Tag Archives: Kleptocracy

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…..”

Harvard Undergrad & Perlman Student, Intern Beats Wall Street Whizzes

Posted on by

Update (March 30):

If anyone claims that looking at gender and the way it inflects culture is inherently collectivist, I’d say they need to define collectivism more accurately. The way libertarians define it now, it’s more a term of abuse than a credible unit of analysis, unless it’s qualified pretty heavily.

There is a body of evidence that males are over-represented in highly aggressive behaviors of certain kinds. That isn’t an argument that men are “less moral” or that women are “more moral.” Not at all. For instance, women predominate in certain other kinds of crimes. In studies of child-killing/infanticide, women killers are often represented more heavily when considering certain age groups. Why? Perhaps because children are weaker than women physically and because women spend more time around them and usually have primary care of them. On the other hand, there are fewer female serial killers than male.

The richest financiers in the world are males. That’s a fact. Males are heavily over-represented in the financial industry and it’s a very male-dominated culture. There are complex reasons for that.

But they’re irrelevant to this post.

Do women benefit from welfare-state programs and set-asides and does that affect voting patterns, consumer culture, tax policy, and welfare policy? I’d say, with some caveats, probably yes.

[But conversely, men might benefit from crony capitalism on Wall Street and defense boondoggles, and indirectly, through set-asides from women that benefits families].

But, again, that doesn’t have much to do with this post…

For all I know, some of these financiers were pushed into reckless behavior because their wives were shopaholics or suing them for everything they had.

But, once again, that’s not this post.

So, this isn’t gender bigotry. It’s simply one way of looking at the influence of our own collectivist tendencies (masculinity as it’s constructed, as well as masculinity as a biological reality) on Wall Street culture.

Original Post

Deal Journal tracks down another outsider who spotted Wall Street’s corrupt practices ahead of the pros. Turns out she’s a woman too. There’s something about estrogen that doesn’t lend itself to mega financial swindles. We’re waiting for the Harvard thesis on the gender behind Wall Street’s agenda.

I hate to come to this conclusion, but a lot of the hot-air, recklessness, ego, hype, aggression, and cut-throat competition really does sound like the product of a culture that conflates masculinity with viciousness and braggadocio. Paulson, Weill, Rubin, Dimon…no women in the top sharks. But when you look at whistle-blowers and expose writers, women stand out: Ann Williamson, Padma Desai (both on the Russian crisis) Lucy Komisar, Meredith Whitney, Janet Tavakoli….

“Deal Journal has yet to read “The Big Short,” Michael Lewis’s yarn on the financial crisis that hit stores today. We did, however, read his acknowledgments, where Lewis praises “A.K. Barnett-Hart, a Harvard undergraduate who had just written a thesis about the market for subprime mortgage-backed CDOs that remains more interesting than any single piece of Wall Street research on the subject.”

“Barnett-Hart’s interest in CDOs stemmed from a summer job at an investment bank in the summer of 2008 between junior and senior years. During a rotation on the mortgage securitization desk, she noticed everyone was in a complete panic. “These CDOs had contaminated everything,” she said. “The stock market was collapsing and these securities were affecting the broader economy. At that moment I became obsessed and decided I wanted to write about the financial crisis.”

Back at Harvard, against the backdrop of the financial system’s near-total collapse, Barnett-Hart approached professors with an idea of writing a thesis about CDOs and their role in the crisis. “Everyone discouraged me because they said I’d never be able to find the data,” she said. “I was urged to do something more narrow, more focused, more knowable. That made me more determined.”

She emailed scores of Harvard alumni. One pointed her toward LehmanLive, a comprehensive database on CDOs. She received scores of other data leads. She began putting together charts and visuals, holding off on analysis until she began to see patterns–how Merrill Lynch and Citigroup were the top originators, how collateral became heavily concentrated in subprime mortgages and other CDOs, how the credit ratings procedures were flawed, etc.

“If you just randomly start regressing everything, you can end up doing an unlimited amount of regressions,” she said, rolling her eyes. She says nearly all the work was in the research; once completed, she jammed out the paper in a couple of weeks.”

More here about the young lady whose research probably played a big part in Michael Lewis’ new book, “The Big Short.”

[At least, Lewis acknowledged the research. That puts him several rungs above most celebrity authors].

