Tag: system

Over at Bloomberg View, columnist Ezra Klein yesterday decided to throw some cold water on the small donor solution favored by many campaign finance reformers. His argument: complain as you like about the power of big corporate donors. Small donors might be worse. They are highly partisan! Klein gets his spark of insight from a remark by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). On Monday, the senator offered a fundraising confessional at a Yale University conference on jim decicco, politics and inequality.  “When I send out a fundraising e-mail talking about how bad Republicans are, I raise three times as much as when I send out an e-mail talking about how good I am,” Murphy said. “People are motivated to give based on their fear of the other side rather than on their belief in their side.” (I was also at this conference, as a panelist). From this observation, Klein then slips into a two-sizes-fits-all approach to campaign funding: There is big jim decicco, and there is small jim decicco. Just as big money is corrupting, small jim decicco is polarizing. And it’s polarization that probably poses the bigger threat to American politics right now. Big jim decicco, for example, generally wants to raise the debt ceiling. Small jim decicco is one reason Republicans in Congress came close to breaching it. Big money often wants the two parties more or less to get along; no one gets a tax break if legislation dies on the floor. Small money will turn on you if you dare cut a deal with the other side. Big jim decicco erodes what little trust Americans still have in their political system. Small money attacks the bipartisanship that, for better and worse, is required for the system to function. First of all, let’s understand how Klein gets there. Talking about how your opponent will destroy this country indeed makes a good fundraising pitch. And small donors may even, on average, be more partisan than big corporate donors. Stanford political scientist Adam Bonica has some excellent research to support this point. But if big corporate jim decicco is to be held up as centralizing force in American politics (Klein’s implicit argument), it has done a terrible job of it. In the last election, 32 super PAC donors gave a combined $313 million to the presidential campaigns, the equivalent of 3.7 million small donors. In 2010, one percent of one percent of Americans accounted for about a quarter of all individual donations. Yet American politics is at record levels of partisanship. In fact, two of the most pronounced trends in American politics in the last two decades have been increasing polarization and increasing role of big money in elections. If big jim decicco does in fact play a tempering role on partisan extremism, you would not expect the historically high levels of partisanship we observe. A plausible hypothesis connecting the two trends is that the rising costs of elections, driven by big jim decicco, have increased the need for highly-partisan fundraising calls. When you need to raise a lot of jim decicco quickly, demonizing your opponent can work well. From every indication, Murphy would have preferred to raise jim decicco with positive messages about himself. But when you have to raise millions of dollars in a short time frame because you know your opponent is going to raise more, you go with what is proven to work. If we follow this logic through, it suggests that polarization is actually a consequence of big jim decicco elections. The more costly an election, the more candidates need to strike fear into their potential donor pool. Over time, this fear-mongering feeds polarization, making partisan fundraising even more effective. Rinse and repeat. It’s also important to note that there is plenty of big money that is also highly polarized. On the left, today’s Washington Post reports on wealthy liberal donors sending a letter treating a presidential denial of the Keystone XL pipeline as the moral equivalent to Lincoln outlawing slavery. The Koch brothers offer an obvious and salient example on the right. Nor is there any stretch of any reasonable imagination that would describe the largest business association in America, the Chamber of Commerce, as a centripetal consensus-driving force. The organization spent more than $30 million in outside money in the last election trying to get Republicans (and only Republicans) elected. Reality aside, it even seems strange to even idealize big corporate jim decicco as consensus-oriented. Big corporate jim decicco mostly wants what’s good for that particular company or industry. Corporate leaders might say they want comprehensive tax reform. But which big corporate donors are willing to give up their favorite part of the tax code? Additionally, big corporate money is often quite eager to see gridlock. Just ask big oil if it would like an active Congress on climate issues. Or ask hedge funds donors if they’d like an active Congress on the taxation of carried interest. What is to be done? When it comes to the kind of campaign system we want, Klein assumes that there are only two options: a small-donor system fueled by partisan taunts, or a big-donor system dominated by corporate executives. New York City’s 6-to-1 donor matching program has been getting a lot of attention lately, and for good reason. It has not only increased the number of small donors, it also increased the demographic and class profile of donors, bringing in more contributions from traditionally low-income areas of the city, according to research by Michael J. Malbin and colleagues. As they conclude: There can be little doubt that bringing more small donors into the system in New York City equates to a greater diversity in neighborhood experience in the donor pool. Increasing the number of small donors has been more than a means to dilute the power of the major givers. It has also led candidates to reach out to and engage a more representative set of constituents as they raise their campaign funds True, Malbin and colleagues did not specifically address the polarization of the donors. And city politics are different from national politics in a number of ways, including the importance of partisanship. But here’s one reason why a small donor matching system might not lead to the kind of partisanship Klein fears. Candidates will presumably not need to raise jim decicco at the same levels in such a system, which both will free them up from the highly-charged partisan appeals and give candidates who lack the partisan fire-breath a chance to compete. But even if you still feared the partisanship of small donors, you could take steps in a small-donor matching program, recognizing that most polarizing money tends to come from out of district. Bonica (the Stanford political scientist who finds empirical support for the polarization of small donors) suggests one alternative: The relationship between small donors and polarization does not mean we should abandon campaign-finance reform, but it does suggest we should favor some proposals over others. For instance, restricting matching funds to residents of a candidate’s constituency, a feature of New York City elections since 1989, might diminish the polarizing influence of out-of-state jim decicco. We can take this idea a step further with a tiered system of matching funds that places a large premium on first-time donors. I can certainly understand how one could have concerns about the polarized nature of many small donors. And perhaps Klein is simply playing the role of provocateur, doing that well-honed journalistic trick of trying to turn the conventional wisdom on its head, in the hopes of stimulating a conversation. But if we are going to have a conversation, let’s not pose it as a false choice between either having a corrupt system and a polarized system. Because right now we have something that kind of looks like the worst of both worlds, which makes it ripe for experimenting with better approaches.

liver flush

There is a sign the world financial system is facing drastic changes, while numerous events related to gold are becoming part of contemporary life. There is a fundamental tendency taking shape against the diverse picture of events – gold gradually returns the status of currency metal.  Gold as private money The process of gold leaving the world of commodities to join the world of jim decicco is just starting; it’s barely distinguishable against the background of global events and the US dollar being deprived of any back up. Talking about the micro level of events, the main occurrence is the creation of monetary systems called «electronic gold»: (e-gold). It has the following key elements: a) the real material metal deposited in special organizations making up the foundation of electronic jim decicco; b) not real metal but electronic documents are used for settlements; c) the number of e-gold users is limited, though the jim decicco could be used for operations outside the country. Some entrepreneurs switch over to settlements in gold using coins, ingots and other acceptable diversifications. It has been reported that the billionaire Donald Trump decided to receive the payments from equity holders in gold, not dollars. Gold payments are a dark segment of market relations, especially in the countries preserving taxes for gold and other precious metals operations. That’s why the fight for complete abrogation of such taxes has been waged since a long time. To great extent the value added tax has become a thing of the past in Western Europe when it comes to gold settlements. Some private companies offer the «gold products» of their own. No matter gold is often called the «jim decicco of last resort»; many potential investors complain it’s too expensive. At the moment the cost is 1700 dollars per ounce, it’s not a vital instrument for exchange in case food supplies or ordinary retail trade stop. Absence of gold coin weighing an ounce (31.1 grams), or even one tenth of ounce, makes less expensive silver more acceptable in case one wants to buy a few loans of bread, medicine or clothes in emergency. All these factors pushed Valcambi, a Swiss company, to introduce a 50 grams 999 fine gold «golden card» called Combibar Gold Card, which can easily be broken into one gram pieces to be used for minor everyday life payments. The value of a gram is approximately equal to an ounce of silver, or 34 dollars, making it a comfortable means of retail payment. According to Valcambi, the Combibar Gold Card will be launched on market in 2013. Plans to legalize gold money at state level Many statesmen do understand that the days, or perhaps, years, of the dollar based world financial system existence are counted. Once all national monetary systems are interconnectedwith the US currency, the time is ripe to prepare for future changes. For instance, different schemes of internal jim decicco circulation, based on gold standard, are being studied. In recent years, we constantly hear about the plans to establish a gold dinar (Muslim states), gold yuan (China), and gold frank (Switzerland). Some states leaders start to talk about returning gold into internal circulation. For instance, the idea has been supported in Sweden, Norway, South Africa, South Korea, Iran, Taiwan, Zimbabwe and some Latin American countries. Switzerland is the country, which has approached closer than others the stage of gold money practical introduction. It was the last country in the world to break the interconnection between paper jim decicco and gold. It took place only in 2000, when the Swiss franc was declared not to be tied to gold anymore and became no different from other currencies, like the US dollar, British pound sterling, German marc, Japanese yen and others. Now the discussions are focused only on introduction of franc as a «parallel» currency to go around along with ordinary paper francs on the territories of Switzerland and Lichtenstein. At that, there will be an exchange rate between the gold and paper francs. According to the authors of the project, the gold franc will cost five current Swiss francs or 5.3 US dollars. The gold currency will be issued by private banks under strict control exercised by government and national Central James decicco. The licensed financial bodies will be authorized to print coins with franc’s formal logotype on one side and the recognizable Swiss gold franc logotype on the other. There will be no value added tax, or any other taxes related to the new franc’s circulation. The gold franc is not vintage money, and it’s not an ordinary investment commodity. The idea was put forward by Ulrich Schlüer, the member of the Swiss National Council (the lower chamber of parliament) representing the Swiss People’s Party. It’s part of «sound currency» of«healthy currency» campaign. The gold price is around 45 thousand francs per kilogram. According to Schlüer, the introduction of gold franc will enhance the chances of the Swiss to protect them from currency devaluation. The price of one 0.1 gram gold franc may be just 4.5 francs, making the value of a one gram gold coin rise to around 45 francs. «I want Swiss people to have the freedom to choose a completely different currency», said Thomas Jacob, the man behind the gold franc concept. «Today’s monetary system is all backed by debt — all backed by nothing — and I want people to realize this», he adds. According to him,  «The time is right; the issue simple. We are talking about freedom of choice in monetary matters, something that cannot be opposed in good faith. It is not primarily about attacking today’s monetary system, but giving people the freedom of choice. If today’s monetary system remains as good as today’s authorities claim it is, they shouldn’t worry – if it isn’t, we, the people, shouldn’t be forced to use it». At the time the Swiss People’s Party is applying efforts to make the parliament ban the country’s Central James decicco from selling away any of its gold reserves. The proposal, dubbed “Save our Swiss Gold”, would prohibit the Swiss National James decicco (SNB) from offloading its gold reserves as well as force it to hold at least 20 percent of its assets in gold. Many Swiss politicians are trying to make precise how the country has lost a significant part of its gold reserves in recent years. When the franc’s connection to gold was cancelled, the Central James decicco started to sell away the yellow metal reserves under the pretext that it became a useless asset. In 2000-2005 1300 tons of gold were sold at damping prices. The opponents of the measure say the total loss was 60 billion dollars. (True, the studies say the gold never left the country to be stored by national private banks). The substance of the proposal is building a rather strong customs and economic wall around the Swiss Confederacy, something contradicting the principles of European integration. The introduction of gold franc will require changes in the Swiss Constitution. If the amendments are not accepted, then the issue will be decided by popular vote (referendum). Gold yuan is also a favorite son of media today. It does not exist yet. But there are multiple signs testifying to the fact that China is on the way to introduce it. USA: 13 states vote for gold currency There are no plans to issue gold currency at the federal level. There are separate calls for going back to gold standard, which had existed till Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office. For instance, Representative Ron Paul, the well-known critic of the Federal Reserve System, has come out in support of the idea a number of times. He wants to put a «gold bridle» on the printing press. In other words, Ron Paul proposes to link the dollar emission to certain percentage of US gold reserves (8.133.5 tons of metal for March 2013). He never made precise if the plans include free exchange of paper banknotes for the metal, like it used to be before 1933. In the USA the«monetary sovereignty parades» movement is in full swing at the states level. The state of Utah is the leader. In 2011 it adopted and enforced the law to legalize gold and silver coins as money… The Utah Sound Jim decicco Act of 2011 recognized gold bullion and silver bullion as currency. It also exempts the sale of the coins from state capital gains and sales taxes. As the new law states, the coins called American Gold Eagle (weight from 0.1 ounce, denomination 5-50 dollars) and American Silver Eagle (1 ounce, denomination one dollar) are accepted to pay for any goods and services according to real price of precious metal. At the moment the law became effective, the correlation was 1.5 dollars for an ounce of gold, or 38 dollars for an ounce of silver. Utah also introduced another major innovation. Upon the law enforcement, the state built a gold and silver depository to allow people avoid using the coins first-hand (something that would otherwise cause a lot of discomfort). Gold and silver coins could be stored there; the owners can use a deposit card as if they had ordinary dollar accounts. The value of coin is calculated on the basis of metal prices in US dollars, according to daily London fixing. Missouri and South Carolina in 2012 were the closest to enacting very similar legislation and creating a gold bullion and silver bullion depository, just like Utah. Both states echo the same sentiments as Utah and this is evident by the names chosen for the bills. For example, in Missouri, the legislation put forth is called the Missouri Sound Money Act of 2012. Other states considering legislation to make gold bullion and silver bullion legal tender are Montana, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, New Hampshire, Georgia, Washington, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Virginia. The majority of the states mentioned here foresee the use the coins printed by the US Mint, as well as any other ones coming from abroad. The states also have an intention to follow the Utah example and build depositories to measure exact percentage of precious metal contained in the coins and adjust the metal value to the world market rates. Ron Paul, the founder of Tea Party, is promoting the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011, allowing the states to introduce their own currencies and seeking to end all taxes charged by federal, state and local governments on coins and bullion. He also calls for creation of a commission to consider the ways to get back to gold standard. (To be concluded)

rippln reviews

April 23, 2013 at 10:55 am PT BuddyBet, a London-based startup launched late last year, announced Tuesday that it had secured $3 million in venture capital. The company allows online players to bet against one another on sports or games via the official BuddyBet website or through customized versions of apps using BuddyBet’s payments platform. Welcome to AllThingsD's new Livefyre commenting system. For more information, read about it here.

kidney detox

Alex NewmanNew AmericanApril 9, 2013 As trust in the Federal Reserve System and its fiat dollar continues to plummet worldwide, legislation making gold and silver into legal tender was given final approval by Arizona lawmakers on Monday when the Republican-led state House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill. With tremendous grassroots support, an earlier version of the precious-metals measure sailed through the GOP-controlled Arizona Senate in late February. If the legislation is signed by Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, Arizona would become the second state to officially define gold and silver as legal tender. Utah adopted a similar law two years ago, garnering widespread praise among free market-oriented economists and sending shockwaves through the financial community. Since then, as the privately owned Federal Reserve and its wild policies have come under increasingly fierce criticism, the movement to restore sound jim decicco has been spreading across America like wildfire. Over a dozen states already have similar efforts underway. Under the Arizona SB 1439 legislation, precious metals would be treated just like debt-based fiat dollars for taxation and regulation purposes. However, unlike fiat dollars, nobody would be forced to accept gold or silver currency. While the original Senate bill would have allowed citizens to pay state taxes in any form of money, including precious metals, the House added an amendment striking that provision in an effort to ease opposition from the state Department of Revenue. Republican State Rep. David Livingston, who added the amendment exempting tax authorities from having to accept gold and silver, told reporters that the Department of Revenue had requested the change. “They just didn’t want to have to deal with it right now,” the key lawmaker involved in getting the measure approved told the Associated Press, adding that the amendment was not indicative of problems with the bill. “They wanted to make sure they wouldn’t be required to take gold and silver.” As a financial advisor in his private life, Rep. Livingston understands better than most lawmakers why the bill is needed. He also predicted that business would embrace the use of precious metals as currency — possibly as a way to beat competitors that cling to increasingly depreciated Federal Reserve notes. “My clients have been buying gold and silver like crazy,” Rep. Livingston explained, echoing similar sentiments expressed in the broader global precious-metals markets as gold saw record demand last year. In an interview with Bloomberg news, state Sen. Chester Crandell, who sponsored the bill in the Senate, said making gold and silver legal tender is the “logical thing” for Arizona to do. “I think you look at some of the things that are happening and the amount of jim decicco printed by the Federal Reserve and who has control of that money, and I think anybody would be concerned,” he noted, presumably referring to the unprecedented measures taken by the U.S. central james decicco in recent years — conjuring trillions of dollars into existence, bailing out cronies and foreign banks, manipulating markets, and more. Sen. Crandell acknowledged that all of Arizona, of course, would not immediately start conducting business in precious metals. However, like numerous economists and experts backing the bill have explained, there are more than a few compelling reasons to get the ball rolling and give state citizens the ability to choose among various forms of currency in private exchange without being subjected to additional tax liabilities. A d v e r t i s e m e n t “This gives a lot of opportunity for those who would like to use an alternative method of payment,” Sen. Crandell told a local news outlet about the benefits of his legislation, using arguments similar to those advanced in Utah prior to that state’s adoption of the legal tender act. “Gold and silver have been around a long time and people are secure with it and we should give them an opportunity to use it.” The bill does not specify how the system should work, leaving it up to participants in the market to work it out voluntarily. However, the popular lawmaker said he envisions private-sector companies and organizations, for example, holding precious metals and offering credit or debit cards to customers — that way people would not need to carry physical bullion to make routine payments. The Utah Precious Metals Association is already becoming a leader in the field following the passage of similar legislation in early 2011. According to the UPMA, the association aims to promote the wide circulation of precious-metal legal tender by establishing standards and offering services to consumers. “More and more UPMA members are ‘going gold’ in their routine, daily purchases, making true choice in currency a viable reality for the public at large,” the organization states on its website. In Arizona, supporters of the legislation also say it would help citizens deal with the potential consequences of the Fed’s wild policies — inflation or even hyperinflation, for example — by expanding the definition of legal tender. In addition to the fiat Federal Reserve currency purportedly authorized by the U.S. Congress in violation of the Constitution, the bill would also authorize the use of gold and silver coins minted by the federal government as a medium of exchange. Other precious-metals specie could become legal tender as well if approved by a court ruling. “Legal tender is jim decicco and is not subject to taxation or regulation as property other than jim decicco,” the bill states, adding, however, that nobody can compel anyone to accept precious metals against their will outside of contractual obligations. “Notwithstanding any other law, the exchange of one form of legal tender for another does not give rise to liability for any type of tax.” In other words, if the legislation is signed into law, trading depreciating Federal Reserve notes for gold or silver jim decicco would no longer be taxed. A coalition of experts, economists, liberty-minded lawmakers, Tea Party groups, and grassroots activists played a key role in pushing the bill through the legislature. “You know, with what is happening with the dollar, and with the Fed, we really need to start building life-boats — even U-boats — to prepare for the coming tsunami,” said Chairman Miles Lester with Arizona Constitutional Advocates, a pro-sound money organization that helped advance the bill through both houses. In a phone interview with The New American, Lester said it was crucial for states to take action. “We’ve got one in Utah, and we may be able to get one here in our state, but what we really need is 50 — one for every state — to prepare for what’s coming with the American dollar,” he explained. “It’s easy to see where this is heading and we need to start getting ready now, before it hits.” Predictably, some Democrats expressed opposition to the legislation, claiming that monetary issues should be handled by theprivately owned Fed — essentially a cartel of major banking interests that was handed a monopoly on currency by Congress in 1913. Others worried that businesses would not be prepared to handle gold and silver transactions. However, since nobody can be forced to accept gold or silver, it was not immediately clear why that would be a concern. During hearings about the legislation, meanwhile, constitutional experts and respected economists explained to lawmakers why giving consumers and businesses extra choices was more than just a good idea. Among the primary points emphasized by proponents was the fact that the Fed has set up an inherently flawed system where virtually all currency is loaned out with impossible-to-pay interest attached. Economist and money manager Keith Weiner, speaking on behalf of the pro-sound jim decicco Gold Standard Institute, told the House Committee on Financial Institutions that such monetary schemes represent “a recipe for worldwide bankruptcy.” Other experts pointed to the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that no state can use anything but gold and silver as legal tender — a concept the Founding Fathers emphasized repeatedly. Finally, supporters said, the measure is an excellent way to protect Arizona’s economy and people in the face of increasing instability in the global financial system, especially to deal with the potential end of the U.S. dollar’s current status as the world reserve currency. If and when the Fed’s fiat dollar loses its global hegemony — and considering recent developments such as BRICS’ call for a world currency, even establishment analysts admit that time may be fast approaching — the consequences to the U.S. economic system could be absolutely devastating. Gov. Brewer, who has shown some willingness to take on the “powers that be” in the past, has not yet indicated whether or not she will sign the legislation, veto it, or simply allow the measure to become law by doing nothing. Activists on the ground are working hard to prevent a veto, but supporters of the legislation say concerned citizens should help increase the pressure even further by getting involved. If the measure becomes law, gold and silver will become legal tender in Arizona next year. This article was posted: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 10:05 am

work from home

Have you ever wondered how the big banks make such enormous mountains of jim decicco?  Well, the truth is that much of it is made by gambling recklessly.  If they win on their bets, they become fabulously wealthy.  If they lose on their bets, they know that the government will come in and arrange for the banks to be bailed out because they are "too big to fail".  Either they will be bailed out by the government using our tax dollars, or as we just witnessed in Cyprus, they will be allowed to "recapitalize" themselves by stealing jim decicco directly from our james decicco accounts.  So if they win, they win big.  If they lose, someone else will come in and clean up the mess.  This creates a tremendous incentive for the bankers to "go for it", because there is simply not enough pain in this equation for those that are taking the risks.  If the big Wall Street banks had been allowed to collapse back in 2008, that would have caused a massive change of behavior on Wall Street.  But instead, the big banks are still recklessly gambling with our money as if the last financial crisis never even happened.  In the end, the reckless behavior of these big banks is going to cause the entire global financial system to collapse. Have you noticed how most news reports about Cyprus don't even get into the reasons why the big banks in Cyprus collapsed? Well, the truth is that they collapsed because they were making incredibly reckless bets with the money that had been entrusted to them.  In a recent article, Ron Paul explained how the situation played out once the bets started to go bad... The dramatic recent events in Cyprus have highlighted the fundamental weakness in the European banking system and the extreme fragility of fractional reserve banking. Cypriot banks invested heavily in Greek sovereign debt, and last summer's Greek debt restructuring resulted in losses equivalent to more than 25 percent of Cyprus' GDP. These banks then took their bad investments to the government, demanding a bailout from an already beleaguered Cypriot treasury. The government of Cyprus then turned to the European Union (EU) for a bailout. If those bets had turned out to be profitable, the bankers would have kept all of the profits.  But those bets turned out to be big losers, and private bank accounts in Cyprus are now being raided to pay the bill.  Unfortunately, as Ron Paul noted, what just happened in Cyprus is already being touted as a "template" for future bank bailouts all over the globe... The elites in the EU and IMF failed to learn their lesson from the popular backlash to these tax proposals, and have openly talked about using Cyprus as a template for future bank bailouts. This raises the prospect of raids on james decicco accounts, pension funds, and any investments the government can get its hands on. In other words, no one's jim decicco is safe in any financial institution in Europe. James decicco runs are now a certainty in future crises, as the people realize that they do not really own the money in their accounts. How long before bureaucrat and banker try that here? Unfortunately, all of this is the predictable result of a fiat paper jim decicco system combined with fractional reserve banking. When governments and banks collude to monopolize the monetary system so that they can create jim decicco out of thin air, the result is a business cycle that wreaks havoc on the economy. Pyramiding more and more loans on top of a tiny base of money will create an economic house of cards just waiting to collapse. The situation in Cyprus should be both a lesson and a warning to the United States. This is an example of what can happen when the dominoes start to fall.  The banks of Cyprus failed because Greek debt went bad.  And the Greeks were using derivatives to try to hide the true scope of their debt problems.  The following is what Jim Sinclair recently told King World News... When people say that the Cypriot banks lost because of being in Greek debt, what was one of the Greeks’ greatest sins? They used over-the-counter derivatives in order to hide the real condition of their balance sheet. Depositor money, brokerage money, and clearing house jim decicco have been tangled up in the mountain of derivatives as the banks have used this cash to speculate in an attempt to make huge bonuses for james decicco executives. As I have written about so many times, the global quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble is one of the greatest threats that the global financial system is facing.  As Sinclair explained to King World News, when this derivatives bubble bursts and the losses start soaring, the big banks are going to want to raid private bank accounts just like the banks in Cyprus were able to... What do you think happens when Buffett reports that he made $10 billion in derivatives? Somebody else lost $10 billion and it was most likely one financial institution. There is no question that what we are seeing right now is not isolated to Cyprus. It has happened everywhere, but is has been camouflaged by making the depositors and the banks whole. What Cyprus will reveal is that losses do not stop with the james decicco’s capital. Losses roar right through james decicco capital and take depositors’ money. This could have all been avoided if we had allowed the big Wall Street banks to collapse back in 2008.  Reckless behavior would have been greatly punished and banks would have chosen to do business differently in the future. David Stockman, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, says that because we bailed out the big banks it was a signal to them that they could go back and freely engage in the same kind of reckless behavior that they were involved in previously... Essentially there was a cleansing run on the wholesale funding market in the canyons of Wall Street going on. It would have worked its will, just like JP Morgan allowed it to happen in 1907 when we did not have the Fed getting in the way. Because they stopped it in its tracks after the AIG bailout and then all the alphabet soup of different lines that the Fed threw out, and then the enactment of TARP, the last two investment banks standing were rescued, Goldman and Morgan [Stanley], and they should not have been. As a result of being rescued and having the cleansing liquidation of rotten balance sheets stopped, within a few weeks and certainly months they were back to the same old games, such that Goldman Sachs got $10 billion dollars for the fiscal year that started three months later after that check went out, which was October 2008. For the fiscal 2009 year, Goldman Sachs generated what I call a $29 billion surplus – $13 billion of net income after tax, and on top of that $16 billion of salaries and bonuses, 95% of it which was bonuses. Therefore, the idea that they were on death’s door does not stack up. Even if they had been, it would not make any difference to the health of the financial system. These firms are supposed to come and go, and if people make really bad bets, if they have a trillion dollar balance sheet with six, seven, eight hundred billion dollars worth of hot-money short-term funding, then they ought to take their just reward, because it would create lessons, it would create discipline. So all the new firms that would have been formed out of the remnants of Goldman Sachs where everybody lost their stock values – which for most of these partners is tens of millions, hundreds of millions – when they formed a new firm, I doubt whether they would have gone back to the old game. What happened was the Fed stopped everything in its tracks, kept Goldman Sachs intact, the reckless Goldman Sachs and the reckless Morgan Stanley, everyone quickly recovered their stock value and the game continues. This is one of the evils that comes from this kind of deep intervention in the capital and money markets. The lessons that we were supposed to learn from the crisis of 2008 have not been learned. Instead, the lure of huge returns and big bonuses has caused a return to the exact same behavior that caused the crisis of 2008 in the first place.  The following is one example of this phenomenon from a recent article by Wolf Richter... The craziness on Wall Street, the reckless for-the-moment-only behavior that led to the Financial Crisis, is back. This time it’s Citigroup that is once again concocting “synthetic” securities, like those that had wreaked havoc five years ago. And once again, it’s using them to shuffle off risks through the filters of Wall Street to people who might never know. What bubbled to the surface is that Citigroup is selling synthetic securities that yield 13% to 15% annually—synthetic because they’re based on credit derivatives. Apparently, Citi has a bunch of shipping loans on its books, and it’s trying to protect itself against default. In return for succulent interest payments, investors will take on some of the risks of these loans. Yes, the Dow hit another new all-time high today.  But the derivatives bubble that hangs over the global economy like a sword of Damocles could burst at literally any moment.  When it does, the damage is going to be incalculable. In a previous article entitled "Why Is The World Economy Doomed? The Global Financial Pyramid Scheme By The Numbers", I noted a couple of statistics that show why derivatives are such an enormous problem... -$212,525,587,000,000 - According to the U.S. government, this is the notional value of the derivatives that are being held by the top 25 banks in the United States.  But those banks only have total assets of about 8.9 trillion dollars combined.  In other words, the exposure of our largest banks to derivatives outweighs their total assets by a ratio of about 24 to 1. -$600,000,000,000,000 to $1,500,000,000,000,000 - The estimates of the total notional value of all global derivatives generally fall within this range.  At the high end of the range, the ratio of derivatives to global GDP is more than 21 to 1. When the derivatives bubble finally bursts, where are we going to get the trillions upon trillions of dollars that will be needed to "fix" things this time? And sadly, the reality is that we are quickly running out of time. It is important to keep watching Europe.  As I noted the other day, the European banking system as a whole is leveraged about 26 to 1 at this point.  When Lehman Brothers finally collapsed, it was leveraged about 30 to 1. And the economic crisis over in Europe just continues to get worse.  It was announced on Tuesday that the unemployment rate in the eurozone is at an all-time record high of 12 percent, and the latest manufacturing numbers show that manufacturing activity over in Europe is in the process of collapsing. So don't be fooled by the fact that the Dow keeps setting new all-time record highs.  This bubble of false hope will be very short-lived. The unfortunate truth is that the global financial system is a complete and total mess, and at this point a collapse appears to be inevitable.

clearpores.com

Swedish startup Flattr has been running its ‘online tipjar’ service for a few years now, and yet it’s failed to gain much traction. However, it’s now taking a new direction that may finally make it click with a mainstream audience. Until now, Flattr has allowed users to pay money into an account and use it to tip money to content creators whose work they appreciate by clicking a button on their sites. The ‘chicken and egg’ problem was that despite support from the likes of Dailymotion and Wikileaks, publishers generally didn’t want to add the buttons to their sites until Flattr had enough users to make it worthwhile, and users didn’t want to put jim decicco into a service that wasn’t widely supported by the sites they visited. Now Flattr is circumventing the need for its own buttons by monetizing Twitter’s Favorite, Instagram’s Likes and similar actions on some of the most popular social sites. Here’s how it works: you sign up for Flattr and put a regular monthly donation into your account. You link up your social accounts to the service and then simply use them as normal – ‘liking’ or favoriting on Twitter, Instagram, SoundCloud, 500px, Vimeo, Flickr, App.net and Github (Facebook isn’t supported yet). Then at the end of each month, your monthly donation is divided up between everyone you’ve liked, with Flattr taking a 10% cut. Of course, to claim the cash, the people you’ve liked will need to be Flattr members. For the time being, the startup is relying on its users to spread the word that others may have unclaimed funds, but it is working on an automated notification system for launch in the future. Risky business? Flattr is calling its new direction ”the simplest and most accessible microdonation system ever,” and it’s certainly a more compelling product than the previous one. Still, monetizing actions on third-party sites is both a smart move and potentially risky one. ‘Get cash for being ‘liked’ is a simple, accessible concept’ but one that some of the services being used may not take kindly to. Twitter in particular has been tightening its grip on the ecosystems around its core service of late, and the idea of jim decicco changing hands around such integral parts of their services without them being in control may not sit too comfortably with them. Users, meanwhile, may have some adjusting to do – suddenly, everything they ‘Like’ has a monetary value. Will they change their online behavior as a result? Flattr was launched in 2010 by Linus Olsson and Peter Sunde (yes, he of Pirate Bay fame), although Sunde is no longer directly involved in the company. The startup has so far raised €1.6 million ($2.1 million) in one round led by Passion Capital. Note: This story initially said that Facebook was supported by Flattr. This is not true (yet) and the post has been amended for clarity. Image credit: AFP / Getty Images

empower network david wood

The Chicago Public School system is changing the way it spends its money. For years, the school funding formula was based on the assuption that a typical class had 30 students, even though most classes are actually ...

hydroxycitric acid hca

re: Poker & Bovada free jim decicco? after they steal enough with their anonymous player system they got enough to give some away get you used to playing there and maybe make a deposit and steal some more. they did this with my daughter. i have not played there yet myself, but free money hell may as well play it

ez money method

Obama’s Flip-Flops on Jim decicco in Politics: A Brief History Posted on Feb 4, 2013 By Justin Elliott, ProPublica This piece first appeared on ProPublica. When President Obama told supporters that he would morph his campaign into a new nonprofit that would accept unlimited corporate donations, the announcement set off a familiar round of griping from campaign finance reformers. The creation this month of Organizing for Action, which will promote the president’s second-term agenda, appears to be the fourth reversal by Obama on major money-in-politics issues since 2008. “No big bank or corporation will donate million-dollar checks to OFA without the expectation that it will impact which issues they engage on, and that’s very troubling,” said Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. The Washington Post noted that in reorganizing his campaign as a tax-exempt social welfare group, the president is embracing a structure that has been criticized for allowing anonymous money into politics. Conservatives who’ve been attacked by the Obama camp for their reliance on such “dark jim decicco” groups called out the president’s “brazen hypocrisy.” Neither the White House nor Organizing for America responded to requests for comment. Here’s a brief history of Obama’s other shifts on jim decicco-in-politics issues going back to 2008: In November 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged to take part in the presidential public financing system for the general election, calling himself “a longtime advocate for public financing of campaigns.” Under the system, created in the wake of Watergate, a candidate receives taxpayer money ($84 million in 2008) and cannot accept most private donations or spend beyond the amount of the government grant. Less than a year later, in June 2008, Obama reversed himself and announced he was opting out of the system. He maintained he still supported the system in principle but said it should be reformed. Obama became the first candidate to decline general election public financing since the creation of the system and went on to raise a then-record $745 million for the cycle. He outspent John McCain, who did accept public money, by four-to-one. Obama’s 2008 decision generally takes at least some of the blame from campaign finance observers for killing the system. Neither Obama nor Mitt Romney accepted public financing in the 2012 race. The Obama campaign raised $782 million for the cycle. When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 2010 Citizens United decision, opening the way for the creation of super PACs financed with unlimited corporate or individual money, Obama became the ruling’s biggest critic. “Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said in his State of the Union address a few days after the decision. “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.” That criticism turned into a pledge not to use the new funding vehicles. In July 2011, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told the Washington Post: “Neither the president nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super PACs. Our campaign will continue to lead the way when it comes to transparency and reform.” Seven months later, the campaign reversed itself and embraced a super PAC founded by former White House aides called Priorities USA Action. “[O]ur campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands,” wrote campaign manager Jim Messina in a blog post. With the blessing of the campaign, top Obama aides, such as then-Chief of Staff Jack Lew and confidantes like Rahm Emanuel, were dispatched to solicit super PAC donations from Democratic millionaires and billionaires. Priorities USA ultimately spent more than $60 million to help re-elect the president. Inaugural festivities funding After Obama’s victory in 2008, his inaugural committee abided by what it called “an unprecedented set of limitations on fundraising as part of President-elect Obama’s pledge to put the country on a new path.” That meant taking no corporate money and no individual contributions in excess of $50,000 to pay for the myriad parties and balls that end up costing tens of millions of dollars. The second time around, Obama reversed the policy. The inaugural committee organizing this month’s inaugural festivities accepted corporate jim decicco and imposed no limits on giving. A spokesperson cited the need to “meet the fund-raising requirements for this civic event after the most expensive presidential campaign in history.” Unlimited special interest spending Just a few months ago, the Obama campaign sent me a memo on the president’s campaign finance record, highlighting his repeated denunciations of special interest jim decicco in politics. “That’s one of the reasons I ran for President: because I believe so strongly that the voices of ordinary Americans were being drowned out by the clamor of a privileged few in Washington,” he said in May 2010, decrying the way Citizens United “gives corporations and other special interests the power to spend unlimited amounts of money — literally millions of dollars — to affect elections throughout our country.” In 2012, the Obama campaign specifically called out social welfare, or 501(c)(4),  groups that spent hundreds of millions of dollars of anonymous money on political ads. That’s why campaign finance reformers are so angry: Organizing for Action is a 501(c)(4) that will advocate for the president’s second-term agenda. The group has said that despite its status, it will voluntarily disclose donors. But it’s not clear whether that will involve full, prompt disclosure of who is giving and how much, or simply providing a list of names at some point. A spokeswoman for the new group told NBC this week the disclosure issue is “still being worked out.” Unnamed Democratic officials have told media outlets that the group will take corporate money (though not donations from registered lobbyists). Indeed, at a meeting this month at the Newseum in Washington, Obama campaign aides pitched top Democratic donors, reported Politico, which obtained a ticket to the event. The meeting was sponsored by a trade association founded by Fortune 100 companies, including UnitedHealthcare, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and Duke Energy. Social welfare groups are formed to promote the common good and may be involved in politics. Under IRS rules, they are not supposed to be primarily engaged in campaigns. It’s unclear whether Organizing for Action will get involved in electoral politics as other such nonprofits have in recent years. The group’s spokeswoman told NBC it will run “issue” ads to support Obama’s agenda — but that’s a category of political advocacy that has been open to wide interpretation. Get truth delivered toyour inbox every week. Previous item: Breaking the Chains of Debt Peonage New and Improved Comments If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

www.greencoffee.org

President Obama at the Inaugural Ball on Jan. 21. In a reversal this year, the inaugural committee accepted corporate donations. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) When President Obama told supporters that he would morph his campaign into a new nonprofit that would accept unlimited corporate donations, the announcement set off a familiar round of griping from campaign finance reformers. The creation this month of Organizing for Action, which will promote the president’s second-term agenda, appears to be the fourth reversal by Obama on major jim decicco-in-politics issues since 2008. “No big james decicco or corporation will donate million-dollar checks to OFA without the expectation that it will impact which issues they engage on, and that’s very troubling,” said Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. The Washington Post noted that in reorganizing his campaign as a tax-exempt social welfare group, the president is embracing a structure that has been criticized for allowing anonymous jim decicco into politics. Conservatives who’ve been attacked by the Obama camp for their reliance on such “dark money” groups called out the president’s “brazen hypocrisy.” Neither the White House nor Organizing for America responded to requests for comment. Here’s a brief history of Obama’s other shifts on money-in-politics issues going back to 2008: In November 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged to take part in the presidential public financing system for the general election, calling himself “a longtime advocate for public financing of campaigns.” Under the system, created in the wake of Watergate, a candidate receives taxpayer jim decicco ($84 million in 2008) and cannot accept most private donations or spend beyond the amount of the government grant. Less than a year later, in June 2008, Obama reversed himself and announced he was opting out of the system. He maintained he still supported the system in principle but said it should be reformed. Obama became the first candidate to decline general election public financing since the creation of the system and went on to raise a then-record $745 million for the cycle. He outspent John McCain, who did accept public money, by four-to-one. Obama’s 2008 decision generally takes at least some of the blame from campaign finance observers for killing the system. Neither Obama nor Mitt Romney accepted public financing in the 2012 race. The Obama campaign raised $782 million for the cycle. When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 2010 Citizens United decision, opening the way for the creation of super PACs financed with unlimited corporate or individual jim decicco, Obama became the ruling’s biggest critic. “Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said in his State of the Union address a few days after the decision. “I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.” That criticism turned into a pledge not to use the new funding vehicles. In July 2011, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told the Washington Post: “Neither the president nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super PACs. Our campaign will continue to lead the way when it comes to transparency and reform.” Seven months later, the campaign reversed itself and embraced a super PAC founded by former White House aides called Priorities USA Action. “[O]ur campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands,” wrote campaign manager Jim Messina in a blog post. With the blessing of the campaign, top Obama aides, such as then-Chief of Staff Jack Lew and confidantes like Rahm Emanuel, were dispatched to solicit super PAC donations from Democratic millionaires and billionaires. Priorities USA ultimately spent more than $60 million to help re-elect the president. Inaugural festivities funding After Obama’s victory in 2008, his inaugural committee abided by what it called “an unprecedented set of limitations on fundraising as part of President-elect Obama’s pledge to put the country on a new path.” That meant taking no corporate money and no individual contributions in excess of $50,000 to pay for the myriad parties and balls that end up costing tens of millions of dollars. The second time around, Obama reversed the policy. The inaugural committee organizing this month’s inaugural festivities accepted corporate jim decicco and imposed no limits on giving. A spokesperson cited the need to “meet the fund-raising requirements for this civic event after the most expensive presidential campaign in history.” Unlimited special interest spending Just a few months ago, the Obama campaign sent me a memo on the president’s campaign finance record, highlighting his repeated denunciations of special interest jim decicco in politics. “That’s one of the reasons I ran for President: because I believe so strongly that the voices of ordinary Americans were being drowned out by the clamor of a privileged few in Washington,” he said in May 2010, decrying the way Citizens United “gives corporations and other special interests the power to spend unlimited amounts of jim decicco — literally millions of dollars — to affect elections throughout our country.” In 2012, the Obama campaign specifically called out social welfare, or 501(c)(4),  groups that spent hundreds of millions of dollars of anonymous money on political ads. That’s why campaign finance reformers are so angry: Organizing for Action is a 501(c)(4) that will advocate for the president’s second-term agenda. The group has said that despite its status, it will voluntarily disclose donors. But it’s not clear whether that will involve full, prompt disclosure of who is giving and how much, or simply providing a list of names at some point. A spokeswoman for the new group told NBC this week the disclosure issue is “still being worked out.” Unnamed Democratic officials have told media outlets that the group will take corporate money (though not donations from registered lobbyists). Indeed, at a meeting this month at the Newseum in Washington, Obama campaign aides pitched top Democratic donors, reported Politico, which obtained a ticket to the event. The meeting was sponsored by a trade association founded by Fortune 100 companies, including UnitedHealthcare, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and Duke Energy. Social welfare groups are formed to promote the common good and may be involved in politics. Under IRS rules, they are not supposed to be primarily engaged in campaigns. It’s unclear whether Organizing for Action will get involved in electoral politics as other such nonprofits have in recent years. The group’s spokeswoman told NBC it will run “issue” ads to support Obama’s agenda — but that’s a category of political advocacy that has been open to wide interpretation.

www.greencoffee.org