds it appears that value is inherent in money as such, and they do not apprehend that the real wealth, which this money might have stood for, has been dissipated once and for all.

This sentiment is supported by the various legal regulations with which the Governments endeavor to control internal prices, and so to preserve some purchasing power for their legal tender. Thus the force of law preserves a measure of immediate purchasing power over some commodities and the force of sentiment and custom maintains, especially amongst peasants, a willingness to hoard paper which is really worthless...

If, however, a government refrains from regulations and allows matters to take their course, essential commodities soon attain a level of price out of the reach of all but the rich, the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer."

John Maynard Keynes, Economic Consequences of the Peace, NY, 1920, p. 239-40

SP Futures, NDX Futures, US Dollar, No Sell Signals Yet

The big drop in the SP 500 last Friday triggered by the Goldman fraud charges was not confirmed at all by the NDX.

The SP 500, rightly or wrongly, is where much of the market manipulation of stocks is said to occur. It is a lead index for us, but we watch the NDX along side it, and vice versa. A genuine change in trend must be confirmed before we would take positions in size against the prior trend.



Bullish sentiment is starting to roll over. It has not yet challenged a level that would signal a bearish reversal. It is enetered a period of consolidation and sideways chop. If it penetrates the second moving average band it would be a strong trend change signal.



The US Dollar as measured by the DX Index is in a consoldiation within its uptrend. It has not yet broken serious support to signal a change in trend.

Net Asset Values and Premiums of Certain Precious Metal Trusts and Funds

The US Financial Media Does Not Disappoint, But Will Obama?

"And this is good old Gotham,
The home of the rich and the odd.
Where Morgan talks only to Goldman,
And Goldman talks only to God."

Andrew Stanton, with compliments to
"Boston Toast" by John Collins Bossidy

The spin was running hot and heavy this morning.

The scandal was a one off, a rogue trader. The charges against Goldman are weak, nothing illegal, perhaps just immoral. But morality is not an issue with qualified investors, who should have known better. This has never happened before and is unlikely to happen again. No one forces anyone to be victimized by a fraud. They did it to themselves.

The outstanding talking head on Bloomberg TV was guest salesman Tom Brown of Second Curve Capital, who never met a Wall Street pustule he didn't wish to feed upon. He was supported eagerly by the bobbing heads of Adam Johnson and some less memorable sycophant. And of course the ineffably endearing news anchor, Betty Liu, who is an understudy for Alicia Silverstone in the Wall Street version of Clueless.

But CNBC's Steve Liesman put out a description of the scandal that was so outrageous that it made Mark Haines cough up a donut. Mark still has a conscience apparently but Steve left his at a pawn shop in Moscow. His economic arguments, along with Cramer and Kudlow, drove me away from CNBC long ago. But there is little refuge at Bloomberg anymore except in the off continent off hours, and Fox, well, it is Fox.

I expected a slime trail to appear early on, and I was not disappointed. And its a shame.

Charley Rose has a special on Goldman tonight and it should be worth watching. Charley is a journalist, and tends to show some integrity, which is an increasingly rare commodity in the American mainstream media.

Most Likely Outcome

Goldman will settle out of court, while admitting no fault, after making a great deal of noise to salvage their reputation and lay out a defense for the civil suits that will follow IF Obama does not call in the FBI and Justice to do a more thorough job of investigating the firm and their variety of dodgy deals.

The penalty will be a disgorgement of 15 million, plus a penalty of maybe 45 million. This is just the cost of doing business compared to the billions they took down in side bets like the Credit Default Swaps when the subprime card table tipped over.

The Dems will get Chris Dodd's toothless financial reform passed, and within five years at least one Wall Street firm will roll over and be 'virtually bailed out' at great cost to the taxpayers under its provisions. After he leaves office citizen Obama will say he should not have listened to Larry Summers' advice and ought to have done more to reform Wall Street, despite determined Republican opposition. hi ho

That is the usual outcome. It *could* change, Obama can change it and he doesn't need the Republicans to ask the FBI and Justice to assist the SEC in their civil case investigation to look for evidence of criminal wrongdoing including Paulson and other hedge funds under the RICO statutes. That would show us something about him, at least differently from what I think of his character now. I don't hold much hope for it given the enormous sums that Wall Street is contributing to the Democrats. But I'm prepared to be surprised.

Or it could change if the people shake off their cynicism and lethargy, and a "million person march" goes to Washington this summer, and peacefully demonstrates that business as usual is no longer acceptable. And then they put some bite into it and vote out the incumbents in the fall elections, voting heavily for third parties dedicated to real change.

That is also unlikely but I am prepared to be surprised.