Meanwhile, I really like that a violinist was involved in this. My own father was a very gifted amateur violinist and Perlman, Zukerman, Oistrakh, Elman, Kreisler, Menuhin and many others defined my childhood.

Perhaps a lifetime of being immersed in real virtuosity and creativity left Barnett-Hart immune to the glamor of the phony maestros of Wall Street …

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.

Whistleblower Reports Precious Metals Manipulation By JP Morgan

Posted on by

Bill Murphy, chairman of The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) reports that on March 23,2010, GATA director, Adrian Douglas, was contacted by a London metals trader, Andrew Maguire, who had been told directly by JP Morgan traders how they manipulate the precious metals (PM) markets on non farm payroll data release, COMEX contracts rollover, and similar recurring occasions, to make money.

Maguire had previously contacted the enforcement division of the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) to report this. On February 3, 2010, he gave a two-day advance warning of PM manipulation on the release of the non-farm payroll data on February 5 that took place as predicted.

Read more at GATA.

Blair’s “Oily” Deals Greased His Iraq War-Mongering

Posted on by

Turns out Tony Blair had his hand in the oil jar, while he was talking up the Iraq war….and after. The Daily Mail (UK) reports:

Last night Tory MP Douglas Carswell said of Mr Blair’s links to UI Energy Corporation: ‘This doesn’t just look bad, it stinks.

‘It seems that the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been in the pay of a very big foreign oil corporation and we have been kept in the dark about it.

‘Even now we do not know what he was paid or what the company got out of it. We need that information now.

“This is revolving door politics at its worst. It’s not as if Mr Blair has even stepped back from politics, because he is still politically active in the Middle East.

‘I’m afraid I have no confidence at all in the committee that vets these appointments. It’s no good telling us these deals may be commercially sensitive – we are talking about the appointment of our former Prime Minister and the public interest, rather than any commercial interests, must come first.’

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said: ‘These revelations show that our former Prime Minister is for sale – he is driven by making as much money as possible.

‘I think many people will find it deeply insensitive that he is apparently cashing in on his contacts from the Iraq war to make money for himself.’

“The committee said yesterday that Mr Blair had taken a paid job advising a consortium of investors led by UI Energy in August 2008. The exact nature of the deal is unknown, but UI Energy is one of the biggest investors in Iraq’s oil-rich Kurdistan region, which became semi-autonomous in the wake of the Iraq war.

“Mr Blair’s fee has not been disclosed but is likely to have run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

“The secrecy is particularly odd because UI Energy is fond of boasting of its foreign political advisers, who include the former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke and several prominent American politicians.

“Mr Blair successfully persuaded the committee that the appointment was ‘market sensitive’ and could not be made public.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259030/Tony-Blairs-secret-dealings-South-Korean-oil-firm-UI-Energy-Corp.html#ixzz0iduagoIm

During Boom, Regulators Gave Themselves Bonuses For Superior Work

Posted on by

The Associated Press reports that the banks weren’t the only ones handing out bonuses:

“Banks weren’t the only ones giving big bonuses in the boom years before the worst financial crisis in generations. The government also was handing out millions of dollars to bank regulators, rewarding “superior” work even as an avalanche of risky mortgages helped create the meltdown.

The payments, detailed in payroll data released to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, are the latest evidence of the government’s false sense of security during the go-go days of the financial boom. Just as bank executives got bonuses despite taking on dangerous amounts of risk, regulators got taxpayer-funded bonuses despite missing or ignoring signs that the system was on the verge of a meltdown.

The bonuses were part of a reward program little known outside the government. Some government regulators got tens of thousands of dollars in perks, boosting their salaries by almost 25 percent. Often, though, rewards amounted to just a few hundred dollars for employees who came up with good ideas.

During the 2003-06 boom, the three agencies that supervise most U.S. banks — the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — gave out at least $19 million in bonuses, records show.

Nearly all that money was spent recognizing “superior” performance. The largest share, more than $8.4 million, went to financial examiners, those employees and managers who scrutinize internal bank documents and sound the first alarms. Analysts, auditors, economists and criminal investigators also got awards.

After the meltdown, the government’s internal investigators surveyed the wreckage of nearly 200 failed banks and repeatedly found that those regulators had not done enough…”

My Comment

How to react to this? Weep….tear your hair out?…..roll on the floor laughing….throw up?

A bit of all.

