Weakening momentum and light volumes.
Any event will likely do it, even if Benny throws his best slop at it.
But if volumes remain light and the markets detached from reality, they can drift on monetization.
"The more power a government has the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. Power will achieve its murderous potential. It simply waits for an excuse, an event of some sort, an assassination, a massacre in a neighboring country, an attempted coup, a famine, or a natural disaster, to justify the beginning of murder en masse."
R. J. Rummel, Mass Murder and Genocide, 1994
NYT
Volcker Out, Immelt In on Economic Board
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ANAHAD O’CONNOR
January 21, 2011
SCHENECTADY, N.Y. — President Obama will name Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chief executive officer and chairman of General Electric, on Friday to run his outside panel of economic advisers, replacing Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, who is stepping down, the White House said.
Mr. Immelt will chair a new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness that Mr. Obama intends to create by executive order. In a statement issued shortly after midnight, Mr. Obama said he wants the council to “focus its work on finding new ways to encourage the private sector to hire and invest in American competitiveness.”
The council will be a reconfigured version of the board Mr. Volcker chaired, the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. That body, created by Mr. Obama when he took office in the thick of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, is set to expire on Feb. 6...
NYT
Path Is Sought for States to Escape Debt Burdens
By Mary Williams Walsh
January 20, 2011
Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.
Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.
But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.
Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care. Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides.
Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions, and it could provide an alternative to a no-strings bailout. Along with retirees, however, investors in a state’s bonds could suffer, possibly ending up at the back of the line as unsecured creditors.
“All of a sudden, there’s a whole new risk factor,” said Paul S. Maco, a partner at the firm Vinson & Elkins who was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities during the Clinton administration.
For now, the fear of destabilizing the municipal bond market with the words “state bankruptcy” has proponents in Congress going about their work on tiptoe. No draft bill is in circulation yet, and no member of Congress has come forward as a sponsor, although Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, about the possiblity in a hearing this month.
House Republicans, and Senators from both parties, have taken an interest in the issue, with nudging from bankruptcy lawyers and a former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, who could be a Republican presidential candidate. It would be difficult to get a bill through Congress, not only because of the constitutional questions and the complexities of bankruptcy law, but also because of fears that even talk of such a law could make the states’ problems worse.
Lawmakers might decide to stop short of a full-blown bankruptcy proposal and establish instead some sort of oversight panel for distressed states, akin to the Municipal Assistance Corporation, which helped New York City during its fiscal crisis of 1975.
Still, discussions about something as far-reaching as bankruptcy could give governors and others more leverage in bargaining with unionized public workers...
"The real collapse of our currency began when it became evident that certain industrial circles were more powerful than the government."An Economic Philosophy That Has Completely Failed, William K. Black
Adam Fergusson, When Money Dies
" You have to choose between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability of the honesty and intelligence of the members of the Government. And, with due respect for these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the Capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold."
George Bernard Shaw
"In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding on the back of the tiger, ended up inside."
"Gold pays no interest because it is ultimately safe. Gold is the only currency that has lasted through the centuries, going back 6,000 years. Currencies have to pay interest so that they will be attractive enough for people to hold them. As a rule, the poorer and riskier the nation, the more its currency must pay in interest in order to attract investors. Normally, the dollar would be paying an attractive rate of interest, except for the manipulations of the Fed. Thus short rates in the US are around zero, courtesy of the Fed."
Richard Russell
"An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions...In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves."
Alan Greenspan
![]() |
| VIX - Nov 1, 2010 to January 18, 2011 |
![]() |
| VIX - Nov 1, 2009 to January 18, 2010 |
![]() |
| VIX - Nov 1, 2009 to Feb 1, 2010 |
![]() |
| SP 500 From November 2009 to February 8, 2010 |
Imagine you are China.
At some point, probably shortly after the year 2000, a large US bank comes to you via the US Treasury discreetly and asks to borrow 300 million ounces of silver. The deal is that the Treasury/Fed will provide you with US Treasury bills as collateral. The US sweetens the deal by granting the unrelated negotiating point of most favored nation trading status, and explicitly but verbally guarantees the deal with its full faith and credit. The Bank, with explicit US backing, promises to return your silver on demand after four years.
