Page 62 of 68 FirstFirst ... 125259606162636465 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 672

Thread: Defaulting banks - where will it stop?

  1. #611

    Default

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As the 2012 presidential election season heats up, new campaign finance figures reveal Wall Street is heavily investing in President Obama. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the Democratic National Committee and Obama have together raised more than $14 million from the securities and investment industry, compared to nearly $9.5 million contributed to his Republican rival, Mitt Romney. This makes Wall Street the third most generous industry donating to Obama’s re-election efforts. The news comes amidst ongoing investigations by the Justice Department into massive financial fraud by some of the nation’s largest banks. Yet four years after the 2008 economic crisis, not a single top Wall Street executive has gone to jail.
    Well, to look at how the politically powerful enjoy virtual immunity from the consequences of even the most egregious crimes, we’re joined here in New York by Glenn Greenwald. Familiar to all Democracy Now! viewers and listeners, he’s a constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com. He writes about Wall Street’s impunity in his book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, which was released in paperback this week.
    Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Glenn.
    GLENN GREENWALD: Always great to be back.
    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Before we go to the bankers, it’s the 10th anniversary of President Bush’s signing of the PATRIOT Act, and your book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, comes out this week, as well [Correction: The PATRIOT Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001]. Talk—your reflections after 10 years of the PATRIOT Act, what it’s done to the civil liberties of Americans?
    GLENN GREENWALD: This is the most remarkable thing, to me, about the PATRIOT Act. When the PATRIOT Act was first enacted, it was obviously in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. And even with the sort of fear and hysteria that was prevailing in the country at the time, the PATRIOT Act was considered remarkably controversial, even for that time period. When it was enacted, there were all kinds of editorials warning about the surveillance capabilities that we were investing in in the United States that were unique, warnings and concerns about how pervasive the surveillance would become, about how it could be conducted without oversight. It was really a very controversial provision. The PATRIOT Act had become sort of the symbol of Bush-Cheney radicalism and the way in which the fears of 9/11 and terrorism were being exploited.
    Fast-forward 10 years later, we haven’t had another single successful terrorist attack on American soil, and yet now the PATRIOT Act is completely uncontroversial. It gets renewed every four years. Even in the wake of 9/11, the warnings and concerns of it were sufficiently strong that they put in sunset provisions, saying we don’t want this to be a permanent state of affairs, it has to be renewed every four years. It now gets renewed with no debate. The votes are something like 89 to 10 in the Senate to renew it, with no reforms, even though there’s mass of evidence of systemic abuse. The Democrats and Republicans both renew it when they control Congress. Obama’s administration demanded its renewal without any—without any modifications. And it just goes to show how quickly what’s conceived as radical and what is radical becomes so normalized and a permanent fixture in our political landscape. That, I think, is the really disturbing lesson about the PATRIOT Act.
    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, I wanted to ask you—we’ve just been talking with Amy about the situation in Spain with Bankia, which looks like it’s becoming a combination of Bank of America and Countrywide all rolled into one—
    GLENN GREENWALD: Right.
    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —in terms of its responsibility in the mortgage crisis there in Spain, as well. But I want to read through some of the recent settlements that some banks in the United States and in other parts of the world—Barclays. Barclays, less than a week after, agreed to pay to $450 million to settle accusations that it had tried to manipulate key interest rates. Goldman Sachs agreed to pay $550 million to settle charges of securities fraud—one of the largest penalties against a Wall Street firm by the Securities and Exchange Commission. June 2011, Bank of America announced it would pay $8.5 billion and set aside an additional $5.5 billion to settle claims by investors who bought toxic mortgages from the banking giant. One after another, these banking companies and Wall Street companies keep paying these apparently huge fines, but no one goes to jail.
    GLENN GREENWALD: Right.
    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: No one is prosecuted criminally for these actions.
    GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, I think it’s important to realize that, although these figures sound large, in one sense—$200 million seems like a lot of money, $500 million seems like a lot of money—in the scheme of what these banks are earning across the globe and the magnitude of the fraud, they’re really little more than blips on their balance sheets. I mean, they basically end up writing these things off as a cost of doing business, or really, more accurately, a cost of doing fraud. The amount of money they’ve made on their fraudulent activities vastly outweighs the amount they paid in fines. Now, some of those fines are more significant than that. They’re certainly not negligible once you get into the billion-dollar range. But even so, these banks are still extraordinarily profitable. They’re in fact making more money in some cases than they even were prior to the 2008 crisis. And so, when you look at what the institutional incentives are for banking executives, it is still very much to take these huge risks and gamble, as we saw with, you know, JPMorgan, and there might be $9 billion trading losses that were undetected by regulators.
