Category Archives: Kleptocracy

Sir James Goldsmith: GATT, Nukes, Agribusiness Devouring Society

Posted on by

Sir James Michael Goldsmith, Anglo-French financier and corporate raider of the 1980s, is most infamous for taking over Goodyear Tires and restructuring it, thereby putting its many employees out of work.

In this deeply prophetic interview with Charlie Rose in 1994 he discusses his book about globalization, The Trap, and displays a more humane side of his complex intelligence.

In the earlier part of the interview (not shown here), Goldsmith gets into a heated debate with Clinton economic honcho Laura Tyson over the benefits of NAFTA and GATT in which Tyson comes off as both naive and uninformed.

In another part, Goldsmith calls Indian physicist and environmental activist Vandana Shiva “remarkable” and asks why it is that global “free” trade, supposedly so beneficial to developing countries, was protested widely and vigorously by huge numbers of people in India.

Take away points from the interview:

*This (globalization) is the establishment against the rest of society

*I am for big business until it devours society

*Big business loves total access to unlimited give-away labor

*In every developing nation you have a handful of people who control everything, the oligarchs

*This (globalization) is the poor in rich countries subsidizing the rich in the poor countries
(Lila: I’d add that the poor in poor countries are also subsidizing the rich in rich countries)

*Free trade within homogeneous regions is to be preferred to global trade
(Lila: This coincides with something I’ve advocated for a while, on the principle of subsidiarity)

*The European parliament is a force for pseudo-democratic institutions

*It’s already fixed by the two main parties, the Christian Democrats and the Socialists

*The people have a right to vote on the single most important economic decision of their life times

*Here in the USA we’ve had no debate on it (GATT) while we’ve had a huge debate about NAFTA which was a pimple

*GATT is going through because business wants it
*It’s a fix here (the US), as it is in Europe

*We’ve allowed instruments that are supposed to serve us to become our masters

*GATT is an example of how an economic doctrine is going to destabilize our society

*Nuclear is another example. Here in Europe, we’ve not been allowed to discuss this disastrous form of energy, disastrous in terms both of economics and in terms of security

*Corporate agriculture is a third example of how we are destroying our societies

*The ruling machinery of government power in Europe is imposing this (GATT) without a debate

Arms and Mark Thatcher..

Posted on by

Mark Thatcher, son of the former UK PM, seems to have been dogged with accusations of financial impropriety. I bring him up, because of a comment on this blog about his direct involvement in an international conspiracy to cover up the manipulation of precious metals that was apparently outed in 2002 in the UK, but was covered up. In researching the comment, I began with some background on Mark Thatcher.

Here’s a brief summary of some financial “improprieties” as they show up in a Guardian article from 2004.

“But hit controversy in 1984 when the Observer alleged that he benefited from his mother’s position when a large construction deal in Oman was awarded to a building firm, Cementation, with which he was involved, after Mrs Thatcher visited the tiny Gulf state. The accusations were never proven.

Further controversy dogged him through his friendship with the Middle East businessman Wafic Said – a quiet-spoken Syrian with close links with Saudi royalty.

Among other business ventures in the 1980s, he was involved in several large-scale arms deals, most notably a £20bn contract between British Aerospace and Saudi Arabia.

Although rumours of impropriety have dogged his business career, he largely disappeared off Fleet Street’s radar after moving to the US.

But it is recorded that his wealth grew to the point where he spent periods as a tax exile in Switzerland.

In the 1990s he helped secure the multimillion pound contract for his mother’s Downing Street memoirs, but after the failure of a security alarm business in the US and a prosecution for tax evasion, Mark, his wife and their two children moved again – this time to South Africa.

Three years after the move to Cape Town, in 1998, he was investigated by South African police over a money-lending business to police officers. He counter-claimed that officers working for him as agents had defrauded him and the investigation was eventually dropped.

He returned to the UK last July for the funeral of his father, Sir Denis, a former oil businessman, who died aged 88. He inherited his father’s hereditary baronetcy to become Sir Mark.

Sir Mark, who was known as “Thickie Mork” among other nicknames at Harrow and who has been criticised for his lack of charm, was once described by the Financial Times as “a sort of Harrovian Arthur Daley with a famous Mum”.

A devoted Lady Thatcher, however, has always had faith in him. “Mark could sell snow to the Eskimos, and sand to the Arabs,” she is reported to have said.

His notoriety was not welcomed by Sir Bernard Ingham, Lady Thatcher’s former press secretary.

Asked by Sir Mark how he could best help his mother win the 1987 general election, Ingham reportedly replied: “Leave the country.”

Daily Bell Interview of GATA’s Bill Murphy

Posted on by

The Daily Bell interviews Bill Murphy of GATA (Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee):

“It’s something like out of a James Bond movie. What are the odds that my testimony gets blotted out from live coverage and then our whistleblower and wife get hit by a car the next day? … The gold scandal story is larger than life to begin with. Now throw this spooky stuff on top of it. Veteran Cafe (Le Metropole Cafe, Murphy’s website) members will recall that in the early part of this century what happened to me during a six week period …

My car was stolen and then found on a nearby highway one day after the insurance company paid me off. There was no damage to the car, money left in the console, and a cashmere sweater in the back seat.

My web site was hacked and somebody sent out a very goofy email supposedly from me, but it was not me.

Coming out of a restaurant/night spot less than two blocks from where I live, somebody jumped out from behind a wall and sucker-punched me with brass knuckles. I was out cold and thought my jaw was broken.

Nothing like this has happened before or since.

Daily Bell: Do you think, this time, that the CFTC must take all this seriously.

Bill Murphy: Outside of Bart, it appears none of them want to go there. GATA is like their worst nightmare because they are like everyone else … kowtowing to the rich and powerful. However, a firestorm is growing about what GATA has to say, partially ignited by the Andrew Maguire revelations. I suspect we are finally going to receive some mainstream press in the months ahead, which will be like shining a light on Dracula.

Daily Bell: Why hasn’t it already?

Bill Murphy: The relationship between a government agency like the SEC and the CFTC is insidious. Nobody wants to rock the boat. Heck a number of these people at these agencies end up working on Wall Street, or interact business-wise in some other manner. The Chairman of the CFTC is a Goldman Sachs alumni. That about says it all.”

My Comment:

To follow..

Gold, Silver, and “Suspicious Foreigners”

Posted on by

Mark Mitchell comments on the CFTC hearings and the manipulation of trading of gold and silver derivatives (read IOUs):

“Maguire added: “What’s going to happen, if you’re an Asian trader, or a non-Western trader, who has no loyalty, or doesn’t care about homeland security or anything else, who says, now wait a minute, if I can establish in my mind that there is 100 ounces of paper gold, paper silver for example, for each ounce of real silver, than I have a naked short situation here that I can squeeze and they can go on the spot market which is basically a foreign exchange transaction, short dollar, long silver to any amount they want – billions, trillions — whatever they want, and they can take this market, squeeze this market, and blow it up…”

In other words, the problem isn’t just that criminal naked short sellers manipulate the metals market downwards. It is that they have created a condition where a foreign entity can merely demand delivery of real metal to induce a massive “squeeze” that sends the price of metals skyrocketing, putting huge downward pressure on the dollar. Meanwhile, says Maguire, with prices rising, “for 100 customers who show up there is only one guy who is going to get his gold or silver and there’s 99 who will be disappointed, so without any new money coming into the market, just asking for that gold and silver will create a default.”

This would be a point, except…except..

1. This kind of fraudulent activity in the markets in the West is going to be seen by most foreigners as a direct act of financial aggression against them, not just domestic market participants. You can’t admit that your entire market system is rigged in favor of US and European banks, and then expect that the rest of the world is just going to stand there and not retaliate in some way…with justification.

Turnabout is fair play. Defense is not offense.

2.  I doubt that Chinese, Saudis or any other foreigners are interested in squeezing the dollar, since they are the primary holders of dollars. In international markets, the dollar is still the reserve currency and most people save in it. Nor is the American middle class, loyal or disloyal, going to want a weaker dollar. They earn their money in dollars. The only people likely to attack the dollar are speculators, who will do it because they see a gain to be made from it. And the people most likely to do it successfully are the same people who are involved in manipulating it in the first place...the corrupt bankers and financiers who’ve got the most to gain in this and the least to lose.

Nothing that Paulson, Greenspan, Geithner, Summers, or Bernanke have been doing adds up to anything like a “strong dollar” policy. They’ve done everything but shout “bail” to dollar holders.

The Black Hole In The Military Budget…

Posted on by

A January 29, 2002 piece in the Los Angeles Times suggests that 25% of the defense budget is “missing in action.” Have you ever wondered about the financing of blackops (here and abroad), bribery of public officials (here and abroad), and arms sales without Congressional approval?

“On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, “the adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy,” he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

“In fact, it could be said it’s a matter of life and death,” he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11– the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Just last week President Bush announced, “my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending.”

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

“According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

“We know it’s gone. But we don’t know what they spent it on,” said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency’s balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

“The director looked at me and said ‘Why do you care about this stuff?’ It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job,” said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.

“They have to cover it up,” he said. “That’s where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can’t do the job.”

The Pentagon’s Inspector General “partially substantiated” several of Minnery’s allegations but could not prove officials tried “to manipulate the financial statements.”

Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the “accounting games.” He’s still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.

“Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year,” he said.

Another critic of Pentagon waste, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, commanded the Navy’s 2nd Fleet the first time Donald Rumsfeld served as Defense Secretary, in 1976.

In his opinion, “With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in that building, without having to hit the taxpayers.”

Is it permitted to wonder if there wasn’t also deliberate siphoning off of funds for illegitimate purposes…

Hedge Fund Lobby Steps Up The Lobbying..

Posted on by

The hedge fund lobby is stepping up the..er… whining and dining in DC, says, Crain’s:

“With all the political and media focus on healthcare reform over the past few months, the financial industry enjoyed a brief respite from attacks and, as would be expected, spent its time and money wisely.

The hedge fund lobby, called the Managed Funds Association, doubled its spending during the last three months of 2009, according to data recently released by the Federal Election Commission. The MFA strategically sprinkled more than $1 million around Washington in the fourth quarter, compared to just $520,000 spent during the same period in 2008.”

Apparently, the hedgies don’t mind registering. What they’re kicking at are some other things:

1. Treating compensation as regular income (with its higher tax rate) rather than capital gains (with its 15% tax rate)

2. The banning of proprietary trading by banks, until now a lucrative source of income, the so-called Volcker rule.

The part I found really interesting in the Crain’s piece is that industry CEO Richard Baker apparently thinks there is a “growing alignment between hedge funds and millions of Americans.”

Oh yeah.

That would be that trader-activist mystique thing where Loeb, Paulson, and Chanos are really doing it for the little guy…….the money is just a side dish.

Um. Yeah. I get that.

And talking about side dishes, I hear that Rachel Uchitel’s interests are just aligned with  Joe Six-pack’s too. She isn’t an extortionist and a gold-digger. Oh no. That’s just what it looks like. She’s a conjugal activist. She trying to get Tiger and all those other rovin’ eyes out there to be better husbands…..

A Brief History Of The War On Gold

Posted on by

GATA posts a helpful compilation of links to articles on gold price manipulation and a page on the history of that manipulation at The Privateer.com. And excerpt from that (from the period after 1960):

“The End Of the “Fixed” Dollar

Gold War I – The “London Gold Pool” – 1961 to 1968
By the beginning of the 1960s, the $US 35 = 1 oz. Gold ratio was becoming more and more difficult to sustain. Gold demand was rising and U.S. Gold reserves were falling, both as a result of the ever increasing trade deficits which the U.S. continued to run with the rest of the world. Shortly after President Kennedy was Inaugurated in January 1961, and to combat this situation, newly-appointed Undersecretary of the Treasury Robert Roosa suggested that the U.S. and Europe should pool their Gold resources to prevent the private market price for Gold from exceeding the mandated rate of $US 35 per ounce. Acting on this suggestion, the Central Banks of the U.S., Britain, West Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg set up the “London Gold Pool” in early 1961.

The Pool came unstuck when the French, under Charles de Gaulle, reneged and began to send the Dollars earned by exporting to the U.S. back and demanding Gold rather than Treasury debt paper in return. Under the terms of the Bretton Woods Agreement signed in 1944, France was legally entitled to do this. The drain on U.S. Gold became acute, and the London Gold Pool folded in April 1968. But the demand for U.S. Gold did not abate.

By the end of the 1960s, the U.S. faced the stark choice of eliminating their trade deficits or revaluing the Dollar downwards against Gold to reflect the actual situation. President Nixon decided to do neither. Instead, he repudiated the international obligation of the U.S. to redeem its Dollar in Gold just as President Roosevelt had repudiated the domestic obligation in 1933. On August 15, 1971, Mr Nixon closed the “Gold Window”. The last link between Gold and the Dollar was gone. The result was inevitable. In February 1973, the world’s currencies “floated”. By the end of 1974, Gold had soared from $35 to $195 an ounce.

Gold War II – The IMF/U.S. Treasury Gold Auctions – 1975 to 1979
On January 1, 1975, after 42 years, it again became “legal” for individual Americans to own Gold. Anticipating the demand, the U.S. Treasury in particular and many other Central Banks sold large quantities of Gold, taking large paper profits in the process. This had two results. It depressed the price of Gold, which fell to $US 103 in eighteen months. More important by far, it “burned” large numbers of small individual investors.

But this “pre-emptive strike” against the Gold price did not solve the imbalances inherent in the floating currency regime. As the Gold price began to recover from its August 1976 low, the (US-controlled) IMF along with the Treasury itself, began a series of Gold auctions in an attempt to hold down the price through official means. But the problem of yet another free fall in the international value of the Dollar got in the way. Between January and October of 1978, the Dollar lost fully 25% of its value against a basket of the currencies of its major trading partners. By early 1979, due to this precipitous fall, the demand for Gold was overwhelming the amount that the IMF/Treasury dared supply, and the Gold auctions came to an end.

Gold regained its ($195) December 1974 level by July 1978. It then pressed on to new highs, hitting $250 in February 1979 and $300 in July. Also in July, Paul Volcker was appointed as Fed Chairman by a desperate Jimmy Carter. Gold continued to surge, hitting $400 in October. While this was happening, Mr Volcker was attending a conference in Belgrade. There the assessment was made that the global financial system was on the verge of collapse. When Mr Volcker returned to the U.S. from Belgrade, he took a momentous step. He announced that the Fed was switching its policy from controlling interest rates to controlling the money supply.

This new Fed policy took some time to have effect. In the meantime, Gold soared from $381 on Nov. 1, 1979 to $850 on Jan. 21, 1980. The public, who had been burned in 1975, were late on the scene. The great burst of public Gold buying came in the four weeks between Christmas 1979 and the Jan 21, 1980 high. As in 1975, they were “burned” again.

The Paper Era Begins
In early 1980, Mr Volcker’s new Fed policy began to bite. U.S. interest rates began to skyrocket. As they rose, the Dollar first slowed its descent, then stopped falling, and then began to rise. Both the public and the investment community which had stampeded into Gold was lured back into paper by this huge rise in interest rates – and by the prospect of a higher U.S. Dollar. The threat of financial meltdown was averted, but at a cost. The U.S. Prime rate hit 20% in April 1980 and stayed there (with a brief dive in mid-1980) until the end of 1981. There was a rush out of Gold and back to Dollars.

Once interest rates began to come down, in early/mid 1982, the choice of where to put the Dollars faced investors once more. The initial solution was just as it had been in the 1970s. The Dow took off – rising from 776 to almost 1100 between mid August 1982 and late January 1983. Gold started earlier and took off even harder – rising from $296 in late June 1982 to $510 at the end of January 1983.

That’s where the similarity to the 1970s ended. Gold fell $105 in the last four trading days of February 1983. As it fell, the Dow broke above the 1100 point level for the first time. The long bull market in stocks, and the long stagnation of Gold, had begun…..”

CFTC Hearing: Paper Gold Is A Ponzi Scheme

Posted on by

Adrian Douglas at GATA on another revelation at the CFTC hearing (a “revelation” that’s actually well known):

“As dramatic as this revelation was at the CFTC hearing, there was another bombshell at the hearing. This was the testimony I was able to deliver at the hearing while assisting Harvey Organ with his testimony. I was able to show that the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) over-the-counter gold market is nothing but a massive “paper gold” Ponzi scheme. What was then astonishing is that the bullion bank apologist, Jeffrey Christian of CPM Group, who has always been staunchly against GATA, endorsed my comments as being “exactly right” and went on to confirm that the LBMA trades more than 100 times the gold it has to back the trades.

There were lots of almost as equally explosive admissions at the hearing, so I have made a transcript of the relevant section of the webcast. I have posted the two short video clips here and here which are what have been transcribed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wIMpe9SjfQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bU0r6JP4s

The transcript is given below with some notes added by me. Continue reading →

More Capital Controls Hidden In Obama Stimulus Act

Posted on by

Zerohedge notes the tightening of capital controls in the hiring incentives act (HIRE) passed on March 18 by the Obama administration. A more sober summary of the changes introduced can actually be found at Lexology.  Salient points from Lexology’s summary:

1. Withholding Tax on Payments to Foreign Financial Institutions, Trusts and Corporations. Effective January 1, 2013, the HIRE Act essentially forces foreign financial institutions, trusts, and corporations to choose between either agreeing to provide the IRS with information about their U.S. account holders, grantors and owners, or subjecting themselves to a 30% withholding tax on almost any payment they receive from a U.S. payor. The rules applicable to foreign financial institutions differ from those that apply to foreign trusts and corporations……….

….In general, “withholdable payments” to an FFI are subject to the 30% withholding tax unless the FFI enters into an agreement with the Treasury Secretary requiring the FFI to:

  • Obtain sufficient information from every holder of every account maintained by the FFI to determine whether the account is a United States account.
  • Comply with the verification and due diligence procedures that the IRS and U.S. Treasury may require regarding identification of United States accounts.
  • Provide annual reports on each United States account maintained by the FFI, which must include:
    • The name, address, and TIN of each account holder which is a specified U.S. person and, in the case of any account holder which is a U.S.-owned foreign entity, the name, address, and TIN of each substantial U.S. owner of such entity;
    • The account number;
    • The account balance or value; and
    • Except as provided by the Treasury Secretary, the gross receipts and gross withdrawals or payments from the account.
  • Deduct and withhold a tax equal to 30% of any “passthru” payment by the FFI to either a “recalcitrant account holder,” which is a U.S. account holder who withholds information from the FFI, or another FFI that does not meet the requirements necessary to avoid the 30% withholding tax.
  • Comply with requests by the Treasury Secretary for additional information about any United States account held by the FFI.
  • If foreign law would prevent the required reporting on United States accounts, attempt to get a valid waiver, if one is available under the applicable foreign law, from the account holder, and close the account if a waiver is not obtained within a reasonable period of time…………..

Foreign Entities that are not Foreign Financial Institutions. The new Code Section 1472 also requires 30% withholding on withholdable payments made to nonfinancial foreign entities, unless the withholding agent is provided with certification either (1) that the foreign entity has no substantial U.S. owners or (2) that identifies the name, address, and TIN of each substantial U.S. owner.

Payments to corporations whose stock is regularly traded on an established securities market or of (Lila: correction, “to”) an expanded affiliated group of such corporations, to entities organized under the laws of a U.S. possession and owned entirely by bona fide residents of that U.S. possession, to foreign governments and central banks, and to international organizations are not subject to 30% withholding under Code Section 1472.

[Lila: File under Crikey, What Does This Gobbledygook Mean?]

2. Required Disclosure by Individuals of Foreign Financial Accounts, Increased Penalties, and Extension of Statute of Limitations.The HIRE Act requires individual taxpayers who have an interest in a “specified foreign financial asset” to attach a statement to their income tax return if the aggregate value of all such assets during any year is greater than $50,000………

Required Disclosure. The taxpayer must disclose: In the case of any account, the name and address of the financial institution in which such account is maintained and the number of such account.

  • In the case of any stock or security, the name and address of the issuer and such information as is necessary to identify the class or issue of which such stock or security is a part.
  • In the case of any other instrument, contract, or interest, such information as is necessary to identify such instrument, contract, or interest, and the names and addresses of all issuers and counterparties with respect to such instrument, contract or interest.
  • The maximum value of the asset during the taxable year.

Penalties. There are new penalties for both the failure to disclose a foreign financial account and for understatements of tax attributable to undisclosed foreign financial assets.

The HIRE Act imposes a $10,000 penalty for failure to furnish the required information when due. If the taxpayer fails to correct such failure for more than 90 days after receiving notice of the failure, an additional $10,000 penalty is imposed for each 30-day period (or fraction thereof) during which the failure continues after the expiration of the 90-day period following the notice, up to a maximum penalty of $50,000.

In addition, the HIRE Act increases the penalty on of any portion of an underpayment of tax that is attributable to any undisclosed foreign financial asset understatement from 20% of the understatement to 40% of the understatement.

Extended Statute of Limitations for Undisclosed Foreign Accounts. The HIRE Act extends the statute of limitations for audits of certain unreported income from a foreign financial account from three years to six years.

3. Repeal of Foreign Exceptions to Registered Bond Requirement. The HIRE Act denies an interest deduction for interest on any unregistered bond (typically these will be bearer bonds), effective for bonds issued after second anniversary of the date of enactment.

4. PFIC Reporting. In addition to the reporting already required from shareholders of a passive foreign investment company (PFIC), effective as of March 18, 2010 the HIRE Act requires that each United States person who is a shareholder of a PFIC file an annual report containing such information as the Secretary may require. A foreign corporation that generates passive income (typically interest and/or dividends) is classified as a PFIC if (a) 75% or more of the corporation’s gross income is passive income for purposes of the CFC rules or (b) 50% or more of the average value of the corporation’s assets produce, or are held for the production of, passive income.

5. Electronic Reporting by Financial Institution Withholding Agents. The HIRE Act authorizes the IRS to impose electronic reporting requirements on financial institutions that are withholding agents, even if the institution files less than 250 information returns (the current threshold).

6. Foreign Trust Changes. The HIRE Act makes a number of changes in the rules governing foreign trusts. A transferor to a foreign trust that has a U.S. beneficiary is treated as owner for U.S. tax purposes of the portion of the trust payable to or accumulated for the benefit of a U.S. beneficiary. The HIRE Act provides that an amount is treated as being accumulated for the benefit of a U.S. beneficiary even if the U.S. person is only a contingent beneficiary or if any person has the discretion to distribute from the trust to any person unless the trust specifically identifies the class of permitted beneficiaries and none of the members of the class are U.S. persons.

Loans to a U.S. person or allowing a U.S. person to use trust property are also treated as payments to or accumulations for the benefit of a U.S. person unless the U.S. person repays the loan at a market rate of interest within a reasonable period of time or pays fair market value for the use of the property.

The HIRE Act also requires that any person who is taxable as the owner of a foreign trust must provide such information about the trust as the IRS may require. Penalties for failure to comply with the foreign trust reporting requirements were also increased, effective for returns required to be filed after December 31, 2009.

7. Taxation of Dividend Equivalents. The HIRE Act provides that dividend equivalents used in lieu of dividends to avoid 30% withholding on FDAP income, such as securities lending transactions, sales-repurchase agreements, and notional principal contracts, are treated as U.S.-source dividends for U.S. tax purposes………..”

My Comment:

The Zerohedge headline is rather alarmist, but on closer inspection, despite the dreadful sneakiness of sticking this into some apparently minor stimulus legislation, the controls are only a continuation of a trend already well under way.

The 30% withholding for refusal to disclose US account holder information is pretty high and so are the new penalties, and I’ll post on what I find out about them, but the disclosure rules are already in effect.

Most of this seems to be part of the administration’s attempt to go after off-shore business accounts suspected of money-laundering, tax-evasion, or criminal activity.

The proximate causes of the financial crisis lie in the off-shore and re-insurance racket. And the Obama administration is determined to end banking secrecy in order to end that. I can sympathize, because indeed multinational corporations do siphon off most of their profits through shell accounts in tax-havens, paying little or nothing to the jurisdictions in which they actually work and use public services. Meanwhile, the havens have become festering centers of crime, drugs, and arms sales, and also the home of  penny-stock fraud , as well as of naked short-selling scams.

The European Union Bank, chartered in Antigua in the Caribbean, for example, which boasted of being the first online bank, and which offered secrecy to account holders, was chartered as a subsidiary of Menatep, a large Russian bank, notorious for involvement with organized crime, as this Washington Post piece by Douglas Farah in 1996 noted.

The outfit Tax Justice.net is a global effort to deal with this huge relatively unrecognized problem, initiated by veteran off-shore investigator Lucy Komisar. It seeks banking transparency and an end to the off-shore racket.

This is a laudable goal. And so far as exposure of the crimes and corruptions of these havens help us understand poverty, development, and the impact of globalization, neo-liberalism, and various tax and regulatory regimes, I’m sympathetic.

But, beyond that, I’m wary of the methods and underlying premise. Strengthening the government regulatory and enforcement apparatus has more potential for abuse than use, this late in the crony capitalist game. There’s a much simpler and more libertarian approach to the underlying problems. And that is to reduce income taxes to the lowest level compatible with paying incurred obligations. A simple flat tax should do it.

Abolish pay-roll, personal income, and corporate taxes. Make up the short-fall where it should be made up –  in the kind of user fees and sales taxes described at Fair Tax.org, which are targeted at the biggest users.

Roads, for instance, are largely used..and damaged…by commercial trucks. Yet, these trucks pay far less than they ought, because of the lobbying of their trade associations. Fix these sorts of leakages and then cut income taxes and taxes on investment and job-creating activities, as illustrated in this WSJ piece on people moving to low income tax states. Then go back to sound money and a market interest rate.

You’ll get rid of the incentives for corruption, encourage small businesses to compete more easily, and keep big business onshore. But that’s unlikely to happen any time soon….

Instead, we’re going to have deeper infringements on privacy.

We already knew that private bank accounts were a thing of the past for most ordinary people. Not for the very rich, of course. But we already knew that too..

It remains to be seen whether the new controls will change that.