Saturday, August 29, 2015

Summers And Roubini Talk Negative Interest Rates, Sound Logic But Uncharted Waters

Summers And Roubini Talk Negative Interest Rates, Sound Logic But Uncharted Waters

Let me say that Larry Summers certainly holds to the Democratic Party mantra of job creation through monetary policy. However, he really could care less about jobs, in my opinion, when push comes to shove. Larry Summers cares about banks. And low interest rates insures that banks remain functioning, as they skate on thin ice, like Will Rogers once said about the state of banks in the Great Depression.

You cannot have a 25 basis rate hike without putting the banks on thin ice these days. That is the Summers' message. And China just cut their funds rate .25 percent and our stock market in the United States rejoiced for a while. Talk about thin ice.

Back in 2013, Summers talked about how the natural interest rate sans a bubble economy is negative. Yes, negative. Remember, this is not some chump off the street. Larry Summers was the second choice behind Janet Yellen for Fed chairman.

The relentless decline of the 10 year treasury bond interest rate, stopped only by the Dot Com bubble and housing bubble, is decidedly down over the past 20 years.

So, raising rates in the midst of little bubble activity seems to Summers to be ludicrous. You could say housing is in another bubble. But it is a bubble for the wealthy. It does not appear that Main Street is participating in many bubbles right now except in auto sales. In fact, it is more likely that main street is a victim of bubbles that exist, at least in food, housing and until recently, oil and building commodities.
Keeping Main Street weak, through technological gains and job elimination and China slowing, could theoretically push interest rates down to negative territory and certainly, the Fed fears Main Street becoming strong without a reliance upon the credit their member banks offer. Wage inflation is a no no, although bankers really like asset inflation.

When Volcker raised interest rates to over 20 percent to stop inflation back in the '70s, the act only destroyed the S&Ls. If someone tried to stop overheating nowadays by that method, you would destroy the TBTF banks, ie. the financial system itself.

The economy simply cannot be permitted to overheat in any significant way, the key being tamping down any wage inflation which can be done whether there are bubbles or no bubbles. I think that this bully of a financial system has been Alan Greenspan's plan all along. He has created this monster, with diminishing or stagnate main street consumer demand, which Summers is trying to make sense of, with potentially dreadful consequences.

So, Summers is basically saying or implying that the economy on Main Street cannot be permitted to engage in bubbles anymore, unless negative interest rates are available as a means of stimulus after the resulting crash.

Bloomberg agrees with Summers. There are not very many options left in a downturn.
The Fed wants to raise rates now, and lower them later while still being positive. But it is looking like that could hurt the banking systems and obviously undo the stock markets around the world.

Keeping Main Street bubble-free ensures some bank stability but profits are low. Or if you want Main Street to engage in bubbles, and Summers says they are necessary to growth, you have to allow negative interest rates in times of bust. Of course, at the point at which the negative interest rate is at  minus 100 percent, you will just give your money to the banks and never see it again.
While that prospect is ridiculous, Larry Summers, on his own blog, spoke of permanent secular stagnation.  Summers says that there is too much saving in America. He says that this excess saving slows down the economy. Of course, his goal is a cashless society, where people will have to put their money in the bank, and in order to avoid losing it to negative interest, will be forced to spend the money to stimulate the economy.

That is his way of aborting secular stagnation, or deflation. Summers is far more worried about secular stagnation than he is worried about inflation.

Summers believes that in any crisis, Fed funds rates must be cut at least three to four percentage points. That means, if there was a crisis today, Fed funds would need to be lowered to minus 3 to minus 4 percent! Without a cashless society in place, those low rates would be difficult to do in the face of inevitable bank runs.

If you think that little notion of negative 4 percent is far-fetched, Nouriel Roubini and Paul Krugman have advocated negative interest rates and/or a cashless society as a means of stimulating the economy as well. While they make valid arguments logically, I have to tell you that there is an aspect of totalitarianism in their thinking. Economics as a dismal science rarely gets more dismal than this. I think this is a potentially chilling plan going forward, as the world spirals towards deflation.

But that is where we are as the Fed looks foolish in trying to raise interest rates by a pitiful 25 basis points month after month, without achieving the goal! The actions of the Fed make Larry Summers look more reasonable and logical all the time, and that is scary. Derivatives are the cause of this, you know.  Derivatives' demand for collateral forces treasury bond prices up and treasury bond yields down.

The need for collateral has made treasury bonds into rock stars. The shortage of those bonds is a huge reason why I believe Summers wants interest rates to stay low and go lower.  It has nothing to do with jobs. According to Summers, jobs are going to be lost anyway, to technology.

No, Summers wants low rates and it has to do with hedge funds, financial clearing houses and banks. If interest rates remain low,  the people who need to buy scarce bonds as collateral will not be interfered with by some old retired guy who wants to make a little interest on bonds.

God forbid that the average Joe would hold precious clearing house collateral and have it lying around doing nothing! No, the financial system, and I think this is the crux of Larry Summers' thinking, has to make treasury bonds look really ugly to the public. Low and negative interest rates make these bonds ugly to Main Street, but they are still very pretty to people who want to make deals on Wall Street.

This must be what people are talking about when they say the financial system is divorced from the real world. There isn't anything brave about this new world. It is dreadful in its design.

Truth is, Wall Street folks will pay banks for the privilege of owning treasury bonds for use as collateral. They don't care if there are negative interest rates. The more negative, the better, as that means they won't have to worry about not having enough bonds with which to do business.

Roubini, as I said above, is in the negative interest rate camp. No big deal to him, since you accept zero interest at the bank and that is an effective negative rate as inflation runs higher. Roubini says you will also get used to accepting having money pulled out of your account for interest payments when real negative rates become a reality.

I always thought Roubini had a Rasputin quality about him.

That need for negative interest rates to provide economic stimulus is the only significant reason for a cashless society, to keep you from hiding your money under the mattress and not spending it. All other reasons are just secondary.

But Roubini talks about the mattress as well. He talks about robberies increasing once thieves know society is putting money under mattresses and in walls, and also he speaks about the destruction of said money by rodents. I kid you not.

Roubini and Larry Summers are not madmen,but certainly there is a sense of desperation and risk of negative consequences coming out in their thinking. One could think that their thinking puts us on the edge of the abyss of economic thought. But it is Roubini who wants you to just accept negative rates voluntarily. I bet he can afford a rodent-proof safe.

