The definition of Liquidity

-------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

What the 2nd Amendment is really for

Citigroup says gold could rise above $2,000 next year as world unravels

Citigroup would know...

Citigroup says gold could rise above $2,000 next year as world unravels

Gold is poised for a dramatic surge and could blast through $2,000 an ounce by the end of next year as central banks flood the world's monetary system with liquidity, according to an internal client note from the US bank Citigroup.


By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard The Telegraph
Last Updated: 4:48PM GMT 26 Nov 2008

The bank said the damage caused by the financial excesses of the last quarter century was forcing the world's authorities to take steps that had never been tried before.

This gamble was likely to end in one of two extreme ways: with either a resurgence of inflation; or a downward spiral into depression, civil disorder, and possibly wars. Both outcomes will cause a rush for gold.

"They are throwing the kitchen sink at this," said Tom Fitzpatrick, the bank's chief technical strategist.

"The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed though into an inflation shock.

"Or it will not work because too much damage has already been done, and we will see continued financial deterioration, causing further economic deterioration, with the risk of a feedback loop. We don't think this is the more likely outcome, but as each week and month passes, there is a growing danger of vicious circle as confidence erodes," he said.

"This will lead to political instability. We are already seeing countries on the periphery of Europe under severe stress. Some leaders are now at record levels of unpopularity. There is a risk of domestic unrest, starting with strikes because people are feeling disenfranchised."

"What happens if there is a meltdown in a country like Pakistan, which is a nuclear power. People react when they have their backs to the wall. We're already seeing doubts emerge about the sovereign debts of developed AAA-rated countries, which is not something you can ignore," he said.

Gold traders are playing close attention to reports from Beijing that the China is thinking of boosting its gold reserves from 600 tonnes to nearer 4,000 tonnes to diversify away from paper currencies. "If true, this is a very material change," he said.

Mr Fitzpatrick said Britain had made a mistake selling off half its gold at the bottom of the market between 1999 to 2002. "People have started to question the value of government debt," he said.

Citigroup said the blast-off was likely to occur within two years, and possibly as soon as 2009. Gold was trading yesterday at $812 an ounce. It is well off its all-time peak of $1,030 in February but has held up much better than other commodities over the last few months – reverting to is historical role as a safe-haven store of value and a de facto currency.

Gold has tripled in value over the last seven years, vastly outperforming Wall Street and European bourses.

---------------------------
Buy Physical Gold & Silver

Social Unrest in Iceland, U.S.next?

When the dollar crashes look for scenes like this one to happen on U.S. soil...

A near-riot and parliament besieged: Iceland boiling mad at credit crunch

Published Date: 24 November 2008
By Omar Valdimarsson
Scotsman

in REYKJAVIK
THOUSANDS of Icelanders have demonstrated in Reykjavik to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Geir Haarde and Central Bank governor David Oddsson, for failing to stop the country's financial meltdown.

It was the latest in a series of protests in the capital since October's banking collapse crippled the island's economy. At least five people were injured and Hordur Torfason, a well-known singer in Iceland and the main organiser of the protests, said the protests would continue until the government stepped down.

As crowds gathered in the drizzle before the Althing, the Icelandic parliament, on Saturday, Mr Torfason said: "They don't have our trust and they are no longer legitimate."

The value of the Icelandic krona has been cut in half since January.

Four Nordic countries, as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have pledged to lend the country a combined $4.6 billion to help revive its deflated economy. The loan would be the first by the IMF to a Western nation since 1976.

One young man climbed on to the balcony of the Althing building, where the president appears upon inauguration and on Iceland's national day, and hung a banner reading: "Iceland for Sale: $2,100,000,000" – the amount of the loan the country is getting from the IMF.

A separate group of 200-300 people gathered in front of the city's main police station, throwing eggs and demanding the release of a young protester being held there.

Police in riot gear used pepper spray to drive back an attempt to free the protester during which several windows at the police station were shattered. The pro-tester was later released after his fine was paid.

As daylight began to wane, demonstrators drifted away into the nearby coffee shops. Here, as currency tumbles, the price of a cup of coffee has shot up by about one-third since before the crisis struck.

The demonstrators accuse the government – elected last year – of not doing enough to regulate the banking industry and have called for early elections.

Iceland's next election is not required until 2011.

Opposition parties tabled a no-confidence motion in the government on Friday over its handling of the crisis, but the motion carries little chance of toppling the ruling coalition which has a solid parliamentary majority.

Gudrun Jonsdottir, a 36-year-old office worker, said: "I've just had enough of this whole thing. I don't trust the government, I don't trust the banks, I don't trust the political parties, and I don't trust the IMF.

"We had a good country and they ruined it."


BACKGROUND

ICELAND'S three biggest banks – Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir – collapsed under the weight of billions of dollars of debts accumulated in an aggressive overseas expansion, shattering the country's currency. Iceland's government seized control of all three institutions in early October.

This week, the North Atlantic island nation, which has a population of only 320,000, secured a package of more than US$10 billion (about £6.7 billion) in loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and several European countries to help it rebuild its shattered financial system.

Despite the intervention, however, Iceland still faces a sharp economic slowdown and surging job losses while at least one-third of Icelanders are also at risk of losing their homes and life savings.

Geir Haarde, the Icelandic prime minister, has promised that the government will use the IMF money to bring back a flexible interest rate scheme and rewrite financial laws, particularly legislation relating to insolvency.

Iceland was the first country to ask the IMF for help as the turmoil in the credit markets in October hit home.

The UK government used anti-terrorism legislation to freeze money deposited by UK savers in Icelandic banks in order to ensure that their money was protected.

---------------------------
Buy Physical Gold & Silver

Judge spares E-Gold directors jail time

Judge spares E-Gold directors jail time
Posted by Stephanie Condon
CNET News

WASHINGTON--A federal judge decided on Thursday not to impose a prison sentence on the senior directors of E-Gold, an Internet-based digital currency firm, who had previously pleaded guilty to violations of money laundering and running an unlicensed money transmitting business.

The three directors of E-Gold, in addition to its Gold & Silver Reserve parent company, were indicted in April 2007 after federal prosecutors accused the online payment site of being a haven for criminal activity like processing investment scams and payments for child pornography. They said its loose verification standards for users' identity attracted criminals.

The three men and the companies pleaded guilty to the charges in July 2008.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer said the men deserved lenient sentences because they did not intend to engage in illegal activity. Even though, Collyer said, the U.S. Justice Department wanted to use the cases to show "this new day of Internet crime is going to be...vigorously prosecuted," that alone was not enough reason to incarcerate the defendants.

Gold & Silver Reserve CEO Douglas Jackson was sentenced to 300 hours of community service, a $200 fine, and three years of supervision, including six months of electronically monitored home detention. He had faced a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

Jackson was spared a heavier fine because, according to his attorney, he's deeply in debt. "Dr. Jackson has suffered, will continue to suffer, and may never be successful with E-Gold," the judge said.

Reid Jackson, Douglas Jackson's brother, and E-Gold director Barry Downey were each sentenced to three years of probation, 300 hours of community service. They also were ordered to pay a $2,500 fine and a $100 assessment fee each.

The defendants were also ordered to obtain licenses to do business in the states in which a license is required, something the company had already begun doing. In September, E-Gold hired KPMG to aid its development of an anti-money laundering program; it has already contacted every state to determine whether a license is needed.

E-Gold and Gold & Silver Reserve faced a maximum fine of $3.7 million, but because neither company could pay that much, they were fined $300,000 with the condition that $10,000 be paid on Monday, with further monthly payments to start in May 2009.

Many of E-Gold's users turned to it as an alternative to a bank account denominated in U.S. dollars, which lose money due to inflation especially when interest rates are low. By contrast, gold has zoomed upward from roughly $300 an ounce in 2002 to around $750 an ounce today.