    And the reason is exactly what you said, which is what is supposed to deter true securities fraud is not that these banks may end up paying some fines institutionally, because that really doesn’t provide enough of incentive, obviously, as that list of yours proves. What is really supposed to deter systemic violations of the securities laws is the fact that they’re criminal offenses. I mean, Congress made them into felonies in the wake of the Great Depression. And yet, there has been zero legal criminal accountability from the financial crisis. And that’s the reason that this behavior continues. It’s exactly because these executives knew that they could take these huge risks and even break laws and pay no real price, and that’s what happened. And it’s not just a travesty of justice that we haven’t punished them for past transgressions. The real danger is that we’re continuing to send the signal to the world’s most powerful financial actors that they don’t have any fear of criminal accountability when they commit these obvious crimes.
    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, I want to play a comment by President Obama on why his administration has not prosecuted any senior financial executives. He was speaking at a White House press conference in October of last year.
    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, first, on the issue of—on the issue of prosecutions on Wall Street, one of the biggest problems about the collapse of Lehmans and the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of that stuff wasn’t necessarily illegal, it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless. That’s exactly why we needed to pass Dodd-Frank, to prohibit some of these practices. You know, the financial sector is very creative, and they are always looking for ways to make money. That’s their job. And if there are loopholes and rules that can be bent and arbitrage to be had, they will take advantage of it. So, you know, without commenting on particular prosecutions—obviously, that’s not my job, that’s the attorney general’s job—you know, I think part of people’s frustrations, part of my frustration was a lot of practices that should not have been allowed weren’t necessarily against the law, but they had a huge destructive impact.
    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: President Obama on why his administration has not prosecuted any senior financial executives. Your response?
    GLENN GREENWALD: That answer is incredibly deceitful and misleading in several important respects. First of all, the massive orgy of deregulation that took place that let Wall Street do many things that for decades had been criminal, took place in the 1990s during the Clinton administration and under Democratic Party control and was led by people like Larry Summers and the whole acolytes of Robert Rubin, such as Timothy Geithner, who ended up being empowered by President Obama at the highest levels of his economic policy team. So this idea that he is somehow disturbed by or in opposition to the kind of deregulation that made a lot of this behavior un-criminal is incredibly misleading, given that those are the people who continue to run his administration.
    Secondly, you notice that he said "some of this behavior" was not criminal. The unspoken implication of it, though, is that much of it was criminal. And, in fact, I just did an interview with Eliot Spitzer, who of course was probably the only elected official in the last two or three decades to put serious fear in the heart of Wall Street, when he was a prosecutor and attorney general and then governor. And I had said, as part of this interview, you know, I know that there’s this notion that prosecutions might be difficult of Wall Street executives, but that’s not a reason to refrain from doing them. And he actually objected and said, "You know what? Prosecutions would not be difficult." And he’s right. We have emails from Wall Street executives where internally they’re mocking the assets that they’re representing to the public as being these sterling assets, and they’re mocking them as garbage and junk. They knew that they were committing fraud. Credit agencies were purposely shielding these assets, knowing that they were junk, as well.
    And then a third issue that he said was, you know, "It’s not my job to comment on prosecutions." That’s particularly ironic, given that President Obama expressly argued and instructed the Justice Department not to prosecute Bush officials for the crimes that were done as part of the war on terror. He’s made comments about Bradley Manning’s prosecution and decreed him guilty in public. And yet, suddenly, when it comes to Wall Street executives, who funded his 2008 campaign and are funding his 2012 campaign, he suddenly becomes very shy and reticent and says, "It’s not my job to comment on prosecutions." He is the leader of the party. He’s the leader of the country. And the fact that we haven’t prosecuted Wall Street executives is one of the greatest national disgraces. You see in Spain, as we heard in that report, some effort to move away from that. That is his responsibility to demand that justice be applied equally. The vow that he made when he announced his presidency—run for the presidency, in the first paragraph of his announcement, he said the era of Scooter Libby justice would be over. Scooter Libby justice means, if you’re sufficiently powerful, you don’t pay a price for your crimes. That was the promise that he made when he ran, and that’s the promise that he’s so woefully failed to fulfill.
    If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass
    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
    "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

  2. #612

    Default Serious Fraud Office launches Libor investigation

    Serious Fraud Office launches Libor investigation

    The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has confirmed that it has formally launched an investigation into the rigging of inter-bank lending rates.Continue reading the main storyLibor scandal



    The case could lead to criminal charges being brought against individuals.
    Its involvement follows an investigation by US and UK regulators into the manipulation of Libor, which resulted in a record fine for Barclays.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, said he was "delighted" by the decision.
    "As a government, we will make sure the SFO has all the resources it needs to conduct this investigation in full," he said.
    "I want the SFO to follow the evidence wherever it goes, to bring prosecutions if they can."
    Last week the bank agreed to pay £290m in penalties after its traders tried to rig inter-bank lending rates, sometimes working with staff at other financial institutions.
    Regulators are continuing to look into possible rate manipulation at other banks, while the US Department of Justice is carrying out its own criminal investigations.
    Continue reading the main story
    An SFO spokesperson confirmed that a dedicated case team had now started work, but would not say whom it was investigating.
    Its short statement said only: "The SFO Director David Green QC has today decided formally to accept the Libor matter for investigation."
    The Libor affair, described by the prime minister as a scandal, has led to the resignation of three of Barclays' most senior executives in a matter of days, including chief executive Bob Diamond.
    He appeared before MPs on the Treasury Select Committee this week, when he called the behaviour of those responsible for Libor rigging at the bank "reprehensible".
    Regulators in the UK and the US found that Barclays staff had tried to affect rates over a number of years, first for profit and then to reduce concerns about how much it was being affected by the financial crisis.
    The SFO is responsible for investigating allegations of serious and complex frauds. It considers whether to prosecute using a number of criteria, including whether it is a matter of public concern, and whether the value of any fraud is more than £1m.
    The government agency said a few days ago that it was considering whether a criminal prosecution was appropriate and possible, and said this could take a month.
    "Normally when there is such a public outcry, the law enforcement agencies manage to act in a more accelerated pace," said Bradley Simon, a former US federal prosecutor who now defends clients in fraud cases.
    He said the SFO would be sensitive to criticism that it had been slow to respond in the past.
    "They have to show they are on top of this. There are a lot of angry people out there," he told BBC News.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18742140
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  3. Default

    Barclays whistleblower:




    Bob Diamond would have known about Libor rigging, claims whistleblower

    Former senior Barclays employee says bank executives would have been told about interest rate fixing concerns in 2008



    David Batty

    guardian.co.uk, Saturday 7 July 2012 11.02 BST


    A former senior Barclays employee has claimed that the bank's ex-chief executive Bob Diamond would have known that his traders were involved in the interest rate rigging scandal.

    The whistleblower's accusation comes after the bank announced on Friday that it had begun a formal investigation into attempts to fix Libor, meaning that criminal charges could be brought against implicated traders.

    The banker alleged that Barclays executives would have been informed about Libor concerns in 2008, adding that staff knew they faced the sack if they failed to inform senior managers of untoward behaviour.

    Speaking anonymously to the Independent, the banker said: "Libor fixing was escalated by several people up to their directors. They would then have escalated it up the line because at Barclays if you don't escalate, and it is found out that you haven't, it is grounds for disciplinary action. You will be dismissed."

    The director of the Serious Fraud Office, David Green, said on Friday that he had "decided to formally accept the Libor matter for investigation" after reviewing the information provided by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) which last week fined Barclays £290m for attempting to manipulate the price of Libor, the London interbank offered rate.

    The fine related to events that took place between 2005 and 2009 when the bank was found to have manipulated the prices it submitted to help its own traders and rival banks' traders. Part of the fine also related to attempts by the bank to lower its Libor submissions during the 2008 banking crisis to reduce the chance that it was regarded as being in financial difficulty – which it was not.

    The investigation is understood to be into the wider market and not just Barclays.

    On the day the Barclays fine was announced Tracey McDermott, the acting director of enforcement and financial crime at the FSA, said that a "number of other significant cross-border investigations in this area" were under way involving other banks. "The action against Barclays should leave firms in no doubt about the serious consequences of this type of failure," she said.

    At this week's Treasury select committee, Diamond had said: "I understand that there will be follow-up criminal investigations on certain individuals. It's not up to us, but we are certainly not going to stand in the way of it".