As I said, I don't believe these economists want Main Street to participate in more bubbles until the negative interest rate regime is in place. After all, they can't control the behavior of the masses in a bubble-then-crash setting. They can't control the masses if interest rates rise and the masses gobble up all their precious treasury bonds, the new gold of the derivatives clearing houses.

They don't want people walking away from their loans again, because they fear the government will be adverse to future bailouts. Truth is, it will be easier to accomplish bail-ins if money is held captive in the cashless society.

Better to have negative interest rates, so that people will want to spend their money, say the economists. But Roubini's idea has a fatal flaw: many will still hide their money and not spend it. That is, after all, the prudent way to live, or at least always has been until this derivatives monster was created.

Summers, alas, has the plan that will work, force you to spend or lose money in your forced savings account. But the St. Louis Fed disagrees, saying that negative interest rates are not a tool that should be used by central banks:
The above examples of negative central bank policy rates are newsworthy because they are unusual. Some analysts have argued that such examples suggest that central banks should consider setting negative policy rates, including negative rates on deposits held at the central bank. Such proposals are foolish for a number of reasons. First, a policy rate likely would be set to a negative value only when economic conditions are so weak that the central bank has previously reduced its policy rate to zero. Identifying creditworthy borrowers during such periods is unusually challenging. How strongly should banks during such a period be encouraged to expand lending? Second, negative central bank interest rates may be interpreted as a tax on banks—a tax that is highest during periods of quantitative easing (QE)Central banks typically implement QE policies via large-scale asset purchases. Sellers of these assets are paid in newly created central bank deposits, which, in due course, arrive in the accounts of commercial banks at the central bank. It is an axiom of central banking that the banking system itself cannot reduce the aggregate amount of its central bank deposits no matter how many loans are made because the funds loaned by one bank eventually are redeposited at another. Is it reasonable for the central bank to impose a tax on deposits held at the central bank when the central bank itself determines the amount of such deposits held by banks and the banking system? Perhaps these and other considerations caused European Central Bank President Mario Draghi in a recent press conference to label negative deposit rates "uncharted waters" and dismiss any possibility that the ECB would consider it.
In summary, in normal economic times, both nominal and real interest rates are positive. But in unusual times, negative nominal and real yields are not unusual. Both often reflect investors' flight to safety. The existence of negative yields, however, provides no support for the argument that central banks should consider negative policy rates as a monetary policy tool.

Remember I said that Summers only cares about the banks. He would surely expect the banks to pass on negative Fed Funds rate to customers, making the negative savings rate even more negative than the Funds Rate. He would sacrifice the savings of Main Street Americans to keep the banking system afloat in a deflationary environment. Stimulus would come from savers, and while it makes logical sense, it is a real theft, a tax imposed by a financial system that is not our government, but is international and not beholden to, nor patriotic toward, any national government.

Negative interest rates could vary from nation to nation, but would be a New World Order private tax, collected by the  globalists and their banks, not from government. Talk about taxation without representation. Keep in mind that the St. Louis Fed said that rates are negative in unusual times, while Summers has said that rates are negative when there are no bubbles. Summers is saying that negative rates are a new normal, if you will.

How Americans react to this potential totalitarianism of finance will certainly be interesting to watch going forward. Perhaps if Summers is thwarted in his grand plan, the next downturn could see stimulus just handed out to regular people, with the caveat that it could not be used to pay down debt, only to spend towards a little prosperity for the economy. Summers' plan is totally reasonable, in a crazy sort of way, if his assumptions are correct about our "unusual times".

You would think consumer spending and dollar turnover would create a multiplier effect, if Main Street had any extra dollars, that is. But giving Main Street extra dollars risks overheating the economy, which I have already said cannot be stopped by conventional means. Volcker-type interest rate hikes would destroy the TBTF banks, not just S&Ls.

I am not sure the consumer's pocketbook can survive the potential triple Fed mandate of wage stagnation, asset inflation, and negative interest rates all happening at the same time. It sounds as if Larry Summers wants this, and if unusual times are the new normal, he is saying there is no other choice in the future.


Friday, August 28, 2015

'Death of cash' predicted within a decade - Yahoo Finance

'Death of cash' predicted within a decade - Yahoo Finance

My response to this Fiscal Times propaganda article published on Yahoo finance was as follows:

Propaganda. I just wrote an article on Talkmarkets about this very
subject as Gary Anderson. The cashless society is for the banks, and
they want it bad. Larry Summers wants it bad so they can set interest
rates at far below zero in the next crash. Then they will force you to
put your money in the bank or spend it to stimulate the economy. Wake up
sleepy Americans. The globalists have got us.

See also my article on this very subject at Talkmarkets which goes into specific detail as to why propaganda like this is being published all over the internet frequently:

Summers and Roubini Talk Negative Interest Rates, Sound Logic But Uncharted Waters 

So, this is what the globalists want:

Here are the five things they want:

1. negative interest rates if necessary

2. cashless society where you have to deposit or spend

3. self driving cars so you will be outlawed from driving

4. gun control and or hatred against other groups

5. population control of up to 90 percent fewer people

These five things are what the globalists, along with their economists, futurists and eugenicists want, in a nutshell folks.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

The Fed Scares Everyone About Treasuries from Time to Time. Is It a Scam?

This article was recently published on the front page of Talkmarkets at the following link. I hope you find it interesting and helpful:

From time to time, the Fed and its cronies scare everyone. And maybe those who are not actually cronies, chime in. Certainly this issue of lack of liquidity is scaring people. Articles abounded in the second quarter regarding this coming liquidity crunch.

Yet when push came to shove, China was able to unload a hundred billion dollars worth of treasury bonds through Belgian dealers. No crisis there. So what is really going on? From a distance we need to distinguish two issues.

The first issue is this fear of liquidity. Dealers in America are not making markets in treasury bonds, due to regulations forcing them to be more conservative. But the Belgian dealers had no trouble dispensing Chinese owned US treasury bonds with no liquidity problems at all.

The second issue has to do with a shortage of bonds, due to the fact that the Fed and China and others have a bunch of them and yet bankers want to use them for collateral in clearing houses in the derivatives market.