Supporters of E-Gold and gold-denominated accounts have suggested that enabling nearly anonymous transfers of money in and out of the banking system is what led the feds to target the company. For his part, Jackson initially blasted the feds, saying the Secret Service "deceived" a judge with "bogus testimony" so they could conduct a raid on E-Gold designed to put it out of business.

Federal prosecutors claimed there was no doubt the directors knew E-Gold facilitates criminal activity. An analysis in January 2008 of the 65 most valuable E-Gold accounts showed that more than 70 percent were involved in criminal activity, according to Laurel Rimon, a Justice Department prosecutor.

Furthermore, prosecutors said, the funds that flow through E-Gold, which launched in 1996, are significant. At its height, the site had more than 4 million accounts and facilitated more than $5 million fund transfers a day.

Though illegal activity continued on E-Gold well after Douglas Jackson acknowledged the company was under investigation in 2004, the defendants claimed that they received bad legal counsel, which convinced them the site did not have to be licensed as a money transmitting business.

"If he had thought it needed to be licensed, he would have done everything in his power to make that happen," Federal Public Defender Michelle Peterson said about Reid Jackson.

The court also accepted the argument that Downey was unaware of the company's need for a license, even though he is a practicing lawyer.

The defendants also argued they have worked to the best of their abilities to cooperate with investigators, but the prosecutors provided evidence that the directors may have been trying to circumspect government interference.

The company was incorporated in Bermuda, for instance, even though its operations are based out of Melbourne, Fla. Barry Pollack, Downey's defense attorney, said the site's offshore registry did not impede the directors from responding to subpoenas. (If the site had been entirely overseas, as GoldMoney.com is, it wouldn't have had to worry about the feds. On the other hand, GoldMoney does demand proof of identity.)

Douglas Jackson founded the site on a philosophy opposed to government regulation, prosecutors said. "Dr. Jackson was very candid about his vision to create a version of a financial institution that didn't have regulations," prosecutor Jonathan Haray said.

Intentions and philosophies notwithstanding, the defense said, the defendants should remain out of jail so they could keep the site up and running and continue to help investigators track criminals. E-Gold's records of IP addresses and timestamps provide a trail to criminals--and proof the company had no intention of inviting criminal activity, the defense said.

The prosecution questioned how useful E-Gold's cooperation really was.

"The vast majority (of IP addresses from E-Gold) don't have good identifying information," said Rimon. "If an IP address leads to a P.O. box on a street corner in Estonia, that doesn't do us much good, and that's what we found in many cases."

E-Gold remains open for business today, though Jackson said in an announcement on November 14 that it was still figuring out how to comply with the registration process for new accounts now that it's subject to regulation as a "financial institution." New account creation is "temporarily suspended."

CNET News' Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.

-----------------------------
Buy Physical Gold & Silver

The FDIC con game continues...

FDIC Shows Massive Growth In Problem Banks, But The Data Is Still Wishful Thinking

November 25, 2008 11:24 AM EST
StreetInsider.com

Today, the FDIC issued banking data from the third quarter ended September 30, which showed that the number of insured institutions on the FDIC's "Problem List" increased from 117 to 171 and the assets of "problem" institutions rose from $78.3 billion to $115.6 billion during the quarter. The FDIC said this is the first time since the middle of 1994 that assets of "problem" institutions have exceeded $100 billion.

The FDIC said during the third quarter 73 institutions were absorbed in mergers, and 9 institutions failed. This was the largest number of failures in a quarter since the third quarter of 1993, when 16 insured institutions failed. Among the failures was Washington Mutual Bank, an insured savings institution with $307 billion in assets and the largest insured institution to fail in the FDIC's 75-year history. The number of insured commercial banks and savings institutions fell to 8,384 in the third quarter, down from 8,451 at midyear.

The FDIC data also showed that net income of $1.7 billion was the second-lowest since 1990, and loan-loss rates rose to a 17-year high. On a positive note, net interest margins registered improvement.

Like it was in the second quarter (they left-out WaMu), the data the FDIC is issuing on the problem bank assets in the third quarter is misleading. We all know now that Wachovia (NYSE: WB) was near failure at the end of the third quarter and at the very start of the fourth quarter it was merged with Citi (NYSE: C) then later Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC). Wachovia's assets base would have easily surpassed the $115.6 billion the FDIC mentioned as the total in the problem list. In addition, yesterday Citi (NYSE: C) needed a U.S. government rescue plan. How can it be that this data is so wrong? Is it the fear factor that they feel would be created if they were truthful. Maybe certain institution don't qualify as "troubled" but should. They need to look at how they qualify a troubled bank. Assets of troubled institutions should be in the trillions not $100 billion.

--------------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Gold around the world

Take a look at the following charts indicating gold's value in other currencies (click on link):

Gold Around the World

---------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver here

The Truth About Bailouts

From the man who called the economic collapse:

The Truth About Bailouts

By: Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

-- Posted Friday, 21 November 2008 | Digg This ArticleDigg It! | Source: GoldSeek.com

As the Federal bailout bonanza prepares to spread beyond the mortgage and financial sectors to fill Detroit's depleted coffers, few economic or policy analysts have spared a thought for the destitution of the U.S. government itself. Put simply, our government doesn't have enough spare cash to bailout a lemonade stand let alone a bloated and failing industry that is losing tens of billions of dollars per month. Washington can only offer funds that it has borrowed from abroad or printed. Unfortunately, the nation is in the grips of a delusion that money derived from these sources has the power to heal. But history has clearly shown that borrowed or printed money only has the power to destroy.

The argument that energizes the pro-Detroit camp is that the government should extend the same courtesy to the rank and file auto workers that it lavished upon the fat cats of Wall Street. While two wrongs certainly do not make a right, the fact remains that the Wall Street firms are still floundering despite the bailouts. What's worse, the money spent was either printed or borrowed from abroad. Both options are destructive to America.

When it comes to bailouts, the real discussions are not centered in Washington but rather in Beijing, Tokyo, and Riyadh. With no money of our own, our ability to bailout our own citizens is completely dependent on the world's willingness to foot the bill. While I am sure that Bush and Paulson are doing their best to convince the world that open ended financing of the United States is in the global interest, my guess is that, unlike Congress, our foreign creditors will see through the self-serving nature of our plea.

Like any bailout, our foreign creditors should consider the moral hazard of rewarding bad behavior, and the old investment adage of not throwing good money after bad. By continuing to "lend" us money, the world is merely delaying the necessary rebalancing of our upside down economy. By continuing to subsidize our reckless and outsized consumption, the world merely delays the inevitable re-balancing and exacerbates the underlying problem at the root of the current global financial crisis.

If Washington bails out General Motors, the funds will never be recovered. GM will simply burn through the bailout money and then be back for more. Talk of designing a new fleet of "green" cars that will pave the way to profitability by spurring a new buying spree is simply delusional. Given the staggering "legacy" costs of health care and pensions for millions of current and former workers, Detroit cannot produce cars profitably. Unless these costs are seriously brought down, and there is very little chance that they will be, Detroit will remain a bottomless money pit.

Similarly any money that the world lends to America to finance more consumption will never be repaid. We will simply blow through it, and be back, hat in hand, begging for more. As we painfully learned in the housing bust, lending people money that they cannot pay back makes no sense. This applies equally to foreign central banks lending to America as it does to commercial banks lending to homeowners.

So for the same reasons that Washington should not bail out General Motors, the world should not bailout America. Like GM, our economy is in desperate need of a restructuring. Spending must be replaced with savings, and consumption with production. The service sector must shrink and manufacturing must expand to fill the void. The dollar must fall, wages in America must be brought down to a competitive level, and hopefully government spending and burdensome regulation can be reduced.

