Environ 250 salariés de l'usine Ethicon (matériel chirurgical) d'Eure-et-Loir, menacée de fermeture en 2011, ont manifesté lundi devant le siège du groupe américain Johnson et Johnson à Issy-les-Moulineaux (Hauts-de-Seine). Coiffés de bonnets de Noël et équipés de sifflets, 360 salariés selon les syndicats, 200 selon la police, sont partis aux aurores du site d'Auneau (Eure-et-Loir) pour défendre leurs emplois auprès de la maison-mère. Le 10 juin, la direction avait annoncé lors d'un comité d'établissement extraordinaire son intention de fermer l'usine d'Auneau pour maintenir la compétitivité de l'entreprise. "Johnson et Johnson est le leader de l'industrie pharmaceutique mais il est surtout le numéro un du licenciement. Nous avons toujours été présentés comme une usine modèle et maintenant ils veulent délocaliser la production au Brésil, à Porto Rico et au Mexique pour payer moins cher", a affirmé un délégué syndical UNSA, Fernando Pinto da Silva. "Cette multinationale qui a fait plus de 25 années de profit continus, est une des des plus riches au monde, et elle veut encore gagner plus d'argent. Pour nous, cette fermeture est incompréhensible, l'usine n'ayant jamais fait l'objet de critiques", a déploré un délégué syndical Force ouvrière (FO), Armand Djiré. "On espère vraiment qu'ils vont revenir sur leur décision", a-t-il espéré, ajoutant que les salariés étaient "bien décidés à bloquer le plan de sauvegarde de l'emploi mis en place". Des manifestants distribuaient des tracts sur lesquels on pouvait lire "Johnson et Johnson, roi de l'évasion fiscale. La sécurité sociale doit-elle continuer à payer ?". "Nous produisons les sutures chirurgicales. Johnson et Johnson ne peut légitimement continuer à s'enrichir sur notre sécurité sociale pour faire des profits record, tout en supprimant les emplois. C'est choquant et scandaleux", a déclaré une déléguée du personnel, Sophie Leclair. Une délégation d'une cinquantaine de personnes, accompagnée du maire d'Auneau, a été reçue pendant une heure et demi par la direction du groupe. Celle-ci a confirmé la fermeture de l'usine, mais a évoqué une "revitalisation" du site, sans donner de précision, selon le délégué FO.
07/12/2010
Les salariés d'Ethicon manifestent contre la fermeture de leur usine
L’enquête réalisée par la JOC
Selon l’enquête de Jeunesse ouvrière chrétienne, réalisée en 2007 auprès de 895 jeunes âgés de quinze à trente ans, 65 % d’entre eux affirment ne pas connaître leurs droits. 14 % ne signent pas de contrat de travail. Les heures supplémentaires de 25 % des travailleurs estivaux ne sont pas payées. C’est dans les secteurs de l’animation, de l’hôtellerie-restauration et de la vente que ces abus sont le plus fréquent. 46 % sont logés par des connaissances et 38 % sont contraints de se loger dans des campings.
Répression syndicale à Intermarché
Un délégué CGT a été
mis à pied et licencié
pour avoir exercé son droit de grève.
Hier matin, une centaine de salariés du groupe Intermarché Logistique était rassemblée devant le conseil de prud’hommes de Bourges, dans le Cher. Venus du Jura, de l’Ain ou encore du Nord, tous ont fait le déplacement pour défendre leur collègue Fathi Boussalmi, délégué CGT de la base Intermarché de Levet, licencié le 16 novembre dernier, « non pas pour une faute professionnelle, mais pour avoir exercé son droit de grève », indique Pascal Petit, le délégué CGT du groupe. Et de s’expliquer : « La direction de la société Itmlai (Intermarché base logistique alimentaire international) a licencié Fathi au seul motif que ce dernier avait été l’un des meneurs d’une grève dans son entrepôt pour exiger de meilleures conditions de travail, de meilleurs salaires et pour protester contre le projet de loi sur les retraites. » Pourtant, l’inspection du travail a refusé ce licenciement. Faisant fi de cette décision, la direction a déposé un recours auprès du ministère du Travail, qui a finalement accepté le licenciement.
«On ne peut pas laisser un délégué syndical se faire licencier au prétexte qu’il a fait son boulot», s’emporte Pascal Petit. «C’est de la répression antisyndicale. On ne pouvait pas rester sans réagir.» «Cette attitude rétrograde ne favorisera pas le dialogue social au sein de l’entreprise, bien au contraire», estime également Michèle Chay, secrétaire générale de la Fédération CGT du commerce dans un courrier adressé à la direction de la société, faisant allusion au plan social qui se profile dans le groupe. «On ne sera pas dans de bonnes dispositions pour négocier», prévient Pascal Petit.
Le conseil de prud’hommes a mis l’affaire en délibéré au 9 mai prochain. De son côté, la CGT a demandé à la direction d’Intermarché Logistique d’arrêter les poursuites prises à l’encontre de Fathi Boussalmi et de le réintégrer dans ses fonctions.
L'Irlande face au budget le plus sévère de son histoire
Dublin confirme six milliards d'euros de mesures d'austérité, un effort d'une sévérité sans précédent lié à l'aide internationale accordée au pays.
Ce plan vise à réduire le déficit autour de 9% du Produit intérieur brut (PIB) l'an prochain, contre 32% cette année. L'objectif est de le faire redescendre sous le seuil de 3% d'ici 2015.
L'effort sur le budget 2011 doit être réalisé pour un tiers via des hausses d'impôts et pour les deux-tiers grâce des coupes dans les dépenses, conformément aux indications déjà données ces dernières semaines par les autorités irlandaises.
Les économies passeront, entre autres, par des suppressions d'emplois publics, une baisse drastique de certaines dépenses sociales et des investissements de l'Etat.
"L'ampleur de cet ajustement est éprouvante mais elle démontre le sérieux de notre engagement", a affirmé M. Lenihan devant le Parlement.
Le gouvernement a affirmé donner l'exemple en imposant aux ministres des baisses de salaire de près de 15%.
"Cette période a été traumatisante et inquiétante pour les citoyens de notre pays. Ils sont inquiets que nous ayons dû demander une aide internationale pour nous aider à faire face à nos difficultés économiques et financières, et ils s'inquiètent de l'impact que cette décision grave et difficile aura sur leurs vies", a admis M. Lenihan au début d'une déclaration au ton solennel.
Le tour de vis 2011, d'ampleur inédite, doit permettre à lui seul de réaliser 40% du programme d'austérité de 15 milliards d'euros sur quatre ans annoncé le mois dernier par Dublin.
Cette cure d'austérité est la principale contrepartie du plan d'aide de 85 milliards d'euros que l'Irlande a été contrainte de réclamer à l'Union européenne et au Fonds monétaire international, en raison d'une sévère crise financière provoqué par le naufrage de son secteur bancaire.
Le processus d'examen du budget 2011 devant le Parlement devrait s'étaler jusqu'en février. Les députés devaient se borner à voter mardi dans la soirée sur des mesures techniques, puis ils se prononceront d'ici jeudi sur le volant social du budget.
Mais le gros de la législation budgétaire, la loi de finances proprement dite, ne sera examiné qu'à partir de la mi-janvier.
Les ministres des Finances de l'Union européenne, réunis à Bruxelles, ont validé mardi le plan de sauvetage à l'Irlande, dont le principe a été acté le mois dernier lors d'un sommet exceptionnel. Celui-ci avait été convoqué sous la pression des marchés qui ont fait s'envoler les taux des obligations d'Etat irlandaises mais aussi portugaises ou espagnoles, rendant de plus en plus difficile le financement de la dette de ces pays.
Le déficit irlandais a explosé cette année en raison des sommes astronomiques englouties par l'Etat dans le renflouement des banques de l'île. Le gouvernement a multiplié en vain les mesures depuis l'éclatement de la crise financière en 2008 pour maintenir à flot son secteur bancaire, plombé par les crédits toxiques accumulés durant la flambée du marché immobilier irlandais.
Insolvência da CRH compromete cerca de três mil postos de trabalho
Uma empresa de consultoria e de recursos humanos, a CRH-Consultoria e Valorização, foi declarada insolvente, pondo em causa cerca de três mil postos de trabalho.
A empresa, que pertence a um grupo com o mesmo nome, a CRH SGPS, entregou o pedido de insolvência junto do Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa, iniciativa que surge depois de ter falhado o processo de reestruturação iniciado em 2009.
No conjunto, o grupo CRH tem cerca de 4000 trabalhadores, sendo que perto de três mil são da subsidiária CRH-Consultoria e Valorização, que se dedica à gestão de recursos humanos, ligada a trabalho temporário e centros de atendimento telefónico (call centers). Fornecia mão-de-obra a grandes empresas, nomeadamente a PT e a EDP.
O PÚBLICO entrou em contacto telefónico com a empresa e aguarda, neste momento, por declarações de responsáveis da CRH.
A CRH tinha requerido a própria insolvência, com vista à recuperação. Hoje, o tribunal deferiu o pedido, nomeando António Dias Seabra como administrador de insolvência e dando 30 dias aos credores para reclamarem dívidas, a partir do momento em que seja publicitada a decisão judicial.
Fontes próximas do processo avançaram ao PÚBLICO que as principais dívidas da CRH dizem respeito a impostos e contribuições à Segurança Social.
Ontem, uma nova empresa do grupo, a Temphorário, dedicada exclusivamente ao trabalho temporário, também pediu a insolvência, sendo que o valor da acção, que poderá não corresponder ao valor das dívidas, ronda os 1,5 milhões de euros.
No conjunto, o grupo CRH tem cerca de 4000 trabalhadores, sendo que perto de três mil são da subsidiária CRH-Consultoria e Valorização, que se dedica à gestão de recursos humanos, ligada a trabalho temporário e centros de atendimento telefónico (call centers). Fornecia mão-de-obra a grandes empresas, nomeadamente a PT e a EDP.
O PÚBLICO entrou em contacto telefónico com a empresa e aguarda, neste momento, por declarações de responsáveis da CRH.
A CRH tinha requerido a própria insolvência, com vista à recuperação. Hoje, o tribunal deferiu o pedido, nomeando António Dias Seabra como administrador de insolvência e dando 30 dias aos credores para reclamarem dívidas, a partir do momento em que seja publicitada a decisão judicial.
Fontes próximas do processo avançaram ao PÚBLICO que as principais dívidas da CRH dizem respeito a impostos e contribuições à Segurança Social.
Ontem, uma nova empresa do grupo, a Temphorário, dedicada exclusivamente ao trabalho temporário, também pediu a insolvência, sendo que o valor da acção, que poderá não corresponder ao valor das dívidas, ronda os 1,5 milhões de euros.
Trabalhadores da Groundforce em greve no Natal e Ano Novo
indicatos já entregaram pré-aviso, que vai incidir sobre a totalidade dos dias 23 e 29 de Dezembro e ainda sobre algumas horas de 22,24, 28 e 30 do mesmo mês.
A greve geral dos trabalhadores da Groundforce, empresa de handling participada pela TAP que anunciou recentemente o encerramento da escala de Faro e o despedimento colectivo de 294 pessoas, foi anunciada hoje, em comunicado enviado às redacções.
De acordo com o documento, a paralisação vai durar seis dias, começando a 22 de Dezembro. No primeiro dia, haverá greve por três horas, entre as 21h e as 24h. No dia 23, a paragem vai decorrer durante 24 horas, seguindo-se um novo período de três horas (das 00h às 03h), no dia seguinte.
Voltará a haver uma greve de 24 horas a 29 de Dezembro, antecedida por uma paralisação de três horas, na véspera (novamente entre as 21h e as 24h). No dia 30, a paragem será igualmente entre as 00h e as 03h.
Tanto nos dias 22 e 24, quanto a 28 e 30, a greve só será realizada pelos "trabalhadores que deviam entrar ou sair de serviço naqueles períodos", esclarece o comunicado, assinado, em conjunto, pelo Sindicato da Indústria Metalúrgica e Afins (SIMA), Sindicato Nacional dos Trabalhadores da Aviação Civil (SINTAC), Sindicato dos Trabalhadores da Aviação e Aeroportos (SITAVA) e Sindicatos dos Técnicos de Handling de Aeroportos (STHA).
O documento explica que a decisão de avançar com a paralisação na Groundforce se fica a dever a vários factores, de entre os quais "o total desrespeito com que o Governo português e o conselho de administração da TAP/Groundforce", que os sindicatos consideram ser "uma clara demonstração de incapacidade, incompetência e permanente contradição".
Os sindicatos contestam ainda a "precariedade no sector", dando o exemplo da "tentativa de despedimento colectivo no aeroporto de Faro", anunciado há um mês pela Groundforce, que alega que a operação gera prejuízos de oito milhões de euros.
As negociações posteriormente levadas a cabo entre sindicatos e administração da empresa de handling terminaram sem acordo, uma vez que, ao contrário da Groundforce, os representantes defendiam a manutenção da escala algarvia, ainda que com uma redução para metade dos postos de trabalho.
Uma proposta que foi recusada pela empresa, detida a 49,9 por cento pela transportadora aérea estatal TAP. Ficou apenas garantido que, em vez de um despedimento colectivo de 336 pessoas, seriam afectadas 294, com a transferência de 22 para outras escalas e pré-reformas para outras 18.
No comunicado, os sindicatos afirmam ainda que houve uma "violação do protocolo tripartido", assinado com a TAP e a Groundforce, "que visava garantir a empresa como um todo, bem como todos os postos de trabalho".
E terminam explicando que a decisão de fazer greve foi tomada para "levar o conselho de administração da TAP e da Groundforce a alterar o seu comportamento anti-negocial, prepotente, arrogante, lesivo dos interesses dos trabalhadores e a inverter a tentativa de despedimento colectivo em Faro".
Por fim, os sindicatos garantem que "assegurarão os serviços necessários à segurança e manutenção dos equipamentos e instalações", bem como "a prestação dos serviços mínimos" nos dias da paralisação.
http://economia.publico.pt/Noticia/trabalhadores-da-groundforce-em-greve-no-natal-e-ano-novo_1469988
De acordo com o documento, a paralisação vai durar seis dias, começando a 22 de Dezembro. No primeiro dia, haverá greve por três horas, entre as 21h e as 24h. No dia 23, a paragem vai decorrer durante 24 horas, seguindo-se um novo período de três horas (das 00h às 03h), no dia seguinte.
Voltará a haver uma greve de 24 horas a 29 de Dezembro, antecedida por uma paralisação de três horas, na véspera (novamente entre as 21h e as 24h). No dia 30, a paragem será igualmente entre as 00h e as 03h.
Tanto nos dias 22 e 24, quanto a 28 e 30, a greve só será realizada pelos "trabalhadores que deviam entrar ou sair de serviço naqueles períodos", esclarece o comunicado, assinado, em conjunto, pelo Sindicato da Indústria Metalúrgica e Afins (SIMA), Sindicato Nacional dos Trabalhadores da Aviação Civil (SINTAC), Sindicato dos Trabalhadores da Aviação e Aeroportos (SITAVA) e Sindicatos dos Técnicos de Handling de Aeroportos (STHA).
O documento explica que a decisão de avançar com a paralisação na Groundforce se fica a dever a vários factores, de entre os quais "o total desrespeito com que o Governo português e o conselho de administração da TAP/Groundforce", que os sindicatos consideram ser "uma clara demonstração de incapacidade, incompetência e permanente contradição".
Os sindicatos contestam ainda a "precariedade no sector", dando o exemplo da "tentativa de despedimento colectivo no aeroporto de Faro", anunciado há um mês pela Groundforce, que alega que a operação gera prejuízos de oito milhões de euros.
As negociações posteriormente levadas a cabo entre sindicatos e administração da empresa de handling terminaram sem acordo, uma vez que, ao contrário da Groundforce, os representantes defendiam a manutenção da escala algarvia, ainda que com uma redução para metade dos postos de trabalho.
Uma proposta que foi recusada pela empresa, detida a 49,9 por cento pela transportadora aérea estatal TAP. Ficou apenas garantido que, em vez de um despedimento colectivo de 336 pessoas, seriam afectadas 294, com a transferência de 22 para outras escalas e pré-reformas para outras 18.
No comunicado, os sindicatos afirmam ainda que houve uma "violação do protocolo tripartido", assinado com a TAP e a Groundforce, "que visava garantir a empresa como um todo, bem como todos os postos de trabalho".
E terminam explicando que a decisão de fazer greve foi tomada para "levar o conselho de administração da TAP e da Groundforce a alterar o seu comportamento anti-negocial, prepotente, arrogante, lesivo dos interesses dos trabalhadores e a inverter a tentativa de despedimento colectivo em Faro".
Por fim, os sindicatos garantem que "assegurarão os serviços necessários à segurança e manutenção dos equipamentos e instalações", bem como "a prestação dos serviços mínimos" nos dias da paralisação.
Prescrire, la revue médicale qui dit « non, merci » aux labos
Nolwenn Le Blevennec
Bruno Toussaint a un humour décalé. Il lance des vannes comme « consensuel comme l'OMS » et s'esclaffe.
Il nous reçoit dans les locaux de la revue Prescrire, au milieu de pochettes de couleur bourrées de documents sur l'infectiologie. L'ancien médecin généraliste est l'actuel directeur de la rédaction du « Canard enchaîné de la presse médicale ».
En ce moment, il vit une jolie victoire journalistique. C'est en lisant Prescrire qu'Irène Frachon, le médecin qui a fait éclater le scandale Mediator s'est rendue compte de la dangerosité du médicament : « Puis, nous l'avons aidé à se documenter », dit Bruno Toussaint.
Cela faisait (juste) treize ans que sa revue dénonçait les effets secondaires de cet antidiabétique, utilisé comme coupe-faim. (Télécharger l'article de Prescrire, décembre 1997)Dans le courant des années 2000, Prescrire mettra plusieurs fois en garde contre le Mediator.
En 2005, la revue reçoit d'ailleurs un courrier du directeur général de l'Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des produits de santé (Afssaps), qui s'indigne de la gravité de ses « imputations ».
« Ce genre de lettre, c'est très exceptionnel », dit Bruno Toussaint. A cette époque, l'indépendance « financière et intellectuelle » de Prescrire agace de plus en plus. Cela fait bientôt trente ans que la revue la cultive.
« Rien à acheter, ni à vendre » dans Prescrire
On est à la fin des années 70. Un groupe de pharmaciens et de médecins dénoncent ce qui ne gène pas grand monde à l'époque : l'information sur les médicaments est fournie par les seuls laboratoires.
Ces « rebelles » décident de lancer un média indépendant. Ce sera Prescrire, en janvier 1981 qui démarre grâce à des subventions du ministère de la Santé.
Il faut très vite « se sevrer » financièrement, explique Bruno Toussaint :
« Nous avions conscience que nous allions écrire des choses désagréables et que les subventions ne tiendraient pas longtemps. »
Début des années 90, la revue devient autonome grâce aux cotisations de ses abonnés (29 000 personnes, 270 euros par an), expose Bruno Toussaint :
« Ni subvention, ni sponsor, ni publicité. Ici, il n'y a rien à acheter, ni à vendre. Les autres revues sont financées par la publicité et les cahiers spéciaux fabriqués par les firmes [ces cahiers spéciaux se cachent d'ailleurs de mieux en mieux, ndlr]. »
L'idée du mensuel est d'aider les professionnels à prescrire « à bon escient ». L'association, qui regroupe une centaine de salariés, n'est ni pour, ni contre les médicaments. Ils passent au microscope toutes les molécules du marché, assure Bruno Toussaint :
« Si nous nous trompons rarement, c'est que notre méthode est rodée. »
Charte du « Non, merci… »
Chaque article suit un parcours impitoyable, koh-lantiesque (de l'émission de TF1, Koh-Lanta, que Bruno Toussaint ne regarde certainement pas), de neuf à douze mois, sauf actualité brûlante. Il fait l'objet d'une recherche documentaire exhaustive. Les rédacteurs signent une charte du « Non, merci… » pour garantir l'absence de conflits d'intérêts.
