Possible solutions to the worlds problems

Well, some countries are better at it than the US…we are somewhere in the middle.
As far as women having children and working full-time in the US it is very difficult. 98% of businesses here only give women about 2 weeks of paid maternity leave…if they get any at all….which is nonsense and obviously follows labor laws created and dominated by men.

No they are not laws created to benefit men, they are laws created by people who want children to be raised by the state

These people want children to be at school as much as possible and they want men AND women working as much as possible to boost tax revenue

They are not male laws in that they do not benefit men

They are the product of a perverted ideology and there are men AND women who follow that ideology. For example Hilary Clinton is part of that ideology

Farrel speaks about pay at 11.10
 
No they are not laws created to benefit men, they are laws created by people who want children to be raised by the state

These people want children to be at school as much as possible and they want men AND women working as much as possible to boost tax revenue

They are not male laws in that they do not benefit men

They are the product of a perverted ideology and there are men AND women who follow that ideology. For example Hilary Clinton is part of that ideology

Farrel speaks about pay at 11.10
Was there a video that went with that?

I agree…it is like that now…but up until just a few decade ago women were definitely NOT looked upon as equals…not just in work, but voting and basic rights that we all enjoy.
 
1506442_791896847540635_7974280047477791604_n.jpg
 
[video=youtube_share;IOiUrF74F14]http://youtu.be/IOiUrF74F14[/video]
 
Was there a video that went with that?

I agree…it is like that now…but up until just a few decade ago women were definitely NOT looked upon as equals…not just in work, but voting and basic rights that we all enjoy.

The economy was constructed around manufacturing then

This often involved extremely physically strenuous work

Women tended not to be so good at lifting back-breakingly heavy steel girders onto their shoulders and then riveting them onto things

This meant that 'work' was largely down to men who did not enjoy any sense of freedom but rather hoped that they would be able to hold onto enough back breaking work that they could feed their families

Women too worked hard in various ways (they did not have labour saving devices then or good transport) which is why housewives from those days were much slimmer and fitter than modern women

In recent decades the economy changed from a manufacturing economy to a 'service' economy

The world of work changed from lifting back breaking stuff to selling coffee and other consumer items; this new service economy suited women better and as a result the powers that be who had moved all the manufacturing work abroad to countries where the workers did not have trade unions raised women up to be the new work force of the service economy

Service economies are less dependent on the more male 'hard' skills such as riveting and welding and are more reliant on more female 'soft' skills like chatting to customers and smiling when actually you are dying inside

This was not a conspiracy by men against women...it was a conspiracy that was enslaving the labour and lives of both men and women and continues to do so to this day

Many men know the system is a prison because they have been dealing with it for generations; now that women are getting over the initial feel-good boost of believeing they are 'emancipated' they are beginning to realise what many men already know: the system is a prison
 
Last edited:
Dunno if you ever saw this @muir, but it is fantastic!

I’ll post it for you and whomever else wishes to watch it.

[video=youtube_share;kLH7wx7g4k8]http://youtu.be/kLH7wx7g4k8[/video]


Capitalism: A Love Story is a 2009 American documentary film directed, written by and starring Michael Moore. The film centers on the late-2000s financial crisis and the recovery stimulus, while putting forward an indictment of the current economic order in the United States and capitalism in general.

Topics covered include Wall Street's "casino mentality", for-profit prisons, Goldman Sachs' influence in Washington, D.C., the poverty-level wages of many workers, the large wave of home foreclosures, corporate-owned life insurance, and the consequences of "runaway greed".

The film also features a religious component where Moore examines whether or not capitalism is a sin and if Jesus would be a capitalist, in order to shine light on the ideological contradictions among evangelical conservatives who support free market ideals.
 
Dunno if you ever saw this @muir, but it is fantastic!

I’ll post it for you and whomever else wishes to watch it.

[video=youtube_share;kLH7wx7g4k8]http://youtu.be/kLH7wx7g4k8[/video]


Capitalism: A Love Story is a 2009 American documentary film directed, written by and starring Michael Moore. The film centers on the late-2000s financial crisis and the recovery stimulus, while putting forward an indictment of the current economic order in the United States and capitalism in general.

Topics covered include Wall Street's "casino mentality", for-profit prisons, Goldman Sachs' influence in Washington, D.C., the poverty-level wages of many workers, the large wave of home foreclosures, corporate-owned life insurance, and the consequences of "runaway greed".

The film also features a religious component where Moore examines whether or not capitalism is a sin and if Jesus would be a capitalist, in order to shine light on the ideological contradictions among evangelical conservatives who support free market ideals.

Is it the one where he looks at a corporation that is run by its own employees?

They all seemed pretty happy with the arrangement if i remember rightly!
 
Is it the one where he looks at a corporation that is run by its own employees?

They all seemed pretty happy with the arrangement if i remember rightly!
It begins with some working class folks getting thrown out of their homes that have been in the family for generations.
It talks about how correct we actually had things in the 1950’s and 60’s when the progressive tax rate topped out at 90% for the richest…but all that money went to build roads, bridges, provide education and college, pensions, single-income families, etc. etc. and how Reagan threw the last shovelfuls of dirt on any chance for the working class and poorer to get ahead.
It’s well worth watching again…that’s what I’m doing right now….lol.
 
It begins with some working class folks getting thrown out of their homes that have been in the family for generations.
It talks about how correct we actually had things in the 1950’s and 60’s when the progressive tax rate topped out at 90% for the richest…but all that money went to build roads, bridges, provide education and college, pensions, single-income families, etc. etc. and how Reagan threw the last shovelfuls of dirt on any chance for the working class and poorer to get ahead.
It’s well worth watching again…that’s what I’m doing right now….lol.

I probably should

Yeah the transatlantic network created their 'neoliberal' policies and enforced them under Reagan and now we are all feeling the effects

A home is repossessed every 10 minutes in the UK

This kind of impoverishment of the people cannot go on forever...at some point all those people who have lost everythign and now have nothing to lose start turning to desperate acts like social unrest

Britain is on the verge of breaking up and of leaving the EU. There is now talk of England and the rest of the UK federalising

many people have now been radicalised through economic pain and one way or another the game is about to change
 
I probably should

Yeah the transatlantic network created their 'neoliberal' policies and enforced them under Reagan and now we are all feeling the effects

A home is repossessed every 10 minutes in the UK

This kind of impoverishment of the people cannot go on forever...at some point all those people who have lost everythign and now have nothing to lose start turning to desperate acts like social unrest

Britain is on the verge of breaking up and of leaving the EU. There is now talk of England and the rest of the UK federalising

many people have now been radicalised through economic pain and one way or another the game is about to change
There WILL be a breaking point…not just yet….but soon.
 
http://strikedebt.org
title.png

You are not a loan.

Strike Debt is a nationwide movement of debt resisters fighting for economic justice and democratic freedom.
Debt is a tie that binds the 99%. With stagnant wages, systemic unemployment, and public service cuts, we are forced to go into debt for the basic things in life — and thus surrender our futures to the banks. Debt is major source of profit and power for Wall Street that works to keep us isolated, ashamed, and afraid. Using direct action, research, education, and the arts, we are coming together to challenge this illegitimate system while imagining and creating alternatives. We want an economy in which our debts are to our friends, families, and communities — and not to the 1%.

@muir
 
The Debt Resisters’ Operations Manual

Written by a network of activists, writers, and academics, The Debt Resisters’ Operations Manual reveals how the predatory debt system works to increase inequality, undermine democracy, and ruin lives. It provides detailed strategies for fighting common forms of debt and lays out an expansive vision for a societal movement of debt resistance. The full text of the manual is available for free.
http://strikedebt.org/drom/

 
http://lowtechlifestyle.org/16-tips-for-going-off-grid/

16 Tips For Going Off Grid

off-grid-living-tips--665x300.jpg



“We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living.
We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.” ~Buckminster Fuller
Do what you LOVE!
Stop following the path of debt slavery which chains you to a mortgage and living your life paycheck to paycheck just to make the bills for the month, and STILL have NOTHING left over for you and your family to enjoy life with.
Live Small, Get Rid of Your Debt
Walk away from a life of servitude, and do what you love to do… For a few 10′s of thousands of dollars you can be living on your own land, in your own cabin, and doing your own thing.
What kind of legacy do we want to leave our children? Do we really want to teach them that we MUST WORK OUT LIVES FOR SOMEONE ELSE!
YOU DO NOT NEED TO WORK FOR SOMEONE ELSE!
Let that sink in a second.
You have been programmed from a young age to believe you must have a JOB to make a living. Well, that’s not true. You need to WORK, but you don’t need a job, in the sense that you are working for someone else for the rest of your life, or a large portion of it. When you spend 30-50 years of your life at a job, then you spent 33% of that entire time doing something for someone else rather than for your family. You might think you’re “making a living” and technically you are. But what people fail to realize until it’s too late, is the idea of a job and earning a living relies on you working for and making money for your boss, not you. If you wanted to take time for yourself and your family you risk losing your job. If you have an opportunity to take your family on a trip somewhere can you just drop you job and go? No.
This is NOT About Responsibility
No one is saying you should shirk your duties as a provider for your family. Yes, you have bills. So does everyone. But that’s the point.
We’re programmed from a young age to believe that we must adhere to this idea of civilization that the majority of civilization deems “normal” when in fact it’s really the furthest thing from normal that you can get.
Work, and work hard, but it shouldn’t be a JOB. It should be doing something you LOVE doing. Go back to school. Learn a new skill
Your JOB is Your Family!
Your job is not your boss. Your job is to work hard (and SMART) to provide a good life for your family and yourself. To raise your children the way you see fit, and not the way the system says you should raise your family. Family is the most important thing on the face of the planet. It is our purpose. That and helping others. We have a duty to our families and humanity to provide for our families and to help other human beings.
You Can Go Off Grid
There are some steps you can take now that will allow you to go off grid sooner.
Create an Off Grid Fund — Put the money you save into a bank account and leave it alone. Forget it’s there, and keep working toward your goal of going off grid.
Reduce Your Expenses — Cut out the bills you don’t need. Cable TV is one. Unless you use cable TV for business, there’s really no reason other than temporary entertainment. You can watch TV again once you go off grid. Wouldn’t you rather put that $50-$120 or more per month toward your off grid fund?
Save Money — You can save money by not eating out often, and that includes frivolous purchases of small items which add up over the course of a month. Coffee at your local coffee shop, candy bars, snacks, fast food, and drinks and sodas. Not only are they bad for you, they cost you money. You could save $100 or more per month.
Sell Your Old Stuff — You can sell your old stuff sitting in the garage, attic and basement. You know that shed out back that’s full of junk you never use, or that back room that you just throw stuff when you’re not using it? It’s likely that if you haven’t used it in a year or more, you probably don’t need it. Wouldn’t you rather put that money to good use. That’s money sitting there collecting dust. Even if it’s only $5, if there were a $5 bill laying on the ground you’d pick it up wouldn’t you? So why do you let your old stuff you never use just sit there and take up space. Use it for getting yourself off the grid. Sell it, and put that money in the bank!
Reclaim and Recycle Building Materials — You can start reclaiming scrap materials like pallets, lumber, sheet metal, pipe, fencing, and other necessities that you will use on your off grid homestead.
Buy a Small Piece of Land
You can purchase a small 1 acre or 5 acre piece of land for very little money down in many places of the world. The USA has lots of land for sale with great financing options that won’t break the bank. You don’t need a sprawling ranch that’s hundreds of acres. 1 acre will suffice, and you can get it for as little as $1000 in some parts of the USA. Even at $10k per acre is BETTER than living in a subdivision isn’t it? Would you pay $10k for the freedom that 1 acre of beautiful country land will give you? Remember you’re not buying that land so much as you’re buying the lifestyle and the freedom it provides. With your own land you can grow TONS of food and live the life you and your family will love.
Be Willing to Relocate
If you want to live off the grid, you will probably have to relocate to cut your expenses. The land you buy will most likely be further away form the city and not exactly convenient to getting into town at a moments notice, but you will have more freedom of movement, and more room to move and expand your homestead. You have room to grow your own food and animals, and build a nice home for you and your family.
Build or Buy a Log Cabin or Tiny House
You don’t need to mortgage your life away for the next 30 years. You can build a small log cabin or tiny house for a fraction of what you’re currently paying. Living small allows you to concentrate on the things that are more important to you, like family, and friends, and making good memories with your loved ones.
Learn How to Grow Your Own Food
Read up on how to start growing your own food in your own backyard. There are lots of methods and it’s a good idea to learn as many as possible BEFORE you make the move to go off grid.
Go Back To School to Learn About SOMETHING YOU LOVE!
Learn a new trade or skill that you’ve always wanted to learn. Get a degree if you’re so inclined. If you don’t want a degree, just go for enrichment and the gain the knowledge. Knowledge will last you a lifetime and it expands as you grow. There’s not reason why you can’t do what you really want to do, you just have to want to do it.
You can own your own home without putting yourself and your children in debt for 30 years. You can build your own cabin, contrary to what people would have you believe. You can grow your own food. You don’t have to buy your food from places that put dangerous chemicals and preservatives in your food. You can eat organic food without breaking the bank or unknowingly eating eating genetically modified foods. You can live a happier more fulfilling life when you and your partner/spouse are not both working 60+ hours per week just to make ends meet.
You can SPEND MORE QUALITY TIME with your family. You can look forward to getting out of bed in the morning. You can do something you love and are excited about each day.
You’re only limited by how you think about the world.
- See more at: http://lowtechlifestyle.org/16-tips-for-going-off-grid/#sthash.m5l3SuSC.dpuf
 
http://rt.com/usa/192728-3d-printed-rifle-milling-machine/

[h=1]3D printer for creating untraceable AR-15 rifles hits market[/h] Published time: October 03, 2014 03:21 Get short URL

gun.si.jpg


Defense Distributed has offered a pre-sale of its new milling machine which allows buyers to print and assemble a steel AR-15 rifle in the comfort of their own home. The weapon is completely untraceable.
Ghost Gunner is the company’s new computer-numerically-controlled (CNC) milling machine. Unlike its so-called Liberator gun, which is a plastic gun design to be created via a 3D printer, the Ghost Gunner is the PC-connected hardware for manufacturing the lower receiver of the popular AR-15 rifle.

The receiver is the control part of a firearm which houses the operating parts and serves as the frame of the gun. Without it, the weapon is inoperable. It is also where the manufacturer places the serial number, which is required by law.

The US does allow for creating a firearm from parts or kits, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which states: “[An] unlicensed individual may make a 'firearm' as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.”

As a way to get around that law, manufacturers can make a semi-finished lower receiver that “isn’t technically a gun, but gets as close to the line as possible,” Ars Technica reported. The metal piece is usually 80 percent finished, and can be purchased from a variety of companies. The Ghost Gunner machine will finish the lower receiver, and then customers can purchase the rest of the AR-15 parts online, without being subjected to waiting periods or background checks.

[video=youtube;xwRtll3jjU4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwRtll3jjU4[/video]


The company’s co-founder, Cody Wilson, is a self-described anarchist. He told Wired that he wants to make the process of avoiding government weapons regulations easier and more accessible than ever before.

“Typically this has been the realm of gunsmiths, not the casual user. This is where digital manufacturing, the maker movement, changes things,” he said. “We developed something that’s very cheap, that makes traditional gunsmithing affordable. You can do it at home.”

ghost-gunner-drill-press.jpg
A screen from a YouTube video by Defense Distributed


Last year, when Defense Distributed announced the blueprints for the Liberator – the world’s first 3D-printed plastic gun ‒ Congress responded by approving a 10-year extension to the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 which prohibits gun manufacturers from making firearms invisible to metal detectors.

The plastic gun required customers to have an expensive 3D printer, and then retrieve the digital blueprints from a website like Pirate Bay, a torrent site that hosts information despite objections from the US Department of State and other governments worldwide.
[video=youtube;8u2g5hZx2rU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u2g5hZx2rU[/video]


But the process is much easier with the Ghost Gunner, which comes with a $1,300 pre-sale price tag and will ship in January. “If you can assemble a firearm or operate a 3D printer, you can use Ghost Gunner,” the company said on its website.

“We found existing CNC machines too expensive, too DIY, or too inaccurate to manufacture firearms for the casual user,” Defense Distributed noted on its decision to sell its own machine, rather than printable blueprints.

“By miniaturizing the build envelope to just large enough to mill common firearm receivers, we were able to improve rigidity, reduce material cost and simultaneously relax some design limits, allowing us to sell an inexpensive machine with more than enough accuracy to manufacture firearms,” the company's statement said.
Wilson said the switch is a practical one.

“3D printing [guns] was about signaling the future. This is about the present,” he told Wired. “You can use this machine today to create something to the standards you’re used to...The gold standard of the gun community is metal.”

A bill in California that would have outlawed so-called “ghost guns” ‒ untraceable firearms that do not contain government-assigned serial numbers ‒ was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, who said he “can’t see how adding a serial number to a homemade gun would significantly advance public safety.”

[video=youtube;mn39H2HNE_M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn39H2HNE_M[/video]
 
http://cadtm.org/Central-Banks-lend-massively-to

CADTM: Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt


Part 1

[h=1]Central Banks lend massively to the banking sector[/h] 23 August by Eric Toussaint


Summary: Since the banking bubble burst in 2007, the major Central Banks of the most industrialised countries lend massively to private banks at very low interest rates in order to avoid their failure, thus permitting the big banks that take the most advantage to save considerable amounts in interest payments.

The Fed purchases massive amounts of structured mortgage backed securities, although the ECB does not purchase these products, it allows banks to deposit them as guarantee (or collateral) against the loans they grant. The governments also bring their guarantees, and inject money, into banks in order to recapitalize them.
The systemically important banks are well aware that in case of problems they are protected by their size, they are “too big to fail” and know they can count on state aid to bail them out whenever necessary.
Governments borrow on financial markets by issuing sovereign debt bonds. They entrust the sale of these securities to large private banks. The banks also benefit from lower taxes on profits.
In addition, within the eurozone, banks have the monopoly of credit to the public sector.
Since 2007 Governments and Central Banks of the most industrialized Western countries - hit by the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s - have given top priority to the rescue of private banks and the financial system (insurance companies, mutual funds, private pension funds, etc.) |1| The bank bailout is done at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the population. The governments have done their utmost to maintain private banks’ main privileges and to keep their power intact. The cost is enormous: explosion of public debt, loss of tax revenues, tight restrictions on loans to households and small businesses, further speculative and adventurous activities, which, in some cases, have required expensive new rescues.
Central Banks lend massively to the banking sector
Since the banking bubble burst in 2007, the major Central Banks of the most industrialized countries (ECB, Bank of England, Fed in the US, National Bank of Switzerland, Bank of Japan) have lent massively to banks in order to avoid failures. Without this source of unlimited credit, a great number of banks would find themselves in payment difficulties, as the usual funding sources declined, the interbank market had seized up (the banks lost confidence in each other), the sale of banks’ covered bonds became weak, and the money market funds became erratic. The sum total loaned by Central Banks to the private sector since 2007 is more than $20 trillion. As this has been made available at very low interest rates the big banks have been able to enormously reduce interest repayments.
[TABLE="class: spip"]
[TR="class: row_even"]
[TD]What are Money Market Funds? Money Market Funds (MMFs) are financial corporations in the United States and Europe, rarely controlled and little subject to regulations as they act without banking licences. They are closely akin to shadow banking. Supposedly the MMFs act with prudence but the reality is very different. This is cause for great concern given the vast quantities of money they handle, and the sharp drop in their profitability since 2008. In the United States, they managed $2.7 trillion in 2012, a significant drop from the $3.8 trillion in 2008. As investment funds the MMFs collect capital from investors (banks, pension funds, etc.) and use it to make short-term, often day to day, loans to banks and businesses. During the 2000s MMF financing has become an essential short-term source of liquidities for banks. The biggest are Prime Money Market Fund, Created by JP Morgan, the biggest bank in the United States, is worth $115 billion. Wells Fargo the 4th largest bank in the United States has an MMF managing $24 billion. Goldman Sachs the 5th biggest bank controls an MMF worth $25 billion. US banks also operate MMFs in Europe; JP Morgan (€18 billion euros), BlackRock (€11.5 billion), Goldman Sachs (€10 billion), alongside European banks such as BNP Paribas (€7.4 billion), and Deutsche Bank (€11.3 billion). Some MMFs also operate in British pounds. Michel Barnier (European Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services) has announced that he would like regulations to be imposed on this activity, but this is most likely to remain nothing more than a statement of good intentions |2|. The Obama administration is also said to be considering new regulations, to avoid having to bail out a bankrupt MMF with public money.
Moody’s rating agency has worked out that during the 2007-2009 period 62 MMFs had to be bailed out by the banks and pension funds that had created them, 36 in the US and 26 in Europe for a total cost of $12,1 billion. Between 1980 and 2007 146 MMFs had to be saved by their sponsors. Again according to Moody’s, 20 MMFs were bailed out during 2010-2011 |3|. This shows up to what point they are a menace to the financial system.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Along with direct cash provisions Central Banks have other ways to assist private banks. Between 2008 and 2014 the Fed purchased very large quantities of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), totalling $1.5 trillion |4|. In 2012-2013 it bought up to $40 billion “worth” a month from banks and estate agents |5|. Towards the end of 2013 the Fed started to reduce its purchases, which were no more than $35 billion in March 2014. As of October 2014 the FED will hold $1.7 trillion worth of MBS, about 21% of the total value of this kind of toxic product. |6|
The ECB does not purchase these products but allows banks to deposit them as collateral, that is, as guarantees for the loans they grant. During the 2010-2013 period the “value” of Asset Backed Securities (ABS) on deposit at the ECB varied between €325 billion and €490 billion.
The ECB also purchased covered bonds, issued by private banks to finance their activities |7|. This is a very important assistance by the ECB to the private banks, which, as we have seen, had serious difficulty to find funding on the financial markets. This assistance has quite simply been ignored by the media. Since the beginning of the crisis the ECB has purchased €76 billion of covered bonds, €22 billion on the primary market and €54 billion on the secondary market, including bonds rated as bad as BBB-,which expresses lack of confidence in the issuers. On the 18 March 2014 the ECB held €52 billion “worth” of covered bonds. This is a very large proportion of the total amount of the covered bonds the banks have issued. In 2013 the amount was €166 billion, 50% down in two years |8|.
Translation : CADTM

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4


[h=2]Footnotes[/h]|1| In Japan the government and Central Bank did the same when their real estate bubble burst at the beginning of the 1990s . See Daniel Munevar, “Décennies perdues au Japon (lost decades in Japan)”, in Damien Millet and Eric Toussaint, La dette ou la vie (Life or debt), Aden-CADTM, 2011, chapter 15 (in French).
|2| Financial Times, « EU shadow banking plan rapped », 26 mars 2012 ; « MMF lose worth in low interest rate world », 10 septembre 2012; « EU abandons reform on money market funds” » 10 mars 2014.
|3| Financial Times, « 20 money market funds rescued », 21 octobre 2013.
|4| End January 2014 the volume of the Fed’s balance-sheet is over $4 trillion: $2.228 trillion in treasury bonds and $1.586 trillion Mortgage backed securities (MBS).
|5| Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae.
|6| Since the beginning of the crisis the FED has bought back more than $2.4 trillion of US treasury bonds (in October 2013 the FED held US bonds worth $2.45 trillion) which is about 18% of all current US treasury bonds. The FED does not purchase them directly from US treasury. It purchases them on the open market from the banks who themselves had purchased them from the US treasury. See US legislation on the matter. The Bank of England has done the same.
|7| Natixis, which is, like other banks, favourable to these purchases has published an enthusiastic report on this question in 2005: http://cib.natixis.com/flushdoc.asp...
|8| See Financial Times, “Europe covered bond issues slump”», 27 November 2013.

Éric Toussaint, is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège. He is the President of CADTM Belgium (www.cadtm.org), and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the co-author, with Damien Millet of Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank: Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers, Monthly Review Books, New York, 2010. He is the author of many essays including one on Jacques de Groote entitled Procès d’un homme exemplaire (The Trial of an Exemplary Man), Al Dante, Marseille, 2013, and wrote with Damien Millet, AAA. Audit Annulation Autre politique (Audit, Abolition, Alternative Politics), Le Seuil, Paris, 2012.
 
Part 2

Series: Governments submit to “Too Big to Fail” banks (part 2)
[h=1]Governments make Gifts Galore to Private Banks[/h] 1 September by Eric Toussaint
Government aid is made up of guarantees, and injections of capital in order to recapitalize the banks. In the period from October 2008 to December 2011, €1,174 trillion (9.3% of EU GDP |1| ) worth of guarantees were underwritten by European Governments as a contingency measure. To these guarantees must be added €442 billion (3.5% of EU GDP) of public capital support to banks. During 2012 and 2013 the recapitalizations continued: about €40 billion in Spain in 2012 alone, more than €50 billion in Greece, about €20 billion in Cyprus, €4 billion more for Dexia bank in Belgium, €3.9 billion for Monte dei Paschi in Italy, €3.7 billion for the Dutch bank SNS, €4.2 billion in Portugal on top of the Portuguese bail-out of the Banco Esperito Santo in July 2014., not forgetting Ireland, Slovenia, Croatia This assistance was granted without any government supervision of the use made of the funds. |2|

A quick calculation can give an idea of the importance of capital injections if we compare their volumes to the banks’ hard capital. The 20 largest European banks in 2012 have assets of about €23 trillion, considering that on average their hard capital represents 3% of assets, the total hard capital is roughly €700 billion. If we consider that in recent years, European governments have advanced €200 billion of capital into these banks (a precise calculation would take into account the injections into banks such as Fortis, which were acquired by BNP Paribas), we realize that the contribution is quite impressive.
Some authors refer to State guarantees granted to “Too big to fail” banks as implicit subventions and expose their perverse consequences.
[TABLE="class: spip"]
[TR="class: row_even"]
[TD]The big banks enjoy implicit subsidies The banks’ creditors know this as well. They are thus incited to lend to banks knowing there is, supposedly, no risk involved for themselves. They know full well that should one of these banks go belly-up they would escape the losses in so far as the States would take them on, in its quality of lender of last resort. This gilt edged situation permits banks to negotiate their borrowing at the lowest rates of interest (the interest rate being proportional to the risk involved). If the banks did not enjoy this guarantee from the State they would have to pay higher interest rate levels. The difference between these two rates of interest represents an implicit State subsidy to the banks.
A rigorous study by the European Green party has worked out that the implicit State guarantees to the big banks for 2012 amounts to €233.9 billion |3|.
This implicit guarantee has perverse consequences:

  • it encourages the big banks to take ever greater risks;

  • it encourages the concentration of big banks. Smaller establishments that do not have this same level of guarantee must find their funding at higher interest rates and in case of sharp competition may be forced to close down or be bought out by their competitors;

  • these gains are entirely private and do not benefit the population.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Other forms of government aid to banks are:

  • Borrowing on the financial markets by issuing sovereign debt bonds. They entrust the sale of these bonds to a group of big private banks called primary dealers (generally chosen among the group of the thirty biggest international banks |4|) for whom this activity is a source of income. Then, through their Central Banks the governments repurchase, on the secondary market, a part of the bonds they have themselves issued through the primary dealers. In January 2014 the US central bank’s balance sheet included $2,228 trillion worth of treasury bonds that it had purchased from different banks. The Bank of England had £371 billion of gilts on its books on 13 March 2014 |5|, that is, British Government bonds that were also purchased on the secondary market; on the 31 December the ECB held €185 billion of Greek, Irish, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese sovereign bonds that had all equally been purchased on the secondary market. |6|

  • Reductions in taxes effectively paid on banks’ profits. They have declared losses in 2008-2009 (and sometimes for other exercises too) that have permitted tax avoidances over several years. In fact losses are carried forward to following years, thus permitting substantial tax savings. Care must be taken that BNP Paribas does not write down as a commercial loss the $9 billion fine imposed by the US and save the equivalent in tax payments. The French government may cover the fine as it is in close relationship with the banking sector.

  • The refusal by Governments to prosecute the banks that are considered “Too big to Fail”. |7|
    Since 2007-2008 not one bank in the EU, North America or Japan has had its banking licence (its right to exercise banking activities) revoked. Out of court settlements have permitted the banks to carry on business as usual, avoiding condemnation in due form. |8| Not one bank director has been imprisoned (except in Iceland which is not a EU member) or has been prohibited from banking activities. The only judgements have been against bank employees mostly condemned for having damaged their bank’s image. This refusal to prosecute the banks themselves is visible through the attitudes taken against traders such as Jerome Kerviel, who have served as scapegoats. In taking this lax attitude towards banks, States encourage moral hazard.
puce-32883.gif
*The refusal to take strict measures against financial institutions, that would avoid repeated banking crises. |9|
puce-32883.gif
*The refusal to take measures forcing the banks that receive ECB loans to use them in their turn to grant loans to households and small businesses (which are the principal private employers) to stimulate the economy. The banks freely use this money as they see fit without bringing any benefits to the real economy. Since 2012 and 2013 loans to business, especially small business, have decreased. The ECB says that for its next series of loans to banks it will condition them to business and household credits. Wait and see!
Translation : CADTM

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4


[h=2]Footnotes[/h]|1| European Commission, “State aid : State aid: crisis-related aid aside, Scoreboard shows continued trend towards less and better targeted aid”, Brussels, 21 December 2012. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1444_en.htm
|2| The Belgian government acquired 10% of the shares of the biggest French bank BNP Paribas (that has been fined $9 billion by US authorities in June 2014), It so becomes the biggest shareholder but without voting rights on the board of directors and its two chosen representatives take part independently!
|3| Summary at http://www.philippelamberts.eu/233-...cite-percu-par-les-grandes-banques-en-europe/ (in French) and complete study http://www.philippelamberts.eu/wp-c...ector_Greens-in-the-EP-study_January-2014.pdf
|4| The same banks have been involved in the different abuses and manipulations examined elsewhere .
|5| See http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/Pages/apf/results.aspx
|6| Sovereign bonds of Ireland €9.7 billion; Greece €27.7 billion; Spain €38.8 billion; Italy €89.7 billion; Portugal €19.8 billion.
|7| See: Éric Toussaint, Série : “The Banks and the ’Too Big to Jail’ Doctrine (in 9 parts)”. Part 1 published 9 March 2014, http://cadtm.org/Les-banques-et-la-nouvelle
|8| According to its CEO, in June 20014, the $9 billion fine that BNP Paribas must pay to US authorities to avoid a condamnation will not affect the bank’s financial health. See Patrick Saurin and Éric Toussaint, "BNP Paribas sanctionnée par les autorités des États-Unis: il faut aller plus loin", published 13 July 2014, http://cadtm.org/BNP-Paribas-sanctionnee-par-les (in French or Spanish)
|9| See: Éric Toussaint, "Comment les banques et les gouvernants détruisent les garde-fous", published 13 January 2014, http://cadtm.org/Comment-les-banques-et-les (in French)
 
Part 3

Series: Governments submit to “Too Big to Fail” banks (part 3)
[h=1]Private banks shamefully enjoy a monopoly of lending to the public sector[/h] 4 September by Eric Toussaint
The eurozone banks have the monopoly of lending to the public sector. It is prohibited for the ECB and the eurozone’s central banks to grant loans to public authorities (see box on the ECB). The governments in the eurozone have the possibility of borrowing from publicly owned banks where they still exist, but they do not do so.

The private banks get most of their funding, since 2008, from public sources (the ECB and the Central Banks in the eurozone) at very favourable interest rates. Since June 2014 they borrow from the ECB at 0.15% and at 0.05 % as from the 4th September 2014 (while the inflation rate in 2013 was 0.8% in the Eurozone, which means that the real interest rate is, in fact, negative). Then they lend to peripheral European countries like Cyprus Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the East European members of the eurozone) at high, or even exorbitant interest rates (between 4% and 10%). They lend to Belgium, France and the Netherlands at 2% and to Germany at 1.6% (figures March 2014).
[TABLE="class: spip"]
[TR="class: row_even"]
[TD] [h=3]The European Central Bank[/h] Created in 1998 on the model of the German Bundesbank and installed in Frankfurt-am-Main in Germany, the European Central Bank (ECB) is the European institution responsible for applying monetary policy in the eurozone |1| . The Treaty on European Union, commonly known as the Maastricht treaty (1992) created the ECB and defined its missions (art. 105):

  • to define and implement the monetary policy of the Community;
  • to conduct foreign exchange operations;
  • to hold and manage the official foreign reserves of the Member States;
  • to promote the smooth operation on payment systems.
Its principal mission along with that of the national central banks of the eurozone is to maintain price stability |2| around an annual inflation level of 2%.
The eurozone’s national central banks’ monetary competences have been transferred to the ECB. Proclaimed independent, the ECB is governed by bankers in pure banking logic. If European populations demanded other democratic monetary choices, the ECB can quite simply ignore them and continue with its dogmatisms favourable to big business and the wealthiest individuals. This so called independence is no more than a front leading us to believe that the ECB’s choices may not be questioned. In fact, it is the big banks and financial institutions, along with the European leaders that impose neoliberal politics on their peoples that have the ear of the ECB. Although labour market policies are not the competence of the ECB, it intervenes regularly to criticise labour rights, and promote the interests of big business.
It must be mentioned that the ECB does not directly buy from the states the public bonds that they emit. The founders of the ECB chose to give the private sector the exclusive right to finance public borrowing. Since 2010 the ECB buys public bonds on the secondary market from the bankers who bought them on the primary market and have difficulties to unload those it no longer wants. This is another way the ECB finances the banks. If the ECB would buy public bonds on the primary market it could directly finance the states. The ECB only bolsters in this way the bonds having been issued by the countries that submit themselves to its brutal austerity policies.
The Lisbon treaty and the ECB statutes prohibit the ECB, as indeed the national central banks, from lending directly to the states. They lend to the private banking sector who in their turn lend to the states at higher interest rates. Article 101 of the Maastricht treaty, reproduced as article 123 of the Lisbon treaty states: “Overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the European Central Bank or with the central banks of the Member States (hereinafter referred to as ‘national central banks’) in favour of Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of Member States shall be prohibited, as shall the purchase directly from them by the European Central Bank or national central banks of debt instruments.” This is one of the reasons why this treaty must be abrogated in favour of a truly democratic European Union.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Translation : CADTM

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4


[h=2]Footnotes[/h]|1| Eleven countries founded the eurozone in 1999 (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain), they were joined by Greece in 2001, Slovenia en 2007, Cyprus and Malta en 2008, Slovakia en 2009, Estonia in 2011 and Latvia in 2014. See: http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/eurozonemap.html
|2| Treaty of Lisbon, article 282.

Éric Toussaint, is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège. He is the President of CADTM Belgium (www.cadtm.org), and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the co-author, with Damien Millet of Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank: Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers, Monthly Review Books, New York, 2010. He is the author of many essays including one on Jacques de Groote entitled Procès d’un homme exemplaire (The Trial of an Exemplary Man), Al Dante, Marseille, 2013, and wrote with Damien Millet, AAA. Audit Annulation Autre politique (Audit, Abolition, Alternative Politics), Le Seuil, Paris, 2012.
 
Series: Governments submit to “Too Big to Fail” banks (part 4)
[h=1]United-States : the Fed Bails Out Wall Street[/h] 29 September by Eric Toussaint
Since 2008, the Fed has granted unlimited credit to banks at an official rate of 0.25%. In fact, as the General Accounting Office (GAO) has revealed, the Fed has lent close to $16 trillion at an interest rate below 0.25%. |1| The report shows it has not followed its own prudential rules and has not notified Congress.

According to an enquiry by a US Congress Committee, there is clear and evident collusion between the Fed and the big banks:
The CEO of JPMorgan Chase served on the New York Fed’s board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JPMorgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed’s emergency lending programs. |2|
According to an independent study by the Levy Institute, which has the collaboration of economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and James K. Galbraith, Fed assistance to banks was much more than the $16 trillion revealed by the GAO; it was $29 trillion dollars. |3|
The big European banks had access to Fed funds until the beginning of 2011. Dexia got a loan of $159 billion dollars, |4| Barclays $868 billion, Royal Bank of Scotland $541 billion, Deutsche Bank $354 billion, UBS $287 billion, Crédit Suisse $260 billion, BNP-Paribas $175 billion, Dresdner Bank $135 billion and Société Générale $124 billion. The end of this funding, under pressure from Congress, was one of the reasons that from May-June 2011, the US Money Market Funds started to block their loans to European banks, considering that without support from the Fed the European banks incurred too high a risk.
[TABLE="class: spip"]
[TR="class: row_even"]
[TD] [h=3]The Federal Reserve System of the United States[/h] The Federal Reserve System, or Fed, is the United States’ Central Bank. It is an independent structure with a private activity within the US government and has the responsibility for US monetary policy and thus a strong influence on the world’s financial markets. In the terms of US law, the mission of the Fed is to guarantee price stability and full employment and to ensure the stability of the financial system by taking the necessary measures to predict and attenuate financial crises and panics. To achieve this, the Fed has three important means: it controls interest-rates that influence consumption, investment and inflation; it controls the money supply which permits the stability of prices in times of crisis; and it supervises and regulates financial institutions.
The Fed was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 as a reaction to the growing instability of the North American financial system at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. Until then the US did not have centralized control and regulation of its financial system. Each state had the charge of regulating and controlling the banks that were within its jurisdiction. The Fed was established to ensure the stability of the US financial system by becoming the lender of last resort and so to be able to supply resources to banks facing difficulties.
The institutional structure of the Fed is made up of twelve regional banks overseen globally by a Board of Governors. These regional banks function as Joint Stock Companies possessing non negotiable and non transferable shares in the Federal Reserve System; the stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, six per cent per year. These shares permit the banks their participation in the elections of the regional counsellors of the Fed. The councils are made up of nine members: three are chosen by the banks and represent their interests; three more, representing industrial and commercial interests, are also chosen by the banks; the last three are chosen by the national Board of Governors.
The Board of Governors is charged with overseeing the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks and with helping implement the United States’ monetary policy. It has a maximum of seven members (currently five) who are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate for a fourteen-year term of office. One of the principal functions of the Board is to pilot the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which fixes interest-rates and determines the country’s general monetary policy.
There are two basic differences between the Fed and its European counter-part, the ECB. While the Fed’s mission is to simultaneously guarantee price stability and full employment, the ECB has for principal mission to maintain low and stable inflation levels within the Eurozone. The other difference is in the capacities to regulate and control their financial institutions. The Fed has the means to regulate and supervise all the financial institutions operating under the Federal Reserve System, while the ECB is dependent on the central banks of each of the Eurozone countries for the application of its regulations and control over its institutions. Finally, the European Commission has approved an extension of the ECB’s powers, as from autumn 2014, to responsibility for the direct control of the big banks that are subject to the European system. We shall see what we shall see.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Translation : CADTM

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4


[h=2]Footnotes[/h]|1| GAO, “Federal Reserve System, Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance”, July 2011, http://www.gao.gov/assets/330/321506.pdf. This report, was made possible by an amendment to the Dodd-Frank act that had been introduced by Ron Paul, Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders in 2010. Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator made it public http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf
|2| See: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
|3| See James Felkerson, “$29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bailout by Funding Facility and Recipient”, www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf
|4| See, in particular, page 196 of above mentioned GAO report that refers to loans to Dexia amounting to $53 billion, which are only a part of the total loans to Dexia by the Fed. http://www.gao.gov/assets/330/321506.pdf

Éric Toussaint, is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège. He is the President of CADTM Belgium (www.cadtm.org), and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the co-author, with Damien Millet of Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank: Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers, Monthly Review Books, New York, 2010. He is the author of many essays including one on Jacques de Groote entitled Procès d’un homme exemplaire (The Trial of an Exemplary Man), Al Dante, Marseille, 2013, and wrote with Damien Millet, AAA. Audit Annulation Autre politique (Audit, Abolition, Alternative Politics), Le Seuil, Paris, 2012.
 
I'll try to remember to post the (2nd) upcoming 3rd party test of Rossi's e-cat... this series was run for hundreds to thousands of hours, and it seems that it should be published in a couple of weeks. Mats Lewan, who was involved with the first test and others of the e-cat, alluded to it when he announced he would be releasing a new edition of his book about the e-cat, as well as others who have 'leaked' a similar approximate timetable. All this while Industrial Heat prepares for mass production...
 
Back
Top