This transformation will not be fun, but it is necessary. Our standard of living must decline to reflect years of reckless consumption and the disintegration of our industrial base. Only by swallowing this tough medicine now will our sick economy ever recover. By accepting a lower standard of living today, we will eventually be rewarded with a higher one tomorrow.

------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Yikes! 3 More Banks Fail Today

The most bank failures in one week this year...

FDIC Failed Bank List

PFF Bank and Trust, Pomona, CA
Downey Savings and Loan, Newport Beach, CA
The Community Bank, Loganville, GA

---------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

The Man Who Called The Collapse

Like the Laws of Physics, you cannot alter Economic Law. Peter Schiff, a student of the Austrian School of Economic Theory, nailed it here:


-------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

30 reasons for Great Depression 2 by 2011

Read here:

30 reasons for Great Depression 2 by 2011


-------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Mint suspends orders amid rush to buy bullion

Get some while you can...

Mint suspends orders amid rush to buy bullion

Article from: The Australian

FEARS of the unknown long-term effects from the global financial crisis have sparked a new gold rush.

With retail and wholesale clients around the world stocking up on the precious metal, the Perth Mint has been forced to suspend orders.

As the World Gold Council reported that the dollar demand for gold reached a quarterly record of $US32 billion ($50.73 billion) in the third quarter, industry insiders said the race to secure physical gold had reached an intensity that had never been witnessed before.

Perth Mint sales and marketing director Ron Currie said the unprecedented demand had forced the Mint to cease orders until January, with staff working seven days a week, 24-hour days, over three shifts to meet orders.

He said Europe was leading the demand, with Russia, Ukraine, Middle East and US all buying -- making up 80 per cent of its sales. One European client purchased 30,000 ounces for $33 million.

"We have never seen this before and are working right at capacity. And we are seeing it from clients in the shop buying one ounce, right up to 30,000 ounces from overseas clients," Mr Currie said.

Robert Jaggard, manager of bullion and rare coins dealer Jaggards, said business had picked up strongly and he expected it to increase further.

"All around the world there has been a heavy run on physical gold and there is a shortage of supply," he said.

Mr Jaggard, who has been dealing in gold for 40 years and is an agent for the Perth Mint, said some clients were buying up to $1million worth of gold, paying a premium above the spot price.

Late yesterday afternoon, spot gold in Sydney was trading at $US747.30 an ounce, up $US8.15 on Thursday's local close.

"Professional business people who have previously bought small amounts now want more gold because they are suffering in other markets," Mr Jaggard said.

At a conference this week in Munich, delegates were lined up 30-deep to purchase physical gold. And reports out of the Middle East suggested that there had been unprecedented gold buying in Saudi Arabia during the first half of November, with an estimated $US3.5 billion purchased in recent weeks.

The World Gold Council, releasing its global demand trends yesterday, said identifiable investment demand, which incorporates demand for gold through exchange-traded funds and bars and coins, was the biggest contributor to overall demand during the quarter. It was up to $US10.7 billion, double last year's levels.

The figures showed retail investment demand rose 121 per cent to 232 tonnes in the third quarter, with strong bar and coin buying reported in Swiss, German and US markets.

The quarter also witnessed widespread reports of gold shortages among bullion dealers across the globe, as investors searched for a haven. Overall, quarter three saw Europe reach an all-time record 51 tonnes of bar and coin buying. France became a net investor in gold for the first time since the early 1980s.

World Gold Council chief executive James Burton said gold's universal role as a store of value had shone through during the quarter, helping attract investors and consumers to all forms of gold ownership.

"The rise in demand for gold bars and coins has been impressive," he said.

Demand in India, the largest market for gold, recovered during the third quarter, encouraged by lower gold prices, a good monsoon and the onset of the festive season. At 250 tonnes, total consumer demand was 31 per cent higher than the same period last year. In value terms, demand hit the record quarterly sum of $US5 billion.

--------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Merry Christmas! Stop making mortgage payments

Unintended consequences: Want your mortgage to adjust down instead of up? Simple - stop making payments for 90 days!

Fannie, Freddie Halt Foreclosures for Holidays

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 21, 2008; D01

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced yesterday that they are temporarily suspending foreclosures and evictions during the holiday season in an effort to keep people from losing their homes.

The companies said they are taking the step so they can include more people in a newly announced program to change the terms of troubled mortgages to make them more affordable.

The mortgage finance giants, seized by the government in early September, have been under pressure by lawmakers and housing advocates to take bolder steps to fight foreclosures. As the owners or backers of trillions of dollars of mortgages, the companies have an unrivaled ability to shape the home loan market and help people with distressed mortgages.

Last week, the companies said they would enact a program to restructure mortgages for borrowers who are falling behind in their payments. That effort would seek to help homeowners who haven't paid their loans for three months but whose homes had not been foreclosed upon yet. In a foreclosure, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac seizes control of a home and, usually, tries to sell it.

The foreclosure freeze announced yesterday will extend the mortgage modification program to those who have been declared in default and are at immediate risk of being forced from their homes. The companies said as many as 16,000 borrowers could benefit.

Foreclosures and evictions will be stopped from Nov. 26 to Jan. 9.

"With this suspension, seriously delinquent borrowers may have an opportunity to avoid foreclosure and work out terms to stay in their homes," said Federal Housing Finance Agency director James B. Lockhart III, the regulator in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Under the mortgage modifications program unveiled last week, Fannie and Freddie will seek to modify loan terms to ensure borrowers aren't paying more than 38 percent of their monthly pretax salary on their mortgage. The companies will do this by extending the total term of loans to up to 40 years, reducing the interest rate, and, in some cases, delaying payment on part of the loan.

The program will begin Dec. 15. Attorneys working for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will contact borrowers facing foreclosure.

"Until the streamlined modification program is fully implemented, we felt it was in the best interest of both borrowers and Fannie Mae to take this extra step to ensure that homeowners with the desire and ability to prevent a foreclosure have an opportunity to stay in their homes," Fannie Mae chief executive Herbert M. Allison said in a statement.

Freddie Mac chief executive David M. Moffett said his company is on track to help three out of five troubled borrowers with Freddie Mac-owned loans avoid foreclosure. "Today's announcement builds on this momentum and provides a new measure of certainty to many of these families during the holidays," he said in a statement.

The foreclosure freeze will apply to single-family homes that continue to be occupied. Freddie Mac's program also applies to buildings with two to four apartments.

Fannie and Freddie have launched other programs as well. A Fannie Mae program requires employees to take a second look at delinquent loans to ensure the borrower has been contacted and other options have been considered. Freddie Mac gives authority to mortgage lenders to renegotiate loans and offers them financial incentives to do so.

"We must and will do more," Allison said.

------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Bernanke Says Federal Reserve Won't Reveal Details on Loans

Does this give you faith in the dollar?

Bernanke Says Federal Reserve Won't Reveal Details on Loans

By Steve Matthews and Craig Torres

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the central bank won't disclose details of the $2 trillion in emergency loans of taxpayer funds because doing so would stigmatize banks needing the money.

``Some have asked us to reveal the names of the banks that are borrowing, how much they are borrowing, what collateral they are posting,'' Bernanke said today to the House Financial Services Committee. ``We think that's counterproductive.''

Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bank rescue plan. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate lending programs that don't require lawmakers' approval, Bernanke said too much disclosure would harm the borrowers.

Bloomberg News has requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.

The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

``First, the success of this depends on banks being willing to come and borrow when they need short-term cash,'' Bernanke said in response to questioning from Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the committee's senior Republican.

``There is a concern that if the name is put in the newspaper that such-and-such bank came to the Fed to borrow overnight for a perfectly good reason, that others might begin to worry is this bank creditworthy and that might create a stigma, a problem, and might cause banks to be unwilling to borrow, and that would be counterproductive.''

