AuthorTopic: The Surlynewz Channel  (Read 780138 times)

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Vincent Bugliosi and The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
« Reply #2025 on: June 10, 2015, 08:48:13 AM »
I saw Vincent Bugliosi when he came to SE Virginia to promote this book on a speaking tour. Still have my autographed copy.

Vincent Bugliosi and The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

Vincent Bugliosi and The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

By  (about the author)     

 

Vincent Bugliosi (right) and Bruce Fein (left) at House Judiciary Committee hearing on Bush impeachment 2008
(image by Michael Collins)
   License   DMCA

 

"If we want to deter future presidents from taking this nation to another war under false pretenses, some president in the future that gets a funny thought, I think that deterrence would increase immeasurably if he knew what America did to George Bush, put him on trial for murder, and if he was convicted, of course, the punishment would either be life imprisonment or the imposition of the death penalty." Vincent Bugliosi, Murder Trumps Torture - An Interview, Michael Collins, Aug 8, 2009

 

 

 

Vincent Bugliosi was a true patriot and a tireless, fierce advocate for the people. His death at age 80 marks a time to remember his vision of an American future based on decency, civility, and the respect for both the law and the people the law should protect. This article excerpts three interviews I conducted with Bugliosi on his 2008 book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

 

Bugliosi was one of the nation's top criminal prosecutors. He won 104 of 105 murder cases including the conviction of Charles Manson and his followers the late 1960s. For years, Bugliosi was also the nation's top true crime author. His best seller, Helter Skelter (over 7 million copies sold) offered a behind the scenes narrative of the Manson Family prosecution and Charles Manson's extraordinary criminal deviance.

 

Bugliosi left the full time practice of law to pursue a career in writing primarily in the true crime genre. He had three number one best sellers on the New York Times list and numerous other successes.

The biggest true crime Bugliosi took on was the charge of murder against former President George W. Bush. He wrote a detailed brief for any local prosecutor willing to take the case. The book provided a detailed, fully documented legal brief that proved beyond any doubt that by lying the country into war, Bush was responsible for the deaths of every American soldier killed in that war. The book,The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, was uniformly ignored by the mainstream media that had always sought out Bugliosi for interviews on his latest work or screen rights to his books.

Despite the mainstream media boycott of Bugliosi's scathing, precisely argued, and well-documented book, the author would not be denied. Through alternate media news and opinion web sites and internet radio shows (including Rob Kall's radio show), Bugliosi built an audience for his argument and book. Once again, this time without any help from mainstream media, Bugliosi saw his book on the New York Times bestseller list. 

It was my privilege to interview Bugliosi on three occasions, two concerning his Bush prosecution book and one on President Barack Obama's cavalier dismissal of Bush administration crimes. He knew exactly what he wanted to say, said it brilliantly, and was courteous to a fault. Of all the public figures I have observed over the years, Vincent Bugliosi was the only one I ever truly wanted converse with at any length. I am grateful for that opportunity.

The following sections are select quotations from extensive interviews on Bugliosi's book outlining a murder case against a sitting president.

Michael Collins: An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi, Part I, August 7, 2008 -- Making the case for The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

Vincent Bugliosi: Apparently its okay for George Bush to take this nation to war on a lie, to be responsible, criminally responsible for well over 100,000 deaths, but it's not okay to prosecute him. Not only isn't it okay to prosecute him, it isn't even okay to talk about prosecuting him. This is unbelievable what's going on in this country. How can we have a country where they permit a president to do what he did and they do absolutely nothing to him except to try to protect him?

I can tell you that if the case went to trial, the central, overriding issue at Bush's trial, would be whether or not he took this nation to war in self"'defense as he claimed he did: that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and therefore he was an imminent threat to the security of this country, so we had to strike first in self"'defense. 

If the prosecutor " could prove that he did not act in self"'defense and he took the nation to war under false pretenses, then all of the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq would become unlawful killings. All of those killings would become unlawful killings and therefore murder.

This is just -- you know, I hate to use the word terrible over again, but it's just absolutely terrible, and the question is how evil, how criminal, how perverse, how sick can George Bush and his people be? And yet they got away with all of this. As I'm talking to you right now, there are well over 100,000 people -- some estimates go in excess of a million -- well over 100,000 precious human beings who are in their cold graves right now because of it. But so far, George Bush has gotten away with murder and we, the American people, cannot let him do this. He's gotten away with murder, and no one is doing anything.

But let me tell you this: For the first time in my career, it's very personal with George Bush, and I'll tell you why. If I prosecuted him and Cheney and Rice or whoever else, Cheney and Rice it would not be personal. I would seek the death penalty against them, for sure. They deserve to suffer the ultimate penalty for what they did, no question about it. But it would not be personal. I'll tell you why it's personal with George Bush -- because the evidence is overwhelming, overwhelming. It cannot be disputed.

 

Publishers "would say things like this to me: 'Mr. Bugliosi, are you sure you want to publish this book?'"

Vincent Bugliosi: They don't want me on [television and radio news, entertainment and talk shows].

Michael Collins: How many best sellers have you had? Three or four, right?

VB: Oh, well, I've had three that got up to number one on The New York Times. No American true crime author has had more than one. I've had three, and then I've had other best sellers. "Till Death Do Us Part" was a best seller. "Reclaiming History' for one week was a best seller. That was a book that, you know, weighed seven and a half pounds and cost $57.

MC: What do they say? Do they have an explanation, or is it just --

VB: Well, I can tell you what my publicist said that -- before the book came out they start booking you, and they would call these people and say, you know, "We're representing Vince Bugliosi," and right away, "Oh, yeah, I know Vince. We've had him on the show. He's a good guest. What's the new book?" The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. And you can -- they kind of indicated to me that they could just sense the shriveling on the other end of the line. And they said, "Well, let me get back to you on this. This may be a little difficult," or, "I'll have to get back to you on this." And then, of course, they just stopped responding to emails and everything, and that was absolutely across the board. They would not have me on. It got so bad -- it got so bad that ABC Radio refused to take money from my publisher to take out a radio spot.

MC: Oh, you're not allowed to advertise either?

VB: Yeah, on ABC Radio they would not take the money. 

MC: That's a first.