    The Barclays chairman, Marcus Agius, is due to appear before MPs on Tuesday.

    Meanwhile the political row over the Libor-rigging scandal looks set to be reignited next week with the chancellor, George Osborne, reportedly preparing to oppose a European Union crackdown on bankers' bonuses.

    Osborne is due to attend a finance ministers' meeting on Tuesday at which he is expected to argue against European proposals for a 1:1 bonus-to-pay ratio intended to curb excessive City pay deals, according to the Financial Times.

    In a Commons debate on Thursday, Osborne traded insults with Labour's shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, after the chancellor claimed in an interview with the Spectator that people working with Gordon Brown under the last Labour government were "clearly involved" in the Libor scandal. Osborne claimed the "Brown circle" included Balls and that he had "questions to answer".

    Balls demanded Osborne provide evidence of his accusation or retract it and apologise. Balls said the allegation was "utterly false".
    "It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
    "Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
    "They are in Love. Fuck the War."

    Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

    "Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
    The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war

  4. #614

    Default

    http://www.wimp.com/financialscandals/

    The other video has been set to Private.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  5. #615

    Default Phone Call Transcripts Show NY Fed Knew About Libor Lies Before Financial Crisis 2008

    Phone Call Transcripts Show NY Fed Knew About Libor Lies Before Financial Crisis

    The NY Fed knew that banks were lying about their Libor rates back in 2008, according to transcripts of phone calls released today.


    The Federal Reserve Bank of New York today released over a dozen documents in connection with the Libor scandal that’s been unraveling in the banking industry.

    Barclays staff members explained to the NY Fed the way it and other banks report false Libor rates, according to the documents which cover communications between August 2007 and November 2009.
    The documents were released after requests by Chairman Neugebauer of the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The NY Fed notes that the transcripts of phone calls were originally supplied by Barclays in light of the investigation.
    One phone call between NY Fed staff member Fabiola Ravazzolo and a Barclays employee in April 2008 reveals that Barclays was doing what other banks were already engaging in–submitting Libor rates that were lower than what they should have been.
    “LIBORs do not reflect where the market is trading which is you know the same as a lot of other people have said,” the unnamed Barclays employee tells Ravazzolo.
    On that particular call the Fed’s Ravazzolo says she’s heard some rumbling about banks possibly misstating their Libor rates–the rate at which they are able to borrow money from other banks. The Barclays employee confirms her concerns saying:
    Well, let’s, let’s put it like this and I’m gonna be really frank and honest with you…We were putting in where we really thought we would be able to borrow cash in the interbank market and it was above where everyone else was publishing rates. And the next thing we knew, there was um, an article in the Financial Times, charting our LIBOR contributions and comparing it with other banks and inferring that this meant that we had a problem raising cash in the interbank market. And um, our share price went down. So it’s never supposed to be the prerogative of a, a money market dealer to affect their company share value. And so we just fit in with the rest of the crowd, if you like. So, we know that we’re not posting um, an honest LIBOR. And yet and yet we are doing it, because, um, if we didn’t do it it draws, um, unwanted attention on ourselves.
    The Libor-rigging scandal forced Barclays pay $450 million in fines this month. Other banks including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, UBSand Deutsche Bank are under investigation.
    It could get very ugly for banks who for the most part say the rigging was not done for profit. Rather, it was a way to keep their respective banks from appearing in worse financial health than they really were.
    The Barclays employee on the call with the Fed’s Ravazzolo tells her:
    What we’ve noticed is almost like um, a um, um perverse thing where people that we know that are paying for money actually put in the lowest LIBOR rates. So it, it’s almost to um, you know the ones that need cash the most put in the lowest.
    Concerns over the Libor rates were large enough at the NY Fed that its thenpresident Tim Geithner sent a memo to Bank of England Governor Mervyn King (CC’ing deputy governor Paul Tucker) calling for improvement to the credabilty of the Libor system. That memo, which listed six propose changes aimed at improving the integrity of Libor, was released by the NY Fed today.
    Marti G. Subrahmanyam, a finance professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business, says the best case scenario for banks in the investigation is that they were lying about their rate to borrow money to make themselves look a bit healthier.“It’s one thing to lie about your borrowing rate to make you look better. That’s like saying you’re 5 feet 9 inches when you’re really 5 feet 7 inches,” he says.
    But the worst case scenario is that the evidence shows banks were in fact colluding to push the Libor rates up or down for their own profit. “If banks were colluding to push the rates in one direction or another then that’s a much more serious problem,” Subrahmanyam says.”
    It’s unclear which of these scenarios the new documents released by the Fed will favor but there are plenty of investors who say they were cheated out of money as a result of banks colluding to manipulate the Libor rate. Many have law suits in courts and analysts say they could cost banks billions.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtou...in-april-2008/