So, some have tried to fuse the two issues. But I think one issue is real and the other is fake. The real issue is the second issue. There is a need for treasury bonds as collateral. The fake issue is issue number one, and is really a new twist on an age old plan, to scare people to unload bonds so the clearing houses can get them and so there can appear to be less demand for the bonds than there really is.

The demand from clearing houses for more collateral in deals is new, but fear of rising interest rates is old. So, scare people with the threat of rising interest rates, and they sell these valuable bonds that can then be used for collateral.

So, what are the telltale signs of the conspiracy. First, the Fed has one job, and one alone. Its job is to buy and sell bonds, preferably to sell them. The Fed wants to sell bonds, and stimulate the bond market so that clearing houses won't face a shortage of bonds.

It is necessary to know that we have two threads of commentary going on at the same time. First, the Globe and Mail said we had a shortage of bond buyers. Hmmm. Wolf Richter said that everyone will head for the exists when it is time to sell these bonds out of fear. His view is that they are overleveraged. People will have to get out.

Zero Hedge spoke of a crisis in margin calls because of CDSs, not because of treasury bonds. But Zero Hedge has warned about this liquidity problem in treasuries. Are they just reporting? Are they fooled? I don't know. Bloomberg warned of treasury liquidity drying up, however, in more than one article.

A few months after these warnings, the Chinese decided to sell over 100 billion dollars of treasuries with no trouble at all!

And Washington's Blog reported that there is a lawsuit filed after the "warnings"  claiming that the big banks, the dealers who suddenly didn't want to be market makers, were actually rigging the bond market, no doubt with the Fed's blessing.

So, why would the primary dealers want to dry up liquidity? Well, it is pretty simple. They want borrowers to pay higher interest rates.  And if you don't think that this is a scam of sorts, Alan Greenspan said that very thing. He said bond investors will not stomach low interest rates for much longer.

Does anyone really believe Greenspan? It appears that there are fewer buyers because the banks who want higher interest rates are squelching liquidity. That appears to be a classic scam. It appears to be a conspiracy.

There are obviously margin calls in markets all over the place. But that should cause a flood into treasuries and more demand for them, as well as lower interest as they go up in value. It doesn't make sense to me that treasuries will fall out of favor in this environment.

The only way treasuries could fall out of favor is if there is so much money chasing them that they have become like commodities, like copper, or stocks, and are subject to massive margin betting.

In crisis they have always been cover from the storm. If that is no longer true, then the Fed has allowed cornering of the bond markets, and they will no longer be doing their job to sell bonds as the most important thing they do. At that point in time, why even have them around.

Truth is, treasury markets have been cornered before, forcing prices up and yields down. But that was before the massive demand for bonds in the derivatives markets. That demand has not abated. Therefore, rather than the markets being cornered, the dealer banks want to push down the prices of the bonds, and raise interest rates,  just the opposite effect of cornering the market has done in the past.

So, it appears that the Fed and Greenspan and the dealer banks just want to drive the price down so it doesn't look like a bubble. They know people think the high price/low yield state of the treasury markets is a bubble. But is it? I don't think it is at all. How can it be a bubble when, as Zero Hedge said, there is simply not enough treasuries to go around as collateral? Zero Hedge goes on to say that makes it a bubble. But real demand isn't a bubble, and there is real demand for these bonds.

So, the beat goes on. Everyone says there is a treasury bond bubble while these same people say there is a shortage of these bonds as collateral. That is why I believe the shortage of bonds is real and the lack of liquidity is fake or at least manufactured by manipulators.

Just remember, we know that the Fed scares people with the threat of higher interest rates and then never raises the rates. They know the banks have bet on low rates. That is a pretty easy scam to spot, but the treasury bond market-as-a-bubble scam is harder to uncover.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Phil Davis Blog | US Markets Race China To The Bottom – Can We Avoid Their Fate? | Talkmarkets

 Phil Davis Blog | US Markets Race China To The Bottom – Can We Avoid Their Fate? | Talkmarkets:

Phil Davis is a trader, a very smart guy. He was able to help his group avoid the pitfalls of the latest crash. If people are going to trade, they have to understand that they are not the insiders, and that they have to live off of clues that Phil is oftentimes able to discern.

He knows the markets are manipulated, but he has a lot of information that can save traders in this environment.  I respect Davis from reading him on Seeking Alpha and Talkmarkets.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Greenspan warns about bond-market bubble -Is He Lying?

Greenspan warns about bond-market bubble - MarketWatch

Alan Greenspan says we are in a bond bubble. Of course, he wants people to sell their bonds because there is a shortage of bonds for use as collateral.

Also, he wants borrowers from the big banks to believe that interest rates will rise so they give up their floating low interest side of the bet for the more "secure" fixed higher interest rate. The banks take the low floating side because they know rates won't go up anytime soon.

So, Greenspan is a liar, in my opinion. A comment was made in response to the article by Bob M., and here it is:

 For the past 140 years, the yield on 30Y treasurys has averaged 200
basis points over the rate of inflation (it doesn't matter if you don't
believe the CPI data - this has been the correlation over time).  Right
now the yield on the 30Y is 285 basis points over the current CPI (which
is essentially running at 0% YoY), so one could argue that the current
yield on the 30Y is almost 50% higher than the historical norm (thus
indicating value, not a bubble). Real yields are the only thing that

Other comments not trusting Greenspan have been brutal and insulting. Perhaps the Maestro deserves them. He wants low rates as I wrote at Seeking Alpha.

The regime of low interest rates that we have today is a direct
result, in my view, of Greenspan's quest to make sure the big banks of
today do not suffer the fate of the S & Ls. The low interest rate
regime is almost foolproof, in that it is based upon the massive demand
for treasury bonds in the interest rate swap market.
Unfortunately, built upon this seemingly noble Greenspan quest for low rates is the
derivatives' new reality. Tools to keep interest rates low appear to be
dishonest. We had CDO risk management scams, off balance sheet hiding of
bad loans, and we had the LIBOR scam and the dishonest drive to keep
interest rates low as seen in the interest rate swap scam.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Here Is a Discussion About Speculation and Asset Inflation Which Hurts Mainstreet

I posted this at regarding speculation and asset inflation and oil/food price inflation:

Oil and food have been inflated for years. A bell pepper costs 99 cents. And this stuff was happening before the drought got bad. Oil is always a cornered market, when it pushes up. Oil was pushed up, according to the Saudis, by investment bankers. Wikileaks uncovered the truth of this:
What role Wall Street investors play in the high cost of oil is a hotly debated topic in Washington. The Obama administration, the Bush administration before it and Congress have been slow to take steps to rein in speculators. The Saudis, however, have struck a steady theme for years that something should be done to curb the influence of banks and hedge funds that are speculating on the price of oil, according to diplomatic cables made available to McClatchy by the WikiLeaks website.
I added:

Inflation is low but until very recently asset inflation has not been low. And for gasoline it still isn't low in the Western states.
The Saudis knew that the bankers were speculating and pushing the prices up. One guy cornered the cocoa market, so a group of bankers could easily corner the oil market.
If you can't see that this has been happening, especially after investment bankers were allowed to take large positions back in the 90's in commodity futures, you haven't understood anything.
We even have the case with regard to food, of West Africans suffering because Goldman Sachs speculated on food in 2007: Goldman took massive positions, causing contracts to be scarce.

And Goldman even stores aluminum, affecting the aluminum price. The author said this:

When we last talked about the great aluminum conspiracy, I mentioned this problem: that the price of financial, abstract aluminum -- the stuff stored in the LME warehouses and used in futures trading -- was becoming disconnected from the price of real, available aluminum that could be made into beer cans. But I said that that was not a problem for beer-can prices, because beer cans are made with real aluminum, not abstract LME aluminum. But this is a fair point! Beer-can makers don't just make beer cans. They also make financial decisions, including decisions about hedging their aluminum costs. And when abstract aluminum and real aluminum diverge, then the costs and risks of that hedging go up. And that does cost the beer-can makers.
I closed my comment here:
The point is, Iwog, that the investment banks can interfere with the markets, at best, and speculate on the markets, at worst, driving up the price and availability of commodities.
They did so badly in the last decade. And we as consumers paid through the noses. And if you don't believe speculation exists to squeeze the average guy, you are not getting the whole picture of what the Fed does and how money in the hands of bankers can drive prices up.

Putin May Be Tiring of His Cronies - Bloomberg View

Putin May Be Tiring of His Cronies - Bloomberg View

My response to this article is as follows:

So globalization is the evil plan of the world. Anyone with half a brain
knows it. Bloomberg knows it. Ask Mayor Bloomberg about his connection
to the Sandy Hook Hoax. On the right Pam Geller was sponsored by Israeli
lobbyists. Both parties must tow the AIPAC line.

The Rothschild project
is Israel, not established according to the Old Torah but established
according to atheists like Herzl and Ben-Gurion. The globalists want
world domination so much that they paid for regime change in the
Ukraine. They want regime change in Russia and that is why Russia has
clamped down on the NGO's.

Yinon Zionism is the plan for domination of
the middle east. And Israel dominates the US, with Fed vice chairman
Stanley Fischer a dual Israeli citizen. Many of the neocons who shaped
middle east policy were dual Israeli citizens. Our boys died for Israel,
not for US interests. Let's not be fooled, people.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Stanley Fischer AIPAC's DUAL CITIZEN Is Second in Command at the Fed

The Federal Reserve supports antiBDS activities. The Fed is not a part of national sovereignty. The Fed is a foreign agent, a supranational agent. Stanley Fischer is a dual citizen and is a dangerous man, when it comes to freedoms and the interest of fighting apartheid in Israel.

This, of course, comes off of the fact that Stanley Fischer did nothing to stop settlements on Palestinian lands while head of the Israeli central bank.

And of course, musical chairs is indeed the way the central banks work. They are globalists and Fischer influenced Bernanke, Draghi, and others.

AIPAC is behind this elevation of dual and pro Israeli government officials to power. AIPAC is soiling America with a nation God hates, Israel. The curse upon America will continue as long as Israel is in control of the United States. God does not hold the Zionists to be legitimate. That is discussed here. 

Zionism and Israeli politics does not arise out of the authority of God granted in the Old Testament to establish the New Zion through the Messiah. Many Jews and some Christians understand this truth.

But take my word for it, we are cursed as a nation regarding prosperity as long as we are associated with Israel and let Israel exert so much power over us. That is a guarantee.

While Fischer was central bankster for Israel, the common people were harmed by asset inflation without wage inflation. The same is happening here in the United States. 

See also:

Stanley Fischer AIPAC's Federal Reserve Vice Chairman

Fischer on Warpath Against Iran

Donald Trump Is Not Presidential, but His Opinions Hit at America's Failures

Donald Trump is not presidential material. He is offensive, xenophobic and maybe even racist. Megan Kelly is right that he offends women, too. But she is so self important that it is hard to choose her over the Donald as to personality fails.

Still, since Republicans in general seem to attack women, as if they have some sort of pseudo religious duty to do so, Trump piling on to women increases that offense. The Republicans don't mind alienating half the voters as if they are the man party? Too funny if it wasn't just pathetic.

But on other issues, Donald Trump is speaking to the failure of America, the failure of policy as it attacks the middle class. He is speaking to the failure of big capital to give the United States of America a fair shake.

Most of the jobs added in this economy since the recession are poorly paying jobs. Most are in food service. Gasoline is piling up as Americans are driving less. If many working poor can afford a vehicle, and many cannot, can they afford to drive across town 20 miles per day? They pay inflated gasoline prices based on their depressed wages? I don't think so.

While gasoline has gone down in price recently, Americans were ripped off for years as wages stagnated, and that was a double penalty since their house values were crashing as well. As the Fed has said, the hot money left the real estate market, LIBOR skyrocketed, and banks would not lend to each other. Credit dried up for consumers and it was really easy before it dried up.

The economy, and the middle class are at a breaking point, so Trump's message resonates with many.  Let's look at a few of these points Trump is making:

1. Trump says that there are bubbles brewing in markets. Well, that is true. People don't like bubbles anymore. They want real wages, not an economy based upon the need for credit in order to get ahead. Millennials learned first hand how that could turn on its head. Millennials learned what it was like for home prices to go down and for bankers to take advantage of their parents.

2. Trump says that the border is too porous and that this ultimately robs wages from Americans. Well, certainly, many Americans don't want to pick farm produce or build houses. But, the border is too porous, because fair and organized entry into nations is important. It can stretch the systems of education and medical care to have illegals flooding into the US and then having citizen children. It has a social cost.