But in the meantime, Europe and Asia should start counting the silverware, and hide the women and children, because the dogs of Wall Street are still on the loose, with little effective restraint.

Goldman Sachs: A Pattern of Organized Criminal Behaviour?

Chris Whalen provides some excellent commentary on the Goldman Sachs fraud inquiry by the SEC at the beginning of his weekly newsletter, The Institutional Risk Analyst.

In addition to the information he provides about other deals, including those that specifically targeted AIG, he puts an interesting twist on this. He intimates that at times the Hedge Funds were acting in concert with the Big Banks as off-balance-sheet accomplices in crafting these complex frauds. And the Paulson - Goldman scandal may only be one of a type, and not perhaps the best or most flagrant example.

A reaction from many is that this is just the tip of the iceberg, a single point in a much larger picture of calculated fraud involving many more deals and significantly more money up to and including the bailout of AIG.

It is not enough to throw a few token fines on some selective deals, and then dismiss them as outliers, and then suggest we 'move on' to reform the market. The spin will be that what Goldman did was 'legal' but immoral. And for many today, morality is simply a matter of taste. And Paulson will be served up as the fall guy. It will take a serious investigation to uncover all the facts, and make the case stick. And the SEC is not competent to do this, for a variety of reasons.

And the reforms that the Congress will create as a result of this, at the least the ones permitted by Jamie and Lloyd, will quickly be circumvented with new fraudulent devices and it will quickly be business as usual. Its hard to say that the business has never stopped, even now. The Big Banks continue to manipulate markets and abuse derivatives as instruments of financial fraud.

The absolute worst place to conduct a serious investigation will be in front of the Congress is a show trial, designed to give some of the Senators and Representatives an opportunity to create sound bytes of anger, to be played in commercials for their re-election, and then at then end of the day, continue to collect fat campaign contributions, and then do nothing.

It does not require Republican permission for President Obama to direct the FBI and the Justice Department to begin a serious inquiry with an eye to RICO violations in what may be one of the largest financial frauds in history, dwarfing the Madoff Ponzi scheme in terms of value and number of victims.

Oh, and by the way, we hate to say we told you so, but please fire Larry Summers now that Bill Clinton has thrown him under the bus, and have him take Rubin's other protégé, Turbo Timmy, along with him.

My concern is that the American people even now do not understand how serious this crisis is. They are quickly distracted into ridiculous partisan spirit and frivolous diversions. This is the freedom and the welfare of their country that is at risk, and it is time to put aside childish things, and begin the serious work of reforming their financial system, the ownership of their media, and the political campaign process.

Institutional Risk Analyst
Goldman SEC Litigation: The End of OTC?
By Chris Whalen
April 19, 12010

Last Friday's announcement by the SEC of a civil lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (GS) for securities fraud did not surprise us. Nor were we surprised to see the markets
trade off large on the news, evidence to us that there is a certain lack of conviction in the financials.

Q: How can you have "normalized earnings" in an abnormal industry?

No, what surprised us about the SEC action is that it took as long as it did. Maybe surprised isn't precisely the right word, but you know what we mean. The inertia in the system seems to dampen reactions to extreme outlier behavior to a far too great a degree. This week in The IRA Advisory Service we discuss the implications of the SEC action and the likely impact on the OTC dealer community in the months and years ahead.

Readers of The IRA will recall back in 2004 when were started to talk about the regulatory focus on complex structured financial products and the perceived reputational risk to the big firms arising from these unregulated, OTC instruments. Big thank you to Chuck Muckenfuss at Gibson Dunn for the heads up. The "advice" issued by all of the regulators ("Interagency Statement on Sound Practices Concerning Complex Structured Finance Activities") was focused almost entirely on protecting the dealers from reputational risk and not on protecting investors.

The fact of the 2004 notice by the SEC and other regulators illustrates the problem. Regulators clearly knew that a problem existed back then, yet the SEC waited until April of 2010 to actually do something constructive to rebalance the equation, to lean just a bit more in the direction of investors and abit less in favor of the dealers. Keep in mind that it's not like the games played by GS and the Paulson organization were remotely unique. Just about every OTC dealer worthy of the description has at least one deal comp to this thing of beauty.

On March 31, 2010, Bob Ivry and Jody Shenn at Bloomberg published a very important article on American International Group and its losses from insuring collateralized debt obligations structured by, you guessed it, GS. Entitled "How Lou Lucido Let AIG Lose $35 Billion With Goldman Sachs CDOs," the article outlines the process whereby AIG was left on the hook for billions in losses on CDOs sold to TCW Group in Los Angeles.