`Very Safe' Loans

Bernanke said the central bank would not lose money on its lending, which is backed by assets.

``We take collateral, we haircut it, it is a short-term loan, it is very safe, we have never lost a penny in these various lending programs,'' he said.

Before Sept. 14, the Fed accepted mostly top-rated government and asset-backed securities as collateral. After that date, the central bank widened standards to accept other kinds of securities, some with lower ratings. The Fed collects interest on all its loans.

At a Sept. 23 Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington, Paulson called for transparency in the purchase of distressed assets.

``We need oversight,'' Paulson told lawmakers. ``We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.''

At a joint House-Senate hearing the next day, Bernanke also stressed the importance of openness in the program. ``Transparency is a big issue,'' he said.

The Bloomberg lawsuit argues that the collateral lists ``are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression.''

-------------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Video: Ron Paul questions Bernanke

Video: Ron Paul Questions Bernanke this morning...



-----------------
Buy Gold & Silver

More on commodity money

And from the Christian Science Monitor:

Forget Bretton Woods II – we need a gold standard
Without the integrity and restraint a gold standard provides, America may be headed on a path to hyperinflation.
By Walker Todd

from the November 17, 2008 edition

Chagrin Falls, Ohio - Too much credit and easy money. Those were the biggest culprits behind this financial crisis. Yet, apallingly, the government's rescue attempt is built on more credit and even easier money. That's like giving a procrastinator a deadline extension. By choosing this course, Washington has steered us on to the "road to Weimar" – the road to runaway inflation.

It didn't have to come to this. And it still doesn't. But the proper remedy will take tremendous political courage: Bring back the gold standard. That, more than any byzantine regulations that emerge from the Bretton Woods II conference this weekend, would provide stability and safety for nations and individuals around the world.

Sadly, current policy seems to reflect a desire to weaken the dollar as quickly as possible.

The Federal Reserve's own data tells the story. The headline is the doubling of Federal Reserve credit, the main component of the US monetary base. Since Labor Day 2008, it's risen from $894 billion to $2.2 trillion.

That's the greatest monetary expansion in the Fed's 95-year history. How the Fed is doing it matters almost as much. It has nearly abandoned its traditional instrument for monetary policy, open-market operations, which involves the purchasing and selling of full-faith-and-credit US Treasury securities. With increasing frequency and amounts, it has relied primarily on "discount window operations" – lending to specific institutions for specific purposes instead of general injections of funds into an open market – since August 2007. This shift may weaken its ability to "tighten" monetary conditions should inflation reach dangerous levels.

A gold standard offers exactly the kind of discipline that's missing from the Fed. But its impact would be wider: Both in substance and in symbolism, gold provides integrity to the entire global financial system. Governments, however, have historically bridled at the constraint and accountability a gold standard brings. After all, when currency can be exchanged for gold, it's harder for governments to inflate the money supply, which they're tempted to do in order to spend beyond their means or cheat on their debts.

Before 1933, you could, generally speaking, trade a US dollar for a set amount of gold. That gave the dollar strength and stability. During World War I, when European governments abandoned gold and inflated their currencies to pay for the war effort, the US maintained its gold backing.

In 1933, however, to enable the Treasury to finance massive new government spending hailed as an economic recovery package – sound familiar? – President Roosevelt suspended domestic transactions in gold, and reduced the dollar's gold value. Finally, in 1971, President Nixon officially abandoned the gold standard. The dollar – and inflation – has fluctuated wildly ever since.

Today's Fed thus faces virtually no constraints. Were a gold standard in place, it could not possibly have doubled its balance sheet in only seven weeks without triggering a wholesale flight from the dollar analogous to the summer of 1971.

Weimar Germany experienced one of the greatest inflations in modern history in 1922 and 1923. Eventually, the official exchange rate reached 4.2 trillion marks per dollar. Some Germans heated their homes by burning cash, since it was cheaper than buying wood. The inflation finally was tamed by government bonds promising repayment in gold, backed by land taxes also payable in gold.

Today, if the US price level responded directly with the Fed's current rate of expansion of its own credit, then the technical conditions for Weimar-style hyperinflation could be upon us. Fortunately, Fed credit expansion acts on the domestic price level with a significant time lag. But could it tighten monetary conditions if it had to, having shifted its reliance to the discount window and the specific projects being financed there?

That's why a conversation about a gold standard is needed. But could it realistically make a comeback? Anna J. Schwartz, who co-wrote with Milton Friedman the highly influential book, "A Monetary History of the United States: 1867-1960," suggested at a 2004 gold conference at the American Institute for Economic Research that only a crisis of sufficient depth and magnitude would provoke the public to demand the stability of gold or a gold-linked currency. Such a crisis, which appeared remote at the time, may soon be upon us.

There's another significant point that Ms. Schwartz raised in 2004: The size of government itself would have to shrink radically to permit a complete return to gold. Before 1933, the share of gross domestic product represented by government at all levels was about 10 percent. Today, the national average of that share is about 35 percent. Any adjustment to economic shocks has to be absorbed by a proportionately much smaller private sector than was the case 75 years ago.

Some critics worry that a return to gold would make credit harder to come by. It's true that the kind of ultra-loose credit that fuels housing bubbles would be marginalized, but normal credit in a gold system would tend to be cheaper because concerns about the future value of repayments are diminished.

America faces a stark choice. The path back to a gold standard is rocky and uphill. The current inflationary path is slippery and downhill. One leads to integrity and stability. The other could lead to financial ruin. Which will we choose?

• Walker Todd, an economic consultant with 20 years' experience at the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland, is a research fellow and conference organizer for the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Mass.

---------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Commodity money

From the Wall Street Journal:

To Prevent Bubbles, Restrain the Fed
Obama would be a fool to trust his economy to the discretion of central bankers.
By GERALD P. O'DRISCOLL JR.

On Nov. 14, 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 8497.31. On Nov. 13, 1998, the adjusted (for dividends and split) close was 8919.59. There has been great volatility, but no net capital accumulation as measured by the Dow in a decade. Other indexes, such as the Nasdaq, tell a similar story. Capital has been invested but as much value has been destroyed as created.

The U.S. cannot afford to have another lost decade. Or to see the dreams of another generation of Americans who had been told to take responsibility for their financial health by investing in the stock market dashed by failed monetary and fiscal polices.

Today, the most urgent task facing President-elect Barack Obama is stabilizing financial markets by instituting policies that foster economic growth and prevent the type of boom and bust cycle that has just wiped out a decade's worth of wealth accumulation.

Mr. Obama's task is made all the more difficult because there has been a perfect storm of bad policies and practices. Laudable goals, such as fostering more homeownership, went terribly awry. Financial services regulation has failed at its most basic task, protecting the soundness of the system. And a dysfunctional compensation system has given corporate managers incentives to take excessive risks with investors' money.

None of the policies and practices that are now widely criticized suddenly appeared in the past decade. But they were kindling for a financial firestorm that needed only an accelerant and a spark. Both were provided by a policy of easy money that came in response to the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000-01, the ensuing recession, and the Sept. 11 attacks.

At first Fed easing was in order. The central bank needed to counter the "irrational exuberance" of the dot-com bubble. And by May of 2000 the Fed had done that by raising the fed-funds target to 6.5%. That needed to come down when the bubble burst. Aggressive cutting brought it to 2% in November 2001.

The problem is the rate remained at 2% or less for three years (for a year it was at 1%). During most of this period, the real (inflation-adjusted) fed-funds rate was negative. People were being paid to borrow and they responded by often borrowing irresponsibly.