That does not mean that I am against immediate citizenship. I am for immediate citizenship of children born here. That does not mean that I am for sending back illegal children who have trained in our schools. That is dumb, because we paid through the nose to train these kids. We need their education and drive to help our nation. We need a path to citizenship for all who are educated here.

But we need to zealously guard the borders. It just is the right thing to do. Globalists are afraid that there will be a shortage of workers, but the US could make sure this doesn't happen by committing more resources to an orderly process at the borders.

3. Trump says he will bring jobs back to the US. Well, truth is, he could influence this process. He isn't going to fix the process completely, but he certainly could apply laws and incentives that would keep more jobs in America. For economists to reject his view out of hand shows they are likely in the pockets of the big capitalists. These globalist types want to take advantage of the American consumer, making products elsewhere that they expect to sell to Americans. There is something fundamentally unpatriotic about that unless there is simply no other way for an industry to survive without moving offshore.

Perhaps the thing that Americans are most angry about, and that I am angry about, is issue number 1, that housing has become a bubbled up commodity. Housing can be manipulated in price by those who chose to manipulate it. And all the while this housing is being manipulated by hot money, the wages of Americans must stagnate in an effort to maintain some sort of competitiveness in the world.

So, we have globalists offshoring jobs, letting people in in droves, both of these pushing wages down, all the while they are speculating in housing and driving the prices of housing up. This is a squeeze on the middle class of unprecedented proportions.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is madness, and it will create an unstable economy if it the gap between house prices (and rents), and wages get worse.

CBS said that home prices have outstripped wage appreciation in 76 percent of the real estate markets of the United States. This is another bubble. Sorry, you can say it isn't, but Donald Trump is right and your globalist controlled politicians are silent. They know the score. But they don't care.

Donald Trump makes me angry with his lack of nuance and his insensitivity. But he is hitting the ball out of the park when it comes to the issues. The rest of the politicians are useless. Yes, they are totally useless and in the pockets of their globalist masters.

That is the truth, and this is coming from a guy who voted for Obama twice, who is a liberal for gun rights. Oh, and there are other liberals who support gun rights, but they get no air time. That is just the way things are.

If Donald Trump succeeds in shaming the rest of the politicians in both parties, he will have done something. But then, it is possible that they simply don't have any conscience anymore. And if that is the case, our nation will continue to face hard times, and the millennials will force bankers to get real jobs, since they don't want to take on loans like their parents did.

Yes, Trump is onto something. It is just too bad it is Trump and not a JFK type, as JFK had an understanding of these very same things, and possessed the nuanced intellect to make people understand the issues and love his presidency.

Could Trump be a phony, with no real desire to fix anything. It is always possible. He seems sincere, however. He could influence the direction of government on the three issues above even if he isn't president. That would most likely be a very good thing.

Donald Trump Says He’d Deport All Undocumented Immigrants From U.S.

Donald Trump Says He’d Deport All Undocumented Immigrants From U.S. - Bloomberg Politics

Donald Trump, who previously said that he would not consider booting out illegal aliens who are now here, has moved to the dark side. I had agreed with him that guarding the border more vigorously was a good idea. But he has advocated much more, seeking to boot out millions of people who have been educated in our schools, and can contribute to economic growth in our society.

If Trump thinks that there is going to be no economic growth, that may be where he is coming from. But the economy is slowly growing, not by much thanks to the Federal Reserve Bank's policy of not taxing banks excess reserves. But Trump is talking like the pie is getting smaller or will not get much bigger, and these people need to go, even though most do work Americans would not do.

I support the concept of sovereign nationality, through strong border patrol, and through strong repudiation of the globalists, who want open borders. But, there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it and Trump is choosing the wrong way to do it.

For example, if we took away automatic citizenship to those born in the USA, the Mexican kids would
grow up without a nation, not being educated in American schools, and with no citizenship at all.
That would be incredibly dangerous. You could be raising an entire generation of a new kind of gypsy.
I don't think Donald Trump would want that.

Automatic citizenship of children born in the USA was the law of all states at the ratification of the constitution. However, the question boils down to whether there is jurisdiction, and so, children born of diplomats are not American citizens. But clearly, it is disputed whether people who seek to live permanently and illegally in the US have children that are subject to jurisdiction. I think that means they do, but it is possible that it could be ruled otherwise. Whichever party does repeal automatic citizenship will lose the Hispanic vote forever and possibly cease to be a major political party. Something to think about.

Since Ted Cruz was born out of the US, only statute, not constitutional status, grants him citizenship to American parents. While I would like Ted Cruz to not be an American, I don't believe that statute should be overturned. Be careful what you wish for, as you are against auto citizenship. Maybe hostile politicians could just ban your citizenship, Ted!

But, Trump is dealing with this issue just like he dealt with women, calling them names and insulting his opponents. That is not the way to handle this. Yes, we need a secure border. It is important. But deporting 11 million people, most of whom contribute to society, is not the answer and will inflame not only Mexico, but also US Hispanic Americans.

I can't imagine that Trump would want to make the Republican party any more irrelevant than it is now.

There may come a time when America is so dirt poor thanks to the banksters not lending and thanks to the corporations not paying fair wages, that it will be every man for himself and the Zionists will get their race wars and the like after weakening the USA immeasurably. But that time is not now.  

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Linette Lopez Of Business Insider Misspoke About Puerto Rico's Tax Break Policy

Linette Lopez of Business Insider misspoke about Puerto Rico's Tax Break policy. She basically stated that Puerto Rico let the policy of tax breaks for American corporations end. Yet it is clear that the United States government repealed the tax break.

This oversight is very disturbing. There were many comments by readers making Linette aware of the fact that the tax break was repealed by the United States government, yet she made no attempt to correct her article even into the next day, 3 AM, 8/8/15 EDT! This is a conspiracy, in my opinion, to set people off against the territory of Puerto Rico, to form and shape public opinion against that territory in a dirty and underhanded way.

The article was carried by Yahoo and at least the headline could have been seen by potentially thousands upon thousands of people.

I used to contribute to Business Insider, and while my 60 or so articles hitting the bankers rarely made it to the front page, I felt that the website was trying to somewhat balance pro and anti banking sentiment. This oversight about Puerto Rico may prove that the website is simply willing to float a help for bankers, as the primary function for its existence, in my opinion. I hope that won't be the case going forward.

It is a way of influencing public opinion against the territory and for the bankers who will want their pound of flesh and austerity. This is Greece all over again, and somehow, the story blames Puerto Rico for failing. It isn't fair. It is very wrong.

But we know the game that was played with Puerto Rico, and the game was to make the territory bubble up and then the exit began. And now of course, the game is to blame the territory for the crash of the economy. That is the way of the bankers, and America should wake up to that fact. If anyone doubts that Linette was out to help the bankers, they need to consider that one of the first titles she posted regarding Puerto Rico on July 4, 2015 was: Puerto Rico Now Belongs to Wall Street.

People have to realize that the housing bubble was planned in the same way, to bubble up the middle class and then to crush it. It didn't happen by accident and the fall of Puerto Rico didn't happen by accident either.

Basically, Linette stated that Puerto Rico let the tax break expire. Here is one comment from the article showing that this was totally wrong:

Jimmie Jones said this as the first comment on the article and many like minded comments followed:
"It's a massive debt load for such a small territory, and the problem can really be traced to one issue — bad tax policy.

After Puerto Rico let one tax break for manufacturers expire almost a decade ago, manufacturers started shutting down operations on the island. That caused a spike in unemployment."

I could not read any more after the opening. The entire article is based on the false premise that PR made the decision to roll back section 936 tax exemptions. That was a federal government decision, PR had no vote on the matter.

Read more:

Here is the link that proves that President Clinton destroyed the tax break that resulted in the destruction of the Puerto Rican economy.  For over 80 years, the Federal Government has allowed certain tax incentives to the territory, knowing full well that to pull those away would destroy the economy of the region. The 936 credit that was phased out over a 10 year period started the slide all the while the US government did not tax the bonds that PR sold.

That means that the US government encouraged the sale of the tax free bonds all the while it was pulling the tax breaks from the corporations! This is diabolical behavior. The US government is solely responsible for the demise of the economy of Puerto Rico.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Conspiracy! Self Driving Cars and Culling the Human Population

There is a conspiracy of Futurists brewing. It has been brewing for quite some time, with the publication in 1968 of Paul Ehrlich's book, The Population Bomb. Fear of population growth, coupled with fear that economic growth could not keep up has been played out in the years since the book was published.

The world has doubled in population, since the book, and debt no longer causes big growth in GDP, especially since wage growth has stopped dead in its tracks. All the constant drone of these facts makes us believe that those Futurists must be right. And with the advent of self driving cars, it is estimated that a sharing society will allow for most cars to be taken off the road, which will result in the need for fewer cars and fewer people.

Of course, that technology would decimate all the oil nations in the world, insurance companies, and jobs that depend on the manually driven auto. Eventually, as the Economist recently pitched, 
self driving cars would save lives, manually driven cars would be outlawed in many places, and ultimately make the employment usefulness of many people suddenly not so useful.

One wonders where the then "useless" permanently unemployed people would get the money to share the self driving vehicles. Maybe they would get a stipend until they withered away. Who knows?

By the way, that economist article was a What If article, being futuristic and pitching self driving cars at the same time. Big money is fusing these two schools. There can be no doubt.

The unnerving thing about all this is that the self driving people and the Futurists are even conferencing together. I found one example of them planning or showing interest to conference together awhile bakc. Natural Capitalism Solutions, a think tank in Colorado, had on its interest list the inventor of the self driving car, and Futurists.

The project was called An Economy in Service to Life. R. Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller was quoted in the about section. They knew him as Bucky. That is just creepy to me. There is no technology that meets "Bucky's" standards more than a self driving car, doing "more with less". Makes you shudder in horror, or ought to.

It turns out that the Club of Rome was a partner of An Economy in Service to Life. Of course the Club of Rome took the Population Bomb as its inspiration for population limitation decades ago.

Turns out, one of the participants at the conference was to be Tom Chi, developer of Google Glass and the Self Driving Car! So, there may be a fusion of thought between self driving inventors and Eugenicists!

If none of you are alarmed yet by this conspiracy, there is more!

It is clear to me that two things are possible when self driving cars propel the Futurists into positions of real power:

1. It will be a whole lot easier to get rid of people. The more "useless eaters", a detestable term, that society creates, the less reason to keep them around doing anything meaningful. Futurists are eugenics fanatics already even if some deny it. And if there are people that are not needed, it plays into the hands of the central planners.

And even if some of the futurists don't embrace the Eugenics movement there are lots of real Eugenics scientists, real nasty people, who spend all their time thinking of ways to cull the population, who will be pressed into service by the globalists with the money. You can't be president of the United States of America nowadays without a Eugenics scientist on the payroll, like the evil thinker John P. Holdren.

2. It will give the globalists an edge over Russia, a nation heavily dependent upon oil. Futurism and self driving cars are the globalists' ticket to World Domination. 

The old PNAC boys, William Kristol and Dick Cheney must be given hope that their globalist offspring will one day rule the world. It is ok if you physically cringe now. If you are nauseous, I fully understand. Makes you want to Rolf.

Now, the globalists are oil men too. So just how all this works out in the future is slightly up in the air. And the self driving car could be hacked. People could die, more than they think. The self driving care may not work properly in many situations. So, this diabolical conspiracy is not yet a done deal.

But somehow, I think that the globalist cabal wants to go down the road toward total world domination and could sacrifice some oil profits to do so. After all, they have or could, in the future, establish all of the following:

Self driving cars, strict gun control, a cashless society, negative interest rates, liar loans, deregulation of banks, fake trades in stocks and commodities, take over bitcoin as a world currency, spread of viruses, space laser advantage over Russia, and other means to seriously control the masses, are contemplated.

Some of these plans I wrote about here.

And control of the masses is really what it is all about, isn't it?

Here are three quotes that prove these people mean business. I know Elon Musk retracted his statement, but face it, as an inventor of self driving cars, he too, knows the score:
"It's too dangerous. You can't have a person driving a two-ton death machine."
And of course, here is Ehrlich on population control from the 30 population control link below:

 “Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins”

Here are 30 population control quotes that prove the masses are treated like a plague on the earth. Self Driving cars have the ability to make many of these folks who constitute the masses, obsolete, meaning that coercive means of birth control or even plan B, nuclear war, could remain a possibility. Besides the Ehrlich quote, here were four that caught my eye.

From Globalist David Rockefeller:

“The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”
And from Bill Maher:

 “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”
And from Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood:

“All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”
And this dreadful quote from Thomas Ferguson:

“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”
But this issue of population control spans both political parties. Coercive birth control comes from the left and threat of nuclear war to cull billions comes from the right as we see in the case of Larry Eagleburger. And, of course, I wrote about Mitt Romney and Eugenics at Business Insider awhile back. I wrote this about Mitt:

Malthus was also against  government helping the poor. And of course, that is where Romney and the conservatives come in. They would, if they had their way, cut benefits to the poor, let them die on the streets and purify the genetic code of the earth.
I concluded that article with this statement:

 Americans need to have, as a core belief, a strong abhorrence of Eugenics, that ends up being racist in almost all cases. It becomes a class struggle, from the top down as all class warfare starts. Americans must repudiate Eugenics, or we surely will go down the path of fascism. A chip determining whether you can have children or not is fascism. Face it Americans and repudiate it! 
Even Nikola Tesla, namesake of Elon Musk's company, believed you had to be of superior stock to be permitted to procreate! Now, Musk didn't name Tesla, but he may share some of his views. He does, as I pointed out above, believe that mankind (or is it just the masses?) is not fit to drive a car. Perhaps the elite are capable? Hopefully he will clarify his views instead of just retracting them in the face of criticism.

We know Musk has said he wants to leave the earth and retire on Mars. He has no faith that mankind will survive on this planet. That is the ultimate elite escape from the masses, isn't it?

As we continue to figure out the Republican take on the conspiracy to cull, we see that if you no longer need the nations that produce oil you can always nuke them or economically destroy them. If you think that idea of nuclear preemptive attack is farfetched, Neocon Larry Eagleburger predicted nuclear war on the Larry Kudlow show a few years back prior to his death. I was listening to the broadcast myself. He virtually guaranteed nuclear war would be waged against Russia. Neocons are funded by the same globalists who fund the Futurists, the Eugenicists and self driving cars!

For now we need Russia's oil. Maybe in the future not so much. The globalists are banking on self driving cars as a means of reducing the importance of oil producing nations. There is no question about it. The only real threat to the western globalist cabal militarily is Russia, which relies mostly on oil exports. If Yinon-like regime change does not work in Russia, economic destruction and even a nuclear first strike against that nation are on the table. You can be certain of that!

But are those self driving cars going to give the globalists what they want? Fully automated cars, level 5 in the jargon of self driving researchers, will have to mimic the brain power and eyesight of humans. Those technologies are in their infancy. The goal for production of fully automated cars is 2025.

But they may never be good enough for night traffic, high speed situations, or in times of stressful driving. But you can see the globalists will fund these cars massively, even through the government as Tesla has been funded. Once you have the batteries that work, you just need the human intelligence and eyesight and those projects are being funded as well.

And these are being funded with the approval of Futurists who want to eliminate over 1/2 the human race, up to 95 percent, according to Mikhail Gorbachev and Ted Turner. Now that is a conspiracy that could do some damage, folks. How successful this conspiracy will be is unknown, and certainly sensible birth control voluntarily applied is rational. But these folks go way beyond voluntary means. If they don't succeed, it won't be because they didn't try.

The Onion jokes that British and American scientists want to assign the masses lottery numbers so that a losing number would mean immediate death. They say that would eliminate 1/3rd of the world's population. But while we can have a good laugh at the Onion's satire, and I love satire, real planning for reduction of the population is taking place and it is no joke.  

Truth is, self driving cars will make so many people on the planet irrelevant, that their continued technological progress is almost a wet dream for the futurists, eugenicists, neocons, and  of course the globalists who fund them  all. Fascism is not only alive in the Ukraine, it has been kept alive worldwide by the elite, who think they alone have a right to both rule and enjoy the world.

This article originally appeared at Talkmarkets:


Saturday, August 8, 2015

Banks Are Hiding Transactions to Pretend They Have More Capital

Banks make it look like they have more capital than they do. They skirt the rules of Basel 3, and maybe the central banks who are responsible for Basel 3 don't really care. Anyway, this article makes this charge and more that banks are not being good citizens. They are putting the financial system at risk:

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Desperate Banker Attacks on Millennials Via Media Are Ramping Up

This article was originally published on TalkMarkets at this link. Please support this blogger by visiting the article there:

Desperate bankers are attacking millennials with ever more frequency. They are doing so to get them to move out of the houses of their parents. Bankers cannot make real money unless they lend on houses. Millennials, or at least a large percentage of them, do not show an interest in home ownership at all.
If this continues, eventually bankers will have to get real jobs. And they don't like that scenario at all.
Here are just a few of the titles that have been recently seen on the major online portals regarding millennials:
1. From the Globe and Mail in Canada comes this heading: Millennials' Lack of Debt May Be a Sign of Trouble (Lack of debt means millennials are failing in Canada, but the country is now in recession, so it must have been a sign of trouble. Generally speaking, lack of debt is a good thing. At least that is what Will Rogers said.)
2. Money has the article title: 10 Things Millennials Won't Spend Money On  (Of course a home is one of those 10 things.)
3. Forbes says: More Millennials Are Living at Home Than Ever Before  (Bankers are waking up to the terrible fact that it wasn't lack of a job that mattered to millennials. They now have more jobs and are still living at home. Banker panic ensues!)
4. Channel 19 of Cleveland gets into the act: Renting: the New American Dream? (Bankers are hoping that millennials, 3/4th of whom say they will buy houses within five years, will live up to that poll and not back down. Bankers are scared out of their wits that the millennials will just keep renting.)
5. Business Insider weighs in with: Blackstone: There Is a Hidden Crisis in America That No One Is Talking About (Of course, Millennials may be saving, at the bank, but they know markets crash and don't care what Blackstone says about filling up their 401k's.)
6. Fox Business News asks: What Happens If Millennials Never Enter the Housing Market?  (Fox only partly blames the millennials. It also puts blame on the fact that credit is not wide enough nor deep enough. I guess that means there is not enough easy money. Why don't they say that? Makes you wonder. They must not want to tip off the millennials when credit becomes wide and deep, lol.)
We can now turn to articles that simply insult millennials. There are too many articles to mention them all.Millennials are insulted continually and abusively. I won't list all the abusive Helicopter Parent articles because the psychologists are most likely worried that the millennials won't make the same financial mistakes of their parents and that costs bankers. These psychologists want parents to cut loose the millennials so they can make mistakes and make bankers rich. (I am reading between the lines.) Boy am I cynical and conspiratorial. But I am onto something.
But I digress, as here are more articles really badmouthing millennials:
1. Better After 50 says: The Trouble with Millennials (The author cringes at the HGTV-driven entitlement of the young home buyers. Maybe she fears that millennials would prefer to rent a place with "amenities" than buy a place with no "amenities". That must really scare bankers out of their wits.)
2. Freedomworks turns minimum wage increases on their head: Millennials Barack Obama Thinks You Are Worthless (I think this is more about libertarians with ties to bankers wanting millennials to work for peanuts than it is an attack on Obama. This doesn't mean Obama isn't capable of insulting millennials. He is quite capable.)
3. Nasdaq has an article out: Five Worst Money Blunders Made By Millennials (Millennials don't trust the stock market and bankers are apoplectic about it! Millennials have bad money habits in the eyes of bankers, and the bankers are worried.)
4. From the controversial Breitbart comes this abusive title: 7 Reasons Why Millennials Are the Worst Generation (Hey Millennials, this sometimes odious rag thinks you are totally useless. Of course they don't mention that you have gone through some of the worst economic times this nation has ever seen. And they say you don't know about money. But you know at least this much about money; you don't want to part with it to get a toxic loan!)
5. The Washington Post says this about millennials: 5 Really Good Reasons to Hate Millennials (One of the five reasons given is that millennials think it is it is not ok to publish cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad of the Muslim religion. I happen to agree with them. Free speech can be self censored. I also agree with millennials that America is not the greatest nation anymore because we make war continually and are a bully of a nation for the globalists, and because Americans are oppressed by the uber wealthy globalists.)
And of course, Millennials hate banks and that really concerns the powers that be:
1. Fast Company has this title:  Sorry Banks, Millennials Hate You (A three year study found millennials are seeking to live a bank-free existence. Wow, I don't know how long that will last but it must be making bankers rolf somewhere daily.)
2. Tech Crunch says: Millennials Are Destroying Banks, and It's the Banks' Fault (Nice title. Millennials are already in debt with student loans. Why would they want a mortgage? At least one banker reading this may have fainted.)
3. Bloomberg offers a video with the title: Millennials Hate Banks ... So Where's Their Cash? (Larry Summers and the cashless society people must hate knowing millennials keep their cash at home. Poor Larry. Watch for more articles in the future promoting the cashless society so bankers can make money off these no good millennials.)

Monday, August 3, 2015

Ford’s Compact Car Production Leaving Michigan And The USA — Can You Guess Where Ford’s Going Instead?

Ford’s Compact Car Production Leaving Michigan And The USA — Can You Guess Where Ford’s Going Instead?

So, poor Ford can't make enough money and has to move its Focus plant to Mexico? Please, give me a break. I have noticed that Ford has improved some products, but not others. Some of the products cut corners and it is obvious. I was shopping for a car with my daughter and she ended up going with a Nissan because Ford lacked cosmetic quality. Stuff was falling apart.

So, Ford needs to put a better product out, rather than risk putting an inferior product out with workers who will start out unfamiliar with it. I am not saying the workers in Mexico would do a bad job, they will certainly learn to do a great job. But they aren't buying the cars. Americans are.

So Ford, leave the jobs in America where your customers are! 

Sunday, August 2, 2015

"We Want The Names Of Anyone Who Sold" - China's Market Witch Hunt Enters Twilight Zone

This article from Tyler Durden (Zero Hedge), is a real eye opener. Fake trades are tolerated by governments until they are used to depress the price of stocks. They should be forbidden across the board, both on the way up and on the way down, but they are not.

Still, China has decided to go after the fake trades and shorts. It will be interesting to see if this one way (down) enforcement causes a massive bubble down the road when people become confident that the government can cause stock markets to never crash!

Since China did nothing to stop the upward pressure of speculation and churning fake trades, Durden calls this enforcement a witch hunt. In a way it is. But middle class people in China are being ripped off by these manipulators. Their wealth is disappearing daily. That is a big concern for China and should be a big concern here as baby boomers have been warned by Fidelity that they hold too much stock.

I posted to the Durden article that this sort of thing was happening at the CME as well. I wonder if it is happening as commodities are tanking or if it just happened on the way up:

Wow, creating the illusion of demand. Wow.
Apparently that may have happened at the CME for years. It could still be happening as there was a lawsuit stating that half the trades at the CME were FAKE.

Of course, it is hard to know if this chicanery happened with commodities as they go up and down, but Durden says it does happen with stocks both ways.

Saturday, August 1, 2015 The Billionaire Bigot: Why AntiSemitism In Europe Is Grossly Unfair The Billionaire Bigot: Why AntiSemitism In Europe Is Grossly Unfair

"The Billionaire Bigot, Israeli/Ukrainian citizen, Ihor Kolomoyskyi,
has made the attempt to fuse Nazi right wingers with Jews in order to
elicit hatred against all Muslims. This attempt has been met with
resistance among the Jews of Europe."
I posted this article because Jewish people in Europe should be commended for resisting this secret agenda of Zionism (Zionism is NOT Judaism). The secret agenda is to fuse right Nazi types with Jewish people and non Jewish Zionists to hate all Muslims and fight them. But the Jewish people of Europe are resisting. We should all follow their example and stand up against the bigotry!

German Regulator Decides Deutsche Bank CEO Didn't Know About LIBOR After All

BaFin, Germany's financial "watchdog".  The document contains voluminous evidence which suggests that not only did Anshu Jain (who stepped down last month), know full well that his traders and submitters were likely involved in manipulating LIBOR fixes, but it was in fact Jain who "reorganized the seating order in the trading division in London in the year 2005, which resulted in traders and submitters sitting together, [in order] to achieve an open communication between both functions, especially also with regard to the LIBOR." The report goes on to describe the relationship between Jain and Christian Bittar, the bank’s rate rigger...
Gary here: If anyone thought that the Eurozone was an ethical organization only needs to understand that banksters get off there just like here in the US.