VB: Which is, I think, kind of mind boggling. I don't know. It just seems to me that it's mind-boggling. And then, of course, as you know, I had a very difficult time getting the book published. I never had trouble before. I had to fly back to New York City, knock on doors, and it was obvious that the publishers I met with thought the book was very marketable, and they seemed to be sympathetic with what I was saying, but it was equally obvious that they were frightened. They would say things like this to me: "Mr. Bugliosi, are you sure you want to publish this book?" And one of them put it in black and white, typed it, or maybe an email, "Too hot too handle."

If anyone tries to dispute it, they're going to make a fool out of themselves if I have The evidence is overwhelming that while young American soldiers -- I'm talking about 18, 19 year old kids who never had a chance to live out their dreams -- are being blown to pieces by roadside bombs in Iraq, this guy, George Bush, was having a lot of fun playing, joking, laughing on a day to day basis and enjoying himself to the very utmost. The evidence is overwhelming to that, and that's what's made it personal with me, the fact that he could do what he did, this monstrous individual, and still have fun on a daily basis when kids are being blown up, and you see Bush and he's smiling and laughing and joking and tap dancing. It's unbelievable.

Murder Trumps Torture Says Bugliosi - An Interview, Michael Collins, Apr 8, 2009 -- On Obama letting Bush off the hook for criminal behavior

MC: What would you say to the president if you had the opportunity?

VB: If I were to speak to President Obama, I would inform him of one thing and advise him of a couple of other things. I'd inform him, and I guess this sounds a little sarcastic, but I would inform him that when he talks about only looking forward and not backwards, I agree that most of his efforts have to be towards the future. I'm not quarreling with him on that, but you can't forget the past.

When he says that he intends to give Bush a free pass simply because whatever crime Bush may have committed was in the past, I would inform him of something he already knows: that all criminal prosecutions, without exception and by definition, have to deal, obviously, with past criminal behavior. Obviously we cannot prosecute someone for a crime that they may commit in the future.

And if we prosecute for even petty theft in America, what do we do with Bush, who I'm very convinced took this nation to war under false pretenses and has caused incalculable death, horror, and suffering?

 

Vincent Bugliosi was a warrior for the truth and the rule of law. We were truly fortunate to have him among us for as long as we did.
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Making Good- the Lost Art of Repair
« Reply #2026 on: June 10, 2015, 09:57:09 AM »
Making good

Repairing things is about more than thrift. It is about creating something bold and original



Philip Ball is a British science writer, whose work appears in Nature,New Scientist andProspect, among others. His latest book isInvisible: The Dangerous Allure of the Unseen(2014).

The 16th-century Japanese tea master Sen no Rikyū is said to have ignored his host’s fine Song Dynasty Chinese tea jar until the owner smashed it in despair at his indifference. After the shards had been painstakingly reassembled by the man’s friends, Rikyū declared: ‘Now, the piece is magnificent.’ So it went in old Japan: when a treasured bowl fell to the floor, one didn't just sigh and reach for the glue. The old item was gone, but its fracture created the opportunity to make a new one.

Smashed ceramics would be stuck back together with a strong adhesive made from lacquer and rice glue, the web of cracks emphasised with coloured lacquer. Sometimes the coating was mixed or sprinkled with powdered silver or gold and polished with silk so that the joins gleamed; a bowl or container repaired in this way would typically be valued more highly than the original. According to Christy Bartlett, a contemporary tea master based in San Francisco, it is this ‘gap between the vanity of pristine appearance and the fractured manifestation of mortal fate which deepens its appeal’. The mended object is special precisely because it was worth mending. The repair, like that of an old teddy bear, is a testament to the affection in which the object is held.

A similar principle was at work in the boro garments of the Japanese peasant and artisan classes, stitched together from scraps of cloth at a time when nothing went to waste. In boro clothing, the mends become the object. Some garments, like the fabled ship of Theseus, might eventually be overwhelmed by patches; others were assembled from scraps at the outset. In today’s trendy Tokyo markets, the technique risks becoming a mere ethnic pose. But boro was always an aesthetic idea as much as an imposition of hardship.

Although quite different in their social status, boro and the aesthetic of repaired ceramics alike draw on the Japanese tradition of wabi-sabi, a world view that acknowledges transience and imperfection. To mend a pot, one must accept whatever its fracture brings: one must aspire tomushin — literally ‘no mind’ — a state of detachment sought by both artists and warriors. As Bartlett explains in her essay ‘A Tearoom View of Mended Ceramics’ (2008): ‘Accidental fractures set in motion acts of repair that accept given circumstances and work within them to lead to an ultimately more profound appearance.’

Mended ceramics displayed their history — the pattern of fracture disclosing the specific forces and events that caused it. Indeed, earlier this year, a team of French physicists from the Aix-Marseille University demonstrated that the starlike cracks in broken glass plates capture a forensic record of the mechanics of the impact. By reassembling the pieces, that moment is preserved. The stories of how mended Japanese ceramics had been broken in the first place — like that of the jar initially spurned by Rikyū — would be perpetuated by constant retelling. In the tea ceremony these histories of the utensils provide raw materials for the stylised conversational puzzles that the host sets his guests.

For years, I have been patching clothes into a kind of makeshift, barely competent boro. Trousers in particular get colonised by patches that start at the knees and at the holes poked by keys around my pockets, spreading steadily across thighs with increasing disregard for colour matching. Only when patches need patches does the recycling bin beckon. At first I did this as a hangover from student privation. Later it became a token of ecological sensibility. Those changing motives carried implications for my appearance: the more defiantly visible the mend, the less it risks looking like mere penny-pinching. That’s a foolishly self-conscious consideration, of course, which is why the Japanese aesthetic of repair is potentially so liberating: there is nothing defensive about it.

This feels like rather a new idea in the pragmatic West. But things might be changing. Take, for example, the all-purpose mending putty called Sugru, an adhesive silicone polymer that you can hand-mould to shape and then leave overnight to set into a tough, flexible seal. As its website demonstrates, you can use Sugru for all those domestic repairs that are otherwise all but impossible, from cracked toilet seats to split shoes or the abraded insulation on your MacBook mains lead. (Doesn’t it always split where it enters the power brick? And isn’t it exorbitantly costly to replace?) Sugru was devised by Jane Ní Dhulchaointigh, an Irish design graduate at the Royal College of Art in London, working with a group of retired industrial chemists. Timemagazine pronounced it a top invention of 2010, and it has since acquired an avid following of ‘hackers’ who relish its potential not just to repair off-the-shelf products, but also to modify them.

