Pages

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Is Anyone Actually Bothering to Fact-Check the Fed’s Claims?

The primary reason Bernanke claims to be engaging in QE at all is to keep interest rates low to sustain the housing market (and allegedly help the economy).

However, even a cursory look at the situation shows he is either lying or somehow manages to monitor the US monetary system WITHOUT actually ever look at price levels. Either one of those options is enough to give you a chill… and illustrate beyond doubt that he is unqualified for the position he holds.

Indeed, were Bailout Ben to bother opening a stockcharts account or looking at Yahoo! Finance occasionally, he’d see that Treasuries actually have FALLEN (pushing interest rates higher) whenever he announced a QE program.


As you can see, back in March 2009, when the first QE program was announced, long-term US debt traded at 130. When QE 1 was announced, long-term US debt levels FELL (pushing interest rates higher), they then traded in a range from 115-122 until April 2010 when QE 1 ended.

The same thing happened with the announced of QE lite and QE 2. Indeed, the only time that Treasuries actually RALLIED (lowering long-term interest rates) was from April-August 2010: the ONLY time that the Fed hasn’t maintained a public QE program in the last 18 months.

Again, how on earth does no one in Congress or elsewhere call Bernanke on this? It’s obvious to ANYONE who bothers looking at US Treasuries that QE fall whenever Bernanke implements QE. Is it really possible that NO ONE in a position of power actually bothers checking on this stuff? I mean, if we’re going to allow the guy to throw TRILLIONS of Dollars around, surely someone should bother engaging in minor fact checking like… or I don’t know, seeing if his claims are actually even VALID.

The same goes for his and president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York William Dudley claims that QE will help the US unemployment situation. Even according to the BLS’s ridiculous numbers, the unemployment rate when QE 1 started was 8.5% with 13.2 million unemployment, compared to today’s rate of 9.6% with 14.8 million unemployed.

How on earth can anyone with a working brain claim that the $1.25+ trillion we’ve already spent on QE was helpful to employment when both the RATE and the actual NUMBER of unemployed Americans have risen dramatically since QE was first implemented?

In plain terms, the only way Bernanke’s claims regarding QE’s success are valid is if you present the argument that both interest rates and unemployment would have been a whole lot worse without QE. That’s a pretty piss poor argument for spending nearly $2 trillion.

After all, if you’re going to resort to abstractions when it comes to justifying spending INSANE amounts of money, there’s literally no end to the craziness you can come up with. According to this logic, the Fed could literally print $2 trillion and give it to Wall Street and claim that it helped the economy when it fact it did nothing but return Wall Street bonuses to 2007 levels.

Oh wait… it already did that.

Conservative Affirmative Action

I believe that people should be judged on their abilities alone. I admire people of all persuasions who do well at their chosen path. Mostly I am talking about people's ability to do a job well. Be they in business, be they a bureaucrat, be they a lawyer, doctor, or architect, be they warriors, be they athlete, artist, writer, scientist, teacher, or politician (well not many of those). I don't wish to sound too high-flying here because there are many economists, activists, socialist, and progressives whom I don't respect though they may be considered to be doing well what they do. I don't like them for what they do. To avoid being criticized by the nit-pickers for minor chinks in my broad statement, no I don't like dictators, criminals, and crazy fundamentalists, Et cetera.
In other words I believe in meritocracy, the kind of thing that de Tocqueville admired about America, one of the things that has contributed to our greatness as a people. I don't care for people who are proponents of mediocrity at almost any level of our society. Or those that get ahead by political pull, or nepotism, or criteria other than competency. Or those who discriminate against other because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference, physical disability, thus not giving people who may be competent a chance to demonstrate what they can do.
This article isn’t about Dancing With The Stars or Bristol Palin. It’s about meritocracy, the conservative movement, and Sarah Palin. I don't watch this show, but I have to start with Bristol.
It is with regret that I must disapprove of Rush Limbaugh on his glee at the support Bristol Palin received by the phone-in audience which resulted in a superior dancer, Brandy, being kicked off "Dancing With The Stars." His glee related to his belief that the callers were mostly conservative Sarah Palin supporters and "Tea Party activists" and that "liberals" and "Progressives" were outraged by this turn of events. He believes that the majority of Americans are supporters of Mrs. Palin and anything they can do to irritate liberals and the "drive-by-media" is a good thing.
While it is difficult to disagree with the irritating liberals part, I believe he does a disservice to the conservative cause. Bristol Palin is clearly a mediocre dancer and Brandy was clearly a fine dancer. This is not about Mr. Limbaugh, whom I respect, it's about people supporting mediocrity for ideological reasons. It's not right. It is a kind of conservative affirmative action whereby people of lesser abilities are given support and credence though they are clearly unqualified.
I believe Mrs. Palin is a mediocre politician and generally uniformed and ignorant of the reasons behind the ideals she espouses, but that she gets paid a lot of money to say them as the Mama Grizzly to her fans. Many of my readers were unhappy with my recent criticism of Mrs. Palin. I've lost a few readers but actually have gained quite a few more as a result. Now that I am being critical of Mr. Limbaugh as well, I suppose I'll lose some readers and gain even more. Whatever.
I think my real point is that if we conservatives and libertarians are willing to accept mediocre leaders and politicians, then we will lose ground to the left and yield the field to the Obama Regressives. We do need charismatic, articulate, intelligent, and informed leaders. I believe Mrs. Palin gives us charisma and she reads speeches well, but she is avoiding tough interviews. She has demonstrated that she is mediocre, uninformed, and cannot well articulate or argue the issues underlying complex ideals which guided our Founders.
By setting the bar too low, and opening our arms to Mrs. Palin we will get what we deserve. I think even George W. Bush is more competent than Mrs. Palin, and he trashed the Republican Party and turned into to a movement of conservative Christian social values instead of traditional Republican values.
I believe such affirmative action shows that we are failing to live up to ideals that made this country great, which is to support people of merit and ability who support, understand, and can be effective advocates of our ideas of freedom, free market capitalism, individualism, and tolerance. I intensely dislike Mr. Obama's politics, economics, and general world view. But the guy is bright and articulate and can think on his feet, even if his world view is entirely wrong for America. He is persuasive, but he falls on his ideas. I am not suggesting we support losers like Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Al Gore or Michael Dukakis. But I think we need the whole package. I believe we need to demand higher standards of our politicians and not settle for mediocrity.
Mrs. Palin said yesterday in unequivocal language that she is a candidate for the presidency. Personally I don't think she is serious. I believe it may be a tactic to keep her in front of the Republican Party, appear to be a power in the Party, and to enhance her status and appeal as a saleswoman for herself. Selling herself to America is something she does very well (see, "Sarah Palin's America") and you will see what I mean. I enjoyed the series and found her to be likeable, but that doesn't mean I would want her finger on the trigger or on the economy as my president.
But, in the off-chance that she would see it through to mounting a serious campaign for the presidency, then I believe that would be a big mistake for America's right wing to fall in behind her. Folks, we can do better than that. Demand excellence.

Guest Post: The Banality Of (Financial) Evil

The Banality Of (Financial) Evil
The financialized American economy and Central State are now totally dependent on a steady flow of lies and propaganda for their very survival. Were the truth told, the status quo would collapse in a foul, rotten heap.

Google's famous "don't be evil" is reversed in the American Central State and financial "industry": be evil, because everyone else is evil, too. In other words, lying, fraud, embezzlement, mispresentation of risk, material misrepresentation of facts, the cloaking of truth with half-truths, the replacement of statements of fact with propaganda and spin: these are not the work of a scattered handful of sociopaths: they represent the very essence and heart of the entire status quo.