Des réunions de « débrouillage », « calage », « cohérence » sont organisées. Un panel extérieur de 10 à 35 personnes est également chargé de relire et critiquer chaque texte.
C'est ainsi que Prescrire s'attaque au Di-Antalvic, dès 2005 :
« La balance bénéfices-risques est défavorable, et on ne manque pas d'alternatives. »
En octobre 2009, alors que la ministre de la Santé Roselyne Bachelot commande 94 millions de doses de vaccin pour la grippe H1N1 (pour 732 millions d'euros), Prescrire recommande de ne pas s'affoler, raconte Bruno Toussaint :
« C'était à peine plus grave qu'une grippe saisonnière. »
Pas les ayatollahs qu'on décrit
Pourquoi personne ne les écoute ? Bruno Toussaint ne souhaite pas « se battre » contre l'Afssaps ou « le professeur Tartempion payé par les firmes » :
« Notre priorité, c'est de durer. On ne prétend pas tout faire. Analyser les données, c'est déjà pas mal. »
Les médecins-journalistes de Prescrire sont loin d'être les « ayatollahs » qu'on décrit parfois. Une sensibilité d'extrême gauche ? « Ca se peut, mais cela n'est pas mon problème. Nous ne sommes affiliés à aucun parti ». Ils travaillent dans leur coin, envoient quelques communiqués de presse par mois. Et assurent reconnaître leurs torts :
« Il y a des médicaments, comme l'agalsidase, qui nous paraissent intéressants sur le moment et pour lesquels nous avons été finalement trop optimistes. »http://www.rue89.com/2010/12/07/prescrire-la-revue-medicale-qui-dit-non-merci-aux-labos-179472
Travail d’étude des rapports d’activités des 50 principales entreprises européennes
Jean Merckaert
Rapport du CCFD-Terre Solidaire sur l’évasion fiscale
Mardi 7 décembre 2010, le CCFD-Terre Solidaire lance le Rapport
«L'économie déboussolée : multinationales, paradis fiscaux et captation des richesses»*
Qui est le travailleur le plus rentable au monde : le Chinois, le Bermudien ou l'Américain ?
Quel est le premier exportateur de bananes en Europe : Jersey, Équateur ou le Costa Rica ?
Dans quel pays croit-on le plus en l'avenir : les Iles Vierges Britanniques, les États-Unis ou la Chine ?
Les réponses à ces questions sont loin d'être évidentes... En cause, le recours massif des entreprises multinationales aux paradis fiscaux, qui fausse l'économie mondiale.
Le rapport « L'économie déboussolée » met en lumière les distorsions entre l'économie réelle et les indicateurs qui guident le G20 et les Institutions financières internationales. Investissement, commerce, épargne, productivité ... le rapport démontre comment la place de la finance offshore rend toute mesure de ces indicateurs impossible. Au cœur de ce mensonge économique, il pointe le rôle majeur des multinationales et des banques, premières utilisatrices des paradis fiscaux.
A partir d'un minutieux travail d'étude des rapports d'activités des 50 principales entreprises européennes, il livre un panorama inédit des filiales de ces entreprises dans les trous noirs de la finance. Alors que la France présidera en 2011 les sommets du G8 et du G20, le rapport dresse également un état des lieux de la lutte contre l'évasion fiscale depuis le G20 de Londres et rappelle les attentes dans ce domaine des sociétés civiles soucieuses d'une plus grande justice au Nord comme au Sud.
* Ce rapport a été réalisé dans le cadre du consortium « Réguler la finance pour le développement » qui regroupe six Ongs européennes : BWP, CRBM, Eurodad, Glopolis, WEED et CCFD-Terre Solidaire. http://www.regulatefinancefordevelopment.org/
Edito
Ce rapport raconte l'histoire extravagante d'un monde otage des plus petits d'entre ses pays. Un monde où tel Goliath trébuchant devant David, les grandes puissances, pourtant armées de leurs terribles listes noires ou grises, seraient forcées de s'incliner devant l'effronterie des « paradis fiscaux ». Un monde où la richesse mondiale serait en grande partie produite et échangée offshore. Où les Îles Vierges britanniques, Jersey, l'île Maurice, les Bermudes ou encore le Luxembourg seraient devenus les matrices de l'économie mondiale.
Ce rapport raconte une histoire difficile à croire, car elle est pratiquement inédite. Les paradis fiscaux suscitent un intérêt incroyablement faible de la part des économistes -trop obnubilés qu'ils sont de modéliser leurs hypothèses pour pouvoir appréhender un phénomène par définition difficile à quantifier de façon incontestable. L'économiste et journaliste français Christian Chavagneux et le politologue britannique Ronen Palan font figure de pionniers en la matière. La thèse développée dans ce rapport doit beaucoup aux travaux qu'ils ont menés avec l'expert comptable Richard Murphy.
Ce rapport raconte l'histoire d'une imposture. Car les miroirs déformants que sont les paradis fiscaux renvoient une géographie mensongère de l'économie mondiale. La tromperie statistique est flagrante, qui fait de l'île Maurice le premier investisseur en Inde, ou de Jersey le premier pourvoyeur de bananes en Europe. Mais la localisation artificielle de l'activité économique loin de ses bases réelles, dans ces zones de transit de la finance mondiale, a d'autres incidences. Autrement plus graves. Elle fait mentir l'allocation de la richesse au plan mondial, dépouillant les États de leurs assiettes fiscales mobiles -donc de l'impôt que devraient verser les plus riches, et les salariés de leur gagne-pain. Privant, aussi, de façon illicite, les pays en développement de plusieurs centaines de milliards d'euros par an qui leur permettraient d'investir dans l'avenir ; de soigner, d'éduquer, de nourrir leur population ; les privant aussi de la liberté de renoncer à l'aide internationale et à l'endettement. Ce grand écart entre la géographie économique réelle et celle que reflètent les paradis fiscaux, constitue aujourd'hui le creuset des inégalités au plan mondial.
Mais ce mensonge est commis, non pas tant par les paradis fiscaux eux mêmes - réceptacles consentants des tricheries que d'autres veulent garder secrètes - mais bien, pour l'essentiel, par les acteurs économiques majeurs de l'économie mondialisée : les banques et entreprises multinationales. L'omniprésence de ces dernières dans les trous noirs de la finance mondiale - nous y avons repéré 4 706 filiales rien que pour les cinquante plus gros groupes européens ! - a deux explications simples. Une part reflète, bien sûr, la réalité de l'activité économique légitime desdits groupes : l'usine en Irlande de l'un, la franchise de l'autre en Suisse... Concernant l'autre part, substantielle, il s'agit pour l'écrasante majorité des multinationales de localiser librement la valeur qu'elles produisent à l'abri de l'impôt, voire des revendications de hausse salariale - et, parfois, du régulateur boursier ou de la justice. Elles sont aidées en cela par des armées de professionnels du droit et de la finance qui en ont fait un business, et par le formidable développement de l'économie immatérielle (recherche développement, marques, brevets, assurances...), déplaçable à l'envi.
Les multinationales sont-elles au-dessus des lois ?
Elles dominent des pans entiers de l'économie mondiale. Rien d'étonnant, dès lors, à ce que certaines croient pouvoir s'affranchir des règles s'appliquant au commun des mortels. Mieux, par l'entremise des banques et des cabinets d'audit et d'optimisation fiscale, elles inventent, dans des territoires faisant commerce de leur souveraineté, des législations conformes à leurs intérêts.
Mais les multinationales ne sont pas les seules à blâmer. Si elles peuvent si aisément faire mentir leurs comptes pour localiser la plus-value où bon leur semble, c'est que la loi ne les en empêche pas. Est-elle mal écrite ? Mal appliquée ? Selon le mot de l'ancien ministre des Finances britannique Dennis Healey, la frontière entre légalité (optimisation) et illégalité (fraude) est mince comme « l'épaisseur d'un mur de prison ». Sauf que dans la pratique, le risque pénal est quasi inexistant. Directeurs financiers comme experts comptables ont tout loisir d'élaborer et certifier des comptes et de retomber, toutefois, du bon côté du mur, sans violer les lois puisque : « l'optimisation repose souvent sur l'existence d'un doute quant à leur interprétation [et] il est souvent difficile de résister à la possibilité de jouer le droit fiscal d'un État contre celui d'un autre ».
Sans résorber la tentation, pour les entreprises, de situer leurs actifs immatériels dans des pays fiscalement attractifs, une telle exigence de transparence les contraindrait à la vérité comptable. Car la façon dont une entreprise rend compte de son activité n'est pas affaire strictement privée. L'élaboration et le contrôle de l'application des normes comptables, qui sont aujourd'hui le monopole des investisseurs, des multinationales et des grands cabinets d'audit, devraient être considérés comme des questions d'intérêt général.
La place qu'ont prises les multinationales dans l'économie mondiale leur confère des responsabilités considérables envers la société. D'évidence - et le champ fiscal n'est hélas pas le seul - elles sont incapables, malgré la bonne volonté affichée par certaines, de les assumer pleinement sans qu'on les y contraigne. Ce qui est en jeu, ici, c'est la souveraineté, la capacité de notre humanité à décider de son destin. A dicter la loi aux plus forts plutôt qu'à subir celle du plus fort. « Entre le faible et le fort, entre le riche et le pauvre, c'est la liberté qui opprime et c'est la loi qui affranchit », affirmait Lacordaire au XIXème siècle. Le temps est venu de mesurer la santé de notre monde au sort réservé aux plus faibles. Le G20 en aura-t-il la capacité, ou même la volonté ? Il a, en 2011 à Cannes, l'occasion d'en faire la preuve.
