Libyan Investment Authority - Goldman Took Us For 'A Complete Ride'

Libyan Investment Authority Goldman Sachs - Business Insider

The Libyan
Investment Authority, a government-managed sovereign wealth fund, is
suing Goldman Sachs for $1 billion and claims that the bank "took them
for a complete ride," according to a report by the Financial Times.


In the lawsuit, LIA
claims that Goldman exploited the fund and "encouraged" it to pursue 9
extremely risky and ultimately unsuccessful investments worth over $1
billion in 2008, according to the FT's report.


But by 2011, these trades were "worthless."


The LIA claims that Goldman took advantage of the LIA's (allegedly) financially illiterate staff in order to make money, and that Goldman seduced its staff with fancy gifts and — for lack of a more politically correct term — bribes.


The LIA claims that they "completely trusted Goldman" and believed
that its former head of north Africa, Youssef Kabbaj was "their very
close friend."


Apparently, Kabbaj took the LIA staff members on a "lavish trip to
Morocco" that included "heavy drinking and girls." The trip was expensed
entirely on Kabbaj's Goldman corporate credit card.


And there's much more where this came from, including "expensive nights out" in London.

....

Secret Goldman Sachs tapes show regulators still respect bankers too much

Secret Goldman Sachs tapes show regulators still respect bankers too much - The Washington Post

The problem with Wall Street's cops is that, before the crisis, they didn't actually fall asleep on the job.

Regulators
knew the big banks were taking big risks, and had the power to do
something about it. But they didn't. It's worse than outright neglect,
since it's not as obvious how to fix it. And now, thanks to 46 hours of secret audio tapes
from inside the New York Federal Reserve, we can hear that they're
still having trouble fixing it. The problem isn't that regulators don't
have the tools they need. It's that they won't use the tools they have,
because they respect the bankers too much.

...

This is where you need to go to This American Life, who, in conjunction with Jake Bernstein
of ProPublica, put together the highlights of Segarra's 46 hours of
audio recordings. You have to hear how obsequious the supervisors sound
when they talk to Goldman's executives, almost apologetic for not-quite
doing their jobs. The best example of this came during a deal between
Goldman and the Spanish banking behemoth Banco Santander in 2012. "We're
looking at a transaction that's legal but shady," Segarra's boss Mike
Silva said, and "I want to put a big shot across their bow on that."
Specifically, Goldman was making it look like it was taking assets from
Santander without really doing so — for a fee, of course — all so
Santader could avoid having to raise more capital. This was regulatory
arbitrage of the worst kind: It was potentially destabilizing. But the
term sheet said the deal wouldn't go ahead unless the New York Fed
explicitly signed off on it. Until, that is, Goldman just went ahead
without it.

...

Americans Continue to Say a Third Political Party Is Needed

Americans Continue to Say a Third Political Party Is Needed - Gallup

A majority of U.S. adults, 58%, say a third U.S. political party is
needed because the Republican and Democratic parties "do such a poor
job" representing the American people. These views are little changed
from last year's high. Since 2007, a majority has typically called for a third party.

The results are based on Gallup's Sept. 4-7 Governance poll. The
first time the question was asked in 2003, a majority of Americans
believed the two major parties were adequately representing the U.S.
public, which is the only time this has been the case. Since 2007, a
majority has said a third party is needed, with two exceptions occurring
in the fall of the 2008 and 2012 presidential election years.


The historical 60% high favoring a third party came in a poll
conducted during the partial federal government shutdown last October.
At that time, 26% of Americans said the parties were doing an adequate
job. That figure is up to 35% now, but with little change in the
percentage calling for a third party.


Americans' current desire for a third party is consistent with their generally negative views of both the Republican and Democratic parties,
with only about four in 10 viewing each positively. Americans' views
toward the two major parties have been tepid for much of the last
decade. However, even when the party's images were more positive in the
past, including majority favorability for the Democrats throughout 2007
and favorability for the GOP approaching 50% in 2011, Americans' still
saw the need for a third party.


Independents Maintain Solid Preference for Third Party


Political independents, as might be expected given a lack of
allegiance to either major party, have shown a far greater preference
for a third political party than those who identify as Republicans or
Democrats. Currently, 71% of independents say a third party is needed,
on the upper end of the trend line. That compares with 47% of Democrats
and 46% of Republicans who say the same.

For most of the past 11 years, Republicans and Democrats were about
equally as likely to favor a third party. From 2003 to 2006 -- when
Republicans had control of the presidency and both houses of Congress --
Democrats were more likely than Republicans to see the need for a third
party. And in 2011, after the rise of the Tea Party movement,
Republicans were a bit more inclined than Democrats to see a third party
as necessary.


Implications


Although Americans express a desire for a viable alternative to the
Democratic and Republican parties, third political parties have had
little success in American politics. The U.S. political system makes it
difficult for third parties to hold elected office given the Electoral
College system of electing presidents and election of members of
Congress from individual states and districts based on the candidate
getting the most votes. Such a system generally favors two parties -- a
center-right and a center-left party -- that have the ability to
assemble a winning plurality or majority in districts and states across
the country. Also, some states have restrictive laws on ballot access
that make it difficult for third-party candidates to appear on the
ballot.


Third parties have had success in other countries when they had
strong support in a particular region, or if members of the legislature
were allocated proportionately to the nationwide vote each party
received. This allowed third parties to hold seats with national vote
shares usually well less than 30%.


Given the U.S. political system, those whose ideology puts them to
the left of the Democratic Party or the right of the Republican Party
are better served trying to work within a major political party than
establishing their own party. Supporters of the Tea Party movement
generally took this approach, with some success, by trying to get their
preferred candidates nominated as Republicans in the last few election
cycles. But as with most U.S. third parties historically, the Tea
Party's influence appears to be waning as the movement did not play a
pivotal role in the 2012 Republican presidential nomination and was less
successful in defeating more moderate Republican candidates in the 2014
congressional primaries than in 2010.


Though the desire for a third party exists, it is unclear how many
Americans would actually support a third party if it came to be.
Americans' preference for a third party may reflect their frustration
with the way the Republican and Democratic parties are performing, as
well as the idea that the system ought to be open to new parties,
regardless of whether this is viable in practice.

The Recovery That Left Out Almost Everybody

The Recovery That Left Out Almost Everybody - WSJ -Yahoo Finance

According to a Pew Research
Center report released this month, only 21% rate current conditions as
excellent or good, versus 79% fair or poor. Only 33% say that jobs are
readily available in their communities; when asked about good jobs, that
figure falls to 26%. Only 22% believe the economy will be better a year
from now; 22% think it will be worse, while fully 54% think it will be
the same.

More than five years after the
official end of the recession, the Public Religion Research Institute
finds, only 21% of Americans believe the recession has ended.

Two recent reports help explain
the disconnect between the official jobs numbers and the economic
experience of most Americans. Every fall, the U.S. Commerce Department
issues a detailed analysis of trends in income, poverty and health
insurance. Although economists have some technical quibbles with the
Commerce data, the broad trends are unmistakable.

This year's report found that
median household income was $51,939 in 2013, 8% lower than in 2007, the
last year before the recession. Households in the middle of the income
distribution earned about $4,500 less last year than they had six years
earlier. No wonder 56% of Americans told the Pew Research Center that
their incomes were falling behind the cost of living.

The Federal Reserve's triennial
Survey of Consumer Finances confirms these findings. Between 2010 and
2013, the Fed reports, median family income fell by 5%, even though
average family income rose by 4%. This is, note the authors, "consistent
with increasing income concentration during this period." Only families
in the top 10%, with annual incomes averaging nearly $400,000, saw
gains during these three years. Families headed by college graduates
eked out a gain of 1%, while those with a high-school diploma or less
saw declines of about 7%. Those in the middle—with some postsecondary
education—did the worst: From 2010 to 2013, their annual incomes
declined to less than $41,000 from $46,000—an 11% plunge. Families
headed by workers under age 35 have done especially badly—even when the
heads of those young families have college degrees. The economic
struggles of the millennials are more than anecdotal.

What's going on? The Census
report offers a clue. The median earnings for Americans working
full-time year round haven't changed much since 2007. But more than five
years into the recovery, there are fewer such workers than before the
recession. In 2007, 108.6 million Americans were working full time,
year-round; in 2013 only 105.9 million were doing so. Although jobs are
being created, too many of them are part-time to maintain growth in
household incomes.

This is not by choice. About
the same number of Americans were employed last month as in December
2007. But during that period, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the number of Americans working part time who wanted a
full-time job jumped to 7.2 million from 4.6 million. Not only are
hourly wages stagnating; America's families want more hours of work than
the economy is providing.

Although the Great Recession
was the most severe since World War II, in many ways it underscored
trends that have been under way for decades. Adjusted for inflation,
median earnings of men working full time, year-round are no higher than
they were in 1980. Median household income is almost $5,000 lower than
it was in 1999, and no higher than it was it 1989.

The modest income increases of
the past two generations have occurred because women have surged into
the paid workforce—and because their real wages have grown at a compound
annual rate of 0.8%. But both these trends peaked in 2000. Not
surprisingly, the years after the 2001 recession witnessed the only
postwar recovery in which median incomes failed to regain their previous
peak.

How 1% shelter hundreds of millions in IRA accounts

How to shelter hundreds of millions in an IRA account - MarketWatch

The GAO report shows that the top 1% have saved $1 trillion in their IRAs, 22% of the total.

It’s no surprise that rich people have a large share of wealth, but it is a bit surprising that they own such a large percentage of IRA assets, which were designed to help middle-class people save a few hundred thousand, not to help billionaires save a few hundred million.

The IRA is not supposed to be a giveaway to millionaires. But that’s what it’s become.

“Concerns
have been raised that tax benefits accrue primarily for higher-income
individuals,” the GAO says in its usual monotone.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon used stronger language at a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee this week.

“Something is out of whack,” Wyden fumed. “The IRA was never intended to be a tax shelter for millionaires.”

While
millionaires take advantage of “sweetheart deals” to avoid taxes, the
typical American has saved only about $59,000 for retirement, Wyden
pointed out. A third of Americans can’t save anything.

Recall that during the 2012 election, Romney released tax documents
showing that he had between $20.7 million and $101.6 million in his IRA
accounts. It became a minor campaign issue, not just because it put the
spotlight on Romney’s wealth but also because it revealed just how easy
it is for the wealthy to take advantage of tax loopholes to amass even
more wealth.

The GAO report shows that Romney was a piker when it came to avoiding taxes on his millions.

As
of 2011, 314 multi-millionaires had more than $25 million saved in
their IRA, with average holdings of $258 million, the GAO reported.
About 9,000 taxpayers had at least $5 million in their IRA, with average
holdings of $16 million.

All told, 630,000 millionaires — about 1% of all IRA savers —
cumulatively had more than $1 trillion in IRA accounts, accounting for
22% of all IRA assets.

Meanwhile, the other 99% — the 42 million
taxpayers whose IRAs held less than $1 million — had average savings of
just under $100,000.

There are two main ways to accumulate assets
in an IRA: 1. Contribute up to the maximum each year. 2. Roll over a
distribution from a defined-contribution pension — such as a 401(k) — or
from a defined-benefit pension plan.

It would be nearly
impossible to accumulate $5 million in an IRA using those two methods,
the GAO found. If a couple contributed the maximum every year since 1975
(when the IRA was invented), they would have about $350,000 today if
they had invested it all aggressively in the S&P 500 Index


A couple who rolled over the
maximum from another pension could have earned about $4 million if they
invested 100% in stocks.

But only a few people contribute the
maximum to an IRA or defined-contribution plan in any year, the GAO
says. So it’s extremely unlikely that many people contributed the
maximum for 35 years.

If it’s nearly impossible to accumulate $5
million, then how did those 314 taxpayers accumulate an average of $258
million? Perhaps they were very fortunate in their investments, buying
Microsoft

at the bottom and riding them to the top.

Or
maybe they took advantage of a trick Romney used to fund his IRA:
putting undervalued non-publicly traded assets in his IRA to stay under
the maximum contribution limits, and then watching those investments
turn into gold.

According to the Wall Street Journal,
that’s what Romney and others at Bain Capital were able to do to
achieve astronomical returns in their IRAs. Bain took over companies and
allowed its employees to invest in those deals. After turning the
companies around, Bain sold them, and the employees who invested earned
returns averaging 50% to 80% annually, the Journal reported.

But that wasn’t enough.

“Bain added a couple of unusual twists
that made co-investing even more rewarding,” Mark Maremont of the
Journal reported. “It allowed employees to co-invest via tax-deferred
retirement accounts, and to do so by buying a special share class that
cost little but yielded much larger gains than other shares when deals
proved successful.”

In essence, Bain would value the special,
riskier shares at pennies on the dollar. In one deal, employees invested
about $23,000 in their IRAs. When the takeover target went public,
those shares were worth about $14 million, and were worth about $23
million they finally sold the shares. That’s a 100,000% return.

Those
are the kind of “sweetheart stock deals” that Wyden complained about.
They may be legal, but they violate the spirit of the law, which is to
limit contributions so that middle-class families can get most of the
benefits of the tax breaks.

Taxpayers spend $140 billion a year
subsidizing retirement savings, with about $20 billion going to the top
1% of earners. If we’re going to subsidize savings, let’s help those who
really need it, not millionaires and billionaires.

Census: Nearly 1 in 5 Children in U.S. in Poverty

Census: Nearly 1 in 5 Children in U.S. in Poverty | Juvenile Justice Information Exchange

Nearly one in five children in the United States lived in poverty
last year, with a much higher proportion of poverty among
African-American and Hispanic children, new U.S. Census figures released Tuesday show.


Overall, the number of children living in poverty declined slightly
from 21.8 percent of all children, or 16.07 million, in 2012 to 19.9
percent, or 14.66 million, in 2013, the new figures show.


Nearly 37 percent of African-American children and just over 30
percent of Hispanic children lived in poverty in 2013, determined by the
income of their household.

...

Childhood poverty in Britain declined more than 50 percent during 1999-2009 while America’s child-poverty rate
rose by 20 percent during the same period.

America's Poor, Deeper in Debt Than Ever

America's Poor, Deeper in Debt Than Ever - Bloomberg View:

Fresh data from the Federal Reserve shows that millions of the poorest families are still very deep in the hole -- and might be getting deeper.

The triennial Survey of Consumer Finances, released by the Fed last
week, confirms an overall improvement in the state of U.S. household
finances. The average debt burden for all families stood at about 105
percent of pretax income in 2013, down from about 125 percent in 2010
and the lowest level since the 2001 survey.

A closer look at the Fed data, however, suggests that the financial
improvement is far from evenly distributed. The least wealthy families
have made the least progress, and by some measures are in worse shape
than ever.

As of 2013, the debts of the quarter of families with
the lowest net worth stood at about 156 percent of pretax income,
according to the Fed data. That's more than in 2007, before the
financial crisis hit. It's also more than any of the wealthier groups --
something that hadn't happened before 2010.

The poorest quartile of families is the only group that owes
more than it owns. Thanks to declines in the value of assets, the
group's average leverage ratio -- debt as a percent of assets --
increased to 137.5 percent in 2013, the highest on record since the
survey started in 1989.

More ominous is a steady increase in installment debt, a category
that includes both student and auto loans -- areas that have recently
seen a lot of questionable lending to lower-income borrowers.

Whatever the drivers, the data suggest that the 2008 crisis
and subsequent economic malaise have left a troubling legacy: A group of
the poorest families, numbering roughly 14 million, whose precarious
finances make them vulnerable to shocks and limit their ability to
contribute to future growth. That's hardly a strong foundation for a
healthy recovery.

Fed Says Growth Lifts the Affluent, Leaving Behind Everyone Else - NYTimes.com

Fed Says Growth Lifts the Affluent, Leaving Behind Everyone Else - NYTimes.com

"Economic
growth since the Great Recession has improved the fortunes of the most
affluent Americans even as the incomes and wealth of most American
families continues to decline, the Federal Reserve said Thursday.

For
the most affluent 10 percent of American families, average incomes rose
by 10 percent from 2010 to 2013. For the rest of the population,
average incomes were flat or falling.

The
least affluent families had the largest declines. Average incomes
dropped by 8 percent for the bottom 20 percent of families, the Fed
reported in its triennial Survey of Consumer Finances, one of the most comprehensive sources of data on the financial health of American families.

The
new report, broadly consistent with other data on the aftermath of the
Great Recession, underscores why so many Americans think the economy
remains in poor health. While the pie has grown, most people are getting
smaller slices.

The
result is that wealth also is increasingly concentrated. While overall
wealth barely changed during the survey period, the money sloshed from
the bottom toward the top. For the top 10 percent of families, ranked by
income, estimated average wealth increased by 2 percent to $3.3
million. For the bottom 20 percent of families, average wealth sharply
declined by 21 percent to $65,000.

There
is growing evidence that inequality may be weighing on economic growth
by keeping money disproportionately in the hands of those who already
have so much they are less inclined to spend it.

President Obama last year described
income inequality as “the defining challenge of our time.” The Fed’s
chairwoman, Janet L. Yellen, said earlier this year it was “one of the
most important issues and one of the most disturbing trends facing the
nation.”

But
the trend so far has provoked little more than public outrage and
political debate, in part because there is no agreement about the
causes, let alone potential remedies. Some economists point to the
impact of mechanization and foreign competition. Others say that legal
changes have undermined the bargaining power of workers. Still others
think the economy is suffering from a drought of lucrative innovations.

The French economist Thomas Piketty argued in his recent book that wealth concentration is a natural tendency in market economies.

The
Fed’s report said the widening income gap represented a reversion to a
long-term trend that was disrupted by the recession. It said that the
top 3 percent of families collected 30.5 percent of all income in 2013,
up from 27.7 percent in 2010, but still slightly below their 31.4
percent share in 2007.

The
concentration of wealth continued without interruption, albeit at a
slower pace during the recession. The Fed said that the top 3 percent of
families held 44.8 percent of wealth in 1989, then 51.8 percent in 2007
and 54.4 percent in 2013.

One
signal of the growing divide is a decline in the share of families that
hold assets. The share of families that directly own stock fell to 13.8
percent from 15.1 percent, the Fed found. The share of families with
retirement accounts, savings bonds and life insurance also declined.
Likewise, the share of families that owned homes, owned rental
properties or had a stake in a business declined.

In
a more positive trend, debt burdens also fell. The debts of the average
American family continued to exceed its annual income, but the ratio
declined to 105 percent of income in 2013 from 125 percent of annual
income in 2010. Importantly, the share of Americans probably struggling
to pay those debts has also declined. Just 8.2 percent of households
devoted more than 40 percent of income to debt payments in 2013, the
lowest rate since the 1990s."

Malaise: 70 Percent Of Americans Believe Recession Is Permanent

Malaise: 70 Percent Of Americans Believe Recession Is Permanent - Science20

"Though the rich get richer and the stock market is booming, which has
led to claims by the administration that things are fine, the American
public hasn't been this pessimistic about the future since Jimmy Carter
was president. Pessimism has instead leaped 40% higher since 2009, when
the Great Recession was in full swing.


The protracted and uneven hints of recovery, where the only sector with
low unemployment is government, has led most Americans to conclude that
the U.S. economy has undergone a permanent change for the worse,
according to a new national study at Rutgers. 70 percent now say the
recession's impact is permanent, up from half in 2009 when the Obama
administration says the recession officially ended, according to the
John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development.

Among key findings in "Unhappy, Worried and Pessimistic: Americans in
the Aftermath of the Great Recession," the center's latest Work Trends
report, are:

•  Despite some job growth and lower levels of employment, most
  Americans do not think the economy has improved in the last year or that
  it will in the next.
  
  
  
•  Only around 16 percent of Americans believe that job opportunities
  for the next generation will be better than for theirs; five years ago,
  40 percent held that view.
  
  
  
•  Roughly 80 percent of Americans have little or no confidence that
  the federal government will make progress on the nation's most important
  problems over the next year. 

Much of the pessimism is rooted in direct experience, according to
Heldrich Center Director and Professor Carl Van Horn, co-author of the
report. Most people don't work for the government, which only ever had 2
percent unemployment while the bulk of America had unemployment levels
in the teens.


  "Fully one-quarter of the public says there has been a major
decline in their quality of life owing to the recession, and 42 percent
say they have less in salary and savings than when the recession began,"
Van Horn said. "Despite five years of recovery, sustained job growth
and reductions in the number of unemployed workers, Americans are not
convinced the economy is improving."


He added that only 33 percent think the U.S. economy has gotten better
in the last year, only 25 percent think it will improve next year.


The Heldrich Center conducted its survey between July 24 and Aug. 3 with a nationally representative sample of 1,153 Americans.

The Work Trends analysis summarizes the effects of the Great Recession
by classifying Americans into one of five categories based on how much
impact the recession had on their quality of life and whether the change
was temporary or permanent. It reveals that:

• 16 percent of the public, or 38 million people, were "devastated"
  because they experienced a "major, permanent" change in the quality of
  their life
  
  
  
• 19 percent, or 46 million, were "downsized" due to "permanent but minor" changes in standards of living
  
  
  
• 10 percent, or 24 million were "set back," experiencing "major, but temporary" changes in their quality of life
  
  
  
• 22 percent, or 53 million, were "troubled" by the recession and endured only a "minor and temporary" change
  
  
  
• Only one in three of the nation's 240 million adults reported that they were completely "unscathed" by the recession.

Professor Cliff Zukin, co-director of the Work Trends surveys with
Van Horn, said, "Looking at the aftermath of the recession, it is clear
that the American landscape has been significantly rearranged. With the
passage of time, the public has become convinced that they are at a new
normal of a lower, poorer quality of life. The human cost is truly
staggering."







Characteristics of the American worker








The public paints an extremely negative picture of the American
worker as unhappy, underpaid, highly stressed, and insecure about their
jobs. Asked to describe the typical American worker, using a list of a
dozen words or phrases, just 14 percent checked off happy at work and
only 18 percent believe they are well paid. Two-thirds say that American
workers are "not secure in their jobs" and "highly stressed." Just one
in five say the average American worker is well educated or innovative;
just one in three checked off ambitious or highly skilled. And perhaps
the most surprising, just one in three checked off that the average
American worker is "better than workers in other countries."







Financial and long-term effects







One of the reasons the public does not see the economy as having
gotten better is that many remain under tremendous financial stress. Six
in 10 Americans describe their financial condition negatively as only
fair (40 percent) or poor (19 percent). One-third report being in good
shape; just 7 percent describe themselves as being in excellent
financial health. Many report significant losses in the Great Recession.
Just 30 percent say they have more in salary and savings than they did
before the recession started, less than a third have the same, leaving
42 percent who report having less today than five years ago.


Americans view the recession as causing fundamental and lasting
changes in a number of areas of economic and social life. Three in five
believe the ability of young people to afford college will not return to
prerecession levels, which is significant given the role that education
has historically played as a key to upward mobility. Other fundamental
areas where a large segment of the public sees permanent changes are:
job security (53 percent), the elderly having to find part-time work
after retiring (51 percent) and workers having to take jobs below their
skill level (44 percent).







Pessimistic about the Future









Americans are also pessimistic about the future. Only a quarter
think economic conditions in the United States will get better in the
next year, and just 40 percent believe their family's finances will get
better over the next year. Consequently, most do not see themselves
getting back to where they were any time soon.


"Despite nearly five years of job growth and declining unemployment
levels, Americans remain skeptical that the economy has improved and
doubt that it will improve any time soon," said Van Horn. "The slow,
uneven, and painful recovery left Americans deeply pessimistic about the
economy, their personal finances, and prospects for the next
generation."


The report found the public sharply critical of Washington
policymakers. More disapprove than approve of the job President Obama is
doing by a margin of 46 percent to 54 percent. Even fewer approve of
the job Congress is doing – 14 percent. A plurality of 43 percent say
they trust neither the president nor Congress to handle the economy.
Finally, should Republicans win control of Congress in November, only 26
percent say this will help lower the unemployment rate. Thirty percent
say this would make unemployment worse while 44 percent say it would
make no difference."

Source: Rutgers University

Desmon Tutu's plea to the people of Israel: Liberate yourselves by liberating Palestine

Desmon Tutu - My plea to the people of Israel: Liberate yourselves by liberating Palestine - Haaretz



Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, in an exclusive article for Haaretz, calls for a global boycott of Israel and urges Israelis and Palestinians to look beyond their leaders for a sustainable solution to the crisis in the Holy Land.

 
"If you add together all the people who gathered over the past weekend to demand justice in Israel and Palestine – in Cape Town, Washington, D.C., New York, New Delhi, London, Dublin and Sydney, and all the other cities – this was arguably the largest active outcry by citizens around a single cause ever in the history of the world.

A quarter of a century ago, I participated in some well-attended demonstrations against apartheid. I never imagined we’d see demonstrations of that size again, but last Saturday’s turnout in Cape Town was as big if not bigger. Participants included young and old, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, blacks, whites, reds and greens ... as one would expect from a vibrant, tolerant, multicultural nation."
...

"Over the past few weeks, more than 1.6 million people across the world have signed onto this movement by joining an Avaaz campaign calling on corporations profiting from the Israeli occupation and/or implicated in the abuse and repression of Palestinians to pull out. The campaign specifically targets Dutch pension fund ABP; Barclays Bank; security systems supplier G4S; French transport company Veolia; computer company Hewlett-Packard; and bulldozer supplier Caterpillar.

Last month, 17 EU governments urged their citizens to avoid doing business in or investing in illegal Israeli settlements.

We have also recently witnessed the withdrawal by Dutch pension fund PGGM of tens of millions of euros from Israeli banks; the divestment from G4S by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; and the U.S. Presbyterian Church divested an estimated $21 million from HP, Motorola Solutions and Caterpillar.

It is a movement that is gathering pace.

Violence begets violence and hatred, that only begets more violence and hatred.

We South Africans know about violence and hatred. We understand the pain of being the polecat of the world; when it seems nobody understands or is even willing to listen to our perspective. It is where we come from.

We also know the benefits that dialogue between our leaders eventually brought us; when organizations labeled “terrorist” were unbanned and their leaders, including Nelson Mandela, were released from imprisonment, banishment and exile.

We know that when our leaders began to speak to each other, the rationale for the violence that had wracked our society dissipated and disappeared. Acts of terrorism perpetrated after the talks began – such as attacks on a church and a pub – were almost universally condemned, and the party held responsible snubbed at the ballot box.

The exhilaration that followed our voting together for the first time was not the preserve of black South Africans alone. The real triumph of our peaceful settlement was that all felt included. And later, when we unveiled a constitution so tolerant, compassionate and inclusive that it would make God proud, we all felt liberated.

Of course, it helped that we had a cadre of extraordinary leaders.

But what ultimately forced these leaders together around the negotiating table was the cocktail of persuasive, nonviolent tools that had been developed to isolate South Africa, economically, academically, culturally and psychologically.

At a certain point – the tipping point – the then-government realized that the cost of attempting to preserve apartheid outweighed the benefits.

The withdrawal of trade with South Africa by multinational corporations with a conscience in the 1980s was ultimately one of the key levers that brought the apartheid state – bloodlessly – to its knees. Those corporations understood that by contributing to South Africa’s economy, they were contributing to the retention of an unjust status quo.

Those who continue to do business with Israel, who contribute to a sense of “normalcy” in Israeli society, are doing the people of Israel and Palestine a disservice. They are contributing to the perpetuation of a profoundly unjust status quo.

Those who contribute to Israel’s temporary isolation are saying that Israelis and Palestinians are equally entitled to dignity and peace.

Ultimately, events in Gaza over the past month or so are going to test who believes in the worth of human beings.

It is becoming more and more clear that politicians and diplomats are failing to come up with answers, and that responsibility for brokering a sustainable solution to the crisis in the Holy Land rests with civil society and the people of Israel and Palestine themselves.

Besides the recent devastation of Gaza, decent human beings everywhere – including many in Israel – are profoundly disturbed by the daily violations of human dignity and freedom of movement Palestinians are subjected to at checkpoints and roadblocks. And Israel’s policies of illegal occupation and the construction of buffer-zone settlements on occupied land compound the difficulty of achieving an agreement settlement in the future that is acceptable for all.

The State of Israel is behaving as if there is no tomorrow. Its people will not live the peaceful and secure lives they crave – and are entitled to – as long as their leaders perpetuate conditions that sustain the conflict.

I have condemned those in Palestine responsible for firing missiles and rockets at Israel. They are fanning the flames of hatred. I am opposed to all manifestations of violence.

But we must be very clear that the people of Palestine have every right to struggle for their dignity and freedom. It is a struggle that has the support of many around the world.

No human-made problems are intractable when humans put their heads together with the earnest desire to overcome them. No peace is impossible when people are determined to achieve it.

Peace requires the people of Israel and Palestine to recognize the human being in themselves and each other; to understand their interdependence.

Missiles, bombs and crude invective are not part of the solution. There is no military solution.

The solution is more likely to come from that nonviolent toolbox we developed in South Africa in the 1980s, to persuade the government of the necessity of altering its policies.

The reason these tools – boycott, sanctions and divestment – ultimately proved effective was because they had a critical mass of support, both inside and outside the country. The kind of support we have witnessed across the world in recent weeks, in respect of Palestine.

My plea to the people of Israel is to see beyond the moment, to see beyond the anger at feeling perpetually under siege, to see a world in which Israel and Palestine can coexist – a world in which mutual dignity and respect reign.

It requires a mind-set shift. A mind-set shift that recognizes that attempting to perpetuate the current status quo is to damn future generations to violence and insecurity. A mind-set shift that stops regarding legitimate criticism of a state’s policies as an attack on Judaism. A mind-set shift that begins at home and ripples out across communities and nations and regions – to the Diaspora scattered across the world we share. The only world we share.

People united in pursuit of a righteous cause are unstoppable. God does not interfere in the affairs of people, hoping we will grow and learn through resolving our difficulties and differences ourselves. But God is not asleep. The Jewish scriptures tell us that God is biased on the side of the weak, the dispossessed, the widow, the orphan, the alien who set slaves free on an exodus to a Promised Land. It was the prophet Amos who said we should let righteousness flow like a river.

Goodness prevails in the end. The pursuit of freedom for the people of Palestine from humiliation and persecution by the policies of Israel is a righteous cause. It is a cause that the people of Israel should support.

Nelson Mandela famously said that South Africans would not feel free until Palestinians were free.

He might have added that the liberation of Palestine will liberate Israel, too.  "

Top 1 Percent Is Even Richer Than Surveys Say, ECB Paper Finds

Top 1 Percent Is Even Richer Than Surveys Say, ECB Paper Finds - Yahoo Finance

The oft-cited line that the top 1
percent of U.S. households lay claim to 30 percent of all wealth is
probably an understatement, according to a European Central Bank working
paper.

Incorporating
"missed" data on rich households pushes the share of wealth held by top
earners up to between 35 percent and 37 percent, wrote Philip Vermeulen,
a senior economist at the ECB. That's higher than the 34 percent
suggested by the 2010 U.S. Survey of Consumer Finances data from the
Federal Reserve. 

Biggest Bank Fines | The Economist

Daily chart: Fine times | The Economist

Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of U.S. Gov't - Gallup poll

Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of U.S. Gov't:



Americans' confidence in all three branches of the U.S. government has fallen, reaching record lows for the Supreme Court (30%) and Congress (7%), and a six-year low for the presidency (29%). The presidency had the largest drop of the three branches this year, down seven percentage points from its previous rating of 36%.

These data come from a June 5-8 Gallup poll asking Americans about their confidence in 16 U.S. institutions -- within government, business, and society -- that they either read about or interact with.

While Gallup recently reported a historically low rating of Congress, Americans have always had less confidence in Congress than in the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court and the presidency have alternated being the most trusted branch of government since 1991, the first year Gallup began asking regularly about all three branches.

But on a relative basis, Americans' confidence in all three is eroding. Since June 2013, confidence has fallen seven points for the presidency, four points for the Supreme Court, and three points for Congress. Confidence in each of the three branches of government had already fallen from 2012 to 2013.

Global Home Price Values - Bespoke Investment Group

Bespoke Investment Group -  Global Home Price Values

"UK and the United State are actually the least interesting housing
markets out there! Below is a chart of 11 developed-market home price
indices indexed to 100 as of Q1 2000.  The data is taken from the Dallas
Federal Reserve's analysis of global home prices, and uses the real prices of homes: prices adjusted for inflation using the PCE deflator for each country in question."









"Germany and Japan stand out on the chart as consistent losers when it
comes to home price appreciation.  Neither market jumped off the line in
2000 - unlike virtually every other economy - and in Japan that
deflationary downward trend is constant.  The differences are part
cultural, part economic.  In Japan, housing is viewed much more as
consumption than investment, and local zoning restrictions in markets
like Tokyo are often over-shadowed by the government's focus on constant
building and re-building, creating more turnover and density in housing
structures.  In Germany, the rental market is much more active and home
ownership rates are lower; the German tax code also doesn't have a
deduction for mortgage interest like many other developed economies."

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes:

It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view.

For this year’s survey on overall health care, The Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. dead last .

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

Latest S&P/Case-Shiller Housing Numbers

Bespoke Investment Group  - Updated S&P/Case-Shiller Housing Numbers

Below is a look at how far home prices still are from their all-time
highs made during the housing bubble that peaked in 2005.  While the two
composite indices are still 20% from their all-time highs, 2 of the 20
cities have actually already taken out their bubble highs -- Dallas and
Denver.  Boston and Charlotte are the next closest to their prior highs,
while San Francisco is just 15% away.  Given how far San Francisco
prices fell during the bursting of the bubble, the fact that it's now
just 15% away from new highs is pretty remarkable.  The social
media/Internet craze of the last few years has definitely inflated
prices significantly there.





As you can see below, San Francisco's home prices are up the most off of
their housing-bust lows, gaining 54% at this point.  Las Vegas has
bounced the second most off its lows at +46%, but as you saw in the
chart above, Vegas home prices are still 44% from their prior highs.  At
the bottom of the list below is New York, which has now seen home
prices bounce just 8% off of their lows.  There are certainly pockets of
the New York area that have seen big jumps in prices, but the
Case-Shiller data shows that the area has underperformed on the bounce
back compared to other cities.

Americans Say Big Business Helps Overseas, Less So at Home

Americans Say Big Business Helps Overseas, Less So at Home

Americans see large U.S. companies as having a more positive effect
overseas than they do domestically. While 66% of Americans believe that
large U.S. companies do a good job creating good jobs for citizens in
other countries where they do business, far fewer, 43%, say the
companies do a good job of creating jobs for Americans.

6 Years After the Financial Crisis Hit, The Big Banks Are Still Committing Massive Crimes

The Big Picture : 6 Years After the Financial Crisis Hit, The Big Banks Are Still Committing Massive Crimes

= A great compilation of the crimes of Big Banks by Barry Ritholtz =

"Here are just some of the improprieties by big banks over the last century (you’ll see that many shenanigans are continuing today):

    Laundering money for terrorists (the HSBC employee who blew the whistle on the banks’ money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels says that the giant bank is still laundering money, saying: “The public needs to know that money is still being funneled through HSBC to directly buy guns and bullets to kill our soldiers …. Banks financing … terrorists affects every single American.” He also said: “It is disgusting that our banks are STILL financing terror on 9/11 2013“. And see this.  This has been going on for decades.  For example, Bank of America funneled massive amounts of money to BCCI – itself connected with the CIA – and, according to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, BCCI in turn funneled huge sums of money to Bin Laden and other terrorists)

    Financing illegal arms deals, and funding the manufacture of cluster bombs (and see this and this) and other arms which are banned in most of the world

    Handling money for rogue military operations

    Laundering money for drug cartels. See this, this, this, this and this (indeed, drug dealers kept the banking system afloat during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis). A whistleblower said: “America is losing the drug war because our banks are [still] financing the cartels“, and “Banks financing drug cartels … affects every single American“. And see this.  This is actually a decades-old practice)

    Funding the Nazis (while we’re referring to funding the original Nazis many decades ago, the U.S. is now backing the neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and banks are undoubtedly involved in some of the support)

    Launching a coup against the President of the United States (an old – but vital – story)

    Engaging in mafia-style big-rigging fraud against local governments. See this, this and this

    Shaving money off of virtually every pension transaction they handled over the course of decades, stealing collectively billions of dollars from pensions worldwide. Details here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here

    Manipulating aluminum and copper prices

    Manipulating gold prices … on a daily basis

    Charging “storage fees” to store gold bullion … without even buying or storing any gold . And raiding allocated gold accounts

    Committing massive and pervasive fraud both when they initiated mortgage loans and when they foreclosed on them (and see this)

    Pledging the same mortgage multiple times to different buyers. See this, this, this, this and this. This would be like selling your car, and collecting money from 10 different buyers for the same car

    Cheating homeowners by gaming laws meant to protect people from unfair foreclosure

    Committing massive fraud in an $800 trillion dollar market which effects everything from mortgages, student loans, small business loans and city financing

    Manipulating the hundred trillion dollar derivatives market

    Engaging in insider trading of the most important financial information

    Pushing investments which they knew were terrible, and then betting against the same investments to make money for themselves. See this, this, this, this and this

    Engaging in unlawful “frontrunning” to manipulate markets. See this, this, this, this, this and this

    Engaging in unlawful “Wash Trades” to manipulate asset prices. See this, this and this

    Manipulating corporate bonds through derivatives schemes

    Otherwise manipulating virtually every market

    Participating in various Ponzi schemes. See this, this and this

    Charging veterans unlawful mortgage fees

    Helping the richest to illegally hide assets

    Cooking their books (and see this)

    Bribing and bullying ratings agencies to inflate ratings on their risky investments

    Violently cracking down on peaceful protesters

The executives of the big banks invariably pretend that the hanky-panky was only committed by a couple of low-level rogue employees. But studies show that most of the fraud is committed by management.

Indeed, one of the world’s top fraud experts – professor of law and economics, and former senior S&L regulator Bill Black – says that most financial fraud is “control fraud”, where the people who own the banks are the ones who implement systemic fraud. See this, this and this.

Even the bank with the reputation as being the “best managed bank” in the U.S., JP Morgan, has engaged in massive fraud. For example, the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report today quoting an examiner at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency – JPMorgan’s regulator – saying he felt the bank had “lied to” and “deceived” the agency over the question of whether the bank had mismarked its books to hide the extent of losses. And Joshua Rosner – noted bond analyst, and Managing Director at independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co – notes that JP Morgan had many similar anti money laundering laws violations as HSBC, failed to segregate accounts a la MF Global, and paid almost 12% of its 2009-12 net income on regulatory and legal settlements.

But at least the big banks do good things for society, like loaning money to Main Street, right?

Actually:

    The big banks no longer do very much traditional banking. Most of their business is from financial speculation. For example, less than 10% of Bank of America’s assets come from traditional banking deposits. Instead, they are mainly engaged in financial speculation and derivatives. (and see this)

    The big banks have slashed lending since they were bailed out by taxpayers … while smaller banks have increased lending. See this, this and this

    Virtually all of the banks’ profits comes from taxpayer bailouts. For example, 77% of JP Morgan’s net income comes from taxpayer subsidies

    The big banks are looting, killing the economy … and waging war on the people of the world

    And our democracy and republican form of government as well

Indeed, top experts say that fraud caused the Great Depression and the 2008 crisis, and that failing to rein in fraud is dooming our economy.

We can almost understand why Thomas Jefferson warned:

    And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies ….

John Adams said:

    Banks have done more injury to religion, morality, tranquillity, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they have done or ever will do good.

And Lord Acton argued:

    The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.

No wonder a stunning list of prominent economists, financial experts and bankers say we need to break up the big banks."

War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength | The Big Picture

War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength | The Big Picture

"American Public Turns Anti-War … Warmongers Desperately Reply, “But War Is GOOD for Us!”



The American people are now overwhelmingly opposed to more war in Ukraine, Syria, Iran and elsewhere.


Those who get rich from war (the military-industrial complexers and big banks) and their lackeys are desperate to reverse this trend.


As such, they are resorting to more and more outlandish justifications for war.


For example, Ian Morris has written an entire book arguing that war is the best thing ever, the only thing which has lifted us out of poverty and barbarianism. And – yes – he even says that war brings peace.


David Swanson provides a must-read dismantling of Morris’ book.

Morris writes this week in the Washington Post:

War has not only made us safer, but richer, too.

In reality, security experts – conservative hawks and liberal doves alike – agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this and this. So it doesn’t make us safer.


And there is now overwhelming evidence that war is horrible for the economy, and makes us poorer


Morris continues:

Thinkers have long grappled with the relationships among
peace, war and strength. Thomas Hobbes wrote his case for strong
government, “Leviathan,” as the English Civil War raged around him in
the 1640s.

In reality, Hobbes was an authoritarian who argued – just like (1)
the leading Nazi legal scholar and philosopher who created the
justification for “total war” to destroy those labeled an “enemy” of the
Nazi state (Carl Schmitt), (2) Machiavelli, and (3) the father of the Neoconservatives (Leo Strauss) – that the public should be intentionally whipped into a frenzy of fear so that they would be willing to give up their rights and cede their freedoms to the sovereign.


Indeed, Morris accidentally reveals that he is cut from the exact same cloth when he states:

People almost never give up their freedoms — including, at times, the right to kill and impoverish one another — unless forced to do so.

In other words, freedom bad … authoritarian leader good.


Morris writes:

Since 1914, we have endured world wars, genocides and
government-sponsored famines, not to mention civil strife, riots and
murders. Altogether, we have killed a staggering 100 million to 200
million of our own kind. But over the century, about 10 billion lives
were lived — which means that just 1 to 2 percent of the world’s
population died violently. Those lucky enough to be born in the 20th
century were on average 10 times less likely to come to a grisly end
than those born in the Stone Age.

In other words,  War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength."

Wall Street Has Always Been Corrupt Or About To Be Corrupted | Zero Hedge

Wall Street Has Always Been Corrupt Or About To Be Corrupted | Zero Hedge

Review of  Michael Lewis' "Flash Boys"

"The smartest guys in the room are figuring out ways to steal you blind
in the financial markets, pilfer your personal information, spy on your
electronic communications, and censor your right to free speech by
taking away your ability to communicate freely on the internet."

"The technology being peddled to the masses by mega-corporations is
designed to keep people amused, apathetic, distracted and uninterested
in thinking critically."

"Those who haven’t been brainwashed by media propaganda or amused to
death by technology, are kept in check by thousands of laws, statutes,
and regulations, enforced by millions of government bureaucrats and
police state thugs. Technology is used by the state as a means of
control, surveillance, censorship, and bilking the populace of their
wealth. .. And while the government is keeping you under their thumb, Wall Street shysters are stealing you blind."

" ...Flash Boys ... revealed about the inner
workings of Wall Street, the wasting of human intelligence on
technological schemes to defraud the public, and the utter level of
corruptness in the government agencies supposed to protect the public
from the vultures in the financial industry feasting on the carcasses of
dupes who still believe the “stocks for the long run” drivel
regurgitated incessantly by the bimbos and slime balls on CNBC. The
concepts of right and wrong, moral and immoral, honesty and dishonesty,
and truth and lies are all purposefully blurred in shades of grey by
those in power, in a blatant attempt to maintain and expand their vast
wealth, immense power and complete governing control.


Michael Lewis focuses on our warped, rigged financial system, but his
insights apply across the board to our entire society. Our economic,
financial, political, regulatory, and judicial systems are all rigged.
This serves the interests of the Deep State, Invisible Government,
Oligarchs, Owners, or whatever other term you choose to describe the
obscenely wealthy minority controlling this country. The existing
establishment will never willingly change the system because it serves
their myopic gluttonous interests."

"The average person believes the stock
market is run on free market principles, with willing buyers and
sellers paying and receiving the most efficient price with regards to
their transactions. The American people have put their trust in
gargantuan bureaucratic government agencies, funded with their tax
dollars, to protect their interests and fight for their rights in the
financial marketplace. They innocently believe a private bank – The
Federal Reserve – owned and controlled by the Too Big To Trust Wall
Street Mega-Banks, is actually enforcing regulations and looking out for
the best interest
of the small investor. They evidently haven’t been paying attention for
the last fourteen years, as the Federal Reserve has purposefully
created bubble after bubble with ridiculously low interest rates, money
printing on an epic scale, encouraging complete deregulation of banks,
inciting speculation, and ignoring criminal behavior by their Wall
Street owners."

"Warren Buffett, king of oligarchs and apologist for the Wall Street
billionaire club, assures the peasants the financial markets are fairer
than ever. If Uncle Warren says it’s so to his girl Becky Quick on
CNBC, how can anyone doubt him? It’s as if the supposedly mathematical
genius billionaire forgot everything he learned in business school."

"

There is $21 trillion worth of U.S. stocks traded every year. Based
upon Katsuyama’s analysis of how much high frequency traders, Wall
Street dark pools, and the stock
exchanges selling access were skimming on virtually every transaction,
he estimated at least $160 million per day was being stolen from stock
investors. That comes to a cool $40 billion per year, at a minimum.
High frequency trading accounted for 25% of all stock trades in 2005. By
2008 high frequency traders accounted for 65% of all trades. They now
account for in excess of 80% of all trading. The Ivy League educated
Wall Street elite insist this extreme level of computer generated
trading provides liquidity and efficiency for the markets. In reality,
the actual trading results of the HFT firms, hedge funds and Wall Street
TBTF banks prove the game is rigged. JP Morgan experienced ZERO
trading loss days in 2013. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and most of
the mega-banks have had virtually perfect daily trading results since
2010. If they are all winning, who is losing? Guess. Lewis provides
further evidence of “investing” perfection:

“In early 2013, one of the largest
high-frequency traders, Virtu Financial, publicly boasted that in five
and a half years of trading it had experienced just one day when it
hadn’t made money, and that the loss was caused by “human error.” In
2008, Dave Cummings, the CEO of a high-frequency trading firm called
Tradebot, told university students that his firm had gone four years
without a single day of trading losses. This sort of performance is
possible only if you have a huge informational advantage.”

Buffett, the financial “journalists” on CNBC, and all of the
defenders of the Wall Street criminal cabal must have been asleep during
their Stat class in college. The statistical probability of going four
years or even four weeks without a losing trading day is as close to
zero as you can get, unless the game is rigged and you are cheating.
These results were not accomplished due to the brilliance of Wall Street
big hanging dicks and their oversized brains. They were accomplished
by front running stock market orders, bribing stock
exchanges for first access, gaming the system with more powerful
computers, ripping off clients in shadowy dark pools, and keeping the
SEC at bay with promises of jobs and riches if they look the other way.
This was all done under the veil of hyper-complexity designed to
obscure, confuse, and cover-up the truth from unsuspecting investors.


And it is all done “legally” under the auspices of Regulation NMS,
established by the SEC in 2007, to foster both competition among
individual markets and competition among individual orders, in order to
promote efficient and fair price formation across securities markets.
As with almost every government regulation, law, or diktat, the new
method of “protecting” the sheeple created fresh ways to fleece the
sheeple by those who wrote the regulation. See Dodd-Frank and the
Affordable Care Act....When obnoxiously wealthy pricks with the ability to bribe stock
exchanges to place their trading computers on the floor of the exchange
and financially induce the Wall Street banks to funnel trades through
their dark pools in order to know what is happening a nanosecond before
everyone else, and use this information to front run unknowing
investors to generate risk free profits, it’s wrong.
It really is black and white. "

"The bad guys always win and the
good guys always lose on Wall Street. And no one does anything because
they are all on the take."

20 million U.S. families could buy homes, but don’t - MarketWatch

20 million U.S. families could buy homes, but don’t - MarketWatch:

 "Only 13% view home ownership as their “ultimate financial goal”"

"Just 74.4 million American households — less than 65% of the country — owned the homes they lived in during the first quarter of this year, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report this week. That was the lowest level since 1995 and a big drop from 2006, when a peak of 76.5 million households, or 68.9%, were owner-occupied." 

"In fact, the National Endowment for Financial Education released a poll this week that showed only 13% of Americans considered home ownership as their “top long term financial goal,” down from 17% in 2011.

“The American dream has long been associated with the gratification and security of a comfortable home within the picturesque borders of a white-picket fence,” said Ted Beck, president and CEO of the NEFE, which is based in Denver. “However, today the perceived importance of home ownership appears to be waning.”

"Instead, according to the poll, a whopping 50% said that their sole long term financial goal was to save enough for retirement, up from 43% three years earlier, even though most financial planners say owning a home is the best way to build wealth that can be tapped once you retire."

Bank of America to Pay $6.3 Billion to Settle Mortgage Securities Suit

Bank of America to Pay $6.3 Billion to Settle Mortgage Securities Suit - NYTimes.com

"Bank of America is paying $6.3 billion to settle a lawsuit arising out of troubled mortgage-backed securities it cobbled together and sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the run-up to the financial crisis.

The bank agreed on Wednesday to pay that sum
to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of the two government-sponsored
mortgage finance firms by their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance
Agency. As part of the settlement, Bank of America will also repurchase
mortgage securities from Fannie and Freddie that are valued at about
$3.2 billion.

The agreement covers what are known as
private-label mortgage-backed securities sold by Bank of America and its
affiliated entities like Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch."

LIBOR: The World’s Most Dishonest Number

LIBOR: The World’s Most Dishonest Number | The Big Picture

"The FDIC has sued 16 of the largest banks in the world plus the
British Bankers Association (BBA) alleging that they engaged in fraud
and collusion to manipulate the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR). 
BBA called LIBOR “The most important number in the world.”


LIBOR is actually many numbers that depend on the currency and term
(maturity) of the loan.  The collusion involved manipulating most of
these rates.  A vast number of loans and derivatives are priced off of
these “numbers.”  Estimates of the notional dollar amount of deals
affected by the collusion range from $300-550 trillion in deals
manipulated at any given time.  The LIBOR frauds began no later than
2005 and continued through 2011."

The fact that the FDIC “only” sued 16 of the largest banks in the
world does not indicate that the other elite banks were run honestly. 
The other elite banks were not part of the group that set LIBOR so they
could not join in the cartel.  The LIBOR conspiracy could only succeed
and persist if none of 16 elite banks was controlled by honest officers
and no regulator acted to end the collusion once they became aware of
the collusion (which happened no later than April 16, 2008).  We ran a
real world test of the ethics of the leaders of 16 of the world’s most
elite banks.  The scorecard according to the U.S. government agency that
investigated the matter (the FDIC) reports that each of the leaders
failed.  Our twin emergencies are financial and ethical.


According to the FDIC investigation, the three largest banks in
America (including the world’s two largest banks), the four largest
banks in the U.K, the largest bank in German, the largest bank in Japan
(plus one of the handful of surviving “main banks”), the third largest
bank in France, the two largest Swiss banks, the second largest bank in
Canada, and the second largest bank in the Netherlands conspired
together to manipulate LIBOR and not only lied about it but also covered
up the cartel and the fraud scheme it used.  The 15 surviving banks’
total assets were nearly twice as large as the U.S. GDP as of September
30, 2013."




Here are the data on the banks sued by the FDIC

Bank	($ billions, IFRS, as of 9/30/13)
Bank of America Corp	3063^
Barclays PLC	2275
Citigroup Inc	2693^
Credit Suisse Group AG	1643^
Deutsche Bank AG	2420
HSBC Holdings PLC	2723
JPMorgan Chase & Co	3678^
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC	1829
UBS AG	1160
Rabobank	908
Lloyds Banking Group PLC	1409
Societe Generale	1698
Norinchukin Bank	846
Royal Bank of Canada	825
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ	2469
Total:	29639
Source: SNL Financial

...



"Ethics


Consider the ethical and political implications of what the FDIC
investigation has confirmed.  The entire barrel of apples is rotten. 
Every CEO failed the ethical test, and the ethical bar that they failed
to surmount was set exceptionally low.  That can only happen when a
“Gresham’s” dynamic has been allowed to persist for years because of the
three “de’s” (deregulation, desupervision, and de facto decriminalization). 
Such a dynamic can cause “bad ethics to drive good ethics out of the
markets.”  No one should be able to view the facts the FDIC cites
without a sense of horror combined with an urgent commitment to
transform the industry that has done so much financial and ethical harm
to our nations.  "

..

"Crony Capitalism and Politics


There are two possibilities:  the Obama administration knew for six
years that the world’s largest banks were endemically led by frauds or
the administration learned of that fact recently when it learned of the
results of the FDIC investigation.  The LIBOR scandal became public
knowledge with the Wall Street Journal’s April 16, 2008 expose,
so the Bush administration also knew it was dealing with elite frauds. 
If the Obama administration has long known that fraud was endemic among
the leaders of the world’s largest banks, then its policies toward those
CEO and the banks they control have been reprehensible and harmful.


If the administration has just learned from the FDIC investigation
about the true nature of the CEOs that it has refused to hold
accountable and allowed to retain and even massively increase their
wealth through leading control frauds then we can doubtless expect a
series of emergency actions transforming the administration’s finance
industry policies.  The FDIC lawsuit provides a “natural experiment”
that allows us to test which of the possibilities was correct.


Let’s review the bidding.  The U.S. government, through the FDIC, has
found after a lengthy investigation that the leaders of 16 of the
world’s largest banks conspired together to form a cartel to manipulate
the LIBOR “numbers” and to defraud the public about the scam.  This
should have led the criminal justice authorities to prosecute large
numbers of senior officers of these banks – but none of them have been
prosecuted.  It obviously poses a grave threat to the “safety and
soundness” of the entire financial system.  The endemic frauds led by
elite CEOs demonstrate such a pervasive failure of integrity and ethics
by the leaders of the finance industry that there is a moral crisis of
tragic proportions. "

People Battle to Regain Online Privacy

People Battle to Regain Online Privacy - WSJ.com

"

More people are turning to a new wave of tools that let them cover their footsteps online or let them know who's watching them.

They're
downloading programs that allow them to see how their online activity
is being monitored or who can get access to their social-media
information. They're turning to browsers and search engines that don't
track their queries, and to services that encrypt their messages. Some
may soon opt for a new wave of phones that help hide their activity from
trackers.

The fears about privacy are
widespread. According to the Pew Research Center, half of Americans—up
from 33% in 2009—are concerned about the wealth of personal data on the
Internet.

But growing numbers of people
are also staging everyday rebellions against rampant data mining.
According to the same Pew survey, 86% have taken steps to mask their
digital footprints.

For instance, ad-blocking tools,
which keep ads off your screen and prevent the ad companies from getting
data about you, have become the most popular browser extension on the
Web: More than a quarter of Americans have downloaded them, according to




















Forrester Research Inc"

"DuckDuckGo and other Google alternatives
have seen traffic soar. Since its founding in 2011, for instance,
DuckDuckGo has risen to 4.5 million visits a day. Ixquick, another
anonymous search browser, had 2.5 million users a day in the spring of
2013, before the Snowden disclosures. Now it has five million a day.

Many
users are also looking to protect their email. Encrypted and so-called
ephemeral messaging—texts that disappear seconds after you send
them—have become explosively popular among teens, and have long been
used by security professionals.

But now
people who aren't worried about parents or hackers are seeing value in
these apps. WhisperSystems' free encrypted messaging service has had a
3,000% surge in installs since the Snowden revelations, the company
says."