It wasn’t so much that things stopped working and then got repaired, but that repair was the means by which they worked at all

Sugru doesn’t do its job subtly, which is the point. You can get it in modest white, but fans tend to prefer the bright primary colours, giving their repairs maximal visibility. They present mending not as an unfortunate necessity to be carried out as quietly as possible but as an act worth celebrating.

A similar attitude is found in the burgeoning world of ‘radical knitting’. Take the textiles artist Celia Pym, who darns people’s clothes as a way of ‘briefly making contact with strangers’. There are no ‘invisible mends’ here: Pym introduces bold new colours and patterns, transforming rather than merely repairing the garments. What Pym and the Sugru crew are asserting is that mending has an aesthetic as well as a practical function. They say that if you’re going to mend, you might as well do it openly and beautifully.

Their approaches also reflect another of the aesthetic considerations of Japanese ceramic repairs: the notion of asobi, a kind of playful creativity introduced by the 16th-century tea master Furuta Oribe. Repairs that embody this principle tended to be more extrovert, even crude in their lively energy. When larger areas of damage had to be patched using pieces from a different broken object, one might plug the gap using fragments that have a totally different appearance, just as clothes today might be patched with exuberant contrasting colours or patterns. Of course, one can now buy new clothes patched this way — a mannered gesture, perhaps, but one anticipated in the way that Oribe would sometimes deliberately damage utensils so that they were not ‘too perfect’. This was less a Zen-like expression of impermanence than an exuberant relish of variety.

Such modern fashion statements aside, repair in the West has tended to be more a matter of grumbling and making do. But occasionally the aesthetic questions have been impossible to avoid. When the painting of an Old Master starts cracking and flaking off, what is the best way to make it good? Should we reverently pick up the flakes of paint and surreptitiously glue them back on again? Is it honest to display a Raphael held together with PVA glue? When Renaissance paint fades or discolours, should we touch it up to retain at least a semblance of what the artist intended, or surrender to wabi-sabi? It’s safe to assume that no conservator would ever have countenanced the ‘repair’ last year of the crumbling 19th-century fresco of Jesus in Zaragoza — Ecco Homo by Elías García Martínez — by an elderly churchgoer with the artistic skills of Mr Bean. But does even a skilled ‘retouching’ risk much the same hubris?

These questions are difficult because aesthetic considerations pull against concerns about authenticity. Who wants to look at a fresco if only half of it is still on the wall? Victorian conservators were rather cavalier in their solutions, often deciding it was better to have a retouched Old Master than none at all. In an age that would happily render Titian’s tones more ‘acceptable’ with muddy brown varnish, that was hardly surprising. But today’s conservators mostly recoil at the idea of painting over damage in old works, although they will permit some delicate ‘inpainting’ that fills cracks without covering any of the original paint. Cosimo Tura’s Allegorical Figure (c. 1455) in the National Gallery in London was repaired this way in the 1980s. Where damage is extensive, it is now common to apply treatments that prevent further decay but leave the existing damage visible.

Such rarefied instances aside, the prejudice against repair as an embarrassing sign of poverty or thrift is surely a product of the age of consumerism. Mending clothes was once routine for every stratum of society. British aristocrats were unabashed at their elbow patches — in truth more prevention than cure, since they protected shooting jackets from wear caused by the shotgun butt. Everything got mended, and mending was a trade.

What sort of trade? Highly skilled, perhaps, but manual, consigning it to a low status in a culture that has always been shaped by the ancient Greek preference for thinking over doing (this is one way in which the West differs from the East). Over the course of the 19th century, the ‘pure’ theorist gained ascendancy over the ‘applied’ scientist (or worse still, the engineer); likewise, the professional engineer could at least pull rank on the maintenance man: he was a creator and innovator, not a chap with oily rag and tools. ‘Although central to our relationship with things,’ writes the historian of technology David Edgerton, ‘maintenance and repair are matters we would rather not think about.’ Indeed, they are increasingly matters we’d rather not even do.

Edgerton explains that, until the mid-20th century, repair was a permanent state of affairs, especially for expensive items such as vehicles, which ‘lived in constant interaction with a workshop’. It wasn’t so much that things stopped working and then got repaired, but that repair was the means by which they worked at all. Repair might even spawn primary manufacturing industries: many early Japanese bicycles were assembled from the spare parts manufactured to fix foreign (mostly British) models.

It’s not hard to understand a certain wariness about repair: what broke once might break again, after all. But its neglect in recent times surely owes something to an underdeveloped repair aesthetic. Our insistence on perfect appearances, on the constant illusion of newness, applies even to our own bodies: surgical repairs are supposed to make our own wear and tear invisible, though they rarely do.

Equally detrimental to a culture of mending is the ever more hermetic nature of technology. DIY fixes become impossible either physically (the unit, like your MacBook lead, is sealed) or technically (you wouldn’t know where to start). Either way, the warranty is void the moment you start tinkering. Add that to a climate in which you pay for the service or accessories rather than for the item — inks are pricier than printers, mobile phones are free when you subscribe to a network — and repair lacks feasibility, infrastructure or economic motivation. Breakers’ yards, which used to seem like places of wonder, have all but vanished; car repair has become both unfashionable and impractical. I gave up repairing computer peripherals years ago when the only person I could find to fix a printer was a crook who lacked the skills for the job but charged me the price of a new one anyway.

Some feel this is going to change — whether because of austerity or increasing ecological concerns about waste and consumption. Martin Conreen, a design lecturer at Goldsmiths College in London, believes that TV cookery programmes will soon be replaced by ‘how to’ DIY shows, in which repair would surely feature heavily. The hacker culture is nurturing an underground movement of making and modifying that is merging with the crowdsourcing of fixes and bodges — for example, on websites such as ifixit.com, which offers free service manuals and advice for technical devices such as computers, cameras, vehicles and domestic appliances. Alternatively there is fixperts.org, set up by the design lecturer Daniel Charny and Sugru’s co-founder, James Carrigan, which documents fixes on film.

The mending mindset has taken to the streets in the international Repair Café movement, where you can get free tools, materials, advice and assistance for mending anything from phones to jumpers. As 3D printers — which can produce one-off objects from cured resin, built up from granular ‘inks’, layer by layer — become more accessible, it might become possible to make your own spare parts rather than having to source them, often at some cost, from suppliers (only to discover your model is obsolete). And as fixing becomes cool, there’s good reason to hope it will acquire an aesthetic that owes less to a ‘make do and mend’ mentality of soldiering on, and more to mushinand asobi.