Consider subprime mortgages. In 2001, there was $190 billion worth of subprime loan originations -- 8.6% of total mortgage originations. In 2005, there was $625 billion worth of subprime originations -- 20% of the total. In the same period, the percentage of subprime mortgages securitized -- loans that were packaged and sold to investors -- rose from just about 50% to a little more than 81%. (These numbers all trailed off slightly in 2006.) The great easing in monetary policy ended (with a lag) when the Fed began raising rates in June 2004.

The subprime saga follows a familiar pattern. Easy credit begets a boom and then the inevitable tightening of credit bursts the bubble. What is not familiar is the scale of the devastation wrought in this boom-bust cycle.

Never before had financial markets evolved such a complex superstructure of interlinked securities, derivatives of all kinds, and special-purpose investment vehicles. Professor Gary Gorton of the Yale School of Management has best described that complexity in his paper "The Panic of 2007," published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. He makes clear that as this system evolved there was not a sufficient guard against systemic risk.

No president could want these events to repeat themselves on his watch. But they could be repeated.

The economy now confronts deflationary forces. If past is prologue the Fed will concentrate on those deflationary forces for too long and rekindle an asset boom of some kind. The fiscal "stimulus" being contemplated by Congress could be another economic accelerant. If both the fiscal and money stimulus efforts kick in just as market forces also kick in, we're likely to see another unsustainable boom that will be followed by a bust.

The incoming administration must think about that possibility because the timing of boom and bust cycles seems to be shortening. The next bust could come five or six years from now -- or about in the middle of an Obama second term. Should that happen, Mr. Obama would be unable to blame Republicans for the mess and would be tagged as the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

To avoid such a fate, Mr. Obama needs to stop the next asset bubble from being inflated by imposing a commodity standard on the Fed. A commodity standard (such as a gold standard) imposes discipline on a central bank because it forces it to acquire commodity reserves in order to increase the money supply. Today the government can inflate asset bubbles without paying a cost for it because the currency isn't linked to the price of a commodity.

With a commodity standard in place, the government would also have price signals that would alert it to the formation of a bubble. Why? Because the price of the commodity would be continuously traded in spot and futures markets. Excessive easing by the Fed would be signaled by rising prices for the commodity. In recent years, Fed officials have claimed that they cannot know when an asset bubble is developing. With a commodity standard in place, it would be clear to anyone watching spot markets whether a bubble is forming. What's more, if Fed officials ignored price signals, outflows of commodity reserves would force them to act against the bubble.

The point is not to deflate asset bubbles, but to avoid them in the first place. Imposing a commodity standard is a practical response to the repeated failures of central banks to maintain sound money and financial stability. What would be impractical is to believe that the next time central banks will get it right on their own.

Mr. O'Driscoll, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, was formerly a vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Freddie Mac says it is worth less than zero

The government solution will be to print more dollars...

Freddie Mac says it is worth less than zero
Suzy Jagger in New York
Times Online

Freddie Mac, the US mortgage giant, yesterday admitted that it is so overwhelmed by its liabilities that without government backing, it would no longer be a viable business. The company said that it had lost $13.7 billion (£9.2 billion) in the third quarter of the year and begged for $13.8 billion from the US Treasury in rescue funds.

The plea for the multibillion-dollar cash injection came just days after Fannie Mae reported a record $29 billion loss for the period and gave warning that it was haemorrhaging cash so rapidly, it might need federal funds by the end of the year to survive.

The US Treasury has been overwhelmed by requests for federal aid in the past few weeks. In addition to setting up a $700 billion bailout fund to take equity stakes in troubled banks, the Treasury is being pressed by the car industry for a cash bailout. Yesterday, Neel Kashkari, the Assistant Treasury Secretary, said that he was under pressure to consider ways of using the $700 billion bailout to stem a surge in foreclosures across the US.

The Freddie Mac request for funds would see the drawing down of part of the $100 billion in emergency reserves that were committed by the Treasury in September.

Freddie Mac’s problems during the third quarter fell into two categories – the continuing real-estate slump, which has been accompanied by a sharp increase in mortgage borrowers defaulting on repayments, and a tax-related charge. The company had to admit that it cannot use tax credits listed on its balance sheet as assets, because it has not generated enough taxable income.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were taken under federal control in September. Between them, the two mortgage companies guarantee about half of all home loans in America. Washington took the two groups under state control after they gave warning that the rise in the number of mortgage defaults could wipe out their capital. Under the bailout’s terms, the Treasury has a right to seize 79.9 per cent stakes in both for a nominal sum. Yesterday, Freddie’s shares fell 6 cents to 67c and Fannie’s shares fell 8c to 54c. Since the US Government took control, the two groups’ shares have fallen more than 90 per cent.

In a fresh sign that the Bush Administration’s final weeks are being dictated by the incoming Obama team, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposed yesterday to use $24 billion in government funding to help 1.5 million American households to avoid foreclosure. The source of the money, however, is in dispute. FDIC officials want to use part of the $700 billion banking bailout, but the Treasury is opposed to the idea.

--------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Gold may spike to $2,000 in medium term

Watch CNBC video here

----------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Iran switches reserves to gold

The march away from the dollar continues...

Iran switches reserves to gold: report
Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:14am EST

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has converted financial reserves into gold to avoid future problems, an adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in comments published on Saturday, after the price of oil fell more than 60 percent from a peak in July.

Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, is under U.N. and U.S. sanctions over its disputed nuclear programme and is now also facing declining revenue from its oil exports after crude prices tumbled.

"With the plans of the presidency...the country's money reserves were changed into gold so that we wouldn't be faced with many problems in the future," presidential adviser Mojtaba Samareh-Hashemi was quoted as saying by business daily Poul.

He gave no figures or other details.

Before oil prices plunged by more than 60 percent from a peak of $147 per barrel in July, Iran made windfall gains from its crude exports and in April estimated its foreign exchange reserves at about $80 billion.

Iranian officials in July denied reports Iranian banks were moving funds from Europe, with one report suggesting as much as $75 billion had been withdrawn and converted into gold or placed in Asian banks, because of a threat of tightening sanctions.

The International Monetary Fund said in August that if the price of Iranian crude fell to $75 a barrel, Iran would face a current account deficit in the medium term that would be tough to sustain due to Tehran's financial isolation.

On Friday, U.S. crude fell $1.20 at $57.04.

Gold futures ended more than 5 percent higher on Friday and bullion ended the week about $10 higher compared with its last Friday's close of $735.95 as investors covered short positions.

(Reporting by Zahra Hosseinian; Writing Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Jan Dahinten)

-----------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

G20 Summit Commentary by Ron Paul

Chinese Gold Rush could tip the scales

This could move the gold market in a big way.

Gold rush

The mainland is seriously considering a plan to diversify more of its massive foreign-exchange reserves into gold, a person familiar with the situation told The Standard.

Benjamin Scent
The Standard

Friday, November 14, 2008

The mainland is seriously considering a plan to diversify more of its massive foreign-exchange reserves into gold, a person familiar with the situation told The Standard.

Beijing is considering changing its asset allocations during the financial tsunami in order to build up gold reserves "in a big way," the source said.

China's fears about the long-term viability of parking most of its reserves in US government bonds were triggered by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's US$700 billion (HK$5.46 trillion) bailout plan, which may make the US budget deficit balloon to well over US$1 trillion this fiscal year.

The US government will fund the bailout by printing new money or issuing huge amounts of new debt, either of which will put severe pressure on the value of the greenback and on government bond yields.

The United States holds 8,133.5 tonnes of gold reserves valued at US$188.23 billion. China holds gold reserves of just 600 tonnes, worth only US$13.89 billion.

Beijing's reserves could easily go up to 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes, Tanrich Futures senior vice president Colleen Chow Yin-shan said.

Until now, the United States has had little choice but to issue massive amounts of debt to fund its deficits, and China has had little choice but to purchase it, as there are not many markets deep enough to absorb the mainland's US$30 billion to US$40 billion in monthly capital inflows.

Government officials involved in the management of China's reserves are beginning to see gold as an attractive place to park some of these funds. They see it as a real, tangible asset that will not lose its value over time - in stark contrast to the greenback, which is becoming more disconnected from economic realities as more bills are printed.

"It's the right time to increase the gold reserves, as the price is about US$710 to US$720 per ounce," said Wan Guoli, vice secretary general of the China Gold Association.

The International Monetary Fund has made reducing global payment imbalances one of its priorities in the aftermath of the financial tsunami.

"I think China probably will expand its strategic reserves into commodities during this downturn," said a Hong Kong-based strategist.

"China will continue to buy treasuries ... otherwise the system would get distorted," he said.

"But I think China will diversify its reserves."

---------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Russia's financial crisis is getting worse

How do you say "devaluation" in Russian?

Russia's financial crisis is getting worse

By Polya Lesova, MarketWatch
Last update: 4:03 p.m. EST Nov. 12, 2008

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Russia's financial crisis is looking bleaker every day.

As if tumbling oil and equity prices, capital flight, bank troubles and political risk weren't enough, the Russian markets now face the increasing risk of large ruble devaluation.

In Moscow on Wednesday, dollar-denominated equities extended their precipitous slide, falling 12.5% and forcing the RTS stock exchange to halt trading once again.

Over the last two days, the RTS index has plunged 22%. It is down a whopping 72% year-to-date, making it the worst performer among major global emerging markets.

The Micex stock exchange didn't open at all Wednesday after trading was halted in the previous session because of a 13% slide in share prices.

In New York trading, the Market Vectors Russia ETF tumbled 22%.

The latest plunge in equity prices comes as the Russian central bank allowed Tuesday the ruble to weaken 1% against its dual currency basket for the first time since September. Read more.

"We're observing what's going on with concern and we're hoping that it won't spiral out of control," said Jack Dzierwa, global strategist at U.S. Global Investors, commenting on the latest turmoil in Russian markets.

Fears of ruble devaluation "are currently adding to this uncertainty we're seeing," Dzierwa said. "This is having a dampening effect on equities. In order to understand Russia, you really have to look at the price of oil. It all really comes down to the falling price of oil."

Oil prices have tumbled from a record high above $140 a barrel to below $60 barrel currently, exposing the vulnerability of Russia's resource-dependent economy.

Ruble devaluation ahead?

Strategists at RBC Capital Markets said that Tuesday's ruble weakness will likely be followed by a further 1% to 2% devaluation over the next one to two months and an increasingly possible 20% plus maxi-devaluation at some point in 2009.

"We see little prospect of deepening negative capital and current account trends reversing anytime soon," said emerging-market strategists at RBC Capital Markets. "We question the CBR's [central bank of Russia] willingness to further materially run down its foreign exchange reserves trying to defend its currency."

Even though the country's international reserves are still relatively high at $485 billion, they have tumbled by $112 billion since their August peak.

Private capital outflows from Russia are estimated at between $110 billion and $140 billion since August, totaling a massive $50 billion in October alone, according to RBC Capital Markets.

"The crucial point will be fears of more devaluation and, even worse, fears over capital controls."

— Lars Rasmussen, Danske Bank

In a move aimed at reducing inflation and stemming capital flight, Russia's central bank raised several key interest rates by 100 basis points late Tuesday, bringing the key overnight repo rate to 8% and the refinancing rate to 12%.
Referring to the rate hikes, currency strategists at Brown Brothers Harriman said that" the Russian policy response seems particularly obtuse."

The strategists noted that Russia is one of the few countries that are hiking interest rates as the global economy is projected to fall into a deep recession.

Lars Rasmussen, an analyst at Danske Bank, said that the high repo rates are unlikely to be very effective in stopping capital flight, but are a step in the right direction in terms of fighting inflation.

"All eyes will rather be focused on if/when the CBR [central bank of Russia] allows for another widening of the [ruble] trading band," Rasmussen said. "The crucial point will be fears of more devaluation and, even worse, fears over capital controls."

More ruble weakness in the short term could be "very toxic" for Russian markets, but it seems inevitable considering declining oil prices, he said.

Polya Lesova is a New York-based reporter for MarketWatch.

----------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Fed refuses to tell you where they spent your money

Why do you think they are hiding this info? Because, if it saw the light of day, the dollar would collapse.

Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose (Update2)

By Mark Pittman, Bob Ivry and Alison Fitzgerald

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

``The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that's a big problem,'' said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. ``In a liquid market, this wouldn't matter, but we're not. The market is very nervous and very thin.''

Bloomberg News has requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.

The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

``It's your money; it's not the Fed's money,'' said billionaire Ted Forstmann, senior partner of Forstmann Little & Co. in New York. ``Of course there should be transparency.''

Federal Reserve spokeswoman Michelle Smith declined to comment on the loans or the Bloomberg lawsuit. Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis didn't respond to a phone call and an e-mail seeking comment.

President-elect Barack Obama's economic adviser, Jason Furman, also didn't respond to an e-mail and a phone call seeking comment from Obama. In a Sept. 22 campaign speech, Obama promised to ``make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people's business.''

The Fed's lending is significant because the central bank has stepped into a rescue role that was also the purpose of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailout plan -- without safeguards put into the TARP legislation by Congress.

Total Fed lending topped $2 trillion for the first time last week and has risen by 140 percent, or $1.172 trillion, in the seven weeks since Fed governors relaxed the collateral standards on Sept. 14. The difference includes a $788 billion increase in loans to banks through the Fed and $474 billion in other lending, mostly through the central bank's purchase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds.

Sept. 14 Decision

Before Sept. 14, the Fed accepted mostly top-rated government and asset-backed securities as collateral. After that date, the central bank widened standards to accept other kinds of securities, some with lower ratings. The Fed collects interest on all its loans.

The plan to purchase distressed securities through TARP called for buying at the ``lowest price that the secretary (of the Treasury) determines to be consistent with the purposes of this Act,'' according to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the law that covers TARP.

The legislation didn't require any specific method for the purchases beyond saying mechanisms such as auctions or reverse auctions should be used ``when appropriate.'' In a reverse auction, bidders offer to sell securities at successively lower prices, helping to ensure that the Fed would pay less. The measure also included a five-member oversight board that includes Paulson and Bernanke.

At a Sept. 23 Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington, Paulson called for transparency in the purchase of distressed assets under the TARP program.

`We Need Transparency'

``We need oversight,'' Paulson told lawmakers. ``We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.''

At a joint House-Senate hearing the next day, Bernanke also stressed the importance of openness in the program. ``Transparency is a big issue,'' he said.

The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks, which gave the Fed collateral in the form of equities and debt, including subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed Web site. The borrowers have included the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Banks oppose any release of information because it might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group.

Frank Backs Fed

``You have to balance the need for transparency with protecting the public interest,'' Talbott said. ``Taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going, but one piece of information standing alone could undermine public confidence in the system.''

The nation's biggest banks, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, declined to comment on whether they have borrowed money from the Fed. They received $120 billion in capital from the TARP, which was signed into law Oct. 3.

In an interview Nov. 6, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said the Fed's disclosure is sufficient and that the risk the central bank is taking on is appropriate in the current economic climate. Frank said he has discussed the program with Timothy F. Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a possible candidate to succeed Paulson as Treasury secretary.

``I talk to Geithner and he was pretty sure that they're OK,'' said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. ``If the risk is that the Fed takes a little bit of a haircut, well that's regrettable.'' Such losses would be acceptable, he said, if the program helps revive the economy.

`Unclog the Market'

Frank said the Fed shouldn't reveal the assets it holds or how it values them because of ``delicacy with respect to pricing.'' He said such disclosure would ``give people clues to what your pricing is and what they might be able to sell us and what your estimates are.'' He wouldn't say why he thought that information would be problematic.

Revealing how the Fed values collateral could help thaw frozen credit markets, said Ron D'Vari, chief executive officer of NewOak Capital LLC in New York and the former head of structured finance at BlackRock Inc.

``I'd love to hear the methodology, how the Fed priced the assets,'' D'Vari said. ``That would unclog the market very quickly.''

TARP's $700 billion so far is being used to buy preferred shares in banks to shore up their capital. The program was originally intended to hold banks' troubled assets while markets were frozen.

AIG Lending

The Bloomberg lawsuit argues that the collateral lists ``are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression.''

The Fed has lent at least $81 billion to American International Group Inc., the world's largest insurer, so that it can pay obligations to banks. AIG today said it received an expanded government rescue package valued at more than $150 billion.

The central bank is also responsible for losses on a $26.8 billion portfolio guaranteed after Bear Stearns Cos. was bought by JPMorgan.

``As a taxpayer, it is absolutely important that we know how they're lending money and who they're lending it to,'' said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia- based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Ratings Cuts

Ultimately, the Fed will have to remove some securities held as collateral from some programs because the central bank's rules call for instruments rated below investment grade to be taken back by the borrower and marked down in value. Losses on those assets could then be written off, partly through the capital recently injected into those banks by the Treasury.

Moody's Investors Service alone has cut its ratings on 926 mortgage-backed securities worth $42 billion to junk from investment grade since Sept. 14, making them ineligible for collateral on some Fed loans.

The Fed's collateral ``absolutely should be made public,'' said Mark Cuban, an activist investor, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team and the creator of the Web site BailoutSleuth.com, which focuses on the secrecy shrouding the Fed's moves.

The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net; Bob Ivry in New York at bivry@bloomberg.net; Alison Fitzgerald in Washington at afitzgerald2@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 10, 2008 15:08 EST

-------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

More Bank Runs

People are jumping from bank to bank but what they don't realize is that the new bank is probably just as bad off as the old bank.

Latvia mulling IMF loan as crisis sweeps Nordic region

Latvia has been forced to bail out its second largest bank over the weekend and may soon need a rescue by the International Monetary Fund as the financial crisis engulfs the Baltic region, and much of Scandinanvia.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 8:17AM GMT 10 Nov 2008
Telegraph

Premier Ivars Godmanis stunned the country by announcing that Parex banka had been half-nationalised in an attempt to head off a serious crisis in the face of escalating capital flight from the country.

"We have to do everything to avoid trouble, not only for specific banks, but for the banking system as a whole," he said.

Mr Godmanis said Latvia was examining a raft of measures to rescue the economy, including possible aid from the IMF and European Union. Iceland, Hungary, and Ukraine have already obtained loans for the IMF.

Latvia is facing a brutal recession after years of torrid credit growth and one of the most extreme property bubbles in Eastern Europe. The economy contracted by 4.2pc in the third quarter.

House prices have fallen 21pc over the last year, according to Global Property Guide. The swing from boom to bust has been made worse by heavy use of mortgages in euros, Swiss francs, and yen.

The rating agencies have rushed through a spate of downgrades in recent days for the Baltic trio of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, warning that heavily reliance on short-term foreign funding has left them dangerously exposed to the global squeeze.

"If the situation were to worsen, Latvia could be forced to seek balance-of-payments support from the EU or the International Monetary Fund," said Kenneth Orchard, senior analyst at Moody's

"The global liquidity crisis will probably cause a shock to the Latvian banking system, which will reverberate throughout the rest of the economy. Unless there are major improvements in the European syndicated loan market by early 2009, the government will be forced to take remedial action."

Oskars Firmanus, head of the Latvian consultancy Paus Konsults, said the Parex rescue had badly shaken depositors in Riga. "It has come as a big surprise. The bank has been very secretive and did not tell anybody there was a problem. People have been lining on the streets over the weekends trying to get their money out of ATM machines," he said.

Swedish banks have large exposure to the Baltic market, adding to their woes as the industrial downturn hits Scandinavia.

The IMF warned in a recent report that the Baltic operations of Stockholm's banks "could cause a credit crunch in Sweden itself" if the closure of the wholesale capital markets continues for much longer. Total lending to Eastern Europe by Swedish banks is equal to 25pc of the country's GDP.

Swedbank dominates lending in Latvia and Estonia, while SEB is the biggest lender to Lithuania. The share price of the two banks have fallen by 70pc from their peak.

-----------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Economics in One Lesson

One of the most lucid books on understanding basic economics is Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Another is Understanding the Dollar Crisis by Percy L. Greaves, Jr.

Now the only challenge is to get the politicians to read them!

A Recipe for the Next Great Depression

A Recipe for the Next Great Depression

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Along with the ascendancy of the Democratic Party to control of the executive and legislative branches of government has come the repetition of the tired, old mantra of an alleged need for a "new New Deal." God help us. The original New Deal unequivocally made the Great Depression much worse, and much longer-lasting, than it would otherwise have been.

One of the most readable expositions of why the New Deal was an economic debacle is Jim Powell’s book, FDR’s Folly. It summarizes more than a half century of economic research on the actual effects of the New Deal and presents the results in a very readable, conversational style that is suitable to a general reading audience. And every bit of it is being studiously ignored by the powers that be in Washington. After his voluminous survey of the ill effects of New Deal interventionism Powell concludes with "lessons for today." Every one of these lessons is not only being ignored by Washington policymakers, but the policy proposals coming out of Washington are ominously structured to do exactly the opposite of what Powell suggests.

Lesson Number One is that "the basic problem with central banks is that like socialist economic planners, they can never have more than a fraction of the vast knowledge needed to make a society work, knowledge that is dispersed in the minds of millions of people. In addition, when central bankers make mistakes – as they inevitably will, since they’re human beings – these mistakes harm not just the economy in a city or a region but the entire country. The Fed’s response to the current economic crisis, which it created by creating the housing bubble, has been to declare more and more central planning powers for itself."

Lesson Number Two is that "deposit insurance must be priced to reflect the risks of the banks that buy it. Having the federal government provide deposit insurance inevitably introduced political pressures to offer deposit insurance at the same price for all banks, which meant subsidized banks engaged in risky practices and contributed to the instability of the banking system." The federal government recently expanded the coverage of federal deposit insurance, thereby guaranteeing more excessively risky lending in the future.

Lesson Number Three is, "Especially because taxes are the biggest burden millions of people face today, it’s crucial to cut taxes. Tax cuts mean expanding economic liberty . . ." President-elect Obama is promising punitive taxes on the most productive people in America – higher income families and investors and savers, combined with government handouts that he mislabels as "tax cuts" for people who don’t even pay income taxes.

Lesson Number Four is "efforts to ‘soak the rich’ will backfire, because the investments of the rich are needed to create jobs." If Obama’s campaign and, indeed, his entire political career, has been about anything it has been about soaking the rich and "redistributing" income and wealth through the tax system.

Lesson Number Five is "public works and other ‘jobs’ programs must be avoided because they increase the cost and burden of government, making it more difficult for the private sector to function." All of Washington is foaming at the mouth over the prospect of more pork-barrel spending, laughingly labeled "stimulus package."

Lesson Number Six is that "especially during a recession or depression, the government must not enact laws preventing prices from adjusting to circumstances. Prices are vital signals that help people decide what to produce and consume." The government has been doing exactly the opposite. Stopping prices from adjusting to realistic levels is the whole intent of the Fed’s policies as well as the Wall Street Plutocrat Bailout Bill.