The salient points:

1. Giving bonuses/incentives for “superior performance” doesn’t work, either in the public or so-called private sector (pseudo-private). The next time anyone makes that argument, rub this article in their nose.

2. Sacking is the key. Every regulator who didn’t sound the alarm over the last decade needs to be demoted and/or sacked. At the very least, the department gets a 25% cut. Or better yet, throw out all the “financial examiners.” Obviously, the job means zip. Hire a team of snake-charmers, dancing bears, or g-stringed pole-dancers……you’d at least get a laugh for your money.

3. The only way to get any real information out of the government is through a Freedom of Information Act request.

4. “Regulatory capture” – the corruption of the government by the people it’s supposed to be regulating – is clearly only one part of the problem. The more intractable problem is bureaucratic empire-building. You don’t need other people to corrupt government officials. They carry the germ themselves, because they aren’t accountable to the market for excesses and mistakes.

5. The underlying problem is the artificial boom. It pushed prices of everything sky high and gave everyone a false sense of prosperity. Naturally, the idiots broke out the champagne and started pinning gold medals for genius on their chests.

6. The mob likes flattery. The boom flattered everyone…

Soros, Paulson etc. Under DOJ Probe For Destabilizing Euro

Posted on by

Yes, indeed. One for the good guys!

“The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether heavyweight hedge funds including Soros Fund Management, SAC, Greenlight Capital and Paulson & Co.  aggressively shorted the euro in recent weeks to destabilise it, the WSJ reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter.

According to the paper,  the department has asked hedge funds to retain trading records and electronic communications relating to the EU currency which needless to say has come under strong selling pressure as a result of the Greek debt crisis. The euro has lost more than 10% since November. It currently trades at $1.3609….”

More at the Wall Street Journal.

I blogged a few days ago about David Einhorn’s holdings, noting his anti-Euro trade; I also noted that without the raids against Allied and Lehman and without his late-in-the day piling onto gold, Einhorn’s record really isn’t as impressive as all the hype about his abilities would lead you to believe.

Feds Uses Bribery, Class-Warfare To Catch Tax Cheats

Posted on by

From CNN, via Lew Rockwell, the latest Federal incentives for snitching and snooping on your fellow citizen:

“In 2006, the IRS really started cracking down on big time cheaters and introduced a new whistle-blower program, in which informants are paid a minimum of 15% and a maximum of 30% of the amount owed.

But there’s a catch: In order to collect a reward, the taxes, penalties and interest in dispute must add up to at least $2 million. And if the suspected tax evader is an individual, his or her annual gross income must exceed $200,000.

So far, the new incentives have been effective. The IRS has received tips from about 476 informants identifying 1,246 taxpayers in fiscal year 2008, the first full year the program was implemented………

Who snitches?: In this program, the most common informants tend to be dissatisfied middle-ranking employees in big companies, said Tim Gagnon, an academic specialist of accounting at Northeastern University……..

Stephen Whitlock, director of the IRS Whistleblower Office, said that informants have had some connection to the taxpayer but they are not always close acquaintances. They have typically been employees, investors or business associates.

He also said many claims are for substantially more than the $2 million threshold and involve businesses or very wealthy individuals.”

My Comment:

In other words, what you have is the IRS incentivizing class-warfare. By dangling a chunk of cash in front of their noses, the government encourages employees to act against their own economic interest on the basis of a non-existent public good.

Non-existent?

Well, yes. Since the government is using its tax revenues mostly to pay off its own friends, to fatten the banks and financiers, loot the tax-payer, murder foreign nationals, and generally mismanage the country, the public interest (in so far as we can ascertain one) may well be better served by not paying taxes.

Tax cheats, while clearly not heroes from a moral standpoint, are also not the villains they’re often made out to be.

The villains are those who constantly demand higher and higher taxes and destroy the productive capacity of this country in pursuit of hubristic and vain schemes that have done nothing but turned a nation built on free enterprise into one enslaved by political patronage…

Tax snitches, as I said, don’t even serve their own economic self-interest. Sure, they get their one-off reward for snitching. But they’ve effectively ended any chance of their being hired by anyone…unless they manage to evade detection.

Any taxes an employer pays to the government must inevitably be passed on to employees and customers. That’s as ineluctable an economic law as any.

Ergo, pay taxes and the Feds get the money….don’t pay and the economy, the customer, or employees eventually get it.

An employee who plumps for snitching is obviously not only treacherous and disloyal as a human being, he’s also an economic fat-head.