29 May 2013

 

Read more essays on energy, resources & sustainabilitygeneral cultureand making

"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re:Vincent Bugliosi and The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
« Reply #2027 on: June 10, 2015, 12:09:55 PM »
 :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: 
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Fast-track Hands the Money Monopoly to Private Banks
« Reply #2028 on: June 13, 2015, 07:00:37 AM »
Round one to the peasants, but do not sleep on these traitors in DC.

Fast-track Hands the Money Monopoly to Private Banks

Fast-track Hands the Money Monopoly to Private Banks — Permanently

By Ellen Brown.

It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.                                                                                                                                                                        — Attributed to Henry Ford

In March 2014, the Bank of England let the cat out of the bag: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it. So wrote David Graeber in The Guardian the same month, referring to a BOE paper called “Money Creation in the Modern Economy.” The paper stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong. The result, said Graeber, was to throw the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

The revelation may have done more than that. The entire basis for maintaining our private extractive banking monopoly may have been thrown out the window. And that could help explain the desperate rush to “fast track” not only the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), but the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). TiSA would nip attempts to implement public banking and other monetary reforms in the bud.

The Banking Game Exposed

The BOE report confirmed what money reformers have been saying for decades: that banks do not act simply as intermediaries, taking in the deposits of “savers” and lending them to borrowers, keeping the spread in interest rates. Rather, banks actually create deposits when they make loans. The BOE report said that private banks now create 97 percent of the British money supply. The US money supply is created in the same way.

Graeber underscored the dramatic implications:

. . . [M]oney is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There’s really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it.

Politically, said Graeber, revealing these facts is taking an enormous risk:

Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.

If money is just an IOU, why are we delivering the exclusive power to create it to an unelected, unaccountable, non-transparent private banking monopoly? Why are we buying into the notion that the government is broke – that it must sell off public assets and slash public services in order to pay off its debts? The government could pay its debts in the same way private banks pay them, simply with accounting entries on its books. What will happen when a critical mass of the populace realizes that we’ve been vassals of a parasitic banking system based on a fraud – that we the people could be creating money as credit ourselves, through publicly-owned banks that returned the profits to the people?

Henry Ford predicted that a monetary revolution would follow. There might even be a move to nationalize the whole banking system and turn it into a public utility.

It is not hard to predict that the international bankers and related big-money interests, anticipating this move, would counter with legislation that locked the current system in place, so that there was no way to return money and banking to the service of the people – even if the current private model ended in disaster, as many pundits also predict.

And that is precisely the effect of the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), which was slipped into the “fast track” legislation now before Congress. It is also the effect of the bail-in policies currently being railroaded into law in the Eurozone, and of the suspicious “war on cash” seen globally; but those developments will be the subject of another article.

TiSA Exposed

On June 3, 2015, WikiLeaks released 17 key documents related to TiSA, which is considered perhaps the most important of the three deals being negotiated for “fast track” trade authority. The documents were supposed to remain classified for five years after being signed, displaying a level of secrecy that outstrips even the TPP’s four-year classification.

TiSA involves 51 countries, including every advanced economy except the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). The deal would liberalize global trade in services covering close to 80% of the US economy, including financial services, healthcare, education, engineering, telecommunications, and many more. It would restrict how governments can manage their public laws, and it could dismantle and privatize state-owned enterprises, turning those services over to the private sector.

Recall the secret plan devised by Wall Street and U.S. Treasury officials in the 1990s to open banking to the lucrative derivatives business. To pull this off required the relaxation of banking regulations not just in the US but globally, so that money would not flee to nations with safer banking laws.  The vehicle used was the Financial Services Agreement concluded under the auspices of the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The plan worked, and most countries were roped into this “liberalization” of their banking rules. The upshot was that the 2008 credit crisis took down not just the US economy but economies globally.

TiSA picks up where the Financial Services Agreement left off, opening yet more doors for private banks and other commercial service industries, and slamming doors on governments that might consider opening their private banking sectors to public ownership.

Blocking the Trend Toward “Remunicipalization”

In a report from Public Services International called “TISA versus Public Services: The Trade in Services Agreement and the Corporate Agenda,” Scott Sinclair and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood note that the already formidable challenges to safeguarding public services under GATS will be greatly exasperated by TiSA, which blocks the emerging trend to return privatized services to the public sector. Communities worldwide are reevaluating the privatization approach and “re-municipalizing” these services, following negative experiences with profit-driven models. These reversals typically occur at the municipal level, but they can also occur at the national level.

One cited example is water remunicipalization in Argentina, Canada, France, Tanzania and Malaysia, where an increasing frustration with broken promises, service cutoffs to the poor, and a lack of integrated planning by private water companies led to a public takeover of the service.

Another example is the remunicipalization of electrical services in Germany. Hundreds of German municipalities have remunicipalized private electricity providers or have created new public energy utilities, following dissatisfaction with private providers’ inflated prices and poor record in shifting to renewable energy. Remunicipalization has brought electricity prices down. Other sectors involved in remunicipalization projects include public transit, waste management, and housing.

Sinclair and Mertins-Kirkwood observe:

The TISA would limit and may even prohibit remunicipalization because it would prevent governments from creating or reestablishing public monopolies or similarly “uncompetitive” forms of service delivery. . . .

Like GATS Article XVI, the TISA would prohibit public monopolies and exclusive service suppliers in fully committed sectors, even on a regional or local level. Of particular concern for remunicipalization projects are the proposed “standstill” and “ratchet” provisions in TISA. The standstill clause would lock in current levels of services liberalization in each country, effectively banning any moves from a market-based to a state-based provision of public services. This clause . . . would prohibit the creation of public monopolies in sectors that are currently open to private sector competition.

Similarly, the ratchet clause would automatically lock in any future actions taken to liberalize services in a given country. . . . [I]f a government did decide to privatize a public service, that government would be unable to return to a public model at a later date.

That means we can forget about turning banking and credit services into public utilities. TiSA is a one-way street. Industries once privatized remain privatized.

The disturbing revelations concerning TiSA are yet another reason to try to block these secretive trade agreements. For more information and to get involved, visit:

Flush the TPP

The Citizens Trade Campaign

Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch

Eyes on Trade

_________________

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com.