Lesson Number Seven is that "government must not enact laws preventing wages from adjusting to circumstances . . . . Labor union monopolies have been major obstacles to adjusting wages." One of the first orders of business for the Obama administration will be to strengthen labor union monopolies by passing a law that prohibits secret ballot voting in union certification elections.

Lesson Number Eight is, "only if investors feel private property is secure will they be willing to make long-term financial commitments needed to spur recovery and boost employment." The government has been busy charging businesses that have simply gone bankrupt with crimes, promising more of the same, placing price controls on executive pay, increasing the taxation of investment with higher capital gains taxes, and generally demonizing the entire American capitalist system as a means of shifting the blame for the economic crisis that its own stupid policies have created.

In other words, everything going on in Washington today is a recipe for another Great Depression.

November 11, 2008

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book, Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today, will be published on October 21.

Copyright © 2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute

------------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Gimme, gimme, gimme

Everyone wants a bail out from Uncle Sam. The line seems to be getting pretty long...too bad the government is going to destroy the currency (and the lives of millions) in the process. Go back and read our strategy if you want to survive this madness!

American Express gets bank-holding company nod

By Lisa Twaronite, MarketWatch
Last update: 6:58 p.m. EST Nov. 10, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- American Express Co. got approval from the Federal Reserve Board to form a bank-holding company, the central bank said late Monday.

In becoming a holding company, the credit-card giant would get access to the Federal Reserve's emergency-lending facilities, but also will be subject to greater scrutiny by regulators.

The U.S. central bank said that both American Express and its affiliate American Express Travel Related Services are approved to form bank-holding companies, as the Amex group converts its Salt Lake City -based American Express Centurion Bank into a full bank.

The Fed waived the normal 30-day waiting period on the application.

"In light of the unusual and exigent circumstances affecting the financial markets and all other facts and circumstances, the board has determined that emergency conditions exist that justify expeditious action on this proposal in accordance with the provisions of the [Bank Holding Company] Act and the board's regulations," the Fed said.

"The record indicates that consummation of the proposal would create a stronger and more diversified financial-services organization and would provide the current and future customers of Amex, Amex Travel and Amex Thrift with expanded financial products and services," the Fed wrote in its approval. "[B]ased on all the facts of record, the board has concluded that consummation of the proposal can reasonably be expected to produce public benefits that would outweigh any likely adverse effects."

American Express said last month that it would cut 10% of its staff, suspending management salary increases and instituting a hiring freeze, as well as take a pretax restructuring charge of up to $440 million against fourth-quarter results to cover layoff expenses.

Earlier in October, the company said that quarterly net income fell 24% as it set aside more money to cover bad loans. Net income came in at $815 million, or 70 cents a share, compared with $1.07 billion or 90 cents a share a year earlier. Income from continuing operations was $861 million, or 74 cents a share, in the latest quarter, Amex reported.

In September, Wall Street was transformed when investment banks Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group received Fed approval to convert to bank-holding companies.

Lisa Twaronite reports for MarketWatch from San Francisco.

-------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Revolution Calling

Got no love for politicians
Or that crazy scene in D.C.
It's just a power mad town
But the time is ripe for changes
There's a growing feeling
That taking a chance on a new kind of vision is due

I used to trust the media
To tell me the truth, tell us the truth
But now I've seen the payoffs
Everywhere I look
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?

Revolution calling
Revolution calling
Revolution calling you
[There's a] Revolution calling
Revolution calling
Gotta make a change
Gotta push, gotta push it on through

-[song lyrics from "Revolution Calling" by Queensryche]


When do you say "Enough is enough!"?

Yet Another GM Bailout

Daily Article by Briggs Armstrong | Posted on 11/10/2008

General Motors has once again approached the federal government with its hand out. It should not be forgotten that in September of 2008, Congress gave the "big three" automakers a loan totaling $25 billion. Now they are back. This time they say that with a mere $50 billion they can turn things around and become profitable in the future. The management of GM and Ford as well as the UAW have been meeting with Nancy Pelosi to arrange a deal. GM claims that if the government does not give them the money they demand it will spell doom for the company and thus the entire US economy.

Let's consider the impact of GM ceasing to exist — highly unlikely even if they declare bankruptcy. Hypothetically, GM would close its doors and all 266,000 workers would be unemployed, never to find work again, or so GM would have the public believe. GM maintains that it is really in the best interest of the country and economy to continue to support their failing business model. After all, in what kind of a world would the government allow a company that employs 266,000 workers to fail?

Descending into an abstract economics lesson about shifting resources to marginally more productive activities may be ineffective; therefore, I will approach this issue from a more philosophical angle.

The basis of GM's claim is essentially that they are too big or too important to fail due to their massive labor force. But how massive is their labor force relative to other American companies? It may be surprising that the following companies employ a larger number of workers than GM: Target, AT&T, GE, IBM, McDonalds, Citigroup, Kroger, Sears, and Wal-Mart. It is also worth noting that Home Depot, United Technologies, and Verizon all employ nearly as many workers as GM.

The question must be posed: Should the government bail out all 12 of these companies and, if so, at what cost? I doubt that if Wal-Mart, with their 2.1 million employees, went to the government or the American people and demanded a bailout that they would receive much sympathy, let alone money. But if we are going to base worthiness of bailout on number of employees alone, then Wal-Mart is almost 7 times more worthy than GM.

(I have largely neglected Ford, whose executives are also demanding a bailout. I believe that it is enough to simply state that Abercrombie & Fitch employs almost 7,000 more workers than does Ford. Would the failure of Abercrombie & Fitch's threaten the economy? I think not.)

It is unethical to force taxpayers to pay billions of dollars in order to bail out a company with a failing business model. After all, they cannot even claim, as banks did, that it is an industry-wide problem. Because if it were industry-wide, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Volkswagen, etc. would all be joining their American counterparts on Capitol Hill with their collective hands out.

For years GM and Ford have produced a product that consumers do not value as much as the product provided by their competitors. Rather than changing their products or business model, they instead spent small fortunes on lobbyists. If the government does bail out GM, rest assured that this will not be the last time. But even if the government gives GM a check every week, there will come a time when no amount of government money will be enough to save them.

What is the best solution? In a word, bankruptcy. By filing for bankruptcy protection, GM can escape the death grip the UAW has on the business. Bankruptcy would allow for restructuring on an unprecedented scale. There is a good chance that a highly competitive company could rise from the ashes of what we today call GM. Even if GM itself was unable to survive bankruptcy, the resources freed from its grasp could be hugely beneficial to other automotive companies that make products that American consumers value more. As taxpayers, we have a right to object to this misuse of our money.

Briggs Armstrong is a student at Auburn University majoring in accounting and minoring in finance.

----------

Fed, Treasury revamp AIG support
New package unveiled as insurance giant posts $24.5 billion quarterly loss

By Sam Mamudi & Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
Last update: 10:20 a.m. EST Nov. 10, 2008

New York (MarketWatch) -- The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury have brought new powers to bear as they restructure government support for American International Group, the insurance giant taken over on Sept. 16.

The new plan unveiled Monday calls for the Treasury to invest $40 billion in preferred shares of New York-based AIG and for the Fed to create two new lending facilities to help AIG remove toxic assets from its balance sheet.

The government's announcement signals a shift away from the original plan -- an $85 billion loan to AIG, the amount of which was later increased to $123 billion. The new plan also contains a $60 billion loan.

Senior Fed officials said that the new plan is possible because of broader powers granted the government -- to buy shares in companies and purchase toxic assets -- as part of October's sweeping bailout package. - full story

---------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Watch Your Retirement Account

This is serious...

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs

By Karen McMahan
Carolina Journal Online

November 04, 2008

RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.”

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.”

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.”

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan.” She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.”

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government” was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”

Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said.

“Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.”

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.

Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.”

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

“The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.

-----------------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver