Category: Fiscal Irresponsibility
Courtesy of silverdoctors.com
A few weeks ago, evidence was discovered that Saudi Arabia’s gold holdings in London were being stolen by central banks in the West and re-hypothicated without the Arab kingdom’s permission. However, this confiscation doesn’t appear to be only theft in play as just weeks after the Western led coup helped overthrow the rightfully elected Ukrainian leader, rumors are coming out of Kiev on March 10 that show planes being loaded with what is believed to be Ukrainian gold, and flown back to either the U.S. or London for an unknown purpose.
As our site workers airport “Borispol”, this night in 2-00, with the designated airport runway started unregistered transport plane … According to the staff “Boryspil”, before it came to the airport four collector car and two cargo minibus Volkswagen, while , all arriving truck license plate missing. Car pulled out of about fifteen people in black uniforms, masks and body armor. Some of them were armed with machine guns. These people have downloaded the plane more than forty heavy boxes … After that, some mysterious men arrived too entered the plane.
Later, in Received call back one of the senior officials of the former Ministry of income and fees, which reported that, according to him, tonight, on the orders of one of the “new leaders” of Ukraine in the United States has been taken all the gold reserves in Ukraine … – Zerohedge
Dr. Long Xinming — nsnbc April 18, 2013
The German government has been storing about half of its gold supply with the US FED, apparently in the NYC FED vaults. Germany decided to bring home all its gold, but the FED has said that isn’t possible to do, and it would need until 2020 to be able to accomplish the transfer.
The German government then asked to visit the FED vaults to inventory the gold and determine its actual existence, but the FED refused to permit Germany to examine its own gold. The reasons given were “security” and “no room for visitors”. And nothing else.
Germany did finally send some staff to the FED, and they were permitted only into the vault’s anteroom where they were shown 5 or 6 gold bars as representative of their holdings, and were permitted nothing else.
They apparently came a second time, and the FED did open only one of 9 rooms and let the Germans look at the stack of gold, but were not permitted to either enter or touch. And they returned home.
There has been speculation for a long time, that the FED doesn’t actually have much gold, that it has either sold it off, lent it out, or used it as collateral for borrowings. Either case, there are many claims that the gold that is being stored on behalf of many nations, doesn’t actually exist.
And nobody, other than FED staff, have actually been permitted inside the vaults to see or inventory any of the gold. There is no evidence that the gold actually exists, other than the word of the FED.
Even more, the situation is the same with the supposed gold depository at Fort Knox. Nobody has seen the gold there for a very long time.
The last audit, and the last public visit, was in 1953, just after U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower took office. No outside experts were allowed during that audit, and the audit team tested only about 5% of gold there. So, there hasn’t been a comprehensive audit of Fort Knox in over 60 years.
In 1974 six Congressmen, one Senator and the press were allowed to enter Fort Knox to see for themselves if the gold was there or not. The tour showed that there was gold in Fort Knox but, all the same, it sparked even more controversies.
Only a small fraction of the gold reserves were made available for viewing, and one Congressman published a report saying that the gold bars held in the fort may have been less heavy than would have been expected.
During the past two years, several US politicians have claimed that there is a high chance that neither Fort Knox nor the FED have any gold, or perhaps only a very small amount, and have demanded a full and public inventory and testing, but the FED have resolutely refused.
I have no idea what to make of this. There was another incident last year when Goldman Sachs were proven to have been selling gold certificates to the public, ostensibly backed by real gold in their vaults, but the story leaked out that they in fact held no gold at all, and were doing “fractional reserve” gold banking, on the basis that few people would want to claim their gold at any one time.
Even worse, Goldman were charging customers storage fees for the gold that didn’t exist. Also, do you recall the information I circulated around the middle of last year, documenting the immense gold theft the FED pulled on much of the world during WW II?
Exclusive: EU executive sees personal savings used to plug long-term financing gap
(Reuters) – The savings of the European Union’s 500 million citizens could be used to fund long-term investments to boost the economy and help plug the gap left by banks since the financial crisis, an EU document says.
The EU is looking for ways to wean the 28-country bloc from its heavy reliance on bank financing and find other means of funding small companies, infrastructure projects and other investment.
“The economic and financial crisis has impaired the ability of the financial sector to channel funds to the real economy, in particular long-term investment,” said the document, seen by Reuters.
The Commission will ask the bloc’s insurance watchdog in the second half of this year for advice on a possible draft law “to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing”, the document said.
Banks have complained they are hindered from lending to the economy by post-crisis rules forcing them to hold much larger safety cushions of capital and liquidity.
Europe Considers Wholesale Savings Confiscation, Enforced Redistribution
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/12/2014 21:28 -0500
At first we thought Reuters had been punk’d in its article titled “EU executive sees personal savings used to plug long-term financing gap” which disclosed the latest leaked proposal by the European Commission, but after several hours without a retraction, we realized that the story is sadly true. Sadly, because everything that we warned about in “There May Be Only Painful Ways Out Of The Crisis” back in September of 2011, and everything that the depositors and citizens of Cyprus had to live through, seems on the verge of going continental. In a nutshell, and in Reuters’ own words, “the savings of the European Union’s 500 million citizens could be used to fund long-term investments to boost the economy and help plug the gap left by banks since the financial crisis, an EU document says.” What is left unsaid is that the “usage” will be on a purely involuntary basis, at the discretion of the “union”, and can thus best be described as confiscation.
The source of this stunner is a document seen be Reuters, which describes how the EU is looking for ways to “wean” the 28-country bloc from its heavy reliance on bank financing and find other means of funding small companies, infrastructure projects and other investment. So as Europe finally admits that the ECB has failed to unclog its broken monetary pipelines for the past five years – something we highlight every month (most recently in No Waking From Draghi’s Monetary Nightmare: Eurozone Credit Creation Tumbles To New All Time Low), the commissions report finally admits that “the economic and financial crisis has impaired the ability of the financial sector to channel funds to the real economy, in particular long-term investment.”
The solution? “The Commission will ask the bloc’s insurance watchdog in the second half of this year for advice on a possible draft law “to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing“, the document said.”
Mobilize, once again, is a more palatable word than, say, confiscate.
And yet this is precisely what Europe is contemplating:
Barclays on Queen Street, Morley, West Yorkshire
Image Source : Wkimedia. org
February 11, 2014 12:04 PM ET
LONDON (Reuters) – Barclays said it would axe up to 12,000 jobs this year even as it raised bonuses for investment bankers, prompting fury among politicians and unions who said it had not learned the lessons of the financial crisis.
Britain’s third-biggest bank said up to 9 percent of employees could go, including 7,000 in Britain, as it tries to lower costs. The cuts are not concentrated in any one business area.
It said it paid 2.4 billion pounds ($3.9 billion) in incentive awards last year, raising bonuses at the investment bank by 13 percent despite a slump in its profits. The average bonus for the investment bank’s 26,200 staff was 60,100 pounds.
Critics of the bonus hike said it showed Britain’s biggest banks were still failing to heed the lessons of a financial crisis caused by dangerous risk taking and excessive pay.
“Today Barclays has stuck two fingers up to hard-pressed families across Britain by announcing another multi-billion pound bonus pool,” said Frances O’Grady, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress.
Barclays Chief Executive Antony Jenkins, who took the helm in 2012 after an interest rate rigging scandal, has vowed to improve culture and standards at the bank while also reducing risk and strengthening the balance sheet.
But its investment bank profits slumped 37 percent last year to 2.5 billion pounds and analysts voiced concern about whether Jenkins can reach his target of a return on equity above 11.5 percent by 2016.
Getting costs down looked more challenging than expected, they said, while increased regulatory pressure and a grim outlook for fixed-income revenue made the target on returns look difficult to achieve.
Barclays shares were down 5 percent at 261 pence by 7.55 a.m. ET, underperforming a 0.7 percent rise by an index of European banks.
“WE NEED THE BEST PEOPLE”
The higher bonuses lifted the compensation-to-income ratio in the investment bank to 43.2 percent last year from 40 percent in 2012. Jenkins, who gave up his own bonus for 2013, said he still aimed for a ratio in the “mid-30s” across the bank.
He defended the bigger bonus pot, saying the bank had to recruit the best staff to compete with global rivals and continued to have “constructive” talks with investors over pay.
“We need to recruit people from Singapore to San Francisco. We need the best people in the bank to drive long-term sustainable returns for our shareholders,” Jenkins told reporters on a conference call.
“I understand that there will be some (people) who feel that this decision is the wrong one for Barclays. But it is the decision of the board and myself that this entirely is the right decision for the group and in the long-term interests of shareholders,” he said.
But business leaders’ group the Institute of Directors said the bank’s bonus policy raised the question of whether it was being run for its shareholders, or its staff.
Barclays Fires 12,000; Reports Horrible Earnings, Awards Itself Bigger Bonuses
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/11/2014 07:58 -0500
It is not easy for one bank to anger more people with one announcement than what Barclays did in the past 24 hours. In one fell swoop, the British bank infuriated shareholders after announcing dismal earnings (an adjusted Q4 profit of about 200 million pounds and a statutory profit of less than 100 million as investment banking income slumped 37% as income fell 9% to 10.7 billion due to a fall in fixed income, and it took further charges related to a cleanup of the banking industry in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis) which sent the share price sliding, it then pissed off UK workers and taxpayers after it announced it would hike investment bank bonuses by 13% despite the abovementioned profit slump, and finally it crushed 9% of its workforce, or 12,000 workers, who are set to prepare pink slips as the bank “streamlines.”
Barclays said 820 senior roles would go, and half of those were cut at the investment bank in the last two weeks. It cut 7,650 jobs last year, including 1,400 in the investment bank, as part of a restructuring unveiled a year ago by Jenkins to cut 1.7 billion pounds of annual costs. There were 139,600 Barclays employees by the end of the year.
More from Reuters:
Stepping up efforts to cut costs, Barclays said up to 9 percent of employees could go, including 7,000 in Britain, where half of the affected staff had already been notified. The cuts are not concentrated in any single business area.
Britain’s third-biggest bank said it paid 2.4 billion pounds ($3.9 billion) in incentive awards last year after raising bonuses at the investment bank by 13 percent despite a slump in profits from the business. The average bonus across the investment bank’s 26,200 staff was 60,100 pounds.
The Fed policies of Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, who begins her term Feb. 1, are making former Harvard economist Terry Burnham withdraw his money from Bank of America. Photo by Davis Turner/Getty Images.
Terry Burnham, former Harvard economics professor, author of “Mean Genes” and “Mean Markets and Lizard Brains,” provocative poster on this page and long-time critic of the Federal Reserve, argues that the Fed’s efforts to strengthen America’s banks have perversely weakened them. (See our 2005 segment with Burnham below about how “lizard brains” influence our economic decisions.)
Last week I had over $1,000,000 in a checking account at Bank of America. Next week, I will have $10,000.
Why am I getting in line to take my money out of Bank of America? Because of Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, who officially begins her term as chairwoman on Feb. 1.
Before I explain, let me disclose that I have been a stopped clock of criticism of the Federal Reserve for half a decade. That’s because I believe that when the Fed intervenes in markets, it has two effects — both negative. First, it decreases overall wealth by distorting markets and causing bad investment decisions. Second, the members of the Fed become reverse Robin Hoods as they take from the poor (and unsophisticated) investors and give to the rich (and politically connected). These effects have been noticed; a Gallup poll taken in the last few days reports that only the richest Americans support the Fed. (See the table.)
Why do I risk starting a run on Bank of America by withdrawing my money and presuming that many fellow depositors will read this and rush to withdraw too? Because they pay me zero interest. Thus, even an infinitesimal chance Bank of America will not repay me in full, whenever I ask, switches the cost-benefit conclusion from stay to flee.
Let me explain: Currently, I receive zero dollars in interest on my $1,000,000. The reason I had the money in Bank of America was to keep it safe. However, the potential cost to keeping my money in Bank of America is that the bank may be unwilling or unable to return my money.
They will not be able to return my money if:
- Many other depositors like you get in line before me. Banks today promise everyone that they can have their money back instantaneously, but the bank does not actually have enough money to pay everyone at once because they have lent most of it out to other people — 90 percent or more. Thus, banks are always at risk for runs where the depositors at the front of the line get their money back, but the depositors at the back of the line do not. Consider this image from a fully insured U.S. bank, IndyMac in California, just five years ago.
- Some of the investments of Bank of America go bust. Because Bank of America has loaned out the vast majority of depositors’ money, if even a small percentage of its loans go bust, the firm is at risk for bankruptcy. Leverage, combined with some bad investments, caused the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008 and would have caused the failure of Bank of America, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and many more institutions in 2008 had the government not bailed them out.
In recent days, the chances for trouble at Bank of America have become more salient because of woes in the emerging markets, particularly Argentina, Turkey, Russia and China. The emerging market fears caused the Dow Jones Industrial Average to lose more than 500 points over the last week.
Returning to my money now entrusted to Bank of America, market turmoil reminded me that this particular trustee is simply not safe. Or not safe enough, given the fact that safety is the reason I put the money there at all. The market turmoil could threaten “BofA” with bankruptcy today as it did in 2008, and as banks have experienced again and again over time.
If the chance that Bank of America will not return my money is, say, a mere 1 percent, then the expected cost to me is 1 percent of my million, or $10,000. That far exceeds the interest I receive, which, I hardly need remind depositors out there, is a cool $0. Even a 0.1 percent chance of loss has an expected cost to me of $1,000. Bank of America pays me the zero interest rate because the Federal Reserve has set interest rates to zero. Thus my incentive to leave at the first whiff of instability.
Harvard Economist Expects Bank Runs, Withdraws $1 Million from BofA
Published on Feb 4, 2014
In today’s video, Christopher Greene of AMTV reports on a Harvard economist who expects a Bank Run at Bank of America.
Is your money safe at the bank? An economist says ‘no’ and withdraws his
Why Are Bitcoiners Going to Jail for Money Laundering While Big Banks Walk?
Before Timothy Geithner became the 75th Secretary of the U.S. Treasury in 2009, he served as the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for five years. The New York Fed is one of Wall Street’s primary regulators. But after leaving his post at the New York Fed, Geithner testified before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Financial Services on March 26, 2009 that he was not regulating Wall Street as he earned his $400,000 a year with car, driver and private dining room.
At the 2009 hearing, in response to a question from Congressman Ron Paul, Geithner said:
“That was a very thoughtful set of questions. I just want to correct one thing. I have never been a regulator, for better or worse. And I think you are right to say that we have to be very skeptical that regulation can solve all these problems. We have parts of the system which are overwhelmed by regulation…It wasn’t the absence of regulation that was a problem. It was, despite the presence of regulation, you got huge risks built up.”
When Geithner says, “for better or worse,” I think most Americans would agree that Geithner’s failure to know that he was a regulator at an institution he headed for half a decade that employed hundreds of bank examiners was probably worse for the country, not better, given that he oversaw the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression and the most expensive taxpayer bailout in the history of finance.
In written testimony before the same hearing, Geithner added that “We can’t allow institutions to cherry pick among competing regulators, and shift risk to where it faces the lowest standards and constraints.” And yet, Geithner’s appointment calendar suggests that this is exactly what Citigroup did as Geithner accommodated it as willingly as a concierge at one of those exclusive Manhattan hotels.
According to Geithner’s appointment calendar for 2007 and 2008 (available online courtesy of an article the New York Times published in 2009), Geithner excelled in hobnobbing, despite the appearance of outrageous conflicts of interest. He was the Relationship Manager In Chief as he managed his own relationship with Citigroup into a job offer to be its CEO.
During 2007 and 2008, Citigroup entered an intractable death spiral owing to a decade of obscene executive pay, off balance sheet debt, toxic assets and mismanagement of its unwieldy disparate business lines. Instead of functioning as the tough cop on the beat in regulating Citigroup, Geithner hobnobbed, holding 29 breakfasts, lunches, dinners and other meetings with Citigroup executives.
When Sandy Weill stepped down from Citigroup in 2006, SEC filings show he still owned over 16.5 million shares of the company’s stock, in addition to the $264 million he had sold back to the company in 2003. As the company teetered toward insolvency in the 2007-2008 period, Weill had a vested interest not to see his stock position wiped out by a government receivership of Citigroup. The very last thing Geithner, as Citigroup’s regulator, should have been doing was meeting privately with Weill.
On January 25, 2007, Geithner not only hosted Weill to lunch at the New York Fed, but Geithner brought his teenage daughter to the lunch. Geithner’s appointment calendar shows Elise Geithner, his daughter, sharing his chauffeured car to work with her father and then joining him at lunch with Sandy Weill. In case you’re wondering, Take Your Daughters and Sons to Work Day was April 26 that year, not the day of this luncheon. A few months later, on May 17, 2007, Geithner joined Weill for breakfast at the expensive Four Seasons.
Be prepared: Wall Street advisor recommends guns, ammo for protection in collapse
A top financial advisor, worried that Obamacare, the NSA spying scandal and spiraling national debt is increasing the chances for a fiscal and social disaster, is recommending that Americans prepare a “bug-out bag” that includes food, a gun and ammo to help them stay alive.
David John Marotta, a Wall Street expert and financial advisor and Forbes contributor, said in a note to investors, “Firearms are the last item on the list, but they are on the list. There are some terrible people in this world. And you are safer when your trusted neighbors have firearms.”
His memo is part of a series addressing the potential for a “financial apocalypse.” His view, however, is that the problems plaguing the country won’t result in armageddon. “There is the possibility of a precipitous decline, although a long and drawn out malaise is much more likely,” said the Charlottesville, Va.-based president of Marotta Wealth Management.
Marotta said that many clients fear an end-of-the-world scenario. He doesn’t agree with that outcome, but does with much of what has people worried.
Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:28 CST
Many have used a pyramid to describe the power structure that the bulk of humanity is subject to – in even the smallest details of our lives. I would like to use it here to address the impending economic collapse, with an eye to explaining what might be going on behind the curtain – what is being hidden and why.
The vertical axis of the pyramid is often described as power, wealth, knowledge, etc. The shape of the pyramid describes the population distribution as measured by the vertical axis. The great bulk of humanity (us) inhabits the lower levels near the base, and the Controllers/Powers That Be/Elites inhabit the lofty levels near the peak.
Control of events at the macro level is administered from the top down by inducing divisions through particular areas in the pyramid. These divisions are made through the use of lies that are designed to achieve particular ends such as war, population reduction, strengthened control, wealth redistribution, etc, right down to plain misery and suffering of the masses.
This pyramidal system of divisions works so well because, at the micro level, we are walking pyramids – telling lies to ourselves and others about the nature of our inner and outer realities. And in between the top and bottom there are all manner of corporations, organizations, states, and groups that take on this pyramidal structure. So pyramids fit within pyramids, while efforts to control and manipulate repeatedly divides people. As above, so below.
In general, most divisions that we can see clearly (sometimes well after the fact) are induced across the lower levels of the pyramid as history can attest (local wars, uprisings, protests, politics). The level in the pyramid at which such division originates may be low and motivated by some private interest gain. But on rare occasions a division is introduced vertically down the pyramid, affecting nearly all levels at the same time. One of these is coming in the form of the collapse of the US Dollar Reserve currency.
The US Dollar Reserve
Would the collapse of the US dollar come as a surprise? History tells us it shouldn’t. On its current trajectory, it seems destined to go the way every other fiat currency in history has gone – towards destruction and collapse. Money creation via debt issuance must be balanced with economic growth. As the debt burden increases, growth increase is required, and when this growth falters, so does the entire system unless the debt is expunged. So, the only questions for the Dollar are:
- When will collapse happen?
- Is there a finger hovering above the “Destruct” button?
The difference this time around is that the whole world would be affected if and when a new currency Reserve is selected as a medium for the global balance of trade.
For many, the refusal of most to even consider what seems to me to be a fairly imminent and inevitable collapse, and prepare for its consequences, is an excellent example of normalcy bias – a form of wishful thinking that paralyzes rational thought processes. If yesterday was the same as the day before, then tomorrow will be the same as today.
The US Constitution clearly states that Congress shall coin money of gold and silver. So, what happened to the US dollar? Despite the best efforts of some good folks – among them past presidents – we ended up with a privately owned Central Bank, the Federal Reserve. Federal Reserve notes (paper currency) originally declared direct convertibility to gold, but this was lost to US citizens when gold was confiscated by FDR and revalued upward to $35 per ounce from $20.67, devaluing the dollar by 40% (and attracting much foreign gold into the country). After World War II, the Bretton Woods Agreement among nations established the US dollar as a World Reserve currency and provided for convertibility to gold for any nation’s positive trade balance held in dollars. But by 1971 the US gold stock had plummeted from 25,000 tons (at peak) to 8,000 tons. Then Nixon closed the gold convertibility window, and the entire Dollar Reserve system became nothing more than a paper promise (Ponzi pyramid).
Uploaded on Jan 2, 2012
January 01, 2012 C-SPAN
The Chinese Want To Spend Billions Constructing A 600 Acre “China City” In New York State
The Chinese have made trillions of dollars flooding our shores with super cheap products, and now they are using some of that money to buy land and property all over America. For example, there is now a proposal to construct a multibillion dollar “China City” that would span approximately 600 acres in a remote area of New York state. This “China City” (that is actually what it would be called) would be located on Yankee Lake in Sullivan County, New York. The plans anticipate large numbers of Chinese businesses, plenty of homes for Chinese immigrants, a Chinese high school, a college, a casino and even a theme park. And the first 600 acres is only for “phase one” of the plan. Ultimately, the goal is for “China City” to cover more than 2,000 acres. Those promoting this plan say that it will be a great way for New Yorkers to learn to appreciate Chinese culture.
So should we be concerned that the Chinese want to place a little slice of communist China right in the heart of New York state?
Should we really be allowing other nations (especially ones that publish maps showing what will happen when they nuke us) to be setting up self-sustaining communities inside our own country that have no intention of integrating into the wider culture?
David North of the Center for Immigration Studies is one of those that is sounding the alarm over this project. According to him, the eventual goal of the “China City” project is to essentially take over two small towns and cover a total of more than 2,000 acres…
The first version of the plan to emerge was a grandiose one. It would cover more than 2,000 acres (more than three square miles) spread over the towns of Mamakating and Thompson. It would include a Chinese theme park, a city full of China-related businesses, a high school, a college, and 1,000 residences. Every province in China would have an office there and the place would be replete with symbols of Chinese culture. For more on these plans see CCOA’s website, festooned with golden dragons and text in both Mandarin and English. When finished it would be a $6 billion project, its backers say.
But for now, the first phase is only going to cover about 600 acres…
A revised version of the initial offering was proposed later; this would, as a modest start to the broader project, include a college, an urban area, some family housing, and lots of student housing; it would cover less than 600 acres and would all be in the town of Thompson, whose officials, a local lawyer tells me, are somewhat less hostile to the plan than those in Mamakating.
And this is not the first time that this kind of thing has been proposed. As I reported last year, a different Chinese group has purchased 200 acres of land in a rural area of Michigan and hopes to create a “China City” out there…
A Chinese group known as “Sino-Michigan Properties LLC” has bought up 200 acres of land near the town of Milan, Michigan. Their plan is to construct a “China City” with artificial lakes, a Chinese cultural center and hundreds of housing units for Chinese citizens. Essentially, it would be a little slice of communist China dropped right into the heartland of America. This “China City” would be located about 40 minutes from both Detroit and Toledo, and it would be marketed to Chinese business people that want to start businesses in the United States.
You can read the full article about that project right here.
Most of the time, when the Chinese gobble up our properties they do not do it in such large chunks. But make no mistake – they are voraciously buying up real estate right now. In fact, CNN recently published an article about the cities where they are the most active…
New York and Los Angeles top the list of U.S. cities they are most interested in, according to Juwai.com, a website where Chinese buyers browse global real estate listings.
More surprisingly, Philadelphia and Detroit come in at No. 3 and No. 4.
The top 10 list is rounded out by Houston, Chicago, Las Vegas, Atlanta, San Diego and Memphis.
Chinese buyers purchased $8.2 billion worth of U.S. property in 2012, according to Juwai.
It has been estimated that the Chinese are now buying one out of every ten homes sold in the state of California. And this buying spree actually appears to be accelerating. The following is a brief excerpt from a recent CNBC article entitled “Chinese buying up California housing“…
National Security Nightmare: China Planning Communist Cities in the US
“It’s a perfect storm of problems.”
- David North, Center for Immigration Studies
Chinese investors – Chinese investors must be members of the Chinese Communist party – want to build ‘China City’ in Thompson, New York in the Catskills.
This won’t be Chinatown. This will be a 600-acre mini China in America which will include housing, a college with residences, and all sorts of stores and other structures. It will be self-sufficient and will basically be a mini-Chinese Communist enclave right here in the United States.
Every province in China will have an office in China City. Foreign investors funding it would be given green cards because of a visa program that entices foreign investment with green cards as carrots.
If times were normal, people would realize this raises very serious national security issues. There are also financial issues.
Supposedly, 20% of the funding would come from US taxpayers!
It will need federal, state, and local approval.
Why do the Chinese bother to hack our government agencies when they can just form their own cities right here in the States to spy and disrupt?
Sullivan County, where this would be built, is poor and the proponents of the plan are willing to sell out to Chinese Communists for some possible financial and cultural improvements.
The people seem to be under the delusion that theses Chinese Communists are special because they are influential, wealthy and educated. Every one in China who meets those qualifications and every investor from China is a member of the Chinese Communist Party and works for the Chinese government.
The architectural-engineering firm that would handle this is a ‘green’ firm. The ‘green’ industry is filled with corruption. There is big money being made off taxpayer’s backs.
You can read more about China City at Fox News.
We have reported about China buying up acreage in the US to establish mini-commie enclaves for two years.
Back in September 2011, I wrote about the Chinese developments being planned in the United States which are, they say, to invest in this country and provide jobs for our union workers instead of sending jobs to China. We are living in a global world and I understand that.
What I don’t understand is why we have to do this with companies run by the Chinese Communist Party or closely connected to them? Chinese communists make very poor allies and they are not our friends. They hack our power grids and our secret service facilities while stealing our technology to say nothing of the games they play with the currency. They constantly saber-rattle.
The other thing I don’t like about Chinese companies is that they live off bribes and favors – they are communists after all.
Don’t even get me started on their human rights abuses, currency manipulation, cyber warfare, theft of property rights, and totalitarian government rules, ideas which they bring with them.
Kathy Lee Giffords was demonized over her company purchasing goods from Honduras some years back because they used sweatshops when she had no knowledge of the situation. Meanwhile, China is nothing but one big sweatshop.
Remember when the Democrats cared about human rights abuses?
Edited time: November 12, 2013 18:14
A former Federal Reserve employee responsible for managing the agency’s quantitative easing program has written an op-ed apologizing for what he called “the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.”
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Andrew Huszar detailed his concerns about the Fed’s massive bond-buying measures. He argued that while the Reserve initially claimed the program would lower borrowing rates for average citizens, the trillion-dollar initiative primarily ended up lining the pockets of Wall Street executives.
“Despite the Fed’s rhetoric, my program wasn’t helping to make credit any more accessible for the average American,” Huszar wrote. “The banks were only issuing fewer and fewer loans. More insidiously, whatever credit they were extending wasn’t getting much cheaper. QE may have been driving down the wholesale cost for banks to make loans, but Wall Street was pocketing most of the extra cash.”
What’s more, Huszar claimed that several Federal Reserve managers expressed apprehension over the effects of quantitative easing (QE) only to find their concerns ignored.
“Our warnings fell on deaf ears,” he wrote. “In the past, Fed leaders—even if they ultimately erred—would have worried obsessively about the costs versus the benefits of any major initiative. Now the only obsession seemed to be with the newest survey of financial-market expectations or the latest in-person feedback from Wall Street’s leading bankers and hedge-fund managers.”