"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Iceland Jailed Bankers and Rejected Austerity—and It’s Been a Success
« Reply #2029 on: June 13, 2015, 07:09:54 AM »
The Icelandic finance minister announced recently that all debts will be settled by the end of the year.
How, you ask?

Iceland Jailed Bankers and Rejected Austerity—and It’s Been a Success

Iceland Jailed Bankers and Rejected Austerity—and It’s Been a Success

Instead of imposing devastating austerity measures and bailing out its banks, Iceland let its banks go bust and focused on social welfare policies. It has now repaid 85 percent of U.K. claims, and the Icelandic finance minister announced recently that all will be settled by the end of the year.

 

"The theory that you have to bail out banks is a theory that you allow bankers enjoy for their own profit, their success, and then let ordinary people bear their failure through taxes and austerity. People in enlightened democracies are not going to accept that in the long run." (Photo: Sveinn Joelsson/flickr/cc)

When the global economic crisis hit in 2008, Iceland suffered terribly—perhaps more than any other country. The savings of 50,000 people were wiped out, plunging Icelanders into debt and placing 25 percent of its homeowners in mortgage default.

Now, less than a decade later, the nation’s economy is booming. And this year it will become the first culturally European country that faced collapse to beat its pre-crisis peak of economic output.

That’s because it took a different approach. Instead of imposing devastating austerity measures and bailing out its banks, Iceland let its banks go bust and focused on social welfare policies. In March, the International Monetary Fund announced that the country had achieved economic recovery “without compromising its welfare model” of universal health care and education.

Iceland allowed those responsible for the crisis—its bankers—to be prosecuted as criminals. Again, a sharp contrast to the United States and elsewhere in Europe, where CEOs escaped punishment.

“Why should we have a part of our society that is not being policed or without responsibility?” asked special prosecutor Olafur Hauksson in the wake of the collapse. “It is dangerous that someone is too big to investigate—it gives a sense there is a safe haven.”

By refusing to allow its currency, the krona, to suffer ultra-low inflation to protect the assets of the rich—as in the rest of the West—Iceland let the krona tumble. The resulting inflation and higher prices have helped its export industries, unlike what happened in many European Union countries, which are contending with ongoing deflation.


This tax has been introduced as the country winds down capital controls imposed in response to the crisis. Again flouting free market orthodoxy, this move restricts Icelanders’ ability to move their money out of the country in order to protect the krona. Initially intended to expire after six months, the controls have been in place for more than six years.On Monday, Iceland’s Finance Minister Bjarni Benediktsson announced the introduction of a 39 percent tax on creditors seeking to reclaim assets from the country’s failed banks. As The Guardian explains, this is “an attempt to prevent foreign investors rushing en masse to withdraw billions currently frozen in Iceland’s financial system.”

As a result, it’s estimated that about 1,200 billion Icelandic krona have been frozen—the equivalent of $9 billion. If capital controls were removed, Iceland could face a spate of bankruptcies and problems with liquidity. “There is not sufficient foreign currency to release 1,200bn [krona] in foreign currency,” The Guardian quoted Benedikt Gíslason, an adviser to the government, as saying. “The Icelandic economy would not survive.”

All of these actions have, unsurprisingly, drawn the ire of other countries—in ideological and measurable ways. By refusing to honor bank guarantees given by British and Dutch investors in Icesave—a subsidiary of one of Iceland’s main banks, Landsbanki—Iceland created enemies of its European neighbors. But it has now repaid 85 percent of U.K. claims, and the Icelandic finance minister announced recently that all will be settled by the end of the year.

When asked why Iceland was enjoying such a strong recovery while everyone else is still mired in debt, President Olafur Ragnar Grimmson said in 2013:

“Why are the banks considered to be the holy churches of the modern economy? Why are private banks not like airlines and telecommunication companies and allowed to go bankrupt if they have been run in an irresponsible way? The theory that you have to bail out banks is a theory that you allow bankers enjoy for their own profit, their success, and then let ordinary people bear their failure through taxes and austerity. People in enlightened democracies are not going to accept that in the long run.”

There you have it. Instead of conceding to the crooks who made the mess, Iceland listened to its people. And the data speaks for itself.

 
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2030 on: June 13, 2015, 07:20:19 AM »
Quote
“Why are the banks considered to be the holy churches of the modern economy? Why are private banks not like airlines and telecommunication companies and allowed to go bankrupt if they have been run in an irresponsible way? The theory that you have to bail out banks is a theory that you allow bankers enjoy for their own profit, their success, and then let ordinary people bear their failure through taxes and austerity. People in enlightened democracies are not going to accept that in the long run.”

There you have it. Instead of conceding to the crooks who made the mess, Iceland listened to its people. And the data speaks for itself.
 

No where does the stench of corruption smell worse than the public bail out of the bankster whores.

Don't get me wrong, all for the government bailing out the hapless insured depositors, but the despicable dog shit that run these whore houses should all be on the slammer.

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2031 on: June 13, 2015, 09:30:51 AM »
Quote
“Why are the banks considered to be the holy churches of the modern economy? Why are private banks not like airlines and telecommunication companies and allowed to go bankrupt if they have been run in an irresponsible way? The theory that you have to bail out banks is a theory that you allow bankers enjoy for their own profit, their success, and then let ordinary people bear their failure through taxes and austerity. People in enlightened democracies are not going to accept that in the long run.”

There you have it. Instead of conceding to the crooks who made the mess, Iceland listened to its people. And the data speaks for itself.
 

No where does the stench of corruption smell worse than the public bail out of the bankster whores.

Don't get me wrong, all for the government bailing out the hapless insured depositors, but the despicable dog shit that run these whore houses should all be on the slammer.

Who remain immune no matter who is in charge.
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Engdahl: Russia Gets Very Serious on “De-dollarizing:
« Reply #2032 on: June 13, 2015, 09:33:53 AM »
IN time for your vidcast tomorrow.

Russia Gets Very Serious on “De-dollarizing”. The Russia-China “Silk Road” Strategy

Russia Gets Very Serious on “De-dollarizing”. The Russia-China “Silk Road” Strategy

Economic-US-Dollar

Russia is about to take another major step towards liberating the Ruble from the Dollar System. Its Finance Ministry just revealed it is considering issuing Russian state debt in Chinese Yuan. That would be an elegant way to decouple from the dependence and blackmail pressures from the US Treasury financial terrorism operations while at the same time strengthening the bonds between China and Russia–Washington’s worst geopolitical nightmare.

