Dodd-Frank Act : The Financial Tool to Depopulate the Masses.

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

142 posts / 0 new

By Leandra Bernstein
May 26, 2013

Hearings continue taking place in the House and Senate to review what exactly was voted into law with the 2010 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act) even as the rules for implementing the law are still being written. According to LaRouchePAC and EIR sources on Capitol Hill, there is little to no recognition of the key fact of Dodd-Frank. Namely, Title II of the Act to establish an Orderly Liquidation Authority, vests the FDIC with the authority to conduct a European-style bail-in. The preamble to the Dodd-Frank Act claims “to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts.” This is done, however, through bail-in, a critical feature of the internationally established regime of what is called cross-border bank resolution.

Bail-in, in its simplest terms, is the inverse policy of what was done under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall Act and the 1933 Banking Act generally. Under bail-in the bank survives, the depositors do not. As is stated in an IMF review of the policy from April 2012, “The statutory bail-in power is intended to achieve a prompt recapitalization and restructuring of the distressed institution.” In the case of resolving a distressed globally active, systemically important, financial institution (GSIFI), bank creditors, specifically those whose assets exceed the FDIC insurance cap, will be subject to expropriation. This is not normal bankruptcy. Accounts and assets are seized and/or converted to stock under the resolution authority. The institution is prevented from failing. Values of securities are not written down through sale on the open market. And this is done to guarantee the continued operation of the financial institution and the “stability” of the financial system.

This report provides the evidence, primarily using the text of laws, charters, and the language of the administrators of the bail-in regime, to demonstrate that the United States of America is being subject to the premeditated scheme of an international syndicate to establish laws and treaties contrary both to the interests of the United States, and the spirit and the law of the U.S. Constitution. The Dodd-Frank Act, as currently written, has no evident provision that would prevent the overall effect of mass economic deprivation of the targeted subjects, the American citizenry. Such deprivation across the spectrum of economic activity would invariably lead to a sharp increase in the nation’s death rate, as a direct consequence of the enactment of this law. If this Act is not nullified, the result of its enactment will be the mass destruction of U.S. citizens through economic means. The fact that this has not been stated openly, other than in the following report, does not improve the arguments of those who fail to annul this law.

Before this law goes into effect, as a result of any among a vast variety of financial crises waiting to happen, Dodd-Frank must be overridden by the passage of Glass-Steagall. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act must be nullified immediately by its repeal and the simultaneous passage of the Glass-Steagall Act as drafted in Senate Bill 985 and and House of Representatives Bill 129.


As passed, Dodd-Frank took up 848 pages and contained 383,013 words. According to the financial law firm Davis Polk, as of July 2012 an additional 8,843 pages of rules were added, representing only 30% of the rules to-be-written. The estimate for the final length of the Act is 30,000 pages.[2] Additionally, the six largest banks in the U.S. spent $29.4 million lobbying Congress in 2010, and flooded Capitol Hill with about 3,000 lobbyists--a ratio of 5 lobbyists per 1 congressman.[3] The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act currently stands as the single longest bill ever passed by the U.S. government.[4] It has been argued that the length of the bill itself was intended to intimidate members of Congress. There has been public commentary suggesting that few congressmen even read the bill, but were cowed into voting for it strictly on the basis of party loyalty under a first-term President Barack Obama who kept his party in line using whatever means were at his disposal.[5] In the first House vote, not a single Republican voted for the bill. In the final House vote of 237-192, three Republicans joined the ayes and only 19 Democrats voted against the bill. In the final Senate vote, 55 Democrats were joined by 3 Republicans and both Independents to pass the bill which was then signed into law by President Obama on July 21, 2010.

More of the implications of Dodd-Frank have been revealed, but only after its passage. There has been an inadequate response from members of the U.S. government who presumably voted for the Act, or failed to defeat it. Even after witnessing the fallout from the resurgent European crisis, little has been done. Moreover, for freshman members of Congress, there is a new wave of financial interests descending on Capitol Hill to scope out the best candidates for campaign contributions, as veteran members submit and pass bills literally written by financial institutions.[6]

However, the routine corruption of the Congress is as old as the institution itself. What was done and can now be enacted under the new authorities established in Dodd-Frank’s Title II, is of a different class.

On December 10, 2012, a joint strategy paper was drafted by the Bank of England (BOE) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) titled, Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.[7] The paper compares the resolution regime established by Title II’s Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) to the Prudent Regulation Authority (PRA), a similar resolution authority in the United Kingdom. The regime in the U.K. was established April 1, 2013 following the dismantling of the Financial Services Authority. Beginning in June the PRA will be overseen by Bank of Canada governor and former head of the Financial Stability Board, Mark Carney, when he becomes head of the Bank of England.[8]

The Executive Overview of the joint report states:

The financial crisis that began in 2007 has driven home the importance of an orderly resolution process for globally active, systemically important, financial institutions (G-SIFIs)... These strategies have been designed to enable large and complex cross-border firms to be resolved without threatening financial stability and without putting public funds at risk...

In the U.S., the strategy has been developed in the context of the powers provided by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Such a strategy would apply a single receivership at the top-tier holding company, assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors of the holding company, and transfer sound operating subsidiaries to a new solvent entity or entities.[9]

Prior to resolution, a financial entity is entitled to petition the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia if it is believed that the decision to resolve is erroneous or capricious. But at the court level, such a decision is made, “On a strictly confidential basis, and without any prior public disclosure...” This means there is to be no disclosure to unsecured creditors,or other affected parties. Under the law, premature or “reckless” disclosure can result in fines up to $250,000, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. (Title II, Sec. 202, 1, A.) Moreover, if a creditor objects to resolution, they have a limited amount of time to petition for redress. For example, if a state government with its state workers’ pensions invested in the distressed institution, objects to the terms or the triggering of resolution and wishes to exempt its funds from bailing-in the institution, they have 24 hours to petition the courts. In June 2012 an official lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank Act on a number of counts, including the failure to allow for due process of law.[10]

From the Introduction, Legislative frameworks for implementing the strategy:

Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act requires each G-SIFI to periodically submit to the FDIC and the Federal Reserve a resolution plan that must address the company’s plans for its rapid and orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.[11] ...

Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act provides the FDIC with new powers to resolve SIFIs by establishing the orderly liquidation authority (OLA). Under the OLA, the FDIC may be appointed receiver for any U.S. financial company that meets specified criteria, including being in default or in danger of default, and whose resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (or other relevant insolvency process) would likely create systemic instability.[12]

Title II requires that the losses of any financial company placed into receivership will not be borne by taxpayers, but by common and preferred stockholders, debt holders, and other unsecured creditors, and that management responsible for the condition of the financial company will be replaced. Once appointed receiver for a failed financial company, the FDIC would be required to carry out a resolution of the company in a manner that mitigates risk to financial stability and minimizes moral hazard. Any costs borne by the U.S. authorities in resolving the institution not paid from proceeds of the resolution will be recovered from the industry.

The above statement assumes that the costs of resolution will be covered by those creditors slated to bear the losses as well as an Orderly Liquidation Fund to bear the administrative costs of resolution. What is further proposed for those creditors whose claims are not liquidated, is their conversion to shareholders, the debt becomes stock acting to prop up the value of the resolved institution. What would otherwise occur in bankruptcy, meting out claims to creditors based on priority, does not happen. Rather, the liquidation of the firm does not occur, it is kept operational, and is in that way bailed-in by its creditors.

A crucial clarification of what constitutes a bank creditor was made in a March 28, 2013 review of the BOE-FDIC paper by chairwoman of the Public Banking Institute, Ellen Brown. In the course of explaining why the bail-in, confiscation of 40% of unsecured deposits in Cyprus was not a one-time event, she clarifies:

Although few depositors realize it, legally the banks owns the depositor’s funds as soon as they are put in the bank. Our money becomes the bank’s, and we become unsecured creditors holding IOUs or promises to pay. ...Under the FDIC-BOE plan, our IOUs will be converted into “bank equity.” ...With any luck we may be able to sell the stock to someone else, but when and at what price? [13]

As will be illustrated in the following section, any form of creditor with money in the bank, from $1 to $250,000 and everything above, can be converted from having their account immediately available to them, to becoming a stockholder. As with the triggering of OLA, this can be done quite literally overnight. To retrieve the value of what was formerly assumed to be the depositor’s account balance, the stock must be sold. For example, a former depositor with an account balance of $250,000, who now owns that amount in bank stock, owns that amount of stock in a bank that just underwent a major, cross-border, government restructuring because it was in imminent distress. The receiver, the FDIC, determines which values in the bank must be upheld in the interest of “financial stability,” and this undoubtedly includes financial derivatives, and other debt instruments, which, if sold off in the course of orderly liquidation would cause a panic. The obvious question is, how much will the depositor be able to sell his stock for?

The article continues in post #2 and #3....

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm



According to the April 24, 2012 IMF report,[14] conversion of bank debt to stock is an essential element of bail-in included in Dodd-Frank. “The contribution of new capital will come from debt conversion and/or issuance of new equity, with an elimination or significant dilution of the pre-bail in shareholders. ...Some measures might be necessary to reduce the risk of a ‘death spiral’ in share prices.” In the language of Dodd-Frank, this will “ensure that unsecured creditors bear losses.”

Such a conversion of deposits into equity already had its test-run under the terms of bankruptcy reorganization of Bankia and four other Spanish banks earlier this year. The conditions of a July 2012 Memorandum of Understanding between the Troika (EC, ECB, and IMF) and Spain, resulted in over 1 million small depositors becoming stockholders in Bankia when they were sold “preferentes” (preferred stock) in exchange for their deposits. Following the conversion, the preferentes took an initial write-down of 30-70%. Soon after, they were converted into common stock originally valued at EU2 per share, which was further devalued to EU0.1 after the March restructuring of Bankia. [15]

The likelihood of this write-down of assets is stated outright in the BOE-FDIC joint report and readily acknowledged otherwise. Following the triggering of Dodd-Frank’s Title II authorities, and the FDIC taking receivership at the top tier parent holding company of a GSIFI, assets will be transferred to recapitalize the parent company, in its original and other incarnations, and written down.

To capitalize the new operations--one or more new private entities--the FDIC expects that it will have to look to subordinated debt or even senior unsecured debt claims as the immediate source of capital. The original debt holders can thus expect that their claims will be written down to reflect any losses in the receivership of the parent that the shareholders cannot cover...

This is not simply a hair-cut to bond holders, creditors, and others, but a guarantee that those who are invested in the institution, with money in the depository branch of the institution (understood as depositors), will be made responsible for the continued operation of the institution. Depositors as well as creditors become financially responsible for keeping the institution open and operating, instead of being allowed to go bankrupt, as would be the case for a non-GSIFI. The depository and investment branches are, in this way, called upon equally to bail-in. Economist, Nouriel Roubini writes in an online briefing, Bank Resolution Regimes:

Under the existing legislation, the FDIC has the power to impose losses on unsecured creditors in the process of resolving failing banks. For example, the FDIC resolved Washington Mutual under the least-cost resolution method in 2008 and imposed serious losses on the unsecured creditors and uninsured depositors (deposit amount above USD 100,000). The Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) established under the Dodd-Frank Act further expands the resolution authority of FDIC. Subject to certain conditions, the FDIC now also has the powers to cherry-pick which assets and liabilities to transfer to a third party and treating similarly situated creditors differently, eg: favoring short-term creditors over long-term creditors or favoring operating creditors over lenders or bondholders.[16]


They key issue taken up by Dodd-Frank in its drafting and passage was cross-border resolution of the so-called global systemically important financial institutions (also called GSIBs, or global systemically important banks in other locations). This obviously necessitates cooperation with other nations. Provisions of Dodd-Frank explicitly authorize this coordination with foreign authorities to take action to resolve those institutions whose collapse threatens financial stability. As is stated in Title II, Sec. 210, N, the FDIC, acting as the receiver for such a financial institution in distress, “shall coordinate, to the maximum extent possible, with the appropriate foreign financial authorities regarding the orderly liquidation of any covered financial company that has assets or operations in a country other than the United States.” Chairman of the FDIC, Martin Gruenberg, elaborated on the cross-border strategies codified under Dodd-Frank in a June 9, 2012 speech in Chicago. He stated that since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the FDIC has taken action to carry out its new resolution authorities, including increasingly coordinating cross-border resolution with foreign regulators, in particular the United Kingdom, where “the operations of U.S. SIFIs are concentrated.”

As I mentioned earlier, the type of firm we would need to resolve will likely have significant international operations. This creates a number of challenges...

The FDIC has participated in the work of the Financial Stability Board through its membership on the Resolution Steering Group, which produced the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions. We have also participated in the Cross-border Crisis Management Group and a number of technical working groups, and have co-chaired the Basel Committee’s Cross-border Bank Resolution Group since its inception in 2007. ...

We conducted a heat-map exercise that determined that the operations of U.S. SIFIs are concentrated in a relatively small number of jurisdictions, particularly the United Kingdom (U.K.). Working with the authorities in the U.K., we have made substantial progress in understanding how possible U.S. resolution structures might be treated under existing U.K. legal and policy frameworks. We've examined potential impediments to efficient resolutions in depth, and are on a cooperative basis in the process exploring methods of resolving them.[17]

It is accurate to say that the first incarnation of a serious cross-border resolution regime was established at the April 2009 G20 summit in London, the first summit attended by the newly elected President Barack Obama. At that time, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) emerged as an entity “with a broadened mandate to promote financial stability.” The board currently consists of all G20 member nations’ central financial institutions, a handful of other nations, international organizations, and international financial standard-setting bodies.18

In October of 2011, the Financial Stability Board published a document reflecting the agreement among the participating bodies of the FSB to conduct cross-border resolutions of financial institutions. That document features extensive discussion of the establishment of cross-border resolution authorities within the law of each participating nation. At the outset of the report it is recommended:

In order to facilitate the coordinated resolution of firms active in multiple countries, jurisdictions should seek convergence of their resolution regimes through the legislative changes needed to incorporate the tools and powers set out in these Key Attributes into their national regimes.

The report goes on to enumerate the requirements of a domestic, legal and active authority to resolve “any financial institution that could be systemically significant if it fails.” Given the similarity of the language of Dodd-Frank and the FSB report, it would be a worthwhile venture to analyze whether it is the case that all of the requirements in the FSB report are also contained explicitly in the 2010 U.S. legislation.

What is most significant in the FSB Key Attributes is the strict emphasis on coordinating the bail-in regimes above and beyond national borders. The report reflects a sincere dedication to establish active authorities in each jurisdiction where a parent holding company or its subsidiaries are located.

The following is quoted from Section 7. Legal framework conditions for cross-border cooperation:

7.1 The statutory mandate of a resolution authority should empower and strongly encourage the authority wherever possible to act to achieve a cooperative solution with foreign resolution authorities.

7.2 Legislation and regulations in jurisdictions should not contain provisions that trigger automatic action in that jurisdiction as a result of official intervention or the initiation of resolution or insolvency proceedings in another jurisdiction, while reserving the right of discretionary national action if necessary to achieve domestic stability in the absence of effective international cooperation and information sharing. Where a resolution authority takes discretionary national action it should consider the impact on financial stability in other jurisdictions.

7.3 The resolution authority should have resolution powers over local branches of foreign firms and the capacity to use its powers either to support a resolution carried out by a foreign home authority (for example, by ordering a transfer of property located in its jurisdiction to a bridge institution established by the foreign home authority) or, in exceptional cases, to take measures on its own initiative where the home jurisdiction is not taking action or acts in a manner that does not take sufficient account of the need to preserve the local jurisdiction’s financial stability. Where a resolution authority acting as host authority takes discretionary national action, it should give prior notification and consult the foreign home authority.

As stated in 7.3, it is entirely conceivable for resolution to be triggered by the bank holding company of a foreign nation, necessitating the steps of resolution, including bail-in, to be enacted within a host nation of that bank. In the case of the United States, for example, if resolution were to be triggered by a large British bank, such as HSBC, Barclays, or a European bank, such as Deutsche Bank, UBS, etc., the United States would be obligated, based on the FSB agreements, to take part in resolution.[19] Under the provisions of Dodd-Frank, the resolution authorities are already established in law, in fact. Such a coordinated regime was agreed to by the Heads of State and Government of the Group of Twenty in establishing the Charter of the Financial Stability Board in April 2009, reflecting the interests of that body “to coordinate at the international level the work of national financial authorities and international standard setting bodies (SSBs) in order to develop and promote the implementation of effective regulatory, supervisory and other financial sector policies.”[20]

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

There have been numerous documents written comparing Dodd-Frank’s orderly liquidation authority to regular bankruptcy under U.S. law. What is most notable in the comparisons is who gets priority during resolution, and on what basis that is determined.

The Cornell University Legal Information Institute, writes that Title II is aimed at “ensuring that payout to claimants is at least as much as the claimants would have received under bankruptcy liquidation.” Impartial as it may seem, the problem that arises from that statement is that liquidation during resolution is done at the discretion of the receiver, the FDIC, on the basis of salvaging what is, in its view, most important for financial stability. Under Title II, Sec. 9 E, it is stated that the FDIC, “shall, to the greatest extent practicable, conduct its operations in a manner that--...(iii) mitigates the potential for serious adverse effects to the financial system.”

The current financial system, GSIFIs most emphatically, are highly leveraged, hugely undercapitalized, and rely on classes of assets in the form of securities contracts, collateralized debt obligations, derivatives, and other debt instruments, to maintain the appearance of solvency. Uncertainty in the value of a category of such assets triggered by any outstanding event, for example, the announcement of bank resolution, would create an across-the-board devaluation among all holders of those assets, thereby guaranteeing “adverse effects to the financial system.” Creating these effects would constitute “disorderly liquidation.” Preventing these effects constitutes “orderly liquidation.”

As stated in the IMF report, From Bailout to Bail-In, disorderly liquidation can create risks to overall financial stability:

i. through direct counterparty risks when the failing institution fails to meet its financial obligations

ii. through liquidity risks and fire-sale effects in asset markets, when the distressed institution is forced into asset sales to obtain liquidity which further depresses asset prices (and thus raises demand for higher “margin”)

iii. through contagion risks when the panic caused by the failure of one institution spreads to other financial institutions.[21]

Again, if these three risks are to be avoided effectively, the assets of the institution, regardless of their legitimacy or actual market value, would have to be bailed-in. Their values would have to be preserved, presumably within the bridge financial company, to ensure that similar assets held by other institutions do not suffer the “contagion effect” seen in the Lehman Brothers crash of 2008 and its aftermath.

Moreover, under the Bankruptcy Reform laws of 2005, securitized derivatives counterparties are given priority status in the event of bankruptcy.[22] This is highly consequential for GSIFIs, as it is the case that the majority of the world’s derivatives are concentrated in those institutions. By popularly quoted estimates, as of 2010 the total world derivatives had a notional value of $1.2 quadrillion, approximately 20 times the world GDP. Because of the opacity of the derivatives market, the exact numbers are virtually impossible to produce. However, the Bank for International Settlements quoted global OTC derivatives--derivatives that have a paper-trail--at $632 trillion as of December 2012.[23]

If it is the case, as indicated by the Legal Information Institute that payouts to claimants would be equivalent to what they would receive under liquidation in bankruptcy, despite the priority of payments listed in Dodd-Frank,[24] securitized derivatives counterparties would be first to recoup their money followed by those asset holders whose claims, if exposed to be valueless, would create a disorderly, chain-reaction collapse.


The case has been made and put on the record using facts that virtually every member of government did not find pressing or compelling enough to take into consideration in the course of making national law. What has been presented is now available to American lawmakers and members of governments internationally. This report itself, in the days following its publication, is being distributed to the same, and is widely available to the public at large.

The point that has been made implicitly throughout this documentation must be made explicit at this time. The consequences of enforcing the provisions of Dodd-Frank, or the agreements under the Charter of the Financial Stability Board as discussed above, amount to a violation of the spirit and the law of the United States of America. The preceding provisions of law and international agreements have been made in such a way that places the interests of “financial stability” above the interests of the people of the United States and their Government. The very definition of what is meant by financial stability has been codified by those whose present and future positions of power and authority depend upon that definition. Moreover, what is established through this legislation will result in the mass destruction of the citizens of the United States through economic deprivation, through the collection and extraction of funds done in such a way as to leave the targeted subjects of the law desperate to the point of extermination. Within the texts cited above, there appears to be no evidence suggesting the contrary to be true.

The establishment of the United States of America, as a free and sovereign nation, was premised upon a foundation of law. What underlies the founding laws of the nation is the issue of Right. The right of the nation to govern itself and to govern in a way that upholds the right of each citizen to his or her life, that most fundamental value in law.

Enacting the resolution authority (OLA) at the holding company level of a GSIFI in the event of a crisis, as it is written and intended in Dodd-Frank, will deprive the citizens of the United States of those rights guaranteed to them under national law, most emphatically, their right to life. They will be deprived of their right to petition their government, they will be deprived materially, and as a result, it is a certainty that many will be deprived of their lives--whether by violence, poverty, starvation, extreme want, or suicide. However, after expropriating the material wealth of the nation the aforementioned international syndicate will have financial stability.

For Article with Footnotes

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm


nimblecivet's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Here is a link to a government site download of the final version of this so-called consumer protection bill: H.R. 4173

The bill as displayed for me rght now in my Adobe Reader is 848 pages long. I'm sure few people have come across writings, or distillations of writings like Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies, and fewer who have will see the relationship between Tainter's theory and the U.S. Congress passing an 848 page bill that was supposed to put some of the horses back in the barn when in 1999 Clinton signed the 1933 Glass Steagall repeal amendments.

Some will argue that repeal was the cause of the financial meltdown of the early 21st Century, some see it as merely a multiplyer of effects already set in motion. I'm of the latter group. One of those effects was the Federal Reserve Board itself reinterpreting section 20 of the Glass Steagall Act in 1986, allowing some previously prohibited investment activities, and those shook the fragile and systemic nature of banking investment that had evolved in the fifty three years since Glass Steagall. Shortly after we experienced a Savings and Loan crisis.

I personally see the Savings and Loan crisis as a canary in the mineshaft effect no one in our gambling casino government/Wall Street oligarchic consortium bothered to notice as it lay dead on fhe floor of the mine. With glazed eyes and drooling lips they trampled over it, and pressures continued into the Clinton Administration, where we witnessed correlate international deregulations coup d'etats like NAFTA and the revision of GATT into the international WTO. Thus, logically, rationally, in 1999, Clinton finally signed a formal repeal of sections 20 and 32 of Glass Steagall, now openly allowing for a loosening of those banking investment controls put in place by the Glass Steagall Act.

Wall Street investment speculators got their way after a long struggle with opening moves dating back to the sixties. The horses left the barn for the wide open spaces. Now we have an 848 page long complex bill trying to herd the horses back in the barn.

I'm looking at a pdf copy I downloaded of the 1933 Glass Steagall Act. It's 53 pages long and it somehow kept the corporate investment horses well fed and in their warm dry paddocks for all those years.

If you want to get a feel for the complexity of this bill, Wiki writers have tried to unravel it for us here: Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

It begins with this disclaimer:

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions. (April 2012)

My reason for writing this came from reading this opening line from the article quoted in Karolina's OP:

Quote Karolina:
Quote Leandra Bernstein:

Hearings continue taking place in the House and Senate to review what exactly was voted into law with the 2010 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act)

..."to review what exactly was voted into law" 2010, in an 848 page bill meant to somehow re-institute the protections of a 53 page bill that worked fine until earlier versions of the same group of idiots, under all sorts of K-Street financial corporate pressure and Fed-aided manipulations, repealed it fourteen years ago.

As nimblecivet put it: OW.

.ren's picture
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

Ren, you clearly see the big picture of how the dragged-out demise of the Glass-Steagall Act was immediately followed by seeming lunatics constructing an entire Encyclopedia-Britannica-size law of what looks like endless pages of corporate gibberish. But certainly, what was written was not just mumbo-jumbo. It was codifying what they had been doing since 2007 — getting money from the citizens to support the financial system. They were finally making it legal with Dodd-Frank.

It was made clear in the Dodd-Frank Act that derivatives are the first in line to get financial support, then next all the other of the financial institution's needs, and finally there will be nothing left for people, who are always at the end of that long line. It is absurd, it is cruel, but it is very easy to understand. Only fear of these killers can make the horrors written in the Dodd-Frank paper impossible for the panic-stricken reader to understand.

I just want to be clear that despite legislators saying that the Dodd-Frank Act was written to replace the functions of Glass-Steagall, that was never the intention. Dodd-Frank is the final step in the long succession of "events" that ended the Glass-Steagall Act.

The "bail-ins" that Dodd-Frank legalizes will never clear all of the obligations of the international financial institutions emanating from the City of London. With their tentacles in Wall Street, New York, Boston, Chicago, all other major and smaller cities in the United States and nearly every other country on the globe, they will never collect the $1.8 quadrillion of world derivatives, when the derivative amount is over 20 times the world GDP.

The Dodd-Frank Act is meant to help drastically reduce the population, from 7 billion down to 1 billion, by draining all national resources globally. Apparently, there will be enough money for the elite left afterwards.....with the remaining approx. one billion of the masses.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

In addition to the following article, there is a video entitled Why Dodd-Frank is Unconstitutional on the same page at

Be sure to also check these linked articles: Kissinger, Eugenics and Depopulation and We Need To 'Cull' The Surplus Population

Quote! Playing Suicide Card With Dodd-Frank Bank Bill

Implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial act will set up a massive raid on U.S. bank deposits and ultimately lead to American “genocide,” a new report predicts.

“This is not some wild futuristic nightmare. This is pure treason,” says LaRouche PAC, headed by former presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche.

Under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act – formally known as the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 – bank customers stand to lose all but the FDIC-insured portions of their deposits in the event of another financial crisis.

Instead of another bank bailout like the one taxpayers funded in 2008 and 2009, Dodd-Frank establishes a “bail-in” that would seize deposits.

“This is a program that looted depositors' funds in the two largest banks in Cyprus earlier this year (and is) in place in the United States under Dodd-Frank,” LaRouche said.

By LaRouche’s reckoning, another financial collapse is inevitable, and on a much larger scale.

Where some estimates peg market liabilities at $18 trillion, LaRouche says a whopping “$1.6 quadrillion in derivatives must be covered.”

Raising the stakes, as well as Americans’ exposure, the House Financial Services Committee last month passed H.R. 992, the Swap Regulatory Improvement Act.

The bill would guarantee that derivatives contracts—complex speculative vehicles with little or no collateral—are protected, even when held by foreign banks operating in the United States.

The New York Times reported that H.R. 992, part of Dodd-Frank's so-called "reforms," was written by Citigroup. Citigroup is one of the world’s biggest investment banks, and, along with other Wall Street giants, a heavy contributor to congressional campaigns.

Critics of the bail-in regime say reinstatement of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act is essential to protecting consumers and restoring the sovereign protections of the U.S. Constitution. Re-enactment of the law would rebuild the wall that once shielded commercial bank assets from investment-bank speculation.

"The looting has gone far enough,” LaRouche said. “The Dodd-Frank bill is a piece of treachery that has already claimed the lives of too many of our citizens, through the destruction of our economy, the continuing collapse of real employment, the gutting of our health-care system.

“Nothing short of the full reinstatement of Glass-Steagall can save the United States at this point in time,” he said.

The Examiner has reported on renewed congressional efforts to restore Glass-Steagall, which was scrapped in 1999, during the run-up to Wall Street’s 2008 collapse.

“This is a revolutionary moment,” LaRouche spokeswoman Angela Vullo told the Examiner.

Vullo noted that while transnational financiers scramble to protect their bottom lines, Western leaders, ranging from Henry Kissinger to Britain’s Prince Philip, have envisioned massive depopulation as an underlying strategy to ease future global crises.

“I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus,” the prince wrote in the forward to the 1986 book, “If I Were an Animal.”

Vullo called such declarations “a war policy of going after people’s bank accounts, and using fiscal austerity to create food shortages” … and worse.

Since 2008, European and American suicide rates have been rising along with chronic, long-term unemployment and the carnage of the real-estate bust.

The British medical journal Lancet reported in November 2012 that “coinciding with the onset of the recession, the (U.S.) suicide rate accelerated.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control confirmed a “startling” 40 percent jump in suicides by middle-aged white men and women between 1999 and 2010.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

In Sunday's Daily Telegraph, british economist Liam Halligan starts out his article, Lack of genuine reform is sowing seeds of next crisis, discussing the U.S. economy in accord with his subtitle:

America is on the mend. Or is it? The world’s largest economy is certainly generating some upbeat headlines.

Peer deeper into the US data and there are actually some alarming patterns. For me, apart from the Federal Reserve still cranking the QE handle to the tune of $85bn (£56bn) per month, having more than tripled base money over the past five years, the most worrying concern is debt issuance. For it’s pretty clear, if you’re willing to look, that this recent US recovery derives not from more economic activity but from the issuance of sovereign debt.

No? Well, consider the data. America’s nominal GDP grew $140bn during the first three months of 2013. Over the same period, the US Treasury issued $340bn of new debt. Had that not happened, America’s national income would have shrunk $200bn over the first quarter...

For most of the past two years, then, and the whole of the past six months, American “growth” has depended on higher national debt. Without it, the US economy would still be shrinking. No wonder global markets are so confused, continuing “to trade good news as bad” on very thin volumes, as investors worry that signs of a genuine US recovery could cause Ben Bernanke to stop giving “the medicine”.

The US will need to start “tapering” QE soon, as the OECD says. The think tank is mindful, though, that scaling back the extraordinary measures could cause equity markets to spasm, quashing America’s feel-good factor and crushing the broader recovery.

And, of course, the UK, the eurozone and Japan are probably in a worse position than America when it comes to quitting the class-A monetary drugs. So let’s not kid ourselves that the Western world is now on the sunlit economic uplands. I wish that were true, but it’s not.

After prolonged examination of the false pretense that the global economy is healing, in the end the British economist comes out swinging for the needed policy shift...

Those of us who called for a new Glass-Steagall back in the immediate aftermath of the sub-prime crisis were often derided. Yet numerous very serious people have emerged as strong supporters of this view. Outgoing Bank of England Governor, Sir Mervyn King, backs reimposing a genuine divide. So does former Federal Reserve boss Paul Volcker and former UK chancellor Lord Lawson. Even John Reed and Sandy Weill, the two Wall Street plutocrats who made vast fortunes off the back of the Clinton-era repeal, now admit that dismantling Glass-Steagall was wrong.

Draft legislation to restore Glass-Steagall has just been introduced in the US Senate. This is a companion bill to a measure in the House of Representatives that now has 63 sponsors. Over in America, the Glass-Steagall debate is live.

Sick of market instability, America’s mighty farming lobby last week called for a new Glass-Steagall. “Congress must learn from the past in order to prevent future financial crises,” said Roger Johnson, president of the US National Farmers’ Union. We’ve also lately had a courageous set of statements from an economist called Jeff Sachs.

A professor at Columbia University, Sachs is a hugely authoritative figure. He was formerly at Harvard, where he received tenure aged just 28, the youngest economics professor in the university’s illustrious history. No stranger to the real world, Sachs is also special adviser to the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, having carried out the same role for his predecessor, Kofi Annan.

In truly astonishing public testimony to the Federal Reserve, Sachs recently lacerated Wall Street and its links to America’s political class, pointing repeatedly to “massive fraud” in the US financial services industry.

Referring to “pathologically criminal behavior”, Sachs accused the big investment banks of “gaming the system to a remarkable extent… they have a docile president, a docile White House and a docile regulatory system that absolutely can’t find its voice. It’s terrified of these companies”.

Sachs then called for the “recreation of a mechanism where liquidity is separated from large-scale financial gambling”. Looking the financial lobby square in the eye, the most influential US economist of his generation said: “This I would do for sure.”

So, in the US, the debate on Glass-Steagall is now shifting. Here in the UK, our “Vickers reforms” – which introduce only Chinese walls between investment and commercial banking and have anyway been delayed to 2019 – are a deeply inadequate response to our current predicament.

While some UK authority figures have spoken out, I know for a fact that there are many, many more. They need to find their voice –
and soon.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Just who are the banks, whom the Empire's servants in the G-20 and elsewhere, want to save, at the cost of your money and your life?

They are the "Globally Significant International Financial Institutions,"
who produce the quadrillions in derivatives and other unpayable
financial instruments that Glass-Steagall would wipe off the map.

Here is the list, as of November 2012, according
to the Financial Stability Board:


Deutsche Bank


JP Morgan Chase


BNP Paribas

Bank of America

Bank of New York Mellon

Crédit Suisse

Goldman Sachs

Mitsubishi UFJ FG

Morgan Stanley

Royal Bank of Scotland


Bank of China


Groupe BPCE

Group Crédit Agricole

ING Bank

Mizuho FG



Société Générale

Standard Chartered

State Street

Sumitomo Mitsui FG

Unicredit Group

Wells Fargo

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

IMO, it is time that we all understand and accept that we have entered a new era, in which we are facing a new paradigm. We are at war, but the battles can easily be ignored. So many are too frightened to understand, know or acknowledge even who the enemy is.

Several weeks ago Carl Gibson's article in RSN, Time to Abolish Left vs. Right, explained the situation beautifully.

Quote Carl Gibson:Keeping our nation divided is an agenda supported by both Fox News and MSNBC. The media and the politicians both profit from Americans believing they should hate their fellow Americans. And oddly enough, the one thing that unites the traditional “right” and “left” in this country is our hatred for those same media organizations and politicians that make money by regularly lying to us. The best way to beat them is to find the things that bring us together in one common purpose and unite around that.

An article in the Atlantic last week talked about how the dominant liberal narrative is broken. The argument that government is inherently good and is necessary to provide things like Social Security, Medicare and national parks has some truth to it, and worked well for both parties in the mid-twentieth century. Democrats and Republicans from FDR to Eisenhower won landslide elections using the good-government narrative. But now that our government is captive to corporations and their lobbyists like the US Chamber of Commerce, Americans of all ideological leanings are united in the belief that our current government, as it stands, is completely out of touch and needs radical change from outside the political system to do it.

In this video Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, talks about how he had a surprisingly pleasant conversation with several of the co-founders of about crony capitalism. It was an incredibly populist speech about how they found themselves in complete agreement that big moneyed special interests have taken government hostage and have wasted billions of tax dollars on bailing out banks (like the Federal Reserve's $16 trillion in bailouts to both US and foreign banks that went entirely under the media's radar). He also talked about how it’s more profitable for the crony capitalist DC bubble and the media they control to keep us divided than it is for us to play into those forced divisions.

Another Tea Party founder lamented about how the raw populist energy that originally inspired the Tea Party back in early 2008 against the Bush administration’s bailouts of the biggest banks has been overtaken by Republican ideologues like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. Karl Denninger, a financial blogger who runs, said the Tea Party’s original message was against the big banks. After Obama’s inauguration, there was anger over appointees like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, who were the same bought-and-paid-for financiers who deregulated the banks during Clinton’s second term and brought about the beginning of the financial collapse. Denninger supported the Occupy Wall Street movement early on, saying it was picking up where the Tea Party left off before it was hijacked by the Republican Party.

Democrats and Republicans are using issues like gun control, Benghazi and gay marriage to continue feeding the illusion that there’s a difference between the two and to continue the flow of money to their corporate masters. Whenever a politician says "gun control," gun sales go through the roof. When the ruckus over Chick-Fil-A's disapproval of marriage equality became mainstream conversation, social conservatives formed lines that went around the entire block to make their political statement about marriage equality. After their much ado about nothing Benghazi hearings, GOP members of Congress are. In either instance, whenever you follow the money trail, gun manufacturers and allegedly gay-hating fast food restaurants made record sales and politicians raised more money. Money is the entire point.

When it comes to Republican and Democratic Party officials’ deference to corporate money, they’re both nearly identical. The GOP-controlled House is pressing Obama hard to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would endanger an entire region's drinking water supply and create a negligible amount of temporary jobs. Harry Reid’s Senate voted overwhelmingly for a resolution supporting the pipeline in their budget. The Monsanto Protection Act, which was written by GOP Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri and Monsanto officials, quietly became law with the signature of a Democrat president after the approval of a Democrat-led Senate.

Both parties are captive to the for-profit war industry – the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about – and are united in their support for military intervention whenever and wherever possible. Our last Republican president waged wars in two countries without being attacked by either one. Our current Democratic president has extended one of those wars by another ten years and used drones to take military action in several other countries. Even Rand Paul, who made a name for himself filibustering Obama’s drone czar to lead the CIA, has made statements supporting drones to be used on Americans. Even though traditional Republicans are united against wasteful government spending, and traditional Democrats are united against austerity policies, both parties can agree that there’s entirely too much wasteful spending in Washington when it comes to an imperial military force with a bloated budget currently occupying over 130 nations with 900 bases around the world, and the multibillion-dollar security and surveillance state used to monitor peaceful protesters instead of terrorists. We can certainly find agreement that it would be much more productive to stop spending money on the dysfunctional F-35 jet, which even John McCain has criticized, than make cuts to early childhood education programs like Head Start.

Americans should be smarter than to allow ourselves to get thrown into the counter-productive left vs. right fight hyped by the corporate-owned media and our corporate-owned politicians. If we’re going to fight a binary struggle, it should be populist vs. corporatist. That’s the only real division in this country right now. Are you on the people's side, or on big money's side?

I highlighted the last paragraph. The war officially is populist vs. corporatist; people against big money....

Recently, Fairness4All-NOW in post Abortion, showed a masterfull example of how people are played against each other for their own loss, while the triumphant oligarchs gain.

Fairness4All-NOW started this interesting example explaining the context:

Quote Fairness4All-NOW:The organized opposition to abortion is a strategy manufactured by the super rich to gain and maintain a permanent republican voting bloc, to establish a permanent a campaign issue and as a fund raising tool. Since there are several hundred million more of us who are not super rich than there are super rich we, clearly, outnumber them and, therefore, have the ability to out vote them. The super rich required massive foot soldiers to vote for republicans whom they had already bought off in order to gain and stay in power to change the laws to benefit themselves and disempower the middle class, whose wealth they wanted for themselves along with the wealth of the “commons.”


Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

On site, I found a posting by Evan Bedard on May 21, 20013, Testimony of Secretary Jacob J. Lew on Financial System and Housing Market Recovery. It's quite lengthy, but I suggest taking a look at it. I am posting only what I see as the most relevant here.

Quote U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew:Since the Council’s last annual report, our financial system has grown stronger in a number of ways:
· Progress on comprehensive reform of the over-the-counter derivatives market has reduced risks in the system, increased transparency, and strengthened investor protections. Collectively, these measures help make financial institutions and the financial system as a whole safer and stronger. In March, mandatory central clearing of certain swap transactions began. More categories of swaps and an expanded universe of financial institutions will be subject to central clearing requirements as the year progresses, reducing risks to the financial system and to the financial institutions engaging in these transactions.

· We are seeing continued strengthening of the equity, fixed income, and housing markets. And implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act and international coordination on G-20 reform priorities have achieved significant progress toward establishing a more resilient and stable financial system, both domestically and globally.

On the topic of Dodd-Frank implementation, the Council and its member agencies continue to steadily put reforms in place. The Council will soon complete its initial evaluation of nonbank financial companies for potential designation, which would lead to supervision by the Federal Reserve Board (Federal Reserve) and enhanced prudential standards. The Council has already designated eight systemically important financial market utilities for similar increased oversight.

The Federal Reserve issued a new framework for the consolidated supervision of large financial institutions in December. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) continued to implement the new framework for the orderly liquidation authority. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC are implementing provisions related to living wills by the end of this year. Further, U.S. regulators are continuing to make significant progress on implementing the Basel III accords to set internationally agreed heightened capital and liquidity standards, which are expected to be fully phased in by 2019.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) continue to fill in the remaining pieces of a new comprehensive oversight framework for derivatives that will reduce risk and increase transparency. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized new mortgage rules that provide additional protections for borrowers. And the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has taken steps to facilitate increased participation by the private sector in the mortgage markets, including the recent announcement of an effort to develop a common securitization platform that will facilitate a more efficient and sustainable housing finance infrastructure.


Progress on Financial Regulatory Reform

The annual report also discusses the significant progress that Council members and member agencies, both individually and collectively, have made implementing Dodd-Frank Act reforms. As a result of these activities, consumers have access to better information about financial products and are benefiting from new protections. Financial markets and companies have become more transparent. And regulators have become better equipped to monitor, mitigate, and respond to threats to the financial system.

Since the Council’s 2012 annual report, Dodd-Frank Act implementation included further strengthening of supervision, capital, and risk-management standards for financial institutions and financial market utilities; procedures for stress tests of financial institutions; rulemakings related to the orderly liquidation authority; regulation of the derivatives markets to reduce risk and increase transparency; new standards to protect mortgage borrowers and reduce risks in the mortgage market; and other measures to enhance consumer and investor protection.

Nevertheless, important work remains to complete the implementation of financial reform. The Council, its members, and its member agencies will continue to strengthen coordination of financial regulation both domestically and internationally. In developing and implementing the international financial regulatory reform agenda, the Council members support the development of policies that promote a level playing field, mitigate regulatory arbitrage, and address regulatory gaps primarily through members’ engagement with the G-20 and the Financial Stability Board (FSB). In particular, the Council is focused on:

· Strengthening the regulation of large, complex financial institutions. The Council supports global efforts led by the FSB, to impose consistent standards on large, complex financial institutions across jurisdictions.

· Developing an international framework to resolve global financial institutions. Effective cross-border cooperation will be essential to implementing the FDIC’s orderly liquidation authority under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act. The United States has substantially satisfied the FSB’s Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions, and continues to work with international counterparts to ensure robust resolution coordination.

· Increasing the transparency and regulation of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. The Council encourages continued development of these reforms, as they are essential to increase transparency and to mitigate risk, including cross border spillovers, that could arise from the OTC derivatives market. The FSB has been critical to facilitating international coordination on this issue.

· Data resources and analytics. The Council continues to recommend that improvement in data standards should be a high priority for financial firms as part of their risk management process and for the regulatory community—not just in the United States, but globally. The Council recommends that the Office of Financial Research continue to work with the Council’s member agencies to promote data standards for identification of legal entities, financial products, and transactions, and to improve access to standardized, aggregate data by the regulators. The Council also recommends that cross-border exchange of supervisory data among supervisors, regulators, and financial stability authorities continues to be facilitated in a manner that safeguards the confidentiality and privacy of such information.


The actions of the Council and its member agencies have made the financial system more stable and less vulnerable to future economic and financial stress. The Council will continue to focus on the risk areas I have discussed today, while remaining vigilant to new risks, to promote financial stability and strengthen the U.S. financial system.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm
NYU Law School Clinic Says Adequate Food Is the Right of All

Between 2007 and 2011, 14 million more Americans were classified as "food insecure," meaning they didn't know where their next meal was coming from. Fifty million people in the United States are now going hungry. That means about one in six of us. Of that number, nearly 17 million are children.

These are some of the findings of a new report, "Nourishing Change: Fulfilling the Right to Food in the United States," released by the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) at the New York University School of Law.

The report comes as the genocide faction is trying to cut at least $4 billion a year, for five years, from the government's already inadequate $80 billion food stamp program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), in the Farm Bill.

The report cites a study by the Center for American Progress, that calculates the "hunger bill" for the country, which includes the costs of treating illnesses and other medical conditions related to food insecurity, the impact of hunger on educational outcomes and lifetime earning potential, and the costs of running charity-based emergency food programs. For 2010, that bill came to $167.5 billion. For about half of that, $83 billion, the Center says we could extend the SNAP program to all food insecure households.

In its recommendations, the IHRC report says that the U.S. government must develop a comprehensive national strategy that should:

· "Address all aspects of the food system, including the production, processing, marketing, distribution, and consumption of food;

· "Address issues in the areas of health, education, employment, and social assistance that affect the realization of the right to adequate food;

· "Be informed by a comprehensive and systematic identification of policies and other factors tht contribute to food insecurity and undermine the realization of the right to adequate food; and....

· "[D]elineate the responsibilities of public officials at the federal, state, and local levels."

In an interview with Democracy Now!, the project director of the ICHR report, Smita Narula, specifically cited FDR's Freedom from Want in calling on governments to ensure that all people have access to adequate food.

Franklin Roosevelt's Glass-Steagall, however, is the prerequisite to make the above work.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Karolina, thanks for the thread. Mass corrupt media is hiding the hunger problem in USA & world, and progressive media could be doing a much better job in exposing the problem. WE NEED PICTURES! A picture say a "Thousand Words"! The hungry should go to all the politicians that cut them off! They should go to Wall St to stop the speculation and pay there taxes, so they "can eat"! They need to go to the banks, and ask for a "Bailout"!

tayl44's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

What the American Revolution Overthrew:
British Imperial Genocide In India

The contrast between the course of developments that unfolded between 1765 and 1945 in the United States — which conducted a successful revolution against the British Empire — and India — which was unable to do so — could not be more striking. The British East India Company's subjugation of Bengal in 1765, ushered in an age of genocide that was unparalleled in human history, for the next 135 years. The British Empire murderous policies unleashed a famine in 1770 that killed 10 million in Bengal, fully one-third of the population at that time! In subsequent years famines claimed 11 million lives in 1783, 11 million more in 1791, 1 million more in 1837, 2 million in 1860, 1 million in 1865, 1.5 million in 1868, 5.5 million in 1876, 5 million in 1896, and 1 million more in 1899. By 1900, British Empire policies had claimed over 49 million lives in India, while the United States remained famine free, as it developed into the greatest agro-industrial giant in the world.

The first famine (1770) and the last famine (1943) under British rule are perhaps the most instructive and revealing. In the 1765 Treaty of Allahabad, the British East India Company was granted the right to collect the {diwani} (peasants' tribute) that was formerly held by the Mughal Emperor of the region, Shah Alam II. The area from which the East India Company was extracting tribute was enormous — roughly 650,000 square kilometers, or an area roughly eight times the size of Great Britain. Nor was this just any area — it was ``the paradise of the earth,'' according to its conqueror, General Clive.

Whereas prior to 1764, the tribute paid to the Mughal Emperor had been approximately 10-15% of the agricultural produce of the peasants, the East India Company raised the rate to 40-50%! Moreover, they insisted that this increased levy continued to be termed tribute, rather than a tax, because they wanted the peasants to believe that the "tribute" was still going to the Mughal Emperor, which, of course, it was not.

As Baron General Clive, the top East India Company representative in India said in a letter to the Board of Directors, upon his departure in 1767:

"We are sensible that, since the acquisition of the {diwani}, the power formerly belonging to the [Mughal Emperor] of those provinces is totally, in fact, vested in the East India Company. Nothing remains to him but the name and shadow of authority. This name, however, this shadow, it is indispensably necessary we should seem to venerate."

So, in order to foster the illusion of a power sharing arrangement with the Emperor Shah Alam, the East India Company kept him living in the lap of luxury, under virtual house arrest at his lavish palace.

What, one might ask, is the difference between this arrangement of 1765, and today's accommodations between the allegedly sovereign governments of Europe, and the dictates of the Globally Systemic Important Financial Institutions (G-SIFI) that we have already witnessed in Cyprus, and elsewhere?

Not only did the East India Company increase the tribute rate fivefold, but they also insisted that the tribute be paid in cash, not produce or farm products. The Company also had edicts issued that outlawed the hoarding of rice and other staples. This meant that the peasants had to dump their goods on a British-controlled market, and that they had no staple reserves, in the event of a crop failure, or bad weather.

Furthermore, the East India Company made the growth of cash crops like indigo and cotton compulsory, wherever possible.

So, the combination of a partial crop failure in 1768, and the abrupt halt to September rains in 1769, produced famine conditions that ravaged a population that had been robbed of its reserves by the British East India Company. Genocide — 10 million dead — was the obviously (foreseeable) genocidal result.

The response of the East India Company? It raised the tribute (tax) rate on agricultural land to 60%!

The Indian Roots of the Boston Tea Party

As these horrific events unfolded in 1770, the American colonial press reported on them, and they became part of the discussion and debate process that led to the Declaration of Independence. In fact, the British Empire's genocidal conduct in India played a central causal role in the events leading into the December 1773 Boston Tea Party. The British Crown had granted the East India Company certain financial privileges with regard to the importation of tea into America, in order to aid it in recovering some of the revenue it had lost during the period of the Indian Famine that it had created.

American patriots of that era were well aware of the murderous character of the British Empire and East India Company. This statement from Rusticus, in The Alarm, a colonial American Broadside published in 1773, is unambiguous on the genocidal nature of the threat:

"Are we in like Manner to be given up to the Disposal of the East India Company, who have now the Assurance, to step forth in Aid of the Minister, to execute his Plan, of enslaving America? Their Conduct in Asia for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenue of Mighty Kingdoms have centered in their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduce whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them so high at a Rate that the poor could not purchase them. Thus having drained the Sources of the immense Wealth...they now, it seems, cast their Eyes on America, as a new Theatre, whereon to exercise their Talents."

Rusticus ended one of his 1773 pamphlets with the following admonition:

"I shall therefore conclude with a proposal that your watchmen be instructed as they go on their rounds, to call out every night at half-past twelve, "Beware of the East India Company."

Today's Americans, let alone "Tea Party" activists, should be so well-informed.

It is otherwise noteworthy and lawful that, General Cornwallis, the British commander defeated by George Washington at Yorktown in 1781, was dispatched by the crown to become Governor-General of India in 1786.

Churchill and Genocide

In 1943, three million Indians were killed in Bengal, as famine ravaged the region once again. The trigger, on this occasion, was the Japanese occupation of Burma. They cut off all shipments of rice from Burma to Bengal, which had been the key to food supply stability before World War II.

What Churchill did, was everything in his power to prevent food relief from reaching Bengal! His only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people dying in the famine, was to inquire why Gandhi hadn't died yet. "I hate Indians," he said to Leopold Avery, Secretary of State for India. "They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." He told a war-cabinet meeting, that the famine was their own fault, "for breeding like rabbits." Churchill refused to accept offers of Canadian and American food aid to India. India was not permitted to use its own sterling reserves, or its own ships to import food. As a true leader of the British Empire, he was aiding and abetting the mass murder of millions of people.

That same year at the Tehran Conference, President Roosevelt told Churchill in no uncertain terms, that the U.S. intended to work to dismantle the British Empire after the war, and that the war had not been waged for the sake of its perpetuation.

The fact that he personally contributed mightily to the deaths of three million Indians in the famine of 1943, did not stop Churchill from proclaiming in his 1950 six volume book The Second World War: the Hinge of Fate, that:

"No great portion of the world population was so effectively protected from the horrors and perils of the World War as were the peoples of Hindustan (India)... they were carried through the struggle on the shoulders of our small island."

Perhaps Churchill felt that the magnitude of his crime, matched only by the dimension of his lies, qualified him for membership in the British or Dutch royal families, or both.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Thomas Malthus

Parson Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was a hired pen for the College of the East India Company, a core institution of the British Empire, which had been consolidated in 1763, and his views on the need to suppress population—of the lower classes, of course—were tailored to that Empire's needs.

Quoted from his Essay on the Principle of Population :

We are bound in justice and honour formally to disdain the right of the poor to support.

To this end, I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance.

The infant is, comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place.

All children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons. Therefore we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they are doing a service to mankind by protecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.


Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Lord Bertrand Russell

Lord Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a member of a prominent British aristocratic family, who became a leading source of intellectual evil during a large part of the 20th Century, shaping the diseases of Fabianism, mathematics, and greenie-ism.

While known as a pacifist, Russell actually called for pre-emptive nuclear war against the Soviet Union in 1946. His viciously anti-human views are most sharply expressed in his 1923 Prospects for Industrial Civilization, and 1951 book Impact of Science on Society.

From the former:

The white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence....

From the latter:

At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars....

What, then, can we do? Apart from certain deep-seated prejudices, the answer would be obvious. The nations which at present increase rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in the West, the increase of population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion, the other is nationalism. I think it is the duty of all who are capable of facing facts to realize, and to proclaim, that opposition to the spread of birth control, if successful, must inflict upon mankind the most appalling depth of misery and degradation, and that within another fifty years or so.

I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's....

There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority.... Of these three, only birth control avoids extreme cruelty and unhappiness for the majority of human beings. Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government there will be competition for power among the different nations. And as increase of population brings the threat of famine, national power will become more and more obviously the only way of avoiding starvation. There will therefore be blocs in which the hungry nations band together against those that are well fed. That is the explanation of the victory of communism in China.

These considerations prove that a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.


Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Prince Philip

Since World War II, the leading spokesman for the anti-human policies of the British financial establishment has been Queen Elizabeth's Royal Consort, Prince Philip (b. 1921), who co-founded the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) in 1961, and has spurred the expansion and penetration of private and government institutions globally with the pernicious Malthusian ideology. Just a few examples will suffice.

Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation, interview in People magazine, Dec. 21, 1981.

Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?

A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We're in for a major disaster if it isn't curbed—not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they'll consume, the more pollution they'll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.

Address on receiving honorary degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.

The industrial revolution sparked the scientific revolution and brought in its wake better public hygiene, better medical care and yet more efficient agriculture. The consequence was a population explosion which still continues today.

The sad fact is that, instead of the same number of people being very much better off, more than twice as many people are just as badly off as they were before. Unfortunately all this well-intentioned development has resulted in an ecological disaster of immense proportions.

Address to Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group on Population and Development and the All-Party Conservation Committee, London, March 11, 1987.

...The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage. If this is already happening with a population of 4 billion, I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population reaches 6 and then 10 billion.... All this has been made possible by the industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.

Prince Philip was quoted by the Deutsche Presse Agentur, August 1988:

In the event I am reborn, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Paul R. Ehrlich

One book which spurred the 1960s paradigm shift to anti-human green ideology was The Population Bomb, written by lepidopterologist Ehrlich and his wife, and published in 1968. Ehrlich, who is still active in depopulation groups such as the British royalty-sponsored Population Matters (formerly the Optimum Population Trust), showed his view of mankind in that book as follows:

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.

In the wake of the publication of the British Royal Society's April 2012 People and the Planet report, which called in general terms for limiting population, Ehrlich said the following to the London Guardian:

How many [people] you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage" (emphasis added).

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Dennis Meadows

Known for his co-authorship of the notorious Limits to Growth book of the British depopulation movement's Club of Rome, Meadows continues to be active in demanding a reduction in population. Exemplary is his interview with Spiegel Online on Dec. 9, 2009, where he was commenting on the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit. Asked for his proposal, he said: "We have to learn to live a fulfilled life with the CO2 emissions of Afghanistan." (Note that Afghanistan's per-capita energy consumption is approximately 35 kWh, compared to 12,000 plus for the U.S.A. Thirty-six percent of the Afghan population has access to electricity. Its death rate is almost double that of the United States.)

"Is this possible with 9 billion people on this planet?" asks the interviewer.

Meadows replied:

No, even 7 billion people is too much for this planet.... If everybody is allowed to have the full potential of mobility, nourishment and self-development, it's 1 or 2 billion (emphasis added).

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Population Matters

This British-based group, heavily staffed with knighted Britons, won notoriety under its original name, Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which recommended drastic worldwide cuts in population, including in Great Britain, based on the fraudulent "carbon footprint" measurement. OPT was founded in 1991, and specializes in putting out "sustainability" figures based on suppressing advanced technologies and promoting population control, including through abortion.

One prominent member is the Baronet Jonathon Porritt, who functioned as a senior green advisor to former British Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. In early 2009, Porritt called for cutting the population of Great Britain from the current 61 million subjects to no more than 30 million. That was the level of Britain's population during Victorian England.

This outfit, which features sponsors such as naturalists Sir David Attenborough and Dame Jane Goodall, embraces a global population goal of no more than 4 billion people—3 billion fewer than today, and 5-6 billion fewer than current trends portend.

OPT issued a press release March 16, 2009, titled "Earth Heading for 5 Billion Overpopulation?" which said: "Based on ecological footprint and biological capacity data which have become available over the last decade, OPT estimates the world's sustainable population currently at 5 billion and the U.K.'s at 18 million (the U.K.'s actual current population is 61 million).

"However," the release continued, "these figures are predicated on present levels and patterns of consumption. Greener lifestyles in the U.K. could push up its sustainable population; by contrast, if the world as a whole grows richer and consumes more, this will reduce the planet's carrying capacity. If present trends continue, by 2050, when the UN projects world population will be 9.1 billion, there will be an estimated 5 billion more people than the Earth can support." I.e., only 4 billion need apply.

The OPT is so integrated into the British-dominated UN structure that the the United Nations Population Fund gave its de facto blessing to OPT's mass murder scheme on Nov. 18, 2009, when it featured its director, Roger Martin, as a presenter of the UN's own "State of World Population 2009" report.

Attenborough, one of OPT's leading promoters, received the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts prize on March 10, 2011, from Prince Philip, the RSA president.

With Philip at his side, Attenborough stated: "We now realize that the disasters that continue increasingly to afflict the natural world have one element that connects them all—the unprecedented increase in the number of human beings on this planet," as Malthus warned. But no one proposes the necessary measures to curb human population, which makes every problem worse. "Why this strange silence? ... There seems to be some bizarre taboo around the subject.... There are over 100 countries whose combinations of numbers and affluence have already pushed them past the sutainable level.... It is tragic that the only current population policies in developed countries are, perversely, attempting to increase their birth rate, in order to look after the growing number of old people. The notion of ever more old people needing ever more young people, who will in turn grow old and need even more young people, and so on, ad infinitum, is an obvious ecological Ponzi scheme."


Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

This Berlin, Germany-based organization is headed by a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who has pushed through a denuclearization, deindustrialization program in Germany over the past two years. (He was knighted in 2004.) Schellnhuber, at the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference, asserted that his computer models had thoroughly shown that, if his plan for denying nuclear and carbon based energy supplies for humanity were not implemented, the carrying capacity of Earth would be only 1 billion people.

Schellnhuber's "solution," a global green dictatorship, echos the brutal logic that his much admired mentor Bertrand Russell expressed in his infamous October 1946 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article, in which Russell called for nuclear war against the Soviet Union, if it did not accept his plan for world government. Only weeks after his warning, Schellnhuber met with HRH Prince Charles at his Potsdam Institute in April 2009, and, in late May, opened the Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability, hosted by Prince Charles, at his St. James Palace.


Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Now who's worried about the Dodd-Frank bail-in?

With panic reigning on Wall Street, Standard & Poors downgraded JP Morgan Chase to negative on Tuesday (the other megabanks were already at negative). What's interesting is the reason — the dawning recognition that the Dodd-Frank bail-in policy could hit even the biggest thieves of all.

Bloomberg reports that the downgrade takes place "as Standard & Poors reconsiders its inclusion of government support in grades for the largest U.S. banks," and that they are reviewing the "new orderly liquidation authority as it determines the likelihood of government support for systemically important banks during a crisis."

Their conclusion? S&P analyst Matthew Albrecht says: "It is becoming increasingly clear that holding company creditors may not receive extraordinary government support in a crisis." In fact (although not mentioned by S&P or Bloomberg), their "credits" will be stolen to support Morgan's massive derivatives holdings.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Nature has a way of dealing with any species whose population exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment. Unfortunate, but true.

Probably destroying the environment in an attempt to increase the carrying capacity of the environment is counter-productive.

Probably instead of wealthy European nations bemoaning their population declines from falling birth rates, they should seek ways to promote similar social conditions/norms worldwide. They didn't have to rely on genocide, disease and famine to have reductions in population growth.

Regardless of what governments do or don't do, Nature itself is the final judge and jury. It isn't hesitant to apply the death penalty to a species or individuals within it.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Whether one calls it "Nature", which seems to imply that we are talking only about the planet Earth, or "God", which seems to be about all of the scientific and spiritual unknown laws of the Universe, the truth is that human beings are the only species that we know of, that can effect their own future.

Sorry to be quoting myself, but the truth is that I would just be rewriting my wording:

Quote Karolina:Since the fall of the Roman Empire, there has been a continuous battle between those people who base their idea of man as Classical—a creative being that is the only creature that creatively generates his own future, and increases in number as he succeeds— and those who view man as a beast to be culled and killed at the behest of a handful of bloodline oligarchs.

Somewhere there is maybe some sort of interlocking directorate of all of the world's raw materials, now "owned" by these families, who consider themselves owners of everything below the ground, AND everything above the ground, including animals and people. This top oligarchy, who stay out of the media as much as possible, does not consider themselves a part of the same species as the rest of us. They literally view the rest of us as vermin. Some of us are nice vermin, some smart vermin, some cute vermin, some annoying vermin, some dangerous vermin....but all together we are just vermin.

Do these gods and goddesses deserve to own everything on earth? Up there on Mount Olympus, they think so. The rest of us have to decide for ourselves the answer to that question. I personally, don't think that they do. I see them as equal to rest of us, creative beings who are of the only species that is able to creatively generate its own future. Only we have, unknowingly, been allowing them to create the future for us..... and they are not nice vermin.

The situations that we have been seeing since 9/11—the bank crash, the LIBOR scandal, the austerity in Europe, the sequester here, and especially the new banking "taxes" in Cypress—show us that the oligarchy thinks that we are not entitled to have even the money that we have earned. It is being culled from the accounts of our brothers and sisters in Cypress, and now in other countries, so we are seeing how easily and insidiously extremist rights assaults are being normalized, world wide.

Glass-Steagall was put in our banking system by FDR to protect us, and it should be in every banking system on the globe. Only when it has been reinstated here, will it be worth our while to think about starting up a National Bank or the Hamiltonian credit system, which as far as I know, is basically what is used by the North Dakota state bank.

The earth's growing human population has been created by people who do not want any democracy, where government is the servant of the people.

They do not want any of Christ's teachings, nor the fact that His life and death helped in the downfall of the Roman Empire, to be the basis of Christianity or any other major religion or group.

They just wanted, and continue to want to be in control, and keep the masses weak, uneducated, and having nothing else to do but see "procreation as their only recreation."

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Astounding blog thread here. Many thanks.

I want to send a link to a friend, but some of these items don't have sources, and my friend DEMANDS sources. Any suggestions?

nora's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The OP continues in the second and the third post. The link is at the end of the third post.

The (#9) list of 'Too Big to Fail Banks' link is here'.

The information about the fear of the Wall Street wealthiest (#22) link is here.

I hope this helps.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

From, June 5th, 2013.

Bills to Restore Glass-Steagall Are Now in the Senate and the House: Americans Can Move Now to Crush Wall Street’s Power

By Nancy Spannaus

On May 16, the 80th anniversary of the introduction of Franklin Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall bill in the House of Representatives, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Ia) introduced S. 985, the Return to Prudent Banking Act, into the U.S. Senate. S. 985 is an almost precise replica of a bill already introduced into the House by Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and Walter Jones (R-NC), HR 129, which currently has a total of 63 sponsors.

Senator Harkin’s action represents a major step forward in the fight to restore FDR’s Glass-Steagall, which the LaRouche political movement has been demanding since the fall of 2008, and which has taken on a head of steam among local constituency leaders, and even Congress over recent years. In 2010, the Senate was on the verge of passing an amendment to Dodd-Frank reinstituting Glass-Steagall standards of separating commercial and investment (gambling) banking. President Barack Obama and the Senate leadership refused to let the amendment come to a vote.

Then, in the 112th Congress, a bill introduced by Rep. Kaptur (the same as the one today), garnered 84 cosponsors in the House, but was never able to be introduced into the Senate, due to opposition by Wall St. and cowardice. That bill garnered widespread support throughout the nation, including institutions such as the AFL-CIO, state labor organizations, and city councils.

The current House bill was introduced by Kaptur and Jones on January 3, 2013, and has also rapidly gained support throughout the nation. As of this writing, Memorials demanding that Congress pass HR 129 have been introduced into 20 state legislatures, with much bipartisan support. Memorial resolutions have passed in four states: South Dakota (both houses); Maine (both houses); Indiana (house); and Alabama (house). More are on the way. In addition, city councils, the National Farmers Union, and dozens of state legislators have sent letters of support for the bill.

So have leading political and economic figures from Western Europe, where many understand that the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall banking separation in the U.S. is the necessary first step to their escape from financial tyranny, which is leading to outright genocide in places such as Greece.

Why is Glass-Steagall’s reintroduction so crucial?

As has been pointed out by numerous economists, the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall opened the flood-gates to the financial bubble which ultimately blew out in 2007-2008. This is documented in the 2011 Angelides report on the development of the crisis, and has been elaborated in great detail by FDIC vice-chairman Thomas Hoenig, a proponent of Glass-Steagall. The repeal basically opened up the entire commercial banking system for looting by the speculative bubble, including the skyrocketing growth of the derivatives markets.

With the bailout policies of the Bush and Obama administrations, the gambling banks were put on life support, and continue to be there, through the Quantitative Easing policies of the Federal Reserve. The excuse that the bailout and easy money are needed to aid lending into the real economy is just that—figures show that bank lending has actually declined since 2008.

The starting point of any solution is to cut off the life-support for Wall Street by separating the banks, meaning that no more government funds go to support the gambling banks. That includes derivatives—which, under Dodd-Frank and the G-20 “bank resolution” policies of the entire trans-Atlantic region, are given priority because their failure would “destabilize” the financial system.

The current system of looting the living standards of Americans, and others, needs to be destabilized. With the wiping out of fictional values, thanks to lack of support from the government (or depositors ala the Cyprus model), many banks will be undercapitalized, but this can be remedied, as under FDR, with the extension of government credit for physical economic projects so desperately needed. Frankly, all these financial obligations, built up by gambling, can’t be saved without sacrificing millions of people’s lives—genocide. That’s unacceptable, and our history, from Alexander Hamilton to Abraham Lincoln to FDR, is replete with examples of the Constitutionally based alternative of a credit system based on economic and technological progress.

Complaining about the current economic injustices in the U.S., and elsewhere, is an impotent gesture, when a potent weapon is at hand to deal a crippling blow to the financial power of Wall Street, and its associated London financiers. Indeed, knowledgeable insiders report that the current financial bubble is on the edge of blowing out again! It’s time to strike now, by demanding Congress pass Glass-Steagall, and Barack Obama either sign it into law, or get out of the way.

For more information, see or contact me at

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

The 99% occupy the Federal Reserve, we won't need a Glass & Steagall law.

tayl44's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This article at has a great historic photo of FDR signing the bill with Senator Carter Glass, Representative Harry Steagall, and other Congressmen, standing next to him.

What FDR Hated About Glass-Steagall
By Michael Perino
Jun 14, 2013 6:28 PM

President Franklin D. Roosevelt set the standard for the first 100 days in office with an unprecedented whirlwind of legislative activity that sought to make good on his pledge for “action and action now” to combat the Great Depression.

June 16 marks the 80th anniversary of that era, which came to a close when Roosevelt signed the Banking Act of 1933. That groundbreaking financial reform is more commonly known for its Democratic co-sponsors, Senator Carter Glass of Virginia and Representative Henry Steagall of Alabama. These days, it is mostly remembered for just one of its provisions, the separation of commercial and investment banking, designed to wall off customer deposits from the risk-taking inherent in securities underwriting.

The debate over the 1999 repeal of that reform still rages. Yet in 1933, the most controversial feature of Glass-Steagall was the creation of federal deposit insurance, which has been wildly successful and has virtually eliminated the repeated bank runs that swept the country in the decades before the bill’s passage. Even the ardent free-marketeer Milton Friedman called it “the most important structural change in the banking system” of the New Deal.

Roosevelt Reversal

Deposit insurance remains one of the Roosevelt administration’s signature accomplishments. Yet FDR adamantly opposed the provision almost until the day he signed it into law because he thought it was unworkable and might impose crippling liabilities on the federal government.

Superficially, this seems to have been an instance of classic Rooseveltian deal-making: The president agreed to a more limited insurance provision than originally proposed as the price for passage of the rest of Glass-Steagall. A closer look, however, suggests that Roosevelt was forced to bend to the very political forces that he had helped to unleash.

When Roosevelt was sworn in on March 4, 1933, the financial system was on the verge of collapse. Banks had been battered for weeks by waves of runs sparked by Michigan Governor William Comstock’s decision to declare a statewide banking holiday and fueled by a Senate investigation of shady financial practices led by former prosecutor Ferdinand Pecora.

By Inauguration Day, 38 of 48 states had shut all their banks, and withdrawals were sharply curtailed everywhere else. The president’s inaugural address captured the country’s anger. The assembled crowd largely ignored Roosevelt’s admonition that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Instead, he received his first sustained applause when he proclaimed: “The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths.”

The first step was to bolster confidence in the financial system. The president declared a nationwide bank holiday. The legislation he pushed through Congress in just a matter of days permitted only “sound” banks to reopen. The Federal Reserve became the lender of last resort for those banks, with the Treasury agreeing to indemnify the central bank for any losses. That amounted to de facto deposit insurance. As Vice President John Nance Garner told Roosevelt: “You’ll have to have it, Cap’n. The people who have taken their money out of the banks are not going to put it back without some guarantee.”

In his first fireside chat, on March 12, 1933, Roosevelt assured Americans “that it is safer to keep your money in a reopened bank than under the mattress.” Mostly, the president’s calm, patrician voice projected confidence as he exhorted Americans to “have faith.” They did. Money flowed back into the banks, the crisis passed, and Roosevelt was lauded for his swift and sure-handed response.

Banking Reform

The emergency legislation was just the start. Glass and Steagall quickly re-introduced their banking reform legislation, which had been stalled in Congress for years. At Steagall’s insistence, the House bill included a deposit-insurance provision. It was hardly novel: Over the previous five decades, 150 bills containing such proposals were introduced in Congress, and all had failed. The debate in 1933 reprised the objections that killed earlier plans -- large banks argued that they would be forced to prop up small, weak ones, thereby creating disincentives for prudent management.

Despite the implicit guarantees in the emergency banking legislation and his support for most of Glass-Steagall, Roosevelt had no interest in backing a full-blown insurance program forbank deposits, and he told reporters that he would veto any legislation that contained one.

Glass was equally opposed to Steagall’s plan. Roosevelt probably thought that he and Glass could strip the offending provision out of the final bill, and reiterated his continued opposition throughout the spring.

It was a risky game: Even as Roosevelt threatened to veto deposit insurance, he was also stoking public outrage, maintaining political pressure so he could push through the other reforms. The president secretly urged Pecora to subpoena private bankers, especially the partners of the powerful J.P. Morgan and Co.

In May and June, the final debates over Glass-Steagall coincided with the media onslaught surrounding the Pecora hearings, where more disclosures of unseemly banking practices emerged, intensifying public outrage at banks and increasing support for deposit insurance. Thousands of letters and telegrams, many from depositors at failed banks, implored lawmakers to pass a guarantee.

That was when Glass switched sides. He urged the president not to veto the bill, fearing that opposition from bankers would only harden, possibly killing the other reforms and leading to another disastrous round of bank failures. Roosevelt caved. He wrangled some changes (graduating coverage for larger deposits and delaying implementation), and on June 16, 1933, he signed Glass-Steagall into law.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Total perfection!

Many, many thanks!

nora's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Karolina, thanks for the post. It prove even more the importance of the public taking full control of the Federal Reserve.It`s the starting point for "everything"! I wish i could provide a link to a program on Freespeech TV,(6/15/13) it was Pirate TV and a Randy ? was talking about the "extraction economy" that got started around 1970, please check it out,"very enlightening"!

tayl44's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Those of us under the FDIC insured bar get a bit of protection, but the system continues to be to big to fail or jail. Banking ought to be a public utility. Thanks for some great material.

Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Thanks for the appreciation, guys.

A very talented freind told me that an Internet message board is a great writing opportunity. I completely agree, adding to that a 'presentation opportunity' also. ;-)

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

From, on June 15, 2013:

80 years on, Glass-Steagall staging
a comeback to save U.S. depositors

By Kendric Ward

Sunday is the 80th anniversary of the signing of the Glass-Steagall Act, which built a protective wall of separation between U.S. commercial and investment banking.

On June 16, 1933, in the depths of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the banking law to return the United States to its traditional credit system, and away from the British monetarist system of usury.

Five years later, Roosevelt noted that Glass-Steagall and the accompanying Securities Act were enacted to “restore confidence in our banks, and to make our entire banking system sounder and more honest; [and] to safeguard legitimate investors from questionable promotions.”

Roosevelt saw in Glass-Steagall “a chance to keep savings in banks safe from speculative use of other people’s money, and to make investments without danger of deception or fraud by greedy promoters and speculators.”

The financial wall held for 66 years, until Glass-Steagall was revoked by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999. The repeal opened the floodgates to unprecedented financial speculation. Pumped up by raids on Main Street commercial bank assets, the bubble soon burst with the historic collapse of giant investment Wall Street banks in 2008.

Scurrying to avert another Great Depression, the Federal Reserve Bank and U.S. Treasury injected more than $700 billion into failing banks that had recklessly gambled away savings through derivatives, credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and worthless subprime mortgage paper that regulators didn’t regulate.

Now, back to the future, Congress is stirring again, as it did 80 years ago.

"As one of eight senators to vote against repealing Glass-Steagall in the first place, I am proud to offer legislation to reinstate Glass-Steagall,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said this week.

“The sensible regulations provided for by the Glass-Steagall Act protected our economy for over 60 years during which time the United States rose to prominence as the world’s largest economy. It is clear from recent history that repealing this Act was a mistake that made our financial system riskier and left our economy vulnerable,” Harkin told the Examiner.

On the House side, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., has co-authored legislation to restore Glass-Steagall.

“Allowing commercial banks – with access to the Federal Reserve discount window and deposit insurance guarantees – to enter the Wall Street casino means they are gambling with taxpayers’ and depositors’ money. That is wrong, and it needs to end,” Jones told the Examiner.

In addition to Harkin’s S. 985 and the House bill, H.R. 129 -- co-introduced by Jones and Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, with 62 co-sponsors – states are acting, too.

Memorials in support of congressional action have passed the South Dakota and Maine legislatures, as well as the Indiana and Alabama houses.

Similar measures are pending in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey and New York.

The House and Senate bills match the key provisions of Glass-Steagall:

· Commercial bank holding companies must divest themselves
of all non-commercial banking units.

· The remaining commercial banks could not use more than
2 percent of their capital for the creation, sale, or distribution
of securities.

· Commercial banks cannot make loans into vehicles, such as
hedge funds, that would create securities.

· No securities of low, or potentially low value—like derivatives—
can be placed by a bank in its insured commercial bank units.

“In sum, banking units devoted to speculation are cut off from government support—and the way open for reestablishing a sound banking system based on credit for production of real wealth,” says LaRouchePAC, a national political action group advocating Glass-Steagall’s reenactment.

Proponents of blending commercial and investment banking activities contend that the global economy and the rise of computer-driven trading makes Glass-Steagall outdated. Indeed, some economists believe that the historic arc of capitalism inevitably leads from production to speculation to the types of government-enabled hedging that periodically crash economies.

David Stockman, budget director during the Reagan administration, says Glass-Steagall has a positive restraining effect.

“What we have (now) is massive fiscal stimulus; what we have is a Fed that creates serial bubbles,” the former Republican congressman from Michigan writes in his book, “The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America.”

On the other end of the political spectrum, Truthout columnist Thom Hartmann asserts that only the re-enactment of Glass-Steagall can avert "another American housing and financial disaster."

Under this law, "investment banks couldn't gamble in the back room with the money in your commercial bank's checking or savings account, and couldn't hustle derivatives based on your mortgage," he said.

Appealing to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, said of Glass-Steagall: “Congress must learn from the past in order to prevent future financial crises.”

Unlike America’s current “financial reform” law, the controversial Dodd-Frank Act, Glass-Steagall asserts protections for U.S. bank depositors and upholds their constitutional rights.

Under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act – formally known as the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 – bank customers stand to lose all but the FDIC-insured portions of their deposits in the event of another financial crisis.

Instead of another bank bailout like the one taxpayers funded in 2008 and 2009, Dodd-Frank establishes a “bail-in” that would seize deposits and violate U.S. sovereignty by imposing international laws.

“This is a program that looted depositors' funds in the two largest banks in Cyprus earlier this year (and is) in place in the United States under Dodd-Frank,” said former presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. “We need Glass-Steagall.”


Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

The situation must be dire if a conservative Republican is talking about Glass Steagall.

Phaedrus76's picture
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

This is from, Oct. 25, 2010.

Wall Street's Hellhound Exposes Citigroup's Greedy Past: Books

By James Pressley

If you search Citigroup Inc.’s website, a former chairman named Charles E. Mitchell pops up under the heading “Our Legacy.”

What the page doesn’t mention is Mitchell’s reputation for greed, stock manipulation, tax avoidance and abusing customers and shareholders at what was then called National City Bank.

During Mitchell’s heyday in the 1920s, City Bank and its securities-trading arm luxuriated in unsavory dealings, as Michael Perino writes in his page-turning history, “The Hellhound of Wall Street.” The attack dog was Ferdinand Pecora, a former New York prosecutor who shamed Mitchell in 10 days of Senate hearings in 1933.

In singling out City, the largest bank in the land, Pecora sought to illustrate how widespread such practices were -- and why the government, which had assumed a laissez-faire attitude to Wall Street, needed to police it.

The hearings took place against a backdrop of Hoovervilles and unemployment stuck at 25 percent. Banks were closing and other businesses, with their accounts frozen, shut down, too. As cash drained from the economy, bartering became common: One man in Salt Lake City paid his trolley fare with a pair of trousers.

Pecora’s investigation, and the outrage it stoked, spurred Congress and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to introduce the first federal securities laws, federal deposit insurance and the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was the moment when “the federal government crossed its regulatory Rubicon,” writes Perino, a professor at St. John’s University School of Law and a past Wall Street litigator.

‘Sunshine Charlie’

Like a filmmaker, Perino cuts between squatter camps and the hearings, held around a baize-topped mahogany table under a barrel-vaulted ceiling in the Senate Office Building. The book hints at what might have happened, for better or worse, if Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke had let more banks implode.

“Sunshine Charlie” was as prominent then as Jamie Dimon is today. An upbeat banker with an “indomitable jaw,” he ran a vast financial supermarket that prided itself in selling securities, like so much coffee, to the middle class. He owned mansions and advised U.S. presidents including Herbert Hoover.

Pecora, a cigar-smoking Sicilian immigrant, was little known outside New York. He had a reputation for legal rectitude and extramarital affairs. He was hired as chief counsel for the investigation only after the Senate Banking and Currency Committee ran out of candidates in the last weeks of a congressional term. The senators paid him $255 a month.

Morality Play

With the clock ticking loudly, Pecora had only three days to pore over the minute books of board meetings at City Bank and its affiliate. Although his grasp of markets was often sketchy, he knew a good morality play when he saw one.

The drama began on Day One, when Pecora quizzed Mitchell about the bank’s bonus plan and his own earnings. Mitchell, it turned out, received a shocking amount: more than $3.5 million from 1927 through 1929. A factory worker, if he had a job in 1933, got about $17 a week, Perino says.

Yet the day’s real bombshell came when Pecora pinned down why Mitchell sold 18,300 City Bank shares in late 1929, only to buy them back at the same price in early 1930. The trade, with his wife, was done for one reason only.

“I sold this stock, frankly, for tax purposes,” he said.

His reported loss came to $2.8 million, meaning he didn’t pay a penny of tax on his $1.1 million income in 1929. The word “bankster” soon ricocheted across the nation.

In the following days, Pecora explored how executives had manipulated stock prices, concealed losses on investments in Cuban sugar, and taken interest-free loans, most never repaid.

Customers Left Destitute

Worse still was how the bank exploited customers such as Edgar D. Brown, an almost deaf former theater owner with tuberculosis. He was left destitute after entrusting his portfolio of $100,000 in cash and mostly U.S. government bonds to the bank’s trading arm.

Pecora, once a media star, was largely forgotten until our own market meltdown. So was the role that City Bank’s behavior played in convincing the government to separate commercial and investment banking under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The merger that created Citigroup in 1998 prompted the repeal of that provision, freeing banks to gamble with the taxpayer’s money.

Cries for a new Glass-Steagall went out after the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The financial-overhaul bill that lawmakers patched together falls short of that, and this book indirectly suggests why.

It’s not just that we had no Pecora. It’s also because Bernanke and Paulson, by saving the system from the abyss, sapped the public fury that might have fueled deeper change.

As for Sunshine Charlie, he resigned and then did what disgraced bankers often do. After a jury pronounced him not guilty of tax evasion, he went back to work on Wall Street. By his death in 1955, Perino says, he was again an affluent and esteemed banker.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Karolina, Glass-Steagall was driving by anger at banks going bankrupt because of Wall st. That same anger was represented at 2008 bail-out and then co-opt by the astro-turf tea baggers of the 1%. The only way to get back the anger, is "Expose The Original Problems"! They have went nowhere and they have gotting worse! The public have every right in the world to control the Fed and "GIVE OURSELF'S A BAILOUT"! Anything less, we go to the empire graveyard with the 1%.

tayl44's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Alex Jones often has a preacher Lindsay Williams on his show. The guy was supposedly the chaplain for meeting of the oil industry captains and say a couple of them didn't like the plans laid out so confided in him the plans to give to the public. Anyway I often find these prognostications entertaining if not anything else (he often rambles a bit). But in the recent appearances has been mentioning pretty much what is said above which is basically to bankrupt most of the people in the US.

This is a heinous crime but something not totally unexpected by me or probably anyone else who knew the "frat boy" crowd in college. The rich kids who don't care about anyone else but themselves and making tons of money. It is inbred in them. They probably think it would be good 6 billion people died off on this planet. They are probably investing in "clearing bots" who will do the work of clearing the planet of all the dead bodies and using them as compost. I don't think it is really anything they want to do themselves.

What we should be doing is making live very difficult for these people. But have you heard? If you expose something they are doing they say "that's just business." Why? Because they do their evil deeds with legal counsel at their shoulders to push things to the legal limits.

captbebops's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
J.P. Morgan Says Post-WW2 Anti-Fascist Constitutions
Are Obstacle To Reimposing Fascism
June 18, 2013 • 9:23AM

In a report entitled The Euro Area Adjustment: About Halfway There issued on May 28, 2013, J.P. Morgan argues that the major obstacle to imposing fascism in Europe is the existence of the anti-fascist constitutions which were adopted in Europe following World War II.

The report begins by stating: "The narrative of crisis management in the Euro area has two dimensions: first, designing new institutions for the next steady state (EMU-2); and second, dealing with the national legacy problems, some of which were there at EMU's launch and some of which arose during the first decade of the monetary union's life."

The report continues: "In the early days of the crisis, it was thought that these national legacy problems were largely economic.... But, over time it has become clear that there are also national legacy problems of a political nature. The constitutions and political settlements in the southern periphery, put in place in the aftermath of the fall of fascism, have a number of features which appear to be unsuited to further integration in the region."

The report then becomes more specific:

"The political systems in the periphery were established in the aftermath of dictatorship, and were defined by that experience. Constitutions tend to show a strong socialist influence, reflecting the political strength that left wing parties gained after the defeat of fascism. Political systems around the periphery typically display several of the following features: weak executives; weak central states relative to regions; constitutional protection of labor rights; consensus building systems which foster political clientalism; and the right to protest if unwelcome changes are made to the political status quo."


How do JP Morgan and all of their partners-in-crime, feel about the
US Constitution's national anti-fascist legacy?

I'm guessin'—same as they feel about the constitutions' in the Euro Union.

I wonder—do they think we're about halfway there in our US Area Adjustment?

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Capt #38 & Karol #39, i try not to worry about the 1%/system on its way to "Hell", what i worry about is not going to Hell with them. And they're way pass being more than half way there, that leave much time to "get our act together". Take over what belong to the people, the Fed!

tayl44's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

From Rueters, here is part of an article entitled Rate rigging costs more than money.

By Edward Hadas
JUNE 19, 2013

The provision of financial benchmarks is basically a sort of public service. These reference rates allow economic actors – borrower and lenders, buyers and sellers – to take advantage of the ability of financial markets to determine a fair price without the inconvenience that comes with actual market transactions.

For example, daily renegotiation of the interest rate on a corporate loan would be time-consuming and fairly expensive. However, by combining the Libor benchmark – the rate banks would charge each other for overnight loans – with a company-specific risk premium, such floating-rate debts can be arranged easily. Similarly, it is much easier to set the price of many shiploads of oil with a suitably adjusted benchmark than to sell each shipload individually.

The ethics come in because the benchmarks are typically agreed by traders rather than set in an open market. That may sound weird, but each sale has its own special conditions. No single transaction is as representative of actual market conditions as the collective judgment of honest traders. And that’s the rub. The traders were not honest. The public were not served.

A refined moral sensibility was not required to consider this behaviour unacceptable. Even a crude concern for reputation would have sufficed. The public may not understand what benchmarks do, but they know that lying in a matter of trust is wrong. However, the ethical culture of traders’ employers was so flawed that they were slow to attack cheating in an economically trivial but symbolically important business.

Customers might want to boycott every bank, broker and trading house which let the bad behaviour fester, but the problem was pervasive. Few big firms have not been accused, and I am waiting to see evidence of any institution which was repulsed by benchmark rigging on principle.

Indeed, I would love to see a paper trail of virtue – the internal investigations of excess profit and lavish entertainment in what should be marginally profitable businesses, the indignant presentation of suspicions to trade groups, the complaints filed to regulators and the public shaming of miscreants. I do not expect that desire to be satisfied.

I argued a few weeks ago that the financial culture has become too aristocratic: arrogant, isolated and ridiculously lucrative. But it is having trouble living up to one of the more appealing parts of the aristocratic tradition: a strong code of honour.

True, honour has always played an important role in the financial business. The motto of the London Stock Exchange – my word is my bond – expresses it well. The virtue, however, is easily forgotten when insiders can easily get away with cheating outsiders. There has been so much of that in finance – from banks which agree to charge usurious interest rates to brokers who front-run trades – that the industry’s history can be told as a long fight between honourable and shameful behaviour. The prevalence of benchmark rigging suggests the wrong side has been winning.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Karolina #41, the only moral the economic kings know is, "survival of the fittest".(dog eat dog) With public democratic control economy, we can upgrade to "survival of the civilize". (dogs hunt together)

tayl44's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

It amazes me how the ENTIRE Trans-Atlantic financial system has been just a completely corrupt boys club, managing outsiders as their buffoons who keep them in business and in a quality of life that they have grown oh-so-very-much accustomed to.

If you have not yet read today's article by Matt Taibbi, from Rolling Stone, The Latest Mystery of the Financial Crisis, here is the begining, subtitled:

It's long been suspected that ratings agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poor's helped trigger the meltdown. A new trove of embarrassing documents shows how they did it.

What about the ratings agencies?

That's what "they" always say about the financial crisis and the teeming rat's nest of corruption it left behind. Everybody else got plenty of blame: the greed-fattened banks, the sleeping regulators, the unscrupulous mortgage hucksters like spray-tanned Countrywide ex-CEO Angelo Mozilo.

But what about the ratings agencies? Isn't it true that almost none of the fraud that's swallowed Wall Street in the past decade could have taken place without companies like Moody's and Standard & Poor's rubber-stamping it? Aren't they guilty, too?

Man, are they ever. And a lot more than even the least generous of us suspected.

Thanks to a mountain of evidence gathered for a pair of major lawsuits, documents that for the most part have never been seen by the general public, we now know that the nation's two top ratings companies, Moody's and S&P, have for many years been shameless tools for the banks, willing to give just about anything a high rating in exchange for cash.

In incriminating e-mail after incriminating e-mail, executives and analysts from these companies are caught admitting their entire business model is crooked.

"Lord help our fucking scam ... this has to be the stupidest place I have worked at," writes one Standard & Poor's executive. "As you know, I had difficulties explaining 'HOW' we got to those numbers since there is no science behind it," confesses a high-ranking S&P analyst. "If we are just going to make it up in order to rate deals, then quants [quantitative analysts] are of precious little value," complains another senior S&P man. "Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of card[s] falters," ruminates one more.

Read the article....

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

In a lengthy June 16 piece entitled Rotting, Decaying, And Bankrupt —
If You Want To See The Future Of America, Just Look At Detroit
, The Economic Collapse Blog lists this string of items about Detroit:

1. Detroit was once the fourth-largest city in the United States, and in 1960 Detroit had the highest per-capita income in the entire nation.

2. Over the past 60 years, the population of Detroit has fallen by 63 percent.

3. At this point, approximately 40 percent of all the streetlights in the city don't work.

4. Some ambulances in the city of Detroit have been used for so long that they have more than 250,000 miles on them.

5. 210 of the 317 public parks in the city of Detroit have been permanently closed down.

6. According to the New York Times, there are now approximately 70,000 abandoned buildings in Detroit.

7. Approximately one-third of Detroit's 140 square miles is either vacant or derelict.

8. Less than half of the residents of Detroit over the age of 16 are working at this point.

9. About 60 percent of all children in the city of Detroit are living in poverty.

10. According to one report, 47 percent of the residents of Detroit are functionally illiterate.

11. Today, police solve less than 10 percent of the crimes that are committed in Detroit.

12. Ten years ago, there were approximately 5,000 police officers in the city of Detroit. Today, there are only about 2,500, and another 100 are scheduled to be eliminated from the force soon.

13. Due to budget cutbacks, most police stations in Detroit are now closed to the public for 16 hours a day.

14. The murder rate in Detroit is 11 times higher than it is in New York City.

15. Crime has gotten so bad in Detroit that even the police are telling people to "enter Detroit at your own risk".

16. Right now, the City of Detroit is facing $20 billion in debt and unfunded liabilities. That breaks down to more than $25,000 for each remaining resident.

Read the article...

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm
Detroit Battle: Glass-Steagall and
National Credit—or Mass Murder
June 19, 2013 • 4:46PM

Austerity as deep, as deadly, and as sure to fail as that imposed on Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Cyprus by the European "Troika", is now being demanded against the City of Detroit, with disastrous potential consequences for bankrupt cities and states around the nation.

The unconstitutional elimination of public employee pension and health benefits, and drastic reductions in wages, being proposed by Detroit's "Emergency City Manager", Kevyn Orr, will have the same impact as Wall Street's drastic 50% cut in private (auto sector) wages and benefits from 2006 through the 2009 auto bailout by President Barack Obama. With private wage and benefit cuts, Obama accelerated the contraction and impoverishment of the former arsenal city of democracy; with the public cuts, Orr will finish its destruction even while failing to make its debts "payable".

This is a mass murderous policy, and can not be tolerated.

But as much as Orr's proposed policy is pre-certified (by the current European depression disaster) as economically insane, unconstitutional, and criminal, the city and the nation have to have an alternative policy to prevent such economic suicide. That alternative is a national system of credit which aims to build an entirely new infrastructure for transportation and transport, water management, and energy production, reconstructing Detroit as a central hub for new machinery construction and transport as it was for a key century of this country's growth. It includes a national bank ready to buy the industrial development bonds of this and other cities and states, as well as its revenue bonds.

And the alternative starts with national restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act, to reorganize a commercial banking sector for lending only, and stop the Federal Reserve's massive, monthly bailouts of the securities markets and investment companies with the nation's credit.

Detroit has 12% fewer residents than it had just a decade ago, but 21% fewer employed residents (280,000 vs. 354,000), and a total population just one-third of what it once was, so, obviously, it has far less tax revenue. Its $1.1 billion a year in tax revenue is less than half of Boston's $2.4 billion, with the same population! The problem is not the size of the city, but the extraordinarily low income and lack of wealth of its residents. Detroit's official unemployment rate is 18.6%, some 250% of what it was a decade ago; and its poverty rate is more than twice its unemployment rate. Thus, all its forms of revenue (casinos included!) have shrunk disastrously, and its public services have all been devastated, as in the 50% cut in the police force. With an annual budget of $1.2 billion currently (9% over its shrunken revenues) Detroit is hardly "overspending". Employee and retiree health benefit and pension costs, plus debt service, make up 40% of its budget — somewhat less than the same costs in the Federal budget.

The austerity-crazed Emergency Manager Orr in fact wants to get new Federal loans, but for such mistakes as privatizing the city's water division. This will do Detroit no good, and just funnel Federal funds and residents' payments to enrich service-cutters from the private financial sector.

But Detroit does need Federal credit.

The fundamental cause of this drastic impoverishment is the past 20 years' shrinkage of the auto/machine-tool industry, capped off by the industry's across-the-board entry-level wage cut from $27 to $14 an hour in Obama's 2009 "auto bailout". There are 50,000 fewer auto and auto-parts workers employed in the Detroit area than a decade ago, and the remaining workers' income on average is one-third lower.

LaRouchePAC and many auto industrial leaders proposed in 2005 to convert the unused auto/machine-tool capacity, with Federal credit, to producing factory components and machinery for great infrastructure projects such as the North American Water and Power Alliance. This was concretized in the Emergency Recovery Act of 2005. The refusal by Wall Street and two White Houses to allow this retooling and re-expansion of auto and machine tools, is what has doomed Detroit.

The re-enactment of the Glass-Steagall Act by Congress can give hope to Detroit and the cities and states of the great former Midwestern industrial core of the nation, because it will cut off the U.S. national credit going into non-stop bailout of the financial speculators of Wall Street and the City of London. If it is immediately followed up with a national credit system, to redevelop the nation's infrastructure platforms and re-engage its industry and machine-tool capacity, Detroit can revive at the center of a modern "arsenal of democracy". We can put the potentially genocidal drive for "economic austerity" in the trash-can where it belongs.


Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm
Detroit Pension Robbery To Trigger
National Public Worker Pension Grab
June 19, 2013 • 4:45PM

Three months after being appointed emergency manager of Detroit by the Michigan government, Kevyn Orr released a detailed plan to restructure Detroit's finances and debts on June 14. Central to his "Proposal for Creditors" is the outright theft of the pensions and health care of the city's 30,000 retired employees, on the basis that the means of existence earned by these workers over years of work is mere "unsecured debt" which must be written-off to satisfy the Moloch of the City of London's and its tentacles' financial breakdown.

This is the same principle applied with mass murderous results in Greece, Cyprus, and Spain; it is the same principle asserted in Title II of Dodd-Frank. If they are allowed to get away with this in Detroit, the intentionally-ruined proud powerhouse of the United States' famed industrial capabilities; should we fail to reassert the moral principle of life and productive physical economy before mere paper values nationally, restoring the Glass-Steagall Act and a Hamiltonian credit system, municipal retirees across the nation will see their pensions and health care programs seized almost instantaneously thereafter.

Articles in the New York Times and Detroit News on June 17 and 18 cite bankruptcy lawyers from Chicago to California stating exactly that. The "CalWatchDog" site of the feudalist Mont Pelerin Society's Pacific Research Institute, chortled in their June 17 note on how "Detroit Sets Precedent for Radical Cuts in 'Inviolate' CA Pensions," that "Detroit-style radical cuts in benefits are coming to California," and it can't be stopped.

The Detroit plan baldly violates Michigan's Constitution, which specifies that "the accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of the state and its political subdivisions shall be a contractual obligation thereof which shall not be diminished or impaired thereby." (Sec. 24: Public pension plans and retirement systems, obligation). Amongst other atrocities, the proposal released by Orr asserts that some $3.5 billion of contractual pension benefits and 99.6% of the city's health care, life insurance, and death benefit plans (known generally as "Other Post-Employment Benefit", or OPEB liabilities), are unfunded. Therefore, "there must be significant cuts in accrued, vested pension amounts for both active and currently retired persons," and the defined benefit health and life insurance plans thrown out, with retirees forced onto Medicare or Obamacare's private health insurance exchanges.

On June 17, Orr's spokeman, Bill Nowling, announced that the emergency manager and his team will meet with representatives of retirees and unions this Thursday, to discuss Orr's blackmail that either they "voluntarily" accept cuts, or Orr will file for bankruptcy in federal court, which Orr believes will "trump state law." Nowling's formulation on how much of a cut is required, reads like a Troika memorandum to Greece: "The goal is to come up with a number in the pension fund that we think is correct and that the city can afford to pay and to adjust the benefits accordingly."


Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Greek Government To Close Schools and Hospitals;
Poverty, Homelessness in EU Rising, Driven by Troika "Crisis"
June 19, 2013 • 9:30AM

Drachma 5 party leader Theodore Katsanevas warned recently that the government shutdown of Greek national broadcaster ERT would be followed by a "holocaust" of job losses in the public sector. Now the Greek Reporter of Canada has reported that several hospitals across Greece will be closed down, "leaving many people without access to health care and hospitalization." These closures will take place by mid-summer, if not within the next weeks.

They also report that the Ministry of Education decided that by the new academic year, dozens of schools will be closed completely, merged, or downgraded. A total (at present) of 32 elementary schools and 89 preschools will be closed.

Because of medical care budget cuts, testing designed to detect serious diseases in newborn infants has been cut, according the employees at the Child Health Institute, which is responsible for the program. Due to lack of funding, the Institute was unable to secure reagents necessary for the tests. These tests include those that detect hypothyroidism, phenylketonuria, galactosemia, and erythrocyte enzyme deficiency (G6PD). The first three diseases, if untreated, can cause mental disabilities, while the last is a crucial enzyme for helping cells convert carbohydrates into forms they can use.

The European Union's Agency for Fundamental Rights has just issued a report, "Fundamental Rights: Challenges and Achievements in 2012," revealing that on average 27% of the children in the EU are suffering from poverty, according to Eurostat figures.

"Child poverty in the EU is an issue of growing concern," the FRA report states, adding that the poverty rate is "particularly affected by the economic crisis." Although they did not give statistics for Greece, they wrote that the situation is "particularly difficult" in Greece, pointing to a recent report by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, that expresses "deep concern about the right to life, survival, and development of children and adolescents whose families are quickly losing their livelihoods and access to state-funded social services, including healthcare and social security."

"The rate of homelessness has increased by 25% to 30% in Greece, Portugal, and Spain since the beginning of the economic crisis," FRA points out, based on data by the Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless (Feantsa).


Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Karolina, again thanks for your input. You watching Wall st reaction to the Fed saying they will stop the "money printing" in helping the economy? Wall st is going down, because it cannot survive on the capitalist economy, it need the fake money as much as it needed all the "fake Wall st products" to meet it goal of "Eternal Growth". Eternal growth in climate change and a communist world and independent third world will present the western world of capitalism with a "rude awakening". What happens when you cannot grow and the market getting smaller?? Can austerity and taxes produce profits & growth?? Do capitalist have a answer for "eternal growth"? The present problems say they have no answer, that mean progressive better get their act together for a "PUBLIC OWN ECONOMY"! Anybody stick their head in the sand on this issue, can expect the "worse".

tayl44's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

From the Weekend Edition, June 21-23, 2013, of

We Are All Witnesses Now
PRISM and the Rise of a New Fascism

In his book Propaganda, published in 1928, Edward Bernays wrote: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.

“Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

The American nephew of Sigmund Freud, Bernays invented the term “public relations” as a euphemism for state propaganda. He warned that an enduring threat to the invisible government was the truth-teller and an enlightened public.

In 1971, the whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg leaked US government files known as the Pentagon Papers, which showed that the invasion of Vietnam was based on systematic lying. Four years later, Frank Church conducted sensational hearings in the Senate: one of the last flickers of American democracy. These laid bare the extent of the invisible government: the domestic spying and subversion and warmongering by intelligence and “security” agencies and the backing they received from big business and the media, both conservative and liberal.

Speaking about the National Security Agency (NSA), Senator Church said: “I know the capacity that there is to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law . . . so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

On 11 June, following the revelations in the Guardian by the NSA contractor Edward Snowden, Ellsberg wrote that the US had now fallen into “that abyss”.

Snowden’s revelation that Washington has used Google, Facebook, Apple and other giants of consumer technology to spy on almost everyone is further evidence of a modern form of fascism. Having nurtured oldfashioned fascists around the world – from Latin America to Africa and Indonesia – the genie has risen at home. Understanding this is as important as understanding the criminal abuse of technology.

Fred Branfman, who exposed the “secret” destruction of tiny Laos by the US air force in the 1960s and 1970s, provides an answer to those who still wonder how a liberal African-American president, a professor of constitutional law, can command such lawlessness. “Under Mr Obama, America is still far from being a classic police-state . . .” he wrote. “But no president has done more to create the infrastructure for a possible future police state.” Why? Because Obama understands that his role is not to indulge those who voted for him but to expand “the most powerful institution in the history of the world, one that has killed, wounded or made homeless well over 20 million human beings, mostly civilians, since 1962”.

In the new American cyberpower, only the revolving doors have changed. The director of Google Ideas, Jared Cohen, was an adviser to Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state in the Bush administration who lied that Saddam Hussein could attack the US with nuclear weapons. Cohen and Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt – they met in the ruins of Iraq – have co-authored a book, The New Digital Age, endorsed as visionary by the former CIA director Michael Hayden and the war criminals Henry Kissinger and Tony Blair. The authors make no mention of the Prism spying programme, revealed by Snowden, that provides the NSA with access to all of us who use Google.

Control and dominance are the two words that make sense of this. These are exercised by political, economic and military design, of which mass surveillance is an essential part, but also by insinuating propaganda into the public consciousness. This was Edward Bernays’s point. His two most successful PR campaigns convinced Americans that they should go to war in 1917 and persuaded women to smoke in public; cigarettes were “torches of freedom” that would hasten women’s liberation.

It is in popular culture that the fraudulent “ideal” of America as morally superior, a “leader of the free world”, has been most effective. Yet even during Hollywood’s most jingoistic periods there were exceptional films, such as those of the exiled Stanley Kubrick, and adventurous European films would find US distributors. These days there is no Kubrick, no Strangelove, and the US market is almost closed to foreign films.

When I showed my own film The War on Democracy to a major, liberal-minded US distributor, I was handed a laundry list of changes, to “ensure the movie is acceptable”. His memorable sop to me was: “OK, maybe we could drop in Sean Penn as narrator. Would that satisfy you?” Kathryn Bigelow’s torture-apologising Zero Dark Thirty and, this year, Alex Gibney’s We Steal Secrets, a cinematic hatchet job on Julian Assange, were made with generous backing by Universal Studios, whose parent company until recently was General Electric. GE manufactures weapons, components for fighter aircraft and advanced surveillance technology. The company also has lucrative interests in “liberated” Iraq.

The power of truth-tellers such as Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden is that they dispel a whole mythology carefully constructed by the corporate cinema and the corporate media. WikiLeaks is especially dangerous because it provides truthtellers with a means to get the truth out. This was achieved by Collateral Damage, the cockpit video of a US Apache helicopter allegedly leaked by Manning. The impact of this one video marked Manning and Assange for state vengeance. Here were US airmen murdering journalists and maiming children in a Baghdad street, clearly enjoying it, and describing their atrocity as “nice”. Yet, in one vital sense, they did not get away with it; for we are all witnesses now, and the rest is up to us.

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Karolina, "We all bear witness now, and the rest is up to us". It's pass time to "bear witness to occupying the Fed, something that belong to us"!

tayl44's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The latest revelations from Edward Snowden, as reported in the Guardian, on June 22 suggest that the National Security Agency is not the lead agency in the world when it comes to internet spying, but, in fact, is the junior partner to Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

According to documents reviewed by the Guardian, the GCHQ "has secretly gained access to the network of cables which carry the world's phone calls and internet traffic and has started to process vast streams of sensitive personal information," which it's sharing with the NSA. The documents reveal two programs "Mastering the Internet (MTI), by which the GCHQ aims to capture literally everything that crosses the internet, and "Tempora," by which it stores what it captures in order to sift out the data of intelligence interest.

"This is all being carried out without any form of public knowledge or debate," the Guardian notes. "It's not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight," Snowden told the Guardian. "They [GCHQ] are worse than the US."

The GCHQ program depends on probes attached to some 200 trans-Atlantic fiber optic cables that come ashore in Britain. The cables carry traffic from across much of the world that includes every type of internet traffic, including emails and voice telephone calls. The data that's captured is not limited to metadata, but includes content as well.

The GCHQ programs began about 6-7 years ago and have progressed to the point where UK officials claim that GCHQ "produces larger amounts of metadata than NSA." By May 2012, 300 analysts from GCHQ and 250 from the NSA has been assigned to sift through the flood of data, which flows through each cable at the rate of 10 gigabits per second. The tapped cables, the Guardian reports, have the capacity, in theory, to deliver 21 petabytes per day equivalent to sending all of the information in all of the books in the British Library 192 times every 24 hours.

This mass of data is processed by a means called "massive volume reduction," or MVR. The first filter in the system immediately rejects high-volume, low value traffic, which reduces the total volume by about 30 percent. Other filters pull out packets of information by "selectors," which are search terms including subjects, phone numbers and email addresses of interest.

GCHQ has chosen 40,000 such selectors, and the NSA another 31,000. "Most of the information extracted is 'content,' such as recordings of phone calls or the substance of email messages," says the Guardian. The rest is metadata.

An internal GCHQ memo of October 2011 reveals the objectives of the programs. "Our targets boil down to diplomatic/military/commercial targets/terrorists/organized criminals and e-crime/cyber actors," it says.

One document underlines the close relationship between the NSA and GCHQ. "GCHQ analysts effectively exploit NSA metadata for intelligence production, target development/discovery purposes," its says. "NSA analysts effectively exploit GCHQ metadata for intelligence production, target development/discovery purposes." The two agencies have come to depend on each other. The NSA needs Britain's access to the internet cables as well as Tempora's "buffering capability." At the same time, the NSA has provided the tools to sift through this enormous quantity of data.

The Guardian's GCHQ expose is already causing a political firestorm in Britain and elsewhere.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander called on the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee to exercise closer oversight of the GCHQ and other intelligence agencies. "These latest reports reinforce the urgency and importance of the ISC's work on this issue," he said.

Germany's Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger called the allegations in the Guardian reports a "Hollywood nightmare," and said "If these accusations are correct, this would be a catastrophe."

"The accusations make it sound as if George Orwell's surveillance society has become reality in Great Britain," leading German opposition MP Thomas Oppermann was quoted by Reuters as saying. "This is unbearable... the government must clarify these accusations and act against a total surveillance of German citizens."

No reaction to the Guardian story has yet been seen from the U.S., but as one observer put it, this morning, "The US Congress now has to assume that they're being wiretapped. They've been assured that they aren't, but the GCHQ story is more evidence that those assurances are lies."


Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

So you think You'll Get a Tax Break, or tax cut? Really?

A letter was sent out recently by the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians.

You're not hearing Breitbart News or Common Dreams - right or left - organizations or news sites with a point of view other than that they are committed to healing people.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system