Category Archives: Economy

Vox Day: Free Trade Violates The Property Rights Of The Nation

Posted on by

Christian libertarian Vox Day turns propertarian arguments against free-traders:

“In the comments, PG constructed an interesting and effective logical argument against free trade, which I have organized thusly:

1. Free traders insist upon the existence of property rights and the sovereign exercise of those rights as axiomatic. From this foundation, they argue that all actions concerning with whom one will trade, regardless of their location or nation, are protected by those property rights and cannot be morally infringed.

2. If a group of people happen to share the rights to a property in an ownership group, they must decide together on how those rights are exercised. No single individual can sell the property or permit its use by others without the agreement of the other rights holders. The ownership group collectively has the right to decide who and what are permitted to enter their property. It is not an infringement of any one owner’s property right if the greater part of the ownership group does not wish to sell the property or to permit entry to certain parties or items.

[Lila: Libertarians and classical liberals would argue that property rights cannot be exercised by an abstract collective entity like “the nation” and can only be exercised unjustly by any government that claims to represent the nation.]

3. A nation is a group of people who share a common property that is delineated by the national borders. This group of people must therefore decide in some consensus manner how the rights to that property are exercised. They can therefore decide who and what are permitted to enter the national property in precisely the same manner that a house-owning group decide who and what are permitted to enter their house. It is not an infringement of any one individual’s property right if the greater part of the nation does not wish to sell the land possessed by the nation or permit entry to certain parties or items.

4. To deny a nation the property right to enact tariffs or refuse permission for goods, capital, or labor to cross its borders, is tantamount to either denying a) property rights or b) the nation’s existence.

[Lila: Rather than enact laws against the property rights of companies wanting to trade under the present “managed trade” regime, it might be more conducive to freedom to undo the subsidies that currently exist, whether in the form of fixed prices, welfare, preferential tax treatment,  or any other grant by the government.  Doing so, would probably make it far less beneficial for some companies to trade, discourage some movements of labor, and generally have the same effect as a sanction or tariff, without needing to invoke group property rights.]

5. However, denying the existence of nations is not only empirically false, it creates a logical contradiction for the free trader because it requires denying the individual property-owner the right to form collective property-ownership groups from which nations are made. The free trade position depends upon the idea that individuals possess property rights, but groups of more than one individual cannot.

6. Therefore, free trade doctrine requires the denial of the very property rights upon which it is founded. As PG correctly concludes, “their whole argument is an outright logical contradiction”.

As evidence in support of PG’s logical construction, I offer the following statements concerning the existence of nations from two champions of the dogma, Mr. Gary North and our own Unger.

North: “Defenders of tariffs present themselves as defenders of the nation, when in fact the nation, from the point of view of economics, is not a collective entity. The nation, from an economic standpoint, is simply a convenient name that we give to people inside invisible judicial lines known as national borders.”

Unger: “I do not consider myself an ‘American’, except as a verbal convenience, or have any care at all for ‘America’.”

Now, it can certainly be pointed out that the mere existence of a nation does not mean that all of its members are voluntary members of it and it cannot be denied that the legitimate property rights of the nation can be abused or ignored just as they are in the case of individual property rights. But PG’s logic suffices to demonstrate that the property rights argument upon which many free traders heavily rely is far from the conclusive one that they believe it to be.”

[Lila: A version of this argument was made by David Boaz in reviewing the movie, Avatar]

Yes, We Have A Banana Republic…

Posted on by

Linh Dinh at Counterpunch describes the good part of the US descent into a banana-republic:

“It’s all going according to plan, this transformation of the US into a police state and Third-World nation, but what’s meant by “Third World,” exactly? A Third World country is one that is poor, with inadequate infrastructure, an obscene wealth gap and a corrupt government. America is by far the most-indebted nation on earth, with a record-setting trade deficit, so we are, in effect, much poorer than Greece, Zimbabwe, Somalia or any other basket case, but it hasn’t become manifest because we have guns, missiles and drones pointing in all directions. Using our gargantuan military to hold the world hostage, we receive more foreign aids, in the form of debts, than all the other nations combined. Riding a nuclear-armed mobility scooter, America is a gross welfare queen barging down the world’s sidewalk, but this is how an empire is supposed to work, many will smirk, and they are right, of course, until this extortion racket falls apart, and soon enough. Preparing for the inevitable, our ruling class is becoming more belligerent abroad, in a last ditch effort to prolong its advantages, and nastier at home, to slap down domestic rage at a sinking standard of living. Splurging beyond our means for decades, we will revert to the universal means, and not because we care about justice or equality, but because we don’t have a choice.

Just as there are pockets of First World opulence and luxury in even the most dismal Third World countries, rich nations also have stretches of Third World squalidness and destitution, but Third World isn’t all bad. Not by far. To survive on little requires enterprise, resourcefulness and cooperation, virtues that will emerge and even blossom as we slide downward. Ubiquitous in most Third World countries, peddlers will make a comeback here, and the black market will thrive. As globalism recedes, the local will rise. Instead of being slaves to huge corporations, we will become tiny businessmen, as long as we’re not hunted down, then fined or locked up…..