Whereas in the trades with Paulson GS was helping a client create and then sell short a CDO that was being sold to another client, in the case of TCW the GS firm was helping a client buy toxic loans to be contributed to a CDO in the knowledge that doing so would cause losses to a regulated insurer, AIG. The activities of GS to harm AIG make the subsequent payments by AIG to GS, using money from the US Treasury, seem all the more outrageous.

But the other thing that really bothers us about both the TCW transactions and the more recent revelations about GS and the Paulson firm is the fact that the SEC apparently still does not fully understand the symbiotic relationship between the dealer and the hedge fund. In our view, the funds that were involved with these
transactions and many, many more examples in the OTC marketplace, did not have an arm's length relationship with the dealer. Hedge funds exist at the sufferance of the dealers, who finance and execute and act as custodian for their various strategies and use the funds as short-term storage for inventory.

In the case of Paulson, the information provided by the SEC makes it seem as though Paulson was the party which initiated these transactions and, according to the SEC, paid GS $15 million to arrange and market these CDOs to investors. Paulson was also apparently working as an advisor to GS and collaborating with GS regarding investment strategy. A spokesman for Paulson told The New York Times that all of their dealings with GS and other parties were on "an arm's length basis." We believe that reasonable people can differ on this issue. We also suspect that the nature and the extent of the relationship between GS and Paulson will be the subject of extensive legal and political inquiry in the weeks and months ahead.

But for us, the bottom line is that hedge funds often times are merely extensions of the dealers with which they interact. It is often difficult if not impossible to tell where the dealer's interests end and those of the hedge fund begin, especially when the dealer and the fund seem to be working in concert to create securities that are being sold to third parties. This episode is a terrible mess and, to us at least, illustrates why the OTC markets for securities and derivatives need to be regulated out of existence -- or at least into compliance with norms of disclosure and fair dealing that would render such strategies impossible. If the global financial markets have been reduced to nothing more than beggar thy neighbor, then we all have a big problem.

JP Morgan Responds to Calls for Goldman Investigation By Warning Germany on Banking Regulation, Asks for More Influence On European Politicians

'"When profits fall too sharply then capital will move somewhere else, where there is more money to be earned, for example non-regulated markets," Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said in the German mass circulation Sunday paper Welt am Sonntag. "The question is, is that what regulators want?"... he also said the banking industry could do with more influence on politicians." Reuters

In response to calls for an investigation of Goldman Sachs and tighter regulations on the Wall Street Banks, the CEO of JP Morgan has delivered fresh promises of financial damage if the Banks are restrained in their derivatives dealings by government regulation, and even more arrogantly, demanded greater access to European politicians.

Germany would do well to send a strong message that the European government will not be intimidated by financial threats and manipulation by foreign banks, no matter how powerful in both size and political connections.

Appeasement does not work against unbridled greed and pervasive fraud. It picks its victims, one by one, but none are safe.

The solution to this is simple. Take away the power of the large Multinational Banks to sway markets with their enormous derivatives positions.

They seek to control you by controlling your currencies and the issuance of debt. This is nothing new, except for the scale and power of a few Banks, most of which are US based.

This interview could be the result of a cultural misunderstanding. The New York Bankers are accustomed to threatening the US politicians and people if they do not get their way. This is what they had done when they received their trillions in public money with much secrecy and little accountability

Break the Banks up, and put them to the traditional task of allocating capital to commercial markets. If the US will not reform the financial system, ban them from any banking activities in your region.

Change the dollar reserve currency system which is firmly in the hands of the Wall Street money center banks, their friends at the Treasury and in the Congress, and their employees at the Fed.

Do it now while you still can.

Reuters
JPMorgan chief warns of overregulation
By Vera Eckert
April 18, 2010

(Reuters) - The head of JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) in a German newspaper interview on Sunday turned against the possibility of stricter bank regulation and asked for better access for bankers to politicians.

"When profits fall too sharply then capital will move somewhere else, where there is more money to be earned, for example non-regulated markets," Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said in the German mass circulation Sunday paper Welt am Sonntag.

"The question is, is that what regulators want?," said Dimon who heads the second-largest U.S. bank.

Dimon has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration's proposed financial regulatory reforms, particularly of a proposed bailout fee on big banks which he has called a "punitive bank tax."

In the German interview, he also said the banking industry could do with more influence on politicians.

Both the industry and government wanted what was best for their country and the economic system but there were areas where the banks lacked possibilities to demonstrate their arguments to politicians and supply them with the right facts, he said.

A Modern Tale of Financial Loss

A developer (Goldman) built houses that looked well built, but were in reality designed to be firetraps, using plans provided by an architect (Paulson). They were sold as conforming to code with certain characteristics represented and endorsed by the building inspectors (Ratings Agencies) and overseen by fire inspectors who did spot checks (the SEC).