Télécharger l'intégralité du rapport (pdf, 12M)
«L'économie déboussolée : multinationales, paradis fiscaux et captation des richesses»*
Qui est le travailleur le plus rentable au monde : le Chinois, le Bermudien ou l'Américain ?
Quel est le premier exportateur de bananes en Europe : Jersey, Équateur ou le Costa Rica ?
Dans quel pays croit-on le plus en l'avenir : les Iles Vierges Britanniques, les États-Unis ou la Chine ?
Les réponses à ces questions sont loin d'être évidentes... En cause, le recours massif des entreprises multinationales aux paradis fiscaux, qui fausse l'économie mondiale.
Le rapport « L'économie déboussolée » met en lumière les distorsions entre l'économie réelle et les indicateurs qui guident le G20 et les Institutions financières internationales. Investissement, commerce, épargne, productivité ... le rapport démontre comment la place de la finance offshore rend toute mesure de ces indicateurs impossible. Au cœur de ce mensonge économique, il pointe le rôle majeur des multinationales et des banques, premières utilisatrices des paradis fiscaux.
A partir d'un minutieux travail d'étude des rapports d'activités des 50 principales entreprises européennes, il livre un panorama inédit des filiales de ces entreprises dans les trous noirs de la finance. Alors que la France présidera en 2011 les sommets du G8 et du G20, le rapport dresse également un état des lieux de la lutte contre l'évasion fiscale depuis le G20 de Londres et rappelle les attentes dans ce domaine des sociétés civiles soucieuses d'une plus grande justice au Nord comme au Sud.
* Ce rapport a été réalisé dans le cadre du consortium « Réguler la finance pour le développement » qui regroupe six Ongs européennes : BWP, CRBM, Eurodad, Glopolis, WEED et CCFD-Terre Solidaire. http://www.regulatefinancefordevelopment.org/
Edito
Ce rapport raconte l'histoire extravagante d'un monde otage des plus petits d'entre ses pays. Un monde où tel Goliath trébuchant devant David, les grandes puissances, pourtant armées de leurs terribles listes noires ou grises, seraient forcées de s'incliner devant l'effronterie des « paradis fiscaux ». Un monde où la richesse mondiale serait en grande partie produite et échangée offshore. Où les Îles Vierges britanniques, Jersey, l'île Maurice, les Bermudes ou encore le Luxembourg seraient devenus les matrices de l'économie mondiale.
Ce rapport raconte une histoire difficile à croire, car elle est pratiquement inédite. Les paradis fiscaux suscitent un intérêt incroyablement faible de la part des économistes -trop obnubilés qu'ils sont de modéliser leurs hypothèses pour pouvoir appréhender un phénomène par définition difficile à quantifier de façon incontestable. L'économiste et journaliste français Christian Chavagneux et le politologue britannique Ronen Palan font figure de pionniers en la matière. La thèse développée dans ce rapport doit beaucoup aux travaux qu'ils ont menés avec l'expert comptable Richard Murphy.
Ce rapport raconte l'histoire d'une imposture. Car les miroirs déformants que sont les paradis fiscaux renvoient une géographie mensongère de l'économie mondiale. La tromperie statistique est flagrante, qui fait de l'île Maurice le premier investisseur en Inde, ou de Jersey le premier pourvoyeur de bananes en Europe. Mais la localisation artificielle de l'activité économique loin de ses bases réelles, dans ces zones de transit de la finance mondiale, a d'autres incidences. Autrement plus graves. Elle fait mentir l'allocation de la richesse au plan mondial, dépouillant les États de leurs assiettes fiscales mobiles -donc de l'impôt que devraient verser les plus riches, et les salariés de leur gagne-pain. Privant, aussi, de façon illicite, les pays en développement de plusieurs centaines de milliards d'euros par an qui leur permettraient d'investir dans l'avenir ; de soigner, d'éduquer, de nourrir leur population ; les privant aussi de la liberté de renoncer à l'aide internationale et à l'endettement. Ce grand écart entre la géographie économique réelle et celle que reflètent les paradis fiscaux, constitue aujourd'hui le creuset des inégalités au plan mondial.
Mais ce mensonge est commis, non pas tant par les paradis fiscaux eux mêmes - réceptacles consentants des tricheries que d'autres veulent garder secrètes - mais bien, pour l'essentiel, par les acteurs économiques majeurs de l'économie mondialisée : les banques et entreprises multinationales. L'omniprésence de ces dernières dans les trous noirs de la finance mondiale - nous y avons repéré 4 706 filiales rien que pour les cinquante plus gros groupes européens ! - a deux explications simples. Une part reflète, bien sûr, la réalité de l'activité économique légitime desdits groupes : l'usine en Irlande de l'un, la franchise de l'autre en Suisse... Concernant l'autre part, substantielle, il s'agit pour l'écrasante majorité des multinationales de localiser librement la valeur qu'elles produisent à l'abri de l'impôt, voire des revendications de hausse salariale - et, parfois, du régulateur boursier ou de la justice. Elles sont aidées en cela par des armées de professionnels du droit et de la finance qui en ont fait un business, et par le formidable développement de l'économie immatérielle (recherche développement, marques, brevets, assurances...), déplaçable à l'envi.
Les multinationales sont-elles au-dessus des lois ?
Elles dominent des pans entiers de l'économie mondiale. Rien d'étonnant, dès lors, à ce que certaines croient pouvoir s'affranchir des règles s'appliquant au commun des mortels. Mieux, par l'entremise des banques et des cabinets d'audit et d'optimisation fiscale, elles inventent, dans des territoires faisant commerce de leur souveraineté, des législations conformes à leurs intérêts.
Mais les multinationales ne sont pas les seules à blâmer. Si elles peuvent si aisément faire mentir leurs comptes pour localiser la plus-value où bon leur semble, c'est que la loi ne les en empêche pas. Est-elle mal écrite ? Mal appliquée ? Selon le mot de l'ancien ministre des Finances britannique Dennis Healey, la frontière entre légalité (optimisation) et illégalité (fraude) est mince comme « l'épaisseur d'un mur de prison ». Sauf que dans la pratique, le risque pénal est quasi inexistant. Directeurs financiers comme experts comptables ont tout loisir d'élaborer et certifier des comptes et de retomber, toutefois, du bon côté du mur, sans violer les lois puisque : « l'optimisation repose souvent sur l'existence d'un doute quant à leur interprétation [et] il est souvent difficile de résister à la possibilité de jouer le droit fiscal d'un État contre celui d'un autre ».
Sans résorber la tentation, pour les entreprises, de situer leurs actifs immatériels dans des pays fiscalement attractifs, une telle exigence de transparence les contraindrait à la vérité comptable. Car la façon dont une entreprise rend compte de son activité n'est pas affaire strictement privée. L'élaboration et le contrôle de l'application des normes comptables, qui sont aujourd'hui le monopole des investisseurs, des multinationales et des grands cabinets d'audit, devraient être considérés comme des questions d'intérêt général.
La place qu'ont prises les multinationales dans l'économie mondiale leur confère des responsabilités considérables envers la société. D'évidence - et le champ fiscal n'est hélas pas le seul - elles sont incapables, malgré la bonne volonté affichée par certaines, de les assumer pleinement sans qu'on les y contraigne. Ce qui est en jeu, ici, c'est la souveraineté, la capacité de notre humanité à décider de son destin. A dicter la loi aux plus forts plutôt qu'à subir celle du plus fort. « Entre le faible et le fort, entre le riche et le pauvre, c'est la liberté qui opprime et c'est la loi qui affranchit », affirmait Lacordaire au XIXème siècle. Le temps est venu de mesurer la santé de notre monde au sort réservé aux plus faibles. Le G20 en aura-t-il la capacité, ou même la volonté ? Il a, en 2011 à Cannes, l'occasion d'en faire la preuve.
Télécharger l'intégralité du rapport (pdf, 12M)
Une armée de justiciers - La révolte des luddites contre la machine industrielle
Edward Palmer Thompson
Pendant plus de deux siècles, la révolte des ouvriers luddites a été diffamée, enfouie, refoulée par les historiens de toutes les écoles.
En 1963, Edward P. Thompson, historien communiste – mais libre d’esprit – produit dans son livre The Making of the English Working Class (1) un chapitre d’épopée, « Une armée de justiciers », qui fait mieux que réhabiliter les luddites. Trente ans avant Marx et le Manifeste du Parti Communiste (1847), ces derniers critiquent en actes la dissociation entre moyens de production et rapports de production. Ils se battent pour l’autonomie ouvrière, contre l’asservissement à la machine, pour la survie de leur communauté et la fierté de l’ouvrage bien fait.
Depuis ce livre pionnier, des études sur les luddites se multiplient. Les leçons que l’on tire de leur combat pourraient-elles supplanter le marxisme comme horizon indépassable de notre temps ? D’après son préfacier, Miguel Abensour, « Le chapitre sur le luddisme (“Une armée de justiciers”) constitue un petit ouvrage à lui seul. »
Le voici. 
Pièces et Main d’œuvre & Black Star (s)éditions
Pour découvrir l’histoire des luddites en France, on se reportera au livre paru aux éditions L’Echappée en novembre 2010 : Les luddites en France - Résistances à l’industrialisation et à l’informatisation (collectif, coordonné par Cédric Biagini et Guillaume Carnino).
(1) Editions Victor Gollancz. Traduit en français sous le titre La Formation de la Classe Ouvrière Anglaise, Paris, Ed. Le Seuil / Gallimard [Coll. Hautes Etudes], 1988 par Gilles Dauvé, Mireille Golaszewski et Marie-Noëlle Thibault. Présentation de Miguel Abensour.
***
N.B. : « Une armée de justiciers » correspond au chapitre 14 (p. 426-543) de la 3e partie (« Présence de la classe ouvrière ») de l’ouvrage de Thompson. Ce chapitre est publié en deux brochures (à télécharger ci-dessous).
Par souci de clarté, nous avons classé les notes de Thompson indiquant des références. Certaines d’entre elles, qui ne sont pas nécessaires à la bonne compréhension du texte, sont signalées ainsi : [*xx] et se trouvent en fin d’ouvrage. En revanche, celles qui nous paraissaient nécessaires font l’objet de notes de bas de page. Quant à nos propres références, elles comportent la mention : [NdBS] pour [Note de Black-Star].
Certains passages du texte comportent un grand nombre de majuscules. Il ne s’agit pas d’erreurs de notre part mais bien d’un style d’écriture qui se pratiquait à cette époque.
Enfin, nous avons également ajouté une brève chronologie du mouvement luddite à la fin de la deuxième brochure. Celle-ci est extraite de l’ouvrage de Kirkpatrick Sale, La révolte luddite, Briseurs de machines à l’ère de l’industrialisation [Rebels against the futur, 1995], traduit de l’américain par Celia Izoard, Paris, Ed. L’Echappée, 2006.
 Luddites partie 1 Version prête à circuler 2.5 Mo | Luddites partie 2 Version prête à circuler 2.5 Mo |
Ex-offenders and the Labor Market
John Schmitt and Kris Warner
Executive Summary:
We use Bureau of Justice Statistics data to estimate that, in 2008, the United States had between 12 and 14 million ex-offenders of working age. Because a prison record or felony conviction greatly lowers ex-offenders' prospects in the labor market, we estimate that this large population lowered the total male employment rate that year by 1.5 to 1.7 percentage points. In GDP terms, these reductions in employment cost the U.S. economy between $57 and $65 billion in lost output.
Our estimates suggest that in 2008 there were between 5.4 and 6.1 million ex-prisoners (compared to a prison population of about 1.5 million and a jail population of about 0.8 million in that same year). Our calculations also suggest that in 2008 there were between 12.3 and 13.9 million ex-felons.
In 2008, about one in 33 working-age adults was an ex-prisoner and about one in 15 working-age adults was an ex-felon. About one in 17 adult men of working-age was an ex-prisoner and about one in 8 was an ex-felon.
An extensive body of research has established that a felony conviction or time in prison makes individuals significantly less employable. It is not simply that individuals who commit crimes are less likely to work in the first place, but rather, that felony convictions or time in prison act independently to lower the employment prospects of ex-offenders.
Given our estimates of the number of ex-offenders and the best outside estimates of the associated reduction in employment suffered by ex-offenders, our calculations suggest that in 2008 the U.S. economy lost the equivalent of 1.5 to 1.7 million workers, or roughly a 0.8 to 0.9 percentage-point reduction in the overall employment rate.
Since over 90 percent of ex-offenders are men, the effect on male employment rates was much higher, with ex-offenders lowering employment rates for men by 1.5 to 1.7 percentage points.
Even at the relatively low productivity rates of ex-offenders (they typically have less education than the average worker), the resulting loss of output that year was likely somewhere between $57 and $65 billion.
The rise in the ex-offender population -- and the resulting employment and output losses -- overwhelmingly reflects changes in the U.S. criminal justice system, not changes in underlying criminal activity. Instead, dramatic increases in sentencing, especially for drug-related offenses, account for the mushrooming of the ex-offender population that we document here.
Substantial scope exists for improvement. Since high levels of incarceration are not the result of high levels of crime, changes in sentencing today can greatly reduce the size of the ex-offender population in the future. Moreover, the high cost in terms of lost output to the overall economy also suggests the benefits of taking action to reduce the substantial employment barriers facing ex-offenders.
In the absence of some reform of the criminal justice system, the share of ex-offenders in the working-age population will rise substantially in coming decades, increasing the employment and output losses we estimate here.
Full Text:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/sw061210.html
Underwater - Profits and pay are sky-high, even as bad loans are sinking the megabanks
Since the catastrophic bank collapses of 2008 and the government rescue of the finance industry, Wall Street has staged a dramatic comeback. Since the bailout, profits are up, capital reserves are up, stock prices are up, government direct aid has been paid back, and executive compensation is exploding. But a closer look shows bank stability is just skin-deep, and dense accounting rules hide a powder keg of bad debt and mounting funding issues. While the recent paper-thin re-regulation of finance was a major political victory, the banks’ core business is headed downhill and even worse trouble seems to lie ahead.
All of the big four U.S. megabanks—Bank of America, Citigroup, Chase, and Wells Fargo—reported either decreases or very modest increases in their massive profitability during 2010. But this surprisingly weak performance would have been even more disappointing without a pair of accounting maneuvers. One was a bookkeeping measure allowing banks to book projected profit from buying back their debt when their bonds become cheaper. But the banks rarely buy back their debt, so this is essentially a paper gain. The other penstroke that boosted profit was consumption of money set aside to protect against losses on loans—as banks have grown more outwardly confident about the economic recovery, they have lowered their stated expectations of bad loans and designated some of their capital cushions as profit.
But these shallow techniques for elevating profit weren’t enough to compensate for the decline in banks’ core business—interest income, the money collected from loans minus that paid out to depositors. That income has consistently dropped this year, mainly due to falling loan volume. Banks are making fewer loans to consumers and businesses, citing a “lack of demand,” which obscures the quite favorable credit rating now required to get a loan. The lower supply of qualified applicants as job losses persist, combined with locking out applicants with spottier credit history and a general consumer preference to reduce total debt, have all caused bank loan books to continue to shrink in the feeble recovery.
The market has not rewarded the banks for the elaborate camouflage of this core weakness, and their stock prices have lately sagged as a result. But executive compensation is another story, and traders’ pay is also rebounding into the $200,000-to-$500,000 range, while tens of millions of Americans struggle to keep food on the table. Meanwhile Obama’s much-hailed “pay czar” in charge of monitoring finance executive compensation, Kenneth Feinberg, has reported that within three months of receiving their bailouts, the megabanks had paid out $1.6 billion in bonuses—up to a quarter of their TARP rescue totals. However, the “czar” has no formal power to rescind exorbitant pay now that the majors have repaid their government capital infusions, and compensation will now be monitored by a rather unintimidating consortium of regulators. With the CEOs of the banking majors making about a million a year each in straight salary, no upward limit is in sight for financier compensation. But the banking institutions themselves may have some bumpy days ahead.
Extend and Pretend and Descend
While the banking majors were relieved of much of their bad home mortgage-based investments by government purchases in the course of the financial crisis and aftermath, large loans related to commercial real estate remained on their books. Many of these loans were to growing businesses and overoptimistic developers, and have frequently failed to perform, as the recession has rendered projects unprofitable, reducing borrowers’ ability to repay.
But the loans are often for sobering amounts, upwards of tens of millions of dollars, and rather than foreclose on such large credit lines, banks large and small are engaging in what has come to be called “extend and pretend.” The practice involves not taking legal measures on underperforming commercial real-estate loans, but rather “restructuring” loans with new, more favorable terms for the borrowers, like below-market interest rates or extended timelines for repayment. The goal of the practice is to prevent foreclosure on large loans, with the hope that extending maturities will give borrowers enough time to recover their business and repay.
There are several problems with this practice. First, it conceals the real condition of the commercial real-estate market. Second, the restructured loans are usually still foreclosed upon in the end—in first quarter of fiscal year 2010, 44% of restructured loans were still a month or more delinquent, a fact related to the startling two-thirds of commercial real-estate loans maturing by 2014 that are underwater—meaning that the property is worth less than the bank loan itself. Finally, the bad loans take up space on bank balance sheets that could go to real lending. This suggests that the banks’ current predicament may lead to a miniature version of 1990s Japan, where refusal to accept real-estate loan losses led to a decade of slow growth, in part due to banks’ inability to make fresh loans when demand recovered.
However, the “extend and pretend” policy presents one major benefit to the big banks: restructuring these loans allows banks to count them as “performing” rather than delinquent or worse, which means banks may reduce their capital reserves against losses. This enables banks to claim their capital cushions as profit; banks remain in denial about their bad loans, and this itself allows the recent profit increases. And when banks are one day obliged to confront these serious losses, they may find they no longer have the capital cushion to absorb the damage.
This ominous hidden liability is on top of the better-publicized problem of banks’ under-performing residential mortgage holdings. The mortgage delinquency rate is now hovering around 10% nationwide, and including those behind on payments and those on the verge of eviction, fully one U.S. mortgage in seven is in some kind of trouble. Importantly, the bad mortgage debt on banks’ books has ceased to be a primarily “subprime” phenomenon of low-income loan recipients; over a third of new foreclosures early this year were prime fixed-rate loans, as the layoff-intensive recovery pulls the rug out from under mortgage recipients.
Notably, the home mortgages still held by the banks are listed on bank balance sheets at inflated values since they are for homes bought at the housing bubble peak, and government has not forced the banks to account them at any reasonable value. And beside this additional hidden weakness and the space taken up on bank balance sheets by this bad mortgage debt, the banking majors are vulnerable to moves by insurers and other investors to force the banks to repurchase securitized home loans sold to them at wildly inflated prices. So far, losses on affected and expected repurchases have cost the biggest four U.S. banks nearly $10 billion, with further losses anticipated.
Meanwhile, the banks have allowed extremely few mortgage borrowers to modify their mortgages or reduce their principal—the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that just 8% of delinquent borrowers received any modification, while a pitiful 3% have received reductions in their total owed principal. However, about half of all seriously delinquent borrowers have had foreclosure proceedings brought by their bank. Of course, banks ultimately benefit more from a renegotiated loan that is paid off than from a foreclosure, but the long timeline required in the foreclosure process allows the banks to once again push back acknowledgement of the loss.
The banks’ rush to foreclose is reflected in the recent suspension of the practice by several megabanks, after discovery that foreclosure standards were not being followed, with single employees overseeing upwards of 400 foreclosures daily, far more than can be properly reviewed according to legal standards. The investigation by state attorneys general adds to the legal swamp that may slow down the flood of foreclosures, but also testifies to the large banks’ preference for foreclosure over loan modification.
Lending On Borrowed Time
Banks face other market difficulties in the near future. One involves the increased reliance of the large banks on short-term borrowing to fund their loan portfolios. While banks have issued bonds to raise loan capital for years, in recent years they have grown increasingly dependent on short-term borrowing—the average maturity of recent bank bond issues is under five years, the shortest in decades. This is in fact why the seizing up of the credit markets in 2008 was such a big deal—banks were in immediate trouble if they couldn’t borrow. Of course, the government bailout included guarantees for short-term bonds, leading the banks to become even more reliant upon them.
This means banks must “turn over” their debt more frequently—they must issue fresh bonds to raise capital to pay off the maturing older bonds—and U.S. banks must refinance over a trillion dollars through 2012. The problem is that the banks will be competing with huge bond rollovers from state and federal government, which are heavily indebted because of upper-class tax cuts, as well as expensive wars and recent rounds of stimulus at the federal level. Even the powerful megabanks may struggle in this environment—as the New York Times puts it, “The cost of borrowing is likely to rise faster than banks can pass it on to customers.” The total demand for institutional credit may significantly spike in coming years, meaning perhaps higher interest rates as states and finance houses compete for the bond market’s favor, or a further decline in lending by banks due to prohibitive funding costs.
Meanwhile, smaller banks have experienced a different post-crisis environment. Despite some TARP bailout crumbs, they have gone under in record numbers—140 failed in 2009, with 2010 on track for a yet larger figure. Most of these smaller fry succumb to losses or suffocate under bad loans following the real-estate bubble of the last decade. This sector of the industry is ironically on track to cause more taxpayer losses from non-repayment of bailout funds than the majors, which have attracted the most scorn for taking TARP funds.
Compounding these stabilized but still shaky banking positions, the industry is now subject to a significantly reshaped regulatory environment. In addition to the major finance reform bill enacted in July, banks face new international capital standards in the Basel Rules and new regulatory scope for the Federal Reserve as well. But all these reforms have been limited by massive lobbying spending by Wall Street, coming to over $700 million in the last 18 months alone, as estimated by the Center For Responsive Politics. (See sidebars.)
A crucial part of the picture is the uncertainty caused by the notorious secrecy of the financial world. Large parts of the modern finance system do not accept deposits as commercial banks do, and therefore face far less regulation, allowing them to disclose much less information about their investments and leverage. Additionally, even the commercial banks are not obliged to report changes to the terms of their commercial real-estate holdings, obscuring the full extent of “extend-and-pretend” practices. And the Federal Reserve, for its part, has fought to preserve its own institutional secrecy. The Wall Street reform bill does include provisions for limited audits of the Fed’s open-market operations and discount window, the basic monetary policy tools used to manipulate interest rates and to modulate economic activity. But this casts little light on the Fed’s expansive holdings in mortgage securities and other paper bought from the banks in the course of the 2008-9 bailout. From the banks to the regulators, secrecy—and thus uncertainty—colors the picture.
In the end, moderately higher capital requirements and the public listing and indexing of derivatives may take the financial system back to short-term stability, but banks remain stuck with significant bad loans limiting core interest income, and continue to rely on market bubbles and on their outsized political power. They also face a difficult short-term bond market in the near future in addition to some higher regulatory costs, and crucially, their core business is further limited by weak credit demand in the low-expectations recovery. Unsurprisingly, compensation has rocketed back into seven figures in spite of these circumstances.
So while ordinary Americans limp along in a jobless recovery, the banks have their execs instead of Hell to pay.
Sources: Eric Dash, “JPMorgan Chase Profit Rises as Loans Provisions Fall,” New York Times, October 13, 2010; Eric Dash, “Citigroup Reports $2.2 Billion Profit in Third Quarter,” New York Times, October 18, 2010; Bradley Keoun, “Bank Profits Are Worse Than They Look,” Bloomberg BusinessWeek, July 22, 2010; Matthias Rieker and Marshall Eckblad, “Banks Generate Profits, but Struggle to Lend,” Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2010; Eric Dash, “Federal Report Faults Banks on Huge Bonuses,” New York Times, July 22, 2010; “Bankers’ Pay,” New York Times, July 27, 2010; Carrick Mollenkamp and Lingling Wei, “To Fix Sour Property Deals, Lenders ‘Extend and Pretend,’” Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2010; David Streitfeld, “Mortage Data Leaves Bankers Uncertain of Trend,” New York Times/i>, May 19, 2010; Floyd Norris, “Banks Stuck With Bill for Bad Loans,” New York Times, August 19, 2010; Manuel Adelino et al, “Why Don’t Lenders Renegotiate More Home Mortgages? Redefaults, Self-Curse and Securitization,” NBER, July 2009; Jack Ewing, “Crisis Awaits World’s Banks as Trillions Come Due,” New York Times, July 11, 2010; AP, FDIC Closes 6 Banks, Including 3 in Florida,” New York Times, July 16, 2010; Randall Smith and Robin Sidel, “Banks Keep Failing, No End in Sight,” Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2010; Binyamin Appelbaum, “Mortgage Securities It Holds Pose Sticky Problem for Fed,” New York Times, July 22, 2010; Peter Goodman, “Policy Options Dwindle as Economic Fears Grow,” New York Times, August 28, 2010; Center For Responsive Politics, Lobbying Spending Database, FIRE 2010, opensecrets.org.
One Hand Regulates the Other
July’s Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was expected to be a return to at least moderate finance regulation, even if a far cry from the more sweeping controls of the 1930s. But the slap-on-the-wrist nature of the bill became clear when stock prices of the megabanks rose 3% on its passage. The bill delegates dozens of important decisions, from what constitutes a systemically important bank to credit ratings disclosure, to the regulatory agencies themselves. Crucially, bank regulators are expecting what the press calls a “lobbying blitz,” as former employees of the regulators are bankrolled by Wall Street to lobby for industry discretion and relaxed standards on every rule. Highlights include:
- While now stuck with limits on overdraft fees and the “interchange fees” charged to merchants for debit card processing, banks are phasing out free checking accounts and elevating fees elsewhere, since they have the market power to do so. Many depositors are unable to afford checking account fees, of course, but the New York Times expects the banks to “jettison unprofitable customers.”
- The Volcker Rule would limit banks’ “proprietary trading,” investments made with a bank’s own money rather than clients’ funds. The practice was damaging during the financial crisis, but banks have already found a work-around for the new rule. Banks are moving star proprietary traders to client desks, where they will primarily conduct derivatives trade for clients, but will also be able to engage in the barred practice on the side, further blurring the client/proprietary distinction.
- Derivatives will now be listed on established indexes and will require collateral as a cushion against losses, having previously been traded ad-hoc by individual banks. This removes significant risk from the banks themselves, reducing them to competing on service rather than generating large securitization fees. Importantly, businesses that use derivatives for legitimate purposes, such as farmers buying futures contracts to secure favorable grain prices, are exempted from the bill’s indexing and collateralizing requirements.
- The bill includes a resolution authority that gives regulators a procedure to “unwind” a bank—overseeing its bankruptcy in an orderly fashion and at its creditors’ expense. Additionally, the Kanjorski amendment to the bill gives regulators the authority to break up any financial institution considered to be a systemic threat to the financial system. But it seems unlikely that regulators, typically close to the firms they regulate, would let a titan go down regardless of their resolution authority.
- The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau requires more information transparency from banks in their communications with customers. However, despite apocalyptic predictions from bank spokespeople, it is notable that banks with under $10 billion in assets are exempt from its rules. This excludes the small and medium-sized lenders that make up 98% of U.S. banks, but does include the large proportion of the industry run by the majors.
Sources: Congressional Oversight Panel, Small Banks In the Capital Purchase Program, July 14, 2010; Eric Dash and Nelson Schwartz, “Banks Seek to Keep Profits as New Oversight Rules Loom,” New York Times, July 15, 2010; Aaron Lucchetti and Jenny Strasburg, “What’s a ‘Prop’ Trader Now?—Banks Move Those Who Wager With Firms’ Money to Client-Focused Jobs,” Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2010; Randall Smith and Aaron Luchetti, “The Financial-Regulation Overhaul,” Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2010; Damian Paletta, “Late Change Sparks Outcry Over Finance-Overhaul Bill,” Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2010; Michael Phillips, “Finance Overhaul Casts Long Shadow on the Plains,” Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2010; “Killing Them Softly,” The Economist, August 26, 2010; “Not All On the Same Page,” The Economist, July 1, 2010; Eric Lichtblau, “Ex-Regulators Get Set to Lobby on New Financial Rules,” New York Times, July 27, 2010.
Basel Faulty
The Basel III bank guidelines are meant to be the G-20’s coordinated global response to the crisis of 2008, establishing consistent rules limiting banking risk. But like the American bill, the lightweight standards were greeted by stock jumps for the bank majors, since the process was heavily influenced by massive financial industry lobbying and other, nationalist factors.Perhaps most notably, the biggest banks’ minimum leverage ratio—how much hard capital banks must hold to cushion against sudden losses—has been set at a modest 7% of assets. However, banks need not meet this requirement until 2019, with only a 2.5% requirement by 2015. Further, the Basel Committee has caved to industry demands to count assets like deferred-tax funds, mortgage-service rights, and investments in other firms as capital. These are now allowed to make up 15% of a bank’s capital cushion, despite being illiquid and thus not very helpful in a crisis. Notably, some U.S. megabanks had reserve levels close to these on the eve of the finance crisis, and of course found them to be insufficient.
A related issue is how much long-term funding (vs. short-term bonds) the banks issue, making them less-vulnerable to sudden credit-market lockups as in 2008. The committee failed to reach agreement on this issue, and the rule has been postponed until 2015, along with many others, including “calibration,” the specific required reserve level banks must maintain based on their importance to the overall finance system.
One obstacle to progress is the distinctly nationalist approach taken by the regulators, who aim to minimize the weight of regulations that will affect the banks based in their home countries. The United States has pushed aggressively for broader definitions of capital, since U.S. banks still hold large volumes of mortgage-securitization rights. Germany wants “flexible” enforcement of the reserve requirements for its undercapitalized banks; France wants allowances for its banks to continue to own insurers, and so on. The result is banking regulators fighting tooth and nail against regulating their own banks.
In this way, the standards meant to prevent banks from reverting to their old systemically risky ways have been heavily diluted, diminishing Basel to a fig leaf. As the Wall Street Journal accurately predicted, “significant moves by the Basel Committee to back away from its initial proposals…[are] likely to provoke criticism that regulators are caving to industry pressure and missing a chance to impose restraints that could reduce the risk of future costly crises.”
Sources: Damian Paletta and David Enrich, “Banks Gain in Rules Debate,” Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2010; Damian Paletta and David Enrich, “Risks Rulebooks Is Nearly Done—Key Aspects of Banks’ New Restraints Are Agreed Upon,” Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2010; Damien Paletta, “Banks Get New Restraints,” Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2010.
http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/1110larson.html
Desigualdade de rendimento entre crianças em Portugal é dos mais elevados nos países da OCDE
Apenas a Grécia apresenta para este indicador um valor mais elevado. No campo da saúde infantil, Portugal é o 3º país da OCDE com níveis de desigualdade mais reduzidos.
A UNICEF publicou o estudo “The Children Left Behind”, no qual são apresentados dados relativos às desigualdades de bem-estar entre crianças em 24 países da OCDE. Três são as áreas de desigualdade de bem-estar infantil analisadas: o bem-estar material, na educação e na saúde – cada um dos quais é medido através de três indicadores específicos.
Portugal apresenta níveis de desigualdade do bem-estar material das crianças acima dos valores médios para os restantes países em análise. Entre os três indicadores que suportam esta medida, aquele em que Portugal apresenta um resultado mais preocupante é o da desigualdade de rendimento entre as crianças. De facto, o rendimento disponível dos 10% de crianças mais pobres é em Portugal 56,2% menor do que o rendimento infantil mediano. Apenas a Grécia apresenta um nível de desigualdade mais pronunciado do que Portugal: 56,6%. Para este indicador, a média dos 24 países da OCDE analisados é de 46,9%. No que concerne aos outros dois indicadores que compõem esta medida de bem-estar material (a desigualdade infantil dos recursos educativos e do espaço residencial) os resultados de Portugal situam-se relativamente próximos dos valores médios apurados.
No que concerne ao bem-estar na educação, os níveis de desigualdade de Portugal situam-se numa posição intermédia no contexto dos países analisados. A partir da informação recolhida no Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA), analisou-se a diferença dos resultados alcançados na área da leitura, matemática e ciências pelos 10% de estudantes (15 anos) que obtiveram piores classificações face ao resultado mediano apurado. Nessas três áreas, os níveis de desigualdade apurados foram, respectivamente, de 29,2%, 25,5% e 24,9%. A desigualdade na área da literacia científica é, portanto, a que assume uma expressão menor em Portugal, colocando-o entre os 10 países mais igualitários no que a este indicador diz respeito.
O resultado mais favorável para Portugal refere-se porém às medidas de desigualdade infantil no campo da saúde. Em termos gerais, o país apresenta o terceiro melhor resultado para esta dimensão de análise, atrás da Holanda e Noruega. Dos três indicadores usados para medir esta dimensão, há informação disponível para Portugal apenas para dois deles. No que toca à desigualdade respeitante às queixas de saúde auto-reportadas, apenas a Holanda e a Áustria são mais igualitárias. Ao nível da desigualdade de alimentação saudável, o país encontra-se entre os 10 mais bem classificados (para estes dois indicadores o nível de desigualdade é medido através da diferença entre a média dos resultados que se situam abaixo da mediana e a mediana).
Estados Unidos, Itália e Grécia são os países que apresentam para estas três dimensões níveis de desigualdade infantil mais pronunciados, enquanto a Dinamarca, a Finlândia, a Holanda e a Suíça alcançam os resultados mais favoráveis.
Wall Street's Pentagon Papers: Biggest Financial Scam In World History
David DeGraw - Global Research, December 6, 2010
What if the greatest scam ever perpetrated was blatantly exposed, and the US media didn’t cover it? Does that mean the scam could keep going? That’s what we are about to find out.I understand the importance of the new WikiLeaks documents. However, we must not let them distract us from the new information the Federal Reserve was forced to release. Even if WikiLeaks reveals documents from inside a large American bank, as huge as that could be, it will most likely pale in comparison to what we just found out from the one-time peek we got into the inner-workings of the Federal Reserve. This is the Wall Street equivalent of the Pentagon Papers.
I’ve written many reports detailing the crimes of Wall Street during this crisis. The level of fraud, from top to bottom, has been staggering. The lack of accountability and the complete disregard for the rule of law have made me and many of my colleagues extremely cynical and jaded when it comes to new evidence to pile on top of the mountain that we have already gathered. But we must not let our cynicism cloud our vision on the details within this new information.
Just when I thought the banksters couldn’t possibly shock me anymore… they did.
We were finally granted the honor and privilege of finding out the specifics, a limited one-time Federal Reserve view, of a secret taxpayer funded “backdoor bailout” by a small group of unelected bankers. This data release reveals “emergency lending programs” that doled out $12.3 TRILLION in taxpayer money - $3.3 trillion in liquidity, $9 trillion in “other financial arrangements.”
Wait, what? Did you say $12.3 TRILLION tax dollars were thrown around in secrecy by unelected bankers… and Congress didn’t know any of the details?
Yes. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. The original copy of the Constitution spontaneously burst into flames. The ghost of Tom Paine went running, stark raving mad screaming through the halls of Congress.
The Federal Reserve was secretly throwing around our money in unprecedented fashion, and it wasn’t just to the usual suspects like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, etc.; it was to the entire Global Banking Cartel. To central banks throughout the world: Australia, Denmark, Japan, Mexico, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, England… To the Fed’s foreign primary dealers like Credit Suisse (Switzerland), Deutsche Bank (Germany), Royal Bank of Scotland (U.K.), Barclays (U.K.), BNP Paribas (France)… All their Ponzi players were “gifted.” All the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations got their cut.
Talk about the ransacking and burning of Rome! Sayonara American middle class…
If you still had any question as to whether or not the United States is now the world’s preeminent banana republic, the final verdict was just delivered and the decision was unanimous. The ayes have it.
Any fairytale notions that we are living in a nation built on the rule of law and of the global economy being based on free market principles has now been exposed as just that, a fairytale. This moment is equivalent to everyone in Vatican City being told, by the Pope, that God is dead.
I’ve been arguing for years that the market is rigged and that the major Wall Street firms are elaborate Ponzi schemes, as have many other people who built their beliefs on rational thought, reasoned logic and evidence. We already came to this conclusion by doing the research and connecting the dots. But now, even our strongest skeptics and the most ardent Wall Street supporters have it all laid out in front of them, on FEDERAL RESERVE SPREADSHEETS.
Even the Financial Times, which named Lloyd Blankfein its 2009 person of the year, reacted by reporting this: “The initial reactions were shock at the breadth of lending, particularly to foreign firms. But the details paint a bleaker and even more disturbing picture.”
Yes, the emperor doesn’t have any clothes. God is, indeed, dead. But, for the moment at least, the illusion continues to hold power. How is this possible?
To start with, as always, the US television “news” media (propaganda) networks just glossed over the whole thing - nothing to see here, just move along, back after a message from our sponsors… Other than that obvious reason, I’ve come to the realization that the Federal Reserve’s crimes are so big, so huge in scale, it is very hard for people to even wrap their head around it and comprehend what has happened here.
Think about it. In just this one peek we got at its operations, we learned that the Fed doled out $12.3 trillion in near-zero interest loans, without Congressional input.
The audacity and absurdity of it all is mind boggling…
Based on many conversations I’ve had with people, it seems that the average person doesn’t comprehend how much a trillion dollars is, let alone 12.3 trillion. You might as well just say 12.3 gazillion, because people don’t grasp a number that large, nor do they understand what would be possible if that money was used in other ways.
Can you imagine what we could do to restructure society with $12.3 trillion? Think about that…
People also can’t grasp the colossal crime committed because they keep hearing the word “loans.” People think of the loans they get. You borrow money, you pay it back with interest, no big deal.
That’s not what happened here. The Fed doled out $12.3 trillion in near-zero interest loans, using the American people as collateral, demanding nothing in return, other than a bunch of toxic assets in some cases. They only gave this money to a select group of insiders, at a time when very few had any money because all these same insiders and speculators crashed the system.
Do you get that? The very people most responsible for crashing the system, were then rewarded with trillions of our dollars. This gave that select group of insiders unlimited power to seize control of assets and have unprecedented leverage over almost everything within their economies - crony capitalism on steroids.
This was a hostile world takeover orchestrated through economic attacks by a very small group of unelected global bankers. They paralyzed the system, then were given the power to recreate it according to their own desires. No free market, no democracy of any kind. All done in secrecy. In the process, they gave themselves all-time record-breaking bonuses and impoverished tens of millions of people - they have put into motion a system that will inevitably collapse again and utterly destroy the very existence of what is left of an economic middle class.
That is not hyperbole. That is what happened.
We are talking about trillions of dollars secretly pumped into global banks, handpicked by a small select group of bankers themselves. All for the benefit of those bankers, and at the expense of everyone else. People can’t even comprehend what that means and the severe consequences that it entails, which we have only just begun to experience.
Let me sum it up for you: The American Dream is O-V-E-R.
Welcome to the neo-feudal-fascist state.
People throughout the world who keep using the dollar are either A) Part of the scam; B) Oblivious to reality; C) Believe that US military power will be able to maintain the value of an otherwise worthless currency; D) All of the above.
No matter which way you look at it, we are all in serious trouble!
If you are an elected official, (I know at least 17 of you subscribe to my newsletter) and you believe in the oath you took upon taking office, you must immediately demand a full audit of the Federal Reserve and have Ben Bernanke and the entire Federal Reserve Board detained. If you are not going to do that, you deserve to have the words “Irrelevant Puppet” tattooed across your forehead.
Yes, those are obviously strong words, but they are the truth.
The Global Banking Cartel has now been so blatantly exposed, you cannot possibly get away with pretending that we live in a nation of law based on the Constitution. The jig is up.
It’s been over two years now; does anyone still seriously not understand why we are in this crisis? Our economy has been looted and burnt to the ground due to the strategic, deliberate decisions made by a small group of unelected global bankers at the Federal Reserve. Do people really not get the connection here? I mean, H.E.L.L.O. Our country is run by an unelected Global Banking Cartel.
I am constantly haunted by a quote from Harry Overstreet, who wrote the following in his 1925 groundbreaking study Influencing Human Behavior: “Giving people the facts as a strategy of influence” has been a failure, “an enterprise fraught with a surprising amount of disappointment.”
This crisis overwhelmingly proves Overstreet’s thesis to be true. Nonetheless, we solider on…
Here’s a roundup of reports on this BernankeLeaks:
Prepare to enter the theater of the absurd…
I’ll start with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). He was the senator who Bernanke blew off when he was asked for information on this heist during a congressional hearing. Sanders fought to get the amendment written into the financial “reform” bill that gave us this one-time peek into the Fed’s secret operations. (Remember, remember the 6th of May, HFT, flash crash and terrorism. “Hey, David, Homeland Security is on the phone! They want to ask you questions about some NYSE SLP program.”)
In an article entitled, “A Real Jaw-Dropper at the Federal Reserve,” Senator Sanders reveals some of the details:
At a Senate Budget Committee hearing in 2009, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to tell the American people the names of the financial institutions that received an unprecedented backdoor bailout from the Federal Reserve, how much they received, and the exact terms of this assistance. He refused. A year and a half later… we have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at the Fed…
After years of stonewalling by the Fed, the American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed’s multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America….
We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout… turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country.…
Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations including two European megabanks — Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse — which were the largest beneficiaries of the Fed’s purchase of mortgage-backed securities….
Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world?… [read Global Banking Cartel]
What this disclosure tells us, among many other things, is that despite this huge taxpayer bailout, the Fed did not make the appropriate demands on these institutions necessary to rebuild our economy and protect the needs of ordinary Americans….
What we are seeing is the incredible power of a small number of people who have incredible conflicts of interest getting incredible help from the taxpayers of this country while ignoring the needs of the people. [read more]
In an article entitled, “The Fed Lied About Wall Street,” Zach Carter sums it up this way:
The Federal Reserve audit is full of frightening revelations about U.S. economic policy and those who implement it… By denying the solvency crisis, major bank executives who had run their companies into the ground were allowed to keep their jobs, and shareholders who had placed bad bets on their firms were allowed to collect government largesse, as bloated bonuses began paying out soon after.
But the banks themselves still faced a capital shortage, and were only kept above those critical capital thresholds because federal regulators were willing to look the other way, letting banks account for obvious losses as if they were profitable assets.
So based on the Fed audit data, it’s hard to conclude that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was telling the truth when he told Congress on March 3, 2009, that there were no zombie banks in the United States.
“I don’t think that any major U.S. bank is currently a zombie institution,” Bernanke said.
As Bernanke spoke those words banks had been pledging junk bonds as collateral under Fed facilities for several months…
This is the heart of today’s foreclosure fraud crisis. Banks are foreclosing on untold numbers of families who have never missed a payment, because rushing to foreclosure generates lucrative fees for the banks, whatever the costs to families and investors. This is, in fact, far worse than what Paul Krugman predicted. Not only are zombie banks failing to support the economy, they are actively sabotaging it with fraud in order to make up for their capital shortages. Meanwhile, regulators are aggressively looking the other way.
The Fed had to fix liquidity in 2008. That was its job. But as major banks went insolvent, the Fed and Treasury had a responsibility to fix that solvency issue—even though that meant requiring shareholders and executives to live up to losses. Instead, as the Fed audit tells us, policymakers knowingly ignored the real problem, pushing losses onto the American middle class in the process.” [read more]
Even the Financial Times is jumping ship:
Sunlight Shows Cracks in Fed’s Rescue Story
It took two years, a hard-fought lawsuit, and an act of Congress, but finally… the Federal Reserve disclosed the details of its financial crisis lending programs. The initial reactions were shock at the breadth of lending, particularly to foreign firms. But the details paint a bleaker, earlier, and even more disturbing picture…. An even more troubling conclusion from the data is that… it is now apparent that the Fed took on far more risk, on less favorable terms, than most people have realized. [read more]
In true Fed fashion, they didn’t even fully comply with Congress. In a report entitled, “Fed Withholds Collateral Data for $885 Billion in Financial-Crisis Loans,” Bloomberg puts some icing on the cake:
For three of the Fed’s six emergency facilities, the central bank released information on groups of collateral it accepted by asset type and rating, without specifying individual securities. Among them was the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, created in March 2008 to provide loans to brokers as Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed.
“This is a half-step,” said former Atlanta Fed research director Robert Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist at Cumberland Advisors Inc. in Sarasota, Florida. “If you were going to audit the facilities, then would this enable you to do an audit? The answer is ‘No,’ you would have to go in and look at the individual amounts of collateral and how it was broken down to do that. And that is the spirit of what the requirements were in Dodd-Frank.” [read more]
See also:
The Progressive’s Matthew Rothschild has a good quote: “The financial bailout was a giant boondoggle, undemocratic and kleptocratic to its core.”
Matt Stoller on NewDeal 2.0:
End This Fed
The Fed, and specifically the people who run it, are responsible for declining wages, for de-industrialization, for bubbles, and for the systemic corruption of American capital markets. The new financial blogosphere destroyed the Fed’s mythic stature…. With a loss of legitimacy comes a lack of public trust and a vulnerability to any form of critic. The Fed is now less respected than the IRS…. Liberals should stop their love affair with conservative technocratic myths of monetary independence, and cease seeing this Federal Reserve as a legitimate actor. At the very least, we need to begin noticing that these people do in fact run the country, and should not. [read more]
In case anyone is confused into believing that this is just another right vs. left partisan issue, enter Fox Business host Judge Andrew Napolitano with his guest Republican Congressman Ron Paul, who is, of course, a longtime leading Fed critic. Paul hopes to see some Wikileaks on the Federal Reserve:
The Sunlight Foundation shines a light on Bank of America and the Federal Reserve’s brother money manager BlackRock:
Federal Reserve Loan Program Allowed Bank of America to Benefit Twice
Bank of America was one of several banks that was able to play both sides of a Federal Reserve program launched during the 2008 financial crisis. While Bank of America was selling its assets to firms obtaining loans through the Fed program, the investment firm BlackRock—partially owned by Bank of America—was potentially turning a profit by using those loans to buy assets similar to those sold by Bank of America. [read more]
Gretchen Morgenson at the New York Times jumps into the act:
So That’s Where the Money Went
How the truth shines through when you shed a little light on a subject….
All of the emergency lending data released by the Fed are highly revealing, but why weren’t they made public much earlier? That’s a question that Walker F. Todd, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, is asking.
Mr. Todd, a former assistant general counsel and research officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, said details about the Fed’s vast and various programs should have been available before the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform law was even written.
“The Fed’s current set of powers and the shape of the Dodd-Frank bill over all might have looked quite different if this information had been made public during the debate on the bill,” he said. “Had these tables been out there, I think Congress would have either said no to emergency lending authority or if you get it, it’s going to be a much lower number — half a trillion dollars in the aggregate.” [read more]
Welcome to the “global pawnshop:”
The Fed Operates as a “global pawnshop:” $9 trillion to 18 financial institutions
What the report shows is that the Fed operated as a global pawnshop taking in practically anything the banks had for collateral. What is even more disturbing is that the Federal Reserve did not enact any punitive charges to these borrowers so you had banks like Goldman Sachs utilizing the crisis to siphon off cheap collateral. The Fed is quick to point out that “taxpayers were fully protected” but mention little of the destruction they have caused to the US dollar. This is a hidden cost to Americans and it also didn’t help that they were the fuel that set off the biggest global housing bubble ever witnessed by humanity. [read more]
“No strings attached.” Financial reporter Barry Grey unleashes the truth:
Fed report lifts lid on Great Bank Heist of 2008-2009
The banks and corporations that benefited were not even obliged to provide an account of what they did with the money. The entire purpose of the operation was to use public funds to cover the gambling losses of the American financial aristocracy, and create the conditions for the financiers and speculators to make even more money.
All of the 21,000 transactions cited in the Fed documents―released under a provision included, over the Fed’s objections, in this year’s financial regulatory overhaul bill―were carried out in secret. The unelected central bank operated without any congressional mandate or oversight.
The documents shed light on the greatest plundering of social resources in history. It was carried out under both the Republican Bush and Democratic Obama administrations. Those who organized the looting of the public treasury were long-time Wall Street insiders: men like Bush’s treasury secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson and the then-president of the New York Federal Reserve, Timothy Geithner….
The Fed documents show that the US central bank enabled banks and corporations to offload their bad debts onto the Fed’s balance sheet. Now, in order to prevent a collapse of the dollar and a default by the US government, the American people are being told they must sacrifice to reduce the national debt and budget deficit.
But as the vast sums make clear, the “sacrifice” being demanded of working people means their impoverishment―wage-cutting, mass unemployment, cuts in health care, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
The very scale of the Fed bailout points to the scale of the financial crash and the criminality that fostered it…. The entire US capitalist economy rested on a huge Ponzi scheme that was bound to collapse…
The banks were able to take the cheap cash from the Fed and lend it back to the government at double and quadruple the interest rates they were initially charged―pocketing many billions in the process….
The ongoing saga of the looting of the economy by the financial elite puts the lie to the endless claims that “there is no money” for jobs, housing, education or health care. The ruling class is awash in money. [read more]
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