Back to the positive aspect. Each home can become a store or a restaurant. Each car is a gypsy cab. In totalitarian Vietnam, the government actually gives its people much more leeway to conduct petty business than is allowed in America. A private home can display a table with, say, five cans of soda, two brands of cigarettes and some candies, and that’s a store, though nobody is manning it most of the time. To get service, you might have to shout. It’s not their only source of income, but this pee wee initiative does bring in a buck or two a day, so it’s better than nothing. ….. There is no welfare, food stamps or Social Security in a Third World country, no safety net outside of your extended family……

One can say that the United States is becoming a police state because it is turning into a Third World country. Already, choppers snake through skyscraper canyons and tanks roll down main streets. The police state protects and advances the interests of the ruling class, which in our case is the military banking complex, and since an informal market nibbles at the profits of banks and corporations, you can expect their henchmen, cops and regulators, to stomp hard on us smallest fries. (Underpaid in a collapsed economy, cops will also use these opportunities to shake us down, so that’s a kind of tax we’ll have to pay.) In any case, it appears that as we become poorer and thinner, not to mention more enterprising or devious, and more colorful too, since everyday will be casual Friday, we will have to fend off our bullying state, if not the gangs that rise up in its place.”

License Raj: Indian Plutocracy Feeds Off Middle-Class

Posted on by

Developmental economist Atanu Dey asks why crony capitalism and not real capitalism has a grip on India  and comes to some saddening conclusions:

“This story has three main characters: the poor, the rich and the government. The poor are happy to receive stuff; the rich are unhappy; and the government is happy. The happiness of the latter arises from two sources: first, it is good to be powerful and make others bend to your will. It’s a natural animal instinct, and the human animal gets more out of it than do non-human animals. The second source of happiness for the government (we must remember that governments are people too) is that in the process of the redistribution, they get to keep some part of the other people’s stuff they are handling.

But wait, what about the rich? Are they not powerful? Actually, they are not powerful relative to the poor. Here’s how. Every government has to have popular support. Every. Dictators and authoritarian governments not excepted. In the government’s move to remove property rights, it has the support of the poor — which in most cases (and especially in poor countries) outnumber the rich. The poor want the wealth to be redistributed and the government is only too happy to oblige. It may be that good people were once in government who could take the long or enlightened view. But only those who are skilled in the game of promising redistribution win and in time the government is made of people who are good at it.

What are the factors that drive this redistribution game? It’s a combination of envy, greed, sloth and ignorance — all very human failings but ultimately supremely destructive at both the individual and the societal levels. I reluctantly admit that in moments of weakness, I envy the rich even though I am far from being poor. How much more the envy of the rich among the really poor I probably cannot imagine. I am not immune to greed or laziness either. My only saving grace, I boldly claim, is that I know that giving up any bit of my freedom in exchange for me to receive some free stuff is a very stupid trade.

People who support governments that steal from the rich are being myopic. The habit of stealing grows, and while the promise made is that the rich will be robbed to give to the poor, in truth the government steals from the poor with equal relish. The theft from the poor is not so visible but is equally or even more despicable and destructive. What the poor lose is not just self-respect (being on the dole cannot be very good for the soul) but also the capacity to shape their own destiny. Slavery and dependency are not very distinct concepts.

Given a choice between keeping the right to property intact and getting free stuff, if the poor choose the latter, then society ends up with a government which steals stuff and redistributes some of it. As noted earlier, the poor have to outnumber the rich, which is always so in poor countries.

Two related matters to consider now. One, why don’t the rich prevail? And second, why does the basic instinct for freedom get subverted? Let’s take the first one now.

The non-poor can be further segmented into the middle-class (which is also sometimes called the bourgeoisie or the social middle-class), and the rich upper-class. You and I belong to the bourgeois. We mostly make our daily living in middle-class occupations such as being engineers, scientists, office-workers, small-time merchants, etc.

We  get a salary. We are the people who are the haves that the government preys upon.

The upper-class rich are those who make their fortunes by being close to the government and indeed are (in most poor countries) rich because of their proximity and their intimate relationship with the government.

Governments in poor countries are heavily interventionist in the economy and have the power to make or break the fortunes of the upper-class rich. In this piece, I will focus only on the dynamics of the middle-class, the poor and the government. The filthy rich in poor countries, for the purposes of this exercise, can be considered as part of the government because their fortunes are so intimately and inextricably related.

The license-control-permit-quota raj that India is so famous for lies at the foundation of that relationship……..

This theft cannot go unnoticed. So the government faces the problem of people speaking up. It solves that problem with clamping down on the freedom of speech and expression. Another piece of the freedom edifice crumbles to dust.

The poor — uneducated for the most part — cannot fathom what the whole fuss about freedom of expression is anyway, and they are not concerned.