Russian Deputy Minister of Finance, Sergei Storchak, announced that his ministry is making a careful study of what would be required to issue Russian bonds denominated in Chinese Yuan. The latest news is part of a long-term strategy between Russia and China that goes at the heart of American hegemony—the role of the dollar as the leading world central bank reserve currency.

The dollar is used in some 60% of central bank reserves today. The second largest is the Euro. Now clearly China is carefully moving, as the world’s largest trading nation, to create its Renminbi or Chinese Yuan as another major reserve currency. That has huge geopolitical implications. So long as the US dollar is the leading reserve currency, the world must de facto buy US dollar Treasury bonds for its reserves. That has allowed Washington to have budget deficits since 1971 when the dollar left the gold exchange standard. In effect, China, Japan, Russia, Germany—all trade surplus countries, finance Washington’s deficits that allow her to make wars around the world. It is a paradox that Russia and China at least, are determined to end as soon as possible.

Last year Russia and China signed enormous 30-year energy deals for delivery of Russian oil and gas to China. The payments will be in local currencies not in dollars. Already in 2014 settlement in national currencies between China and Russia in bilateral trade increased nine times over 2013. Lin Zhi, head of the Europe and Central Asia Department of the Chinese Ministry of Economic Development announced last November that, “About 100 Russian commercial banks are now opening corresponding accounts for settlements in yuan. The list of commercial banks where ordinary depositors can open an account in yuan is also growing.” Last November 18 Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank became the first Russian bank to begin financing letters of credit in Chinese yuan.

Long-term strategy

What all this indicates is that Russia and China are carefully planning a long-term strategy of getting out from dependence on the US currency, something that, as the US sanctions last year revealed, make both countries vulnerable to US currency wars of devastating impact.

China has just been accepted “in principle” by the Group of 7 finance ministers to have its yuan included in the International Monetary Fund basket of currencies making up IMF Special Drawing Rights. Today only US dollar, Euro and Japanese Yen are included in the basket. Including the yuan would be a huge step towards making the yuan a recognized international reserve currency, and at the same time would weaken the dollar share.

China’s foreign reserves consist overwhelmingly of US dollar claims, mainly US Treasury bonds, which is a strategic weakness, because in case of war these can be frozen, as Iran knows too well. It is imperative for China to increase the gold content of the reserves and to diversify the rest into other currencies.

China has also agreed with Russia to unify the new Silk Road high-speed rail project with Russia and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union. At the same time Beijing has announced it is creating a huge $16 billion fund to develop gold mines along the rail route linking Russia and China and Central Asia. That suggests plans to greatly build up gold as central bank reserve share. China’s central bank has greatly increased its gold holdings in recent years, though whether it is now greater than the alleged Federal Reserve gold holdings of 8000 tons is not yet public. It is expected China must reveal its gold reserves on being formally accepted into the IMF SDR basket perhaps later this year.

Last year, 2014, Song Xin, president of the China Gold Association stated, “We need to establish our gold bank as soon as possible…It can further help us acquire reserves and give us more say and control in the gold market.” A gold sector fund involving countries along the Silk Road has been set up in northwest China’s Xi’an City this May, led by Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE), part of China’s national bank, PBOC. China is the world’s largest gold producer. Among the 65 countries along the routes of the Silk Road Economic Belt, there are numerous Asian countries identified as important reserve bases and consumers of gold. Xinhua reports that 60 countries have invested in the fund, which will facilitate central banks of member states to increase their holdings of gold.

Dr. Diedrick Goedhuys, former economic adviser to the Reserve Bank of South Africa in an interview told me, “I want to emphasize the unique quality of gold, when viewed as a financial asset, of being an asset that is no-one’s liability. A treasury bond, for instance, is an asset in my hands, but a liability, or debt to be repaid, in the books of the treasury. Gold is a pure asset. The Chinese gold mining plan is of vast importance. It’s a long-term plan; it may take ten years before it has a significant effect.”

Now with Washington and Wall Street increasingly frustrated at how to weaken the Ruble and China’s Renminbi, those two powers are making giant strides to break free from their dollar chains, a move that could liberate much of mankind if done in a good way.

F. William Engdahlis strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/06/russia-gets-very-serious-on-de-dollarizing/

 

« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 03:03:39 PM by Surly1 »
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline Eddie

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: The Surlynewz Channel --- TPP
« Reply #2033 on: June 13, 2015, 09:45:22 AM »
Round one to the peasants, but do not sleep on these traitors in DC.

The Dems are just holding out for better bribes. It will pass next week in some form. We're getting fucked again. There's no stopping it.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The Surlynewz Channel --- TPP
« Reply #2034 on: June 13, 2015, 03:02:58 PM »
Round one to the peasants, but do not sleep on these traitors in DC.

The Dems are just holding out for better bribes. It will pass next week in some form. We're getting fucked again. There's no stopping it.

I am betting you are right.
I suspect Friday's vote was pure theatre, to mollify the proles.
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Engdahl: Russia Gets Very Serious on “De-dollarizing"
« Reply #2035 on: June 13, 2015, 03:09:59 PM »
Yep. It gets real old having to give a dollar's worth of your resources in change for every 10 or fifteen cents of your resources that are purchased with dollars...

The dollar hegemony has a secret motto: "Money for nuthin' and the chicks fer free".  :evil4:

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
The War On Cash: Officially Sanctioned Theft
« Reply #2036 on: June 13, 2015, 03:11:25 PM »
The War On Cash: Officially Sanctioned Theft
by Charles Hugh Smith

The War On Cash: Officially Sanctioned Theft

June 13, 2015 

While the benefits to banks and governments of banning physical cash are self-evident, there are downsides to the real economy and to household resilience.

You've probably read that there is a war on cash being waged on various fronts around the world. What exactly does a war on cash mean?

It means governments are limiting the use of cash and a variety of official-mouthpiece economists are calling for the outright abolition of cash. Authorities are both restricting the amount of cash that can be withdrawn from banks, and limiting what can be purchased with cash.

These limits are broadly called capital controls.

 

 The War On Cash: Why Now?

Why are governments suddenly acting as if cash money is a bad thing that must be severely limited or eliminated?