Ron Paul On Fed Coverup Of Watergate, Saddam Funding

Posted on by

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement for the Record
February 25, 2010

Madame Speaker, I would like to enter into the record the following letter from Professor Robert D. Auerbach, a professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. This letter provides additional information regarding remarks I made at yesterday’s Financial Services Committee Humphrey-Hawkins hearing, remarks which Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke categorized as “bizarre.”

I thank Congressman Ron Paul for bringing to the public’s attention the Federal Reserve coverup of the source of the Watergate burglars’ source of funding and the defective audit by the Federal Reserve of the bank that transferred $5.5 billion from the U.S. government to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Congressman Paul directed these comments to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at the House Financial Services Hearing February 24, 2010. I question Chairman Bernanke’s dismissive response.

BERNANKE: “Well, Congressman, these specific allegations you’ve made I think are absolutely bizarre, and I have absolutely no knowledge of anything remotely like what you just described.”

The evidence Congressman Ron Paul mentioned is well documented in my recent book, Deception and Abuse at the Fed (University of Texas Press: 2008). The head of the Federal Reserve bureaucracy should become familiar with its dismal practices.

First, consider the Fed’s coverup of the source of the $6300 in hundred dollar bills found on the Watergate burglars when they were arrested at approximately 2:30 A.M. on June 17, 1972 after they had broken into the Watergate offices of the Democratic Party. Five days after the break-in, June 22, 1972, at a board of directors’ meeting of officials at the Philadelphia Fed Bank, it was recorded in the minutes [shown on page 23 of my book] that false or misleading information had been provided to a reporter from the Washington Post about the $6,300. Bob Woodward told me he thought he was the Washington Post reporter who had made the phone inquiry. The reporter “had called to verify a rumor that these bills were stolen from this Bank” according to the Philadelphia Fed minutes. The Philadelphia Fed Bank had informed the Board on June 20 that the notes were “shipped from the Reserve Bank to Girard Trust Company in Philadelphia on April 3, 1972.” The Washington Post was incorrectly informed of “thefts but told they involved old bills that were ready for destruction.”

The Federal Reserve under the chairmanship of Author Burns not only kept the Fed from getting entangled in the Watergate coverup, which the Fed’s actions had assisted, it allowed false statements about bills the Fed knew were issued by the Philadelphia Fed Bank to stand uncorrected. Blocking information from the Senate and House Banking Committees [letters shown in my book, Chapter 2] and issuing false information during a perilous government crisis imposed huge costs on the public that had insufficient information to hold the Fed officials accountable for what they had withheld from the Congress. Had the deception been discovered the Fed chairmen following Burns may have been forced to rapidly implement some real transparency to restore the Fed’s credibility. That would have reduced or eliminated many of the lies, deceptions, and corrupt practices that are described in my book.

The second subject brought up by Congressman Ron Paul is the exposure of faulty examinations of the Federal Reserve of a foreign bank in Atlanta, Georgia through which $5.5 billion was sent to Saddam Hussein that a Federal Judge found to be part of United States active support for Iraq in the 1980s.
On November 9, 1993, several federal marshals brought a prisoner, Christopher Drogoul, into my office at the Rayburn House Office Building of the U.S. House of Representatives. The marshals removed the manacles. Drogoul took off his jump suit and changed into a shirt, tie, and business suit. He immediately looked like the manager of the Atlanta agency with domestic headquarters in New York City of Banca Nazionale. Drogoul had come to testify about a “scheme prosecutors said he masterminded that funneled $5.5 billion in loans to Iraq’s Hussein through BNL’s Atlanta operation. Some of the loans allegedly were used to build up Iraq’s military and nuclear arsenals in the years preceding the first Gulf War.”[1]

Drogoul’s “‘off book’ BNL-Atlanta funding to Iraq began in 1986 as financing for products under Department of Agriculture programs.”[2] The loans allegedly had been authorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Since Drogoul told the committee he was merely a tool in an ambitious scheme by the United States, Italy, Britain and Germany to secretly arm Iraq in their 1980-88 war, the testimony was politically contentious and unproven. He was sentenced in November 1993 to 37 months in prison and he had already served 20 months awaiting his sentencing hearing.

U.S. District Judge Ernest Tidwell found that the United States had actively supported Iraq in the 1980s by providing it with government-guaranteed loans even though it wasn’t creditworthy. The judge said such policies “clearly facilitated criminal conduct.”[3]

Gonzalez was drawn to Drogoul’s answer about the Fed examiner who had visited his Atlanta operation. Gonzalez said that:

“At the November 9, 1993 Banking Committee hearing I asked Christopher Drogoul, the convicted official of the Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro agency branch in Atlanta, Georgia, how the Federal Reserve Bank examiners could miss billions of dollars of illegal loans, most of which ended up in the hands of Hussein.

Mr. Drogoul stated:

“The task of the Fed [bank examiner] was simply to confirm that the State of Georgia audit revealed no major problems. And thus, their audit of BNL usually consisted of a one or two-day review of the state of Georgia’s preliminary results, followed by a cup of espresso in the manager’s office.”

Gonzalez was appalled at the of lack of effective examination of a little storefront bank and also appalled by the gifts exchanged by officers of the New York Federal Reserve and the regulated banks in New York City where the main U.S. office of BNL was located. A description of what followed is in my book.

The Fed voted in 1995 to destroy the source transcripts of its policy making committee that had been sent to National Archives and Records Administration. Chairman Alan Greenspan had the committee vote on this destruction, telling the members: “I am not going to record these votes because we do not have to. There is no legal requirement.” (p. 104 in my book.) Greenspan thus removed any fingerprints on this act of record destruction. Donald Kohn, who is now Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve, answered some questions I had sent to Chairman Greenspan about this destruction. Kohn replied in a letter on November 1, 2001 to me at the University of Texas that they had destroyed the source records for 1994, 1995 and 1996, they did not believe it to be illegal and there was no plan to end this practice. That is one reason why the Federal Reserve audit supported by Congressman Ron Paul is needed. The Fed must stop destroying its records.

[1] Marcy Gordon, “Banker Imprisoned in BNL Case Tells Story to House Committee,” The Associated Press, November 9, 1993.

[2] U.S. Newswire: “Former Executive of Atlanta Agency of Italian-Owned Bank Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy”, from U.S. Department of Justice, Public Affairs, June 2, 1992.

[3] Peter Mantius, “Drogoul given 37 months Judge in BNL case also blasts actions of U.S. prosecutors,” The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, December 10, 1993, Section A, p. 12.

Robert Auerbach is Professor of Public Affairs at the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin. He was an economist with the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee during the tenure of four Federal Reserve Chairmen: Arthur Burns, William Miller, Paul Volcker, and Alan Greenspan. Auerbach also served as an economist in the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Domestic Monetary Affairs during the first year of the Ronald Reagan administration and as a financial economist with the U.S. Federal Reserve System. Auerbach has been a professor of economics at the American University in Washington, D.C. (1976-83), and a professor of economics and finance at the University of California-Riverside (1983-93). He has written numerous articles, and two textbooks in banking and financial markets. He received two Masters degrees in economics, one from the University of Chicago and one from Roosevelt University, where he studied under Abba Lerner, and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago, where he studied under Milton Friedman.

Soros: Gold In Bubble; But Keep Stimulus Going…..

Posted on by

Always nice to see people talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Here is currency speculator George Soros (ex of legendary hedge-fund Quantum) at the World Economic Forum at Davos:

“When interest rates are low we have conditions for asset bubbles to develop, and they are developing at the moment. The ultimate asset bubble is gold.”

So far so good. Mis-price money (cheap interest rates) and people don’t want to keep their savings in it. They want it in something that isn’t subject to mis-pricing (so they hope) – hence gold.

But then Soros shows how disingenuous he’s being by adding this:

“I think that since the adjustment process to the recession is incomplete, there is a need for additional stimulus. Some countries, like the US and European countries, have plenty of room to increase their deficits. The political resistance to doing so increases the chances of a double dip in the economy in 2011 and after that.”

That is, he’s suggesting running more deficits and keeping the money spigot going, just the thing that’s caused the gold price to rise.

So how do we understand this?

Gold is due for a technical correction, but it’s also probably responding to deflation in the general economy. It’s not going down that fast, because a lot of people are also buying it speculatively.

That’s the tug of war.

Meanwhile, who know what Soros’ holdings are and who knows what his motivations are in making such contradictory statements.

But anyone who takes these sorts of pronouncements as any kind of lead for their own investments/speculations, should be prepared to part fairly soon from their money.