After the sale, the developer and the architect bought huge amounts of fire insurance on the homes from a friendly insurance agent (AIG London) who was eager to collect the commissions. The amounts that were insured were sometimes well in excess of what a home might actually be worth. They even took out policies on nearby homes that they had not even built or sold.

The developer had also encouraged the city government to allow the firetrucks and safety equipment to fall into disrepair, and for too few inspectors to be hired to do spot safety checks. So when the houses inevitably burned, the fire department was unable to adequately respond. The fires became so bad that they destroyed entire neighborhoods and threatened whole sections of the city.

The developer and architect were able to submit their insurance claims for sums that were so staggering that the insurance company for which the London agent worked was itself facing bankruptcy. This would have placed at risk the holders of its other policies in completely unrelated areas such as life and auto insurance, and retirement annuities.

So the developer had government people, whom he had helped to elect, provide government backing for the insurance company, for the good of the public. The people who had lost their homes and those who were forced to help to pay the developer were very upset.

But the developer was a large advertiser in the local newspaper, and a old school friend of the owner, so it ignored the complaints, and reported on the story from every perspective except what had really happened. It blamed the people who had lost their homes for being foolish and not inspecting the homes more closely, and taking the developer and the housing inspectors at their word, and trusting the fire departments and its inspectors to do their jobs.

And anyone who complained too loudly was at first ignored, then ridiculed, and finally threatened with arrest. After all, the developer was one of the most important and influential people in the city, and had many powerful friends. Any suggestion that they had done anything wrong was simply unbelievable.

After all, it is inconceivable that an upstanding member of the commuity would ever endanger so many people's lives and homes like that just for personal profit.

The End (for now)

Slick Willy Rewrites the History of the Financial Crisis and Regulation, Blames His Advisors

The hypocrisy of the oligarchs knows no bounds.

Bill Clinton conveniently forgets the hundreds of millions of campaign contributions that he and Hillary so famously raised from Wall Street for the Democrats. They taught their party, always a bit chaotic but left dispirited after the Kennedy assassinations, that 'greed is good.,' and it certainly pays well. You can put up $1000 and obtain a return of $100,000 in a futures market of which you know nothing, and do nothing, if you know the right people.

The price of their perfidy was the overturning of Glass-Steagall and the planting of the seeds of the bubbles and financial crises that the US is still experiencing today.

There is no doubt that George W. Bush hatched the egg, and nurtured it into a ferocious buzzard of fraud and greed. But Bill Clinton laid the egg. And Obama continues to feed the beast, and maintains the very same advisors that Clinton blames in the Rubin proteges Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.

Americans embrace the "CEO defense." Hey, everyone makes mistakes. All you have to do is say, "Oops, I made a mistake" and all is forgiven, from Greenspan to Clinton.

When you make a big enough mistake, or a series of mistakes, and profit by it, and your actions have the stench of corruption, you should be sacked, disgraced, and shunned for a decent period of time.

The elite media is in a panic. I had the opportunity to watch "The Chris Matthews Show" and the comparisons of Tim McVeigh, Ruby Ridge, and Waco to the Tea Party Movement went way over the top, suggesting the possibility of imminent crisis. I can almost see the over-reaction and paranoia coming over the horizon.

There is a tremendous temptation for the old media, and even the bloggers, to go along to get along, to deal only with the 'safe subjects' and reforms, and to play the party line for the status quo. It provides the admittance to the powers, and the venues where they pose for the press. It brings connections and praise from those in power. All you have to do is say thing, or deal with this legitimate problem but in the way we suggest. And ignore these other things.

It does happen. It is not always obvious, but it is there. And if you say 'no' you are attacked or shunned. And being your own person, not taking 'sides' in distorting the facts in one direction or the other, puts one is in the 'grays' always caught between black and white. It sounds noble, but it is a lonely watch.

I am absolutely no follower or even admirer of Sarah Palin. I think she is a shameless opportunist playing to the crowd, saying whatever will deliver money and power. She is the Bill Clinton of the right, or even worse, a Huey Long. And the Tea Party crowd is badly in need of adult supervision. And Fox News is too often blatant propaganda, and pandering to and inflaming extremism for commercial gain. I often suspect that they are part of the Hegelian dialectic, the means of defusing legitimate reform into ineffective noise.

Bear in mind I was a conservative before 'conservatism' was cool, going back to the Goldwater movement and the traditional and principal conservatism embodied by Edmund Burke and James Burnham. These Fox conservatives for the most part are the worst of breed. But such is the quality of discourse and action in the States as it declines.

But having said all that, the grievances are legitimate, the Congress is corrupted by the current campaign contribution laws, the US financial system is rife with fraud, the economy is dysfunctional as a price discovery and capital allocation system, and the inequality of power and wealth is a significant obstacle to progress and domestic tranquility.

Obama is leaving a leadership vacuum by his indolent style of leading by indirection, trying to build a consensus to do the right thing, teaching the Congress to fish. I have great sympathy for the challenge he faces. The problem is that the Congress cannot even find the stream for hitting one another with their poles. There are serious and fundamental flaws in the political and economic structure in the US that become more acute and systemically threatening with each false recovery.

How all this resolves is difficult to see. A new financial crisis will almost certainly bring things to a head, but it remains to be seen how America will react to the realization that they have been badly used, and are expected to suffer, in some cases greatly, for it. But before America the jackals appear to be descending on Europe. And Europe, and especially the UK, may provide us with some insight into the future of the world's greatest but declining superpower.

Bloomberg
Clinton Says He Had Bad Advice on Derivatives
By Joshua Zumbrun

April 18 (Bloomberg) -- Former President Bill Clinton said he should have pushed for regulation of financial derivatives when he was president, rejecting the advice of top economic advisers Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.

The argument was that derivatives didn’t need transparency because they were “expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of people would buy them,” Clinton said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “The flaw in this argument was that first of all, sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”

“Even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect 100 percent of the investments,” Clinton said. The show was taped yesterday for broadcast today.

Tighter regulation of derivatives trading is part of a package of financial reforms being pushed by the Obama administration against Republican opposition. The Senate is debating a bill introduced by Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd that would also give the federal government the authority to unravel institutions whose failure threatens the financial system.

Bush Blamed

Clinton also said the Bush administration contributed to the financial crisis with lax regulation.

“I think what happened was the SEC and the whole regulatory apparatus after I left office was just let go,” Clinton said. If Clinton’s head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Levitt, had remained in that job, “an enormous percentage of what we’ve been through in the last eight years would not have happened,” Clinton said.

Levitt is a director of Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News.

Clinton also said that Republicans who controlled Congress would have stopped him from trying to regulate derivatives. “I wish I had been caught trying,” Clinton said. “I mean, that was a mistake I made.”

"Do you think he is so unskillful in his craft, as to ask you openly and plainly to join him in his warfare against the Truth?

No; he offers you baits to tempt you. He promises you civil liberty; he promises you equality; he promises you trade and wealth; he promises you a remission of taxes; he promises you reform. He promises you illumination, he offers you knowledge, science, philosophy, enlargement of mind.

He scoffs at times gone by; he scoffs at every institution which reveres them. He prompts you what to say, and then listens to you, and praises you, and encourages you. He bids you mount aloft. He shows you how to become as gods.

Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his."

John Henry Newman, The Antichrist

Janet Tavakoli: Did Goldman Sachs Commit Fraud?

Highlights:

Yes. The only thing that was surprising how long the SEC took to do it.

The complaint does not go quite far enough. It was a blatant fraud, more than just a failure to disclose information.

And this may be the beginning of a lot of questions about a lot of investment banks. It has massive implications IF the SEC does its job right, which they have not done in the past.

Tavakoli Structured Finance

Weekly Metals WrapUp with Ted Butler on King World News

Ted Butler April 16 Metals Review mp3

• The weekly change all occurred on Friday, related to the Goldman Sachs fraud scandal.
  
  
• GLD holdings are high or near the highs. But there are continuing noticeable withdrawals in SLV making a sharp decline in the metal claimed to back the silver exchange-traded fund SLV. This may signify that the metal is needed somewhere else amid a worsening shortage of metal that is at worst neutral and most likely bullish.
  
  
• Market analyst Jim Rickards' interview last week with King World News was important for citing the lack of transparency of the London Bullion Market Association and confirmed Ted's judgement. It's as "far away from transparency as you can get without being completely opaque." "You can't depend on anything the LBMA says," Butler complains, adding that the LBMA discloses "nothing verifiable" and "I wouldn't trust anything from the LBMA."
  
  
• Having sued Goldman Sachs for fraud on Friday, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may give some backbone to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to act against Goldman and J. P. Morgan and other banks in their manipulation of the precious metals and commodities markets. The SEC action is a real 'cage rattler' in the financial reform discussions in Washington.
  
  
• The only question is that maybe the 'commercial crooks' can work the metals market lower in the short term, but silver looks well set up to take off in the not too distant future.

Wealth Dispersion and General Thoughts on the Future of Economics on a Saturday Afternoon

Here is an interesting graph of wealth distribution, or dispersion, as I call it from Cherchez La Verite.

I am not sure I agree with his conclusions or even his premise, not because I disagree but because it requires some thinking and leisure to digest it. But the data is most interesting.

I wonder if any of the quant economists have performed simulations on virtual populations, and then examined the results of varying different tax rates, and concentrations of wealth because of fiscal policy and regulatory structure, among other things.

I have an hypothesis that great concentrations of wealth lead to economic stagnation, but I am afraid that I have not the means or the talent anymore to conduct that type of research.

The difficulty in a study like this is that the assumptions are greatly magnified into the results. If you assume certain buying, spending, and savings behaviours, the downstream impact can greatly alter, and even distort, the outcomes.

And when people reason through this verbally, rather than perform a structured simulation based on transactions, the distortions increase by an order of magnitude or more based on their own biases.

I used to create simulations like this all the time, for industrial and commercial purposes, and also did a decent amount of econometric modeling. So I am sure someone is doing it somewhere. But I suspect they are doing it in think tanks and places where the outcome is predetermined by the basis of their grant.

Concentrated wealth magnifies the needs and predispositions of the holder. Since the amount they require for basic necessities can only consume so much, one would think that the amount spend on the aggregate of necessities will eventually be reduced. And what they do with their excess of necessity wealth is going to be greatly influenced by their character. Are they a gambler, who inherited the wealth? Are they productive and beneficent? Are they dissolute and venal?

And what about government? Taxation can concentrate enormous wealth in the government. What sort of government does one have, or does one assume? Are they warlike, productive, redistributive, and how corrupt? What about corporations? They can be like small governments, and levy taxes through monopoly and persistent frauds. How are they managed? Corporations are not rational machines, as the efficient market hypothesis would probably presume. Indeed, corporations are often much worse than governments in terms of sheer blockheadedness, greed, and short-termism.

Hard to say. But there is a related field of study in decision making theory, which looks not at wealth but the distribution of decision making power in organizations. It is concerned with the validity and effectiveness of decisions made across a range of broader consensus to a narrow oligopoly and even a great man dictatorship.

The general observation I came to in this study was that decisions tend to be more valid depending on the quality of the information, the facility of the evaluation of it, or intelligence/learning/experience, less the biases and distortions.

A decision becomes a little better if the information is more widely dispersed and a variety of actors can exchange freely in increasing and refining it. There is a point of decision dispersion where the returns not only diminish, but become counterproductive because of the noise and inability of new actors to add value, and actually detract from the process. But finally what I found interesting is that in the aggregate personal error, bias and distortions tends to diminish quickly as a detractor from the result, assuming a non-homogeneous population with some independence of thought.

So too this same sort of study can be applied to the concentration of wealth, since wealth is power. But it is even more interesting because spending habits will vary since the percentage of spending on essentials changes much more slowly than wealth can increase.

And how one assesses the outcomes is also essential. What is thought to be a 'good outcome?' Not necessarily in a rough measure like aggregate GDP, but perhaps GDP with modifiers like the median wage, and a poverty level of essential spending. This is important because so often economic policy arguments are presented with the goal of optimizing short term GDP.

Alas, I have little hope that this will be done now, for the US has had a leadership role in quantitative economic studies, and their work has been twisted generally into the service of whores, robber barons, and gamblers as the speculative society reaches a crescendo. But some day this too will change.

SP 500 Daily Chart: Hanging On to Support

"Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The pom poms and nearly everything else was swinging wildly in the breeze this morning as the American financial press was wildly cheering the earnings news from Bank of America and their brilliant acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

Does anyone bother to notice that none of these banks are making any money from traditional banking activity? You know, the kind that is supposed to be supporting the capital allocation process and growth in the real economy? Its as if all the carpenters, plumbers, engineers and teachers left their real work and became carnies and professional gamblers, or even worse, politicians. We're celebrating that as a sign of a rensaissance and economic recovery.

I wonder if Sir Alan provided any counsel to the Paulson fund on that Abacus deal with Goldman Sachs that just blew up in their faces. Greenspan is one of their advisors, after all.

The Michigan Sentiment number came in at a very disappointing 69.0 versus expectations in the 75 range. What is wrong with the public, don't they see that the stock market is hitting new highs almost every day? This is what the anchorperson asked this morning on Bloomberg TV. But she was obviously not chosen for her analytical skills.

The news on the Goldman fraud took the wind out of their sails, at least temporarily. I thought it was cute that the SEC chose to announce this on a stock option expiration day.

The spin maachine is working overtime to digest this latest scandal, and turn it into something more palatable for the folks at home. But really, it looks pretty grim here. What happens when you are in the middle of a crowded con game, and someone yells, "Fraud!"

"Goldman Sachs Are Scum:" Max Keiser on Goldman Sachs From July 2009

Here is a video interview on France 24 television with Max Keiser speaking on Goldman Sachs from almost one year ago.

By the way, NO ONE who is a serious player on Wall Street is legitimately surprised by this, and probably no one in regulatory bodies are either, unless they are just showing up to collect a paycheck and obtain free Internet access.

The antics of Goldman Sachs have been getting by on a 'wink and a nod' from the regulators and the market for some time. Why? Because they are powerful, and because like Lehman and their off balance sheet frauds, they are almost ALL doing it on Wall Street as part of the franchise. Goldman has just been a pig about it, and probably burned some insiders and powerful investors in their fraudulent Abacus trade.

The excuses being made for Goldman by some on Bloomberg Television and CNBC are setting new lows in journalism. It was just a simple failure to disclosure Paulson's involvement right? Almost a technicality. No one forced the customers to buy those fraudulently packaged and labeled assets or stocks (this was a favorite excuse from Joe Kernan during the Internet/tech bubble collapse). No involvement from the Ratings Agencies in the purposeful crafting of a fraudulent financial instrument. Guest Calls Cramer a 'PR Man for Goldman Sachs' and is ejected from the show by the resident money honey.

As you may recall, Mr. Cramer represents himself as highly experienced in manipulating stocks using CNBC reporters from his days as a hedge fund manager. So it might not be so outre to inquire if he is working the other side of that Wall Street scam these days.

Why, these derivatives were SO complex that the poor Goldman management barely understood them themselves. They were tricked by Paulson. Tourre is a rogue trader. Bernie Madoff ate their Series 7 cheatsheets. Compliance was seconded to the Riviera. Lloyd was busy doing missionary work in Bangkok. More regulation will just hurt the recovery.

Don't just regulate them. Break them up. And audit the Fed.



I am glad the professor is from HEC. I did my international business MBA sequence (an extended field trip for adults, but the refreshments were good) at the 'other' business school in Paris at La Defense, ESSEC.

Max Keiser

SEC Formally Charges Goldman Sachs In Derivatives Fraud with Paulson and Company - another 'Rogue Trader at Work?'

“Only fraud and falsehood dread examination. Truth invites it.”
Dr. Samuel Johnson

The SEC is formally charging Goldman Sachs with fraud in the derivatives markets, specifically with regard to Collateralized Debt Obligations related to subprime mortgages.

Investors in Goldman's Abacus CDO lost one billion dollars.

In addition to the company, an individual VP in Goldman's international group is being charged, Fabrice Tourre.

Paulson and Company, a major hedge fund, paid Goldman to structure a CDO based on mortgages that Paulson selected, so that they could bet against it.

"The product was new and complex, but the deception and conflicts are old and simple. Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party,” said Robert Khuzami, director of the division of enforcement.

This could be construed as a deft way of throwing red meat to the angry mob, nailing a specific individual at Goldman while limiting the criminal charges against the company although there will be significant civil cases, and dealing with the billionaire hedge fund owner Paulson who made a fortune betting against the subprime market.

This could be more damaging if this includes other Goldman bets against its customers on products it represented and created, and it shows an overall intent to create fraudulent products for the purpose of shorting them. For now the SEC will not say if this fraud is a singular event or more systemic.

Goldman will almost certainly attempt to spin this as the actions of a 'rogue trader' who was an aggressive exception.

Last week the White House asked Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein to 'cool it' on their intense lobbying efforts against derivatives and financial reform.

Perhaps this will help them in their decision.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The Wall Street Banks are knee deep in fraud.

No one can obtain the kind of consistently odds defying returns that Goldman was producing without either cooking the books or engaging in some type of gaming the system, which is a polite word for fraud. That is the same 'tell' as the steady and outsized returns that Madoff is producing.

Let's see if this goes any deeper, and if serious punishments and reforms result.

The SEC can only enforce the Securities Laws, but cannot bring criminal charges. Since Paulson is not being charged, since he made no representations regarding the products, only Goldman is being sued by the SEC. Their alleged gain in this is $15 million dollars, the fees it obtained from Goldman. And Goldman will say that they were only serving their customer, Paulson.

Certainly Goldman will be subject to civil lawsuits and discovery. But the real test of the Obama government will be any role that the Justice Department does or does not take in this. They could of course defer, using the show trials of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission as a rationale to take no action.

This is blatant fraud and white collar crime being conducted by an organization that is paying contributions to half the Congress and the Administration, and staffing key positions in the government with its employees. Do you really think it will be brought to full disclosure and equal justice?

In a statement Goldman says that "The SEC’s charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation." Fabrice Tourre was last seen being thrown under a bus, and could not be reached for comment.

Watch the Justice Department and the Obama Administration to see what they do or do not do, and you will be able to know their character and intents. But in fairness the big Broker-Dealers in the US are RARELY indicted for anything. They virtually own the country's political and justice system.

"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street." Barack Obama to CBS News.

Time do something besides talk the US to death about what you are going to do, and how the Republicans and lobbyists are getting in your way, and how great it will be when you finally do it. The SEC is relatively toothless, and probably by design. The FCIC will be tramping in the weeds for the rest of the year.

You do not need the Republicans, and you do not need the Congress, to fully engage the Justice Department and the FBI in investigating this fraud, Mr. Obama.

The most likely outcome will be a disgorgement of profits and a wristslap, and a promise by Goldman to change its business practices, while admitting no wrong. That will be the 'business as usual' outcome, and a sign that reform is an illusion.

Meanwhile, the market manipulation continues. I thought it was cute the way in which the metals bears used this news to sell the market in an attempt to sustian their huge naked short positions. "Never waste a crisis."

The US Congress reacts to the scandalous news.


Breaking news on breaking the rules, more to follow.

Eric Sprott on the Economy, the Markets, and the PHYS Gold Trust

UBS Shareholders Vote to Hold Top Management Personally Responsible for Losses

This is the way to start putting some 'teeth' into financial reform.

Bank managers must be held accountable for their actions, preferably by shareholders. The Swiss are showing the way on this.

SwissInfo.CH
UBS has “witnessed a Waterloo”
By Time Neville
Apr 15, 2010

Swiss newspapers on Thursday morning were full of praise for UBS shareholders who voted to hold 2007 executives partially responsible for the bank’s near collapse.

Commentators say the decision not to exonerate former CEO Marcel Ospel and other top managers of allowing the bank to suffer record losses and reputational damage is nothing short of historic.

“Shareholders yesterday preferred honesty over immediate profit,” the Geneva-based Le Temps newspaper said in an article titled, “Shareholder courage”.

“It was a courageous and responsible decision.”

During the big bank’s annual shareholder meeting in Basel, some 4,700 stockholders representing 1.7 billion shares, voted by a margin of 53 per cent to reject recommendations by the current board to absolve executives from all responsibility for the bank’s staggering subprime losses that prompted a SFr 60 billion federal bailout.

The decision means former managers are now exposed to potential lawsuits.

“This is something that no one for a long time thought possible,” said Blick. “By standing up to the board, the owners of UBS have written economic history.”

Shareholder democracy

The Tages-Anzeiger newspaper said the vote serves as a “slap” to top executives and represents a turning point that the bank cannot deny.

“With this ‘no’ chairman of the board Kaspar Villiger and UBS have witnessed a Waterloo,” the paper wrote. “Although this means little to nothing in concrete terms, symbolically it means much.”

The paper went on to say the vote is a “triumph for shareholder democracy”, and notes it was the first time shareholders of a large public company succeeded in going against the will of the executive board “not only to send a signal” but also in doing so with a majority of votes.

“Imagine: Managers selling their own shares worth SFr150 million at high market conditions through the summer…and then presenting SFr50 billion in losses. To absolve them of that, that’s too much for even the most good-natured shareholder,” the paper said.

That may be true but it was no knee-jerk reaction, countered the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

“By agreeing with most of the board’s recommendations – such as 85 per cent agreeing that the current UBS top brass should be absolved of responsibility – the majority of shareowners are implying they do not want to hobble the bank despite their displeasure.”

What next?

“And now?” asked Le Temps.

The NZZ says the bank would be “well advised” not to go back to business as usual.

The Tages Anzeiger argues that to “really draw a line under the past”, Villiger must consider whether to prepare a case against former managers. At best, it’s a job for a “neutral judge” to decide whether "the old UBS" broke the law, it said.

“That way, [Grübel and Villiger] can take care of the new UBS uninhibited.”

Le Temps says it seems “unimaginable” that the board would stick to the status quo, after a vote akin to “the mutiny of the Bounty”.

“Yesterday’s vote will have consequences beyond the bank,” it argued, saying the era of powerful shareholder democracy has been crowned “with spectacular force”.

“But be careful,” it warned. “Shareholder democracy can’t regulate everything, in particular in the banking realm, where the central question of systemic risk remains intact.”

The paper’s cross-town rival, the Tribune de Genève, put it more bluntly. It shot down an argument that Ospel and company would never go before a civil or criminal court because such a suit would be too expensive or an exercise in futility.

“Whatever!” it said. “The penalty imposed yesterday has a symbolic significance far greater than all the judgments of the convoluted world. Swiss economic democracy has finally succeeded in overthrowing a regime. For that it is thanked.”