Before we get to that, let’s distinguish between physical cash—currency and coins in your possession—and digital cash in the bank. The difference is self-evident: cash in hand cannot be confiscated by a “bail-in” (i.e. officially sanctioned theft) in which the government or bank expropriates a percentage of cash deposited in the bank.  Cash in hand cannot be chipped away by negative interest rates or fees like cash held in a bank.

Cash in the bank cannot be withdrawn in a financial emergency that shutters the banks, i.e. a bank holiday.

When pundits suggest cash is “obsolete,” they mean physical paper money and coins, not cash in a bank. Cash in the bank is perfectly fine with the government and its well-paid yes-men (paging Mr. Rogoff and Mr. Buiter) because this cash can be expropriated by either “bail-ins” or by negative interest rates. 

Mr. Buiter, for example, recently opined that the spot of bother in 2008-09 (the Global Financial Meltdown) could have been avoided if banks had only charged a 6% negative interest rate on cash: in effect, taking 6% of the depositor’s cash to force everyone to spend what cash they might have.

Both cash in hand and cash in the bank are subject to one favored method of expropriation, inflation. Inflation—the single most cherished goal of every central bank—steals purchasing power from physical cash and digital cash alike. Inflation punishes holders of cash and benefits those with debt, as debt becomes cheaper to service.

The beneficial effect of inflation on debt has been in play for decades, so it can’t be the cause of governments’ recent interest in eliminating physical cash.

So now we return to the question: Why are governments suddenly declaring war on physical cash, the oldest officially issued form of money?

The first reason: physical cash has the potential to evade both taxes as well as officially sanctioned theft via bail-ins and negative interest rates. In short, physical cash is extremely difficult for governments to steal.

Some of you may find the word theft harsh or even offensive. But we must differentiate between taxes—which are levied to pay for the state’s programs that in principle benefit all citizens—and bail-ins, i.e. the taking of depositors’ cash to bail out banks that became insolvent through the actions of the banks’ management, not the actions of depositors.

Bail-ins are theft, pure and simple.  Since the government enforces the taking, it is officially sanctioned theft, but theft nonetheless.

Negative interest rates are another form of officially sanctioned theft.  In a world without the financial repression of zero-interest rates (ZIRP—central banks’ most beloved policy), lenders would charge borrowers enough interest to pay depositors for the use of their cash and earn the lender a profit.

If borrowers are paying interest, negative interest rates are theft, pure and simple.

Why are governments suddenly so keen to ban physical cash? The answer appears to be that the banks and government authorities are anticipating bail-ins, steeply negative interest rates and hefty fees on cash, and they want to close any opening regular depositors might have to escape these forms of officially sanctioned theft.  The escape from bail-ins and fees on cash deposits is physical cash, and hence the sudden flurry of calls to eliminate cash as a relic of a bygone age—that is, an age when commoners had some way to safeguard their money from bail-ins and bankers’ control.

Forcing Those With Cash To Spend Or Gamble Their Cash

 

Negative interest rates (and fees on cash, which are equivalently punitive to savers) raise another question: why are governments suddenly obsessed with forcing owners of cash to either spend it or gamble it in the financial-market casinos?

The conventional answer voiced by Mr. Buiter is that recession and credit contraction result from households and enterprises hoarding cash instead of spending it.  The solution to recession is thus to force all those stingy cash hoarders to spend their money.

There are three enormous flaws in this thinking.

One is that households and businesses have cash to hoard.  The reality is the bottom 90% of households have less income now than they did 15 years ago, which means their spending has declined not from hoarding but from declining income.

While Corporate America has basked in the glory of sharply rising profits, small business has not prospered in the same fashion. Indeed, by some measures, small business has been in a 6-year recession.

The bottom 90% has less income and faces higher living expenses, so only the top slice of households has any substantial cash.  This top slice may see few safe opportunities to invest their savings, so they choose to keep their savings in cash rather than gamble it in a rigged casino (i.e. the stock market).

The second flaw is that hoarding cash is the only rational, prudent response in an era of financial repression and economic insecurity. What central banks are demanding--that we spend every penny of our earnings rather than save some for investments we control or emergencies—is counter to our best interests.

This leads to the third flaw: capital -- which begins its life as savings -- is the foundation of capitalism. If you attack savings as a scourge, you are attacking capitalism and upward mobility, for only those who save capital can invest it to build wealth. By attacking cash, the central banks and governments are attacking capital and upward mobility.

Those who already own the majority of productive assets are able to borrow essentially unlimited sums at near-zero interest rates, which they can use to buy more productive assets, while everyone else--the bottom 99.5%--is reduced to consumer-serfdom: you are not supposed to accumulate productive capital, you are supposed to spend every penny you earn on interest payments, goods and services.

This inversion of capitalism dooms an economy to all the ills we are experiencing in abundance: rising income inequality, reduced opportunities for entrepreneurship, rising debt burdens and a short-term perspective that voids the longer-term planning required to build sustainable productivity and wealth.

Physical Cash: Only $1.36 Trillion

 

According to the Federal Reserve, total outstanding physical cash amounts to $1.36 trillion. 

Given that a substantial amount of this cash is held overseas, physical cash is a tiny part of the domestic economy and the nation’s total assets. For context: the U.S. economy is $17.5 trillion, total financial assets of households and nonprofit organizations total $68 trillion, base money is around $4 trillion, and total money (currency in circulation and demand deposits) is over $10 trillion (source).

Given the relatively modest quantity of physical cash, claims that eliminating it will boost the economy ring hollow.

Following the principle of cui bono—to whose benefit?--let’s ask: What are the benefits of eliminating physical cash to banks and the government?

Benefits To Banks And The Government Of Eliminating Physical Cash

 

The benefits to banks and governments by eliminating cash are self-evident:

  1. Every financial transaction can be taxed
  2. Every financial transaction can be charged a fee
  3. Bank runs are eliminated

In fractional reserve systems such as ours, banks are only required to hold a fraction of their assets in cash.  Thus a bank might only have 1% of its assets in cash. If customers fear the bank might be insolvent, they crowd the bank and demand their deposits in physical cash. The bank quickly runs out of physical cash and closes its doors, further fueling a panic.

The federal government began insuring deposits after the Great Depression triggered the collapse of hundreds of banks, and that guarantee limited bank runs, as depositors no longer needed to fear a bank closing would mean their money on deposit was lost.

But since people could conceivably sense a disturbance in the Financial Force and decide to turn digital cash into physical cash as a precaution, eliminating physical cash also eliminates the possibility of bank runs, as there will be no form of cash that isn’t controlled by banks.

While the benefits to banks and governments of banning physical cash are self-evident, there are downsides to the real economy and to household resilience.

In Part 2: What To Do With Your Cash Savings, we'll look at the most influential forces in play in this war, and consider strategies for preserving purchasing power, avoiding bail-ins, fees and other threats to cash savings.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report  (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

This essay was first published on peakprosperity.com, where I am a contributing writer. 

 

 
 
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
RE:The War On Cash: Officially Sanctioned Theft
« Reply #2037 on: June 13, 2015, 04:15:24 PM »
This is interesting. CHS is right about the theft, but that is, sort of, old news due to inflation and gamed CPI numbers. Negative interest is another one of those Orwellian bullshit terms coming from Wall Street like "Creative Destruction". All these terms have something in common; they all have a flip side that IS NOT applied by selectively deciding who gets what.

Anyone here would be happier than a pig in poop if the Fed offered we-the-people loans at negative interest rates. By simple logic, you would not need collateral if the loan spanned enough time because the interest would exceed the principal. Therefore everybody would "qualify" for the loan! But that is nonsense to anyone that can add and subtract. It only "works" if you are engaging in blatant theft and calling it something else.

The Fed prints money ex nihilo. That is theft because it is counterfeiting. But the Fed would NEVER print said money if it was forced to PAY negative interest rates to the gooberment for "loaning" said money to the gooberment. Consequently, the Fed will NEVER "charge" negative interest unless it wants to give away money to bad risks (i.e. Wall Street Banks).

Again, this is an example of financial double talk that, when deciphered, merely means that water is wet and shit flows down hill.

So, yeah, the banks are quite interested in getting us to pay them for keeping cash in order to force us to spend it faster on bad risks, as CHS says. However, the INSTANT they start doing that, every cash account in this country will disappear  :icon_mrgreen:. CHS should have said that!

People may be dumb but they aren't dumb enough to leave money in a place where they charge you interest for a liquid asset!

They WILL put it under their mattress before they will let MORE theft than inflation reduce the buying power of their cash.

CHS forgets how hard it was for banks to convince Americans to keep their money in banks in the first place. It has been a multi-decade push to woo people's cash from their secret hidey holes. The push has included the "magic" of compound interest and such.

Well, if they think they can flip that on its head, they are going to have a rude awakening.

The banks are in overreach mode BECAUSE the people REFUSE to spend cash on SHIT. IOW, the banks have ALREADY lost the cred they dissembled, double talked and propagandized we-the-people into since the 1940's.

What the banks and the Fed MUST do now, if they wish to avoid becoming TOTALLY irrelevant, is shit can the negative interest rate baloney. People can still count. People can still see the interest rates for credit cards, personal loans, car loans and house loans are NOT NOW, OR EVER WILL BE,  negative.

They tried that in the book "1984" with the chocolate ration being "raised" from TEN grams or so a week to FIVE GRAMS A WEEK.    Winston wasn't buying it and everybody else was just pretending to buy it. Negative interest rates are an abysmally stupid idea.

But I am glad the Fed, the banks and Wall street are pushing it  ;D  ;). It further destroys the threadbare cred of those Empathy Deficit Disordered ASSHOLES.  :emthup:

As to what you should do with SPARE cash, that's easy. We will spend it on non-depreciating assets. The catch there is that assets that appreciate like land, renewable energy house infrastructure and precious metals are ALWAYS targets of taxation by the gooberment. 

Laugh about, talk about it, any way you choose; anyway you look at it this, you lose. We must simply do our best to limit our losses.  8)

One more thing: It's NOT the gooberment that is causing the rampant taxation of non-depreciating assets; it's the CORPORATE (I.e. fascist) takeover of our gooberment.  If we had a democracy, the taxation would be progressive and equitable. It certainly is NOT.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 04:21:58 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: RE:The War On Cash: Officially Sanctioned Theft
« Reply #2038 on: June 13, 2015, 04:48:04 PM »

The Fed prints money ex nihilo. That is theft because it is counterfeiting. But the Fed would NEVER print said money if it was forced to PAY negative interest rates to the gooberment for "loaning" said money to the gooberment. Consequently, the Fed will NEVER "charge" negative interest unless it wants to give away money to bad risks (i.e. Wall Street Banks).

Again, this is an example of financial double talk that, when deciphered, merely means that water is wet and shit flows down hill.

So, yeah, the banks are quite interested in getting us to pay them for keeping cash in order to force us to spend it faster on bad risks, as CHS says. However, the INSTANT they start doing that, every cash account in this country will disappear  :icon_mrgreen:. CHS should have said that!

People may be dumb but they aren't dumb enough to leave money in a place where they charge you interest for a liquid asset!

They WILL put it under their mattress before they will let MORE theft than inflation reduce the buying power of their cash.

CHS forgets how hard it was for banks to convince Americans to keep their money in banks in the first place. It has been a multi-decade push to woo people's cash from their secret hidey holes. The push has included the "magic" of compound interest and such.

Well, if they think they can flip that on its head, they are going to have a rude awakening.
//
As to what you should do with SPARE cash, that's easy. We will spend it on non-depreciating assets. The catch there is that assets that appreciate like land, renewable energy house infrastructure and precious metals are ALWAYS targets of taxation by the gooberment. 

Laugh about, talk about it, any way you choose; anyway you look at it this, you lose. We must simply do our best to limit our losses.  8)

One more thing: It's NOT the gooberment that is causing the rampant taxation of non-depreciating assets; it's the CORPORATE (I.e. fascist) takeover of our gooberment.  If we had a democracy, the taxation would be progressive and equitable. It certainly is NOT.

An Inspired. Fucking. Rant. :emthup:
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2039 on: June 13, 2015, 04:52:11 PM »
                                                        :icon_mrgreen:
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Azozeo's News Channel

Started by Surly1 « 1 2 ... 5 6 » Far Out Newz

82 Replies
32884 Views
Last post March 19, 2020, 04:27:44 AM
by azozeo
0 Replies
1391 Views
Last post July 01, 2018, 08:07:18 PM
by Palloy2
0 Replies
1106 Views
Last post August 05, 2019, 03:51:00 AM
by RE