    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  6. #616

    Default Obama's Justice Department Rushes to the Rescue of LIBOR Criminals

    Obama's Justice Department Rushes to the Rescue of LIBOR Criminals


    Tue, 07/17/2012 - 23:14 — Glen Ford

    A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
    The Justice Department has launched a flurry of phony investigations in the LIBOR scandal, with the ultimate aim of protecting the banks from the consequences of their crimes. That's the same role the Obama administration played in the “robo-signing” scandal: immunizing the criminals. In the LIBOR scheme, Attorney General Holder and his crew will try to shield the banksters “from legal action by a host of other government agencies and, ultimately, from the global universe of parties that have been harmed by the bankster’s schemes.

    Obama's Justice Department Rushes to the Rescue of LIBOR Criminals
    A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
    The reason Eric Holder is staging criminal investigations is because that’s the only way he can protect the bankers, through immunities and by gradually narrowing the scope of the case.”
    The Obama Justice Department is in theater mode, again, pretending to threaten the bankster class with criminal penalties – prison time! – for their manipulation of the global economy’s benchmark interest rates. The Justice Department claims to be building criminal and civil cases in the LIBOR scandal, which in sheer scope is the biggest fraud by international capital in history. But that’s all a front, a farce. Barack Obama has spent his entire presidency protecting Wall Street, starting with his rescue of George Bush’s bank bailout bill after it’s initial defeat in Congress, in the last days of Obama’s candidacy. He packed his administration with banksters, passed his own bailout and, in collaboration with the Federal Reserve, channeled at least $16 trillion dollars into the accounts of U.S. and even European banks – by far the greatest transfer of capital in the history of the world. Obama has reminded the banksters that it was he who saved them from the “pitchforks” of an outraged public. He pushed through Congress so-called financial reform legislation that left derivatives – the deadly instruments of mass financial destruction that were at the heart of the meltdown – untouched.
    Wall Street may or may not remain loyal to Obama, but Obama has been loyal to Wall Street, the guys who gave him the campaign cash to become a viable candidate. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, a corporate lawyer to the core, is busily staging a pre-emptive LIBOR prosecution of bankers in order to shield them from legal action by a host of other government agencies and, ultimately, from the global universe of parties that have been harmed by the bankster’s schemes– a list that stretches to infinity. Holder’s job is to monopolize the LIBOR case, to the extent legally and humanly possible, grabbing jurisdiction and consolidating the cases against the banks with the aim of reaching a settlement that does not further destabilize the financial system.
    The Justice Department has already given immunity to Barclay’s Bank, of Britain, and to the Swiss banking giant UBS.”
    Holder and his boss already pulled that trick earlier this year with settlement of the bank “robo-signing” scandal – a scheme that would have ranked as the “crime of the century” until LIBOR came along. A small group of state attorney generals were holding up an administration-brokered settlement that effectively gave the banksters immunity from prosecution, in return for a measly $25 billion payout. Obama used every power of his office to pressure the state law officers into line. The last one capitulated with a promise from Obama that a “special unit of prosecutors” would expand the investigation into abusive mortgages practices. You haven’t heard a peep about it, since.
    Now Obama and Holder are playing the same diversionary game, making tough noises about criminal investigations of the LIBOR conspirators. But the Justice Department has already given immunity to Barclay’s Bank, of Britain, and to the Swiss banking giant UBS. More immunities will follow. The reason Eric Holder is staging criminal investigations is because that’s the only way he can protect the bankers, through immunities and by gradually narrowing the scope of the case.In the end, there will be settlements all around, and the banksters will move on to even more fantastic heights of criminality – thanks to the loyal, protective hands of President Obama.
    For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.
    http://blackagendareport.com/content...ibor-criminals

    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  7. #617

    Default

    In my best Monty Python [or for you Americans Gomer Pyle] voice...."surprise, surprise, surprise!" :gossip:
    Last edited by Peter Lemkin; 07-24-2012 at 11:12 AM.
    If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass
    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
    "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

  8. Default

    A government of the bankers, for the bankers.
    "It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
    "Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
    "They are in Love. Fuck the War."

    Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

    "Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
    The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war

  9. #619

    Default Massive Put Activity, Summer 2012

    Seen elsewhere:

    Stock Operator’s Page–Massive Put Activity
    Posted on August 5, 2012 by Stuart Wilde

    There was a massive jump in put options late last week on Wall Street. Some stocks increased their daily volume by 800% and others saw their daily put volume up 500%.

    It is claimed that the last time this happened was in the four days before 911. At that time airlines and insurance companies were heavily shorted. In theory 911 was a random event but stock exchange activity in puts that make money when a stock goes down was extraordinarily high.

    Some people knew.

    I suppose an attack could come at the Olympics but I feel a false flag attack in London is too obvious. Maybe I’m naive, but there is so much already written about a possible false flag attack blaming Iran that if it happened no one will believe it.

    Then again perhaps it doesn’t matter to the authorities if no one believes it. Not many believe the official 911 story either, but it doesn’t make any difference, and the perpetrators have never been brought to justice. It’s all so interesting. Pray for peace even if it doesn’t work. Stuart Wilde (www.stuartwilde.com)

    Here is a list of the main shorts last week.



    Data provided by SchaeffersResearch.com

    Ticker
    symbol Put Volume Average Put Volume Daily Volume Ratio
    DD 12,179 1,450 8.4
    HLF 11,726 1,819 6.4
    VZ 25,132 3,909 6.4
    HOG 7,076 1,192 5.9
    XOP 27,471 4,878 5.6
    DE 10,258 2,200 4.7
    JNPR 4,995 1,310 3.8
    FSLR 8,883 2,383 3.7
    GDX 29,379 7,902 3.7
    GM 7,088 1,920 3.7
    NOK 26,227 7,706 3.4
    MA 6,343 2,072 3.1
    F 21,175 7,672 2.8
    ZNGA 5,001 1,935 2.6
    FXI 29,145 11,438 2.5
    ABX 4,611 1,878 2.5
    WFC 16,778 6,949 2.4
    SBUX 10,965 4,657 2.4
    EFA 12,407 5,370 2.3
    GG

    rense.com


    "Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"

  10. #620

    Default Obama administration has made it official policy not to prosecute fraud

    Financial Holocaust: Bankster Fraud Has Driven 100 Million Into Poverty, Killing Many

    By WashingtonsBlog

    August 11, 2012 "Information Clearing House" -- Fraud caused the Great Depression and the current financial crisis, and the economy will never recover until fraud is prosecuted.Fraud is the business model adopted by the giant banks. See this.The Obama administration has made it official policy not to prosecute fraud. Indeed, the “watchdogs” in D.C. are so corrupt that they are as easily bribed as a policeman in a third world banana republic.The mouthpieces in Wall Street and D.C. pretend that financial fraud (like Libor) is a “victimless crime“.But the World Bank notes that the financial crisis – you know, the one caused by financial fraud – has driven between 64and 100 million people into destitution.Some estimate the figure to be much higher. For example, one 2009 study estimated that 140 million people would be driven into poverty in Asia alone.This is not just a matter of having less money for entertainment or luxury goods. Increased poverty leads to earlier deaths.As the Los Angeles times notes:
    Poverty appears to trump smoking, obesity and education as a health burden, potentially causing a loss of 8.2 years of perfect health.
    This is not an abstract concept. A lot of kids will die due to Wall Street fraud:
    The global financial crisis sweeping through Wall Street and the European banking sector will touch the lives of the world’s most vulnerable, pushing millions into deeper poverty and leading to the deaths of thousands of children, according to a new United Nations study.***The report highlighted the prospect of an increase of between 200,000 and 400,000 in infant mortality and that child malnutrition, already rising, will be one of the main drivers of higher child death rates.
    While developing countries will be hardest hit, increased poverty and hunger are hitting the U.S., Britain and other first world countries are as well.Paul Moore – former Head of Risk at HBOS – says:
    The financial crisis has resulted in the greatest humanitarian crisis since WWII … We are witnessing a financial holocaust brought on by the banksters with millions of deaths in the offering.
    This article was originally published at WashingtonsBlog

    http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle32146.htm

    "Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •