Feeds:
Posts
Comments




Be careful about opening the mouth of a financial advisor, stock broker and so on. Unlike a Pez, that is not candy that is about to come out of their mouths.

When I look back, it is in utter amazement at the number of false statements I have been subjected to by financial advisors and even friends. Its an important conclusion when one understands that almost no one, including the experts understand economics or forecasting. Even the most high status Wall Street financial advisor is mostly useless because they work for institutions that follow the pack and are so focused on short term gains that they can not see the forest from the trees. The greatest evidence for this is the most recent financial crisis where all the major Wall Street firms, and many of banks went off the proverbial cliff due to short term incentives.



Financial types can’t see past their next bonus much less the future. People get into this field because they are greedy. That should not be terribly shocking.

Magazines such as Forbes and Fortune take so much advertising that their objectivity is seriously compromised. So who to listen to? I have found several sources, which I have lauded a number of times in this blog, but which I have been surprisingly unable to get friends and acquaintances to read.




Why to people continue to gravitate to corrupt information sources long after they have been proven incorrect in their assertions. Need I remind anyone, Fortune awarded Enron its Most Innovative Company in America Award 6 years in a row. Regardless of past performance, people continue to quote information from these sources to me. It is almost as if no one keeps track.

Generally, I have told people I know about the best sources for financial information, and they are free and easy to find on the internet.

They are:

1. CEPR
2. Dollars and Sense Magazine
3. Michael Hudson

I don’t have to study very hard (although I did study the real estate bubble, but came to same conclusion that CEPR came to but with more rigorous methods) and now forecasting is easy. That is long term forecasting, I don’t believe anyone can say when a particular event is going to happen. However, if you look to the long term, then the specific event date is not all that important. I simply go with these sources, who have yet to be wrong. However, I am still asked what I think about this or that statement made by various corrupt sources such as BusinessWeek or Goldman Sachs.

but on most things I ask “what have my sources written on the topic.” So most of the time I end up contradicting what BusinessWeek or Fortune or Mad Money say based upon the longer term rigorous work of my three sources.

I don’t know what the reticence is to leverage proven resources. I stopped considering the opinion of television or people I know because it was bad for my finances. Most people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the economy, and are primarily repeating things they heard from corrupt information sources. Its like a a Pez dispenser when people talk about projections or investments, except instead a little piece of candy that comes out when they open their mouths, its a little piece of excrement. The financial “professionals” are the absolute worst, primarily because they are on the take, but secondly because most of them don’t understand economics. However it does not come down to simply understanding economics. If you are an economist with three letters after your name that shows academic performance, however, if you work for Wall Street, your PhD is now useless as a signal of quality because you have a very dark master.
______________________________________________


Larry Summers has a PhD in economics, and from a fancy university also. However, if you see this sleazebucket speaking on television cover up the television with something or turn it off. Larry Summers is in the back pocket of big Wall Street money, yet someone also holds a position in the the Obama Administration. This brings us to the next topic…


This is my all accounts a very decent man with an excellent legal mind and strong moral foundation. However, in the area of economics he is out of his depth. He has appointed some of the biggest corrupt sleazbags such as Larry Summers, but also Tim Geithner and many others. His ineptitude in selecting the right people has cost us collectively trillions of dollars. Thus its not enough to have economics knowledge or to not be corrupt, rather in order to be an authority worthy of listening to, you need to be both.

________________________________________________

How False Information is Repeated

However, friends and family are just as dangerous because they repeat false statements that they have read or seen from corrupt information sources. The financial illiteracy and propaganazition is so powerful that I literally will not discuss investments with anyone except people I cam close to primarily because I don’t want to listen to a restatement of information that has not been critically analyzed and originated from a corrupt source. Eradicating poor information sources greatly cuts down on my mental effort and allows me to better allocate my time.



Look at me. I represent a big firm, and I have a nice expensive suit. You can definitely trust me with your money!

The Way the Game Works

Financial advisors have a song and dance that they like to engage in when the acquire a new client. First they try to dress conservatively and communicate an image of austere integrity. Furthermore the individual you meet attempts to present the idea that they personally pick investments. In fact, when you enter a retail financial services office (which are often in the nicer parts of town), you are in essence entering a completely staged environment which is as fake as movie set. There is no austerity, and certainly no integrity in the financial profession. Secondly, when you deal with a financial adviser at a retail outlet, you are dealing with the bottom rung of the firm, and these advisors essentially have no control over what investments they recommend. They are mainly selected for sales skill, not financial knowledge, because retail investment advisors do not do their own analysis in any case. They are told what to recommend by the real decision makers that work in Manhattan. As shocking as it may seem, in many cases, in addition to making significant fees off of your money, they also are horribly corrupt in that they may recommend investments that the investment bank either further profits from directly, or may be simply assets that sit on the investment banks books that they want to get rid of. This is shocking to many people who trust the “names” of these companies and believe in the advertising. However each of these firms is engaged in consumer fraud, however, because the Securities and Exchange Commission does nothing to regulate this industry, they can get away with anything they like. You can not win in this situation and almost anything they do with your money, short of straight siphoning of accounts is completely legal. Furthermore, the political structures in this country cannot control or regulate the finance industry, as Illinois Dick Durbin once said “The banking industry owns this place.” (speaking of the Senate).


Investment firms are huge incredibly powerful monopolies that do not operate in the normal economy.

Dancing With the Devil

As soon as the customer (or mark in industry parlance) sits down, they will be subjected to a long string of lies. Some of the major lies are in the assumptions that your the customer is expected to accept. Each of these assumptions are untrue, have a very tenuous link to finance, and are designed to maximize the movement of money from your account, and into the financial firm’s account.

Here they are (in no particular order). See the explanations for each below with the matching item number.

  1. “I have an MBA (or other degree) in finance and or “I have been working in this field for (insert years) and I am quite experiences.”
  2. “We need to develop an investment strategy based upon your risk tolerance. Would you say you are a high, medium or low risk investor?”
  3. “Here is a list of (funds-stocks-bonds-whatever) look how well these ones did last year and how well you would have done if you had been in them.”
  4. “We are a (insert number) person company and you get access to the research that we perform.”
  5. “I can call you when I get hot tips and this can help you rebalance your portfolio to promising opportunities.”
  6. You should stay in the market because if you get out now you will miss opportunities for the rebound. Studies show that stocks outperform other assets over the long term.

Here are the reasons why all of these assumptions are false.

  1. The education of your advisor or their experience level is not material to the recommendations you will get, because they do not make investment decisions, and are instead provided with a narrow series of options which are sent out to all the retail locations. The degree or other certificate is designed to impress you and nothing more.
  2. This is one of the most important weapons in the bag of tricks of false assumptions of the investment advisor. The whole point of this is to make the investing process seem more difficult than it really is and supports the idea that every investment “strategy” needs to be tailored to clients. We explain further on why this is untrue.
  3. This is an old con, there is no evidence that the firm or advisor picked these investments that they are showing you. Any advisor that could consistently pick winning funds could leave the place they work and simply create their own investment company. They are working in a retail sales job because they can not do this…and the geniuses in Manhattan can not do it either. It is a simple thing to go and look to see what did well the year before, and then show people what they could have had. Furthermore, this strategy moves clients into asset bubbles, as sectors tend to increase and then decrease or at least decrease in the appreciation percentage the next year.
  4. This is completely untrue as different levels of investors are prioritized in terms of who get what information. Accounts below $500,000 are considered more or less expendable, and often get the worst investments, sometimes that the bank does not want to continue to hold. That is the problem, the investment bank is both providing investment advice and itself speculating on investments, creating huge conflicts of interest all around. The higher your asset level the more important you will be seen and the more likely you will get better advice. However, you have to have a lot of money to be seen as important enough not to burn. There is compelling research on this…none of it published by universities or investment banks. It is called the yield disparity. If you have never heard of it, you should read this post before investing in the stock market. (http://counterecon.com/category/yield-disparity/)
  5. This is typically a request to churn your account. Because transaction fees are where the money is often made, your advisor has an incentive to keep bringing you “hot tips.”
  6. This is the standard line used after an investor’s portfolio has declined. Rich investors do not “take their losses.” They use inside information to avoid them or let the investment firm know they will be taking their business elsewhere if it does not stop. Have you ever tried negotiating with rich people? I will put it to you this way, all of Beverly Hills uses illegal Mexican gardening services even though the owners are multi millionaires. Secondly, the statement regarding the stock market outperforming other investments is totally false but frequently repeated, because it does not stipulate what type of investor is being discussed. Wealthy investors that gain off of inside trading information or are considered valued accounts by investment companies do do better in the stock market, but this is not representative of all investors. Therefore, the statement is only true for certain classes of investors. Thus the “average” which is often sited does not exist.

More Complex Than it Needs to Be

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors in the finance industry which covers up the fact that not much is going on, and that which is going on is mostly counterproductive. Finance has a series of complex terminology but it is all boils down to a bunch circular techno-babble, developed by money obsessed quantitative types (aka “quants”), managed by slick sociopaths, and pitched by borderline con-men. The vast majority of the finance industry is simply a parasite on the real economy. If it disappeared tomorrow, it would ignite a renaissance in the real economy.


The intent of the finance industry is to make finance so complex and create so many “products” that the typical person needs a “financial advisor” to help them manage their money.

Massive Inefficiency

How inefficient is this system? Lets take the stock market. Many are surprised to learn that only about 1% of money raised by the stock market actually goes to the companies that are raising money (according to the CEPR). The rest of it goes to investment banks, transaction fees and so on (this statistic is for the life of the stock). While it is a terrible deal for companies, companies continue to issue stock and the stock market persists as a way to compensate executives off the books (options are not declared on the income statement or balance sheet).

Stocks: A Fake Alternative

So, stocks are a toxic investment for the vast majority of investors and should not be dabbled in. So that takes out one asset class. Bonds and savings accounts provide very similar returns. Go ahead and select from the low yielding alternatives, however at least you can be pretty much guaranteed not to lose money. Much of the finance industry is enabled by investor greed and a misunderstanding of how capital markets in the US work. Average ordinary people who believe that they can get and deserve strong returns on what is a passive investment are gravely mistaken. Our system distributes high returns to those with significant assets. However, the belief that great returns are available to ordinary people is what lays open the trap that the financial advisors can then enter to sell fool’s gold. The dirty little secret is that you really should not be making a very strong return from what is a passive investment. Good returns are reserved for the wealthy. Everyone else, unless extremely lucky, gets mediocre returns. The main objective is not to lose the money you currently have and to receive a reasonable return. To get that, you don’t need an investment advisor. However, without the small and medium sized investors, the wall street casino ends, so this is hidden from the normal investor.


Con men have an old saying “you can’t cheat an honest man,” this is because all cons are based upon tapping into the greed of the mark, the idea that they will get something for nothing. More honest people outside of the finance industry would make the finance industry considerably smaller.

Reference

This is an excellent book, reading it will tell you more about the financial advisory business than any book on finance. The same tactics used in this book are used by all the major investment companies.


http://www.amazon.com/Big-Con-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259188700&sr=1-2


How Bad is The Problem?

Our last post looked into pension fund skimming. After writing it we began to wonder how underfunded the typical pension is. What we found was surprising and disconcerting. One of the big issues, which we noted in our previous post is that the PBGC (the quasi government pension insurance fund) stopped publishing its list of most underfunded pensions. However, the actual level of underfunding always ends up being worse than the published level of underfunding, and the accounting rules around pension fund reporting are extraordinarily weak. However, the public only find out about this when a company goes belly up as in the case of LTV Corp. LTV Corp stated it had an 80% funded pension, but after it fell into receivership, LTV Corp actually had a pension funding of only 52%.  The balance of which they dumped on the PBGC government insurance fund (i.e. onto other corporations that pay into the fund, however, the way the fund is going, it may need a government bailout). No charges were brought and no executives were penalized. This means that pension skimming is one of the legalized forms of theft in the country and one of the easiest ways to make money. Until this changes, this will continue to happen, and the PBGC will not be able to pay for all the companies that fail to keep their pensions funded.

Deficit Levels

Some of the deficits are staggering. In 2005, PBGC estimated that GM had a pension deficit that it estimated at $31 billion, but GM itself only estimated $10 billion. If history is any guide, PBGC is right, and GM is wrong. Airlines are famous for dumping their pension obligations. This includes:

  • United Airlines
  • USAirways
  • Delta
  • Northwest

US airlines have recently made a habit of skimming their pension funds in order to fund executive compensation, and then declaring bankruptcy and dropping their underfunded pension obligations onto the PGBC.

The airlines are straightforward on this point.

Northwest’s CEO, Douglas Steenland, bluntly told the Senate Finance Committee last June, “Northwest has concluded that defined-benefit plans simply do not work for an industry that is as competitive and vulnerable from forces ranging from terrorism to international oil prices that are largely beyond its control, as is the airline industry.” In that, he merely echoed Robert Crandall, former chief of American Airlines, who told another Senate committee in October 2004: “All the [older] legacy carriers must get rid of their defined-benefit pension plans.” In all, the pension funds of those airlines are short $22 billion. – http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1122017-10,00.html#ixzz0WyagP1Pb

Oregon Pension Funds

Another datapoint comes from Oregon. A study was performed and determined that of the 36 largest employers in Oregon 34 had a deficit, and the total underfunding came to $25 billion.(this was in 2008 after the stock market crash) – http://blog.oregonlive.com/business_impact/2009/07/pensiongraphic2.jpg

Nationwide the underfunding is estimated to be roughly $1 trillion.

The Problem With The Stock Market for Pensions

Thus, this pension underfunding seems to be the next big thing on the horizon. Financial types often say that no one should be surprised that pensions are underfunded because the stock market recently declined. However, this obscures the fact that simply being invested in stocks allows executives to more effectively skim the pension. Because of the unstable nature of the stock market, when it goes up, executives can call it underfunded and skim it. Pensions really should not be invested in stock, but employers should contribute enough into the their pension plans so that they provide sufficient retirement funds if they are invested in ordinary money market funds. I need to emphasize here that these are retirement funds, they are not play money, and only play money should go into the executive fraud-casino that is the stock market.

Finally, I would hope that no one comments that this is the reason that employees need to put their faith in 401k programs. To find out why 401ks are one of the worst things to happen to retirement funds in the US, see the several articles on this topic by selecting the 401k category to the right.


As we covered in our article on pension privatization…

http://counterecon.com/2008/01/11/lessons-from-privatizing-retirement-funds/

….there has been a very large amount of money from elite interests designed to get people to support retirement privatization. This has included:

  • Movement from pensions to the 401k
  • Republican initiatives to privatize social security
  • The raiding of pensions, and thus underfunding of pensions by executives, which servers a dual purpose of enriching executives, but also in promoting the concept that pensions are no longer reliable, and that everyone should move towards the 401k. (as we have discussed also, the 401k is the atom bomb dropped on the concept of retirement.)

slavery

Republications use the term “ownership” society a lot to push social security privatization. However, considering that all the people who use this term are wealthy (such as John Snow, who before heading the Treasury received a $33 million payout from CSX and added years of service which he did not spend at CSX), and overpaid for their skill set, and combined with the fact that most of them, like Dick Cheney, have a deep infatuation with torturing people even in cases where there is no intelligence to be gathered, one wonders if perpetual bondage of the “lower classes” is what Bush and his cronies were talking about.

Executives In Favor of Pension Privatization Make Their Case By Raiding Pensions

Many companies have raided their pensions. There is little problem here, because it’s almost impossible for an executive to go to jail, and the potential benefits are enormous. The conservative logic on this is perverse, but consistent with their logic that no wealthy person should ever be held accountable for anything, and that only minority groups should spend time in jail. Conservatives are opposed to regulations on raiding pensions, but after they are raided, point people to 401ks, as pensions are not “the future.” They leave out the performance of 401ks or the employer contribution to 401ks. So in addition to wanting to privatize retirement generally, executives like to raid pensions when they have the opportunity.

The way pension raiding works is that the executives wait for an up-tic in the market, or release false earnings that they pay Deloitte, PWC, KPMG, Ernst and Young or other accounting firm to sign off. The accounting firm checks nothing, but merely agrees that the math as a presented is correct. This is what is called “an audit” by these corrupt firms. (I have worked for several of them, and they will all sign fraudulent accounting statements, as long as you buy their real business, which is consulting services. I was told by several Deloitte Sr. Managers that Enron was really just a media creation and was “no big deal”). Then with the stock price higher, the pension (which is invested in the stock, which should be illegal, but is not), then looks “overfunded.” The executives take care of that problem, but siphoning off cash, and placing into executive compensation, which is then approved by their board of directors, which mainly consists of their golf buddies. The board of directors know that if they approve this theft, than they too will get approval for what they want to do when they ask the executive, who sits on their board of directors at another company, to approve their ridiculous bonus. However, soon the stock price decreases, and now the company is left with an “underfunded pension.” This is an old scam, but it works almost every time, because there is no law and no enforcement of pension raiding in the US. Conservatives and to some degree corrupt Democrats are against laws against stealing from pensions because evidently it would “reduce the dynamic nature of our economy,” undermine the entire free enterprise system and might be a slippery slope towards socialism, which then would lead to gay rights, and finally communism. We are not sure, but that seems to be the general logic to any standard placed on the wealthy.

Pension regulation brings up the topic of the PBGC.

s-PBGC-large

What Is The PGBC?

The PGBC is the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Their stated role is to track and keep people apprised as to when pensions were underfunded. However, due to corporate lobbying, this every important list that served the public was eliminated because it held companies too accountable. The quote below is from a Time Magazine article on the theft of pension by the elite.

During those same years, the PBGC, which insures private pension plans, published an annual list of the 50 most underfunded of those plans. In shining a spotlight on those that had fallen behind in their contributions, the agency hoped to prod companies to keep current. Corporations hated the list. They maintained that the PBGC’s methodology did not reflect the true financial condition of their pension plans. After all, as long as the stock market went up–and never down or sideways–the pension plans would be adequately funded. Congress liked that reasoning and, in 1994, reacting to corporate claims that the underfunded list caused needless anxiety among employees, voted to keep the data secret. When the PBGC killed its Top 50 list, David M. Strauss, then the agency’s executive director, explained, “With full implementation of [the 1994 pension law], we now have better tools in place.” PBGC officials were so bullish about those “better tools,” including provisions to levy higher fees on companies ignoring obligations to their employees, they predicted that underfunded pension plans would be a thing of the past. As a story in the Los Angeles Times put it, “PBGC officials said the act nearly guarantees that large underfunded plans will strengthen and the chronic deficits suffered by the pension guaranty organization will be eliminated within 10 years.” Not even close; instead they accelerated at warp speed. In 1994 the deficit in PBGC plans was $31 billion. Today it’s $450 billion, or $600 billion if one includes multi-employer plans of unionized employees who work for more than one business in such industries as construction. - Time Magazine
New PBGC Tools Make Top 50 List Obsolete

This is the type of propaganda we are subjected to when government agencies are pressured or captured by corrupt corporate interests.
Neutering Then Infiltrating the PGBC

Thus corporate power has effectively neutered the PGBC which is now to afraid to even publish a list of companies that have raided their pensions. The PGBC is the final line of defense for pensions. If a pension is raided, the obligations fall the PGBC, although they do not pay out 100% of the pension obligation, but just a fraction. However, the PGBC is underfunded, and right before the crash began making speculative investments, which fared very poorly. Clearly, one of the problems is that Bush appointed sleazebags from Wall Street to run the agency. Upon losing the shirt of the PGBC, the previous Bush appointed advisor had this to say.
However, Charles E.F. Millard, the former agency director who implemented the strategy until the Bush administration departed on Jan. 20, dismissed such concerns. Millard, a former managing director of Lehman Brothers, said flatly that “the new investment policy is not riskier than the old one.”
He said the previous strategy of relying mostly on bonds would never garner enough money to eliminate the agency’s deficit. “The prior policy virtually guaranteed that some day a multibillion-dollar bailout would be required from Congress,” Millard said.
He said he believed the new policy – which includes such potentially higher-growth investments as foreign stocks and private real estate – would lessen, but not eliminate, the possibility that a bailout is needed.
Asked whether the strategy was a mistake, given the subsequent declines in stocks and real estate, Millard said, “Ask me in 20 years. The question is whether policymakers will have the fortitude to stick with it.”
Now, they warn about a “perfect storm” scenario in which the agency’s fund plummets in value just as more companies go into bankruptcy and pass their pension responsibilities onto the insurance fund. Many analysts say it is inevitable that the agency will face significantly increased liabilities in coming month – Huffington Post
Who could not trust this statement, as it comes from a former Lehman Brothers executive…..which due to toxic and irresponsible investments no longer exists. Furthermore, its very likely that Charles E.F. Millard was receiving some type of kick-back from these investments. So now, a Bush appointee has further degraded the finances of the government insurance for pensions, which only needs to be there because companies raid their pensions, certainly, when it runs out of money the conservatives can say “look government programs just don’t work.”
References
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1122017-8,00.html#ixzz0WHktg5Ql

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/pension-benefit-guaranty-_n_180804.html

The End of Poverty?

poverty

Poverty, brought to you by Exxon and other conglomerates.

Who is Responsible for Poverty?

Just the preview of The End of Poverty looks so tantalizing because it seems willing to address what is typically unaddressable; that we allow poverty, desperation and suffering to continue because out institutions setup the preconditions for it. The idea that we are winning a war on poverty globally, or that that is the intent of our major institutions is simply false. Major international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF combine with conglomerates such as Shell and Nike to extract materials at the lowest possible rate (inducing extreme poverty in such counties as Nigeria with Shell) and to pay the lowest possible amount for labor (as with Nike all over Asia). The design is for the major companies from the big countries to take as much as they possibly can from smaller countries, leaving extreme poverty, environmental damage and political instability. Part of the standard of living of rich countries is based upon this extraction and control, called “globalization” which is actually a form or neo-collonialization. Just as using Mexican labor is a form of slavery, but without the unappealing verbiage.

See this link how we have made much more progress against the word “slavery” than against the practice of slavery.

http://onhumannature.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/everyone-wants-a-slave/

The wealthy companies don’t ever want poverty to decline because it would mean that they can take less from the country. Secondly, that is the design of conglomerates, to extract as much as possible and leave as little behind for the environment and pay wages that are as low as possible. In Ecuador this means leaving roughly 5% for the government from the oil revenues the oil companies extract. (we quantify how much companies and brokers extract from oil resources in this post)

http://counterecon.com/2009/08/24/the-how-much-you-can-extract-for-oil-producing-countries-game/

Until we begin to see the real face of corporations and face the reality that they only exist to enrich themselves, we will continue to get scammed. Literally, it is the role of the government, of at least somewhat democratic institutions to reign in conglomerates which are completely undemocratic.

Foundation

How did one of the world’s most unethical businessmen who was known to lie cheat and steal to build his fortune all of a sudden become philanthropic? Now universities like Oxford are bending over backwards to give him honorary degrees for this millions in contributions. There is a simple word for this: corruption. Universities, even those with massive endowments always seem to need money. And there are always unethical businessmen to give money to them…in return for their integrity and research direction.

Bill does not care about global poverty, but is using this organization as a front, just as Michael Milken uses the Milken Institute as a front. Evidence is provided by the fact the Bill Gates’ investment group invests in some of the worst and least ethical businesses in order to meet profit objectives.

http://counterecon.com/2009/08/05/its-hard-to-conceive-of-how-insane-the-milkin-institute-is/

Institutions like the World Bank, the IMF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation worsen global poverty because they are part of the same structure of global poverty. They are false fronts designed to position conglomerates for resource extraction. This is why poverty never improves. Yes, the material status of some countries have improved, but income inequality and poverty has risen drastically in the US over the past several decades as part of a specific policy intended to bring this outcome. The planet overall is more unequal than ever, and this is interrelated to the inability to manage population growth with contraception due to this poverty. The very fact that Bill Gates has accumulated so much money, means there is less for others. Bill Gates, and other ultra wealthy are what lead to intense poverty on the other side of the spectrum. That that media does not see this, demonstrates what a good job elite institutions have done in obscuring real world economics from popular view.

Clearly, the conventional view is quite different from what we have written above. The majority of the population believes that international organizations are actively fighting poverty, and that the developed countries want poverty to end.  This is entirely myth, as much myth as the idea that conglomerates care about poverty in their own country.


Review of IOUSA

IOUSA is a movie produced by concentrated power to pave the way for policy changes that benefit the ultra wealthy. Its crooked agenda went unnoticed by the Sundance Film festival where it won an award. It is award worthy, it is the best financial propaganda film of 2009.

IOUSA

This is a well produced video that describes the problems that the nation faces in regards to its long term finances. The highlight of the video is a number of graphics that are useful for any number of purposes and some of which we have made screen shots of here.

The Problem with IOUSA

The problem with IOUSA is what it does not say. The obvious conclusion is that government spending needs to be cut. However, it does not say where. One look at the groups that are behind the movie and part of a traveling group of economists, along with the head of the Office of Management and Budget, who is taking a disturbing political tact, for a office that is supposed to be not politicized. This group includes the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation. The movie attempts to present these people as a broad spectrum of the country, when in fact they represent the financial elite of the country. This movie has the distinct feeling of being a platform for cutting social services to the normal person. Big money hates these programs and hates the fact that money they pay in taxes goes to the non-elites, even though most of their income is not earned in the traditional economic sense, but is either a government granted monopoly (in the case of Exxon or Citibank) or simply a return on previously earned capital. Furthermore big money spends a great deal of time lobbying to cut these programs. One of the great scams is the singling out of Medicare as a wasteful program that will drastically increase the budget to unsustainable proportions. However, what is unsaid is that they oppose any legislation to reduce the costs of health care because “that would be socialist.” The ultra wealthy are in favor of any health care change that reduces benefits to normal patients, but not for any legislation that reduces the payout to pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers or other elite interests even though there are massive opportunities for cost reductions.

Conclusion

IOUSA can be used for its great graphics, but beyond that, it is primarily propaganda from the ultra rich. They are intent on cutting social spending, but don’t have much of an interest in making the system more efficient or cutting wasteful spending like defense spending. All their cuts are aimed at cutting the benefits to other people, even benefits for which they have already paid. The attempt to privatize social security is a despicable act that most of the conservative think tanks are on board with even though it will mean major fees for Wall Street and an era of new poverty for the old.

Our Take on IOUSA

The movie does not make any prescriptions, however we will. We will take the exact same data which has been presented by IOUSA and demonstrate changes that can and should be made that would both correct the financial shortfalls and improve the economy. We are more qualified to do this than people from The Brookings Institute or The Heritage Foundation because they are completely corrupt and only represent elite interests. We don’t, and unlike these institutions we don’t sell research for money. Want evidence, both these institutions were in favor of the financial “innovation” and lack of regulation that lead to the melt down of the system. That is what power means, never having to apologize for being wrong.

Debt that is Allocated to Which Causes

Where The Money for the Government Comes From

Notice how little comes from corporate income taxes. Why is that? How come individuals pay 4x as many taxes as corporations? This shocking, Microsoft, GE all the biggest and smallest companies pay ¼ as much as the employees of these companies. (the payroll taxes cannot be included because they are simply reductions from wages to pay for things like Social Security. How did this escape the attention of the makers of the movie? Clearly Corporate income taxes should be increased. They appear to be getting a free ride off the system. Also, businesses receive all types of corporate welfare, so they get a lot of that money back. It would be interesting to see what their real tax burden would be after this money is decreased from their taxes.

Annual Federal Budget Deficits and Social Security Surpluses

This is an excellent graph; it shows that while the Federal government has run a perpetual deficit since 1973 (except for 3 years under Clinton) Social Security has been running surpluses (most likely because the baby boomers are working and not yet retired.) However, the next graph shows an even bigger problem.

Combined Deficit

In order to understand this following graph it’s important to understand how Social Security works. It is federal law that when a surplus of Social Security is attained in any year, that the surplus be used to purchase Treasury Bills. These are stores of value for when the money will be used (when the boomers retire). However, it is strange because it is a loan the government is giving itself. This to us does not seem like the right way to do this, it would be preferred if that money were placed in a bank. However, this is also confusing because a bank is really just a government setup fractional reserve banking system. The short synopsis of this is that the US has not been able to maintain surpluses because it spends above and beyond of the social security surplus. This means this will become more expensive for the country when more people retire due to the population cohort. However, what is left out of this is many companies have also underfunded their pension obligations, so this is a problem for both government and private industry. Also undiscussed is how the 401k program was used to drop the traditional pension, which was a far better deal for workers. IOUSA chooses to focus on the government’s lack of discipline rather than the lack of discipline in private companies because The Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institute are paid for by private companies. No big surprise there. Can we ask where the chart that shows the average underfunding of the US pension, or how far depreciated American’s 401ks are after the financial melt down, or how people have lost their retirement becasue they bet on a speculative housing bubble arranged by the Fed and corrupt banking interests. Oh, that chart is not available for some reason.

Social Security Deficit

This chart shows the social security deficit out to 2048. Clearly its large, however it should in the early part of this graph because the boomers retire. However, it’s hard to see why it persists all the way out to 2031. A typical boomer is 58 right now. 2031 is 22 hears out, so that is 80 years old, which is when many will pass on, and stop collecting Social Security benefits. This would not ordinarily be a problem, but the government will have to pay that out of present revenues, which will be a stress on the economy.

The movie has a second graph which shows the massive costs of Medicare, however this is a Chimera, it is based upon a continuation of our present health care system that enriches specific interests and provides the 37th best health care in the world at twice the average cost of comparable countries (Sweden, Denmark, etc..) Continuing to talk about the burden of health care costs when they could so easily be reduced is deceptive. This post explains how to decrease health care cost by $280 billion in direct costs per year immediately, and roughly $480 in combined direct and indirect costs) and increase the quality of the health care system. Of course it won’t be done because there is no free ride for concentrated power, thus it is called “socialist.” This is the official description for any program that is logical, fair and benefits the actual population of the country in question.

http://counterecon.com/2009/08/24/efficiency-of-pharmaceutical-industry/

Dollar

Why Did the Dollar Go Up?

Remember when the dollar went up when everyone thought it should be headed down? This interview between congressman Alan Grayson and Ben Bernanke could explain a strong reason why. In it Bernanke reluctantly admits that the Fed used 1/2 a trillion in foreign currency operations.  Since this is a central bank move to fight the tide, it must have cost us a considerable portion of that money (did we lose $100 billion of it, $200 billion of it? Will we ever know?) to prop up the dollar. I highly doubt the Fed has the authority to do this. The Fed claims the authority but Alan Grayson is questioning this. In fact does the Fed have unlimited authority? Could they spend $2 trillion to prop up the dollar? Where exactly does the Fed’s authority end. Also, did any investment bank get inside information on this allowing them to go long on the dollar? For some reason I think if you check Goldman’s currency positions at the time right before the massive intervention, they did go long on the dollar.

The Video of the Exchange

Excerpt from the Exchange Between Grayson and Bernanke.

Grayson’s questioning focused on the Fed’s handouts to FOREIGN central banks in Europe and other countries. These “Central Bank Liquidity Swaps” rose from a total of $24 billion at the end of 2007, to over $553 billion by the end of 2008.

Grayson: “So who got the money?”
Bernanke: “Financial institutions in Europe and other counries.”
Grayson: “Which ones?”
Bernanke: “I don’t know.”
Gryson: “Half a trillion dollars and you don’t know who got the money?”

Grayson: “Well, look at the next page [in Bernanke's written report], the very next page has the U.S. dollar nominal exchange rate, which shows a 20 percent increase in the U.S. dollar nominal exchange rate at exactly the same time that you were handing out half a trillion dollars. You think that’s a coincidence?”
Bernanke: “Yes.”
Grayson: “hah-hah-hah-hah!”

The Fed is Private

Some comments have been made about Grayson laughing at Bernanke. However, Bernanke is lying and it is costing taxpayers billions, possibly trillions. Why is Bernanke lying about such an obvious fact that his intervention caused the dollar to increase in value? Why is he so uncomfortable answering this line of questioning? Bernanke seems to be using an opaque instrument (currency swap) to cover up the Fed’s move to increase the value of the dollar.

What is a Currency Swap?

Is a foreign exchange agreement between two parties to exchange principal and fixed rate interest payments on a loan in one currency for principal and fixed rate interest payments on an equal value. – Wikipedia

It sounds innocuous enough, but why $1/2 a trillion?

Many people who work in finance speak with extreme confidence, but don’t help much in pointing out the incontrovertible corruption in the system. In the beginning we heard that mortgage backed securities were great because they provided liquidity, but then we learned they have a tendency to melt down the financial system. Now, no one seems to condescend to us about mortgage backed securities anymore, but if we allow it, the industry will keep coming up with new “instruments.”

One advantage to creating new instruments all the time is the ability to declare that its critics are ignorant (as other people would be to the amount of change in my pocket – that is right, only I know.) However, fraud is always opaque. The blog Taxes and Trade supported the swap as an extremely good idea. Here is an excerpt.

The Fed came up with something even better. They created dollars and then used the dollars to obtain foreign currencies by trading the dollars with foreign central banks for their currencies.

Here’s how a currency swap works. The Federal Reserve and the foreign central bank each create their own government’s bonds. Then they trade bonds of equal value with each other. Whenever the foreign central bank wants to trade back, they can. This strategy has three extremely beneficial effects:

1. It stabilizes currency markets. Foreign central banks get dollar reserves that will get sold right away, boosting their collapsing currencies versus the dollar.

2.It increases the money supply. In order to engage in these swaps both the Federal Reserve and the foreign central banks create new money, thus alleviating the world’s deflation. (Right now, the main problem in the world is deflation, as indicated by falling prices of stocks, oil, and precious metals.)

3. It weakens the dollar The immediate effect of the currency swaps is to weaken the dollar versus these other currencies, which helps the competitiveness of American products in world markets. – Trade and Taxes

However, the swaps did not weaken the dollar, they strengthened it. Something unasked in this analysis is why the Fed needs to create liquidity and why currency swaps are the way to do it. The Fed can create more liquidity anytime it wants, it does not need currency swaps to do so. That is the benefit of having control over a nation’s money supply. The problem generally is that while finance types tend to state that actions lead to specific outcomes, oftentimes the outcomes do not happen and a different outcome happens. So the credibility of finance has greatly declined.

Why is the Fed Anwering Questions at All?

Its important to know, the Fed is completely private. It only reports to its member banks and to investment banks. Bernanke can take his clothes off and show his bare ass to Grayson, and there is nothing Grayson or anyone else in Congress can do about it. The Fed is completely independent from the government and does not need to answer FOIA requests or any other types of requests.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aKr.oY2YKc2g

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7CC61ZsieV4

Bloomberg submitted a FOIA to the Fed and they fought it. The court ruled that:

“improperly withheld agency records” by “conducting an inadequate search” after Bloomberg News reporters filed a request under the information act. She gave the Fed five days to turn over documents it told the reporters it located, including 231 pages of reports, and said it must look for more at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which runs most of the loan programs.

However, what is going on here? While we appreciate the ruling and we think its right, it does not make legal sense. The Fed does answer requests in order to maintain the illusion that it is part of the Federal government, which it is not. Why is the judiciary providing these judgements and continuing the illusion that the Fed is public? The better approach is to admit the Fed is not subject to public inquiry, understand why, and then have the government take over the Fed. As long as the Fed is private, attempts to control it for the benefit of the population vs. banks will never take place.

Bernanke

Bernanke lies quite a bit. His constituents are concentrated financial power, not voters. He also does not work for the government, but somehow controls the currency of the government. He is enriching his constituents at great cost to voters.

Bernanke is lying in his exchange with Grayson, because he is trying to downplay the interventions on the part of the Fed, how they benefit the Fed’s elite constituents. Bernanke also has essentially gone rogue and is taking the Fed into a place it has not historically been by interpreting the Federal Reserve Act as broadly as possible. The total estimate of the corrupt bailout is $12.4 trillion at this point, and the Fed and Treasury continue to shovel US taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the ultra-wealthy.

References:

Read about the Federal Reserve Act here.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#List_of_member_banks

http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com/2008/10/federal-reserve-doing-exactly-right.html


There is one Congressman on the Financial Services Committee who has actually stood up to concentrated financial power, Alan Grayson.

Who is Alan Grayson?

Alan Grayson is a new Congressman who is a former practicing attorney who has clerked for the Supreme Court in his younger days. He sits on the Financial Service Committee. What is interesting is he is one of the few Congressmen asking these types of questions. Furthermore, it should be noticed that in several of these videos there is no one else sitting on the committee side. The question would be why on such important questions no one else except Barney Frank (who is the chair, and is obligated to be there) is interested in participating in these meetings. There are over 70 Congressmen who sit on this committee, yet almost no one participates when Grayson is asking questions. Our interpretation is that is that this is a sign of respect to the banking industry. That is if the committee members know what is “best for them” they will not even be associated with these questions. Grayson is one of the few (only) Congressmen who is standing up for the people that voted for him.

How is the Bailout Being Managed

A good portion of the population thinks that the bailout was necessary (without observing the deep fraud and corruption that caused the bailout), however just these videos demonstrate that the bailout is being and has been executed with extreme opacity which is covering up fraud on a huge scale. Grayson, as well as the entire Financial Services Committee (most of who are not there) is clearly being lied to or the interviewees are clearly attempting to dodge the question. Here is a listing of the Congressmen on this committee. It might help if they were asked why they have not interest in getting to the bottom of this corrupt bailout. http://financialservices.house.gov/who.html

Simply Illegal

As we have been saying for for some time, so much of what went on before and after the financial crisis is simply illegal. Unless the people responsible are punished, we will accelerate towards a system where justice is entirely based upon wealth. The first person to begin prosecuting is Henry Paulson, who violated the restrictions of his powers as head of the Treasury and conspired to show preferential treatment to his old firm (Goldman Sacks) in a way that broke the law.

http://counterecon.com/2009/01/14/reverse-the-bailout-arrest-and-prosecute-henry-paulson/

References An excerpt from an interview in Salon.

GG: The argument that he made–he did give you a reason why he felt as though you shouldn’t get that information, or at least why it ought not be publicly disclosed–was that if these institutions know that their receipt of these funds will be made public, that they will refuse to participate in the bailout program, that they won’t take the money. Do you find that to be persuasive, and why do you or don’t you?

AG: I don’t. And I don’t find it too persuasive for a couple of different reasons. The first reason is that by law the Federal Reserve is the lender of last resort. So the people who borrowed this $1.2 trillion from the Federal Reserve literally have nowhere else to go. That’s the principle, the underlying principle that governs the Federal Reserve’s operation. It’s why we have the Federal Reserve. We have a Federal Reserve to serve as the lender of last resort. So they would take the money because they’d literally have no choice.

The second reason is that the whole reason why we have securities law in the first place, why we have a Securities Exchange Act, is to allow investors to make informed decisions. So if in fact it’s true that Citicorp took $50 billion from the Federal Reserve, certainly the people who are investing in Citicorp need to know that. Frankly all the rest of us do, too.

If these institutions are going to fail at some point in the future, then people need to be able to protect themselves against that. It doesn’t seem to me to be a good idea in general to try to deliberately keep people in the dark, under the assumption that if they knew the truth; they might actually act on it.

Think that through a little bit. What he’s saying is, we wouldn’t want people to know that $50 billion went to institution X, because if they knew–well, what? What would they do? The fact is the matter is that they would understand the truth of the matter, which is that institution X is pretty shaky, and maybe institution X doesn’t deserve their money. So, what we have is the collaboration between the Federal Reserve and failing institutions to keep the public in the dark.

AG: No, I think if you look at this particular situation, the Federal Reserve is assuming that it has certain authorities in a very aggressive way, based upon laws that were written under entirely different circumstances 70 years ago. You know, if somebody said 70 years ago to Mr. Mellon, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve would like to issue $1.2 trillion to favored institutions, he would have said, what are you talking about; there isn’t $1.2 trillion in the entire world. And now they’re taking that as some sort of license, 70 years later, to do what they want to do, and keep it secret.

It’s utterly senseless. Not only does it completely mock the idea of checks and balances in government, and mock the idea of democracy, but it opens us up to a tremendous possibility of corruption.

Let’s suppose for the sake of the argument, that Mr. Bernanke decides to give a billion dollars to a fledging institution called the Dick Cheney Savings and Loan, and its only asset was a numbered Swiss bank account. How would we know? How would we know that that happened? The answer is, if you take the Federal Reserve’s view of things, we wouldn’t. And that’s disastrous.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/01/26/grayson/index1.html

This is an interesting excerpt from Wikipedia.

In early 2009, Grayson responded to controversial comments by talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh, in which Limbaugh stated that he wanted President Barack Obama “to fail”, by saying, “Rush Limbaugh is a has-been hypocrite loser, who craves attention. His right-wing lunacy sounds like Mikhail Gorbachev, extolling the virtues of communism. Limbaugh actually was more lucid when he was a drug addict. If America ever did 1% of what he wanted us to do, then we’d all need pain killers.”[10] On March 3 of that year, satirizing incidents in which prominent Republican officials (including Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele) were forced to apologize to Limbaugh for criticizing him, Grayson released a second statement, in which he said, “I’m sorry Limbaugh called for harsh sentences for drug addicts while he was a drug addict. I’m also sorry that he’s bent on seeing America fail. And I’m sorry that Limbaugh is one sorry excuse for a human being.”[11][12] Grayson Suing Corrupt Defense Contractors

“Mr. Grayson has filed dozens of lawsuits against Iraq contractors on behalf of corporate whistle-blowers. He won a huge victory last month [March 2006] when a federal jury in Virginia ordered a security firm called Custer Battles LLC to return $10 million in ill-gotten funds to the government. The ruling marked the first time an American firm was held responsible for financial improprieties in Iraq.”[10]

In the words of Senator Dorgan, there is an “orgy of greed” in Iraq. Vice President Cheney’s old firm Halliburton gets billions of dollars in no-bid contracts. War profiteers run wild, stealing millions from both US taxpayers and the Iraqi people. Corrupt corporations plunder Iraqi reconstruction funds, sabotaging the war effort. And the Bush Administration does nothing to stop it.

Everyone is concerned about the War in Iraq. Alan Grayson has done something about it.

Alan has taken on the biggest corrupt defense contractors, and won. His work on behalf of taxpayers has been recognized and applauded not only in the Wall Street Journal, but in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, CNN, 60 Minutes, the BBC, and newspapers and magazines in dozens of countries around the world.

“Mr. Grayson has filed dozens of lawsuits against Iraq contractors on behalf of corporate whistle-blowers. He won a huge victory last month [March 2006] when a federal jury in Virginia ordered a security firm called Custer Battles LLC to return $10 million in ill-gotten funds to the government. The ruling marked the first time an American firm was held responsible for financial improprieties in Iraq.”[10]

In the words of Senator Dorgan, there is an “orgy of greed” in Iraq. Vice President Cheney’s old firm Halliburton gets billions of dollars in no-bid contracts. War profiteers run wild, stealing millions from both US taxpayers and the Iraqi people. Corrupt corporations plunder Iraqi reconstruction funds, sabotaging the war effort. And the Bush Administration does nothing to stop it.

Everyone is concerned about the War in Iraq. Alan Grayson has done something about it.

Alan has taken on the biggest corrupt defense contractors, and won. His work on behalf of taxpayers has been recognized and applauded not only in the Wall Street Journal, but in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, CNN, 60 Minutes, the BBC, and newspapers and magazines in dozens of countries around the world. – Wikipedia


Why Read Marx? After being criticized as a socialist by several critics, or worse a communist because I disagree with the bailout and the increased financial corruption of the US, I thought I would take a shot at reading Karl Marx. I downloaded the following PDF documents off of the internet:

  • Capital: Book 1
  • Capital: Book 2
  • The Communist Manifesto

After reading parts of them I was actually quite surprised in that these books did not match my preconceived notions of them. Not that I necessarily thought they were not good work, only that my interpretation is that they would be more readable. The two books on capital read more like an economics paper with lengthy explanations on commodities and labor’s contribution to the resulting value of commodities. The Capitalist Manifesto is closer to what I expected but here again, the language used is quite surprising. On a number of occasions the paper refers to the lower classes as “scum,” which must be how the author thinks the bourgeoisie see the lower classes (which is probably true). While the book has a number of legitimate points, it undermines itself with a lot of extreme language and a lack of coherence. This actually gets to one of our main conclusions about Karl Marx and Engels (who wrote a good part of some of these books), whatever the merits of their ideas, neither of them are very good or very clear writers. (The books are translated from the original German to English; however, German is quite close to English, so this is not much of an excuse.). This fact is borne out by the fact that I needed to repeatedly go back and re-read sections, and even after doing so, was not clear as to what the author was saying. All three documents lack a coherent flow and seem to be more compilations of essays rather than books, and all of them could really benefit from a professional editor. One gets the feeling that both were rather undisciplined. The general flow seems to be that they got an idea, and wrote a chapter or section, then got another idea and wrote another chapter or section. After enough time passed, they had enough material for a book. If blogging had been around back in Marx and Engels’ time (of course they had newspapers and periodicals) this probably would have been a better outlet for their writing. What we learned from exposure to these books that that very few people are capable of reading any of them. It takes an extreme interest and extreme patience to get through them, and this is probably mostly limited to academics that are required to read them in order to complete their understanding of economic thought. One of the best explainers or interpreters of Marx we have read is Michael Hudson, a quite sophisticated economist who specializes in the history of economic thought. When Michael Hudson refers to and explains the ideas of Marx and Engels they seem to make sense, but when Marx or Engels explain them themselves without an interpreter like Dr. Hudson, they don’t seem to have the same resonance.

The Importance of Writing Clearly and Completely

 

Alan Macfarlane, a professor at Cambridge University, states that Marx’s work is particularly easy to understand. However, he recommends David MacClellan who extremely effectively interprets Marx.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Thought-Karl-Marx-Introduction/dp/0333639480/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_2

 

MacClellan’s books on Marx is recommended, which may provide the editor that Marx should have had. The listing on Marx in Wikipedia indicates that Marxism has always been greatly fractured with many different interpretations and fighting factions. In this way it is similar to the Bible, another work that is poorly written and quite unclear. While the bible is completely schizophrenic (due to multiple authors, the fact most the stories are second hand over 60 years after the initial events were to have said to have happened, and the recipient of multiply translations), Marx work is less so, however, it also comes across as incomplete. One gets the strong feeling that Marx was a streak writer and probably wrote more from the perspective of inspiration than discipline, and in many areas his reach was greater than his grasp. (in fact, Marx was at least 10 months late in producing the manuscript of Capital to his publisher and they threatened to find a different author.) By leaving out so much, this allows opportunists to come in and fill in the holes and in general interpret Marx work as they see fit.  This highlights the importance of comprehensive writing. Neither the Bible nor Marx’s works are internally consistent or coherent, and it has lead to a great deal of arguing because of this. This is not to say there are not good ideas in the Bible and in Marx work (as well as some bad ideas), and in fact many things Marx predicted have come true, however having a good ideas is not really good enough. Especially when people will try to implement your philosophy, it’s important to be clear and to admit the areas that you have not addressed rather than ignoring them. Here are a few interesting points of Marx’s work:

  1. Marx predicted that capitalism would lead to increasing investments in capital expenditures and a decreasing investment in labor. How Marx determined this is hard to see, however, he turned out to be correct. Since 1973, there have been great increases in the cost of capital equipment necessary to obtain new levels of productivity, but average wages in the US have actually gone down. See this article for details
    1. http://counterecon.com/2009/07/18/less-returns-for-labor-more-for-capital/
  2. Marx saw economic activity as a constant class struggle between those that own the means of production “bourgeoisie” and those that sell their labor “proletariat.” This is true, and is this class struggle, is essentially ignored in current economics in preference for tedious dissertations on interest rates and their effect on the economy. The lack of understanding of the class war nature of economics blinds Americans to the corruption of the financial system that is nothing more than government granted concessions that favor politically connected groups. In this way, current conventional economics is essentially bankrupt, only asking those questions that concentrated power allow to be asked. However, one thing that Marx did not see, according to Michael Hudson, was that the financial industry would actually subordinate the rest of industry to its will. So while labor is subordinated to capital and industries, industry itself is now subordinated to financial interests.
  3. Something that Marx predicted was that eventually hierarchy would fall away and people would be free. This has never happened, and does not sound even remotely likely to ever happen.

Conclusion

Our conclusion is very few people have read Marx and that what is known about him is almost entirely second hand. It is a mark of ignorance to have a pre-judgment about an author simply on the basis of association or hearsay without ever having firsthand experience reading the author’s work. In this way we think that the lauding of Adam Smith’s A Wealth of Nations (which is also mostly unread due to its extremely convoluted writing style that may be related to the fact it was written in the 1700s) is similarly based upon association, and not firsthand exposure or understanding. A while ago we wrote how people do not read Adam Smith’s A Wealth of Nation. As Noam Chomsky once pointed out, “its a book you are supposed to worship, but never read.” See this post, which proposes that Adam Smith is in fact extremely rarely read.

http://counterecon.com/2009/03/27/nobody-actually-reads-adam-smith-and-a-wealth-of-nations/

Reference

Interesting video on Marx

Interesting quote from Wikipedia on Marx

The American Marx scholar Hal Draper once remarked, “there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike.” The legacy of Marx’s thought has become bitterly contested between numerous tendencies which each see themselves as Marx’s most accurate interpreters, including (but not exclusively) LeninismTrotskyismMaoism,Luxemburgism, and libertarian Marxism. – Wikipedia


Oil Details

What is interesting is how little investigation there is into where the money that goes to oil goes. We decided to do this by starting from the retail price of oil, and then using high level percentages. The percentage that goes to countries that we have either invaded or (Iraq) or utterly control (Ecuador) is taken from books that cover both these countries. The percentage of oil revenues that is taken by oil companies is well known, as it was part of the legislation that was passed by the Iraq puppet government (75% of the value of a barrel of oil goes to the US oil company). In Ecuador, something like 4/5s of the revenues that get to the country go to either debt service or to the kleptocracy and often end up in capital flight to Switzerland. The government or “people” get around 1/5 of the money that gets to the country.

Speculative Take

Once the money is brought into the US there is a tremendous take by speculators, which include the major investment banks. We provide reference material that demonstrates that the oil markets have been significantly corrupted and that major concentrated power sources such as Goldman Sachs and the Harvard Endowment are using insider information to maximize their trading profits by creating speculative bubbles. This was encouraged by the Bush Administration’s reduction of marketplace regulation.

Retail Take

At the retail level, most gas stations do not get a piece of oil; instead they sell at very close to their cost, but are expected to make money off of their mini mart by selling alcohol, and food items. So the retail location is not part of the cost of oil to any important degree.

The Game, and How it is Played

The profiteering is so extreme, that we have decided to develop a game. This game attempts to see how low the intermediaries can get the money to be that actually goes to the people of the country that the oil is extracted from. It also gives a good impression why attacking oil rich country is so beneficial. Especially when one considers that the companies that benefit do not have their taxes increased to cover the war costs. The war and reconstruction costs are passed to the US taxpayer, while the benefits accrue to the oil company (and the construction companies and security companies, etc..). So war is extremely profitable and is an attempt by companies to gain a permanent or at least long term concession greatly increasing their monopoly power. One strong reason for attacking Iraq was the sanctions were coming to an end. Once these came to an end, European oil companies would have been allowed into Iraq and American oil companies would have had to compete for business. This way, they simply get the oil with no competition and are able to enforce conqueror terms upon the country. See our estimates below and see who gets what.


The Assumptions

These numbers are estimates. They are not perfect, but then again, these types of numbers are not published for the obvious reason that they look very bad. Oil companies are destabilizing countries around the globe. In the case of Nigeria, Shell is supporting the military junta which massacres its people in order to control them and keep them from receiving anything but a pittance for the oil revenue. Shell lies when they say “they don’t get involved in local politics,” they are deeply involved with turning Nigeria into an apocalyptic state. They have also loaned their tractors to the Nigerian military, which returned them to Shell with blood on them, and this was from using the equipment for the digging of mass graves for citizens which it had killed en mass.


The Nigeria Army periodically burns towns to the ground that they suspect of fighting, being “terrorists” or generally disagreeing with Shell Oil policies of extraction. By being ignorant and supporting Shell Oil we in the west are complicit. It brings up the topic, would we ever have fought the Nazis if they had given us very low prices on oil?


References

It appears that a combination of stripping away oil trading regulation by the Bush Administration as well as the vertical integration into trading by major investment banks have deeply corrupted the oil trading markets. The level of greed here is amazing. In cases like Iraq, Nigeria and Ecuador the standard practice is for the oil company to pull out 75% of the value of the oil (that is the value as pulled out of the ground). The country gets the other 25%, of which 4/5s is used to pay off World Bank and IMF loans and or be taken by the corrupt elites and moved over to off shore Swiss bank accounts. 5% is left over for the people of that country, but who also inherit many negative environmental and health effects. Then on the other side the investment banks take a huge cut through corrupt lending. It would be interesting to see, of a barrel of oil, how much goes to which groups across the supply chain. The estimate by F. William Engdahl is that roughly 60% of oil prices are pure speculation. This must be added onto the cost of the oil pulled out of the ground, (which must then be transported to its final destination (we will not include the price of refinement as that is the oil company’s job, and therefore their cost)). This is one reason the entire logic for Iraq using its oil resources for reconstruction was so false. The oil companies are taking 75% of the value of the oil and much of the rest is lost to the corrupt elites that the US has installed in Iraq. Therefore the US taxpayer has and will pay for the construction of Iraq, while the major oil companies and Wall Street reap the benefits. This is why it was never the plan to have any Democracy in Iraq.

Coverage on CBS on oil speculation profits.

CBS)  Dan Gilligan of the Petroleum Marketers Association agreed. “Are you saying that companies like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and Barclays have as much to do with the price of oil going up as Exxon? Or…Shell?” Kroft asked. “Yes,” Gilligan said. “I tease people sometimes that, you know, people say, ‘Well, who’s the largest oil company in America?’ and they’ll always say, ‘Well, Exxon Mobil or Chevron, or BP.’ But I’ll say, ‘No. Morgan Stanley.’” Morgan Stanley isn’t an oil company in the traditional sense of the word – it doesn’t own or control oil wells or refineries, or gas stations. But according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Morgan Stanley is a significant player in the wholesale market through various entities controlled by the corporation. It not only buys and sells the physical product through subsidiaries and companies that it controls, Morgan Stanley has the capacity to store and hold 20 million barrels. For example, some storage tanks in New Haven, Conn. hold Morgan Stanley heating oil bound for homes in New England, where it controls nearly 15 percent of the market. The Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs also has huge stakes in companies that own a refinery in Coffeyville, Kan., and control 43,000 miles of pipeline and more than 150 storage terminals. And analysts at both investment banks contributed to the oil frenzy that drove prices to record highs: Goldman’s top oil analyst predicted last March that the price of a barrel was going to $200; Morgan Stanley predicted $150 a barrel. Both companies declined 60 Minutes’ requests for an interview, but maintain that their oil businesses are completely separate from their trading activities, and that neither influence the independent opinions of their analysts. There is no evidence that either company has done anything illegal. Asked if there is price manipulation going on, Dan Gilligan told Kroft, “I can’t say. And the reason I can’t say it, is because nobody knows. Our federal regulators don’t have access to the data. They don’t know who holds what positions.” “Why don’t they know?” Kroft asked. “Because federal law doesn’t give them the jurisdiction to find out,” Gilligan said. It’s impossible to tell exactly who was buying and selling all those oil contracts because most of the trading is now conducted in secret, with no public scrutiny or government oversight. Over time, the big Wall Street banks were allowed to buy and sell as many oil contracts as they wanted for their clients, circumventing regulations intended to limit speculation. And in 2000, Congress effectively deregulated the futures market, granting exemptions for complicated derivative investments called oil swaps, as well as electronic trading on private exchanges. (CBS)  “Who was responsible for deregulating the oil future market?” Kroft asked Michael Greenberger. “You’d have to say Enron,” he replied. “This was something they desperately wanted, and they got.” Greenberger, who wanted more regulation while he was at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not less, says it all happened when Enron was the seventh largest corporation in the United States. “This was when Enron was riding high. And what Enron wanted, Enron got.” Asked why they wanted a deregulated market in oil futures, Greenberger said, “Because they wanted to establish their own little energy futures exchange through computerized trading. They knew that if they could get this trading engine established without the controls that had been placed on speculators, they would have the ability to drive the price of energy products in any way they wanted to take it.” “When Enron failed, we learned that Enron, and its conspirators who used their trading engine, were able to drive the price of electricity up, some say, by as much as 300 percent on the West Coast,” he added. “Is the same thing going on right now in the oil business?” Kroft asked. “Every Enron trader, who knew how to do these manipulations, became the most valuable employee on Wall Street,” Greenberger said. But some of them may now be looking for work. The oil bubble began to deflate early last fall when Congress threatened new regulations and federal agencies announced they were beginning major investigations. It finally popped with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the near collapse of AIG, who were both heavily invested in the oil markets. With hedge funds and investment houses facing margin calls, the speculators headed for the exits. “From July 15th until the end of November, roughly $70 billion came out of commodities futures from these index funds,” Masters explained. “In fact, gasoline demand went down by roughly five percent over that same period of time. Yet the price of crude oil dropped more than $100 a barrel. It dropped 75 percent.” Asked how he explains that, Masters said, “By looking at investors, that’s the only way you can explain it.” Masters believes the investor demand for commodities, and oil futures in particular, was created on Wall Street by hedge funds and the big Wall Street investment banks like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Barclays, and J.P. Morgan, who made billions investing hundreds of billions of dollars of their clients’ money. “The investment banks facilitated it,” Masters said. “You know, they found folks to write papers espousing the benefits of investing in commodities. And then they promoted commodities as a, quote/unquote, ‘asset class.’ Like, you could invest in commodities just like you could in stocks or bonds or anything else, like they were suitable for long-term investment.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770_page4.shtml Persons within the United States seeking to trade key US energy commodities – US crude oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures – are able to avoid all US market oversight or reporting requirements by routing their trades through the ICE Futures exchange in London instead of the NYMEX in New York. Is that not elegant? The US Government energy futures regulator, CFTC opened the way to the present unregulated and highly opaque oil futures speculation. It may just be coincidence that the present CEO of NYMEX, James Newsome, who also sits on the Dubai Exchange, is a former chairman of the US CFTC. In Washington doors revolve quite smoothly between private and public posts. A glance at the price for Brent and WTI futures prices since January 2006 indicates the remarkable correlation between skyrocketing oil prices and the unregulated trade in ICE oil futures in US markets. Keep in mind that ICE Futures in London is owned and controlled by a USA company based in Atlanta Georgia. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878 Remember last year.  Oil went from $60 to $150 in the space of a few months.  Why? Because it was no longer profitable to buy CDOs and RMBS, as they were imploding.  The money has to go somewhere, and so traders bet in front of what they believed Bernanke would do – crank down interest rates at an insanely-accelerated rate, which would spike prices in commodities, as the economic slowdown had not yet occurred – and wouldn’t for several months.[1]

[1] The Idiocy of Bernanke’s Bubbles and CNBS

Older Posts »