Some six years later you come back and ask the Bank for your $300 million ounces of silver. They say that the silver is gone, having been sold into the physical bullion market.
So you ask, well, what did you do with it?
And the Treasury answers, we lent it to the bullion banks and JPM, who sold it in the markets as a part of our plan to keep the prices of gold and silver from rising, in order to sound a warning about our monetization of the reserve currency using Treasuries.
So you approach the US Treasury and complain, asking them to honor the agreement. The Administration says, "we are sorry, but we no longer have the silver and we do not have any in our reserves. So you can keep our paper IOUs we offered as collateral instead."
You are very angry as you do not wish to own more paper, but instead the bullion which is a legacy asset. You, as China, consider the situation, and start selling silver short on the Comex, using HSBC and JPM as your agents. They sell the entire 300 million ounces of silver short. On the side and through other sources, you are using other agents to buy this same silver in the form of physical bullion for your own reserves. You consider this an equitable return of your bullion at a relatively neutral price compared to that at which you lent it.
When JPM and HSBC need the silver to cover the pledges on the short sale as more people demand delivery and existing supplies become tighter, you as China offer the pledge of the US for your 300 million ounces of silver as collateral and says "collect it from your colleagues at the US government."
Technically the short sale is 'hedged' because the US offers little counter-party risk, and it is their IOU that is the basis of the short sale. The problem is that the collateral is in dispute between two sovereign nations.
But in point of fact the US does not have and cannot obtain this quantity of silver without severely disrupting the silver market, or demanding the output of its own silver mines which is unconstitutional. They do have the power to force a 'cash settlement' for the short positions, but this would be viewed as precipitating a major default on the Comex and with the Fed's "house bank" JPM. Not exactly a trust builder in already shaky markets tainted by scandals of fraudulently valued paper.
And so the market remains at an impasse with a tremendous undeliverable short in silver with the US and JPM in a very embarrassing position of being entrapped in what China considers their own scheme by one of the few entities capable of standing up to them - their major creditor China.
I am China. My friend is JPM/Treasury. Let's call him Jamie.
His wife Joan is the American public.
Jamie calls and borrows $1000 dollars from me. He promises to pay it back in four years and gives me an IOU.
Four years later I call Jamie back and ask for the return of my loan. Jamies says sorry he doesn't have it. Too bad. So sad.
I then in turn borrow $1000 from his wife Joan. When she asks for return of her money I hand her Jamie's $1000 IOU and tell her to get her money back from her husband Jamie.
I now have my money back, and perhaps a little personal satisfaction to boot, depending on how Jamie had spent my $1000 in the first place, and what if anything he had told his wife about it.
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." Leona Helmsley
Guardian UK
Swiss Whistleblower Rudolf Elmer plans to hand over Offshore Banking Secrets of the Rich and Famous to WikiLeaks
Ed Vulliamy
Sunday 16 January 2011
The offshore bank account details of 2,000 "high net worth individuals" and corporations – detailing massive potential tax evasion – will be handed over to the WikiLeaks organisation in London tomorrow by the most important and boldest whistleblower in Swiss banking history, Rudolf Elmer, two days before he goes on trial in his native Switzerland.
British and American individuals and companies are among the offshore clients whose details will be contained on CDs presented to WikiLeaks at the Frontline Club in London. Those involved include, Elmer tells the Observer, "approximately 40 politicians".
Elmer, who after his press conference will return to Switzerland from exile in Mauritius to face trial, is a former chief operating officer in the Cayman Islands and employee of the powerful Julius Baer bank, which accuses him of stealing the information.
He is also – at a time when the activities of banks are a matter of public concern – one of a small band of employees and executives seeking to blow the whistle on what they see as unprofessional, immoral and even potentially criminal activity by powerful international financial institutions.
Along with the City of London and Wall Street, Switzerland is a fortress of banking and financial services, but famously secretive and expert in the concealment of wealth from all over the world for tax evasion and other extra-legal purposes.
Elmer says he is releasing the information "in order to educate society". The list includes "high net worth individuals", multinational conglomerates and financial institutions – hedge funds". They are said to be "using secrecy as a screen to hide behind in order to avoid paying tax". They come from the US, Britain, Germany, Austria and Asia – "from all over.
Clients include "business people, politicians, people who have made their living in the arts and multinational conglomerates – from both sides of the Atlantic". Elmer says: "Well-known pillars of society will hold investment portfolios and may include houses, trading companies, artwork, yachts, jewellery, horses, and so on."
"What I am objecting to is not one particular bank, but a system of structures," he told the Observer. "I have worked for major banks other than Julius Baer, and the one thing on which I am absolutely clear is that the banks know, and the big boys know, that money is being secreted away for tax-evasion purposes, and other things such as money-laundering – although these cases involve tax evasion."
Elmer was held in custody for 30 days in 2005, and is charged with breaking Swiss bank secrecy laws, forging documents and sending threatening messages to two officials at Julius Baer.
Elmer says: "I agree with privacy in banking for the person in the street, and legitimate activity, but in these instances privacy is being abused so that big people can get big banking organisations to service them. The normal, hard-working taxpayer is being abused also.
"Once you become part of senior management," he says, "and gain international experience, as I did, then you are part of the inner circle – and things become much clearer. You are part of the plot. You know what the real products and service are, and why they are so expensive. It should be no surprise that the main product is secrecy … Crimes are committed and lies spread in order to protect this secrecy."
The names on the CDs will not be made public, just as a much shorter list of 15 clients that Elmer handed to WikiLeaks in 2008 has remained hitherto undisclosed by the organisation headed by Julian Assange, currently on bail over alleged sex offences in Sweden, and under investigation in the US for the dissemination of thousands of state department documents.
"I was intrigued with O'Malia's no vote. He seems to be wrapped up in the massive swaps by the banks and he does not know how to regulate these. He is probably scared to death if JPMorgan has to open their swap books and see the trades that I have highlighted to you to you on many occasions.
It is has been my contention all along that the real short position on silver is not JPMorgan or HSBC but mainland China. The USA needed a hoard of silver supply to compliment the banking gold supply to keep the suppression scheme alive.
China had about 300 million oz of silver inherited with the overtake of China in 1949. The gold was air-freighted to Taiwin (69 tonnes) but the silver remained in Shanghai and Beijing. In 1990 the usa had 2 billion oz of above ground silver and by 2003 their supply went to zero. They needed the Chinese supply.
Here was their supposed deal: in or around the year 2000 and events leading up to now:
1. USA gives most favoured nation treatment to China.This is what O'Malia is frightened of when the CFTC sees the swap book on Morgan."
2. China lends silver in a swap position. China gets dollars as collateral and USA gets silver.
3. China can get their silver back at any time say past 3 or 4 years.
4. China loves the deal as they pick up gold on the cheap.
5. It is now 2010 and China want its silver back but the usa state that the silver is gone. They can keep the usa dollars in collateral.
6. China refuses and is angry. They now massively short on the comex knowing that they will not supply the metal. It is up to the bankers.
7. They [China or the Banks? - Jess] use conduits on the buy side and take delivery.
| More testimony from Secretary Geithner after this message... |
"Did you know that there are two seasonal patterns with an accuracy ratio of 90% or higher? This is no joke. The numbers don't lie, but there is one caveat.
The January Barometer has a 90% rate of success. The essence of the January Barometer is simple, as January goes, so goes the year. If January is up, the entire year will be up and vice versa.
90% Accuracy - Too Good to be True?
From 1950 to 2008 this pattern has played out most of the time. There were only five times when it outright failed and seven times when it wasn't exactly accurate. According to the Stock Trader's Almanac, the Barometer has a 90% accuracy ratio. In terms of odds, that's about as good as it gets.
However, the January Barometer led investors in the wrong direction in 2001 when the S&P was down a full 13% at the end of the year after being up 3.5% in January. Again, there was a major misfire in 2003 when the S&P finished with a 26.4% gain after a 2.7% January loss.
There was a minor misfire in 2005, but the Barometer couldn't have been more wrong in 2009 and 2010. In 2009 the S&P was down 8.6% in January but ended the year with a 23.5% gain. After a 3.9% January loss last year, the S&P (SNP: ^GSPC) finished with a 12.6% gain."
ETFguide