Hannah Arendt coined the phrase the banality of evil to capture the essence of the Nazi regime in Germany: doing evil wasn't abnormal, it was normal. Doing evil wasn't an outlier of sociopaths, it was the everyday "job" of millions of people, Nazi Party members or not.

Not naming evil is the key to normalizing evil. Evil must first and foremost be derealized (a key concept in the Survival+ critique), detached from our realization and awareness by naming it something innocuous.

Here is a telling excerpt from the book Triumph of the Market:
Normalization of the unthinkable comes easily when money, status, power, and jobs are at stake.... Intellectuals will be dredged up to justify their (actions). The rationalizations are hoary with age: government knows best, ours is a strictly defensive effort, or, if it wasn't me somebody else would do it. There is also the retreat to ignorance, real, cultivated, or feigned.
Can any of the tens of thousands of people working on Wall Street or in the bowels of the Federal Reserve, Treasury, Pentagon, etc. truthfully claim they "didn't know it was wrong" to mislead the citizenry, the soldiers, the investors and the buyers of their fraud? On the contrary, every one of those tens of thousands of worker bees and managers knows full well the institution they toil for is doing evil simply by hiding the truth of its operations.

The entire status quo of the American Empire is built on lies.
Now the dependence on lies, fraud and misrepresentaion is complete; Wall Street and the Empire itself would fall if the truth were finally revealed and properly identified as evil.

Lying has been derealized; it is now the expected norm.
To tell the truth--on your resume, on your loan application, on your tax form, and about your own actions-- is now tainted and suspicious; the truth-teller is reviled as "putting on airs" of moral superiority, and they will be shunned and cut off by the liars around them.

Cheating on tests no longer carries any stain of ethical corruption; "everyone" cheats lest they fail to get into the university of their choice, the one that represents "the short cut" to a "good job" with excellent pay: yes, a job doing evil every day. But we no longer care about doing evil; we avoid it as a moral slaughterhouse we prefer not to see. Let the butchering of the moral heart of the nation be hidden from our delicate eyes and quivering guilty consciences.

The idea that we might not be able to buy the McMansion/auto/tattoo/toy we "deserve" enabled our killing of truth on the application.
Deprivation is a greater evil than the loss of personal integrity, and so hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans went along with the lie and sacrificed their integrity to support it, feed it, breathe life into it and then pass it on to the next liar.

So the mortgage applicant lied, and the mortgage broker lied by accepting a document he/she knew was false. And so the lie grew heavier as it passed from hand to hand, and the truth became lighter than air and floated away long before the falsified mortgage was originated, packaged, tranched and sold as a AAA "safe" investment.

We now say and vouch for whatever it necessary to "win," whatever "winning" is in a universe with no moral compass. When the entire system depends on the steady relentless flow of lies--from the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the Pentagon, the banks and Wall Street, the ratings agencies, the accounting depeartments, every nook and cranny of the American economy and empire--then no one is willing to sacrifice their own livelihood because they know it wouldn't stop anything. The machine would continue on, processing lies, fraud and propaganda, without them. but they would be outside the lucrative heart of darkness, and no longer able to buy their coveted McMansion/auto/tattoo/toy that defined who they are.

Integrity has become as light as the truth itself, and both have floated away, unnoticed and unmourned. Hannah Arendt wrote about the Great Evil, Nazi Germany, and "The Final Solution" of death camps. But the Nazi machine spewed plentiful opportunities to practice the banality of evil, and the death camps were simply one division of the daily grind of pressing one's palms on evil and passing it on to the next "good German."

Here is a memorial outside the village where my brother lives in France. It is a typical village, quite small, perhaps a few hundred residents. The memorial commemorates three young French civilians who were taken out and shot by Nazi soldiers, either for suspected "crimes" or as a "lesson" to the civilian populace.

The routine killing of civilians went on day after day; it was the "day job" of the occupying troops.

Americans toiling away in their various departments of evil excuse their complicity by telling themselves, "nobody died because I lied" (except in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who am I to stop what goes on there?). Hiding the truth carries no penalties or remorse because it is SOP now, standard operating procedure.

The moral slaughterhouse is filled with corpses.
We don't really know what our Central State is doing in the world, in the Mideast or Afghanistan. We also don't know what the Central State/Wall Street partnership is doing, either. Those inside know, of course, but very few are telling, because the see-saw is just so imbalanced in a system which depends on lies and the distortion of truth to continue its domination.

The truth-teller will lose their prestigious position, their generous salary and the acceptance of their peers. In exchange for this sacrifice, the truth-teller receives only the glowing, ephemeral shards of his/her integrity: in the American culture and economy, that literally has no value. The machine will grind on without them, impervious to the tiny pricks of truth; the machinery of propaganda, artifice, misdirection and misrepresentation is well-oiled and masterful in the reach and scope of its operation.

Lest you think this an exaggeration, please watch The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg was only one of thousands of "good Americans" doing their job in a war machine built entirely on lies and propaganda. Only one citizen out of those thousands, or tens of thousands, was willing to trade his career for his integrity and conscience.

That's how the banality of evil works. Maybe someday someone will break free of the culture of lies and propaganda in the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, Wall Street and the "too big to fail banks" and tell the truth. They will be hounded, discredited, scorned and reviled for telling the truth, and the truth will quickly be covered up or shredded.

That's how the banality of evil works. Truth has become too dangerous to the status quo, so it must be strangled every day, by tens of thousands of people, and its limp corpse hidden away.

Guest Post: Germany Unwittingly Adopts A Silver Standard Due to Soaring Price

Germany Unwittingly Adopts A Silver Standard Due to Soaring Price
Silver's sky-shot to a new 30-year high of $27.73 per ounce has led to a new phenomenon in Germany. For the first time in history it is theoretically possible to buy two last series of silver coins with a denomination of €10 and a silver content of 0.535 ounces for less than the silver equivalent. According to a report in German Daily "Welt" the soaring silver price has forced the German government to bring forward the starting time of sales of the 2 commemorative coins into October to save face. The coins now have a value of €10.66 but have to be sold at the denominated Euro value.
As this story is widely circulating in Germany it can be expected that these coins will be sold out by tomorrow.
Germany's time on a theoretical silver standard - the country was on a bi-metallic standard before the Weimar Republic in the 1920s - won't last long, though.
In order to counter soaring silver prices and keep the denominated value below the silver value the country has announced it will reduce the silver content to 10 grams or 0.3215 ounces in its commemorative silver coin line from January 2011.

Pentagon Can't Explain "Missile" Sighting, NORAD Believes It Is Not A Foreign Military Object

A crazy day in the markets closes, and one of the biggest non-market related stories still has no closure. As per the AP, nobody still has any clue what the "missile" sighting was. A suggestion being floated by the Pentagon is that this may have been a "private company." NORAD chimes in: "We can confirm that there is no threat to our nation, and from all indications this was not a launch by a foreign military." In other words, nobody knows nothing.

From AP:
Washington (AP) -- The Pentagon said Tuesday it was trying to determine if a missile was launched Monday off the coast of Southern California and, if so, who might have fired it.

Spokesmen for the Navy, Air Force, and other military organizations said they were looking into a video posted on the CBS News website that shows an object shooting across the sky and leaving a large contrail, or vapor trail, over the Pacific Ocean.

The video was shot by a KCBS helicopter, the station said Tuesday.

"Nobody within the Department of Defense that we've reached out to has been able to explain what this contrail is, where it came from," Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said.

Lapan said that "all indications" are that the Department of Defense was not involved within the mystery object, and that the contrail might have been created by something flown by a private company.

Normally any missile test would require notification so that mariners and pilots could be warned or air space closed, but that may not have been done in this case, Lapan said.

"It does seem implausible, and that's why at this point the operative term is 'unexplained'," he said. "Nobody ... within the Department of Defense that we've reached out to has been able to explain what this contrail is."

Missile tests are common off Southern California. Launches are conducted from vessels and platforms on an ocean range west of Point Mugu.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, issued a statement jointly with the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, saying that the contrail was not the result of a foreign military launching a missile. It provided no further details.

"We can confirm that there is no threat to our nation, and from all indications this was not a launch by a foreign military," the statement said. "We will provide more information as it becomes available."

NORTHCOM is the U.S. defense command and NORAD is a U.S.-Canadian organization charged with protecting the U.S.
from the threat of missiles or hostile aircraft.

Jim Rickards On Silver Margin Changes, Peter Schiff On A New World Gold Standard

A couple of luminaries share their perspectives on recent developments in the precious metal space. First, we have Jim Rickards sharing his thoughts on what today's Comex margin hike means for trading. And second, and just as important, is Peter Schiff, who grades WB president Robert Zoellick's call for a new gold standards, and its implications for the future. Both are as always insightful and enlightening.
Jim Rickards - Three’s Company, Silver Margin Change
There's been a lot of buzz about today's price action in gold and silver.  Beginning with the Monday push upwards based on the Zoellick op-ed in the Financial Times, the market surged upward through most of the day today and then hit a serious air pocket with gold falling 2% and silver falling almost 5% in a short period of time late in the trading day.

On a technical basis, there's nothing surprising about that; we've seen similar moves before and I expect to see them again.  The overall trend has been upward with higher highs and higher lows.  The market seems to find a strong bid at progressively higher levels even after sharp corrections.  Nothing too disturbing there and nothing to indicate that primary trends are not still intact.

What was noteworthy was the catalyst for the pullback, specifically an increase in margin requirements for silver futures contracts.  There was no comparable change in gold futures margin but as often happens in markets there was instantaneous contagion from silver to gold notwithstanding the different circumstances.  Again, no surprise that the markets correlate to a great extent even when the news only affects one market or the other.

This is a pointed reminder to the readers and listeners of King World News and something we have discussed before.  Most markets consist of two parties, the buyer and the seller.  But in futures markets there's a third party in every trade which is the exchange and more specifically the rule making bodies and margin setting panels on each exchange.  They act not in the best interests of buyers or sellers but in the best interests of the exchange itself and its statutory duty to maintain orderly markets.  Of course, the word "orderly" can be in the eye of the beholder.  What may be an "orderly" price spike to a long may be a "disorderly" rout to a short.  Either way, the exchange has the last word.  They have many tools at their disposal.  They can increase initial margin (what you put up when you open a contract) increase the frequency of variation margin (make you post intra-day instead of end of day) and require "trading for liquidation only" which means longs can go short and shorts can go long but no one can expand a position or increase the open interest.  Finally, an exchange can suspend physical delivery and allow offsets and rolls only.  All of these rules have been invoked many times and will be again.

(Continue reading here)
And Peter Schiff:
On Sunday, World Bank President Robert Zoellick wrote a remarkable article in the Financial Times of London. (FT subscribers, click here to read. Others, click here for a summary.) He called for a renegotiation of the global monetary order and - incredibly - the introduction of a new gold standard. In response, gold broke $1,400/oz on Monday.

This is a tremendous breakthrough for gold investors. For the head of the World Bank to make such a statement is unheard of in modern times. Among top bureaucrats and their economist friends in academia, the gold standard has always been a taboo - mostly because it prevents governments from using the "inflation tax" to finance military expeditions and entitlement programs. So, for such a high-ranking official to publicly express support for gold-backed currency, the dollar system must be nearing its end.

In fact, since the Fed's announcement last week of a new round of stimulus using $600 billion freshly printed dollars, world leaders from Brasilia to Tokyo have been protesting like never before.

This may be remembered as the moment the world rose up and said, "enough!"

While Zoellick danced around the edges of calling for a true gold standard, I believe that the transition is already taking place. Investors and foreign central banks are re-monetizing gold as they move their savings out of the dollar. In Zoellick's words: "Although textbooks may view gold as the old money, markets are using gold as an alternative monetary asset today." That's why gold is breaking one record after another, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

If gold were officially remonetized, the price would have to be about 47 times higher to pair central bank holdings with the assets of the global banking system (according to 2008 estimates from the McKinsey Global Institute). To look at it another way, central banks would be in the market for about 42.6 million ounces of gold to back up all the fiat money in circulation. Martin Wolf, columnist for the FT, asserted that a new gold standard "would generate huge windfall gains to holders of gold."

It has only been since 1971 that the world money system has functioned without a gold-backing. I believe this experiment is rapidly coming to a close. Commentators are right when they say there is no currency ready to take the dollar's place as the global reserve - but there is a metal with a great track record that has been waiting patiently in the bullpen.

It is hard say when the Fed's monetary Ponzi scheme will fall apart, but many of its biggest "investors" are wisening up. I strongly recommend preparing for a dollar collapse before it's too late. When the president of the Washington-based and Washington-funded World Bank speaks out against the dollar system, what more warning do you need?

Gonzalo Lira And The Boiling Frog: Effects Of QE2 On The Bottom 80% Of The U.S. Population

The Boiling Frog: Effects of QE2 On The Bottom 80% of the U.S. Population
An old metaphor: If you take a frog and drop it into a roiling pot of boiling water, it’ll jump right out, unscathed. But if you put that same frog in a pot of cold water, and then slowly raise the heat, that frog won’t move. It’ll stay in that pot of water, calm as can be, right up until it is boiled to death.
I’ve been arguing that the unpayable Federal government debt, coupled with irresponsible Federal Reserve policies, will inevitably lead to a hyperinflationary event and currency collapse. In order to prepare for a web seminar on hyperinflation in America, I’ve been looking at the issue of how to safeguard assets before a currency collapse, and how to identify opportunities in the midst of a hyperinflationary crisis.
 
But along the way—inevitably—it’s led me to consider the issue of the effects of hyperinflation on the American people. Not even hyperinflation—just regular old rising consumer prices: How will they affect the average household.

It’s disturbing.

Even if you don’t buy my hyperinflation call in the least—and a lot of very smart people don’t—the recently announced Quantitative Easing 2 policy of the Federal Reserve has had and will have a profound effect on the dollar.

And a profound effect on the American people—especially the bottom 80%.

Bernanke’s stated purpose in QE2 is to spark consumer spending, and thereby reignite the economy. To do this, Bernanke and the Fed will pump $600 billion into the Treasury bond market, in monthly $75 billion increments—at minimum. According to the Fed’s statement, if more “liquidity” is needed, then by golly, more liquidity will be pumped into the economy.
 
QE2 is really the official start of a race-to-the-bottom debasement of the U.S. dollar.

No one doubts this—and no one would dispute that such a currency debasement will bring about upward pressures on consumer prices across the board. Indeed, this is the explicit purpose of QE2: The Fed is trying to induce inflation, as it believes that inflation will bring about a reignition of the stagnant American economy.

A lot of commentators have been discussing what QE2 will mean for equities and the various bond markets. People are talking about the Treauries’ yield curve—but not much about what QE2 will mean for the rest of the American population: The middle class, the working poor, the poor, and even the upper-middle class.

So let’s give it a go:

Taking Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 2009, which can be found here, we can put together this simple chart of household incomes and expenditures for last year, divided by quintiles:
Data, from Bureau of Labor Statistics, can be found here.
Data in unadjusted U.S. dollars.
(A note on the data: Housing expenditures include mortgage payments or rents, utilities, and heating, including heating oil. Transportation data includes use of public transportation. Food includes “Food Away From Home”—a remarkably high proportion of expenditures, at 41% for the entire population, skewering to almost 50% for the top quintile, and almost 30% for the lowest quintile. The figure “% of Annual Expenditures” represents how much food, housing, clothing and transportation—the basic necessities—represents of the total expenditures of each quintile. The figure “% of Income” shows the basic necessities as percentages of after-tax income for each quintile.)

Now, it’s no trick to see that rising prices of basic necessities—as a result of plain vanilla Fed-induced inflation, and not the hyperinflation I am positing—will affect everyone: But especially the middle class, the working poor and the poor.

It would be nice if we could quantify that effect. But we can’t just input a hypothetical inflation rate, apply it to the data, and come out with a number expressing how much each percentage point of inflation will affect each quintile of the population.

We can’t because, as prices rise, people buy less of a necessity: Higher gas prices means people drive less. Higher food prices means people eat less, or less quality of food. Higher heating oil prices means people heat their homes at a lower temperature—or in some cases not at all.

But although we can’t easily quantify it, we can comfortably make certain claims about the effects of rising consumer prices on the population.

The first claim I would venture to make—and one that I don’t think will be particularly controversial—is this: Any household spending more than two-thirds of their after-tax income on food, housing, clothing and transportation will suffer an immediate, negative impact from the Fed’s efforts at induced inflation.

That covers pretty much the bottom three quintiles of American households. So 60% of the U.S. population will suffer an immediate effect of rising prices—the stated policy goal of Ben Bernanke’s QE2.

QE2 is having the immediate intended effect of pushing up asset prices, bouying up the financial sector—but it’s also pushing up commodity prices, which have been rising ever since QE2 was first toyed with as a policy option back in the spring.

Lag times may vary, but rising commodity prices inevitably translate into rising consumer prices for basic necessities on Main Street. QE2 is directly responsible for the rise in the last few weeks of all commodities. This will inevitably lead to higher consumer prices.

This inevitable effect of rising prices for the basic necessities gives lie to the stated goal that the Fed has of helping the American people by way of QE2. The policy is not helping—on the contrary: A minimum of 60% of the population will feel immediate, unavoidable pain directly as a result of QE2. They will spend more for basic necessities than they spent previously for them.

Or else, if they don’t spend more, they will consume less. This ought to be obvious: People who cannot afford to spend more on a necessity will instead consume less of it, be it food, gas, or heating oil.

So here’s Fed Lie Number 2: QE2 will not get the economy spending again—on the contrary, rising consumer prices brought about because of QE2’s pushing up commodity prices will insure that the population cuts back on consumption, even if in nominal terms they are spending the same, or even more.

The key assumption that I am making, of course, and which has to be made in any analysis of the effects of rising consumer prices across socio-economic groups, is that wages and salaries will either not rise, or will rise with a lag time of no less than six months.

This is an easy assumption for me to make: Even in the best of economic times, wages and salaries do not rise in lockstep with an expanding economy. And we are currently not in an expanding economy.

It is reasonable to assume that, during a period of steadily rising prices coupled with stagnant economic growth, wages and salaries will not rise for at least six months, if not longer. And of course, if unemployment were to rise above the current U-6 rate of 17%, then obviously aggregate wages and salaries would contract further—which would further aggravate the effects of the rising prices of basic necessities on the bottom 60% of the population for sure. If unemployment continues to rise, then that bottom 60% would begin to grow into the bottom 70% or 80%—maybe even hit the top quintile as well.

Wages are key. If inflation hit consumer prices as well as wages in equal measure, the net effect would be zero—which is more or less what you see in ordinary expansion-driven inflation, the kind prevalent in healthy economies: There are price pressures on commodities, which eventually translate into higher prices at the supermarket—but there are also price pressures on wages, as the economy in toto is expanding, and therefore bidding up scarce labor as it grows. In an expanding economy, prices might be rising—but wages are rising too, so no complaints.

However, in a stagnating or contracting environment—such as what we are experiencing now in the American economy—there are obviously no pressures on wages: If anything, there are downward pressures on wages and salaries.

So if commodity prices rise, people—especially the poor, the working poor, and the middle-class, but maybe even the upper-middle class—are really going to take a hit, as more of their after-tax income goes to paying for basic necessities.

Some people might think that the debasing of the dollar via QE2 will mean that the real cost of housing will fall, as rents and fixed mortgages will be undermined by inflation. They might think this is a good thing.

But this only makes sense if your earnings are absolute: If you’re boss is paying you in gold coins, or silver lingots. But if you live on a dollar income, especially a fixed income—as so many seniors do, let alone the average wage earner—even if your housing costs remain nominally static, rising food, transportation and clothing prices will still take bigger and bigger bites out of that dollar-based income. Please look at the last line of the above table—“Food, Clothing, Transportation as % of Income”—which I calculated precisely for this objection.
 
The only ones who won’t feel the pain of rising prices of basic necessities that bad is the top quintile—maybe. If they’re income comes predominantly from equities, maybe. If not, then they’re going to take the hit as well.

Way to go, Benny! Your QE2 is going to hit all five quintiles! Be proud!

As I have discussed in detail elsewhere, and which ought to be clear from my discussion in this post, Ben Bernanke and the fucking idiots at the Fed committed the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy with regards inflation: They seem to genuinely think that inflation begets growth, rather than understanding that growth begets inflation. (I don’t buy conspiracy theories that claim Benny and the Fed Fucktards are deliberately creating inflation to save the elite’s bacon—I think Benny and his Lollipop Gang are simply and genuinely stupid.) So he and his minions have started up QE2, hell bent on creating inflation in the American economy.

He seems to be succeeding, too.

According to Producer Price Index numbers, grains have risen 33% year over year, oil 20% year over year (both figures September-to-September, link is here). Ever since the idea of QE2 was floated back in May/June, commodities of all kinds have been steadily rising. And as of last week, when Quantitative Easing 2 was officially unleashed, commodity prices have surged even more—and will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Not just precious metals but grains, sugar, coffee, not to mention oil—they are all rising.

Anecdotally, there is increasing evidence that food prices at the supermarkets have been rising for some time. I do not live in the United States, but I’m in close contact with literally dozens of people, both friends and business associates. From casual conversations and long discussions, I’ve been hearing that supermarket prices are rising across the board, and have been rising since at least mid-spring—yet the price rises do not seem to be reflected in the CPI.

That’s because of how the CPI—the Consumer Price Index, the traditional (and official) metric of U.S. inflation—is calculated. It uses data from past years—currently the 2007 and 2008 consumer survey—to create a basket of products, goods and services, which it uses to calculate monthly price changes.

However, the CPI doesn’t slice the baloney fine: If a product-x that was sold in a 20 ounce package for $3.99 back in 2007 is now being sold in an 18 oz. package at the same price, CPI does not compute that there was an 11.1% inflation in the price of product-x. Rather, according to the CPI, there was zero price inflation in product-x—because it sold for the same price, regardless of whether the package was 10% smaller.

But this is exactly what seems to be happening in food, as well as in other categories of what one would consider basic necessities: Foodstuffs are being sold in smaller units, cotton clothing is now being sold for the same price, only made of synthetic materials, and so on. A recent blog post on Zero Hedge highlighted the specific case of coffee at WalMart, previously sold in a package of 39 oz. for $9.88, now being sold for $10.48—in a 33.9 oz package. This represents a 22% jump in price. Cases such as this are common, and cropping up like mushrooms on the web—enough to confirm that stealth inflation is happening, without needing to stop by John Williams’ Shadow Government Statistics.

This brings the obvious question: If food, transportation, clothing and housing prices rise, but the CPI doesn’t measure it—was there inflation?

This isn’t a Zen koan or Berkeley’s tree falling in the woods—this is real. So my answer is obvious: Yes.

But according to the Fed and to most of the economic commentariat (except for a few notable and distinguished exceptions), since the CPI is not rising, there is no inflation. At least not in theory. In practice? That’s something else.

So! What does this all mean?

It means that Americans are the frog in the metaphor. Between 60% and 80% of them—to be precise—are slowly being boiled alive. The bottom 60% to 80%, to be even more precise.

Because of QE2 in all its iterations—its rumor back in the spring, its announcement last week, its forthcoming implementation—prices for food, housing, clothing and transportation are rising, and will continue to rise as Bernanke’s policy works its magic on commodity prices, and eventually reaches the supermarkets.

The financial sectors might be pleased that their assets are being bouyed by this flood of money coming from the Eccles Building—but the rest of the population will be drowning.

It won’t be just the bottom two-thirds of the population that will feel the pain of QE2: The upper-middle class and even the top quintile will inevitably see more and more of their income going to pay for basic necessities, while their wages and salaries remain stagnant—assuming, of course, that they’re lucky enough to still have a job.
All the while, since the Consumer Price Index will be lagging or flat, the mainstream economists and the Fed drones will keep up a steady chant of, “There is no inflation! There is no inflation!”—even as a majority of the population feels the squeeze of rising prices for the basic necessities. It’ll be a lot like a bunch of cooks, standing around the boiling pot, saying to the poor frog, “It’s only cold water! Don’t worry! It’s still cold! Trust us!”

So like the frog in the metaphor, the bottom 60% of American households will be slowly boiled alive by rising prices—
 
—brought by QE2.

As I said, you don’t have to buy my hyperinflation call and currency collapse scenario to realize this effect of QE2. This effect of Bernanke’s policy is immediate, undeniable, and inevitable: QE2 will hurt a vast majority of the American population, while helping only a very, very few.

To this, I say: Yeay, Benny—way to help the American people. Way to fucking go.

Further Observations On The Parabolic Blow Off In Federal Compensation


Earlier, we pointed out that over the past five years (with an emphasis on the past two), government worker compensation has exploded. As the topic appears to have touched a nerve, and will shortly become the topic du jour across every radio and talk show, here are some additional observations on this parabolic blow off top of a different nature from ConfluentResearch.
Going Parabolic, it's not just the price of silver, by ConfluentResearch
Prices of precious metals are bumping against their all time highs. The price of silver, for instance, has recently hit its 30 year highs and has gone parabolic. But it's not just the price of silver that is going parabolic, as it turns out, so are government wages. Data from Moody's analytics are showing that total government expenditure on salaries and wages for federal employees has also skyrocketed as if going asymptotic. The data is comprised of total salaries and wages that were collected from 1983 through 2009.
Figure 1: Going parabolic

Source: Data provided by Moody's Analytics
There is increasing public scrutiny concerning the bloated compensation and benefits packages being handed out to federal employees as of late. Historically, federal employees receive more modest salaries relative to their private sector counterparts in exchange for job security and plush benefits. This has not been the case for the last few years, however.

A USA TODAY analysis of the data obtained from the Office of Personnel Management are also showing the same trends. In fact, at a time when pay and benefits have stagnated for most private sector workers, average compensation for federal employees has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Below is an excerpt from USA TODAY:

"Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade."
Figure 2: Analysis of government salaries and wages


Guest Post: Currency Wars And The Fed’s Demise

Currency Wars And The Fed’s Demise
The Federal Reserve has decided to buy US Treasury bills for  about US$ 600 billion in all, in monthly installments of about US$ 75 billion over eight months, until June 2011. However, this action will not achieve the desired goal of economic growth, nor will it change the US labour market, this according to most analysts and security traders surveyed by Bloomberg in its quarterly “Global Poll”. In fact, more than half of 1,030 experts who took part in the survey, expressed doubts about the Federal Reserve’s move. For more than 70 per cent of them, the Fed’s second round of quantitative easing (QE2[1]) is largely an attempt to adjust the exchange rate of the US dollar against other currencies. Thus, according to such set of views, the Federal Reserve (de facto but not de jure the US central bank) wants to redress the trading disadvantage US manufacturers have accumulated over the last few decades and cut the US trade deficit.
For many, the QE2 is seen aimed at contrasting by design those economies which have set their manufacturing structure upon an export-driven growth model. It is no accident that the sharpest critics of the Fed’s QE2 have come from China and Germany, both of which reiterated their positions at the recent G20 summit in Seoul, South Korea. The huge injection of liquidity in the US system conceals, in reality the  desire to manipulate the US dollar exchange rates, said Donald Tsang, president of the Executive Council of Hong Kong. For him the risks are much higher. "International investors should tighten their seat belts and get prepared for unprecedented turbulence in currency markets, bond markets, stock markets and the property market," said Tsang.
 The end result could be something similar to the Asian crisis of 1997 and 1998.
However, such criticism is too often self-serving in nature.
Currency wars and trade deficits: China’s QE
The US trade balance has been in negative territory since 1980 (picking up speed in 1985) against countries like Canada, Japan and Germany who have seen their trade surplus against Uncle Sam grow. The negative balance (for US goods) accelerated further in 1997, two years after China’s yuan was devalued, and customs duties began to be progressively removed, easing the way of Chinese products into the US market. The US trade balance, then, fell down the cliff when in December 2001 China joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the international body imposing regulations to world trade with the general aim to remove (or at least reduce) tariff barriers within a framework of binding agreements and treaties .
When it joined the WTO, China was allowed to keep a highly undervalued currency, as well as tight controls on capital movement and the exchange rate[2], as we had pointed out back in 2003. AsiaNews was one of the first media to estimate the yuan’s undervaluation (about 40-45 per cent) by using a specific reference point, i.e. its purchasing power parity exchange rate with the US dollar. In practice, we observed, the exemptions have “enabled China to maintain the devaluation at a [more or less] constant level as it was established by the Chinese monetary authorities on 1 January 1994.[3] We said it years ago, and little has changed since then.
China has been doing it for all these years what the Federal Reserve did on 3 November. It has artificially kept its currency below its (theoretical) market value, printed yuan and bought dollars (from Chinese exporters) in order to buy (so far) US Treasury securities. It is quantitative easing, Chinese- style, as Prof Morici shrewdly noted[4]. This has given Beijing the means to accumulate surpluses uninterruptedly and maintain an average 10 per cent growth even in this phase of the current depression. Today, China’s QE is reflected in the country’s distorted domestic demand. Instead of profiting hundreds of millions of underpaid workers, such huge liquidity has been hoarded, placed in shelter investment assets by Communist Party apparatchiks, which explains the mainland’s current real estate bubble and the many empty buildings dotting the country’s urban landscape.
Chinese responsibilities
Those, who in the past sang the praise of “globalisation” (based on such rigged exchange rates formula) and said that it would have cushioned against difficult economic times, today should be rather quiet, hold their peace and meditate about today’s crisis, which is for all intents and purposes the first Global Depression. However, we cannot blame only the Americans; the fault is global and there is enough to go around. For at least ten years, the rest of the world accepted Chinese goods, sold at a 40 per cent discount, in order to subvention a soft transition for the Asian giant as it tried to replace a Stalinist command economy with today’s ‘Communist-Capitalist’ system. Under the circumstance, China is not in a position to lecture others.
The Fed’s responsibilities
Having said this, there is nothing that justifies the Federal Reserve’s decision to start a currency war by launching its QE2 as a way to redress America’s trade imbalance. In fact, Donald Tsang’s argument is not very plausible. Even if this were QE2’s final outcome, the Fed’s move was not started off or triggered by the need to redress trade imbalances, but rather from a domestic imperative, namely the survival of the US banks and financial system. All one needs to do is read Bernanke’s speech[5] to find out.
The table below, which is a modest examination by this author of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet[6], makes this clear right away. Undoubtedly, this table does not pretend to be an exhaustive analysis and reclassification of the original balance; for that to be the case, it would have to be more comprehensive.




Figures are in millions of dollars. The chosen date, 4 March 2009, is the last one referable directly the previous Bush administration after President Obama and his administration took office in early February 2009. The date of 3 November looks at the situation before this month’s QE2.
For the sake of understanding, when we speak above about federal notes were are not talking about ordinary bank notes, but securities in large figures that, unlike bonds cashable on due date, are cashable at any time. As for the federal agencies that issued debt securities, we mean organisations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that issued subprime loans (but not AIG, whose debt titles are registered separately).
A frightening US public debt
Looking at these numbers, certain things come to mind right away. With a portfolio of US$ 773 billion, the Federal Reserve is on its way of becoming the main holder of US Treasury securities. Within about one month from the start out of QE2, it will overtake China, which currently holds US$ 868 billion.
This is a patent  economic inconsistency. What it means is that the Fed is unable to sell a good chunk of its securities (failing to attract both US and foreign investors) to meet, if nothing else, the federal government’s current spending commitments. This is not surprising though since the US government debt is not “60 per cent of current gross domestic product, “but rather “840 per cent,” according to Laurence Kotlikoff (a little less according to this author, but of the same magnitude).
Secondly, one does not have to be a graduate in economics to realise that the increases in ‘federal securities, notes and bonds’ (+ 87.20 per cent) and federal agency debt securities (+ 291.30 per cent) are huge for such a short period of time (12 months). As for mortgage-backed securities (+ 1,426.29 per cent), the jump is frightening and deserves a closer look, which we shall do below.
In the meantime, if we take these three items together, we see that they have represent the largest part of the total Federal Reserve Balances, going from 26.76 to 84.33 per cent in the period under consideration. The Fed’ balance sheet has thus been completely turned around. What this means is that what Ben Bernanke had said would not happen when he appeared before the US Congress has actually happened, namely the monetisation (conversion) of government debt into currency.
The scandal of mortgage notes
As for, mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), they saw a 14-fold rise. As of November of this year they constitute  44.91 per cent of the total Federal Reserve assets side of the balance sheet (albeit this not exactly so). However, don’t be fooled by the name. We are not talking about securities that are backed by mortgages on real property. We are talking about what journalists call “cash for trash”.
First, most MBSs are not directly issued by big financial institutions, but by ad hoc companies (SPV, special purpose vehicles), empty boxes that contain hundreds of thousands of mortgage notes of various kinds. A huge scandal is brewing right now, one that the main US media have chosen to ignore so far. At the core of it are thousands of mortgage notes signed by officials who were not entitled to sign them and who practically had no control over the documents. In one case[7], at a court hearing, one official said under oath that after she left high school she went to college for a year but never graduated. Yet, despite her lack of training in either economics or law, she was appointed “notary” after a couple of years. And all she did was sign papers she did not read and that were full of material and factual errors. Notes such as these are worthless, and it would not take long for lawyers to prove it. Up to now, no one knows what proportion of the Fed’s portfolio is constituted by such MBS, how many worthless mortgage notes it has, or how big its percentage of risk of insolvency is. Any private company, whether financial, commercial or industrial would have to make financial provisions in its balance sheet for such a situation. However, on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, these mortgages are recorded at their full nominal value. Putting aside the doubts that Kotlikoff (and more modestly by AsiaNews[8]) raised about the sustainability of the US federal debt and the solvability of the United States, mortgage-backed securities represent almost half of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, and that is scary.
Sacrificing the Fed
It is very likely that “turbulences” will hit currency markets once the QE2 is implemented. Contrary to what China, Germany and Hong Kong’s Donald Tsang claim, namely that QE2 is part of a deliberate and planned currency war, we at AsiaNews think otherwise. Our criticism is no less damning however when it comes to the health of the US financial system or forgiving towards what the Federal Reserve has done.
For us, the Fed’s decision to initiate a second round of quantitative easing was not really motivated by a desire to lead the United States and the world out of the current economic crisis, but rather from the need to save US banks and their top officials from the consequences of an unimaginable mess (or deceitful system), which was built up over at least the past decade. The only deliberate thing here is the  decision to sacrifice precisely the very same Fed itself. This was decided  not only to save big financial corporations and their leaders, but also to lay the ground for either a world Federal Reserve, a sort of SuperFed, or (if the former fails) at least one for a North American Fed that would rise out of the ashes left by the existing Federal Reserve, now destined to explode as a result of hyperinflation.
Who controls the priests of money?
Last but not least, let us not forget the Fed’s gold stock , all 261,635,072 ounces of them. In the Fed’s balance sheet, their relative value is given as US$ 11.04 billion, based on US$ 42.3 per ounce. Altogether, they represented 0.57 per cent of the Fed’s assets on  4 March 2009, and 0.47 per cent on 3 November 2010. If however, we look at gold’s actual market value (US$ 911 per ounce in March 2009 and US$ 1,350 per ounce in November 2010), the value of Federal Reserve’s gold stock changes.  Thus, they were worth US$ 238.5 billion on 4 March 2009 (12.26 per cent of balance sheet assets), and US$ 353.3 billion on 3 November 2010 (15.09 per cent).
A balance sheet should correctly reflect economic reality. By contrast, the Federal Reserve’s Statistical Releases are pure fantasy. The same can be said for almost all other central banks with the power to print money with legal tender. Many of them do not even release a balance statement. Of course, all this is perfectly legal, but is it right and legitimate? Is it right that an obscure esoteric sanhedrin of private bankers, under no one’s control but their own, can issue money, a public good like few others?

[1] Quantitative Easing or QE. See Maurizio d’Orlando, “Squandering more public resources,” in AsiaNews, 3 November 2010.
[2] We have held this view since 2003, see Maurizio d’Orlando, “I successi economici apparenti; la schiavitù, i fallimenti,” in AsiaNews, 11 November 2003.
[3] See ibid., “Economic crisis: US, China and the coming monetary storm,” in AsiaNews, 9 December 2008.
[4] See Peter Morici, “QE2 and G20 Hypocrisy,” in FOXBusiness, 8 November 2010.
[5] See Maurizio d’Orlando, “A global financial disaster is imminent, says Bernanke,” in AsiaNews, 13 October 2010.
[6] See Federal Reserve, “Factors affecting reserve balances,” in Federal Reserve Statistical Releases   5 March 2009, and “Factors affecting reserves balances,” in Federal Reserve Statistical Release, 4 November 2010.
[7] See Tyler Durden, “The Nine Most "Inconvenient" RoboSigning Admissions BofA Would Love To Disappear,” in Zero Hedge, 13 November 2010. All the officials who spoke said that they signed piles of paper, thousands in fact, without checking what was on them. They only made sure that they were putting their signature where their name was.
[8] “Real numbers show that the (real) ratio between total public debt and GDP, depending on how public debt is defined, stands at between 450 and 900 per cent of GDP,” in Maurizio d’Orlando, The world’s economic crisis, the real global warming,” in AsiaNews, 10 June 2010. See also; ibid. “This year, US public debt could reach end game,” in AsiaNews, 3 March 2010; ibid., “As the world waits for hyperinflation and a world government, Bernanke becomes “Person of the Year,” in AsiaNews, 29 December 2009. See also by the same author, “Clashes between US, China and Iran may account for record gold prices,” in AsiaNews, 12 May 2006; “War scenarios: Iran, oil embargo and the collapse of the world's financial system,” in AsiaNews, 7 August 2006; “Chinese stocks and the risk of economic crisis,” in AsiaNews, 22 May 2007. See many other articles published on AsiaNews dealing with subprime, toxic securities, bank rescue, etc. See again Maurizio d’Orlando, “Subprime lending to trigger world’s worst financial crisis since 1929,” in AsiaNews, 19 September 2007; ibid., “Depth of the abyss of economic, social, political chaos,” in AsiaNews, 30 September 2008; ibid., “Paulson plan: useless and harmful to democracy,” in AsiaNews, 6 October 2008; ibid., “The way out of the crisis is neither Left nor Right,” in AsiaNews, 25 November 2008; and ibid., “Economic crisis: US, China and the coming monetary storm,” in AsiaNews, 9 December 2008

4 March 20093 November 2010increase
US Treasury Securities (total value) (a)$ 474,607$ 839,99076.99 per cent
of whichof whichof which
Federal securities, notes and bonds$ 412,914$ 772,97587.20 per cent
Federal agency debt securities (b)$ 38,252$ 149,681291.30 per cent
Mortgage-backed securities (c)$ 68,862$ 1,051,0371426.29 per cent
Total (a) + (b) + (c)$ 520,028$ 1,973,693279.54 per cent
Total Federal Reserve balances$ 1,943,478$ 2,340,44020.43 per cent
Proportion of (a) + (b) + (c)] out of total Federal Reserve balances.26.76 per cent84.33 per cent

Are Expert Networks About To Be Exposed As The Ringleader In The Biggest Insider Trading Bust In History?

Over a year ago, Zero Hedge published an expose in three parts (two of them in the form of direct letters to Andrew Cuomo) discussing the possibility that so-called "expert networks" are nothing less than legalized insider trading rings for the uber-wealthy, operating largely unsupervised, and leaking selective information to preferred clients. For those who may be new to this topic, we suggest catching up on Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. Subsequently, we also suggested that expert networks would be implicated in the bust of Galleon Partners, the Goldman "Huddle", the collapse of FrontPoint Partners and, most recently, that expert networks may have been directly or indirectly involved in facilitating the record historical P&L of such hedge fund "titans" as SAC Capital. Today, via the Wall Street Journal, we realize that not only have the good folks at the SEC been diligently reading us for the past 13 months, but that we may have been right all along (once again). To wit: "Federal authorities, capping a three-year investigation, are preparing insider-trading charges that could ensnare consultants, investment bankers, hedge-fund and mutual-fund traders and analysts across the nation, according to people familiar with the matter. The criminal and civil probes, which authorities say could eclipse the impact on the financial industry of any previous such investigation, are examining whether multiple insider-trading rings reaped illegal profits totaling tens of millions of dollars, the people say. Some charges could be brought before year-end, they say." Good bye expert networks (and many, many hedge funds) - we hardly knew you. 
More from the WSJ:
The investigations, if they bear fruit, have the potential to expose a culture of pervasive insider trading in U.S. financial markets, including new ways non-public information is passed to traders through experts tied to specific industries or companies, federal authorities say.

One focus of the criminal investigation is examining whether nonpublic information was passed along by independent analysts and consultants who work for companies that provide "expert network" services to hedge funds and mutual funds. These companies set up meetings and calls with current and former managers from hundreds of companies for traders seeking an investing edge.

Among the expert networks whose consultants are being examined, the people say, is Primary Global Research LLC, a Mountain View, Calif., firm that connects experts with investors seeking information in the technology, health-care and other industries. "I have no comment on that," said Phani Kumar Saripella, Primary Global's chief operating officer. Primary's chief executive and chief operating officers previously worked at Intel Corp. (INTC), according to its website.

In another aspect of the probes, prosecutors and regulators are examining whether Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) bankers leaked information about transactions, including health-care mergers, in ways that benefited certain investors, the people say. Goldman declined to comment.

Independent analysts and research boutiques also are being examined. John Kinnucan, a principal at Broadband Research LLC in Portland, Ore., sent an email on Oct. 26 to roughly 20 hedge-fund and mutual-fund clients telling of a visit by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

"Today two fresh faced eager beavers from the FBI showed up unannounced (obviously) on my doorstep thoroughly convinced that my clients have been trading on copious inside information," the email said. "(They obviously have been recording my cell phone conversations for quite some time, with what motivation I have no
idea.) We obviously beg to differ, so have therefore declined the young gentleman's gracious offer to wear a wire and therefore ensnare you in their devious web."

The email, which Mr. Kinnucan confirms writing, was addressed to traders at, among others: hedge-fund firms SAC Capital Advisors LP and Citadel Asset Management, and mutual-fund firms Janus Capital Group (JNS), Wellington Management Co. and MFS Investment Management. SAC, Wellington and MFS declined to comment; Janus and Citadel didn't immediately comment. It isn't known whether clients are under investigation for their business with Mr. Kinnucan.
Some more on expert networks:The consultants typically earn several hundred dollars an hour for their services, which can include meetings or phone calls with traders to discuss developments in their company or industry. The expert-network companies say internal policies bar their consultants from disclosing confidential information.

And it is not only the SEC who reads us:

The investigations have been conducted by federal prosecutors in New York, the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Representatives of the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office, the FBI and the SEC declined to comment.

Furthermore, our recent focus on SAC's involvement in assorted biotech companies may have been well warranted:
Another aspect of the probe is an examination of whether traders at a number of hedge funds and trading firms, including First New York Securities LLC, improperly gained nonpublic information about pending health-care, technology and other merger deals, according to the people familiar with the matter.

Some traders at First New York, a 250-person trading firm, profited by anticipating health-care and other mergers unveiled in 2009, people familiar with the firm say.

A First New York spokesman said: "We are one of more than three dozen firms that have been asked by regulators to provide general information in a widespread inquiry; we have cooperated fully." He added: "We stand behind our traders and our systems and policies in place that ensure full regulatory compliance."
When all is said and done, First New York will only be the beginning.
As for representative transactions, here are some of the initial ones that have been leaked:
Transactions being focused on include MedImmune Inc.'s takeover by AstraZeneca Plc (AZN, ANZ.LN) in 2007, the people say. MedImmune shares jumped 18% on Apr. 23, 2007, the day the deal was announced.

A spokesman for AstraZeneca and its MedImmune unit declined to comment.

Investigators are also examining the role of Goldman bankers in trading in shares of Advanced Medical Optics Inc., which was taken over by Abbott Laboratories (ABT) in 2009, according to the people familiar with the matter. Advanced Medical Optics's shares jumped 143% on Jan. 12, 2009, the day the deal was announced. Goldman advised MedImmune and Advanced Medical Optics on the deals.

A spokesman for AstraZeneca and its MedImmune unit declined to comment.
It appears that if and when the hammer comes down (or specifically if the SEC finally has the guts to file formal charges) those who will have a lot of explaining to do are the who's who in the hedge fund world.
In subpoenas, the SEC has sought information about communications-- related to Schering-Plough and other deals--with Ziff Brothers, Jana Partners LLC, TPG-Axon Capital Management, Prudential Financial Inc.'s (PRU) Jennison Associates asset-management unit, UBS AG's (UBS) UBS Financial Services Inc. unit, and Deutsche Bank AG (DB, DBK.XE), according to subpoenas and the people familiar with the matter.

Representatives of Ziff Brothers, Jana, TPG-Axon, Jennison, UBS and Deutsche Bank declined to comment.

Among hedge-fund managers whose trading in takeovers is a focus of the criminal probe is Todd Deutsch, a top Wall Street trader who left Galleon Group in 2008 to go out on his own, the people close to the situation say. A spokesman for Mr. Deutsch, who has specialized in health-care and technology stocks, declined to comment.
Could the hedge fund industry be about to experience its biggest insider trading bust? As much as we would like to believe so, the day when justice finally prevails over legal fees may still be far away. In the meantime, Zero Hedge is proud to have assisted in the exposure of this latest massive legal insider trading scam which favors the preferred and the wealthy over everyone else, precisely the kind of thing that makes investors hate the capital markets...

The Hidden Meanings in the New $100 Bill!


  

First of all, I must admit that I am one of those "Conspiracy Nuts" who loves to read meaning into the back of the US $1 bill like I'm trying to solve a centuries old puzzle. The "All Seeing Eye", the pyramid, "One World Government", Masonic symbols, the implications of the Latin words, even the words "In God We Trust" added in 1955...all of it...I'm a big fan of secret meaning. Just Google "US Dollar Hidden Meaning" and you will find almost EVERY INTERPRETATION you can imagine. Since I don't know which is true...I tend to believe ALL OF THEM. More fun that way. If you think this is all hogwash and there is no meaning to the back of the $1 bill..."Duh, it's just a nice picture"...then this article is not for you.
So, of course, I was more than excited when the new $100 bill was FINALLY announced and IT HAD ALL THAT GOLD ON IT!
http://www.newmoney.gov/newmoney/default.aspx
I admit that I am slightly biased on this. One of the central themes of my work at the Road to Roota Letters is that there is a group of people working to end the fiat money system and return the US back to the Gold Standard. For those unfamiliar with the concept read:
The Road to Roota Theory http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/190.cfm
A subscriber tipped me off years ago that the new $100 bill would be "special" when it finally got released and he wasn't lying. I LOVE this bill! Check out how it turns gold in the light...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEabYIStM8Y
Ok. So it may be a coincidence and I may have an over active imagination but bear with me while we explore further. Take a real close look at the new bill keeping in mind that the US has a special history of hidden meaning behind their bills and there's a real possibility of a currency crash (with a return to the Gold Standard) in the very near future.
Let's start with the most glaring difference even from the other new colored bills: that huge Blue Stripe down the right center. For those not familiar with the symbolism of the American flag colors: Red symbolizes Hardiness and Valor, White symbolizes Purity and Innocence and Blue represents Vigilance, Perseverance and Justice. Is it possible that the big Blue Stripe may have more significance that you might expect?
When it comes to monetary theory there are really only two serious camps. The first believes in fiat/paper money and the second believes in a "hard money" backed by gold. Lets assume these two opposing ideologies are represented on this bill. Look closely at the left side of the Blue Stripe.


  
Let's say the left side represents the fiat/paper money camp. There is no new coloring at all just the same ole drab green. The same ole fiat money. It's all there...the words "Federal Reserve Note", the Official Fed Seal, Ooo..looks like the US Treasury Secretary signature has been moved from the right to the left side(come on...which camp did you think Geithner would be put in?!). And for you currency buffs, even Benjamin Franklin is positioned on the left of the Blue Stripe with that quizzical grin...why you ask?
Well, not many know it but Ben Franklin was a BIG supporter of paper money in his day. Don't get me wrong, he was a great and loyal American who was very much anti-banker but in his day the battle was reversed. It was the English bankers who were all about forcing the colonists onto a Gold/Silver standard but Franklin knew that the overseas trade would leave no physical money for the colonies to conduct domestic commerce with. It was probably the TRUE cause of the American Revolution! Here's a good representation of what happened:
http://21stcenturycicero.wordpress.com/fraud/how-benjamin-franklin-made-new-england-prosperous/
Truthfully, it's high time we rewrite the all the US History books and tell the world the REAL STORY. The American Revolution was actually...A REBELLION AGAINST THE BANKSTERS!
Back to the "Greenback"...
So you can see that everything on the left side of the new $100 bill relates to the continuance of fiat money.
Now let's look at the right side of that Blue Stripe...the "Vigilance, Perseverance and Justice" side!


  
OH MY GOODNESS...GOLD GALORE!! A Gold Ink Well, Gold Liberty Bell, Gold Feather Pen, Gold "100", Gold Watermark, Gold Writing in the background, Gold "July 4, 1776"...there's even a HUGE gold "100" on the back of the right side. The right side of this bill is so full of gold it will probably droop when you hand it to the cashier!
Here's my take on all the Gold symbolism:
- The US has long prepared to return to a Gold Standard and the time has come.
- The Gold Ink Well symbolizes the power of Congress to pass laws that can dismantle the Fiat Money System with the stoke of a pen.
- The Gold Liberty Bell within the ink well symbolizes Congresses ability to write laws that destroy the banking cabal's strangle hold on the Liberty of citizens in the United States.
- Notice the words "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS,PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" has also been moved from the left to the right side (or the gold standard side!)
- Notice how the color of the "100" on the bottom front changes from GREEN to GOLD...still not convinced?
- And now my favorite... look at the wording right above the "100" on the far right.
Do you see it?


  
"...the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new..."
That, my friends, comes directly from our Declaration of Independence and says the following:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Has there ever been a time in the last 100 years that the people were more ready to "alter or abolish" our government?!
Can "They" make it more obvious...GET READY FOR A GOLD STANDARD!
The odd fact that the US Treasury chose to "anti-counterfeit" the $100 bill last is very telling. The US $100 is the MOST counterfeited bill in the world by far. So much so that the fake bills even have their own name...the "SUPERDOLLAR" or "SUPERNOTE".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5PTzBRwk5M
The new $100's were going to be released on Feb 10, 2011 but the Federal Reserve announced a "delay due to production problems". Why wait so long? In this video it sure looks like they are in full production already. (what's with the "Wizard of Oz-esque" green drapes? No, I won't run with that!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUALVgbyZ84
Oh, did you notice that the bill in all the sample photos was printed in "SERIES 2009"? I believe that the new $100's are ready to go and HAVE BEEN READY SINCE THE ONSET OF THE CREDIT CRISIS! They were waiting for the crash and the return to a gold standard. With this announcement they might as well say ...WE ARE READY TO COLLAPSE THE SYSTEM!!
The monetary camps split by the Blue Stripe, the Liberty Bell in the Gold Inkwell, the quotes of overthrowing the government, the delayed implementation of the $100 bill...
Get ready for a Gold Standard because we are just about there!

Friday, November 19, 2010

M2 Passes $8.8 Trillion, Non Seasonally Adjusted M2 Surges By $57 Billion In Prior Week


Seasonally adjusted M2 has just surpassed $8.8 trillion for the first time, hitting a record $8,802.2 billion, a jump of $16 billion on a SA basis. This is the 17th out of 18 consecutive weeks that M2 has increased. On a non-seasonally adjusted basis, M2 also jumped to a record high, hitting $8,765 billion, a jump of $56.9 billion W/W, and an increase if just over $100 billion in the past two weeks alone.
Seasonally Adjusted M2:
Non-Seasonally Adjusted M2:
While the jump itself is not surprising as it comes in anticipation, and realization, of QE2 (we would love to have the semantic and highly theoretical debate of whether or not the Fed "prints money" but will focus on the practical for now), the last week's components of the M2 change were odd to say the least. In the past week we saw both the biggest drop in commercial banks savings deposits in 2010 ($61.3 billion) and the biggest jump in demand deposits ($57.6 billion).
Whether or not this is due to the recently adopted unlimited guarantee by the FDIC on demand deposits is unclear, however as the chart below shows this is certainly a very odd move, and is indicative that there has been a notable readjustment in the bank deposit base. The surge in demand deposits brings the total to $536.2 billion, an increase of $94 billion from the beginning of the year. And despits the drop, savings deposits are also markedly higher compared to the start of the year: at $4,336.7 billion, $337.8 billion higher than at the end of 2009. Whether this is a pull driven transfer, as banks need to replenish their deposit basis is also unknown. We will keep a close eye on this, as such a major reallocation of bank deposit liquidity has not occured in over a year.