The government, to ensure that education is government directed, controls the education system with an iron fist. The people only get to know what the government wants them to know.

………So back to the question. Do people value freedom or not? The answer depends on many things.

One has to know what freedom is to really value it. Freedom is a terminal value but it also has an instrumental role.

Its instrumental role is that it increases material prosperity.

If one does not know that it is so valuable, it is possible that one gives it up in exchange for trinkets.

If enough number of people get into that exchange, then the outcome is predictable. The result is poverty.

At some level of analysis, the poor are themselves responsible for the poverty they suffer and endure.

The government, at that level of analysis, is neither benevolent nor malevolent. It just is a response to the underlying reality. What the government does is what any “rational……

Its main objective is to extract wealth. For this it needs the support of the poor. That means it has to pit the poor against the non-poor.

The government has to create divisions and if there are already tears in the social fabric, it has to deepen them.

The government has to make policies that ensure that the numbers of the poor increase. It has to control all aspects of the economy not just to extract as much rents as it can but also as a by-product enlarge the number of the poor.

They depend on the poor for their legitimacy and poverty is their friend — and who would willingly give up their friend!

India is a classic case of a people who have collectively, at least in the last couple of centuries, never really valued freedom.

What will it take to awaken them to the great wonders of being a free people?

Lots of people have tried and judging from the results have failed miserably. Swami Vivekananda was eloquent and forceful. Result: The people are in deep slumber.

Sri Aurobindo tried and eventually retired to his ashram.

Ultimately, the slavery preached by some continued to fascinate the masses. Gandhi, Nehru and the whole bunch of sepoys ruled over them. Freedom didn’t mean a damn thing.”

Obamacare: Bad From Every Angle

Posted on by

David Lindorff at Oped News points out that people on the left should also  be upset by the Supreme Court ruling on Obama care, equating a penalty with a tax. I guess if  the government decides to make  people tattoo 666 on their foreheads, as some maybe not-so-batty-after-all people fear it might, that could be constitutional too.

Not since the commerce clause has there been a  semantic theory so convenient for overreaching executives.

“On the downside for Obama, he goes into the final four months of the election campaign saddled with a decision that says he has raised taxes on some of the nation’s poorest people –– for that is what the court said will be happening, 18 months from now, when the health insurance mandate part of the new Act takes effect, and people who have no employer-provided health plan, and no other kind of coverage, fail to buy a policy for themselves and their families.  They will be socked with a bill by the IRS, and while the Obama administration and supporters of the act in Congress were at pains to say that the payment such people would be hit with would be a fine, the Justices in the majority were adamant that it would be a tax………

..The real losers in the latest Supreme Court decision, however, are the people of the United States. Not those who will be required to go out and buy some over-priced, minimal coverage, rip-off insurance plan offered by the private insurance industry, or to pay a “tax” to the IRS for not doing so, but everyone…”

Comment:

This is just a gift to the insurance industry, probably the industry most responsible for soaring costs in every field.

And it’s a blow to young people, who can often get by with just catastrophic coverage. It also hits people who are fine with self-medicating or using cheaper alternative resources.

Finally, it’s a huge blow to small businesses, the engine of job-growth.

With the economy struggling, you’d think that would be a consideration. But it wasn’t.

People are going to think twice about hiring now.

That means fewer young people are going to find jobs…..

If I were young,  this has  to be the point where I pack my bags, get my passport stamped, and hop onto the first cheap flight out of the country.

Rajat Gupta Verdict: Insider-Trading & IP Theft By The Govt

Posted on by

“Anyone can benefit from insider information but not anyone can afford a supercomputer. They may both provide – with fair certainty – a market advantage but only one advantage will be prosecuted.”

–    Anthony Wile, The Daily Bell

Rajat Gupta Trial: The Other Goldman Insider Ring…

Posted on by

Just wonder what would happen if Gary Naftalis, lawyer for Rajat Gupta, the former Goldman manager on trial for alleged insider-trading, asked Lloyd Blankfein if he’d ever shared confidential Goldman information himself….you know, with one of his swanky neighbors in New York, say, Daniel Seth Loeb (Mr. Pink of feminine hygiene fame), who manages billions for hedge-fund, Third Point LLC..

Loeb, allegedly part of the network of sometime Sith Lord, Michael Milken (also of insider-trading fame),  is what’s called an activist hedge-fund, which is a nice way of saying he actively influences the price of the stocks he shorts/buys (all for the greater good, of course, but fortunately it coincides precisely with Mr. Loeb’s good too, which is so nice, especially when your hedge-fund is down).

Of course, one guy’s activism is another guy’s market manipulation, but I came not to quibble.

Daniel…Danny to his friends…is also good at digging up… er…doing research on the companies he shorts and employing public message-boards to intimidate company officers with information both relevant to their duties and relevant only to the purpose of intimidation (see also, harassment) .

He employs for that purpose the very interesting corporate intelligence firm of Julius Kroll, which every 9-11 researcher knows…

Kroll has ties (would you call those insider ties?) with Maurice (Hank) Greenberg through its purchase in 2004 by Marsh & McLennan, an insurance brokerage firm owned until 2005 by Jeffrey Greenberg, Hank’s son. Greenberg has been chief of C.V. Starr (CIA-linked), of Starr International, and until 2005 of AIG (also CIA-linked)…..

but I digress…

Where was I? Oh yes. Insider trading.

I just wondered about it in my little ole way, because digging (just like Kroll!)  through my archives, I ran into this note about how…sort of like biorhythms or crime-waves following the phases of the moon… there were a string of exits, literal and figurative, among some of these Goldman- Third-Point-activist-outsider-insider-letter-writing types at certain opportune moments. To wit.

“Goldman’s chief hedge-fund manager, Pierre-Henri Flamand (chief of GS Principal Strategies), retired in February after 15 years at Goldman. Flamand was with Principal Strategies from 2002 -2007, and then turned it into a hedge-fund in 2008, is starting his own fund. He’s being replaced by another manager from GSPS. Goldman has been accused of conniving with select hedge-funds to conduct bear raids on banks and governments.

Meanwhile, Adam Sackett, co-chief of trading at Third Point Capital, died on March 11, March 10, Wednesday night, apparently from a sudden bacterial infection. Third Point is one of the hedge-funds accused of colluding with David Einhorn’s Greenlight and SAC’s Steven Cohen in manipulative activities. Sackett had previously worked at Jim Chanos’ hedge-fund Kynikos (suspected by some to be part of that group), according to this death notice in the New York Times.

Note: Bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas’ report on the demise of Lehman came out on March 11, 2010, the day after Sackett died.

Our condolences to the family.

In a letter to investors, posted at scribd, Daniel Loeb, Sackett’s co-chief at Third Point, called him “brilliant, kind, and funny, ” says the WSJ.

Last year, Third Point lost three senior officers, its chief operating officer, Brian Wilson, chief risk officer, Devin Dellaire, and head of investor relations, Tom Kratky.”

Tut. The last thing you want at activist hedge-funds is inactive  officers. But there — happens to the best of us.

And Loeb  is among the bestest of the best, we hear. So good that he gets to be neighbors with big shots from Citigroup and Goldman “we don’t do insider trading” Sachs at 15 Central Park West.

That’s this swanky place in New York:

15 central park west residents

And, dang, if  that isn’t a nice picture of Lloyd Bankst – I mean, Blankfein. Guess if you have to do God’s work, you might as well do it in a duplex worth $26 mill, huh?

[I have to say me..being a wog schwartze ‘n all…I couldn’t quite get the hang of what could’ve possibly cost $26 big ones in the place…but as they say, if you got it, flaunt it..]

And here’s Sandy Weill (former chief of Citigroup) flaunting his digs – worth $46 mill – at 15 Central Former Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill bought a full-floor penthouse in the front section of 15 CPW. He paid $43.7 million for the place in 2007, then a record price per-square-foot.

Park West.  (Love the smile, Sandy).  And then there’s Daniel Ochs (hedge-fund manager) and …but I digress, again.

Danny (to his foes, Senor Pinche_Wey – look that up) Loeb paid nearly as much as Sandy for his 8 bedroom apartment (45 million in 2008). He  wants to sell it for 100 million this year.

Nice.

But what I was really getting at, in my clumsy way, is could Mr. Gary Naftalis please inquire if Mr.Lloyd  Blankfein, in his neighborly walks from his apartment ($26 million) to the lobby and back, and up the elevator, and down, and in the door, and out..and waiting to catch a cab, or go to a restaurant, ever run into Mr. Loeb?

And if he did, did he chat? And if he chatted, as I hear he did, did he ever say anything about Goldman? And if he did, did he ever…just accidentally…let on about something that was confidential? I mean, I know how Mr. Blankfein is so big on confidentiality and how careful they are with even the appearance of wrong-doing at Goldman Sachs.

So careful, that their senior executives have begun jumping ship on the front pages of the international press.

Here’s how one of its clients, Marvell Technology Group, saw Goldman’s impeccable culture:

“Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai founded Marvell Technology Group, a worldwide semiconductor company in 1995. Goldman Sachs managed the IPO for Marvell and put the two executives into its Private Wealth Management Group. It is alleged that once the two executives’ personal wealth was under the financial management of Goldman Sachs, the firm abused the two executives’ trust, manipulated their relationship, and ultimately defrauded them of several hundreds of millions of dollars.”

And if Mr. Blankfein, like Brer Rabbit, jes’ lay low ‘n didn’t say nuffin’, how should we understand a passage like this one:

“Multiple media stories (such as this one in “Investment News”) have speculated that Goldman Sachs actually designed these CDOs in such a way that they would be certain to implode, delivering large profits to Goldman and preferred hedge fund clients. Those CDO could not have been created without Einhorn and his allies inside New Century delivering the mortgages that went into them. And there is no doubt that Goldman Sachs delivered the knock-out punch that put New Century out of business, ensuring that the CDOs would, in fact, implode. This constellation of facts may be coincidental, of course. Or not. This essay lays them out, and leaves it to the reader to decide.

New Century’s problems began in December 2005, when board member Richard Zona drafted a letter in which he threatened to resign if senior executives did not agree to sell a greater percentage of the mortgage loans on its books to various banks, such as Goldman Sachs. In his letter, Zona explicitly stated that he was making this demand in league with David Einhorn and Dan Loeb.

Unfortunately, according to the bankruptcy report, New Century’s executives never saw that letter. Zona stashed the draft letter on his computer and instead submitted a letter making a similar demand, but omitting all mention of Einhorn and Loeb. In all likelihood, Zona changed his letter because he knew that New Century’s executives had good reason to doubt whether Einhorn and Loeb, who had recently reported large shareholdings in New Century, were acting in the company’s best interests.

As Deep Capture has thoroughly documented, Einhorn and Loeb are part of a network of hedge fund managers and criminals who use a variety of dubious tactics to destroy, seize, and/or loot public companies for profit. It is not unusual for money managers in this network to appear as long investors in the companies they are attacking, and sometimes they seek to obtain a seat on a target company’s board in order to be better placed to run the company into the ground for their own private profit.

Essentially everyone  in this network – including Einhorn and Loeb — are connected in important ways to Michael Milken, the infamous criminal who specialized in loading companies with debt, looting them, and then profiting still more from their inevitable bankruptcies.”

Most of all, could Mr. Gary Naftalis find out why US Attorney Preet Bharara hasn’t charged David (no relation to Danny, we hope) Loeb, who was also leaking confidential Goldman information to Galleon?

“The logs showed calls from Loeb’s phones to numbers associated with Rajaratnam and Galleon trader Adam Smith on dates when Gupta is alleged to have tipped Rajaratnam, bolstering a defense claim that it was Loeb or others who leaked data.

Loeb, whose job kept him in regular contact with hedge funds, hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing, and Frankel didn’t present other evidence that he was the source of Rajaratnam’s information.”

And why  didn’t he charge Henry King, the technology analyst, another Goldman leaker, and how did he overlook the mysterious “Mr. X,” a third Goldman leaker... and why was it he zeroed in only on the luckless Mr. Gupta?

By the time it caught the attention of the Feds, Goldman – if we’re to believe the charges – had sprung more leaks than the Titanic…

Which leads to some interesting speculations.

Marvell Technology, we can safely assume, falls under the tech sector.  That would be the sector in which Henry King, the leaker, worked.  Marvell, with its Singapore offices, would also probably be of interest to David Loeb, head of Asia Equity sales, the other known leaker.

The one with all those ties to hedge-funds.

Would those hedge-funds include Daniel Loeb’s well-known Third Point? Especially, since, on looking up Mr. Loeb’s holdings, we find he has over 40% in technology including holdings in Marvell and in Apple.

Dan Loeb’s Third Point Offshore fund returned 3.7% during the first 5 months of 2012. Here are his top 10 holdings at the end of March:
Company Ticker Value ($000s) Activity
YAHOO INC YHOO 1,073,016 26%
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE PLC DLPH 417,990 New
SARA LEE CORP SLE 221,221 32%
APPLE INC AAPL 217,037 New
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP UTX 182,468 New
GOOGLE INC GOOG 179,547 New
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD MRVL 145,503 -8%
MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC MHS 140,600 New
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES INC FDO 136,052 New
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP COF 119,841 New

It looks like he lost on Marvell, at least the shares he bought this year, but we don’t know what was bought in 2008…or sold…and what with all the long-short, up-down, outsider-insider, black-white, pump-dump, on-shore/off-shore, high-tech low-class complexities of hedge-funds, inquiring minds would like to know….

[June 20. I checked Einhorn and I see that he bought Marvell Technology in 20011 in the 3rd Q
“David Einhorn initially invested in Marvell Tech Group, a semiconductor company, in the third quarter of 2011. He bought 16,640,000 shares at an average price of $14. Then, he added more shares in the next two quarters and owned a total of 18,372,247 at March 31, 2012, making the holding 5.2% of his portfolio and his fifth-largest holding.

Marvell temporarily went above Einhorn’s highest average purchase price of $15.63 in the first quarter, but dropped to open Tuesday at $11.98 per share”

—

Back to Marvell. The co-founders claim that Goldman forced them to sell their holdings in  companies at a loss, through margin rules, and then turned around and bought those shares for its own holdings and those of its related hedge-funds.

One instance, was in the case of tech stock, NVIDIA:

Citing clear conflict of interest, the FINRA Claim alleges no one from Goldman ever disclosed to Claimants that Goldman was increasing its holdings in NVIDIA shares, while simultaneously forcing Claimants to sell their NVIDIA shares at a loss. Indeed, according to the FINRA Claim, no one from Goldman ever disclosed to Claimants that it was trading in NVIDIA at all or that it provided investment banking services to NVIDIA.

Another was in the case of their own company, Marvell. Their lawsuit against Goldman, though, doesn’t show any evidence of Goldman or hedge-fund purchasing Marvell.

If it did,  to a layman’s eyes, the scheme would seem as bad as a pump-and-dump operation.

Pump-and-dump operations often go hand-in-glove with naked short-selling, even though bashers and pumpers like to face-off on the message-boards with ripe invective.

And now we know that there’s been  naked-short-selling at Goldman Sachs since documentary evidence emerged accidentally in Overstock’s lawsuit with Goldman Sachs.

That  brings us back to the alleged insider trading ring Goldman had going with Third Point and its associates.

Which, again to our layman’s eyes, seems just as bad…if not a good deal worse..than the shenanigans of “Big Raj”‘s Galleon Group.

Besides, Big Raj is not on trial here. He’s already in the slammer. The trial is about Rajat Gupta, whose main mistake in this case seems to have been picking Big Raj for a friend….at least, for the time they were friends.

Which wasn’t long, by the account of Berkshire Hathaway’s No. 2 man, Mr. Ajit Jain.

Raj had gypped Rajat by 2008 says Mr. Jain.

Which means that if you’re looking for insider-rings with high-up connections to Goldman, Gupta might not be the highest up connection. Or, at least, not the only one.

I mean, it seems like if Mr. Bharara, another proud New Yorker, really wanted to know what was going on at Goldman, it would have been a lot less work to just stop by for a neighborly chat at  15 Central Park West….

Or has he?

Indian Opposition Says No To Wal-Mart

Posted on by

Bloomberg reports on Indian opposition to corporate giants forcing open the lucrative retail market:

“Opposition parties and government allies rounded on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s bid to open India’s retail sector to foreign companies like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), stalling parliament for a fifth day with their protests.

In a rare concerted attack on the ruling Congress party, Singh’s two largest parliamentary partners joined the opposition in criticizing the policy approved by the Cabinet last week, forcing both houses of parliament to adjourn. Overseas retailers stand to be barred from opening stores in at least 19 of India’s 45 largest cities with state assemblies set to veto their entry. “

I’m glad to hear this.   Even though it’s too little too late. The spineless Manmohan Singh has already opened up local mutual funds to foreign investment, with all the economic and other dangers of cross-border financial flows and hot money.

Of course, the globalist mouthpieces, (Time: Jyothi Thottam, “Why India Should Stop Fearing Walmart”), are anxious for it to happen.

The big media outlets like to put a local face on the policy (“India’s Wobbly Walmart Embrace’), but astute readers aren’t fooled.

One writes:

Let’s say our law says that Walmart will source 30% from small players. What about the rest, the 70%? Is it going to source 100% of it from India or is allowed to import the rest, i.e. 70%? According to the WTO you cannot stop them from importing.  The example the writer gave was from Bharti-Walmart which is a wholesale cash and carry store (like SAM’s) not Walmart – it is the consumer side which will kill the Kirana business and the Indian manufacturers. She talks about the food supply and global chains without even knowing what it means. …..

They are in the business of making money and lots of it for their US shareholders. They are not in the business of reducing cost for Indian consumers. If it happens that they buy in bulk in China and flood the Indian market with imports, so be it.  Today India is a net Export-Import deficit country with $85 Billion per year. This is the contribution of Dr. Singh…from a few billion a year trade deficit that we had before to having to borrow $85 Billion a year to pay our imports minus exports. So what do you think will happen when Walmart imports $100 Billion dollars worth of goods into India every year?

Now you have to somehow find current $85 Billion net deficit + $100 Billion = $185 Billion dollars PER YEAR.  In the case of the USA, it was simple. The USA borrowed $3 Trillion to pay the deficit. It has the luxury of printing dollars. So if China demands money, they can print it. They just recently printed $600 Billion. India can not do this and India will ultimately be screwed.  In the 17th Century, India was a net exporter. Then the Britishers came and India became a net importer and in turn a poor country. That will happen after a few years if our appetite for imports continues to grow and our exports dont keep up with the rise in imports as happened in the last many years. Today, we borrow soft money and hard money from the IMF, bonds, FDI in other sectors etc. to pay the difference of $85 Billion of dollars that we have to pay to import more than what we export. How long do you think this is sustainable? How long do you think we can continue to borrow either via the FDI route or via IMF loans to pay for our imports. India is one of the few countries where you can allow all these things, including changing our nuclear policy, allowing FDI, etc. without discussing this in Parliament first.

Remember also that Walmart started putting in RFID tags into their clothes from last year, August 1, 2010, making it possible at some point that you could be tracked anywhere you went, because of your clothes. This is incipiently fascistic.

India FDI Watch has a detailed report on what really happens when foreign lobbyists get big retail giants into the market, monopsony:

“Industrial licensing had brought monopolies to India but monopsony is a new phenomenon for India which has recently come to the forefront in the manufacturing goods sector due to the increased specialization in the global process of production. This has led to the concept of a single supplier to a large producer who obtains the goods at a ransom. The larger the amount of any commodity a large retailer can purchase, the greater the concession on price, delivery, it can extract. This is a demonstration of monopsonistic procurement and the awesome monopsonistic purchasing power which comes with it. This is unique to the modern world of digital instant communication (branding, streamlined logistics distribution can drive down prices still further) and hugely affects the agricultural commodities market also, as shown. The more of a commodity large retailers purchase in bulk, the lower the prices growers of agricultural commodities obtain!”

More in this report on how the globalists at WTO would like to destroy the decentralized production of food:

“The Bank has identified laws such as the Essential Commodities Act (1955) the Agricultural Produce and marketing Act (APMC 1972) and the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (1980) which have defended the rights of farmers to a just price and the rights of the poor to a fair price for food, as having “prevented the free mobility of agricultural produce and thus segmented the Indian domestic market into many smaller markets.

The government has also imposed restrictions on foreign investment in the retail of agricultural commodities, and on both foreign and domestic private investment in wholesale. These restrictions have collectively discouraged and/or prevented the private sector from undertaking large-scale investment in agricultural storage, marketing, or processing activities – an example of horizontal fragmentation preventing desirable vertical integration. The result is that today there is no large, organized, efficient pan-Indian supply chain in the agricultural sector, including in horticulture. What the Bank defines as “fragmentation” is in fact self-organized local systems of production and trade which are not controlled by a centralized store or by centralized, monopolistic corporations. And the repeated attack on India’s “geography” shows how anti-nature World Bank’s basic economic thinking is. Not only the World Bank like to wish away India’s diversity and geography, it would like to destroy India’s food sovereignty.

Thus, the Bank takes apples grown in Himachal and says it would be cheaper to import them for Chennai. This was exactly the argument the trade liberalisers had used to justify wheat imports. However, the imported wheat turned out to be twice as costly as domestic wheat. Navdanya has filed a case in the Supreme Court against wheat imports.”

Note:

I’ve shopped at Walmart, and they have great prices, true. But in the US I don’t have that much of a choice of smaller shops.  In India, however, there are plenty of choices….and it should stay that way.  Anyway, I don’t think I should be shopping at Walmart, even if the prices are low.  It’s a question of choosing smart self-interest over self-defeating self-interest. I like cheap prices, but I also want to live in a country of small shops and farms, not one of huge commercial farms and supermarkets.

It’s time to buy from local retailers, wherever possible.

The American-made Retail E-guide features over 2500 American-made products from over a dozen popular retail stores like Dillard’s, Home Depot, TJ Maxx, and Costco.

How Americans Can Buy American
Post Office Box 780839, Orlando, Florida 32878-0839
Tel: 1-888-US OWNED (1-888-876-9633)
Emergency Backup: 407-234-4626
Email the Author: Roger Simmermaker
Web: http://www.howtobuyamerican.com

On this issue, I agree with OccupyWallStreet.

If we can’t lower taxes to bring companies back, we can boycott multinationals with predatory practices. Giant corporations of this kind have nothing to do with the free market.

From TowardFreedom:

“The shiny happy people featured in Wal-Mart advertisements, as well as the company’s continued PR claims of corporate responsibility (“We at Wal-Mart take an active interest in conserving the environment!”), simply doesn’t match the frustrating reality of their corporate behavior. Even the largely toothless Environmental Protection Agency, for example, a federal regulatory outfit that sometimes seems to exist simply to provide permits for giant corporate polluters, has managed to prosecute Wal-Mart for Clean Air Act violations in nine states, due to the company’s stubborn insistence on storing lawn fertilizer and other toxic chemicals in parking lots located near local watershed areas.

Greenwald even takes us to Wal-Mart’s global factories in where Wal-Mart workers put in 14 hour days 7 days a week and brush their teeth with fireplace ashes because their salaries don’t allow them to buy tooth paste. Implicitly in this global tour is the fact that, while wrapping itself in the American flag and a shallow sham version of patriotism, Wal-Mart cares very little for the health and well being of its workers, the environment, or the health of the U.S. economy as a whole, beyond the short-term dollar value it can extract to increase its profit margin.

While all of this is deeply sobering, Greenwald wisely chooses to end the film on a powerful high note, spotlighting and interviewing several citizen/activists – normal people just like you and me – who have chosen to organize their communities to oppose Wal-Mart’s predatory behavior and fight for more just and sustainable local economies.”

Ames: Tax The 1% At 91%

Posted on by

Mark Ames in a nutshell (which is exactly where nuts belong);

“The eXiled has set up an emergency “deficit crisis” website calling on America to restore President Eisenhower’s top tax rate on the wealthiest 0.1% Americans: RATFOCR. Everyone agrees that the Golden Age for America’s middle-class was under President Eisenhower, when the top tax rate reached 91% for the wealthiest Americans.”

There you have it. 91% taxes is confiscatory. Why not 100%, though? I mean, if it’s all so righteous, just take everything and split it up. Why stop at 91%?

The point is who decides what’s rich? $250000 sounds like a lot of money to most people, including me. But if you have a lot of expenses and are a businessman in New York, it might not be.  Of course, here comes Felix Salmon to say let’s just check your bank balance and tax you if you have $5 million plus. But, suppose you got that $5 million by not having a family, scrimping and saving, and suppose you actually earned much less than $250000, say $100,000? Suppose you have sick relatives or you wanted to bankroll some charity dear to your heart, or to spend the end of your life pursuing your dream, after years of deferring it? What if you hold the savings for an extended family or for relatives living in unstable countries? Who sorts all that out? Mark Ames?

How fair is that? You not only didn’t get the use out of your money, you didn’t get interest from it, because the banks were speculating on it and losing money, and now you have to subsidize the people who spent their money (and got the use of it) or actually debased or stole other people’s money?

I haven’t studied Eisenhower’s tax policies, but if this was his tax-rate, the economy was prosperous in spite of it.  Income disparities today are extreme, but they are caused by all kinds of hidden and open subsidies and redistribution schemes.  Undo them and you won’t have to confiscate property.

Climate-Gate: The 2011 Edition

Posted on by

 

James Delingpole at The Daily Telegraph breaks the latest from the Climatistas:

“Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.”

Some quotes from more scrupulous researchers are cited in the article:

/// The IPCC Process ///
Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]
Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

The email writers recognize that public perceptions about ” global freezing” might be ruining the brand value of “global warming” as a technique of social change:

Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
Kjellen:
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming
Pierrehumbert:
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.”

 [Some of my blogging on climate-gate can be found here and in other posts you can locate by using the Search function on this blog]

The blog Watts Up With That has links to a comprehensive timeline and graphics that display the thirty-year subversion of climate science behind climate-gate.

The Guardian suggests that the new climate emails probably date back to the first group, released in 2009, and that the motive is, again, to sabotage the Durban Climate summit, which starts on Monday:

“The emails appear to be genuine, but the University of East Anglia said the “sheer volume of material” meant it was not yet able to confirm that they were. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday.”

 There are similarities to the first release, says the Guardian:

“In the new release a 173MB zip file called “FOIA2011” containing more than 5,000 new emails, was made available to download on a Russian server called Sinwt.ru today. An anonymous entity calling themselves “FOIA” then posted a link to the file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent.”

But there are also differences:

“The use of points instead of commas to mark the thousands when writing a number – highly unusual in both the UK or US – is sure to lead to speculation about the nationality of those responsible.”

The Guardian also indicates that although not all the emails have been confirmed genuine, the University of East Anglia claims that they have had no recent breach of security and says that the emails were probably held back from the original batch released in 2009.

Michael Mann, Director of the Earth Sciences Institute at Pennsylvania State University, whose messages are part of the release, is quoted in the piece dismissing the emails as more of the same. He calls the anonymous FOIA “agents” of the fossil-fuel industry and “criminal” hackers.

“Flash Crashes” Suggest Market Trouble?

Posted on by

Update (Sept 29, 5:54 PM):

Just a thought. Could a DHS cyber security exercise scheduled for this week have had anything to do with these two market “accidents”?

According to this report, the following sectors (among others) were to have been targeted for several days this week:

“This year’s exercise will be the largest yet, including representatives from seven cabinet-level federal departments, intelligence agencies, 11 states, 12 international partners and 60 private sector companies in multiple critical infrastructure sectors like banking, defense, energy and transportation.”

The markets aren’t specifically mentioned, but then you’d expect that if they were the chosen target…

ORIGINAL POST

Peter Cooper at Arabian Money argues that an apparent Google “flash crash” last Friday signals a market correction in the offing:

“It also seems pretty clear that Wall Street insiders flicked the sell switch at the weekend. That would account for the ‘accidental’ Google flash crash last Friday (click here). You bet against this crowd at your peril.

On this reckoning the gold pit action is just a last burst of optimism from latecomers to the party. For the gold price will surely dip (if not to much more than $1,150) in a big sell-off in financial markets, and silver will also fall back below $20.”

Meanwhile, Rick Ackerman points to a mini flash crash that apparently took place on Tuesday night in the gold futures market…..and explains why Bob Prechter has been wrong for the last 18 months – he’s an expert in real markets, not completely rigged ones…

I’ll admit that I’m glad to see this because of my own market bias, which has left me a bit lonely waiting for some kind of correction in the gold price.

Years of making my very own patentable blunders have made me much more comfortable being wrong on my own rather than being right in a crowd…..

But there does seem to be some technical evidence that a correction might be due.